Marx was born into a Jewish family who had a rich Jewish history with many of his uncles being Rabbis.
Marx’s mother came from a wealthy family.
Marx’s father practiced law; was successful and purchased a small vineyard.
Marx had few friends as a kid. He was a good student.
Marx was supported by his parents when he went of to Cologne and then Berlin to go to school. Marx spent beyond his allowance, but his father would always give him the extra that Marx requested. When Marx’s father died, his mother said no more and cut back drastically on the allowance Marx received.
Marx married Jenny von Westphalen who was four years older than Marx and broke her engagement to a Prussian officer in order to date Marx who married her several years later.
Marx was never a good provider and was never employed other than as a news editor for left wing newspapers that were quickly closed or failed. Marx did write for the New York Daily News and received small amounts for articles he submitted, many of which were written by Friedrich Engels.
Marx and his family lived in poverty. They had seven children, only three of whom survived to adulthood. Of the three, the oldest died as an adult from illness and the other two girls committed suicide. All three girls were loyal to Marx. The two girls who committed suicide received money from Engels and lived rather up scale lives in their last years.
Friedrich Engels, the only real friend Marx had, was a devoted follower of the Marx philosophy. Engels was a part of owner of a textile mill in Manchester England and was able to sustain the Marx family because of his earnings. When Engels retired and sold his part of the business, he gave Marx a substantial annuity.
It was Engels that actually wrote Das Kapital Volumes II and III from notes left behind by Marx after he died.
Marx said many things but lived his life by completely different standards. He advocated for the worker and condemned the bourgeoisie even though Marx and Jenny strived to live like the bourgeoisie. Marx did not like to be around workers and would verbally attack them when they were in his presence. Marx was caustic and would verbally and legally attack anybody who would question him in any way.
Marx said that all estates should be taxed at the rate of 100% because the assets belonged to the collective or the state. Yet at the death of Jenny’s mother and the death of Marx’s mother, not one cent of the benefits they received, which were substantial, were shared with anyone.
Marx understood that to bring about his classless society would require despotic actions and he supported such actions. He also stated that there would be a time that society would be ruled by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with all dictatorship implies.
The picture the left tries to paint of Karl Marx the man is often a false picture. He was a very selfish person who placed the needs of himself above the needs of his family or anybody else. He allowed his family to live in abject poverty, at times being deeply in debt and begging for food. When Engels wrote to Marx to tell him that Engels long time live in girl friend had died, Marx replied with a quick “that is to bad” but I have not received the money you usually send, please send as soon as possible.
Marx is not an individual to admire unless you believe narcissistic individuals deserve admiration. His philosophy, where practiced, has brought about tremendous poverty and suffering and has resulted in the death of millions by starvation, by murder, and extreme living conditions while imprisoned or otherwise. Marx lived a life of double standards and lies. Those who would honor the Marxist or Communist philosophy and hold up Karl Marx as a great philosopher and humanitarian are in a pretend world.
U.S. Muslim preacher: “Soon, America will be ours”
Here in the United States: “The number of Muslims in the US has increased by 40% in just five years — between 2010-2015 — while in the same period the non-Muslim population of the US has grown by only five percent.”
“Radicalism: The Real Shock Was the Reaction of the Americans…,” by Majid Rafizadeh, Gatestone Institute, May 12, 2018:
“Soon,” said the letter, “America Will Be Ours”.
The writer, it became clear, was an extremist Muslim in the U.S. who claimed to be a reputable religious preacher. With each new word, concern grew.
He pointed out, throughout the letter, the “sinful” ways of the West: dancing, drinking, dating…
He expressed disgust that most women did not wear the hijab or participate in prayer five times a day. Then he got straight to the point: “Ours,” he explained, represented Muslims like him.
The sentiment is hardly a new one. A person hears similar proclamations from many Muslim extremists throughout the years. The real shock was not letter but the reaction of many Americans after seeing it.
Such a thing, they said, could never happen. The writer’s words were “just bluster,” nothing to be taken seriously. Most surprisingly, they stated — honestly — that Muslims who speak of such intentions do not really mean what they say, so these threats should not be cause for concern.
The history of the two nations where I grew up — Iran and Syria — taught all of us there a big lesson about living in this kind of ignorance: the reality of how quickly a nation can be consumed by the philosophies of a religious state. An authoritarian and malicious regime, as exists now in Iran — the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and brutal even to its own people — is something we cannot forget.
In a few centuries, in Syria, where more than 90% percent of the population were Christians, and in Iran where an overwhelming majority of citizens were Zoroastrians, the demography drastically shifted to majority-Muslim. Neither nation could have anticipated such a change.
While many may underestimate the radical preacher’s claims that “Soon, America Will Be Ours”, for extremist Muslims these beliefs are strongly and deeply rooted.
Many extremists believe that their religious desire — for a “Muslim takeover of the White House, a directive from Muhammad himself” — is coming true in the US. Religiously speaking, for these Muslims, ruling America is Allah’s (God’s) word, a sacred promise is coming to fruition.
A recent survey and demographic research released by the Pew Research Center found that Muslims will soon overtake members of other religions, including Jews, as the second-largest religious group in the United States.
This issue should not be taken lightly. What does being the second-largest religion in a country mean? Voters impact local and national politics, swing domestic elections, elect more representatives from the same religious affiliation, are influential enough to determine who the next president of the United States may be, and change the laws of the land. All it takes is a subtle shift in power for the entire society, political system and culture of a nation to be changed.
The number of Muslims in the US has increased by 40% in just five years — between 2010-2015 — while in the same period the non-Muslim population of the US has grown by only five percent. This means that the Muslim population is growing almost eight times faster than the non-Muslim population in the US….
We have witnessed a remarkable turn in the cruel dictator of North Korea. Perhaps he sees the tremendous opportunity he has to become a truly beloved leader to his people. We can only hope this is the case.
We must recall that throughout the last 50 years or so, the United States has fallen at the feet of the North Korean leaders much like the United States accepted the so-called inevitable domination of Communism during the days of the Cold War. Ronald Reagan finally said no to the Communist dictators and rose from the negotiating table and left the room. He said we will not give in to the ridiculous demands of the Soviet Union. In a few years the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc were no more, and the Cold War ended.
When Reagan walked from the negotiating table saying he could not accept the terms he was being offered, he was roundly criticized. The typical pundits and politicians denounced Reagan as a war monger, as unstable, and as being unable to understand the significance of his actions. Reagan understood what he was doing, and he was correct.
Clinton, the Bushes, and Obama caved to the North Koreans proclaiming that the only way to deal with them was to negotiate or give them what ever they demanded for false promises from them. Trump told Kim Jong Un that those days no longer existed because a typical politician and appeaser was not in the White House. Trump explicitly told Kim Jong Un that he had more and bigger bombs and if North Korea wanted to play war games, they would lose and Kim Jong Un would be no more. Kim Jong Un took advantage of the Olympic games being in South Korea and began to play nice.
What Kim Jong Un has done since is remarkable. Make no mistake, a cruel and murderous dictator can never be trusted and any actions he promises to take must be absolutely verified, unlike the requirements Comrade and Muslim Brotherhood appeaser Obama required of Iran.
The opportunity Kim Jong Un has could make him a beloved leader by choice and not by demand in North Korea. The nuclear weapons he was developing and probably has do not benefit his people nor do they really benefit him. If Kim Jong Un should choose to use them, he would be annihilated. He has also learned that he cannot use the them as a threat against Trump like they were used as a threat against the previous people who occupied the White House. Thus, the usefulness of the weapons or threat of development of such weapons has greatly diminished.
On the other hand, Kim Jong Un could use the verified demolition of both any weapons he has and the facilities to create such weapons to bring about an economic revival in North Korea by negotiating for investment in his country by nations of the free world. Imagine what North Korea could become if all sanctions were lifted and the nations of the free world would be welcomed to invest in North Korea. Kim Jong Un could be revered as the person who brought economic prosperity to his people and his country simply be getting rid of weapons and a development system that, because of Trump, has lost any use as a negotiating tool.
Let us hope that Kim Jong Un understands that his opportunity should not be wasted. Trump is not easily used or fooled. Trump also, as the world has learned, is a man of his word. Yes, Kim Jong Un, the United States press and the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) would denounce Trump for helping you understand the opportunity you have, but your people would be grateful to you forever.
Everything belongs to the collective or the state. Any assets you might have accumulated or received are not yours and you have no right to determine to whom they should go through gifting or at the time of your death. Anything you earn in any way is not yours regardless of your effort or sacrifice to earn it.
“FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITITES, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS,” SO SAID KARL MARX AND SO SAY NANCY PELOSI AND THE MARXIST/PROGRESIVES (DEMOCRATS).
Marxist/Progressive leader Nancy Pelosi gleefully laughs about taxing Americans if Marxist/Progressives win mid-terms. When Americans were allowed to keep some of what they earned, Comrade Pelosi repeatedly said that the GOP’s tax cuts amounted to “crumbs” for the middle class. Yet, Pelosi resented the middle class from retaining even “crumbs.”
And now, appearing at a Politico event, Comrade Pelosi was asked to respond to GOP talking points that a Speaker Pelosi would institute single-payer health care and “raise taxes” by moving to “roll back the tax cuts that they passed this year.” Pelosi’s response: “The second part there is accurate.” So, there is Pelosi, confirming she would to raise taxes if Marxist/Progressives win back the majority this fall.
Remember, it was Comrade Franklin Roosevelt that said 100% or what you earn over a certain amount should be confiscated by the collective or the state. Pelosi and the current Marxist/Progressives are headed to fulfilling that declaration by Roosevelt. Roosevelt also stated that this was fair. Marx agreed as do all Communists. They strongly believe that all belongs to the collective or the state and it is the collective or the states divine responsibility to redistribute based on what they define as the need of each of their subjects, serfs, or slaves.
Our founders warned us about this danger when they said that freedom would cease to exist if you take from those who would work and give to those who would not. The founders have been proven that what they said is accurate. Look at Venezuela to learn just how correct they were.
The Obama regime promised the American people that there would be unfettered inspection rights in Iran if his flawed Iranian Deal was passed. Of course, this was a lie stated not only by Obama but also Kerry and Rhodes. What we came to realize is that the real purpose of the Iran deal was so that Obama could pull all sanctions on Iran, sanctions that were working, and give Iran more cash so they could perpetuate terror around the world and especially harass Israel.
"Inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location. Put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary," Obama said.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told military commanders that he would not allow any inspections of the country's military sites.
So, what does the deal actually say on the subject?
The agreement allows for a "long-term IAEA presence in Iran" to monitor materials and nuclear development that wouldn't be used in weapons. Inspectors will have continuous monitoring capabilities at known nuclear facilities. For other areas in the country, including military sites where there is suspected nuclear activity, IAEA inspectors will have to request access.
If inspectors have concerns that Iran is developing its nuclear capabilities at any of the non-official nuclear sites, they are allowed to request access "for the sole reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with" the agreement. They must also inform Iran of the basis for their concerns.
Iran, in response, can propose alternatives to inspection that might satisfy the IAEA's concerns, the deal says. But if they can't come to an agreement to satisfy the inspectors within 14 days of the original request for access, the issue goes to a joint commission that consists of representatives from the P5+1 powers (the U.S., China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and Germany), Iran, and the European High Representative for Foreign Affairs. They have another seven days to reach an agreement that must be supported at least five of the eight members. If they decide inspectors should get access, Iran has three days to provide it.
That means a total of 24 days could elapse between the time inspectors first request access to a suspicious site and the time they are allowed entry. The deal does not explicitly state what would happen if the Joint Committee deadlocks, four to four.
It was not anytime anywhere. It did not allow [inspectors] to go to a site and say, 'hey I think something must be going on there, give me 24 hours and I'm in.”
Iran had a lot of room to "wiggle out of things" if they did not want to give inspectors access. They could take advantage of the 24-day delay to pave or paint over evidence of building the components needed to produce a nuclear weapon.
Even though the Obama regime said access when and where necessary, anybody who expected believed that we were just going to be able to go in on short notice and walk around military facilities was either dreaming, really optimistic, or naïve to believe Obama would be truthful about this or anything.
Instead, Iran received about $1.7 billion as part of this terribly one-sided agreement. This resulted in exactly what Obama intended as stated by Kerry, "I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps) or of other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists. To some degree, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented."
The other evening, prior to speaking to another group hungry for the truth, a gentleman who had within the last several months escaped the confines of Venezuela came and introduced himself to me. In the course of our conversation he told me that not only were citizens of Venezuela fleeing the ravages of the political and economical system the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) desire for the United States, but members of the military were also fleeing. The reasons the military personnel were fleeing were the same reasons citizens were fleeing; no food, no clothes, no ordinary necessary daily supplies, crime, and all the other conditions that always result from this social and economic system touted by the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) here in the United States.
I did some research on what the gentleman told me about the military in Venezuela, and here is what I found.
CARACAS, VENEZUELA (BLOOMBERG) - Military officers are joining the exodus of Venezuelans to Colombia and Brazil, fleeing barracks and forcing President Nicolas Maduro's government to call upon retirees and militia to fill the void.
High desertion rates at bases in Caracas and the countryside are complicating security plans for the presidential election in 13 days, which by law require military custody of electoral materials and machinery at voting centres.
"The number is unknown because it used to be published in the Official Gazette. Now, it is not," said Ms Rocio San Miguel, director of Control Ciudadano, a military watchdog group in Caracas.
She said soldiers are fleeing for the same reason citizens are: "Wages are low, the quality of food and clothing isn't good."
Last week, officers who rank as high as general were called in and quartered for several days at their units.
Retired officials and militia members were also contacted by their superiors, according to one retired officer who asked not to be named for fear of angering the regime.
Government officials are training these fill-in personnel for the election, said a second retired officer.
The shortage of troops comes as hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans flee a societal collapse, crowding cities and makeshift camps throughout the region in the largest mass emigration in modern Latin American history.
Hyperinflation has made the currency virtually worthless, and malnutrition is endemic. Almost two million Venezuelans are living outside the country.
As the once-prosperous nation fell apart, Mr Maduro consolidated power by creating an all-powerful assembly to bypass the national legislature.
The regime jailed and banned opponents and launched a wave of arrests before the May 20 vote.
The US and regional organisations have refused to recognise the balloting as legitimate, and the main opposition coalition has promised a boycott in the face of what it says will be a rigged contest.
Venezuelan elections are overseen by its military, the strongest force in the country and one increasingly intertwined with Mr Maduro's regime.
The rush to fill out units is required by the so-called Plan Republica, the security deployment of the Defence Ministry that begins on the eve of election day and lasts until the day after.
By law, the armed forces are guarantors of peace and security, guarding ballots and voting machines at all 14,000-odd voting sites. They transport these materials and machinery to each voting centre, often a school, and guard it.
But the level of desertion from the Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana has grown exponentially in the last year, especially among troops at lower ranks.
At least 10,000 soldiers have asked to retire, Control Ciudadano's San Miguel said in March.
"Since 2015, there has been an increase in military detainees accused of treason, desertion and other crimes," she said. "Our estimate is that there are 300 people who are imprisoned, mostly troops. A few are senior officers, others are civilians linked to the military."
A spokesman for the armed forces didn't immediately reply to a request for comment on the desertions.
High-ranking members of the military are barred from much contact with the lower ranks.
Lines of young military men asking for retirement are long, said the first retired officer.
The officer tried to chat with one, but officers running the barracks forbade them from talking to each other.
The retiree said top officers fear too much conversation will permit officers and enlisted soldiers to form alliances for a coup.
"Those who ask to retire are put into arrest for a week at the military counter-intelligence headquarters," said Mr Gonzalo Himiob, director of Foro Penal, a human-rights group. "That's how worried the government is."
He said most leave the country after they are released.
Mr Himiob said that so many have tried to resign in recent days that the regime has no room to jail them, and many are allowed to quit.
The secularists of the Western World, including those in the United States, are telling us that Marx was correct, and morality does not exist. These same people would have us believe that the teachings of a perverted and sick ideology, that being the ideology of Islam, should be not only tolerated and accepted, despite the abuse of women and children it encourages, but embraced and promoted. These people would have us believe that mercy killings, wife beating, rape, murder, female genital mutilation, and sex with young girls is normal behavior. Then these same secularists would have us believe this is advancing civilization just as is the murder of millions of children before they are even born.
If there is one thing history has taught us, it is that the secularist or the progressive movement is now and always has been a movement that restricts the basic principles upon which the United States was founded, the very basic principles of Individualism which declare that the rights of the individual supersede those of the collective so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. In other words, the rights of women to live a life free from the threat of mercy killings, wife beatings, rape, murder, female genital mutilation, and sexual intercourse even prior to puberty should be protected in a civilized society.
This happened in a Western country, a member of the European Union, that claims to be a progressive and civilized country. Progressive, we would agree. Civilized, we would disagree.
Sex with 10-year-old not rape, Finnish court rules in migrant’s case
In a case that has triggered public outrage, a top Finnish court has upheld a ruling that sex between an Islamic asylum seeker and a 10-year-old girl didn’t constitute rape.
Finland’s Supreme Court rejected a request from the prosecution to appeal a three-year jail term for a 23-year-old rapist of a 10-year-old girl.
Once again, the perverted actions promoted by the Islamic ideology are upheld. The argument was that the Prophet had sex with little girls often, so this was just following the example of the Prophet. A civilized society would argue that the perverted actions of the perverted Prophet do not justify these uncivilized actions. To do so is to dehumanize all females and promote an immoral and unjust civilization.
Keith Ellison, the deputy chair of the Democratic (Marxist/Progressive) National Committee, posed with a book promoting the violent "Antifa" movement. In a post on Twitter, Ellison said that he found the book "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook" at a Minneapolis book shop and said it would "strike fear in the heart of @realDonaldTrump." The book's Amazon page includes complimentary reviews by The New Yorker, The Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle.
Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have not and do not denounce Antifa in any of their efforts to prohibit the constitutionally protected rights of free speech and freedom of assembly or even the violent methods employed by the group.
So, who really is this group called Antifa.
A Los Angeles Antifa group, the Red Guards, celebrated May Day by holding a small march, hanging a Trump effigy, and calling for “revolutionary violence” against the “capitalist state” which is the United States.
“We must carry out military actions against the enemies of the people!” a member of the L.A. cell of the Red Guards wrote.
The Red Guards is a Maoist group that hopes to duplicate in the United States the anarchy and terror Chairman Mao’s Red Guards inflicted on China during the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. The group also identifies as “antifascist” and has cells throughout the United States.
Obama and Ellison are also Communists as are many members of the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party. Groups like the Red Guards are Communists. Communists hate the United States. Communists have as their goal to destroy our current society and replace it with a Communist state under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party will not denounce the Red Guards or any members of Antifa because they are one and the same; Communists.
Any movement that had as its goal to control a population for the purpose of remaking that society into a totally different society has confiscated the weapons or guns of the people. The new society desired by the those who are championing change has historically been to change a free society who protects freedom of speech and thought, into a society adhering to only one political thought and eliminating the discourse of any dissenters. This is defined as a tyrannical society under a dictatorial or controlling government.
This is the mindset of the Marxist/Progressive Party (Democrats) in the United States. It is the goal of this group to fundamentally transform the free society of the United States into a totally conforming and totally equal, politically, socially, and economically, society. This has been stated and exhibited in many different ways including the call for the forced confiscation of all weapons of the citizens. Others who have employed this same tactic includes the Nazi party headed by Adolph Hitler. It is ironic that those championing the tactics of Hitler continue to call any who oppose them as Hitler like.
Here are the words of Adolph Hitler and the corresponding words of a Marxist/Progressive who is a member of the United States Congress.
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Adolph Hitler
Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.
Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs. Marxist/Progressive Rep from California Eric Swalwell
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM IS A POLITICALLY CORRECT TERM IMPLYING FREEDOM AND SOCIALISM CAN CO-EXIST – THEY CANNOTRead Now
“It’s hard to know, but I mean if you’re in the Iowa caucuses and 41 percent of Democrats are socialists or self-described socialists, and I’m asked, ‘Are you a capitalist?’ and I say, ‘Yes, but with appropriate regulation and appropriate accountability.’ You know, that probably gets lost in the ‘Oh my gosh, she’s a capitalist,” stated Hillary Clinton as she gave another FABRICATED reason why she lost the election.
This is an extremely interesting and revealing statement. First of all, Hillary has never advocated capitalistic ideals. She has always favored socialist programs such as big government, nationalized health care, a steeply progressive income tax, centralized control of the economy, industry and business regulated by the government, censorship, and curtailment of the natural rights of the citizen such as freedom of speech, right to life, and right to pursue happiness and not guaranteed happiness. Hillary is like many socialists including Engels, Soros, and Obama; “I deserve to live in luxury because I am advocating for the underprivileged.” Hillary is not a capitalist.
For Hillary to admit that 41% of Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are socialists is staggering. In fact, that number is much closer to 100% because most of those who claim to be Democrats (Marxist/Progressives) advocate for the same policies for which Bernie Sanders and Hillary advocate. Those policies are socialist policies. The 41%, even though grossly under stated, is still remarkable because it comes from one who claims the Democrat (Marxist/Progressive) Party advocates for the American and Constitutional values.
What the Marxist/Progressive Party (Democrat) is doing is very standard for those who advocate for collectivist policies including those who openly call themselves socialists always do. They soften the term socialist by using the politically correct term Democratic – Socialist. Remember, the United States is a Republic. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) use the term “democratic socialism” to imply that their brand of socialism will be based on the principles of freedom and correspond to the principles upon which the Untied States was founded. This is not only a misleading implication, it is a total lie.
The United States was founded on the principles of Individualism which places the rights of the individual above those of the collective. The achievements of the individual are to be encouraged and celebrated even though those achievements exceed the expectations of others and even exceed the imposed limitations by the collective. Individualism always encompasses rule of law, limited government, divided government, and sovereignty by the people.
Collectivism, which includes socialism, places the imposed limitation of the collective above the aspirations of the individual. Thus, you have the collectivist advocate for policies like a steeply progressive income tax for the purpose of sharing the wealth. Sharing the wealth, by its very definition, must include a vehicle such as a state-run welfare system to collect the “excess” earnings of the achiever and then redistribute those funds to whomever they believe is deserving of receiving them. Collectivism, in order to function must be a society with arbitrary law, big and controlling government, a concentration of power in the bureaucracy, and the state has to be sovereign with the people dependent on the state and thus the people become servants, slaves, or serfs to the state.
Tyrannical dictators always claim to be democratic with the implication that their tyranny is desired by the people. Democratic and freedom are not synonymous but, in most cases, they are antonyms.
The Revolutionary War was fought so we the people could be free, not so we could be a democratic socialist nation. The Revolutionary War was fought so we could be free from the dictates of government dominating our lives and our interests. The Marxist/Progressive Party (Democrat) party has as their primary goal to reverse the victory of the American Colonists and once again have government dominate the lives and the interests of the people. Use whatever term you like, but the end result is still a dictatorial government dictating the lives and the interests of we the people. This is TYRANNY.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.