This article will be integreated into the article Jewish Geopolitical Master Plan. Part III.
Karl Marx and the Rothschilds
The Rothschilds were again a step ahead. They run the money machine and understood how it made the whole economy unstable. They realized that the recurrent depressions would create strong opposition to their money machine. So they decided to lead the opposition themselves. This was made easier by the fact that in 1806 Nathan Rothschild had married Hannah Barent-Cohen. Her first cousin, Nanette Baren-Cohen was the mother-in-law of Heinrich Marx and the grandmother of Karl Marx.
Historians have been very reluctant to study the connection between Karl Marx and the Rothschilds. The standard biographies of Marx do not mention his grandmother, Nanette at all. This despite the fact that Nanette was a close in-law of the Rothschilds. She was probably also invited to the fabulous wedding of Nathan and Hannah. After all, it was Nanette’s father and uncle who had helped Nathan to start his banking business in England. There was a dynastic alliance between the Rothschilds and the Barent-Cohens. Nanette certainly passed on this alliance to not only to Heinrich but also to Karl who was already 15 years of age when Nanette died.
The Rothschild connection certainly improved the business of Nanette’s husband Isaac Pressburg so it is probably not a coincidence that they moved to a bigger house in 1808. Now Nanette would have to find suitable spouses for her children. In 1814 she married her oldest daughter, Henrietta to Herschel Mordechai Levi who belonged to the nobility of Jews and came from a very long line of rabbis of Trier.
Herschel did not continue the rabbinic tradition but instead became a lawyer and represented Jews especially in their relations with the Gentiles. It is safe to assume that from the beginning of his career Herschel also represented the Rothschilds or their fronts. The young Herschel was so connected and powerful that he even had the gall to demand the Prussians ruling Trier to stop discriminating the Jews.
..Heinrich Marx’s ‘conversion’ to Christianity was one made solely in order to be able to continue his profession. .. On the transference of the Rhineland to Prussia, Heinrich Marx addressed a memorandum to the new Governor-General in which he respectfully requested that the laws applying exclusively to Jews be annulled. He spoke of his ‘fellow believers’ and fully identified himself with the Jewish community. But the memorandum was without effect. … These laws, while granting Jews rights equal to those of Christians, nevertheless made their holding of positions in the service of the state dependent on a royal dispensation.
The President of the Provincial Supreme Court, von Sethe, made an inspection tour of the Rhineland in April 1816 and interviewed Heinrich Marx, who impressed him as ‘someone of wide knowledge, very industrious, articulate and thoroughly honest’. As a result he recommended that Heinrich Marx and two other Jewish officials be retained in their posts. But the Prussian Minister of Justice was against exceptions and Heinrich Marx was forced to change his religion to avoid becoming, as von Sethe put it, ‘breadless’. He chose to become a Protestant – though there were only about 200 Protestants in Trier – and was baptised some time before August 1817.8 (David McClellan. Karl Marx. A Biography. p. 3-4. Emphasis added.)
Only when the Prussians refused to remove discrimination did Herschel convert to Lutheranism as a last resort to be able to continue his occupation and businesses. During this conversion Herschel changed his name to Heinrich Marx. However, his wife – and Nanette’s daughter – Henriette did not convert nor were Karl Marx and their other children baptized until many years later in order to avoid social ostracism. Heinrich and his family had clearly converted only under duress and the family had no intention to assimilate. This is probably also why Karl Marx was homeschooled until the age of twelve. Heinrich also did everything to oppose Prussian conservatives by strongly supporting liberals and revolutionaries. It is safe to assume that he was an agent of the Rothschilds.
Another obvious Rothschild connection was Heinrich’s best friend and supporter, Baron Ludwig von Westphalen. Together they led the liberal movement in Trier and Western Germany. They wanted to see the repeat of French Revolution. So close was their connection that Ludwig in large part helped raise Karl Marx and introduced him to socialism and revolutionary ideas.
[Marx’s] friendship with Baron von Westphalen who was a third important influence on the young Marx in addition to his home and school. Ludwig von Westphalen was twelve years older than Heinrich Marx, being born in 1770 into a recently ennobled family.
The Baron devoted much of his time to the young Marx, and the two went for intellectual walks through the ‘wonderfully picturesque hills and woods’ of the neighbourhood. As well as being a man of culture, the Baron was keen on progressive political ideas and interested Marx in the personality and work of the French Utopian socialist Saint-Simon. (p. 47-48.)
Heinrich and Ludwig were so close they decided to join their families by marrying Karl Marx to Ludwig’s daughter Jenny von Westphalen. This despite the fact that it was practically unheard of that a daughter of Prussian nobility would marry a Jew.
Jenny, with her dark auburn hair and green eyes, was widely noticed in Trier and had even been chosen as Queen of the Ball. The young Marx, who later described himself as ‘a really furious Roland’, was an insistent suitor: there had been an understanding between them before Marx left for Bonn and in the summer of 1836 this was turned into a formal engagement.
By the standards of the time, the engagement was an extremely unusual one: Marx was only eighteen, Jenny was four years older, and there was also a certain difference in social status. At first only Marx’s parents, and his sister Sophie – who had acted as go-between for the lovers – were let into the secret. Jenny’s father gave his consent in March 1837. Marx’s parents were not (initially at least) very keen on the match; and the pair had also to sustain ‘years of unnecessary and exhausting conflicts’ with Jenny’s family.” (David McClellan. Karl Marx. A Biography. p. 13-14. Emphasis added.)
Karl Marx and Jenny Westphalen got married once Karl had finished his studies and found a regular job as a journalist. By this time both of their fathers had died and money was tight. Despite this they started to spend money like crazy. Was this liberality with money because they were certain that the Rothschilds and their fronts would always finance this dynastic alliance?
Marx and Jenny left immediately for a honeymoon of several weeks. … Jenny later told a story that illustrated how extraordinarily irresponsible they both were (and continued to be) in their attitude to money. Jenny’s mother had given them some money for the honeymoon and they took it with them, in a chest. They had it with them in the coach during their journey and took it into the different hotels. When they had visits from needy friends they left it open on the table in their room and anyone could take as much as he pleased. Needless to say, it was soon empty. (David McClellan. Karl Marx. A Biography. p. 102)
Already before his birth Karl Marx was destined to become a tool of the Rothschilds. He was supposed to become a lawyer and join his father and von Westphalen in the fight against conservatives. However, Karl Marx was too intelligent for that. Sure, he wanted to help the Jews and the Rothschilds to destroy conservatism but not by becoming a lawyer, businessman or a petty politician. He had in mind something much bigger. He wanted to become a leading intellectual and change the world through ideas.
Marx saw the Jewish problem clearly but wanted a comprehensive change that would not only save the Jews but totally change the world order by destroying the state itself. He studied the radical classical liberals and kept their anti-statist theory alive while they themselves were abandoning it. However, at the same Marx bastardized the theory by joining it with an absurd labor theory of value. This confusion can already be seen in the 1848 Communist Manifesto that included two different definitions of the state. Professor Ralph Raico explains:
It seems, therefore, that there are two theories of the state (as well as, correspondingly, two theories of exploitation) within Marxism. There is the customarily discussed and very familiar one, of the state as the instrument of the ruling class (and the concomitant theory which locates exploitation within the production process). And there is the theory of the state which pits it against “society” and “nation”. … Moreover, it would seem suggestive that it is the second theory that predominates in those writings of Marx which, because of their nuanced and sophisticated treatment of concrete and immediate political reality, many commentators have found to be the best expositions of the Marxist historical analysis.
Now, although it would be difficult to demonstrate, it appears highly probable that the second theory of the state (linking it with parasitism and exploitation) must surely have been influenced by the classical-liberal writers. The view that exploitation of and parasitism upon society were attributes of the nonmarket classes, of the classes that stood outside of the production process, was a very widespread one in the early and middle 19th century. It is the basis of Saint-Simon’s famous Parable (itself a residue from earlier liberal influences on that writer). It is the real meaning, it seems to me, of the celebrated typology of “military” vs. “industrial” societies — a typology founded on the distinction between market and nonmarket forces. (Ralph Raico. Classical Liberal Exploitation Theory.)
This anti-statism is also why Marx was critical of the Jewish alliance with state capitalism. Marx was not a “self-hating Jew” but he saw how it was the Jews who had helped both the market economy and the state to grow. In his essay On The Jewish Question he defended Jewish emancipation but at the same time denounced the Jewish preoccupation with money-making and “hucksterism”. Marx wanted the Jews to help mankind to return to primitive communist property order but with modern technology. This would not only solve the Jewish problem but also make it possible to create an utopia “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. However, at the same time Marx made it clear that this utopia was far in the future. At some day not humans but the laws of history would create this utopia. In the meantime Jews should be emancipated. Naturally Jews and others should also finance and support Marx to elucidate the laws of history.
Marx believed that the Jewish culture encouraged “hucksterism” even to the extent that Jews even helped the Russian state grow. He made this very clear when he denounced the Jews for helping the Tsar to get loans from the West. Marx even pointed out the role of the Rothschilds though did not dare to go into details.
Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.
But the Hopes [Dutch Gentile banking dynasty trading in Russian loans] lend only the prestige of their name; the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities. …
Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler’s valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader. …
Thus do these [Russian] loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners. It principally sprang up in Europe since Rothschild was made a Baron in Austria, enriched by the money earned by the Hessians in fighting the American Revolution. The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told. …
The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatize their organization.
(Karl Marx. The Russian Loan. New-York Daily Tribune on January 4, 1856. Source: The Eastern Question: A Reprint Of Letters Written 1853-1856 Dealing With The Events Of The Crimean War. pp. 600-606. Emphasis added.)
Marx understood the history of the world as a battle between the state and freedom. His philosophy of history was essentially correct. He understood the disease but offered the wrong remedy: Communism. Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains:
First, I will present a series of theses that constitute the hard-core of the Marxist theory of history. I claim that all of them are essentially correct. …
(1) “The history of mankind is the history of class struggles.” It is the history of struggles between a relatively small ruling class and a larger class of the exploited. The primary form of exploitation is economic: The ruling class expropriates part of the productive output of the exploited or, as Marxists say, “it appropriates a social surplus product and uses it for its own consumptive purposes.”
(2) The ruling class is unified by its common interest in upholding its exploitative position and maximizing its exploitatively appropriated surplus product. It never deliberately gives up power or exploitation income. Instead, any loss in power or income must be wrestled away from it through struggles, whose outcome ultimately depends on the class consciousness of the exploited, i.e., on whether or not and to what extent the exploited are aware of their own status and are consciously united with other class members in common opposition to exploitation.
(3) Class rule manifests itself primarily in specific arrangements regarding the assignment of property rights or, in Marxist terminology, in specific “relations of production.” In order to protect these arrangements or production relations, the ruling class forms and is in command of the state as the apparatus of compulsion and coercion. The state enforces and helps reproduce a given class structure through the administration of a system of “class justice,” and it assists in the creation and the support of an ideological superstructure designed to lend legitimacy to the existence of class rule.
(4) Internally, the process of competition within the ruling class generates a tendency toward increasing concentration and centralization. A multipolar system of exploitation is gradually supplanted by an oligarchic or monopolistic one. Fewer and fewer exploitation centers remain in operation, and those that do are increasingly integrated into a hierarchical order. Externally (i.e., as regards the international system), this centralization process will (and all the more intensively the more advanced it is) lead to imperialist interstate wars and the territorial expansion of exploitative rule.
(5) Finally, with the centralization and expansion of exploitative rule gradually approaching its ultimate limit of world domination, class rule will increasingly become incompatible with the further development and improvement of “productive forces.” Economic stagnation and crises become more and more characteristic and create the “objective conditions” for the emergence of a revolutionary class consciousness of the exploited. The situation becomes ripe for the establishment of a classless society, the “withering away of the state,” the replacement of government of men over men by the administration of things and, as its result, unheard-of economic prosperity.
All of these theses can be given a perfectly good justification, as I will show. Unfortunately, however, it is Marxism, which subscribes to all of them, that has done more than any other ideological system to discredit their validity in deriving them from a patently absurd exploitation theory. …
What is wrong with Marx’s theory of exploitation, then, is that he does not understand the phenomenon of time preference as a universal category of human action. That the laborer does not receive his “full worth” has nothing to do with exploitation but merely reflects the fact that it is impossible for man to exchange future goods against present ones except at a discount. Contrary to the case of slave and slave master where the latter benefits at the expense of the former, the relationship between the free laborer and the capitalist is a mutually beneficial one. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe in The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, Chapter 4, Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis. Pp. 117-118, 122)
Why did Marx reject modern economics and Libertarianism in favor of absurd labor theory of value and Communism? Perhaps because of two reasons. First, he really hated Libertarianism because as so many other intellectuals he believed that the world owed him a living. He was a spendthrift who really hated the accountability and discipline money and the monetary economy forced on people. He really dreamed of a future without money. He really wanted to realize his slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” He even tried to live by it himself when he gave money to his friends in need and expected them to give him money when he was in need.
Second, Marx was power-hungry. He understood the evil power of the state but believed he could use it for the “greater good”. He wanted to lead the dictatorship of the proletariat and totally transform the society by destroying conservative values. This is also why he never continued his criticism of the Rothschilds. He hoped to have their help in transforming the West. This is also why Marx came to opposed revolutions. It was never the right time. After all, that could hurt the Jews and especially the Rothschilds.
The anarchist Mikhail Bakunin saw through Marx.
Suspiciously, Bakunin nor the other leading anarchists and communists never made a big point about the fact that Marx’s brother-in-law was the Prussian spy chief. Neither have the standard Marx biographies noted this amazing fact well known to historians.
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 closely connected to the Prussian spy chief. Third, through his best friend, Friedrich Engels he was connected to the British intelligence.
The interests of Jews, Prussians and the British were largely aligned. All wanted to neutralize the communists and create a strong Prussia and even a united Germany that would be powerful enough to attack Russia. Marx’s version of communism was perfect for them because it gave an excuse not to start a revolution. It was never the right time.
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’. (David McLellan. Karl Marx. Biography. 1994, p. 219. Emphsis added.)
It was never a right time for a Communist Revolution but always a time for a war against Russia.
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. (David McLellan. Karl Marx. Biography. 1994, p. 184-5. Emphasis added.)
The biographers of Marx have noticed his pathological hatred of the Slavs and especially the Russians. This was not because Russian serfdom or imperialism in the east. After all, Marx supported British imperialism and the conquest of India. He also downplayed and even supported slavery as a necessary stage of history. In fact, Marx and Engels had a racialist world view where they saw that some races and nations had more hereditarily defined ‘civilization-potential’. In their books and especially in their extensive correspondence Marx and Engels saw the British, Germans and Jews as massively superior to the Slavs, Latins, Chinese and especially the blacks.
In a letter dated 24 June 1865, Marx informed Engels of the Polish ethnographer Franciszek Henryk Duchiński’s hypothesis that the Russians were no Slavs and did not belong to the ‘Indo-Germanic race’ but were really Mongols and Finns. Marx suggested that this was somehow tied in to the fact that, ‘from the geological and hydrographical angle’, Asia begins east of the river Dnepr. Marx hoped Duchiński was right.
This intimation had a follow-up in 1866, when he and Engels carried on a fascinating discussion by correspondence about the French ethnographer, Pierre Trémaux’s, 1865 book Origine et transformations de l’homme et des autres êtres (‘Origin and transformations of man and of the other beings’). Marx believed Trémaux had explained what Darwin failed to explain, i.e. the process of the ‘differentiation’ and ‘degeneration’ of organisms: the single most important factor was the ‘condition of the soil [Erdformation]’. Marx continued that all this was very relevant for human history: ‘Here we have the natural basis for particular questions such as nationality’. The same soil would always produce ‘the same nature, the same faculties’. Marx believed, for example, that the Russian soil ‘Tartarizes’ the Slavs. He also suggested that the soil had caused the degeneration of an earlier, higher ‘Negro type’ into the present ‘nasty [gemeine]’ one.45 (Erik van Ree. Marx and Engels’s theory of history: making sense of the race factor. Journal of Political Ideologies. Volume 24, 2019. Issue 1.)
Both the standard Marx biographies and Wikipedia have censored these facts despite the extreme language of Marx who often pejoratively called blacks niggers. He even criticized his Jewish communist rival, Ferdinand Lassalle as a nigger.
Marx and Engels reserved particularly negative comments for black-skinned people, who, the latter suggested in so many words, stood a degree closer to animals than the rest of humanity.78 Engels assumed ‘savages’ had reverted to a ‘more animal-like condition’ through ‘regression of the organism [körperlicher Rückbildung]’.79
On one occasion Marx indicated that the form of the skull of the ‘Jewish nigger’, Ferdinand Lassalle, betrayed his descent. ‘Now, this way of linking a Jewish and a Germanic element with the Negro substance is bound to produce an extraordinary product. The pushiness of the fellow is also niggerlike’.80 This passage is again particularly telling because Marx was tracing character, ‘pushiness’, directly to skull and race. (Erik van Ree. Marx and Engels’s theory of history: making sense of the race factor. Journal of Political Ideologies. Volume 24, 2019. Issue 1.)
The Marxian theory of historical materialism is also a racial theory.
Marx and Engels were endowing ‘races’ with inferior and superior qualities all the time. Whites were more intelligent than blacks, the Aryans and Semites more capable than other races, the South Slavs were lacking in the innate energies and thrust displayed by Magyars and Germans. Whereas the Americans could, the Mexicans could not economically develop California. Whereas the English industrial and colonial triumphs were partly due to the innate character of that nation, the Asians were defeated because they lacked the entrepreneurial spirit of the European races. And so on.
It goes without saying that neither man accepted the Gobineau thesis of race as master concept and main motive force of history. Marx and Engels conceptualized race as no more than one element of humanity’s natural conditions. But they did give it a specific place in their materialist interpretation of history: by defining race as part of the natural conditions upon which production rests and depends, they made it theoretically possible for the development of national economies and labour productivity to be influenced by the racial human material available. Even though race never became history’s main motive force, it mattered. ‘Races’ endowed with superior qualities would serve as generators of production; the less endowed ones would hold humanity back. Thus, in either inhibiting or boosting the process of economic development, race to an extent modified the dynamics of history as conceptualized in the theory of historical materialism. (Erik van Ree. Marx and Engels’s theory of history: making sense of the race factor. Journal of Political Ideologies. Volume 24, 2019. Issue 1.)
But why see Germans, British and Semites more capable than other races? That is a curious and almost unheard of combination at the time. No-one except Jews proposed such a racial theory. But it fitted well with Marx’s own Jewishness and his alliance with the Germans and the British. It also fitted well in the sense that the “inferior” races did not appreciate the Jews as the British and Germans did. Marx especially hated the Slavs and the Russians because he considered them totally “anti-Semitic”. Marx hated the Tsar because he opposed the power of the Jews. In fact, Marx hated the Russians so much that he not only criticized the Prussians for being too soft on Russia but also the Jews and the British. As noted before Marx was enraged that the Jews kept buying Russian bonds. Marx was also upset that the British did not start a world war against Russia. Marx even went so far that he claimed the British Prime minister Palmerston was practically an agent of the Russians.
.. against the ‘asiatic barbarism’ of Russia. His almost pathological hatred of Russia led him to his bizarre view of Palmerston as a tool of Russian diplomacy and prompted an ‘exposure’, in a series of articles, of Palmerstonian duplicity. (David McLellan. Karl Marx. Biography. 1994, p. 278)
Jews, Prussians and the British wanted to have an agent that could neutralize communist revolutionaries and help them make war against Russia. They found their man in Karl Marx.
