Review of Jewish interest Friedrich Engels: Communist Manifesto—Introduction by A J P Taylor. Publisher: Penguin Books
Taylor intentionally missed almost everything...., June 26, 2010. I've added some other short extracts 30 Sept 2020. And interpretation from Miles Mathis, 12 Feb 2021. Revised 8 November 2023
I wrote this before reading Miles Mathis. Here he is on Miles Mathis on Marx. Mathis attributes the entire scheme to "spooks", perhaps to include aristocratic hangers on of Jews; this seems unconvincing to me—I doubt there were enough members of intelligence' groups. Marx was part of the hugely wealthy and hugely hypocritical 'Chosen People' group. His motive was to wreck genuine republicanism. With future options on ruining democracy and ruining socialism. The technique was to lead the opposition with funds—consider the British (((Labor Party))) as just one example. One method was to add a whole lot of technical-sounding nonsense, as Einstein and Freud and Chomsky did later.
Marx was not original: talking with Engels and other Jews, arranging things secretly, counting money, and plagiarism takes a lot of work. So he took 'dialectical materialism' from Hegel, and some amateur economics from such people as Ricardo. Yes. And of course Marx said nothing about Jews and money. Taylor makes fun of the 'spectre of Communism', but does not discuss the spectre of Jews. Penguin books was one of the chief Jewish propagandists around the time of the Second World War.
RW 12 Feb 2021 & 8 Nov 3023
This war is virtually always seen as Germany vs Russia, with other countries involved. But this ignores the part played by Jews and their allies, such as Freemasons. Consider another belligerent, namely Jews, worldwide, arranging politicians, propaganda, military materiel and plans, co-operating in the utmost secrecy. Using money to but propaganda, arms, and such people as Churchill. Understand this, and you'll understand the War, and the 'Great War'.
How Jews Won WW2 is my overview. For information on puzzling events of the Second World War, read some the files in Hexzane527 on WW2.
RW 12 Feb 2021
I Taylor's summary of Marx is on these lines:--
*** [1] Philosophers were puzzled by change. Hegel made this the basis of his system; ideas clashed, to produce the synthesis. He was fumbling towards the idea of evolution, but had to have an external moving force; in his case, the dialectic. However, progress—for 19th century thinkers were both self-confident and optimistic—would not continue forever, but would terminate in the Ideal.—viz. Prussia. Marx, who was a radical before he was a philosopher, accepted all this, except that he made the conflict in the actual world. In other words, dialectical materialism, ending inevitably in Utopia. This gave him the pattern for change, but not its practical expression or driving force.
*** [2] Marx's radical journalism made him an exile, in Paris. "Although it was half a century since the French Revolution, all French politics centred on it. ... nearly all the modern world stems from it, though the debt is now less acknowledged." Marx accepted the idea from Blanqui of a short, sharp revolution—like the French Revolution, with its 'days'—in spite of its un-Hegelian form. French analyses were 'class in the crudest form.' The Jacobins had lost; so now they were dismissed as petit-bourgeois, and the poor, renamed 'the proletariat', might do better. Another approach concerned the vote: the bourgeois 'appeared to have become rich through acquiring political power,' so universal franchise was the frequent call. However Marx thought property determined power—'characteristic of a legally trained mind in an orderly age. Of course property determines power if the rights of property are respected...'
*** [3] Marx still needed a driving-force; the Ideal of revolution wouldn't do. Engels, whose 'Condition of the English Working Class' was published in 1844, provided this—the search for wealth, which every economist stressed, generalised from the Lancashire cotton industry, then at the level 'say, of present-day India'.
*** [4] The subsequent story—Marx's followers and meetings, Engels' 'catechism' on communism, the composition of the manifesto with historical asides and corrections includes the printing history, literary style, selection of title, effects of 1848, summary of all four parts of the pamphlet and prefaces from 1872-1893 originally in German, Russian, English, Polish, and Italian. It's often said the manifesto is a powerful work; in fact there's a lot of dull material: absurd history ('history.. is the history of class struggles'), very limited technology finance and technology, attacks on other writers, and so on. Quite a bit of Marx, for example the Labour Theory of Value, isn't in the Manifesto, or not that I could detect.
What Taylor missed out:--
*** [5] The entire movement of science and invention is missing. Raw materials and resources were needed, and were used in increasing amounts; suppose they hadn't existed? Marx had no scientific background. He simply assumes things will expand. Taylor, being a historian, has minimal feel for this either.
*** [6] The division between developed and 'third world' economies is completely missing. Marx just assumed Europe was superior. Of course population issues don't arise with this outlook.
*** [7] The class analysis is absurdly minimal and crude. Modern societies have immense numbers of intersecting sets of people: lawyers want to maximise their gains, militarists want to expand, and the branches of the military ditto. Directors, owners, boards, financiers, shareholders, customers, unions all have different interests. Entire countries have different objectives. Civil servants form their own small groups, with their own interests. Taylor has no way to even begin tackling this.
*** [8] The whole Jewish aspect is omitted: Taylor should have known the USSR was a Jewish phenomenon; it's simply inexcusable to omit such a significant part of the puzzle.
*** [9] Taylor thinks peasant societies are the places for revolutions—because of Russia and China and possibly Vietnam. He doesn't realise that in these cases, these countries had external interference.
Whatever one's views on the Manifesto, Taylor's comments are woefully inadequate.
II Some notes on Taylor, from my review of his Origins of the Second World War a book now (2020) identifiable as a post-WW2 celebration of Jewish victory, concealing all the disgusting acts of Jews worldwide.
Taylor was born in 1906, in odd circumstances, in Southport, Lancashire. Southport is a coastal town, more or less midway between Manchester to its north and Liverpool to its south, both important to the cotton industry. The Manchester Ship Canal was finished in 1893, so probably Southport, which in fact does not have much of a port, must have been somewhat isolated; it specialised in golf and holidays and Lord Street, where the cast-iron overhead shelter influenced Napoleon III and Paris.
Online biographies of Taylor state 'His wealthy parents held strongly left-wing views, which he inherited. His parents were both pacifists who vocally opposed the First World War, and sent their son to Quaker schools as a way of protesting against the war.' His mother had at least one lover, Henry Sara 'a founding member of the Communist Party of Great Britain'. Nothing much is said about Taylor's (putative?) father. All this is consistent with his parents, or real parents, being Jewish—note for example the code words 'pacifist', 'left-wing', 'Communist', and the non-Christian school; and his accent wasn't Lancashire or Yorkshire. Family money seems to have allowed Taylor to hang around Oxford without a position. Later, Pribram and Namier, both Jewish historians, 'mentored' him. Even his biography is by a Jew (Sisman; there's another by K Burk who may or may not be). Without putting huge emphasis on all this, it is entirely consistent with Taylor's fierce anti-Germanism, and support for 'Russia', the Jewish-controlled USSR. Late in life he published a rather omissive introduction to an English translation of the Communist Manifesto—his introduction says nothing about divisions within states such as Jews exemplify; only class is considered. He was never as far as I can tell a technical Marxist—nobody intelligent can believe in the 'labour theory of value' or that 'all history is class war'. Taylor was a 'fellow traveller'—the 20th century fashion was to hush up such things.
Note that Jews have a special interest in topics such as law, history, sociology, religion, psychology, archaeology and anthropology, since they feel impulses to get in there and change things, which Americans, Britons, Germans, et al simply don't feel. All these theoretical and academic subjects have been penetrated by Jews in ways complementary to more practical activities such as Freemasonry, financial frauds and so on.
III Modern Catholic source says: “All the goods on Earth were placed here by God FOR THE USE OF ALL.” By implication - the high living of Whites is due to stealing from God. So if someone makes a chair, it belongs to society and not to the maker. Christianity is in symbiosis with Jews and shares a common parasitism.
IV The 'Communist Manifesto' was plagiarised from Victor Considerant of France. Various additions to 'Marxism' were made later: Lenin liked Hobson's book on 'Imperialism', which placed little blame on Jews and therefore suited Lenin's purpose; more recently, Jews in the USA have pretended to write 'Marxist' critiques of US wars and war crimes. All of this has two functions: (1) To hide the true role of Jews as much as possible; in particular, Jewish control of banks; (2) To find allies and useful idiots among the goyim host populations, either by promising them future riches, or in some cases paying them.
V From A H Lane's The Alien Menace
The Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels in 1847.
This Manifesto is the basis of the so called “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” in Russia to-day. These two promoters of the World Revolution concentrated upon this country [Britain] because they believed that the British Empire was the greatest obstacle to world revolution, and that their conspiracy could only succeed if and when the Empire was destroyed. This was admitted by Karl Marx, and the plan of attack was outlined in a message he sent to a meeting at Geneva in 1870 of the First International.
This message declared that:,—
2. The English people cannot make this revolution.
3. Foreigners must make it for them.
4. The foreign members, therefore, must retain their seats at the London board.
5. The point to strike at first is Ireland, and in Ireland they are ready to begin their work.
VI Some of the best writing and information on Jews and 'Communism' as their Jewish plot, with 'intelligence' co-operation, is by Miles Mathis. (But Miles Mathis seems to me to underestimate allies such as churches (who wanted tithes and careers) and Freemasons (who wanted financial assistance).)
marx.pdf Real history of Marx
jenny.pdf Marx's wife
engels.pdf Engels
lenin.pdf 'Lenin': some real history
stalin.pdf 'Stalin' after a century of lies
nab.pdf 'Russian' Revolution
putsch.pdf Rosa Luxemburg
This collection © Rae West. Uploaded 30 Sept 2020. This version 8 Nov 2023