Karl Marx - the David Icke of his day

Among other subjects, David Icke has put together compilations of material on the history, financial power and machinations of the Rothschild dynasty that, in my view, are  so important and valuable that I firmly believe they deserve publication in their own right - not only but least for Jewish readers. He is also very clear, as it is also very obvious, that it suits the Rothschild-Zionist agenda very well to identify anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. But it is just as easy to tar too many people with the brush of being ‘Rothschild-Zionists’  agents’ - here I am thinking specifically of thinkers such Karl Marx, whom Icke does brand in this way. I feel strongly however that to refer to any great thinker in this way - yet without actually referring to his actual thinking and writings can be most misleading. In this context I would be tempted to say: “David, take a bit of time to actually study Marx. If you did so I think you would see that, far from being a Rothschild Zionist or ‘agent’, if anything, Marx was nothing less than the David Icke of his day!!!” For what sort of ‘Rothschild Zionist’ would write words such as the following - which might remind you of someone!  

“At their birth the great banks, decorated with national titles, were only associations of private speculators, who placed themselves by the side of governments, and thanks to the privileges they received, were in a position to advance money to the state …” 

“The Bank of England begin with lending money to the government at 8%; at the same time it was empowered by Parliament to coin money out of the same capital, by lending it again to the public in the form of bank notes … It was not long before this credit money, made by the Bank itself, became the coin in which the Bank of England made its loans to the state, and paid, on account of the state, the interest on the public debt. It was not enough that the Bank gave with one hand and took back more with the other; it remained, even whilst receiving, the eternal creditor of the nation down to the last shilling advanced. The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation [of capital]. As with the stroke of an enchanter’s wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and this turns into capital, without the necessity of exposing itself to the troubles and risks inseparable from its employment in industry …” 

“The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews … "

“Captain Hamilton, for example, reports:  ‘The devout and politically free [Christian] inhabitant of New England …. makes not the least effort to escape from the serpents which are crushing him. Mammon is his idol which he adores not only with his lips but with the whole force of his body and mind. In his view the world is no more than a Stock Exchange, and he is convinced  that he has no other destiny here below than to become richer than his neighbour. Trade has seized upon all his thoughts, and he has no other recreation than to exchange objects. When he travels he carries, so to speak, his goods and his counter on his back and talks only of interest and profit. If he loses sight of his own business for an instant it is only in order to pry into the business of his competitors.”

“Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade, and the bankrupt trader deals in the Gospel just as the Gospel preacher who has become rich goes in for business deals.” 

More true today than ever – particularly in the context of the big Christian-Zionist evangelical churches in America. Not least however, Marx also strongly echoes the words of Heinrich Heine in speaking of money as the new ‘God’ of our times, with Rothschild as its prophet:

“Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man –  and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore,  robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value … The god of the Jews has become secularized and become the god of the world.” 

Yet all David writes to back up his accusation against Marx is that he “married into the aristocracy” – as if this said enough to confirm the accusation against him - whilst not mentioning that in so marrying Marx pauperised his own ‘aristocractic’ wife – whom he effectively removed from her ‘bloodline’ rather than marrying into it. Unfortunately the ‘tarring’ of Karl Marx and other later Communists by many of those opposed to a global ‘New World Order’ does not in any way serve the noble purposes of overcoming ignorance  but is itself an expression of it  - for few who write of Marx in this way have actually ever studied him. Marx himself of course, like David Icke, devoted his life to study, research and analysis.  In contrast the founder of the Rothschild dynasty himself took pride in having abandoned a life of almost wholly unpaid study of the sort Marx led – and instead opting for a ‘successful’ career in banking and usury.

And what did Marx have to say about usury itsrlf? Quite a lot, both in volume 3 of Kapital and in his essay ‘On the Jewish Question’.

As Michael Hudson writes (see From Marx to Goldman Sachs) Marx also recognised full-well the parasitic nature of  unproductive ‘money capitalism’ or  ’usury capitalism’ i.e. the interest burden it places on  the profits of productive industrial capitalism, the upward pressure this places on prices and the downward pressure it places on both the wages and purchasing power of the working class.

“Usury centralises money wealth,” Marx states. “It does not alter the mode of production, but attaches itself to it as a parasite and makes it miserable. It sucks its blood, kills its nerve, and compels reproduction to proceed under even more disheartening conditions. … usurer’s capital does not confront the labourer as industrial capital,” but “impoverishes this mode of production, paralyzes the productive forces instead of developing them.” 

“Under the form of interest the whole of the surplus over the necessary means of subsistence (the amount of what becomes wages later on) of the producers may here be devoured by usury…”

The words of a Rothschild agent?  I think not. More like those of a David Icke. More the pity that David appears so unacquainted with Marx’s actual thinking and with principal works such as The Communist Manifesto and Kapital and like so many others opposed to world government  by a ruling elite into the trap of equating and conflating ‘fascism’ and ‘communism’ (“fascism/communism”). This is easy to do if neither are actually studied as ideologies and philosophies and not just as historical phenomena. Ideologically, fascism places a suprem value on the state. It is hard-line statism – more specifically corporatist and totalitarian ‘state capitalism’ of the sort we see in China today. ‘Communism’ on the other hand – as defined by Marx himself – would be above all characterised by a “withering away of the state” and of state power as such – both nationally and globally. In its place would come no form of fascist or Soviet-style state-run state ‘collectivism’ or 'New World Order' but something completely different: a money-less society in which a new form of non-egotistic individualism would flourish and in which, to quote The Communist Manifesto itself:  “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”. 

As for the neo-Nazi myth of Lenin and Stalin too being Rothschild agents, whilst there can be no doubt that the Rothschild bankers profited enormously from both world wars – and from the ‘cold war’, let us not forget that is was Lenin who first alerted Marxists to the growing danger of international finance capitalism, and that the nature of money and banking in the erstwhile U.S.S.R. – both under Lenin and Stalin - bore absolutely no relation whatsoever to the type of debt-based money creation, speculative bond trading and profiteering from  usury that is rightly associated with the Rothschilds (see Money, Banking & Credit in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe by Adam Zwass, not to mention Lenin’s own writings on Finance Capitalism and the Financial Oligarchy. 

That said, I believe  there is a far deeper dimension to Marx’s own thinking which has  so far remained unthought and which I address in my own writings. In these I reinterpret Marx’s view of history as pointing to a fundamental shift in human consciousness, one that occurred alongside the development - out of early and highly equalitarian tribal communities – of class societies - each governed by a ruling class obsessed with the accumulation of  wealth in the form of private property. For alongside this growing concentration and fetishism of private property went something much deeper, namely a belief that human consciousness or ‘subjectivity’ itself -  far from being but one expression of an infinite and universal Awareness - unifying and connecting all beings -  was nothing but the private property of individual beings, egos or ‘subjects’ – each separate from the other. The result was a new  experience of consciousness as something bounded by our bodies – and ultimately the current scientific nonsense that it is or could be a mere product of our brains.  Along with this fundamental shift in human consciousness also went a new experience of natural phenomena and of other beings – one which reduced them to mere objects of egotistic consciousness, and ultimately to a mere “standing reserve” (Heidegger) of resources and commodities to be sold and disposed of at will. It was as a result of this most fundamental shift in human consciousness that the ruling elites ultimately came to worship a single ‘monotheistic’ god , one which representing nothing other than the human ego itself – which saw its duty as ruling over nature, human feelings and other human beings, in the way that its ‘God’ – a type of divine ‘superego’, was seen  as ruling over man. The human ego – rather than our innermost and divine soul or self, was seen as the very apex of the pyramid of human consciousness - a single ‘I’ symbolised by a single ‘eye’ - and one which reduced everything beneath it to a mere object of perception and of enslavement. 

The divinisation of the human ego - and with it of competitive egotism – replaced man’ earlier sense of communion and cooperation with nature and other human beings, and turned the most egotistic worldly rulers into gods in themselves. The sovereignty and power and worship of god-kings and their divine right to rule replaced the experience of a divine-universal Awareness. Yet what followed was a further transformation – from the worship of monotheistic gods and/or ‘divine’ kings or monarchs into the worship of money.

“Money is the God of our time, and Rothschild is his prophet.”

Heinrich Heine

If Abraham and Moses were the prophets of religious monotheism in all its forms – Jewish, Christian and Islamic, then the first of the Rothschild dynasty can indeed be recognised for what he was, the prophet of a new religion - the Monotheism of Money. Yet it was Marx’ profound analysis of the nature of commodities that first provided the key to this new understanding of history. For it was Marx’s great insight that whereas the properties and ‘use value’ of commodities was something sensually tangible – like the shape and texture of an apple or sword – the same could not be said of what he called their ‘exchange value’ in the market place, for ‘exchange value’, whilst it could be defined as a number (the amount of one commodity deemed as necessary to trade it for another) was something that which by its nature was something immaterial – having no sensual or ‘material’ qualities of its own. In this sense, as Marx intuited, ‘exchange value’ was akin to a type of quasi-religious, supra-sensible or immaterial ‘spirit’, one which came to be the universal measure of value as such – a supreme value superseding all other values - not least all that we understand as truly human values. Money in the form of commodities, precious metals was merely the incarnate ‘spirit’ of exchange value, only eventually to be dematerialised - first in the form of mere symbols (such as the image of a pyramid!) printed on paper notes - and ultimately as mere ‘electronic’, ‘digital’ or ‘virtual’ money, mere abstract numbers on electronic accounts and created principally as credit i.e. what David Icke rightly calls “money that does not exist”, being accumulated solely as debt. Rather than representing anything of human value it serves only to expropriate and substitute for anything of substantial or tangible human value.

Marx again: “Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore,  robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value … The god of the Jews has become secularized and become the god of the world.”