125 thoughts on “Our Modern Marxist World – Mind Control Based On Ancient Wisdom, Dialectics And Machiavelli”

1. A man leaves his cave and discovers Kratom.
   He returns with Kratom and tries to enlighten his fellows, but they reject him.
   He freebases the Kratom, abandons the cave forever, and became Genghis Khan.
   And so can you.

   1. On another note, the only movie, that serves as the best metaphor for Plato’s cave is the film dark city, from which the mem, shut it down, shut it down forever originates from.
      
      It is a good film to make you think… a bit.

      1. That movie is one of the few decent hollywood movies. Its plot is -a little- though provoking, the photography is really good, and the performances are good. (((Jennifer Connelly))) looks stunning in those vintage dresses.

         1. It is a personal belief that this movie is alt-right, before the alt-right, due to the nature of the aliens (inhuman creatures, hiding inside dead bodies, not even really trying to pose as humans).
            The reason for which it is said that the movie understood the cave was the ending. The only person that really went out of the cave was the damaged doctor, probably one of the best performances of Kiefer Sutherland and personally the most fitting in the film, after the aliens.
            Agreed Connelly was stunning in those dresses, actually any beautiful woman would be stunning in vintage dresses, and yeah this is a vintage lover! I was shocked when I found that she echoes two years ago.

      2. I haven’t seen this since I was a kid. A number of things went over my head no doubt. Must re watch.

         1. It is a good film and I think that today you might appreciate it more. 🙂

   2. There is one flaw in your story. With the power of Kratom, the man could not possibly have been rejected by his fellows. Hence he presented them with small amounts, and they became the Mongolian Hordes.The little Kratom dust they left at the gates of Europe is what triggered the Renaissance.

2. You are advertising these ideas on a site that have beat these ideas to death….Also how are you going to quote wikipedia when most of plato’s works are <10 dollars. Also, Kratom

   1. plato´s work is free domain

      1. and? I like physical copies of books and don’t mind shelling out what equals to a Starbucks coffee to support a company that prints them for cheap

         1. Print them.

         2. Brilliant idea….because it definitely wouldn’t cost me more to print 500+ pages than to just buy a book haha

         3. Is it for quoting Plato´s work instead of Wikipedia?

         4. I own most of Plato’s works on paperback. I was using that reference to describe how easy it is to obtain his works. You can source Wikipedia all you want but Wikipedia does not provide all the material and you are generally reading a quote that has no context. It’s like if you stumble across Hitlers wikipedia and read his quotes but had no idea who he was and the context the quotes were in you’d probably asssume he was a pretty nice guy

         5. He was a pretty nice guy.

   2. maybe because it is easy to be confirmed. In Greece, at least, most people think him for a democratic, while he is quite the oposite: a monarchists (vasilia is kingship and it refers to what we might say today a divine monarchy in his case a system with a philosopher king on top).

3. SJW’s say that Christ was communist. That is 180 degrees out of phase.
   The rich young ruler comes to Christ and asks what he might do to to inherit eternal life. Christ asks him to sell everything he has and give to the poor. He refuses, and goes away. (paraphrased)
   Communists use this story to make their point. What they ignore is Christ ASKED, not forced. If Christ was like Karl Marx, he would have used his angelic powers and stripped the kids wealth from him and sent him to a gulag, kept 90% of the money for himself and gave out some sheckels to the masses for political support. Communism is people using government authority (usurped) to take, not people giving through the goodness of their hearts.
   http://www.properroleofgovernment.com/

   1. Touche! Christ never imposed or advocated, any form of oppressive state ideology against those who have money or success to those who do not…No forced nationalization of property, no single party regime, no censorship, no political police, no class struggle, no attack at individual freedom and liberty. And this is key: God respects our free will and that is why when we give freely, and not by some totalitarian rule, then, it is truly worthy. The mere notion of turning the Savior in to some marxist lunatic is truly disgusting.

   2. Christ was simply suggesting to the rich man to abandon his materialistic way of life. Communism is centered around historical materialism i.e. the world is shaped by material forces. So in fact the fable presents Christ as a non-communist.

      1. Notice most socialists what they say and speak about and you find a mania for the material. At least John Stuart Mill’s ideas centered around greed, a mania concerning money, said that one should work, while Marx said that one might need not to work and take the money of others’s material success.

         1. The Fabians were influenced by Marxism although they would pretend to be an impediment at this time.
            In other words, same shit different name.

         2. If you’re interested study also the historical Illuminati, they were the first atheistic organisation, the first anti-european racists and even they were proto-communists. Hopefully the Catholic Church managed to wipe them out, some of their writings though influenced some other groups, specifically the Frankists/Jakobins, who were one might say the precursor to modern marxists, before marx. Their leader and founder, Jakob Leib Frank, said that he came to the world to plunge it into eternal darkness. Sheds some much needed light, on the origins of the left. They also managed to dothe French Revolution and later were toppled from Napoleon.

         3. I have studied them but my research showed that they were not wiped out instead they infiltrated the Freemasonry and thus continued their work till today.
            Plato’s Republic was the Illuminati’s blueprint still in progress today.

         4. Plato’s republic was a metaphor and it took notice that it should be used for the benefit of the three classes in the city. The republic is one of the worlds most badly read books even today, everyone sees in it what he wants. For example it is believed that it was a socialist society, which it was only for the protectors, it had a subsidized economy for the soldiers (they had to depend on the state in order to ensure their loyalty) and the rest, were leaving in an unregulated economy (for the workers and crafters let them solve their own problems themselves). The society as a whole shunned poets due to them missinterpeting religion and meaning while vulgarizing anything.
            The Illuminatti were wiped out as an organisation some ex-members entered the freemasonry, specifically in France, as it is next to Germany, from which they originated but their greatest influence was on Frank, who was the offshoot of the Shabatian Kabala of Shabattai Zevi, who could have been said that he was an early egalitarian.

         5. I have a problem with anyone who tries to design a political and social system. Because when left alone people eventually find the best way to live in peace with their neighbors. Anyone who thinks that can create a better way simply sees himself as God and thus falls into Satanism.
            In contrast, Christianity is not a political but a moral system which could evolve into a natural social system necessary for a peaceful co-existence within a group of people.
            Live and let live.

         6. No! Most people in primitive times were simply at each other’s throats and the modern times have done things to only push this. Think of the socialists that want your house or your money and feel bad when the bell tolls.
            Christianity has a live and let live mentality, which means that even under the most oppressive Christian countries you ‘ll have more freedom than most other countries. The live and let live mentality if followed fanatically to the end, Europe would have been conquered by Islam by the end of the Middle ages. Today that good message is being used against it.
            Humans always require a political system to govern them because they’re political animals and such as the conduct politics based upon group loyalty. If you allow hostile groups to develop they ‘ll harm you for no reason but their need for hostility that they ‘ll base it to one reason or another. In the West we allowed such groups to FLOURISH and one of them has power over us, the liberals, and for that we are now in our current situation.
            On the other hand a mentality of: if you are not with you are against me, is ludicrous and oppressive due to it being obsessive and allowing groups with such a mentality is political suicide which later becomes cultural, religional and even racial.

         7. Yeah, but Fabians don’t end up killing a quarter of the population and leave the rest in miserable condition.

         8. Well this doesn’t make them good, but it is something to their credit.

         9. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c069f11264739ec02d2d04ea1c0ff7a95f65cd36b6ad82926fd1a590b5f88915.jpg

         10. Well done. Any system applied upon a population is doomed. Good ones seem to develop organically.

         11. But it is good. Look at the social outcomes of Denmark, or Norway, or Sweden. I know someone is inevitably going to say “but muh muzlum invashun!, but that 1) Has fuck all to do with the Fabian economic policies of these countries, and 2) The crime rates in these countries are still significantly lower than in America.

         12. I disagree, they make their people apathetic to all surrounding stimuli, hence the migrant crisis. This also explains the lower crime rate. The problem is all socialism is good ’till other people’s money runs out (the migrants by giving nothing to the state but receiving much especially contribute to that) or when natural resources that are being sold run out the system collapses and the people are too weak to handle it. To this I might add the rampant leftism of those countries that would make life unbearable to any masculine man or even a traditional family, well with the possible exception of Denmark.
             I do agree though that the Fabians were good people with good intentions, but the road to hell is being paved with good intentions.

         13. You perfectly summed up the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, which I think is the only viable “system” for a harmonious society.
             Natural Law and spontaneous order shape, balance and sustain everything in the universe. Any man – or group of men who think they can do better are delusional.
             BTW – This is my first post here. Just registered to join the awesome discussions here at ROK.

         14. Organized government is the most “hostile group” to ever plague mankind. It ultimately attracts the most narcissistic, power-hungry elemends from the societies over which it rules.
             The statist paradox (as I call it) is this:
             People are bad, so we need government (made up of people) to rule over them.

         15. Welcome to RoK!

         16. This is the thought-disease that in Greece we call it “Democratism”. The main belief being that people can always organize themselves in perfect order and all people being equal will always find a way. We are here exactly because this doesn’t work.
             We need an equivalent of Trump in every western country because the mass allowed the wrong crowd to take power. It did so because once some people promised an easier life for most if they were elected. The mass, happy for the situation concerning it’s stomach, did not care for the scandals or the corruption of those people. Today we pay the consequences.
             Traditional societies tried to make a political class that was meant to fill the positions of government and they were never part of the rabble, albeit being no perfect creatures they did all in all a much better job. This happened because in older times people, being rational, said we will give government only to the good people that can have it and NOT to anyone, for these people we will have a system that will try to make them as fitting for that role as it can be possibly achieved.
             People are not simply bad, they are bad by measures of quality, speciality and quantity. The masses in general are bad by quantity, criminals by quality and sinners (you can say individuals, as we all sin) by speciality. The mass if mastered and steered in the right way, although it may never become good, due to it being animalistic, it can become less bad, the only thing you need to absolutely do is keep the criminals and the mass away from the government, and if it happens it should at least be temporary.
             The statist paradox is pure political nihilism and all our enemies, whomever they are, used it and continue to use it against us.

         17. “I disagree, they make their people apathetic to all surrounding stimuli, hence the migrant crisis.”
             That has nothing to do with the Fabian economic policies and all to do with manufacturing consent. The people have an information flow that forces them to accept the status quo.

         18. If one has not struggled for anything in his life how can he fight if need be? The information stimuli is one thing but the easiness that is allowed to happen goes far deeper. In Greece something equivalent (in the broad sense) exists: socialism ala Grec*. It made enough Greeks apathetic to the point that they care for nothing but what the state and family gives to them and as long as they have to struggle for nothing they ‘ll defend nothing. Needless to say also if you protect week groups, let’s say alone mothers, then you reward irresponsibility further reducing the quality of the people.
             *The model is para-legal and tottally unsustainable, and an effect-in-and-of-itself, but it has the same effect, many people receive things that normally they shouldn’t have.

         19. Greece has been apathetic since the forever, it has nothing to do with the socialism that has only been around for the past 30 years.

         20. No, Greece started being apathetic after the fall of the Junta, that was the time when socialism started to rise, and our national ideals and dreams to be deconstructed. This also is correct for most European countries, although to them socialism exists for nearly 40 and not 30 years.

         21. What do you define as “apathetic”?

         22. Not being reactive or even noticing changes in your surroundings. To point out Greek politics are stuck in the 80’s and the perception of the world for the average Greek is not that different.

      2. Exactly. Christ appealed to man’s inherent free will. He did not compel or exploit.

   3. Also it must be pointed out that the word rich is also used in way to denote materialists, who have only belongings and entertainment, and without them they cannot live, so they cannot give them away.
      Also, I remember something that was said in Greece:
      An anarchist speaks to a priest as thus: “Pop Christ is not that different from Marx, he said to give wealth to the poor”
      The priest answered accordingly: “They are nothing alike, Christ asked the rich to give wealth to the poor, Marx said to the poor to take wealth from the rich”
      I live it there.

   4. Research shows that religious folks give more to charity compared to atheists. Research might not be conclusive, but the only situations I ever hear people talk about doing volunteer work is the couple times a year I’m in a Church.
      http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2014/06/bbc-poll-shows-that-religious-people-give-more-to-charity-than-non-religious-maybe

      1. I really love this tidbit from the article:
         “George Soros has donated $10 billion to humanitarian causes of various kinds.”
         Lol.

         1. Nice catch, I missed that

         2. bless his soul….shame he doesn’t have one

         3. There’s this part I remember from the New Testament where Jesus and his apostles are in the temple observing the Pharisees and the wealthy dropping impressive amount of coin in the collection box. Then, later on, a widow shows up and donates a couple of coins.
            And Jesus comments, ” She gave the most. That was all she had”.
            I’m paraphrasing mostly but the framework of the story is accurate.

         4. And much money to BLM. Because a jewish billionaire cares about the plight of the black man.

      2. I imagine that’s also true of conservatives versus leftists. Leftist (atheists are probably more likely to be leftist) tend to think of social progress / justice in terms of changing structures. Charity, individual acts of kindness don’t address ‘structural problems’ hence they are not valued. Conservatives on other hand are less interested in changing the world as helping people

      3. I completely disagree. While most ‘refugees’ here in germany are muslim, muslims are vastly underrepresented when it comes to volunteer work at refugee centers despite the fact that they are the most religious.
         And I also have some experience with living in a shared appartement with believers (adventists, baptists and so on) and they are always the guys who are behaving like parasites – bumming all the time but when you use their coffee maker in return they go mental.
         Maybe it’s different in the States but in germany the religious people are always the parasites (low class germans, refugees, jews and so on).

   5. Of course the story, like much in the bible, makes no sense. Suppose the rich young ruler gives his wealth to a poor man, who then becomes rich. What does this newly minted rich guy have to do to inherit eternal life?
      In other words, this game of hot potato just passes the problem of inheriting eternal life around to other people instead of really solving it.

      1. The problem with religious texts is that they need to be understood as a whole cause they take liberties with words, while the old testament is mosly false, the new testament is mostly right if understood as-a-whole. In truth you shouldn’t be a materialist that is tied to the material world, that is truth even for poor people as much as rich.

      2. Give it to poor means give it to the poor people not the just one of them.

      3. In the common context, it doesn’t make sense. Money in itself is not evil. However, it does cause people to be covetous. The love of money (valuing wealth over more important matters) is what is damaging. That is why Christ then followed up with that line “it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to inherit the kingdom of God”. “For where your treasure is, there will be your heart also”

      4. The Bible makes no sense if you read it with a materialistic eye. The rich man’s money isn’t the point. The story is about pride and identity. The rich man’s pride was rooted in his money, in his identity as a wealthy, respected man of the community. He was afraid to lose what made him feel important and worthy, afraid to face himself that without his wealth and good name he might find himself lacking. Pride gives birth to fear. To follow Christ, you must have the courage to walk away from this. If you compare Christ’s meeting with the Pharisees immediately before the Rich man, and the Leper immediately after, you see him facing death, pride and fear in that order.

      5. Well, you spread the wealth until you achieve perfect equality (hypothetically), of course this wouldn’t ever happen, but its sort of like reducing traffic deaths even if you know you wont ever reach zero fatalities.

   6. Christ = give up your things to be closer to God.
      Communists = give up your things to uh…um…y’know…be thingless.

      1. That ins’t the basis of Marxism at all, if you need a primer, here is a good video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSQgCy_iIcc

         1. Thank you, I was referring to Communism in practice, not the theories of Marx. As I’m sure you know, those are different things.

   7. Jesus Christ, if to be labeled anything in the modern sense would be libertarian. He used persuasion not force. Charity is to be voluntary, not forced. As such he also stood against the welfare-warfare state (Rome). He stood against the bankers as well.

      1. “As such he also stood against the welfare-warfare state (Rome).”
         “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” How exactly is that against the Welfare state?

         1. It was taken out of context, cut down, and simplified to allow for misinterpretation much like today’s TV news.
            https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/03/jeffrey-f-barr/render-unto-caesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/

         2. I didn’t take that interpretation (the one that Jesus is pro tax). My interpretation was that Jesus is apolitical and was saying not to use religion as an argument in politics. It doesn’t mean he was for, or against taxes. Calling Jesus either a socialist or a libertarian is wrong, neither of these political concepts existed at the time.

         3. Read what I wrote closer. I recognized that modern labels are a force fit.

   8. I think we are now learning why he overturned the moneychangers tables(kind of like the FED). And why he was killed.

   9. Isn’t hell a kind of gulag? Just delayed punishment after death?
      SJWs miss the whole point: spiritual things are way more valuable than materialistic ones. SJW/communists are extremely jealous of anyone that has more than themselves. So like any robber they use force to steal. The state is the intermediary.

4. Is Machiavelli the guy that comes around and breaks your fingers if you don’t pay for protection?

   1. I think that’s Mike Iavelli…

   2. Wait, is 2pac still alive?

5. Fo3 approves of this broadcast.
   
   

6. A think that should be added on the secret societies: they were simply political parties, as the first early parliaments did not allow their creation. They were secret because they were illegal and they could control members on more than just one parliament (france had three one for the commoners, one for the nobility and one for the clergy). Today they collapsed because they are not needed anymore, they do not need to hide, many young people also have the tendency to support, due to propaganda on them, most of their ideals.

7. When we look carefully into the real history it turns out virtually every revolution including the American and French revolutions were organized by the big bankers and the secret societies.
   The biggest con ever organized by the Cabalist bankers though were both Hitler and Stalin. It was a simply a masterpiece. Unfortunately, it is still rather misunderstood by both ordinary Jews and non-Jews.
   WW2 was a designer war!

   1. WW2 like most wars the US enters into is done through consistent harassment, interference, denial of trade, and so forth until the target government does something the US federal government can put to the american people as an act worthy of war. The american people are intentionally left ignorant of the things leading up to that act and the fedgov plays like theye were just there minding their own business when all of sudden….. when this fails they simply lie to the american people (Gulf of Tonkin, for instance) or create the incident (USS Liberty). Sometimes the war doesn’t happen because things don’t go as planned (USS Liberty). Sometimes happenstance allows it (USS Maine).
      FDR followed a distinct plan to provoke an attack from the Empire of Japan. The US government also did things that allowed that attack to inflict maximum damage, sinking largely obsolete warships. Some of the elements were likely coincidence, but it is unlikely all were.
      The only government that seems to grasp fed gov’s SOP is that of Iran. It has been trolled repeatedly and has yet to take the bait to the point where fedgov can act against it militarily.

   2. Explain?

      1. Did you read the article? Its pretty much all covered there. Its not easy to say in three sentences but yes, it was the black Frankist “crypto jews” who did it in both countries and the battles of WWII were arranged to cost as many lives as possible to reduce the young, strong and intelligent gentile men. Interestingly all these Nazi/Bolshevik leaders were financed by the same US bankers. The trick was to turn the German jews into zionist jews while ruining Germany. Many psyops took place at the same time and behind the western jews lurked the Tibetan lamas with their sorcery to control things. Please read it, I cant explain it well here in a few sentences.

         1. Oh, the old “nazis were funded by muh bankers” rhetoric. Too bad this theory is such a load of rubbish it isn’t even acknowledged to exist by academia.

         2. And who controls academia?… The only genuine research these days that we can trust is the one we do ourselves. There were many people who exposed the money flowing from Wall Street to “Komintern” in Moscow, ie Rakovsky in “Red Symphony”.

         3. I never doubted that the Soviets were funded by them, I doubt that the NSDAP was.

   3. I agree with your comment about Hitler and Stalin. Please check out the articles about Top Secret Judaism and how they created both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis and their similarity with the same kind of traitors ruining both Russia and Germany: http://expandourmind.com/2016/11/12/top-secret-judaism-exposed-part-iii-2016-11-12/

   4. They needed a safe heaven from Europe and the rest of the world which really woke up (mainly the educated classes) to the usury of the banking cartel. There were many banks which, unsurprisingly, behaved like money grabbing arseholes, however they were loyal and under the dominion of their state/king.
      What the illuminati wanted was to fuck over as many people over and not be loyal to anyone and not fear an advancing army sent in revenge of their actions.
      So, they found the US and after many many many arse kickings from patriots (federal banks were banned 2x in US), those elites finally infiltrated the USA’s political landscape.

8. Wow, ROK is really “blowing the lid” off of important shit lately (last 4-5 months). Spoiler alert for those of you following along:
   Satanism = Judaism = Communism
   Sabbatean = Frankist = Marxist

   1. Roosh has grown up

9. And for the people who criticize “conspiracy theories” you should google JFKs secret societies speech or Woodrow Wilsons “a force so subtle” quote or Eisenhowers military industrial complex speech. Three presidents who were conspiracy theorists.

   1. wilson was effectively blackmailed over some mildly racy love letters. For that he allowed the federal reserve legislation to go ahead; helped Trotsky go about his business (and ruin russia), and god knows what else with respect to the first world war….allegedly

      1. And luckily Trump has pizza to hang over their heads. Its the one thing they cant allow to get out.

   2. Conspiracy theory was invented by the CIA in the 1960s to discredit the historical distrust of government by the american people.
      People understand the nature of social collusion in their daily lives but have over time been conditioned to not see it in government. To believe that what they know happens in their work place doesn’t happen in government, the courts, etc.
      We are conditioned to believe that humans stop acting like humans when they reach government office.

      1. In a way i think its true,who would have believed the pedophilia and even moloch sacrifices? Spirit meal anyone?

         1. It was primarily done to keep official narratives of events from being questioned, not the hobbies of those in government.

         2. The pedo stuff isnt just a hobby its a way to control everyone. At any moment anyone can have their life ruined if the stuff gets out.

         3. Ordinary people who don’t believe government narratives have to be marginalized somehow. That’s what calling them conspiracy theory accomplishes.

      2. Actually American distrust of the government has only really existed since the 70’s, its a relatively new phenomenon.

         1. Um, no. While there were always those who did follow blindly those who did not have always existed in significant number. Going back to beginning there were laws passed by the government to suppress such speech. These laws were not nearly as effective as using ridicule to discredit people who do not believe the government narratives.

         2. http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government-1958-2015/

         3. Needs to start in 1789, not 1958. Starting at a peak is what the climate change religion does.

         4. Those statistics simply don’t exist, and you have provided fuck all for statistics.

         5. Just because you never gave a fuck to study history and want to rely on statistics long after the industrialized schools began is not my problem. It’s yours.
            If americans trusted government until recently the queen would be on the currency right now.

         6. That didn’t have to do with mistrust of government, it had to do with disagreement with government.

         7. When you trust your government, you pay the taxes it demands and you don’t disagree just like good trusting americans of the 1950s. Agreement comes from trust.
            http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126028106

         8. When historians are talking about something in history they don’t have statistics for, they are usually relying on the testament of dead people, which many times could very well have been using hyperbole, exaggeration, or just straight up talking out of their asses.

         9. How can you, such a critical and mistrusting muricun, use a source such as NPR of all places?
            The article is fairly weak at proving your point though. The first example cited is Charles Coughlin, a fascist, who started out as a supporter of FDR, and then criticized him for not being hard core enough. Again, not mistrust, merely disagreement.
            The second example is Alexander Hamilton, someone who was actually very pro-government, in fact, he supported an oligarchy as the optimal form of government. When Hamilton spoke of “an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government.”, he was conveying that he wanted an even more centralized government, a unitary system, rather than a Federal system.

         10. So you’re going to do the attack the source and the people thing because you lack a suitable counter argument. FDR was a fascist in his economic thinking and had the cult of personality of a fascist leader to boot, which is part of trusting government increasing in the 20th century as people believed in a dear leader. That someone thought he didn’t go far enough is irrelevant to trust of those in power. And Hamiliton wanting what we have today is neither here nor there as well. Not everyone who distrusts government wants less government. Often their personal distrust is based on their need to tell other people what to do, think, and how to live. They don’t trust other people, including those running the government, are going to make the “correct” decisions and want more government to make that happen.
             Look at the present situation of Trump. Trump is a big government guy but look at all the big government people that no longer trust government because Trump was elected.

         11. You might want to see how the “statistics” are made.
             Often they are created from leading questions, limited answer choices, and/or pulling things right out of their asses.
             Double replies are bad form.

10. Karl Marx raped his wife’s housekeeper. Doesn’t sound like a feminist god to me.

    1. Sounds like an Asshole. Perfectly believable – his whole phony philosophy was based on situational ethics.
       Consistent behavior.

    2. How does that make him different from Bill Clinton?

11. Leftists are fucking degenerates. I am still pissed off at myslef for being a leftist for 30 years.

    1. Yeah me too. for 13 years. But I think it was god’s way of showing me the truth. It is because I was an extreme left winger, i realised their deception and agenda.

12. There’s a lot in this I’d be inclined to agree with, but the problem as too often with this kind of stuff is that assertions are made without being clearly evidenced.
    Karl Marx may well have been a freemason, illuminatus or working for the rothschild or whatever but I’m not aware that’s been clearly evidenced, or proven.
    “Few people know that Karl Marx copied the marxist plans from these Secret Societies and made them more attractive to the masses.” It’s perfectly legitimate to point out similarities between the agenda of the Bavarian Illuminati and the commie manifesto, but saying the one comes from the other sounds to me like a claim too far – even if might be true.
    I’ve heard mixed reviews about Marx and Satan but intend to read it. Marx certainly wrote satan inspired poetry when he was a young man, and there is absolutely a connexion between the idea of revolution and satanism, since both involve revolt against status quo, be it the laws of God, Monarch or society.
    The problem with the Christian approach here is that it’s committed in advance to a theological approach to Satanism – which tends towards a supernatural understanding of what is going on. That can lead the uninitiated to thinking of the issue as relating to projectile vomiting and ouiji boards or whatever when what really needs to be understood is the satanic and occult claim that satanism / revolution is about progress. So you can see the issue between marxism and conservativism as being about otherworldly forces, or you can see it more helpfully in my view as fundamentally a battle for the soul of civilization / humanity. Does satanism as revolution lead towards real progress or doesn’t it. Does satanism as revolution lead to a fairer more juster world or doesn’t it. That might seem bizarre, but if you actually look at what satanists say (and many / most of those who identify as satanist aren’t necessarily either leftist or marxists specifically) they are often more interested in discussing issues of social justice / social progress or even morality / ethics than they are in wicker man sacrifices to Moloch.
    So the occult / satanism may be linked to revolutionary politics / marxism (how intimately is another question) but approaching this with a simplistic understanding of either is likely to obscure rather than enlighten the issue.
    I once read an author who seemed to have taken the satanist argument to heart, condemning the whole of civilization and presumably human progress as revolt against God. If progress is satanic then that position is perfectly logical, but why should that be the case. Why do we need to turn the world upside down in order to progress? If that is the only way then satanism is right. If it is not then satanism, as I suspect is a deception.
    The satanic vision can be understood perhaps in the image of Shiva Destroyer of Worlds. One must destroy in order to create. Order out of Chaos. A sacrifice of blood spilt into the foundations of the new temple. The modern world appear to be built on such a foundation, and at first glance it may seem a persuasive if worrying vision. But if destruction may well be built into creation, a secondary question arises: can emulating this divine (?) process be a legitimate task for men?
    If men are, or can be,Gods then the answer arguably is yes. If men are not, and can never be Gods then the answer is no.

    1. You people are so funny when you demand the black and white written and stamped evidence. Why can’t you people just connect the dots and use your common sense and logic.
       1. Marx was Rothschilds’ third cousin
       2. He came from a long line of Talmudic rabbis.
       3. He worked as a police spy for the Prussian regime.
       4. he married Jenny von Westphalen in 1843. She came from a wealthy Prussian family.
       4. He became a Freemason in 1813
       5. Before Marx ever wrote a word, following the industrial revolution, the socialist movement already existed in Germany, France, Britain and elsewhere. Marx’s mission was to co opt the nascent socialist movement.
       6. In in 1869, his contemporary rival in the First International, Mikhail Bakunin his contemporary rival in the First International, raised concerns about Marx being a bankers agent. Bakunin was not even aware of the fact that Marx and Rothschild were cousins.
       “This world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other. This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralization of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found.”
       Mikhail Bakunin, Profession de foi d’un démocrate socialiste russe précédé d’une étude sur les juifs allemands, 1869.
       7. Marx used the newspaper Neue Rheinische Zeitung to try and incite a war against Russia.
       Shall I carry on?

       1. Please do. Actually in terms of detail that’s not a bad post. In fact that’s more or less what I’m asking for. If evidence is available it needs to be presented. If authors – and I’m not just talking about the author of this article but any number of books I’ve happened upon – make assertions that something or something happened or was the case, then they need to present the evidence for that being the case. I’m fairly open to the idea that Marx might have been a Rothschild agent – but we are limited as far as I’m aware to the evidence you provide. As for Bakunin’s claims – leaving aside the specific antisemitism – he is not wrong in his reasoning. In fact the same type of argument was made by Anthony Sutton in the 20th century but rather better backed up by evidence. Sutton’s concern isn’t necessarily with jewish bankers, or central banks, but he does point out that any kind of non-freemarket capitalism is likely to tend towards collectivism and a burgeoning state apparatus and is entirely consistent with communism, insofar as it permits for domination by a ruling elite.

13. Groucho was more funny, than Karl ??

14. The very reason this website exists and others like mine is precisely because
    our culture is is rapid decline. But the upside is we are the last of the best. We have a big responsibility.
    http://www.tubeman777.com
    I am doing my part, are you guys?

15. Who is left alone for holidays… come to http://bit.ly/2ipJL0c This magical emotions..)

16. Some interesting facts before Jewish bolshevism and Marxist ideology overcame Russia.
    The Russian Tsar defied Rothschilds European centralized banking take over and supported Lincoln years later when he did the same.
    They were not in debt so could not be leveraged by Jewish shylocks.
    Mass immigration of Mongolians and outside groups was introduced prior to uprising.
    Russia was a strong Christian orthodox nation.
    Restrictions on Jewish usurper behaviour were firmly in place.

17. I just made a comment on this a day ago. We hindus had the perfect “caste system* People being classified in to four divine constitutional divisions in the following ranking order based on meritocracy.
    1. Priestly Caste – Highest motivation to lead life is attaining spirituality, wisdom in order to reach God.
    2. Aristocrats/Warrior Caste – Highest motivation to lead life is passion to win in order to protect tribes from foreign onslaught and win battles and wars.
    3. Entrepreneur/Businessmen Caste – Highest motivation to lead life is to gain riches so that a society/country can survive and meet its needs
    4. Worker Caste – Highest motivation to lead life is worldly pleasures like alcohol, sex etc.
    Nobody were oppressed, while the lower castes were allowed to eat meat and have sex before marriage the first 3 were not allowed. Why? because it clouds their judgement skills.
    These four castes worked together perfectly like a well oiled machinery. The kings ruled with advice from the priests, funded by the businessmen and policies realised through workers.
    But it began to decline exactly like what plato mentioned in his book. The castes started associating themselves with fame and money rather than divine constitutional position.
    Now the world is upside down. We higher castes are the real minority in India just 25%. Lower worker castes make upto 75%. Feminism, socialism, islam, buddhists, communism, marxism vilify us to turn the world in to undivine satanic place devoid of morality. But this was predicted by our holy books. This is the Kali Yuga – age of hypocrisy. Good is bad and bad is good. This cannot be stopped. God will come down on the day of judgement and save the theist minority who have been attacked by all sides. This God on the white horse will save people who have stuck to this divine constitution and destroy all those leftists and liberals. Best way to stop left wing agenda is to leave them alone and follow the principle of “everyone for himself”. Because when you throw stones on a pile of shit, it gets agitated and spreads everywhere. Just walk away from them. These hypocrites will pay by the law of Karma (not the buddhist one, the hindu one).

18. About the Satanism = Tibetan Lamaism = Sabateanism = Frankism = Black Judaism = Secret Societies Ideology = Marxism = World Tyranny I recommend these articles below. I believe that the first people in the west who started the “label deception” were the Sabbateans in 1666 when Zevi converted to Islam and became a “jewish” hero. The Talmud is about 1500 years old and already at that time held the key subversion concept of master class and slave class(every jews will get 2 800 slaves at end of time acc. to Talmud) which all secret societies copied. Study the Talmud and you will be shocked.
    So whoever labels himself as anything(Muslim, Christian, Jew, Atheist, Anarchist, Conservative, Liberal etc) today, it doesnt carry much weight to me since there are many charlatans parading in all kinds of sects and political parties. People´s actions are a more proper yardstick to judge them I reckon. Ie muslim warriors are just paid mercenaries who dont know anything about religion I believe. This is a main subversion trick today to create wrong impressions of groups of people, ie the muslim group and others.
    About Karl Marx he came from a long line of Rabbis and if you ask me its obvious that he belonged to the Frankist sect since his poems reveal his Frankist satanist thoughts of world dominion and satanism plus that his Rabbi father was a “Christian convert” in line with Zevi above – only Frankist jews would convert in order to subvert other cultures and countries by changing their label of religion while secretly practicing their black stuff. Moses Hess his colleague was nicknamed the “Communist Rabbi” who “created ravages” as he himself said. Engels was recruited by Hess and said about Marx:
    “Who is chasing wild endeavor? A black man(satanist?!) from Trier
    [Marx’s birthplace], a remarkable monster. He does not walk
    or run, he jumps on his heels and rages full of anger as if he
    would like to catch the wide tent of the sky and throw it to
    the earth. He stretches his arms far away in the air; the
    wicked fist is clenched, he rages without ceasing, as if ten
    thousand devils had caught him by the hair.”
    http://expandourmind.com/2016/08/29/tibet-hidden-history-rulers-world/
    http://expandourmind.com/2016/11/10/top-secret-judaism-exposed-2016-11-10/
    http://expandourmind.com/2016/11/11/top-secret-judaism-exposed-part-ii-2016-11-11/
    http://expandourmind.com/2016/11/12/top-secret-judaism-exposed-part-iii-2016-11-12/

    1. Karl Marx was also Rothschilds’ third cousin and their agent.

19. great work, just amazing, so proud of you guys. seriously… I emailed one of your editors a few years back and he was so nice… ROK FTW legalize everything! back to Natural Law! down with false religion Church of Entropy FOREVER!

20. First part of th article: great. Second part, somewhat a little weak. marxism ‘deserve’ a further dig to be well understood.
    (And by understanding, i mean, to be analised, to see how its inner mechanism woks and spread, NOT how to follow it at a political doctrine)
    Because, if it’s great to see some of the roots of this ‘doctrine’, it would be interesting to demonstrate how it has applied, and still applie.
    By the way,, in the roots, you miss Frankism, wich subversion of values and practice of hidden subversion had a great impact on further structures… (core of SJWism)

    1. I guess the problem is space to explain all the parts and you are right. For Frankism and its Sabbatean roots please check: http://expandourmind.com/2016/11/11/top-secret-judaism-exposed-part-ii-2016-11-11/

       1. That deserve an article. Those fuckers are two little known by the general public.

          1. You are right, perhaps there will be something later. Its a big topic though but they show the roots of charlatans in all religions and politics as well as proxy soldiers. Problem is that ,most people believe in what other people say more than they look at what people do.

21. Marx was right about one thing though:
    “The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner not only by gaining financial power, but because through him and without him money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The self-emancipation of the Jews has gone so far that the Christians have become Jews. Yes, the practical dominion of Judaism over the Christian world has reached its normal, unambiguous expression in North America.”

    1. Was that excerpt originally written by Marx? It sounds and reads eerily similar to another piece submitted for an article to the New Yorker magazine in 1928 by a Jew named Sir Marcus Eli Ravage. Titled ‘A Real Case Against the Jews/Commissary to the Gentiles’, it was once a widely read piece and is a bit lengthy, but if you haven’t read it, then chew on it for awhile. He delivers proclomations of jewish power and influence that sound like (Marx’s) piece.
       https://heathenwomen.com/2016/08/23/a-real-case-against-the-jewscommissary-to-the-gentiles/

22. https://quartermainsquarter.blogspot.com/2017/01/out-of-curiousity.html

23. Western countries have too much freedom. People are out of control, because they can do whatever they want, even if it damages the norms and values of a society.
    All the ancient civilizations had strict rules on how to live, behave and conduct business with each other. That was the only way to build an empire. They called America the land of the free, but it wasn’t free at all, because society had strict rules.
    Nowadays they call freedom progressive and strictness backwards, but you see what happens when you let people ‘free’. The dumb and aggressive ones become the dominant group in society and will eventually cause degeneration. Probably because intelligent people are naturally less aggressive and don’t feel the need to be an attention whore and thus will be dominated by the dumb and aggressive ones.
    It happened so many times in history. Primitive Arab nomads who brought down the Persian Empire, Germanic nomads who brought down the Roman Empire, Turkic nomads who brought down the Byzantine Empire. They didn’t get power by being intelligent, but by being aggressive and brutal.

    1. And the lower castes bringing the Indian empire down now!

24. Bitch….I was just talking about poor widows versus rich Pharisees. And you reply with this. *face palm*

Comments are closed.