FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Was Karl Marx "controlled opposition"

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Posts: 262
Location: west, pa, usa

PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:32 am    Post subject: Was Karl Marx "controlled opposition" Reply with quote

Miles asks the questions nobody else does

formerly known as duane in a previous registration
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Southpark Fan

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Posts: 1428
Location: The Caribbean of Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent find Duaneh!! The embedded links are great reads too! Thanks.

On his father's side, Marx came from a family of rabbis. His father was the first in the line to refuse that road and instead he became a rich lawyer (Fortunately he didn't also become a poet, as far as we know - fucking lawyers turned poets are a pathetic lot!) His father gave up Judaism, we are told, and became a Lutheran, although we must assume that was just a pose. He married a Jewish woman anyway, and although we are always told she was “semi-literate,” the more important fact is that she was from a family of very wealthy bankers and industrialists. This was the Philips family, which later started Philips electronics. Outside of the royals, the Philips were and still are the richest people in Belgium. Being semi-literate implies she is from a lower class family of scullery maids (sorry to pick on scullery maids!) or something, when the truth is she is from a family of billionaires. They just trust you don't make the connection I did, going “so these billionaires are semi-literate?” I encourage you to make that connection, because it explains a lot. For a start, it explains why these super-wealthy families who now run the world care nothing for real art, literature, poetry, or music. They have destroyed all the old high arts and sciences, keeping only the lowly economics. The upper class they displaced—the real aristocrats—always honored art and artists. They scoured their domains even the countryside and the towns of the poor—searching for the most talented artisans and artists. But the nouveau-riche industrialists killed that tradition, instead inserting their own talentless children into all the artistic venues and jobs.

When artists are made the slaves and the tools of the state, when artists become chief propagandists of a cause, progress is arrested and creation and genius are destroyed.
President Eisenhower, 1954

Eisenhower said the above in his “Freedom of the Arts” address at MoMA for its 25th anniversary gala. Yes, MoMA and the Rockefellers could even afford to hire the President to read their scripts. Although he was intending to condemn Russian realism and promote Abstract Expressionism, we can now see that his words were upside down, as usual. Most of the 20th century was upside down to the truth and this is just one more example. For his words are a perfect description of Modernism and its purposeful subordination of art and artists to politics, Theory, and financial speculation. This subordination was not engineered from Moscow. It was engineered from New York City and DC. And it turned out to be even worse than Eisenhower warned. If progress had only been arrested, how happy we would now be. Due to the engineered collapse of art in the 20th century by speculators, propagandists, paid academics, and New-World-Order architects, we have regressed no one knows how many centuries.

Some embedded links for background:

-- http://mileswmathis.com/papa.pdf
-- http://mileswmathis.com/stoner.pdf

Back to Marx.
He became engaged to Jenny von Westphalen, an educated baroness of the Prussian ruling class. The marriage looks arranged to me, for political purposes, which means Ludwig was probably in on the con. In other words, the most logical reading of the clues here is that Ludwig von Westphalen was an aristocrat who had been bought out by the rising industrialists like the Philips family. He had read the signs, seeing the ultimate victory of money over rank—banking over the aristocracy—and he had chosen their side. It is possible that all we are told about Ludwig is false. It is possible that Ludwig opposed the marriage violently, as we would expect him to. It is possible that Jenny was the one bought out by the industrialists. At any rate, we know Marx's mom was from a family of billionaires (by today's standards). And his wife was a baroness whose grandfather had been chief of staff to Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick. This Duke is interesting for several reasons. The first is that he was a field marshal, which is basically a five-star general. That is and was extremely rare. The second is that he was almost made the commander of the British forces in the American Revolutionary War. So this is who Jenny's family was accustomed to work for and socialize with. This Duke was also a billionaire, and the Westphalens were also very wealthy. And yet the historians tell us Marx was living hand-to-mouth at several points.

Marx was sent in to control the opposition. Notice how at every juncture, Marx manages to create factions rather than alliances. He deftly prevents any real action by always turning the socialists against themselves. He keeps them arguing over philosophical fine-points rather than encouraging direct and immediate action. That is classical Marxist misdirection, of course, with the blather about a scientific progression of history. It also refutes itself for at least two reasons:

1) Willich and Schapper weren't calling for action by a handful of men, they were calling for action by millions of men and women simultaneously across Europe—the very thing the industrialists feared most.

2) The industrialists had changed society in a matter of decades, and they were in fact “a handful of men.” A few powerful people working together can achieve incredible things, and history is full of examples of that. Marx and his backers knew that, which is exactly why they were publishing manifesto's saying the opposite.

Consider Marx's pitting the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. This should have always seemed strange to you, seeing that the great enemy of the worker was not the bourgeoisie, but the very rich industrialists who owned the companies. As now, it was the super rich that were preying on the workers, not the middle class. The lower class and the middle class should have been natural allies against the upper class, since both were and are being preyed upon mercilessly. Well, the upper class recognized that fact, and had to prevent that alliance by any means possible.
Enter Karl Marx.

The Philips family was composed of bankers and industrialists, not aristocrats. In fact, these industrialists wanted to supplant the existing aristocracy. It was upper class versus upper class, and in some parts of the world it still is. Remind yourself what happened in Russia: the monarchy and aristocracy were overthrown, but not by the bourgeoisie. They were overthrown by a group of mysterious intellectuals like Marx—Lenin, Trotsky, etc.—and under closer examination we find they too were financed by bankers and industrialists.

Read that last quoted sentence yet again, and de-spin it like this: Marx wanted to see the bourgeoisie overthrow the aristocracy before the proletariat overthrew the bourgeoisie. Why would he push that idea? I suggest to you that it is because the overthrow of the aristocracy was the plan all along. All this talk about the proles and bourgeoisie is just misdirection. The goal was for the aristocracy to be replaced by the industrialists in Marx's family, after which the proletariat could all go get hanged. Marx and his backers knew that the proletariat would never gain the ability to overthrow anyone, but they especially wouldn't have the power to overthrow a new upper class that had just defeated the old aristocracy and co-opted all their resources.

You see, recent history has been the industrialists against everyone else. But they were always least worried about the “proletariat.” The lower class was mostly lower for a reason. They had the fewest resources, intellectual and tangible. That is why the industrialists were always misdirecting you toward them. They wanted the world to think they were concerned with the lower classes, but they weren't. They were most concerned with the aristocracy, since the aristocracy had all the things they wanted. This is why Marx was advising that the aristocracy needed to overthrown first. He is actually tipping his hand toward us here, but almost no one has read the cards right.

The secondary concern of the industrialists and bankers was the upper-middle class. They had to watch their flank while they were going after the aristocracy. They couldn't have those just beneath them bite them in the butt while they were pulling down kings. In hindsight, we see that they dealt with this by pushing a materialistic and economic worldview. This materialistic worldview kept the upper-middle class chasing the very wealthy above them, rather than attacking them. The middle class didn't want to ally itself to the lower class, since that would just pull them down. This effectively isolated the lower class. It also isolated and ultimately doomed the middle class, since after the industrialists had defeated the aristocracy, they turned and attacked the stratum just beneath them. The new upper class has now been preying voraciously on the middle class for the past half century—so much so that the parasite may end up killing the host. Once the upper class has pushed the entire middle class down into the lower class, it will have only itself to feed upon. We are already seeing the first stages of that.

This is precisely why the aristocracy in Western Europe backed down and gave up the fight. After the Russian Revolution, they saw they were outmatched and outflanked by the bankers and industrialists. The bankers gave them the choice of following the Romanovs or receding into the shadows, where they would play only a diversionary and functionary role.

Both the East and the West have experienced fascist takeovers, but the methods have been somewhat different. In both cases, however, the industrialists have won all the battles. In Russia they rule under the cover of a fake Marxism. In the US they rule under the cover of a Democracy that does not exist. In both places they control the masses with fatal doses of propaganda and a completely falsified history.

Some embedded links for background:

-- http://mileswmathis.com/zodiac.pdf
-- http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf
-- http://mileswmathis.com/unabomber.pdf
-- http://mileswmathis.com/bundy.pdf


Newseum in D. C. (Unabomber)
Some have said that Kaczynski was a patsy, or that he was mind-controlled. No. He was a CIA actor. All these connections to MKULTRA aren't indication of brainwashing, they are indication Ted was an operative, all the way back to 1959. He was recruited at Harvard (Kaczynski graduated from Harvard, which beats even Columbia as spook central), just as Terence McKenna was recruited at Berkeley. These weren't mainly brainwashing programs, they were CIA recruitment programs. The people in them weren't volunteers or guinea pigs, they were just raw CIA recruits being put through their early paces.

Just as they did with Ezra Pound, Charles Manson, and many others, they have created an Anti here. Marx can be thought of as an Anti as well. In my paper on Hemingway and the Paris Salon, I defined an Anti as a disguised agent who espouses theories, ideas or politics that the government wishes to discredit. Ezra Pound was the example in that paper. He was instructed to attack Jews, the US military, banks, and so on. He was then “proved” to be a madman and sentenced to a mental institution. The lesson? Those who speak out against Jews, the military or banks are madmen. Manson was another Anti, posing then as a hippie and still posing today as an environmentalist. Once he was locked away as a madman and murderer, the audience learned the lesson that those who are hippies and environmentalists are madmen, and may be murderers. And we see the same here with Kaczynski. Remember, he published a long, mostly cogent critique of Western civilization and especially US corporatism. And just as Manson and Lynette (Squeaky) Fromme still do, Kaczynski recommended environmentalism. Manson, Fromme, and Sandra Good are said to be proponents of ATWA: Air, Trees, Water, Animals. Could you imagine a better way to blackwash the environmental movement? Or a more transparent way?

One of the government's main targets in the Unabomber event was EarthFirst!, a “radical” environmental group that actually wanted to save the environment instead of just talk about it. EarthFirst! was making some headway in the late 80's, early 90's, which is why they were linked to the Unabomber. The FBI had been harassing EarthFirst! for years, including the car bombing and libeling of Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney in 1990. Bari and Cherney won a $4.4 million judgment against the FBI and Oakland Police in 2002 for First Amendment violations. On March 21, 2011, a U.S. federal judge in California ordered the FBI to preserve evidence related to the car bombing. The FBI was planning to destroy all evidence in the case. Although EarthFirst! is still around, they were seriously hurt by the Unabomber manifesto and Kaczynski's trial, where he quoted from the EarthFirst! journal.

Ted resigns his teaching position at Berkeley after only two years, and by 1971 he is already in his Montana cabin, being a recluse. Since this was an isolated cabin, we have and can have no evidence he was there all the time he was said to be there. All we have is verbal testimony of Ted, his brother, and some federal agents. As supposed evidence, we are given the actual cabin, which they now exhibit at the Newseum in D. C.

But that isn't evidence of anything. It is just a pile of wood. They could have dragged that in from anywhere. Actually, it is evidence of a psy-op, since you should find it very strange to find an alleged serial killer's cabin in a D. C. museum. The entire Newseum is obviously a museum of propaganda. It was opened in 1997, while the Unabomber trial was still going on, and looks to have been built just to promote the continuation of the Unabomber story (and others). For instance, one of the other top exhibits at the Newseum is its 911 Gallery sponsored by Comcast. “Sponsored by Comcast”? You have to laugh. Not only is corporate sponsorship at a museum a big red flag, but the Comcast name is, too. Comcast is just another of many CIA fronts, and it has long been mining data for the government. Just check out this 2006 article with the title “Comcast uses technology from CIA-backed CallMiner to mine data from every recorded customer service call in its Midwest call center.”

But it isn't just Comcast. The entire Newseum is corporate-sponsored, and was founded by Al Neuharth, the man behind USA Today. Like Comcast, USA Today is CIA-sponsored. All the newspapers and magazines now are, but USA Today was created from whole cloth by Intelligence. The other major newspapers controlled by the CIA—like the New York Times and the Washington Post — were once semi-independent. They were engulfed slowly over more than a century. But USA Today didn't arrive until 1982, many years after Intelligence had completely swallowed the media. So it could be built from the ground up to deliver propaganda in the most efficient manner.

I encourage you to study the list of rooms and exhibits at the Newseum. The Atrium is dedicated to the enshrinement of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, who used to control the New York Times before the CIA swallowed them whole. We get the Bloomberg Gallery, named for you-know-who, and it includes a shrine to CIA-operative Edward R. Murrow. Although it isn't mentioned in his Newseum bio, they admit Murrow came out of army intelligence and OSS, and that he was glad to act the mouthpiece of Intelligence. In the photography rooms, we get lots of prize-winning staged photographs, including dying babies at the Oklahoma City bombing.

Then we have the Cox Enterprises First Amendment Gallery: 45 Words of Freedom. “This gallery explores the role that the First Amendment’s guarantee of rights (religion, speech, press, assembly and petition) has played in the United States over the past 200 years. 'Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press,' said Thomas Jefferson, 'and that cannot be limited without being lost.'” Who is the corporate sponsor of that room? Monsanto? Blackwater? Exxon-Mobil? “The US Constitution, brought to you by our corporate sponsor, Halliburton!”

Finally, we get the Bancroft Family Ethics Center, where you can debate journalistic dilemmas. We aren't told if you can debate the topic of whether or not it is a good idea to have fascist ownership of a “freedom of the press” museum.

Who goes to Washington D. C. and pays $22 to visit a propaganda museum? Anyone? Here's an easy assignment for some young truther. Go sit across the street from the Newseum and count the number of actual tourists who go in each day. I would be willing to bet that the attendance numbers are faked by a large margin.

But back to Ted. We are told the New York Times and Washington Post agreed to publish his 35,000 word manifesto in order to avoid more bloodshed, but no one should have believed that. They clearly published it as part of the psy-op. It was one of the most important facets of the event. It was their best opportunity to blackwash leftists since the Manson/Tate event.

Pause to notice that although you are told on a daily basis that the media is “liberal” (by Rush Limbaugh and ten thousand other embedded agents), one of the main jobs of the media is blackwashing real leftists. The media isn't liberal, it is run by the government, which—by definition—makes it fascist.

Although the manifesto is mostly cogent (by today's standards), it does have very large signs of telling on itself. They are trying to blackwash leftists here, so Ted should stick to being a leftist: his conviction as a crazed murderer will be the true blackwash. But the real author can't resist the urge to slander leftists even while he is supposed to be one. And so we see the author spending many pages explaining to you how leftists are oversocialized and suffer from inferiority. That's curious, wouldn't you say? Most leftists I know attack those on the right, not themselves. That is why they are considered leftists or progressives. But the author can't keep his proper hat on. He keeps reverting to his true opinions. You have to read the manifesto closely, but it is clearly the work of a rightist pretending to be leftist, and constantly backsliding into his true nature. I encourage you to reread the manifesto with that idea in mind.

For instance, Ted refers to Eric Hoffer's book True Believer, which no true leftist would be reading. It is often sold as an academic study of mass movements, but it is actually a transparent and shallow blueprint for fascism. Any real progressive intellectual in 1995 would have found much better books to reference than True Believer. But the CIA has been promoting the book from the beginning, since it was probably written by one of their own. As evidence for that, we only have to notice that Hoffer endowed an essay prize at UC Berkeley in 1970, a year after Ted left the University. 1967 is also an important year in Hoffer's bio, since we are told he left the docks of San Francisco that year to retire from public life. Remember, that is when Ted arrived in San Francisco.

We are supposed to believe Hoffer was working as a longshoreman on the Embarcadero from 1945 to 1967? Sure he was. That's what all best-selling intellectuals did at the time, right? True Believer was published in 1951, which was during the quick rise of the CIA. From 1947 to 1952, CIA began its fullcourt takeover of the press, engulfing the literary magazines and the publishing houses as well as the major newspapers. It placed its people everywhere, as we have seen in my papers on the Beats and the Paris Salon. Many of them posed as leftists but were actually fascists. The fact that Hoffer was in San Francisco, came from nowhere with a bio that made no sense, and had no qualifications to be doing what he was doing, indicates he was another placement of Intelligence.

Hoffer continued to write typical CIA propaganda to the end. See his 1968 Los Angeles Times article on Israel's Six Day War, where he argues that throwing all the local Arabs out of land they had legally occupied was fine, since Russia, Poland, Turkey and Czechoslovakia had done worse, throwing out millions of people, and “no one said anything about refugees.” Really? No one said anything? All those things were historical non-events, and no one among those millions made a peep? I didn't know that.

Also amusing is that all of Hoffer's papers, including the notebooks he carried in his pockets, were acquired by the Hoover Institution. Hah. Is that anything to do with Hoover University, where they trained fake hippies? No, that was named after J. Edgar, we assume. This Hoover Institution was named after President Herbert. But the Hoover Institution is nearly as transparent and ridiculous as Hoover University. It is on the grounds of Stanford University, but has its own board of overseers. We suppose that means it is run by the Feds as a little castle of conquest. If the locals get uppity, I guess the grounds of the Hoover Institution is where they will copter in the troops. Laugh if you must, but we have evidence of just that. Hoover Institution Fellows include Edwin Meese, Condoleezza Rice, George Schultz, and former commander of US Central Command and four-star general John Abizaid. I am sure we all sleep better at night knowing the Pentagon has a beachhead at Stanford University. So re-assuring to know the military and State Department have taken hostages at all institutes of higher learning, just in case things get ugly.

There is a reason why every now and then we all feel cheated!

One of the funniest things he says in his manifesto is this:

"In spite of all its technical advances relating to human behavior the system to date has not been impressively successful in controlling human beings."

You have to be kidding me! That is the one thing the US system has been most successful at, precisely because it has spent so much time and energy on it. The US system perfected this control far beyond anything the Nazis, Russians, or Chinese ever imagined. What is the sign of perfect propaganda? Its invisibility! The American system of propaganda, though not terribly subtle in hindsight, was infinitely subtle compared to Nazi or Russian propaganda. It has been so successful it has required very little violent coercion. The staging has fooled almost everyone, and most Americans over the past 60 years have actually believed they were living in a free, democratic, and fair society. Only since 911 have the lights begin to flicker, the audience becoming suspicious of the Great Oz behind the curtain. Before that, the audience was drinking in the show with ever greater abandon. Oh! how some would like to return to the 1990's, and Oh! how some are trying to achieve just that trick. But as long as DHS is around, it will never happen. DHS has no knack for remaining invisible, since they enjoy the visible jackboot above all else.

After Kaczynski misdirects you on your levels of past control, he then recommends a sharp increase in the future:

If the system succeeds in acquiring sufficient control over human behavior quickly enough, it will probably survive.
Otherwise it will break down.

This from the leftist Kaczynski. Leftists always demand total top-down control, right?

In this way, the manifesto was an epic fail on the part of Intelligence. The guys at Langley who wrote it didn't stick to the script. They actually want the audience to beg for more control, but putting the words in the mouth of Kaczynski can only confuse the audience. Remember, Kaczynski is being created as an Anti, so he supposed to be mouthing ideas the government wishes to blackwash, like environmentalism, autonomy, self-reliance, the Constitution, and so on. They don't want to blackwash control over human behavior. They want to whitewash that.

Source link

"Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha

Last edited by Southpark Fan on Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:02 pm; edited 10 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 22 Jul 2014
Posts: 331

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, I had no idea about even a fraction of that.
Great find spf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Posts: 262
Location: west, pa, usa

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2015 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

others coming from different directions
arriving at the same place


Karl Marx, Prussian government agent

by Wolfgang Waldner on January 22, 2015

The famous Socialist theorist was the brother-in-law of the Prussian Minister of the Interior, Ferdinand von Westphalen

"It was and is no secret to those skilled in the study of political agents: even without the Prussian Minister of the Interior as his brother, Marx’s curriculum vitae would lead to this conclusion at first glance.

For a private citizen, Marx had a remarkable number of contacts with important contemporary political figures.
Towards his fellow dissidents, Marx displayed a sustained commitment to personal hatred and self-righteousness.
From the ruling circles, Marx was praised for his deeply thought-out critique of capitalism. Starting out his spying career as the closest friend of theologian Bruno Bauer, Marx suddenly became the editorial director of the Rheinische Zeitung in Cologne, funded by the prime minister Ludolf Camphausen, who later promoted him to work in his ministry.
Marx’s theories were directed against well-known targets among the early socialists. Marx and his cronies began by infiltrating Weitling’s Confederation of Craftsmen, and later undermined the First International. Spokesmen of the labor movement found his theories useless, and only Bismarck’s adoption of the Socialist Law allowed Marx to win influence over the social democracy.
Upon his arrival in England, Karl Marx joined a partnership with David Urquhart, an agent of the British crown, and they became involved in agitation against Russia, which was threatening the global interests of the British."

formerly known as duane in a previous registration
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.