David McLellan’s book on Karl Marx is considered the standard biography. The first edition came out already in 1972 and several new editions have been published since.
The strange thing about the book is that it does not include any information of Karl Marx’s grandmother Nanette, who was the first cousin-in-law of Nathan Rothschild, the richest man in the world and the leader of the Rothschilds. McClellan simply refuses to notice the connections between Karl Marx and the Rothschilds.
ARTICLE
Another strange thing about McLellan’s Marx biography is that it never speculates whether Marx was a police agent. Apparently that would have been too politically incorrect. McClellan does not even tell us that Marx’s brother-in-law was the Prussian spy chief.
In public life the situation was equally bad due to the policies of Count Ferdinand von Westphalen (1799-1876), who held the key position of minister of interior in the Manteuffel cabinet. Strangely enough, although he was the brother-in-law of Karl Marx, he was the chief confidant of the Kamarilla among the ministers. The orgnization of an intense spy appartus shadowing both friends and foes was his work. Even Prince William, heir to the throne came under surveillance after he had crticized Prussian policy during the Crimean War. (Hajo Holborn: A History of Modern Germany 1840-1945. p. 110. Emphasis added.)
Marx would have been the perfect spy. First, he was a Jew closely connected to the Rothschilds and their Jewish spy network through his mother’s family. Second, through his aristocratic wife, Jenny von Westphalen he was connected to the Prussian spy chief. Third, through his best friend, Friedrich Engels he was connected to the British.
The interests of Jews, Prussians and the British were largely aligned. All saw Russia as the main threat. All wanted to create a strong Prussia and even a united Germany that would be powerful enough to attack Russia. All wanted to have an agent that could neutralize communist revolutionaries. They found their man in Karl Marx.
Interestingly, McClellan biography does contain many clues about Marx’s career as a police agent even if McClellan tries to play them down. Here they are.
McClellan notes that before the year of revolutions, 1848 Karl Marx was in close cooperation with a known police spy.
At the same time Marx managed to secure ready access to a newspaper as a vehicle for his views. The Deutsche Briisseler Zeitung was published twice weekly from the beginning of 1847 by Adelbert von Bornstedt, who had previously edited Vorwiirts in Paris. Bornstedt had been a spy for both the Prussians and the Austrians in the 1830s and early 1840s, and many in Brussels suspected that he was continuing those activities. However, the paper took on an increasingly radical and anti-Prussian tone.
In April 1847 Wilhelm Wolff started contributing, and in September Marx began to write frequently – having come to an arrangement with Bornstedt that the paper would accept all contributions by himself and Engels. He complained bitterly to Herwegh of criticism of this step from Germans who ‘always have a thousand words of wisdom up their sleeves to prove why they should once again let an opportunity slip by. An opportunity for doing something is nothing but a source of embarrassment for them. (p. 126. Emphasis added.)
When the 1848 revolutions broke out the Belgian authorities accused him of arming the rebels. However, he and Jenny were only very briefly arrested and then allowed to move to Paris to help the rebels there! Why were they not jailed for the duration of the revolution? Was this just a show to make Marx famous?
News of the revolution in Paris reached Brussels on 26 February. … A mild demonstration on 28 February was broken up, Wilhelm Wolff was arrested and a list of foreigners to be deported was drawn up, with Marx’s name at the top. The Democratic Association had already demanded that the Government arm the workers, and sent a congratulatory Address to the provisional French Government.
Two weeks earlier Marx had inherited 6000 francs from his mother (probably as much as his total income for the three previous years) and the police suspected (there was no evidence) that he was using it to finance the revolutionary movement. They even went as far as asking the authorities in Trier to question Marx’s mother, who protested that the only reason she had for sending the money at that time was that ‘her son had long been asking her for money for his family and this was an advance on his inheritance’.
On 3 March Marx received an order, signed by the King, to leave Belgium within twenty-four hours. The same day he received from Paris a reply to his request for the cancellation of the previous expulsion order: (p. 173-4. Emphasis added.)
So it just happened that the invitation from France arrived on the just right moment. Furthermore, just when Marx and Jenny were leaving they were arrested but only for one day. Was this a plot to brief them of their agent duties and at the same time make them into martyrs of police brutality so that they could more easily lead the communist movement?
At one o’clock in the morning the over-zealous local police commissioner broke into the guest house and arrested Marx. (p. 174. Emphasis added.)
The press helped Marx and Jenny make a big noise about the supposedly inhuman conditions they had to endure. Jenny would outright lie that she was brutally treated. She would later keep on lying in her memoirs.
I hurried after him in terrible anxiety and went to influential men to find out what the matter was. I rushed from house to house in the dark. Suddenly I was seized by a guard, arrested and thrown into a dark prison. It was where beggars without a home, vagabonds and wretched fallen women were detained. I was thrust into a dark cell. As I entered, sobbing, an unhappy companion in misery offered to share her place with me: it was a hard plank bed. I lay down on it.
When morning broke … I was taken to the interrogating magistrate. After a two hours’ questioning, during which they got little out of me, I was led to a carriage by gendarmes and towards evening I got back to my three poor little children. (Jenny von Westphalen. Encyclopedia.com)
Surprisingly, even McClellan admits Jenny exaggerated and outright lied.
… account is not quite accurate here: according to the evidence of the concierge: ‘the prisoner having requested a separate room, he was going to take her there when there was a violent knocking at the door and as he had several doors to open, he temporarily shut Madame Marx in the common room where in fact there were three prostitutes. There were two further summons to the door and he only released Madame Marx when he had committed the prisoners which could have taken a maximum of a quarter of an hour.
He found the prisoner very sad, tried to console her and in order to dispel her fears, offered to put her in a room with two beds, which he did in fact do. He immediately made up one bed for her; the other was occupied by a woman arrested for assault and battery’ (quoted in L. Somerhausen, Humanisme agissant de Karl Marx, p. 241). In order to justify his actions the concierge pointed out that Jenny had given him a large tip on leaving. Jenny’s own account (Reminiscences, pp. 223 ff.) is fairly imaginative. Born’s version (Erinnerungen, pp. 83 ff.) outstrips even Jenny. (P. 202)
With his new fame Marx took part in the revolutionary activities in Paris. However, he was totally opposed to the creation of a German Legion that would give military support for the German revolutionaries.
Revolutionary enthusiasm was still strong in Paris, and Marx took an active part in the meetings of the Society of the Rights of Man, one of the largest of the 147 political clubs in existence in Paris in early 1848. .. Marx’s main activities, however, were naturally among the expatriate Germans, many of whom were quite carried away by revolutionary enthusiasm. Before Marx’s arrival the German Democratic Association had decided – as had the other main emigre groups – to form a German Legion. Recruits soon numbered several thousand and exercises were held on the Champ de Mars throughout March. The Provisional Government, by no means unwilling to see the departure of so many possible trouble-makers, placed barracks at the disposal of the Legion and granted them fifty centimes a day per man for the march to the frontier.
Following the tradition of 1789, the leaders of the Legion – Bornstedt, who was a member of the Communist League, and Herwegh, the poet – believed that a revolutionary war was inevitable after a successful revolution and this time proposed themselves to contribute the vanguard of liberating forces. Marx was utterly opposed to these adventures. (p. 196. Emphasis added.)
When the revolution spread in a few months to Germany Marx returned and established a newspaper, Neue Rheinische Zeitung. However, it did not support a communist revolution but a liberal one. Marx was again working for his masters.
Neue Rheinische Zeitung did not preach a socialist republic nor exclusively a workers’ one. The programme was universal suffrage, direct elections, the abolition of all feudal dues and charges, the establishment of a state banking system, and the admission of state responsibility for unemployment. Capitalism (even state capitalism), private property and class antagonism would still exist and, indeed, expand. The essence of the programme was the emancipation of the bourgeoisie with some concessions to workers and peasants.
This position implied a certain standing apart from the efforts of workers’ organisations for self-improvement, and lay behind Marx’s criticism of Gottschalk’s policies in Cologne and his lack of enthusiasm for Born’s success in Berlin in founding an all-German workers’ movement and various mutual-aid funds and co-operatives. Marx declared that, in this context, ‘the proletariat has not the right to isolate itself; however hard it may seem, it must reject anything that could separate it from its allies’.
This policy was so carefully carried out in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung that, with one exception and notwithstanding the declaration of Engels above, neither Marx nor Engels published anything during 1848 that dealt with the situation or interests of the working class as such. (p. 183. Emphasis added.)
Instead of a Communist Revolution Marx preached war against Russia, the enemy of Jews, British and Prussians.
The second plank in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung’s platform was a revolutionary war against Russia. On the model of the French offensive against feudal Germany after 1789, it seemed to Marx that only an attack on Russia could enable the revolution to survive. Russia was Germany’s most dangerous enemy who, as the backbone of the Holy Alliance, would eventually crush any revolutionary movement unless crushed by it. Such a war would also achieve the otherwise impossible task of uniting Germany’s democratic forces. (p. 184-5. Emphasis added.)
Marx was serving his masters so well that he was not arrested.
The second Congress of the Rhineland Democrats had been called for 25 September [1848]. But early in the morning of the same day, the authorities struck: Becker and Schapper were arrested and only the gathering of a hostile crowd gave Moll time to escape. Warrants were also issued for the arrest of Engels, Dronke, Wolff and Burgers, the charge in every case being conspiracy to overthrow the regime. Marx himself could not be prosecuted as he had taken no active part in the recent public meetings. A meeting of the Democratic Society that afternoon – which Marx attended – decided to do everything to avoid a confrontation with the soldiers. (p. 189)
Now other leaders in the run Marx was made to appear before the public prosecutor but not arrested. This made him a popular hero.
Marx was much heartened by a demonstration of popular support on 14 November [1848] when he had to appear before the public prosecutor. According to a government report Marx was ‘accompanied by several hundred people to the courtroom .. . who on his return received him with a thundering cheer and made no secret of the fact that they would have freed him by force if he had been arrested’.
In reply to this demonstration Marx made a short speech – his only speech to a public meeting in Cologne – thanking the crowd for their sympathy and support. At the end of the month he wrote optimistically to Engels: ‘Our paper is still conducting a policy of revolt and nevertheless steering clear of the code penal in spite of all the publication regulations. It is now very much en vogue. We also publish daily fly sheets. The Revolution goes on.’ (p. 205)
Now a hero Marx decided that the revolution could not succeed. It was not yet time. Only a world war could help to create a revolution.
But Marx now despaired of the impetus for such a socialrepublican revolution arising from inside Germany: it could only be produced by an external shock. This was the programme for 1849 that he sketched out on 1 January. (p. 192)
In the meantime the proletariat had to accept the bourgeois order. Marx:
We are certainly the last to desire the rule of the bourgeoisie… . But our cry to the workers and petty-bourgeoisie is: you should prefer to suffer in modern bourgeois society whose industry creates the material condition for a new society that will free you all, rather than return to an obsolete form of society which, under the pretence of saving your classes, precipitates the whole nation into medieval barbarism. (p. 194. Emphasis added.)
Naturally all this was too much for the real revolutionaries such as Andreas Gottschalk who wrote an open letter To Herr Karl Marx. Wikipedia has an entry on Gottschalk but says nothing about his open letter to Marx.
Why should we make a revolution? Why should we, men of the proletariat, spill our blood? Should we really, as you, Mr Preacher, proclaim to us, escape the hell of the Middle Ages by precipitating ourselves voluntarily into the purgatory of decrepit capitalist rule in order to arrive at the cloudy heaven of your Communist Credo? .. .
You are not serious about the liberation of the oppressed. For you the misery of the worker, the hunger of the poor has only a scientific and doctrinaire interest. You are elevated above such miseries and merely shine down upon the parties as a learned sungod.
You are not affected by what moves the heart of man. You have no belief in the cause that you pretend to represent. Yes, although every day you prune the revolution according to the pattern of accomplished facts, although you have a Communist Credo, you do not believe in the revolt of the working people whose rising flood is already beginning to prepare the downfall of capitalism; you do not believe in the permanence of the revolution, you do not even believe in the innate capacity for revolution. .. .
And now that we, the revolutionary party, have realised that we can expect nothing from any class except our own, and thus our only task is to make the revolution permanent, now you recommend to us people who are known to be weaklings and nonentities. (p. 194. Emphasis added.)
Marx never dared to reply to Gotschalk’s open letter. Now more revolutionaries started to attack Marx who had sabotaged and disbanded the Communist League.
It was not only Gottschalk who considered that Marx’s policies were not radical enough. Moll and Schapper had never really approved of Marx’s unilateral dissolution of the Communist League …
Schapper called a meeting of selected persons to whom he suggested that, after the events of December 1848, the existence of the Communist League was once again a necessity. This meeting proved inconclusive and shortly afterwards Moll appeared in Cologne with the specific object of winning over Marx and Engels. A meeting was held on the premises of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung at which Marx resolutely opposed the idea. (p. 195)
Naturally the rank and file police did not understand that Marx was a police agent. So they tried their best to get an arrest warrant or at least expel him from Prussia. But the feared Prussian interior minister defended Marx.
The military authorities in Cologne had already in March applied to the police for his expulsion. The request had gone so far as Manteuffel, the Minister of the Interior, but was not immediately implemented as the civil authorities in Cologne thought it would be unduly provocative to expel Marx without any particular reason. (P. 199)
After having sabotaged the Communist League Marx started to sabotage the Democrats.
Marx took the most dramatic step of his year in Cologne: he broke the ties with the Democrats that he had, till then, been so eager to foster. On 15 April the Neue Rheinische Zeitung carried the brief announcement, signed by Marx, Schapper, Anneke, Becker and Wolff:
We consider that the present organisation of Democratic Associations contains too many heterogeneous elements to allow of an activity profitable to the aims of the Cause. We are rather of the opinion that a closer connexion between workers’ associations is preferable as their composition is homogeneous; therefore, as from today, we are resigning from the Rhineland Committee of Democratic Associations.” (p. 195)
Finally in May 1949 as the revolution continued the government decided to close down Marx’s newspaper. What did Marx do?
The last number appeared on 18 May, printed in red. … Also on the first page was a message to the workers of Cologne from the editors which warned them against any attempt at a putsch in Cologne and finished: ‘the last word of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung will always and everywhere be: emancipation of the working class’. (p. 199)
When Marx was moving to Paris he was arrested by military. The military officers must have been amazed to see Marx released almost immediately by their superiors.
The two friends decided to split up: Marx would go to Paris while Engels put his talents as a bombardier at the service of the Baden revolutionaries. However, on their way back from Kaiserslautern to Bingen they were both arrested by Hessian troops who took them to Darmstadt and Frankfurt where they were eventually released. Marx returned to Bingen and left for Paris on 2 June accompanied by Ferdinand Wolff. (P. 201. Emphasis added.)
In Paris Marx was now very famous and at the center of the revolution.
Marx was nevertheless confident of an immediate uprising and set about fulfilling his mandate. On 7 June [1849] he wrote to Engels:
‘A colossal eruption of the revolutionary crater was never more imminent than now in Paris…. I am in touch with the whole of the revolutionary party and in a few days will have all the revolutionary journals at my disposition.’ (P. 201. Emphsis added.)
It did not take many months for the Parisian revolution to fail. But Marx was happy. Loosing was winning. Especially since he now had a bigger readership.
On 17 August Marx wrote to Engels that the increasingly reactionary nature of the French Government gave hope for an immediate revolutionary insurrection: ‘We must start a literary and commercial enterprise: I await your propositions.’ A week later, he sailed for England. (p. 202)
In London Marx started to explain to everybody that it was not yet time for a revolution.
Marx was insistent, now as later, that the industrial crisis would bring revolution, not the other way round. He wrote to Weydemeyer in December 1849 that the outbreak of a revolution before the next crisis ‘would in my opinion be a misfortune because just now, when business is still expanding, the working masses in France, Germany, etc., are perhaps revolutionary in word but certainly not in reality’. (p. 219. Emphsis added.)
In London Marx and Engels organized the communists around radical plans. They even openly talked about killing the Tsar and other reactionary kings. However, plans of regicide did not shock the British. On the contrary.
In general the refugees were ignored by the British Government. In March 1851, for example, the Prussian Minister of the Interior pressed for a joint approach with Austria and Prussia to the British Government for ‘decisive measures against the chief revolutionaries known by name’ and for ‘rendering them innocuous by transportation to the colonies’.
The previous year the Austrian ambassador had already raised the question with Sir George Grey, the British Home Secretary, pointing out that ‘the members of the Communist League, whose leaders were Marx, Engels, Bauer and Wolff, discussed even regicide’, but got the reply: ‘under our laws, mere discussion of regicide, so long as it does not concern the Queen of England and so long as there is no definite plan, does not constitute sufficient grounds for the arrest of the conspirators’.
Obviously Marx and Engels were working for the British and the Jews. After all, the Rothschilds were Marx’s relatives.
To be continued
We will never surrender to the elite ectremist jews. They will be remembered, even until now they have controlled history.