Henry Reardon, 63
I believe Karl Marx was a liar. Marx knew full well that the proletariat class was not the working class – they were and are the lazy class. The working class reflects our higher human nature – our innate desire to labor and to reap the fruit of labor in pursuit of happiness – property honestly earned leading to self-esteem through creativity. The Proletariat class reflects our lower human nature – our greedy desire for leisure at the expense of someone else’s labor – property not honestly earned leading to self loathing through lack of creativity. If Marx had been a defender of the working man he would not have advocated destruction of the laboring “middle class owner of property” along with their individuality, independence and freedom.

“The proletariat (lazy, tax-eating, non-disabled poor) will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital (property) from the bourgeoisie (laboring, tax-paying middle class), to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state (lazy, tax-eating Marxist Government)… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property. You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible… And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.” Karl Marx

If Karl Marx had been a defender of the working man he would not have wished to destroy the working man’s family by confiscating the working man’s private gain.

“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain… The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.” Karl Marx

Karl Marx hated the ordinary working man. His desire was to create a “new man” which would be a militant, nameless, faceless, non-individual – a cog in the Marxist State Mechanism. Karl Marx wished to establish the Borg – with the Marxist ruling class (Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, Che Guevara, Pol Pot…) as Borg Masters. Karl Marx hated the individual – especially the boring, laboring, “bourgeois” middle class man who, due to being made in the image of God, had an innate desire for life, liberty and fruit of labor in the creative pursuit of happiness. Karl Marx was an evil genius.

“Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.” Karl Marx

“And still, you personified mankind; I may take you by the power of my mighty hands and crush with fierce force. In the meantime, as the abyss gapes before me and you in the darkness, You will fall in it and I’ll follow you, Laughing and whispering into your ear: “Come down with me, friend! Karl Marx

http://www.forerunner.com/predvestnik/X0013_Karl_Marx.html

As followers of Karl Marx, Lenin and Stalin, had they been defenders of the working man, would not have murdered over 20 million of them – the hated Kulaks – who worked for a living – and who had the audacity to desire the fruit of their own labor.

http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/33350184

The Soviet dissidents were under no illusions about the evil nature of Karl Marx and his followers.

“We have arrived at this view of [Marxist] socialism in attempting to account for the contradictions evident in the phenomenon at first glance. And now, looking back, we feel confident that our approach indeed accounts for many of socialism’s peculiarities. Understanding socialism as one of the manifestations of the allure of death explains its hostility toward individuality, its desire to destroy those forces which support and strengthen human personality: religion, culture, family, individual property. It is consistent with the tendency to reduce man to the level of a cog in the state mechanism…” Igor Shafarevich

“World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them–all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis…. The doctrines of socialism seethe with contradictions, its theories are at constant odds with its practice, yet due to a powerful instinct–also laid bare by Shafarevich–these contradictions do not in the least hinder the unending propaganda of socialism. Indeed, no precise, distinct socialism even exists; instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach…. The author also convincingly demonstrates the diametrical opposition between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and “God-like” aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity…. It could probably be said that the majority of states in the history of mankind have been “socialist.” But it is also true that these were in no sense periods or places of human happiness or creativity.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn

http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html