Letters from Vienna #81
Dear Darwin,
There’s always the temptation to look for a “saviour”, a “benign hero/heroine”, a “strong man or woman”, a “father or mother figure” etc. who “fights for good” or “who’s going to protect us” or “who looks out for our interests” or “who’s going to save us from the bad guys” etc. Some saw Marx or Lenin to be such a figure, others believed Mussolini or Hitler to be the one, the list goes on and on.
All “authority figures” whether “philosophers”, “artists”, “intellectuals”, politicians or ideologues need to be treated with a great deal of caution. It’s never a good idea to idealise anyone. Above all else: there’s no need whatever to refer to any authority, philosophy, ideology or “grey theory” to support anything we think, say or do. We need simply be guided by what we see in the world (empirical evidence), basic ethics (love thy neighbour etc.) and core principles such as a love of truth or justice.
If there’s one thing the last two years have taught us it’s that the system of “checks and balances” has failed miserably. Right now, as you may guess: I’m tending toward “Libertarianism”.[1]
Paolo Sarpi
When dealing with philosophical matters of course, as you’ve doubtlessly noticed, I tend to prefer Wittgenstein or Popper yet can’t help think Paolo Sarpi wise when he opined: “There are four modes of philosophizing: the first with reason alone, the second with sense alone, the third with reason and then sense, and the fourth beginning with sense and ending with reason. The first is the worst, because from it we know what we would like to be, not what is. The third is bad because we many times distort what is into what we would like, rather than adjusting what we would like to what is. The second is true but crude, permitting us to know little and that rather of things than of their causes. The fourth is the best we can have in this miserable life.”[2]
As to Marx, Paul Johnson is being generous when he states: “What did any of this (Marx’s writings) have to do with the politics and economics of the real world? Nothing whatever. Just as the origin of Marx’s philosophy lay in a poetic vision, so its elaboration was an exercise in academic jargonizing.”[3]
You write:
“The UN is blatantly anti-Marxist, pro-business, pro-capitalism, pro-fascism, and pro-plutocracy. Let’s take a look at two core Marxian principles, principles I can see no plutocrat capitalist risking. EVER:
1) giving the means of production to workers, and
2) abolition of class.
How these two Marxian principles (Marxism is a bit different) would delight the ruling class I cannot imagine.”
As I pointed out in my previous letter: the Marxists NEVER gave the means of production to the workers nor did they ever “abolish” class.
As I said before: workers can take control of the means of production without the need of Marxism (as a form of practical anarchism if you will). In fact: Marxism has ALWAYS been more of a hindrance than a help.
You continue: “There’s no Hegelian antithesis here when you lose class and economic advantage. Are the trillionaire Rothschilds, Royals, or Rockefellers Marxists? Gates? Soros? Bezos? Absolutely not. Even if one imagines they are somehow treacherous supporters of Marxism because it serves a Hegelian purpose--which is nothing more than questionable conjecture despite passionate arguments to the contrary--THEY STILL ARE NOT MARXISTS.””
Why did the Establishment create and support Marxism?
The question remains: why did the Establishment create and support Marxism and why does it continue to do so? If one understands Marxism as a form of materialism, as a form of slavery, as a form of a “war on God”, as an “opium of the people”, which is designed to mislead and manipulate psychologically to gain a certain end (the destruction of the Old World, creation of the New (Techno Feudalism)) as well as the introduction of Satanism, then a plausible argument can be made. After all, what does Klaus Schwab say? “You will own nothing and be happy”? Is that not Marxist to the very core?
“Is there anything about the WEF, the ruling class, The Great Reset, the WHO, IMF, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, etc. that is Marxist? No.”
“You will own nothing and be happy”. The Establishment is seeking to abolish private property for the 99.99%. Only the “top” of the pyramid (the 0.01%) will own anything (and everything!). And all this is being done in the name of social justice and “Climate Change”!
This is what we have been observing for two years: money is being funnelled by the state to a tiny minority “at the top”. Very shortly: we’ll indeed own nothing; perhaps we already do!
“Even central banking, which is very different if people run it instead of international bankers, is in no way uniquely Marxian. What these WEFfian plutocratic policies are is FASCIST. You might even argue they are feudalistic. In either case, both fascism and feudalism are on the opposite ends of the economic spectrum.”
Yes, but when have “ordinary people” ever run banks? The WEF is profoundly fascist and feudalistic but I must insist that it was the Establishment (the Global Deep State) which created it; it didn’t just appear out of “thin air”.
“If we repeat this mistake, we are helping Patrick Wood and myriad conservatives install a fascist global regime. Why? Because billions of poor look to Marxism as the answer. Calling fascism “Marxism” will get them to support it. Definitions matter.”
I’m not sure why you take such a dim view of Patrick Wood or seriously believe he wishes to “install a fascist global regime” but that’s neither here nor there. The Establishment wants that “billions of poor to look to Marxism as the answer”. It wants people to have false hopes and to take the wrong path (the one which will leave it all the power).
Yes, agreed: “Definitions matter”. At the same time a consciousness of historical, philosophical, cultural and financial reality is also needed. The question remains: why was Marxism created? What purpose did (does) it serve?
“Again, communism precedes Marx by thousands of years. Socialism too precedes Marx. Most tribal societies are socialist societies. Christ appears to be a socialist.
Many socialists are from the bourgeoisie, especially socialist writers.”
Who sponsored the Fabian Socialists?
The key question is: who sponsored the Fabian Socialists? The banks. Why does the Establishment favour Socialism?[4] Because it guarantees and consolidates, by means of collectivisation and state control, the power at the very “top”.
The Deep State controls the state, which is why the Deep State always favours the extension of the powers of the state. This is what the experience of the last two years has shown beyond any shadow of doubt. This is why the corruption of the state (and of institutions such as the EU, the IMF, the UN) is the real problem we’re confronted with, not some academic debate about the merits or demerits of Marxism!
“Marx wrote 20 books. I’ve seen nothing but very hypothetical conjecture to suggest he was writing insincerely. 20 books is a lot to write for a hypothetical movement, one that would completely bankrupt the ruling class, take its factories, and remove its class privilege. There would be nothing like a guarantee it the movement would not spread and forever destroy them. That’s not a very smart antithesis and no, they wouldn’t have a clue as to how it would turn out. There would be far less destructive antitheses to choose and to offer the working class (e.g., American liberalism, so-called “social democracy”, etc.).”
From what I’ve researched, which sadly I have no time now to cite: Marx was a journalist working on behalf of the Establishment, more specifically: on behalf of the Illuminati. Of course: more research is needed but the fact that he was left in peace, lived in a nice part of town and was buried in Highgate of all places, which is pretty fancy, speaks volumes. One has to ask: Why did the Establishment “take this viper to its breast”? Why wasn’t he persecuted like Snowden or imprisoned like Assange? Why was he left to develop his sedition?
But I must break off for now (I have too much to do!) and will continue at a later date…
All the best,
Michael
[2] Scritti filosofici e teologici, Bari: Laterza, 1951, Pensiero 146
[3] p.57, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky, Paul Johnson