News Ticker

Portrait of Evil: Karl Marx, a Disciple of Hell on Earth

Karl Marx Monument in Chemnitz, in eastern Germany. PHOTO: The Conversation/AP/Jens Meyer
In May 2018, the German postal service released a postage stamp to commemorate the 200th birthday of Karl Marx. PHOTO: Dezeen.com

Just like Jeremy Bentham, who we discussed yesterday, Karl Marx (1818 -1883) was yet another promoted, made man and lifetime actor. Like Bentham, there is no other way to analyze him other than personality, actions and personal life history, which appears Sabbatean and/or Luciferian.

The Marx persona was convoluted, twisted and chameleon-like, as if someone wrote a script and tried to bury any aspects that didn’t fit the contrived narrative. Incredibly, Marx is held in relatively high esteem around the world. Why?

His ideological socialist rival, Mikhail Bakunin, got the big picture about Marx in spades. Once again, we see the familiar pattern of an elite group putting forth pseudo-philosophies designed to enslave the general population so that they can be lorded over and looted by what some call “oligarchs.” We call them “kleptocrats” or the Crime Syndicate.


‘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 centralization 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.’
Profession of faith of a Russian socialist democrat preceded by a study on German Jews (Letter to Le Réveil, Paris, 1869 )


Before his death in 1876,  Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin sounded the alarm far and wide about a plutocratic bankster capture of the revolutionary movement.

The 1872 Hague Congress was dominated by a struggle between Marx and his followers, who argued for the use of the state to bring about socialism; and the Bakunin faction, which argued instead for the replacement of the state by federations of self-governing workplaces and communes. Bakunin was expelled and smeared as an “anarchist” to this day. In stark contrast to Marx, those who met and knew Bakunin separate from the political realm had the nicest things to say about him.

So Marx’s role was to use workers as “useful idiots” and blind tools, which they hoped to be able to manipulate. To carry on with their conspiracy in the name of the working class, they had to cultivate and shape all sorts of communist and socialist utopias. Marx hoped to exploit the jealousy of the stupid proletariat to enforce a hell on earth in which fear, suffering, terror and treason ruled supreme.

From the beginning, the Marx myth was steeped in obfuscation. His father, Hirschel ha-Levi Marx — justice on the Supreme Court and linked to the Rothschilds — had opportunistically converted to Christianity in 1816. What a coinkydink given that Hirschel’s father was a famous chief rabbi in Cologne. His father-in-law was also a rabbi.

On May 5, 1818, in the German town of Trier, Marx was born. Despite being an alleged Christian, he was given the Mosaic name Moses Mordecai Levi Marx. Karl was used as a cover name for his Christian persona. He was not baptized until age 6. Feel free to debunk it, but there is a claim that he was London-based Lionel Nathan Rothschild’s third cousin.

Then, by sheer coinkydink, young Marx went to a Jesuit school at the same time he went to a Talmudic school, where he learned that Jews must rule the world. Bernard Lazar [Lazana] (1865-1903), a well-known functionary and publicist within Judaism, confirmed that Marx had been affected by Talmudism.

Little is known of Marx’s childhood but, in college, his sullen sociopathic-side came through. The death of his father in May 1838 may have affected him and made him bitter, as his income from the family evaporated.

Marx became an atheist and took to poetry that expressed apocalyptic hate for humanity. Forty poems and the verse-drama “Oulanem” written by Marx have been found to date. In his little ditty “Der Spiel-mann” (“The Fiddler”), he admitted:

That art God neither wants nor wists,
It leaps to the brain from Hell’s black mists.
Till heart’s bewitched,
till senses reel:
With Satan I have struck my deal.

In another poem, Marx promised to lure mankind with him into hell in the company of Satan. 

In “Human Pride” [published in “World Revolution” by Nesta Webster, p. 167], Marx told us what he really thought and reveals himself a true psycho. Like Bentham and ilk, nobody seemed to give a hoot about the core of these monsters.

With disdain I will throw my gauntlet
Full in the face of the world,
And see the collapse of this pygmy giant
Whose fall will not stifle my ardor.
Then I will be able to walk triumphantly
Like a god, through the ruins of their kingdom.
Every word of mine is fire and action.
My breast is equal to that of the Creator.

Marx made this typical bombastic statement on April 14, 1856: “History is the judge, the proletariat its executioner.”

He found great pleasure in talking about terror and about houses marked with red crosses, which indicated the inhabitants were to be killed.

These words are reminiscent of Sabbeaten Jakob Frank’s expressions. It shows that Marx was likely affected by Frankism. Marx’s father had come into contact with Frankism and had also instructed his children in this ideology. Trier is a short distance from the Frankist center near Frankfurt.

At age 24, Marx the “Christian” worked for and became influenced by Rabbi Moses Hess, a rancorous firebrand. Hess introduced Marx to half-Jew Frederick Engels. Hess stressed the need to agitate the social classes against each other and, in this way, hinder their co-operation. He wanted to bring about a socialist revolution with the help of Judaism, racism and the class struggle. He stressed that socialism was inseparably bound to internationalism, as the socialists have no fatherland. The true socialist cannot have anything to do with his nationality. He also declared: “This does not apply to Jews!”

Internationalism served the interests of Judaism. He stressed that the Jews had been given the role of changing mankind into a savage animal, as described in his article “About the Monetary System” [“Rheinische Jahrbucher” Vol. 1, 1845].

Marx himself just blandly (always typical of his tone) and openly admitted to the scheme: “Behind every tyrant there is always a Jew.”

In November 1847, he reorganized a band of revolutionaries, called The League of Just Men, into the Communist Party. Together with Engels, Marx reorganized (Soviet term) the league before the end of the year. Hess, Marx, Engels, Wilhelm Weitling, Hermann Kriege, Joseph Weydemeyer, and Ernst and Ferdinand Wolf played important roles. This occurred just ahead of the 1848 revolutions throughout Europe, which will be the subject of a future post.

Then, Marx and Engels are alleged to have made some contrived split with Hess; but later, Marx and Engels stated quite openly that many of Hess’ ideas deserved wide recognition.

“The Communist Manifesto” published in London was probably largely ghost-written. It was a hodgepodge of previous thinking. Marx only further developed the ideas of Illuminist leaders Adam Weishaupt and Clinton Roosevelt. He cut and pasted the words of utopian communist and Illuminati Francois Noel Babeuf (1760-1797) to show the way to the socialist (Illuminist) revolution. For the record, I now believe the Illuminists were defacto Sabbeatean Frankists. Although the term Illuminati is useful, it’s a bit of a deflection.

In the manifesto, Marx drew from his anti-social college fantasies:

“The ruling classes shall tremble before the coming Communist Revolution!”

“We can only reach our goals by violently overthrowing the entire established order.”

“We are merciless and do not demand any clemency. When it is our turn, we will not hide our terrorism.”

[“Karl Marx: Eine Psycho-graphie” by Arnold Kunzli, Vienna, 1966]

In “Das Kapital” (1867), Marx argued it’s absolutely necessary to stress the need of violence in socialist actions.

He wrote: “Violence is the midwife who helps a new society struggle out from the womb of the old.”

What the spirit of Marx really wanted was to treat their subjects with such violence that they eventually lost all feelings of mercy and humanity toward their fellows. The Marxists also took all the proceeds of workers’ produce by paying them too little or nothing at all for their work. In this manner, the Marxists developed modern slavery, which is something Bentham could only fantasize about.

The extinction of all-profound cultural values and creations was front and center. Marx’s “doctrine” only concerned the way physical work creates value. In contrast, he did not acknowledge creative thought. It differed from Hegel, who had thought in idealist terms, putting ideas in the forefront; whereas Marx sought to rewrite dialectics in materialist terms, arguing for the primacy of matter over idea.

Certain judges of Marxism try to claim that those who can interpret the doctrine correctly have not yet reached power. How is it that only Marxists who interpreted the doctrine wrongly came into power? Sheer coinkydink? There was certainly no way Marx had actually intended his “teachings” to work.

His college poem fantasies had come to fruition: “Lure mankind with him into hell in the company of Satan.”

According to the most famous myth, Marx had no money and was economically dependent on his “friend” Engels. In reality, Nathan Rothschild financed him.

Bakunin, in his “Polemique contre les Juifs” (“Polemic Against the Jews”), again set the matter straight, stating that Marx and his crew “had one foot in the bank and the other foot in the socialist movement.”

Marx craved the finest foods and French wine, among other things, all of which were imported for his family meals. His family had a weakness for expensive habits.

Marx’s uncontrolled drinking and his wild and expensive orgies only increased his fury at his environment. All the meetings in Paris had to be held behind closed doors and windows, so that Marx’s roaring was not heard out in the street.

Then there’s Engels own comments on Marx:

“Who is chasing with wild endeavor? A black man from Trier, a remarkable monster. He does not walk or run, he jumps on his heels and rages full of anger…”

“He was livid with hatred, as if 10,000 devils had caught him by the hair”.

A famous Jewish socialist, Freemason and comrade of Marx, Giuseppe Mazzini, who had known Marx well, wrote this about him: “His heart bursts rather with hatred than with love toward men,” and added Marx was “a destructive spirit.”

He had a habit of warning: “I will annihilate you!”


Fritz Joachim Raddatz, in “Karl Marx: Eine Politische Biographie,” Hamburg, 1975:

Marx was an unreliable egoist and a lying intriguer who only wished to exploit others, according to his assistant, Karl Heinzen [Karl Heinzen, “Erlebtes,” Boston, 1864]. Heinzen also thought that Marx had small, nasty eyes “which spat flames of evil fire”.

Marx was not interested in democracy. The editorial staff of Neue Rheinische Zeitung was, according to Engels, organized so that Marx became its dictator.

He could not take criticism. He always became infuriated if anyone tried to criticise him. In 1874, when Dr. Ludwig Kugelmann merely hinted that if Marx would organize his life a little better he might finish “Das Kapital”, Marx would have nothing more to do with Kugelmann and slandered him ruthlessly.

Marx collected information about his political rivals and opponents. He delivered the notes he made to the police, believing it to be of advantage to him.

Karl Marx condemned exploitation of people. He himself exploited everyone near him. He fought all those he could not subdue. Even as a child, he had been a real tyrant. To work was what Marx wanted least of all. He speculated heavily on the stock market, however, constantly losing huge amounts of money. Neither did he show any consideration for the work of others. Many craftsmen he hired had to wait a long time for their pay. His housekeeper, Helen Demuth, worked like a slave in his household for 40 years without any cash pay whatsoever.

In further reference to Marx’s housekeeper Helen Demuth, it can be said that on June 23, 1851, she gave birth to a baby boy whose father’s name was Karl Marx. The father wanted to know nothing about Henry Frederick Demuth, however, so the boy was given up to a foster home. The case of the disowned son later became an embarrassment for the Bolshevik leaders in Moscow, so Joseph Stalin classified as secret those letters between Marx and Engels, where this affair is too apparent. (Viikkolehti, 11th of January 1992.)

Marx supported slavery in the United States of America. Like his brother Sabattean Illuminati  Albert Pike, he vented his racist opinions against blacks. Racism and anti-semitic canards were used by Marx as a gimmick of control and intimidation.

Marx preached about a better society but did not care about any morals. Nor did he care about cleanliness. This had a bad effect on both his health and his contacts with other revolutionaries. He suffered from boils for 25 years.

In 1873 these boils caused him a nervous breakdown leading to tremors and violent fits of rage. He never ate fruit or vegetables. Protracted insomnia was a consequence, and Marx used narcotics and became addicted. He liked wine and liqueurs and smoked an enormous amount of cigars.


11 Comments on Portrait of Evil: Karl Marx, a Disciple of Hell on Earth

  1. If Marx supported slavery as you say, he had a funny way of showing it. He corresponded with Abe Lincoln on several occasions, offering his support to crush those rebels and abolish states rights forever (which he correctly saw as an impediment to his worldly goals)!

    • It is not me claiming it. Engels put their apology for slavery thusly. Keep in mind there is also defacto slavery- which is more about controls than actual ownership. Slavery has a much broader meaning than just slaves in the Old South. There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined. Marx was primarily interested in slaves as capital and who controlled them- which would be Marx and his ilk.

      That’s why the Benthams, Marxs and Huxleys are always going off about ant-hills, gulags, and Panopticons. Marx may not have openly supported it, but he enabled it and it was put into practice by the Bolsheviks.

      Engels:
      “Slavery had been invented. It soon became the dominant form of production among all peoples who were developing beyond the old community, but in the end was also one of the chief causes of their decay. It was slavery that first made possible the division of labour between agriculture and industry on a larger scale, and thereby also Hellenism, the flowering of the ancient world. Without slavery, no Greek state, no Greek art and science, without slavery, no Roman Empire. But without the basis laid by Hellenism and the Roman Empire, also no modern Europe. We should never forget that our whole economic, political and intellectual development presupposes a state of things in which slavery was as necessary as it was universally recognised. In this sense we are entitled to say: Without the slavery of antiquity no modern socialism.

      “It is very easy to inveigh against slavery and similar things in general terms, and to give vent to high moral indignation at such infamies. Unfortunately all that this conveys is only what everyone knows, namely, that these institutions of antiquity are no longer in accord with our present conditions and our sentiments, which these conditions determine.

      But it does not tell us one word as to how these institutions arose, why they existed, and what role they played in history. And when we examine these questions, we are compelled to say—however contradictory and heretical it may sound—that the introduction of slavery under the conditions prevailing at that time was a great step forward.

      For it is a fact that man sprang from the beasts, and had consequently to use barbaric and almost bestial means to extricate himself from barbarism. Where the ancient communities have continued to exist, they have for thousands of years formed the basis of the cruellest form of state, Oriental despotism, from India to Russia. It was only where these communities dissolved that the peoples made progress of themselves, and their next economic advance consisted in the increase and development of production by means of slave labour. It is clear that so long as human labour was still so little productive that it provided but a small surplus over and above the necessary means of subsistence, any increase of the productive forces, extension of trade, development of the state and of law, or foundation of art and science, was possible only by means of a greater division of labour. And the necessary basis for this was the great division of labour between the masses discharging simple manual labour and the few privileged persons directing labour, conducting trade and public affairs, and, at a later stage, occupying themselves with art and science.

      The simplest and most natural form of this division of labour was in fact slavery. In the historical conditions of the ancient world, and particularly of Greece, the advance to a society based on class antagonisms could be accomplished only in the form of slavery. This was an advance even for the slaves; the prisoners of war, from whom the mass of the slaves was recruited, now at least saved their lives, instead of being killed as they had been before, or even roasted, as at a still earlier period.”

    • @ Pale Rider1861
      Marx, along with his BFF Abe Lincoln were cut from the same cloth. It was never about freeing the slaves with Lincoln, it was about establishing a strong central government in America which some day would model Marx’s socialist utopia. I know it’s a hard pill for Lincoln lovers to swallow, but Marx and Lincoln held many of the same views. Why do you think many of the communist who fought and lost the 1848 communist revolution in Europe ended up as general’s in Lincoln’s union army?
      https://www.menofthewest.net/republican-party-red-start/

    • Keep in mind that geneologies of usual suspects are constantly scrubbed and details omitted. We also have the common crypto strategy during this era. Miles Mathis on this referring to Engels:

      They do however scrub his genealogy, perhaps even better than Marx. His parents are not listed in his common biography. They claim he was Protestant, of course, but with some digging, I discovered his maternal great-grandmother was an Altmann, which may be Jewish. His other great-grandmother on that side was named Scholten, which is also probably Jewish. See Rudolf Scholten, who is currently on the Board of Kontrollbank, Austria, and the steering committee of Bilderberg (the steering committee also includes an Altman!).

      Engel’s maternal side is defnitely not German, being Dutch or Jewish from his mother back. On his father’s side we fnd a Steinbach as his great-grandmother, and a Hagbaum as his g-g-grandmother. The first may be Jewish, but the second is even more likely. Another g-g-grandmother was née Vogt, which also may be Jewish. Also an Erkenswick, which doesn’t sound Jewish but which brought up some links to current Jewish people on a websearch. The same can be said for the surname Roeland or Roland, which doesn’t sound Jewish (to me) but which brought up links to Jewish people on a websearch, including a rabbi.

      But honestly, the strongest evidence in my mind is his collaboration with Marx.Everyone else involved on the ground foor of this project was Jewish, so the probability is already very high Engels was, too. It was a Jewish project, so we would expect all major players to be Jewish. It is remotely possible Engels was involved because his family came from bankers and merchants, and not Jews. But since logic dictates that if you need to make an assumption, you assume the most likely thing, is that Engels was Jewish. Given what we have learned in previous research, that shouldn’t have to be proved, it should have to be disproved. His genealogy listed online is very far from disproving it.
      http://mileswmathis.com/engels.pdf

  2. If anyone’s interested in reading the Epoch Times’ new book “How the Specter of Communism is Ruling Our World” by the same folks behind the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party, then here’s the link: https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-the-specter-of-communism-is-ruling-our-world-list-of-chapters_2658181.html

    Even though Chapters Three and Eleven have blackwashes of National Socialist Germany, and Chapter Fifteen seems to be pro-Israel, the book exposes Communist aims and means nonetheless, so people can identify them and thus distance themselves from them.

  3. Great piece. Add to this the history of the last 140 years of the wealthy contributions to marxist efforts. Rothschild funding the Paris Commune, Armand Hammer funding communists, Wall Street and the Bolsheviks. etc etc etc

Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this: