...certain people with more power? (internationalists)

Those of you who were on the old rage bb might remember that I posted a thread on this topic at one time. I asked the question - Was Karl Marx commisioned to write the Communist Manifesto?

I'm bringing it up again, because I think its very interesting.

I know many of you will dismiss this as just a conspiracy theory. But the theory(or allegation) is that Marx was paid to write the communist manifesto by a group that was financed by Rothschild.

Allegedly, this is something said by Meyer Amschel Rothschild:

"Give me control over a nation's ECONOMY, and I care not who writes its laws."

We see so much fighting between communists, capitalists, etc. Are these ideologies just part of a bigger plan by certain people who want world power? Thesis, antithesis ---> synthesis (the Hegelian dialectic)

I'm trying to find something on this topic, on the web (specifically about Marx being paid to write the manifesto)... and when I do, I'll post it. If anyone else knows anything about this, give me your thoughts.

The Rothschilds and Rockefellers are only two of thirteen controlling families of the Illuminati. (52) Two Jewish families that appear to be prominent are the Oppenheims and the Oppenheimers. A. Oppenheim was situated in Cologne. The Oppenheimers were early members of the Bavarian Illuminati. The Bund der Gerechten (League of the Just) was an illuminati front run mainly by Jews who were Satanists. This Bund financed in part by the Rothschilds paid the Satanist and Mason Karl Marx to write the Communist Manefesto


http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Rothschild2.html

Thanks for that link, Redline. :)

Where'd you find it, btw?

The problem is... there's so much crazy/ tin-foil stuff out there... I want to find a credible source.

I use www.alltheweb.com

Good luck in finding something credible. There are billions of people on this planet that would dispute it.:D

Yeah, I know. If it was 'provable', it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory. :D

Here's what keeps coming up.... This is where the connection is.

(Allegedly) Marx was commissioned by a group called "The League Of Just Men", which was an offshoot of Rothschild.

Here's something I found:

According to Count Egor Caesar Corti, in his 1928 book, "The Rise of the House of Rothschild", an offshoot of the Illuminati, the "League of Just Men" hired Karl Marx to write the "Communist Manifesto".

Your quote mentioned this group too, btw.

There ARE credible sources out there... and I have even found a few on the net. I've passed along some to Powerboss. If interested, my ICQ is 3833065.

One is an eBook about the Federal Reserve. The other is the Fagan tapes made back in the '60s, but AMAZINGLY prophetic to todays current situation.

I would post them here, but they are too large.

I can vouch...they are interesting.....They are worth the time to listen to.
They make you go Hmmmmmmmm?
It just seems so preposterous but I guess that Hitlers dream of a world wide nazi state was just as preposterous before he started pursuing it blatantly.

Marx was commissioned to write it. By...the..Communist League. I find the idea that the entirety of Marxism is a plot of some sort to be a little...ridiculous.

If the Manifesto was commissioned by the "Illuminati" then Das Kapital must also have been commissioned. As the First International. And Marx's notes to the First Working Men. And Engels must have been an Illuminati hireling as well...

Occam's Razor; either Marx was a philosopher, of Marx was the product of a gargantuan conspiracy...

Now, I'm curious; what evidence exists to support this claim?

That site contains a large number of blatant historical errors; it, for example, refers to a Communist uprising in Germany...decades before Bismark...united...Germany.

Thanks Turbo. Yeah, I would be interested in reading what you have on this... I don't have ICQ, but can you email me? (if you can't post it here)

PB - yeah, some of this does seem preposterous, but on the other hand, I see a lot of things that point in that direction... and as you said, there are examples in history of things that seemed preposterous at the time.

Joey - Have you done some searching on the web? As I said before, there is some kooky stuff out there, but there is also some credible information. A lot of people seem to be saying the same things. Doesn't make it true, but as the saying goes... where there's smoke there's usually fire.

I've been finding a lot of sites that say that Marx was hired by the committee 'The League of Just Men', which was financed by some powerful people. (globalists)

edit: I was going to give a link, but I'll find another one. Or you can do a google search and see what you find.

JoeyNormal, how much do you know about the Rothschilds?

'Stang - Jewish bankers, Zionist. Financially supported the First and Second Aliyas, as I recall. May have been involved in pressuring the British govt. pre-the Balfour Declaration...

Cidy - However, there is "smoke" that blatantly contradicts other "smoke". I have not intentionally searched the web, as I have found it to be, in general, a forum where every nutcase can get his say. There is "smoke" that you discredit immediately. Where there is smoke, there is fire. In this case, the fire is a small group of paranoid goons dancing together, I expect...

The prologue of the Manifesto itself says he was hired by the "Communist League" [predcessor of the First International]. It existed. Marx was a member, and a leader amongst the groups that developed from it. This is a matter of accepted historical record.

...But, you say, that's what the Illuminati wants us to think. I sincerely doubt that. If it is so, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Marx, Lenin and all the other C19 Anarchists/Communists were Illuminati.

Can you counter my comment about the scale required for this to be the case?

The great thing about the internet is that its pretty much uncensored. Yes, that means that any nutcase can have his say... but it also means that there is a way to get the truth out there that you don't hear from the mainstream (corporate) media.

It is possible to sift through what you find on the web, and check out different sources, etc. Just because there is some crazy stuff out there doesn't mean you should completely forget about using the web to find info.

You said he was hired by "The Communist League".... I just read earlier today that that was another name (I can't remember which one was first) for the "League of Just Men".

I'm not saying that every well-known communist was a paid hack of the global elites. But don't you agree that sometimes people are used as pawns by other people with more power/money? I don't know.... I'm sure Turbo can answer your question better than I can.

Originally posted by buttercup
I'm not saying that every well-known communist was a paid hack of the global elites. But don't you agree that sometimes people are used as pawns by other people with more power/money? I don't know.... I'm sure Turbo can answer your question better than I can. that is merely an extension of the fact that every political ideology has some corruptibles in it.

Joey, I'm not going to try and convince you of anything. You would be better off doing the research on your own and drawing your own conclusions. The history is out there, and pretty well documented, even if it does take some effort to get the staright poop.

However, I will extend to you the same offer I did to Buttercup... jump on ICQ sometime and I will be happy to forward you a copy of the book on the Federal Reserve. Once you understand how the Rothschilds were able to take control of our monetary system, you will begin to see how everything else starts to fall into place.

I could e-mail it as well... but it is a large file, and some mail servers don't accept large file transfers.

Originally posted by buttercup
...certain people with more power? (internationalists)

Those of you who were on the old rage bb might remember that I posted a thread on this topic at one time. I asked the question - Was Karl Marx commisioned to write the Communist Manifesto?

I'm bringing it up again, because I think its very interesting.

I know many of you will dismiss this as just a conspiracy theory. But the theory(or allegation) is that Marx was paid to write the communist manifesto by a group that was financed by Rothschild.

Allegedly, this is something said by Meyer Amschel Rothschild:

"Give me control over a nation's ECONOMY, and I care not who writes its laws."

We see so much fighting between communists, capitalists, etc. Are these ideologies just part of a bigger plan by certain people who want world power? Thesis, antithesis ---> synthesis (the Hegelian dialectic)

I'm trying to find something on this topic, on the web (specifically about Marx being paid to write the manifesto)... and when I do, I'll post it. If anyone else knows anything about this, give me your thoughts.

I have never thought that MARX ? ENGELS were being supported by bankers or anything at the start, but it does seem probable that money had to fund them. I hae no idea how an idea can change the world if not divinely inspired if there is no money behind it.

Communism relied on people ignoring man's nature to be self sufficient and self reliant, especially in the beginning of the industrial age where ost lived on farms. Now, ina modern age, it seems that communism would appealing because of the lack of freedom to move about, to be self dependant, to have nothing by people around you, instead of freedom of movement about YOUR land.

It relies too much on making men think they can become altruistic, instead of selfish! So, How in the world can anyone fall for that except by the pooint of a gun?

One other thing that I wonder about: to bring about this communist utopia would take life times and generations of indoctrination to remove the ideas of growing your own food for yourself and to be willing to surrender it to others who do not work because the government said so, and yo not allow you to store away any extra food for yourself because the government said so. Same with any industry that provide necessities, being a serf that just works like a drone, how do you get people to do this?

How can anyone who operates an industry not see the error in this?

So, I guess your premise is correct: There had to be backers of his system that we knew not of, and they might have been pullling his strings for a while and then stepped back to let the ball roll; but it brings up another point:

Who gets to see this system when it is 'finished'? How is the proletriat going to be free if he dies before he sees freedom? How are men going to strive to complete something that only their great grand children will realize in it's fullness? Standing in bread lines never motovated anyone to be a communist!

Originally posted by Cynic
that is merely an extension of the fact that every political ideology has some corruptibles in it.

Its true that every ideology has some corruptibles... but if this is true about Marx, then its much more than that. It basically means what some of us have known all along. That communism is not truly about helping the poor.... it is a system that keeps people down, and under control.

I don't believe that Marx was a hired hand. Why would bankers want robbers to know how to bust the bank?

Originally posted by Banky


I have never thought that MARX ? ENGELS were being supported by bankers or anything at the start, but it does seem probable that money had to fund them. I hae no idea how an idea can change the world if not divinely inspired if there is no money behind it.

Communism relied on people ignoring man's nature to be self sufficient and self reliant, especially in the beginning of the industrial age where ost lived on farms. Now, ina modern age, it seems that communism would appealing because of the lack of freedom to move about, to be self dependant, to have nothing by people around you, instead of freedom of movement about YOUR land.

It relies too much on making men think they can become altruistic, instead of selfish! So, How in the world can anyone fall for that except by the pooint of a gun?

One other thing that I wonder about: to bring about this communist utopia would take life times and generations of indoctrination to remove the ideas of growing your own food for yourself and to be willing to surrender it to others who do not work because the government said so, and yo not allow you to store away any extra food for yourself because the government said so. Same with any industry that provide necessities, being a serf that just works like a drone, how do you get people to do this?

How can anyone who operates an industry not see the error in this?

So, I guess your premise is correct: There had to be backers of his system that we knew not of, and they might have been pullling his strings for a while and then stepped back to let the ball roll; but it brings up another point:

Who gets to see this system when it is 'finished'? How is the proletriat going to be free if he dies before he sees freedom? How are men going to strive to complete something that only their great grand children will realize in it's fullness? Standing in bread lines never motovated anyone to be a communist!

Good points, Jim. I think all of this stuff is fascinating. Especially how it all ties in with spirituality, not to mention prophecy. But I won't get into that on this thread.... I know there are a lot of people here that hate hearing about that. ;)

Originally posted by RedLine99
I don't believe that Marx was a hired hand. Why would bankers want robbers to know how to bust the bank?

How could he bust the bank? He may have come from a well-off family (if I'm not mistaken)..... but he definitely wasn't one of those mega-wealthy elites like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc.

Marx was funded by Engels. Engels came from money and supported Marx's works. Perhaps this funding has somehow suggested he be connected to the Illuminati?

By "bust the bank" I was referring to the re-distribution of wealth as proposed by socialism and communism.

Marx probably didn't have a dime when he died.

Red - He was buried in "a pauper's grave" as I recall.

CMC - He came from a relatively successfull Jewish family. He was, however, somewhat estranged from them. He believed that all religious groups should be forcefully destroyed by "the people"; his devout family did not agree, for some strange reason...

Oh, also, Engels supported Marx for much of his life. Marx did not hold a steady income. Engels, in fact, not the Communist League conceptualized The Manifesto. Marx and he sold the idea to the League, and Marx wrote it; although he credits the ideas to Engels. Engels, however, is more modest about this. The collected prefaces that make up 70 out of 130 pages of my copy oif the Manifesto are somewhat interesting ;)

Originally posted by RedLine99
Marx was funded by Engels. Engels came from money and supported Marx's works. Perhaps this funding has somehow suggested he be connected to the Illuminati?

No... supposedly it was more than just Engels that was behind the commissioning to write the manifesto. But this is what I'd like to look into.


By "bust the bank" I was referring to the re-distribution of wealth as proposed by socialism and communism.

Marx probably didn't have a dime when he died.

I really don't see the "re-distribution of wealth" as 'busting the bank' by any means. People who live under that system may have a roof over their heads, and they may be economically equal to their neigbors.... but they're all basically poor. The people in charge though, that's another story. I highly doubt that Castro is living the exact same type of lifestyle that the people of Cuba are living in.

Originally posted by buttercup
Its true that every ideology has some corruptibles... but if this is true about Marx, then its much more than that. It basically means what some of us have known all along. That communism is not truly about helping the poor.... it is a system that keeps people down, and under control.

Cindy, you cannot support this statement. I do not wish to cause offense, but I find your ignorant, indoctrinated and judgemental approach to Marxism to be plainly idiotic.

Communism is not about helping the poor. It is about the poor helping themselves. Marx was seperated from his family and unable to hold a steady job. He was by no means bougeois. He was incredibly critical of the intellectual "bougeois Socialists". Marxist Communism is a revolutionery theory. Marxist Communism proclaims that the poor, the workers, the proletariat, will rise; the Manifesto closesith "Workers of the world unite!"

Marxist Communism is not about helping the poor up. It is about the poor helping themselves to some rifles and then helping themselves to some cash. It is about killing the rich and powerfull, in almost Bakunite destruction.

It is a theory of social change based on class based conflicts. You have not supported your claims regarding Communism, nor shown any justification. You have shown little knowledge, if any, about the various interpretations of Marx's work. You do not appear to have even read much of it [Have you read The Manifesto, by the way?].

Leninism, however, may be describeble as such. Lenin's "proffessional revolutioneries" were not representative of the Russian poor. They were not the "people".

Cindy, Marxist Communism prophesises the destruction of the bougeois. Not the bougeois having some of their money taken, say, or the bougeois being forced to live in poverty. No. It prophesises, demands, the complete and utter annihilation of all "bougeois values". Marx demanded Rothschild's death.

Marx was not funded by a conspiracy. I have seen worthless secondary "evidence" claiming this. There is no primary evidence. There is no proof. There is no evidence supporting it. I notice this discussion has revolved around us raising reasons why it could not be so; you, on the other hand, have suggested that it may be so...as there's no reason for it not to be. However, you're making the hypothesis. The burden of proof rests on you.

Marx was not funded by the Illuminati. Or, if he was, they were incredibly foresighted, and prophesised Lenin's abuses of his philosophy. And...

Originally posted by buttercup
The great thing about the internet is that its pretty much uncensored. Yes, that means that any nutcase can have his say... but it also means that there is a way to get the truth out there that you don't hear from the mainstream (corporate) media.


Except you must be discerning with your sources. You must remember that internet claims tend not to be made by experts.

I like the fact that the internet allolws different views. It allows my views. However, I do not automatically believe anything I read. I take RTF's claims of nukes on the moon, or chem-spraying of US cities with a grain of salt. I look for proof when the IMC claims that agent provocateurs caused a protest to turn violent.

Originally posted by buttercup
It is possible to sift through what you find on the web, and check out different sources, etc. Just because there is some crazy stuff out there doesn't mean you should completely forget about using the web to find info.

Agreed, except it retains a number of problems. Firstly, websites change. What was there may not be there now, and citing sources thus becomes...chancey. Secondly, I know nothing of the author but what he chooses to reveal. For all I know, RTF could be run by the FBI...

Originally posted by buttercup
You said he was hired by "The Communist League".... I just read earlier today that that was another name (I can't remember which one was first) for the "League of Just Men".


What evidence exists for this group? I do not care what claims you have read; how were these claims supported. Did they cite sources? Any primary evidence...at all?

Originally posted by buttercup
I'm not saying that every well-known communist was a paid hack of the global elites. But don't you agree that sometimes people are used as pawns by other people with more power/money? I don't know.... I'm sure Turbo can answer your question better than I can.

Unfortunately, if the Communist League was an Illuminati front group, the the International was as well; one directly led to the other. And, if this was so, then Bakunin, Krototkin et al were in an Illuminati group. Despite their even more brutal and bloody calls for the extermination of the rich.

Cindy, sorry for being harsh on you, but as I have said, I find your attitude towards Communism to be....annoying.

Originally posted by Turbostang
Joey, I'm not going to try and convince you of anything. You would be better off doing the research on your own and drawing your own conclusions. The history is out there, and pretty well documented, even if it does take some effort to get the staright poop.

I have researched Marx's life. I have not encountered any evidence to support your theories. I see no reason to attempt to find evidence for them, as I am certain that they are false. I have never looked for these theories, nor do I intend to. The fact that researching Marx's life does not yield supporting evidence for them quite nicely comments upon their validity.

Originally posted by Turbostang
However, I will extend to you the same offer I did to Buttercup... jump on ICQ sometime and I will be happy to forward you a copy of the book on the Federal Reserve. Once you understand how the Rothschilds were able to take control of our monetary system, you will begin to see how everything else starts to fall into place.

I could e-mail it as well... but it is a large file, and some mail servers don't accept large file transfers.

Send it to 64274157845@djuice.co.nz please. I do not have ICQ, although I do have AIM and MSN messengers.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal

Cindy, you cannot support this statement. I do not wish to cause offense, but I find your ignorant, indoctrinated and judgemental approach to Marxism to be plainly idiotic.

Communism is not about helping the poor. It is about the poor helping themselves. Marx was seperated from his family and unable to hold a steady job. He was by no means bougeois. He was incredibly critical of the intellectual "bougeois Socialists". Marxist Communism is a revolutionery theory. Marxist Communism proclaims that the poor, the workers, the proletariat, will rise; the Manifesto closesith "Workers of the world unite!"

Marxist Communism is not about helping the poor up. It is about the poor helping themselves to some rifles and then helping themselves to some cash. It is about killing the rich and powerfull, in almost Bakunite destruction.

It is a theory of social change based on class based conflicts. You have not supported your claims regarding Communism, nor shown any justification. You have shown little knowledge, if any, about the various interpretations of Marx's work. You do not appear to have even read much of it [Have you read The Manifesto, by the way?].

Leninism, however, may be describeble as such. Lenin's "proffessional revolutioneries" were not representative of the Russian poor. They were not the "people".


Joey, I don't need to prove to you that communism is bad. Don't underestimate me. I don't want to bring up age or education, but I am not a teenager, and I'm not naive. (I'm not saying you are)

You have your idealistic views on socialism/communism (we've been through this before), but we will probably never see eye to eye on this. You should know me enough to know that I think for MYSELF, so to accuse me of being indoctrinated is insulting.

This thread is not a debate on communism. If you want to start a thread on that, go ahead (not that it hasn't been done before)

I think you're a good person, but I simply do not agree with you on this topic. I don't believe that ANY system that forces people to live under it is a good thing. If communism was purely voluntary, then I would have no problem with it. But that's not the way it is in most cases.

Originally posted by Banky
I have never thought that MARX ? ENGELS were being supported by bankers or anything at the start, but it does seem probable that money had to fund them. I hae no idea how an idea can change the world if not divinely inspired if there is no money behind it.[/B]

Why don't you research how the idea spread before jumping to conclusions? Marx did not create Communism; he focused it and worded it. It offered hope to the poor and desperate, a hope religion was failing to supply.

Originally posted by Banky
Communism relied on people ignoring man's nature to be self sufficient and self reliant, especially in the beginning of the industrial age where ost lived on farms. Now, ina modern age, it seems that communism would appealing because of the lack of freedom to move about, to be self dependant, to have nothing by people around you, instead of freedom of movement about YOUR land.

Human nature is to survive and reproduce. No more. The rest can and does change.

Originally posted by Banky
It relies too much on making men think they can become altruistic, instead of selfish! So, How in the world can anyone fall for that except by the pooint of a gun?

Because altruism sounds bloody nice.

Originally posted by Banky
One other thing that I wonder about: to bring about this communist utopia would take life times and generations of indoctrination to remove the ideas of growing your own food for yourself and to be willing to surrender it to others who do not work because the government said so, and yo not allow you to store away any extra food for yourself because the government said so. Same with any industry that provide necessities, being a serf that just works like a drone, how do you get people to do this?

How can anyone who operates an industry not see the error in this?

So, I guess your premise is correct: There had to be backers of his system that we knew not of, and they might have been pullling his strings for a while and then stepped back to let the ball roll; but it brings up another point:

Who gets to see this system when it is 'finished'? How is the proletriat going to be free if he dies before he sees freedom? How are men going to strive to complete something that only their great grand children will realize in it's fullness? Standing in bread lines never motovated anyone to be a communist!

This is not a debate about the validity of Communism as a theory, rather about whether or not it was created by the "Illuminati". If you wish to debate the theory, fine, create another thread. I will counter your arguments, although pardon me if I am a little testy, as I have heard them many times before, and repetition only makes them more irritating; not any more true...

Your claim is absurd, as is the logic supporting it. I could some it up as "Marxism is a flawed theory, therefore Marxists must have been otherwise motivated to advocate it". Such a claim is obviously ridiculous. I can provide countless other examples of flawed but popular theories; Christianity could even be described as one.

Originally posted by buttercup
Joey, I don't need to prove to you that communism is bad. Don't underestimate me. I don't want to bring up age or education, but I am not some naive teenager. (I'm not saying you are)

You have your idealistic views on socialism/communism (we've been through this before), but we will probably never see eye to eye on this. You should know me enough to know that I think for MYSELF, so to accuse me of being indoctrinated is insulting.


I am sorry if /I have caused offense. It was not my intent.

However, you juxtapose the above paragraphs with:

I think you're a good person, but I simply do not agree with you on this topic. I don't believe that ANY system that forces people to live under it is a good thing. If communism was purely voluntary, then I would have no problem with it. But that's not the way it is in most cases. [/QUOTE]

..in a situation debating Marxism. Marxist Communism is Anarchic. By definition, Marxist Communism does not have a controlling, forcing state. If it does, it's not Marxist Communism.

Have you read the Manifesto?

Joey, let's stop talking about theory and talk about reality. In reality, is there a marxist/communist system where the people are free to NOT live under that system? In other words, if someone didn't like or agree with communism, and wanted to be a capitalist, would they be able to?

Cuba claims to be such. However, there has never been a Marxist nation. Lenin perverted his ideology, and both Mao and Stalin further perverted Leninism.

Under Marxist Communism, these people would not exist. Under Marxist Communism there is no state, no classes, no inequality, no violence, no conflict. It is a utopian ideal - and like all such ideals, it is not entirely possible.

Marxism is a theory of revolution and change, and it has never been implemented.

Oh, Cindy, for the third time - yes or no? Have you read the Manifesto?

I've read parts of it, but not the whole thing. To be honest, it doesn't interest me much. I already know what type of system that I like, and it definitely isn't socialism or communism!

You said a person in Cuba is free to be a capitalist? Can a person go from rags to riches as they can here in this country? And don't try to say it doesn't happen. It happens all the time.

Can a person living in Cuba (easily) leave the country if they want to?

However, there has never been a Marxist nation. Lenin perverted his ideology, and both Mao and Stalin further perverted Leninism.

Under Marxist Communism, these people would not exist. Under Marxist Communism there is no state, no classes, no inequality, no violence, no conflict. It is a utopian ideal - and like all such ideals, it is not entirely possible.

Marxism is a theory of revolution and change, and it has never been implemented.

That is the problem. If I had a nickle for every time I heard that, I'd be rich. "True Marxist communism has never been implemented". Its never gonna happen!!! This utopia is not going to happen. EVER. Sorry to yell, but this is the truth. I hope you realize this at some point.

Cindy, I uh...do. Re-read the last sentence of that post. Marx's utopian theories are nice. Impossible, but...nice. His economic and social theories and models are insightful. I am influenced by him. But I am no Marxist.

Marx distanced himself from Bolshevik-style "Marxists" even during his own lifetime. The man himself is not responsible for the evils done by those who perverted his cause. Marx did not intend to create Lenin.

Well, you're not a 'marxist' (I'm sorry, I forgot what exactly you are calling yourself :D) but you still are holding on to the idea that this extreme-left anarchist/socialist type of system is a good thing, and can work. Right?

Well, when I said that marxist communism cannot work, I should've made it clear that NO type of communism, or anarchism for that matter will work. The only way it has ever 'worked' is under the gun. And that you say is not true communism.

Oh another question. You said you have researched Marx's life. What have you read.... just leftist books or articles? Have you given other sides a fair chance too, or do you automatically dismiss anything written by someone you consider on the "right"?

I read both, although I will admit that I probably do have a bias towards the Left; it is not, however, intentional. How would you answer that question?

I've read a little from both sides. Mostly stuff on the web. I try to be objective, but I'll admit too.... I tend to believe sites more that come from a Christian, or libertarian perspective.

Joey -

If I showed you some credible evidence that Marx was financed by Rothschild and other globalists, will you set aside your biases and accept it?

btw, I used to have an online friend who was very very knowledgable on the NWO. In fact, I had never met anyone else that knew so much about it. He was the one that initially told me about this... and he said that he knows of evidence to back it up. I want to get in touch with him, but I haven't talked to him in a couple years, and I don't think I still have his email. But I'm going to try to get in touch with him... (just for my own curiousity)


I have to get off the computer for a while... but I'll probably be back later.

I have researched Marx's life. I have not encountered any evidence to support your theories. I see no reason to attempt to find evidence for them, as I am certain that they are false. I have never looked for these theories, nor do I intend to. The fact that researching Marx's life does not yield supporting evidence for them quite nicely comments upon their validity.

Oh blow me.

Congratulations Joey, you give prejudice, ignorance, and bull-headedness a new meaning.

I haven't even posted any "theories", so how can you say they are false? Pretty dense if you ask me... Also, if you think that I am going to take the time to spoon feed you any information, you have another thing coming. There is the old expression about throwing pearls to pigs.

Marx is a pipe dream, and the result of his work, commissioned by an outside source or not, has caused an untold amount of destruction, misery, and death. Considering that you didn't even remember the 10 points of communism when I brought them up in the past, it really makes me wonder how well thought out your position really is.

Cindy, I wouldn't even bother trying to make points with Joey. He's obviously in love with his ideas, and I doubt any facts or evidence you can show him would ever change his mind.

:rolleyes:

Congratulations, you give "not a personnal attack" a new meaning. Not to mention arrogance, "maturity"...

Your post has been reported, simply because you are an admin. It seems a liyttle hypocritical for you to call other members "dense", or a "pig".

"Blow me"? You wanna take this out of DA, fine. You want to make this personnal, fine. You wanna turn this debate to an all out argument, fine. You wanna call others up on politeness etc, while saying this trash? Less so. Practice what you preach.

I haven't even posted any "theories", so how can you say they are false?

You, ah, agreed with and supported Cindy's comments linking Marx to the "Illuminati". I'd call that supporting a theory. This indicates you share this theory, does it not?


Pretty dense if you ask me...


[Reported.]


Also, if you think that I am going to take the time to spoon feed you any information, you have another thing coming.


Yeah? Well, I sorta thought that you'd like to back up your comments. I mean, seeing as an hour looking over Marx's life on various sources didn't reveal any of this...


There is the old expression about throwing pearls to pigs.


:rolleyes: I am swayed by the eloquence and brilliance of your argument.


Marx is a pipe dream, and the result of his work, commissioned by an outside source or not, has caused an untold amount of destruction, misery, and death.


Off-topic. I disagree, but that deserves its own thread. Marx cannot be blamed for Lenin or Stalin, let alone Mao.


onsidering that you didn't even remember the 10 points of communism when I brought them up in the past, it really makes me wonder how well thought out your position really is.


Strange that Communists tend not to glorify your "ten points", isn't it? Strange that they were described as "measures" that would be "generally applicable" in "advanced countries" in post-revolutionery attempts to steer social development towards Socialism itself. In fact, they do not even describe Communism. It is like confusing a function and a derived function...gradient versus value, change versus thing.


Cindy, I wouldn't even bother trying to make points with Joey. He's obviously in love with his ideas, and I doubt any facts or evidence you can show him would ever change his mind.


Evidence? Facts? I'd love to see some. Would you like to provide some? No, oh, wait, of course, I'm a "pig" who should feed myself... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by buttercup
I've read a little from both sides. Mostly stuff on the web. I try to be objective, but I'll admit too.... I tend to believe sites more that come from a Christian, or libertarian perspective.

Naturally. We are all biased towards our own "side". ;)

Originally posted by buttercup
Joey -

If I showed you some credible evidence that Marx was financed by Rothschild and other globalists, will you set aside your biases and accept it?


Yes, although we may disagree on whether or not the evidence was "credible".

Originally posted by buttercup
I have to get off the computer for a while... but I'll probably be back later.

G'night. :)

Joey....wheather or not it was a big conspiracy the fact remains that communism sucks and 100 million dead are the results of this philosophy.

It never has, or never will be successful....
The only way, again, that it can be implimented is at the point of a gun.
You will never, ever, be able to change basic human nature. And basic human nature flies in the face of communistic theory.

Off topic. I disagree. Human nature is to survive and reproduce. People will, in general, do this in whatever method appears most likely to succeed in their society.

Marxist Communism is impossible. However, it is still a nice, happy utopian ideal. As wonderfull to read about as the rest, as impossible as the rest.

The hundred million dead - assuming for the moment that figure is correct - were not killed by Karl Marx. They were killed by a series of authoritarian and brutal regimes that claimed to follow him. He distanced himself from these groups, even in their very early days.

Powerboss: Joey has not suggested that communism CAN be successfully implemented, either from the barrel of a gun or with the consent of the people.

And have people not died because of your (in your own words) 'sucking' philosophy? Conservatism has been killing people since the dawn of time. Less directly, less obviously.

The nationalistic fervour you possess (when applied to any country) kills at least 100 million people every fifty years, let alone every hundred and fifty years.

What would you say if I said that religion was responsible for the deaths of a hundred million people? You'd shamelessly qualify it.

You'd say that people don't implement the ideas of religion properly, that it's the fault of the people not the system, that your religion is a beautiful ideal, that it COULD work...

It's an unspeakable irony, given your attitude to those who defend communism. Not only that, but you do it with a halo.

That's to not even start on the deeply flawed school of classical economics on which Libertarianism relies Turbostang, buttercup.

Keep up the good work Joey.

Thank you :)

Congratulations, you give "not a personnal attack" a new meaning. Not to mention arrogance, "maturity"...

Oh, kind of like your first post eh?

Your post has been reported, simply because you are an admin. It seems a liyttle hypocritical for you to call other members "dense", or a "pig".

LOL! Yeah, your going to report me to... guess who... ME! Think I care?

"Blow me"? You wanna take this out of DA, fine. You want to make this personnal, fine. You wanna turn this debate to an all out argument, fine. You wanna call others up on politeness etc, while saying this trash? Less so. Practice what you preach.

If you expect people to treat you politely and with respect, you might consider doing the same.

You, ah, agreed with and supported Cindy's comments linking Marx to the "Illuminati". I'd call that supporting a theory. This indicates you share this theory, does it not?

I repeat, show me where I posted a theory.

You yourself even ADMIT that Marx was commissioned to write the manifesto.

[Reported.]

Woooo!

Yeah? Well, I sorta thought that you'd like to back up your comments. I mean, seeing as an hour looking over Marx's life on various sources didn't reveal any of this...

It's called getting off your lazy arse and learning something.

Feel free to report this as well...

I am swayed by the eloquence and brilliance of your argument.

As I am yours...

Off-topic. I disagree, but that deserves its own thread. Marx cannot be blamed for Lenin or Stalin, let alone Mao.

Yeah, about as much as Henry Ford is responsible for the Mustang.

Strange that Communists tend not to glorify your "ten points", isn't it? Strange that they were described as "measures" that would be "generally applicable" in "advanced countries" in post-revolutionery attempts to steer social development towards Socialism itself. In fact, they do not even describe Communism. It is like confusing a function and a derived function...gradient versus value, change versus thing.

The probable reason most self-proclaimed communists don't "glorify" the ten points is because they never read the manifesto. At any rate, I could care less, as history speaks for itself.

Evidence? Facts? I'd love to see some. Would you like to provide some? No, oh, wait, of course, I'm a "pig" who should feed myself...

I extended the offer, but since you decided to respond with that snide/rude post, I'm sure you can find your own way to the trough.

Turbostang, this might get me banned from this forum, but if it does so, you are a hypocrite, a liar, and a fool. In this thread you have repeatedly insulted me. You have called me a "pig", "dense", "lazy", and more. I reported your conduct although I do not normally take offense at internet insults of this sort. You are an admin. You are part of this drive to make the political forums a more open, intellectual, polite area of DA. You should be above this. However, you are not so, evidently. You now ridicule me for reporting you. I suspected it may be a futile gesture, but I thought you would have the honour to turn it over to another mod. I see you do not. You claimed to me that you possessed no bias, and you told me that you were seriously trying to make this forum a better place. I accepted that, I felt you were doing what you could as best you could.

This makes a mockery of that. Not only do you stoop to insults, but you rely on your position as an admin to save you from trouble.

That is pathetic. It is dishonest and hypocritical when compared to your previous claims.

Now, I will save the posts in this thread to my hard drive. If you do not have the simple maturity to admit that you were out of line, I will notify the other admins of my opinion on this. If this thread is closed, moved, or deleted, I will send Manu, Tam and every other mod these transcripts. I have not once levelled a direct personnal insult. You have done the opposite, and then relied upon your status to save yourself.

It is possible to disagree with someone without hating them. Take Cindy and I for example. We are politically opposites, but we tend to be friendly, especially when not talking politics. You cannot seem to make this distinction.

Turbostang, if you do not show signs of maturity and a lack a lack of bias, this section of DA will quickly cease to be an area I frequent. If a moderator sinks into personnal bickerring, the forum most definately has serious problems.

The hundred million dead - assuming for the moment that figure is correct - were not killed by Karl Marx. They were killed by a series of authoritarian and brutal regimes that claimed to follow him. He distanced himself from these groups, even in their very early days.

The 100 million figure is a conservative estimate... it may be much higher.

I'm sure Mohammed never intended for the Al-Quida when he formed the religion of Islam... but that still doesn't change the facts, does it?

What would you say if I said that religion was responsible for the deaths of a hundred million people? You'd shamelessly qualify it.

Perhaps it is the same reasons that people have been killed in the name of religion that communism will never work. People crave power. Power corrupts and power suceeds.

That's to not even start on the deeply flawed school of classical economics on which Libertarianism relies Turbostang, buttercup.

Funny how capitalism has existed for thousands of years, but communism can't even last 100? Even socialist nations can't completely escape your deeply flawed school of classical economics.

And have people not died because of your (in your own words) 'sucking' philosophy? Conservatism has been killing people since the dawn of time. Less directly, less obviously.

Oh please, document this for me.....


The nationalistic fervour you possess (when applied to any country) kills at least 100 million people every fifty years, let alone every hundred and fifty years.

Nice, try to put me in a category with the Soviets and Nazi's because I love my country....
Sorry....you arent even close, in fact Id say thats grasping into thin air.

What would you say if I said that religion was responsible for the deaths of a hundred million people? You'd shamelessly qualify it.

Not in recent history....Christianity has undergone a reaffirmation, a long, long time ago.
Now if you want to talk about Islam......

You'd say that people don't implement the ideas of religion properly, that it's the fault of the people not the system, that your religion is a beautiful ideal, that it COULD work...

Well, thats not what I said is it?


It's an unspeakable irony, given your attitude to those who defend communism. Not only that, but you do it with a halo.

Of course....Capitalism is responsible for the world advancing.


That's to not even start on the deeply flawed school of classical economics on which Libertarianism relies Turbostang, buttercup.

You mean those flaws of self reliance and personal responsibility and no need for a government nipple to suck on?

Off topic. I disagree. Human nature is to survive and reproduce. People will, in general, do this in whatever method appears most likely to succeed in their society.

I will agree that survival is primary...and they may, initially do in in whatever method appears most likely to succeed...
BUT
Once people start acheiving, and others dont....a clear reality of why a communist society will become loathed by the people who make things go.
Also, you know the story of Animal Farm...."Some animals are more equal than others". Greed, corruption, selfishness are basic instincts man has not overcome, and I cant say I've seen any evidence suggesting otherwise. You get the same rotten, corrupt, beurocratic robbers in power only with communism the people suffer more because they are all forced to the lowest common denominator and as history shows, if you speak out against it, you die.

Marxist Communism is impossible. However, it is still a nice, happy utopian ideal. As wonderfull to read about as the rest, as impossible as the rest.

Yes, it would be great if everyone worked as hard as each other and there was no greed or corruption but it will NEVER happen, but I see you have already aknowledged that.

Capitalism, greed, corruption and all other traits, has managed to do pretty darn good for the world....better than anything else.



The hundred million dead - assuming for the moment that figure is correct - were not killed by Karl Marx. They were killed by a series of authoritarian and brutal regimes that claimed to follow him. He distanced himself from these groups, even in their very early days.


I can only see the history and it tells the story.
I guess the question is why are all commie states authoritarian and brutal when they claim to be for the people?
Really though, I dont care why as my mind is made up about communism.

Originally posted by Turbostang
The 100 million figure is a conservative estimate... it may be much higher.

I'm sure Mohammed never intended for the Al-Quida when he formed the religion of Islam... but that still doesn't change the facts, does it?

But Al Queda's actions do not make Muhammud an evil man. The IRA's do not make Jesus evil. The failings of recent American presidents do not make the founding fathers evil. The failings of "Communism" do not make Marx evil, nor Marx's philosophy entirely false.

PB - George Orwell was a Socialist. Bringing up Animal Farm is not a smart move.

PB - George Orwell was a Socialist. Bringing up Animal Farm is not a smart move.

You are now playing games. We've both read the book adn anyone else out there who has knows exactly what I mean.

The pigs got to live in the house, got to eat the food and drink, interacted with the evil "2 legs bad" people, sold the old horse to a glue factory after he became useless, repeatedly lied to the less equal animals....

The failings of "Communism" do not make Marx evil, nor Marx's philosophy entirely false.

We look at the track record... it is grossly illogical, ignorant of basic human behaiviors, thus a failed ideology.

Joey, did you or did you not write the following?

I have researched Marx's life. I have not encountered any evidence to support your theories. I see no reason to attempt to find evidence for them, as I am certain that they are false. I have never looked for these theories, nor do I intend to. The fact that researching Marx's life does not yield supporting evidence for them quite nicely comments upon their validity.

Then you actually have the gall to write the following:

I have not once levelled a direct personnal insult.

Hypocrisy indeed!

You claimed to me that you possessed no bias, and you told me that you were seriously trying to make this forum a better place. I accepted that, I felt you were doing what you could as best you could.

I was trying to be open in sharing ideas with you... but you come off with your superior attitude and tell me that you "are certain they are false" when you haven't even heard what I have to say.

Excuse me if I consider your disrespect offensive and insulting.

Now, I will save the posts in this thread to my hard drive. If you do not have the simple maturity to admit that you were out of line, I will notify the other admins of my opinion on this.

Be my guest.

Cindy, you cannot support this statement. I do not wish to cause offense, but I find your ignorant, indoctrinated and judgemental approach to Marxism to be plainly idiotic.

Sheesh....what about this one?

Originally posted by Turbostang
Joey, did you or did you not write the following?


Yes. I stand by it. At no point did I tell you you were stupid or liken you to a pig. I did not personally insult you. I said quite simply that I was certain that you were wrong. No doubt you are certain that you are right. However, I believe I am allowed to disagree. If I appeared arrogant, I apologise.

I will admit that I said certain things to Cindy that may have been insulting to her. It has long been a bone of contention between us that while many of our beliefs can be similar, the mere use of the words Communism and Socialism come acrgoss as "evil" in her eyes. That attitude offends and irks me. [Again, I apologise if I offended you, Cindy. It was not my intent.]


Then you actually have the gall to write the following:

Hypocrisy indeed!


I stand by that. I have not directly insulted another member. I insulted an idea Cindy's, although I did not do so with the attention of causing offense. I did not insult you. period.


I was trying to be open in sharing ideas with you... but you come off with your superior attitude and tell me that you "are certain they are false" when you haven't even heard what I have to say.

Excuse me if I consider your disrespect offensive and insulting.


No dis-respect was intended, although if I said the same now, it would be intended; you have lost my respect. I simply stated my position. No more, no less.

Originally posted by Powerboss
Sheesh....what about this one?

I can understand how that could be taken as an insult. That was not my intent. Cindy and I, generally, get on very well, and I would not ever wish to insult someone like that.

However, being constantly told that an ideology that greatly influenced me is evil can get irritating.

Once again, I did not wish to cause offense. I was wrong to word that the way I did. While I stand by the sentiments, I did not post them with any tact. I fully apologise. That comment was out of line.

However, being constantly told that an ideology that greatly influenced me is evil can get irritating.


Yes, as being told that capitalism or conservatism is the root of all evil.
Just remember "4 legs good, two legs bad":p

I stand by that. I have not directly insulted another member. I insulted an idea Cindy's, although I did not do so with the attention of causing offense. I did not insult you. period.

"Gee officer, it never occured to me that if I pulled the trigger, the gun might go off..."

No dis-respect was intended, although if I said the same now, it would be intended; you have lost my respect. I simply stated my position. No more, no less.

Ditto

Originally posted by Powerboss
Nice, try to put me in a category with the Soviets and Nazi's because I love my country.... You are caught up in nationalism. This national self-interest inevitably causes conflict and always has, and it is perpetuated by people just like you. Patriotism kills far, far more people than communism ever could.
Originally posted by Powerboss Sorry....you arent even close, in fact Id say thats grasping into thin air. *shrug* Do you deny that nationalism has caused almost all the wars in history?
Originally posted by Powerboss Not in recent history....Christianity has undergone a reaffirmation, a long, long time ago. Christianity has had 2000 years to do that. Yet Pope Pius still looked the other way in the holocaust. People in the Sudan and elsewhere continue to perpetrate evils in the name of your saviour. Perhaps as the intiator of Christianity, Christ is culpable for all the acts that have been commited in its name? Of course not, and neither is Marx. Oh, and by the way, don't infer that I think marx in communism is on a par with Christ in Christianity, because I don't think it.
Originally posted by Powerboss Now if you want to talk about Islam...... Makes no difference to me.

Originally posted by Powerboss Well, thats not what I said is it? Do you say it? Or is christianity as basically destructive as communism?

Originally posted by Powerboss Of course....Capitalism is responsible for the world advancing. Funny how it was capitalism that plunged Britain into depression in between the wars. Even stranger how it got better with keynesian methods during and after the war...

Originally posted by Powerboss You mean those flaws of self reliance and personal responsibility and no need for a government nipple to suck on? I mean the mindless blik that the laws of supply and demand are always best for everyone, that there is no such thing as exploitation, that when we o into structural decline it'll be okay as long as we balance the books.

Originally posted by Powerboss Also, you know the story of Animal Farm...."Some animals are more equal than others". Do you remember why the animals rebelled in the first place? Farmer Jones, was he a just person? Did he use enterprise... or exploitation?
Originally posted by Powerboss Capitalism, greed, corruption and all other traits, has managed to do pretty darn good for the world....better than anything else. Really? Is Enron best for the world?

It seems you are as naive about the motives of corporations as Marx was about those of governments. You think they will enterprise for the sake of entrepreneurship. They will enterprise if it is the best way to make M-O-N-E-Y. In the vast majority of cases, they will go for corruption if it is more lucrative.

I wonder what it would take for you to believe what I say about nationalism. Nationalism is the root of all war, Bill.







When you finally see the world go to armegeddon for the third time in a hundred years, I want you to remember I said that.






:eek:

Originally posted by Cynic Nationalism is the root of all war

Are you listening OBL? How about you guys in Beijing? Karachi? Dehli? Hey Saddam! Wake up.......

Another socialist fantasy:o

What is a fantasy? Thinking nationalism causes wars? :rolleyes:

Of course nationalism has caused wars. So has many other ideological beliefs. Why socialists blame all the worlds ills on nationalism to me is a fallacy and nothing more than a political agenda to create a communist world without bloodshed.

Happy now:p

Originally posted by Powerboss
Yes, as being told that capitalism or conservatism is the root of all evil.
Just remember "4 legs good, two legs bad":p

I have never called Capitalism evil. On the other hand, numerous people here have called Socialism evil. I, oddly enough, dislike being called evil ;)

Originally posted by Turbostang
"Gee officer, it never occured to me that if I pulled the trigger, the gun might go off..."

Ditto

Brilliant. I stand by my previous comments. I have apologised for my comment towards Cindy. You have claimed that I insulted you, and quoted a post in which I did no such thing. You then used a series of personnal insults. You have not had the honour or maturity to admit mistake.

Originally posted by Powerboss
You are now playing games. We've both read the book adn anyone else out there who has knows exactly what I mean.

The pigs got to live in the house, got to eat the food and drink, interacted with the evil "2 legs bad" people, sold the old horse to a glue factory after he became useless, repeatedly lied to the less equal animals....

This being a book written by a Socialist against the perversions of "Communism" in the USSR. A man who claimed in 1942 that for Britain to win WW2 a Socialist revolution was necessary. A man who fought in the Anarchist militia, POUM, in Spain. A man who was betrayed by Stalin's decision to redirect the Communist CNT militia against the POUM and other revolutionery groups. A man who was involved in the street fighting between Staliists and Anarchists in Barcelona.

It is ironic that Orwell, one of the earlier people to make a distinction between Marxism and Leninism/Stalinism, is used in an argument against Marx.

Animal Farm is a metaphor for Soviet history. Stalin began talking equality, ended up as powerful as the Romanovs had been. That is all; it was not a comment about Communism in general.

Originally posted by Powerboss
We look at the track record... it is grossly illogical, ignorant of basic human behaiviors, thus a failed ideology.

Tell me one utopian theory that is not so. Utopianism is by definition impossible.

Originally posted by RedLine99
Of course nationalism has caused wars. So has many other ideological beliefs. Why socialists blame all the worlds ills on nationalism to me is a fallacy and nothing more than a political agenda to create a communist world without bloodshed.

Happy now:p

Ideologies similar to nationalism cause wars. Ideologies that favour the interests of one group, be it national, racial or religious.

Originally posted by RedLine99
Of course nationalism has caused wars. So has many other ideological beliefs. Why socialists blame all the worlds ills on nationalism to me is a fallacy and nothing more than a political agenda to create a communist world without bloodshed. I wonder, why do you think I am a commie? Is it because I'm not naive about corporate motives, nationalism and religion?

Originally posted by RedLine99 Happy now:p No, but I didn't expect to be :)

Originally posted by Cynic
I wonder, why do you think I am a commie? Is it because I'm not naive about corporate motives, nationalism and religion?


I don't think your a commie(yet :p) or naive. I understand to some extent the environment you live in compared to mine. I wish mine was easier to describe.

Originally posted by Cynic
I wonder, why do you think I am a commie? Is it because I'm not naive about corporate motives, nationalism and religion?


Marxism denies the existence of God, but it is actually a religion.

In a satanic way, Marxism is a false Christianity. Jesus promised a transformation and a new life for Christians. Marx promised the same for Commies. Marx conformed the themes to suit his fantasy. There was no longer eternity. Everything was now. There was no spirit, only matter. The Second Coming was the revolution and Communism was the hope of redemption. Not only is Marxism chock full of fallacies and erroneous economic analysis, it is an anti-Christian version of Christianity.

Snouter, that is an interesting, but fundamentally flawed claim. You unfairly claim that Marx based his theoies on Christian principles. There is no evidence that he did so, and, in fact, much evidence to the contrary. Marx disliked and disbelieved religion.

Marx did not mention the concept of eternity, nor did he focus on the present. He prophesised future events, based on his application of the Hegelian philosophical model to society.

Marx does not believe in spirit, but countless agnostics and athiests likewise do not believe this.

Marx did not claim that the righteous would be judged, nor the Communists rewarded in the revolution; he claimed that society would ffundamentally shift, as it has done in the past. The workers would wrest power from the owners, as the aristocrats were destroyed in the motion from Feudalism to Capitalism.

Marxism does not worship any higher power. Marxism ins not Satanic. Marxism is not a religion. I fail to see how you can believe this.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
Snouter, that is an interesting, but fundamentally flawed claim. You unfairly claim that Marx based his theoies on Christian principles. There is no evidence that he did so, and, in fact, much evidence to the contrary. Marx disliked and disbelieved religion.

Joey, I think you're misunderstanding what Snouter is saying. Yes, Marx hated and disbelieved religion... But since Marxism denies a higher power and religion, it sort takes the place of God, in a way. And that is why some people see it as a 'religion'.



Marx did not mention the concept of eternity, nor did he focus on the present. He prophesised future events, based on his application of the Hegelian philosophical model to society.


Re-read his post:

Originally posted by Snouter
There was no longer eternity. Everything was now.

^ That's true. Marx did not mention the concept of eternity, because he didn't believe it, right?



Marx does not believe in spirit, but countless agnostics and athiests likewise do not believe this.

Marx did not claim that the righteous would be judged, nor the Communists rewarded in the revolution; he claimed that society would ffundamentally shift, as it has done in the past. The workers would wrest power from the owners, as the aristocrats were destroyed in the motion from Feudalism to Capitalism.


So isn't it about justice? (according to the marxists) The workers take back power from the owners and aristocrats, therefore justice is served? Well, Christianity states that there will be a judgement day, and so eventually we will see true justice. (not the imperfect man-made justice system we have now)

There are some strange parallels between Christianity and Marxism, except that I see it as a counterfeit of Christianity, in a way. Putting itself in place of God. BTW, who is the being that does that?

Hmmm... its interesting and it all falls into place, IMO.

(now you're really going to be mad at me!) :D


Marxism does not worship any higher power. Marxism ins not Satanic. Marxism is not a religion. I fail to see how you can believe this.

This may sound crazy to you, but actually, anyone who denies Christ and is anti-Christian (as Marx was and other communists are) whether they know it or not, is serving the other side.

But as I said before.... maybe we shouldn't get into the spritual aspect of this whole topic.