Ask any student in any major University and they will immediately inform you Socialism was a political theory that was introduced in the 20^th century which defined international conflict for the last one hundred years. 

Everyone who tells you that is wrong.

1848, not 1938, is when Science intruded into the political arts.

In fact, it was much earlier, but 1848 is when two men, one named Karl Marx and the other named Henry David Thoreau put pen to paper in attempts to lend clarity to the burning question posed by the Agnostics during the Enlightenment.

Who was a person if not a child of God?

More to the point, what are human rights if a person is not a child of God?

The question is fair, in a laboratory where absurd or dangerous prospects are examined, free of bias.  But on questions of human affairs, does such a laboratory exist?  If we are indeed all just animals, as the Agnostics were beginning to suspect, does morality even define the boundaries of science?

Today, when we are all conditioned from an early age to be rhetoricians, to use words to manipulate opinion, we naturally accept the distinction being made between “natural rights” and “divine rights”.  But in 1848, when rights were understood as exclusively Divine constructs, “natural rights” were not a thing.

Someone, somewhere proposed natural rights as distinct form Divine rights and an immediately distinction was drawn between “natural law” and “Divine Law”.  You can probably see where Agnostic experiments lead. 

Agnostic experiments led to proponents and opponents. 

It no longer matters what the original proposal was or who proposed it.  All that matters is that the Agnostics gave birth to the Atheists, scholars who emerged from the rhetorical laboratories of the Enlightenment convinced God was a construct, a symbolic figure to explain away all which was unknown.

Since the Enlightenment’s very charter was to sweep away all that was unknown and usher in an age of reason, it was reasonable to conclude God had to go.  God could not be defined, could not be observed and could not be proven, therefore, according to the boundaries of Empirical method, God could not exist.

Case closed.  Bring on the revolution.

At first, the revolution was strictly intellectual.  Today we think of Karl Marx as a monolithic, even megalithic figure in modern history, a towering intellect, the Pied Piper of the Humanist Movement calling the children of the wealthy, the connected, the impoverished and the disaffected to dance to his own tune.  Few have ever bothered to teach who Marx truly was, the extent of his influence in his lifetime, or the structural and functional features of his theses. 

Karl Marx was a chin scratching opium addict who, had it not been for the Spanish Influenza following World War II, would likely have been long forgotten.  Outside of a self-aggrandizing clique in European Academia, nobody paid Karl Marx any attention.  But don’t underestimate how much influence a self-aggrandizing faction in accredited academia can do.

Between 1848 and 1905, Karl Marx did not exist beyond the history and philosophy section of a few universities and, even there, only in the minds of the footnote mafia governing the fulfillment of any thesis in the political of philosophical arts.

Until Marx, politics was considered a philosophical art, not a science.

Marx’s only contribution to the human condition is usually cited as Das Kapital, but Das Kapital is just an inflated version of Marx’s 1848 pamphlet entitled the German Ideology.   Decades later, Frederick Engles, a financial benefactor of Karl Marx, implored Marx to reiterate and expand on The German Ideology, to ensure the end product could rival the magnitude of the Bible, but that would be decades later.

There is little if anything said in Das Kapital that was not already said in The German Ideology.  Any student who wants to understand Karl Marx should read The German Ideology.  Any student who wants to convict Karl Marx should read Das Kapital.

I won’t delve too deep into the paranoid, anti-social rants of an opium addict.  Here I am just acknowledging where and why the Socialist Outrages of the 20^th Century happened at all.  The Socialist Outrages of the 20^th Century, which includes two world wars, and everything that followed from those wars, were only possible because a drug addict found a thesaurus.

Karl Marx was not living in a vacuum.  Indeed, half of academia were wrestling with the questions posed by the Enlightenment.  If we are just animals, what are rights after all?  If we are just animals, what are our obligations?  If we are just animals, what are our limits?  If we are just animals, what is morality?

Karl Marx was exploring his own mind to arrive at the most scientific answers to these questions he could imagine.  Note that I said “scientific”, the adjective form of the word “science”.  Just because something appears to be scientific does not mean it is science.  Science must be proven, and little of what Karl Marx wrote about could ever have been proven.

My discovery proves that much of what Karl Marx which could have been verified “scientifically” is completely wrong.  In fact, the cornerstone assertion of Karl Marx, “property”, the cornerstone on which his analysis of “historical materialism” rests, did in fact exist in the archaic. 

I’ll neglect a full reveal in this summary critique of The German Ideology and direct your attention to my published research on this website. Spoiler Alert: If there was an aboriginal utopia free of “property”, Karl Marx is going to have to wind his wayback machine up to 80,000 BC to find it.  If indications emerging from the Rising Star Cave Complex in Africa are what they appear to be, Marx will have to wind his wayback machine up to 365,000 BC.

Personally, I am a little nervous about that prospect.  I am convinced, through efficacious research, not pseudo-scientific speculation, that we will indeed draw closer to Mankind’s arboreal origins.  It has to be there and, yes, property of the common denominator against which Marx railed, that is to say real-estate, did not exist.

Classical Scholars, who all agree Marx was a sociopath who invented a vocabulary which went viral in all the wrong places for all the wrong reasons, correctly apprehend any argument which might lend Marx credibility.  Mankind’s arboreal origins is there, we all know it, so nothing but harm can come from the observation that Marx was correct about a propertyless state of existence.

I disagree, but I understand why Classical Scholars want to close the book on the archaic.  Classical Scholars, like their Atheist colleagues, believe civilization is far younger than it truly is.  I can’t explain the phenomenon, but all schools of thought compresses their origins narrative.  Ecclesiastical Scholars insist the universe was created in 6 days.  Classical Scholars once believed the world was created in a few, tens of thousands of years.  Agnostics and Atheists, until DNA could be deciphered and read accurately, believed homo sapiens-sapiens evolved since the Glacial Maximum.

I see the Skeptics have thrown a red flag on the field.  Skeptics will insist there isn’t a single evolutionary biologist or anthropologist who has insisted homo sapiens-sapiens only evolved after the Glacial Maximum.  That is a half-truth, and as we all know, a half-truth is a half-lie.

In truth the academic consensus, until DNA could be read accurately, believed that, while homo sapiens-sapiens evolved physically about 150,000 years ago, our species did not until recently attain the cognitive capacity required to invent modern culture.  In fact, a dominant faction in accredited academia believed our species did not evolve the capacity of verbal speech until after the Younger Drays.  That would be 9,300 BC.

Caveat: Nobody in the Ivory Tower believes that any longer, and the hypothesis never passed “peer review”, but trust you me, modern cognition was, until lately, believed to be a neolithic development.

Because the Agnostic and Atheist Schools of Thought in accredited academia have abandoned physical criterion when defining “evolution” in our species, and grounded all their arguments on the “cognitive evolution” to which Karl Marx alludes in The German Ideology, my discovery is CATASTROPHIC.

I do not employ words idly.  When I say CATASTROPHIC, I mean to convey the total destruction of all paradigms of taxonomy which are currently operative in the science of “human evolution”.  All modern hypotheses on “human evolution” hinge on cognitive capacity.

Do be certain to watch my video essay “The Dawn of Iconography” revealing a discovery being unearthed as we speak in Africa.  “The Dawn of Iconography” will not be live until after Christmas, but trust me, if you agree the Christmas Reveal of the Madre De Occidente’s secret is a mind blower, you haven’t seen anything yet.

Spoiler Alert: Iconography recently retrieved from the Rising Star Cave Complex in Africa is empirically dated to 365,000 BC.  I cannot understate the significance of this discovery to the “tree of human evolution” as it is currently imagined by the Anthropology department.  At present, even adjusting for recent DNA discoveries, homo sapiens-sapiens is still not believed to have evolved until 200,000 BC at the latest.

Confirmation of a date of 365,000 BC on an iconographic composition irrefutably created by a technologically sophisticated culture destroys every paradigm of human evolution in existence.  Frankly, I believe human evolution will take a long time to recover.  Where the Agnostics and Atheists will go from 365,000 BC, I cannot imagine, but I am sure they will. 

Anthropologists will have to rehabilitate their appraisal of Homo Erectus and Homo Habilus and, finally, Australopithecus. 

Anthropology will have no choice.  Wait for it, for Anthropology will have to abandon physical taxonomy as the primary criterion for defining species. 

You can probably see where this is going.  Once Anthropology is forced to admit that defining all taxonomical orders on phenotype is a fallacy, the entire taxonomical chart will have to be reformed.  Top to bottom.  No escaping it.  Genetic researchers already know this, which is why genetic researchers are increasingly reluctant to assist in desperate efforts in other departments to re-align their paradigms with genetic results.

What is that?  Gen Z wants to know why any of this matters? 

Allow me to field this one.

Gen Z will want to know this all of this matters because the Atheists, supported by the Agnostics just exterminated over 100 million innocent human beings because they thought they were not human beings at all.  For the Atheists to now admit that we have all been human beings all along, that is not going to go over well.  Not at all.

I see Gen Z is rolling their eyes, convinced I must be making this all up.  Kids, you have to scroll up in You Tube to get the good stuff.  Remove that “most recent” filter and do a search on “WWII documentaries”, you know, the black and white stuff.  You don’t even have to watch it all, just play it back at 10x speed to witness what scientists did when your Grandfather was your age.  I’ll wait until you can’t take any more.

(Play Jeopardy theme music here.)

Good Lord!  That didn’t take long at all!   Hey everyone, Gen Z is back and, frankly, they are looking sick to their stomachs.  Yea, kiddos, that is what scientific extremism looks like.  I know, your teachers in school taught you that World War I and World War II were started by “right wingers”, but that is only a half-truth.

The complete truth is that World War I and World War II were both started by the “right wing” of Socialism, the latest and greatest science in existence, that which promises to be the savior of the human species, once they figure out what the human species is.

I ask Gen Z to accompany me back even further in time, to the land before movies.  That’s right, the only images we have of Karl Marx come from tin-type photography days, you know, the ones that look all yellow and old on the internet.

Full stop.

I pray Gen Z’s forgiveness for brow beating them there, but I had to teach my generation a lesson.  I needed them emotionally invested in where we are going and, apparently, they only focus when there is a beat down.

Gen Z has a point.  The point Gen Z is making when they roll their eyes is that nothing from 1840-frickin 8 can possibly be considered relevant today.  And they are absolutely correct.  We have learned so much from the empirical sciences that everything proposed as science two hundred years ago looks like Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang.

Gen Z and I are on the same side.  How anything Karl Marx said in 1848 could possibly still pass as science boggles the imagination.  And yet it does.  Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Socialists, Democratic Socialists, you name it, there are scores of official and unofficial political movements who all rely on Marx’s hypothesis of “social evolution”.

If nobody else is interested in learning why an opium addict from 1848 was allowed to start two world wars and exterminate hundreds of millions of lives, you don’t have to continue from here.  Go back to your cubicles, and your laboratories.  Go back to studying the relative thickness of everyone’s skull.

Gen Z and I will take it from here.

Gen Z, follow me.  Just bring a barf bag because we are about to land in the summer of 1848 when Karl Marx informed everyone what he learned in his opium induced trance.

In 1848, Karl Marx put pen to paper and expressed his mental illness in extremely scientific terms.  In that same summer, half a world away, Henry David Thoreau put pen to paper to record the answers revealed to a reasonable mind.  Where Karl Marx was living in the lap of luxury, financed by a wealthy patron, and never in short supply of his inspiring muse, opium, Henry David Thoreau was living off the land, in a cottage next to Walden Pond near Boston, Massachusetts.

Karl Marx chose to wrestle through a stupor in his attempts to imagine the primitive ages of human history, where he believed true justice would ultimately be found.  Henry David Thoreau chose to live in a primitive condition to see what life in primitive conditions was truly like.

Who do you predict would emerge from the summer of 1848 with more efficacious results?

1848. There is no more fateful summer in human history. Two men, entertaining the same question, chose two distinctly different laboratories.  One emerged a stark, raving, murderous animal.  The other emerged an enlightened soul.

I’ll allow you to be the judge who emerged an animal and who emerged an enlightened soul.  Just don’t expect me to do the reading for you.  I’ll give you my appraisal and emphasize why it matters.  You’ll have to go read “The German Ideology” and “On Walden Pond” for yourself to judge if I am right.

Spoiler Alert: The animal concluded we are all oppressed and should kill.  The enlightened soul concluded we are all independent and should chill.

Both men wrote a book after they emerged from summer vacation.  Karl Marx wrote The German Ideology and Henry David Thoreau wrote “On Walden Pond”.  You probably had to read “On Walden Pond” in high school English class but had no idea The German Ideology was even a thing.

It was a thing, trust me.  Grab a copy from Amazon and read it just so you know I am not lying.  Keep it close at hand too, because you’re bound to run into someone spouting off about Das Kapital at some point in your life. 

Socialists, and everyone who calls themselves a communist, are notoriously ignorant about Das Kapital.  Talking to a socialist or a communist about Marxism is like talking to a Star Trek fan about physics.  They sound like they know what they are talking about, but neither has clue what the science governing their beliefs truly is.  Start Trek fans, however, are aware what they are talking about is fiction.

Disarming a communist is simple as pie since communists do not exist, and probably never will.  I’ll explain later.  Here just understand that communist cannot exist until communism exists.  Since communism, as defined by Marx, has yet to be achieved, nobody alive can claim to be a communist.

Full stop.  Red flag on the field.

Communists will insist they are not claiming that communism exists anywhere, that they are in support of a political movement to make communism a reality.  Ignore any communist friends you have who says this.  They know about as much about Karl Marx’s hypothesis on human evolution as a Star Trek fan knows about “Warp Drive”. 

Both “communism” and “warp drive” are perfectly suited to contrast in analysis since neither has been achieved in reality.  I, on the other hand, having studied Karl Marx, Political Science, and Soviet Studies for longer than the Star Trek series plays in real-time assure you “socialism” and “communism” cannot be rendered distinct from each other.

I’d explain, but I’d rather let Karl Marx do the job for me.

Karl Marx begins precisely where the bible begins, in a lush, tropical paradise of humanity’s origins, naked and unafraid.

I ask the Classical School to refrain from laughing.  Karl Marx thought he had a brilliant insight in his opium induced trance, but in fact he was just coming face to face with a fact encoded into the OEM software driving every human intellect ever.

There is nothing new at all about Karl Marx concluding human beings originate in a “state of nature”.

But let’s follow Karl in his stupor to see where he gets lost.

Karl imagines himself awakening in his idea of paradise, the good old days when nobody owned anything and we were all one, big, happy family.  In the good old days, according to Marx, all we had to do all day was love each other and pick fruit off the trees and berries off the vine.

Everything was equal and there was no need for “property”.

In this state of nature Karl Marx hyper analyzed life, the processes of life, breaking down “labor” into its fundamental essence, a biomechanical process by which creatures obtain and ingest nutrients.  But labor was not in fact all the “labor” living things performed to stay alive.  There was the air we breathed and the water we drank, all of which was absolutely critical to support biological life.

In his stupor, Karl Marx witnessed the line between biology and the material world in which it exists blur.  The single truth hidden beneath Karl Marx’s mountain of lies, the truth which makes Karl Marx’s hypothesis dangerous is the unification of biology with geology.

Huh?

Yea, Gen Z, the guy was loopy, but follow, this loopy logic leads directly to all those World War II documentaries I made you watch.  Karl Marx proposed all life forms have an “organic body” and an “inorganic body”, and that “intercourse” between them was this process we call life.  If the “intercourse” between the organic body and the inorganic body was interrupted for any reason, the organic body died.

That is it.  That is everything you need to know about Karl Marx and Marxism.  And there is not a socialist or communist I have ever met who even knows The German Ideology even exists, much less one who has read it.

What makes this one hypothesis so dangerous?  Because, Marx went on to explain in Das Kapital, when “capitalists” take a portion of everything produced as “profit”, they are “alienating labor” performed by others.  And since depriving any biological life form of the product of their labor was the same as taking the food from their mouth, the water from their cup or the air from their very breath, the “alienation of labor” was tantamount to homicide.

Full stop.  I want to allow everyone in the audience to catch up to what Marx argued here.  Few know this is what Marx based his argument on capitalism on.  It is imperative that you do know because Marxists who do know this are willing to give you a pass since you clearly do not.

Don’t worry, once the Marxists have seized control over society and established their dictatorship, they will re-educate you so you know that you were being controlled by murderers all along and didn’t know it.

But we are still in Karl Marx’s aboriginal paradise, following along to see what went wrong in this man’s head.

Back in the good old days, Karl Marx discovered in his stupor, someone discovered a long stick with a hooked branch on the end made it easier to reach fruit on the highest branches, and presto, property was born!  It was his stick the moment someone else wanted to use it.

At that very instant “capitalism” was born, for with his new-fangled invention the man could produce more fruit than he could possibly eat.  And what did the capitalist do in Karl Marx’s opium induced stupor?  He horded the surplus fruit and demanded favors and concessions from anyone who wanted a piece of fruit.

Why couldn’t everyone else just get their own stick and pick their own fruit?

Karl Marx never adequately answers that.  Marx simply states that, at a point in history when scarcity is confronted, the competition for those last few pieces of fruit high up in the tree led to conflict.  The man with the stick was the man with the plan.

Now, as condescending as my reiteration of Marx is, you will find Marx’s font of mumbo jumbo a logical maze in which you will flounder without an English to Marx, Marx to English dictionary.

Just compare and contrast The German Ideology and Das Kapital just in terms of raw vocabulary.  You will notice a dramatic learning curve between the two volumes.  The difference between word sets is the difference between philosophical prose and “scientific mumbo jumbo”.  In the 1800s, if you wanted your philosophical prose to be read by scientists, you had to translate it into scientific mumbo-jumbo.

I will be deconstructing Karl Marx’s historical claims in nearly all of my published research, so let’s go back to the good old days, according to Karl Marx, and witness what happens with the man and his stick.

In Karl Marx’s opium induced stupor, the man did not want to give up is stick, and so found others were asking him to perform labor so that they could eat.

That doesn’t seem fair.  Not to you.  Not to me.  Not to Karl Marx.  We all agree the man should be compensated for his time.  The stick, being a product of his own labor, is, in Marx’s logic, a product of his own labor. 

How then is Marx able to accuse the man with the stick for murder?

Slight of mind.  Just watch.

In Marx’s narcotics induced trance, the man decides he will no longer pick everyone else’s fruit.  The man decides, instead, to negotiate a deal.  The man will lend his Mach 1 Fruit Picking Stick to anyone who wants it in exchange for five pieces of fruit.

Everything was base five in the good old days.

At this juncture in history Marx informs us, a “production function” is established, one based on contractual obligations with which the other has no experience.  In Marx’s analysis, when the “other” returns with the five pieces of fruit and the stick, the man with the plan had been luxuriating in the grass by a stream all day.

The other man, in Karl Marx’s in drug filled nightmare, had toiled all day in the hot sun but only manage to pick seven pieces of fruit.  Five, by contract, had to be given to the lazy man resting by the stream.

Gen Z is going, “So?”

Once again, don’t laugh at Gen Z.  They may be brief and to the point, but they aren’t wrong.

Nothing is wrong.  The other person knew exactly what they were getting into before they got into it, but Karl Marx introduced a scenario while forgetting the implications of all others.

Karl Marx introduced failure into the logic loop.  Karl Marx observed, in cases where two pieces of fruit could not properly feed the other person, and everyone only needed three pieces of fruit a day to stay healthy, the lazy man resting by the stream had exploited the other person’s labor.

The result, in Karl Marx’s opium laced stupor, was that the lazy man had more than he needed while the other person starved.  At that pace the other person was going to starve.

Full stop. 

This is the point I insist we all refocus on the dots I have been connecting up until this point.  Malthus already said there are too many of us and we’re all going to die!  Darwin already said we’re all sexual animals, and we’re all going to die!  The rest of accredited academia was too busy saying “we’re all made up of tiny critters called “cells” and they are all going to die!”

You can’t fault Karl Marx for reaching such dark conclusions, especially with all the opium he was imbibing.

It did not help matters that Europe was, at that very moment, at the beginning of the industrial movement and people in Europe’s largest cities were in fact dying of poverty related illnesses and urban related injuries.

Industry was admittedly brutal.  There is not a business which existed in the manufacturing sector of the European economy which would not have been shuttered by today’s standards.  So, clearly Marx had a cause to champion.

Let’s return to his narcotics induced delusion to witness what happened to the lazy man and those who rented his fruit picking stick.  This model of fruit picking stick he called the Mach II.

With nothing better to do, and tired of resting by the river, the lazy man carved another fruit picking stick, and then another, and another after that!  Before you know it, the lazy man had half the village depending on his fruit picking sticks to reach the best fruit, and the man was rolling in fruit.

Baskets and baskets of fruit.  Everyone showing up to rent the new Mach II was informed they were all rented out to fruit pickers, but why pick fruit when they could just trade a nice animal pelt for three pieces of fruit?  Everyone who had animal hides thought that was a great idea, and everyone who did not went out to hunt.

In Marx’s imagination he realized all the components of a modern economy are present in the archaic and, therefore, the “alienation of labor” likely began early in history.

This process by which communities of human beings began to negotiate their biological needs using barter, trade, craftsmanship and employment, Marx called “historical materialism”.  Today, in all other theories of economy, economists call this behavior “commerce”.

Only Karl Marx calls this criminal.

I see Gen Z waving their hands.  Gen Z wants to know how any of this could be criminal.

Because, if you were paying attention, which clearly some of us were not, when anyone deprives another of the “product of their labor” what they are truly doing is taking food from their mouth, water from their cap or air from their breath.

Economics, to Marx is nothing but “intercourse” between the organic bodies of individual life forms and the inorganic body we all share.

According to Marx, the lazy man who carved all the fruit picking sticks had no “natural right” to deprive anyone using his sticks of the full product of their labor.

What’s that?  Gen Z has another question?

Gen Z wants to know why, if the stick is itself a product of the original man’s labor, is not the other person depriving the original man of the product of his labor in cases where he keeps all the fruit?

Ah hah!

I love Gen Z.  Call them Twitterverts if you must, but they do ask poignant questions.

Precisely Gen Z. 

I’d like to ask everyone in Gen Z to stand up and take a bow.  Gen Z innately understands that Karl Marx’s cornerstone argument against the original man is unjust because Karl Marx failed to account for the fruit picking stick as a product of the original man’s labor.

Since none of the fruit acquired using the stick was accessible before the original man carved the Mach I Fruit Picker, according to Marx’s drug addled logic, all the fruit belongs to the original man.

Marx, nor any of his followers, have ever accounted for “capital” being, ultimately, a reserve of someone’s labor.  Mind you, Marx is Johnny on the Spot when it comes to levelling criminal charges, but criminal charges, like science, requires proof.

Marx offers nothing in the way of proofs.  Marx simply expects you to accept everything he imagined in his Way Back Machine.  Marx simply ignores his own “Labor Theory of Value”.

Where Marx went from there in his nightmare explains why 100 million human being were exterminated nearly one hundred years later.

Returning to the original man hawking Mach II’s to fruit pickers, and trading baskets of fruit for animal hides, we witness what Marx proposes, a conflict between production functions.  The hunters soon discover all the fruit pickers are scaring the deer away, and the fruit pickers discover the deer are able to stand on their hind legs to grab the ripest fruit when they do not.

According to Karl Marx, classes and conflict are all born the moment “property” is formed.  Obviously, Karl Marx never went camping with his family, for even were everyone has everything they need and everything they ever wanted, family’s have bumped heads across the ages.  But who am I to reason with Karl Marx?  I am not the author of a much-lauded theory of social evolution.

In Karl Marx’s imagination, a fruit picker and a hunter at each other’s throats stop throwing punches at each other, realize they are both being exploited by the lazy man, and decide to do something about it!

Shazam!

That moment of “class consciousness” is what “social evolution” is all about folks.

The moment a person wakes up to the fact that they are being exploited by their employer, that they do not in fact receive all the value they produce for their employer, a new species in born.

Full and complete stop.

I reiterate, Marx is not talking about a form of enlightenment, a moment pf philosophical clarity.  Marx is stating this is the process by which human cognition actually bootstraps into a higher form of consciousness.

And what is this new species’ name? 

The “proletariat”.

In this very moment evolution occurs, in the mind, not the body.   The cognitive capacity, the ability to think more clearly, and therefore more consistently with “natural rights” determines who is and who is not “evolved”.

Gen Z just whispered “This isn’t going to end well.”

And Gen Z would be absolutely correct.  Of course, Gen Z should be correct because I just made them 10x through every documentary about World War II on the You Tube.  What Gen Z should be asking is, “Then what?”

I’ll tell you what then.

After the Proletariat have evolved as a species and realize they are alone in a world where survival of the fittest determines who lives and who dies, they start looking for others who have also “evolved”.

You can’t tell from outward appearances, so you have to get inside their head.  The Proletariat go from cottage to cottage throughout the village, and range to other villages, and go cottage to cottage there, talking to everyone who spends most of their time hunting for hides or picking fruit for lazy men.

And I’ll be damned.  In Karl Marx’s nightmare, everyone feels the same way.

Gen Z interrupts here and asks, how do we know Karl Marx wasn’t just imagining all this.  All I can say is, from the mouths of Babes.

Karl Marx was imagining this all in his head, but hundreds of thousands of people all across Europe were dying of starvation at that time.  Ask any Irishman alive today and they’d still tell you horror stories about the Irish Potato Famine?

From 200 years ago?, Gen Z will ask.

Yes.  200 hundred years ago is not that long ago and the famine was horrifying in scope.  Marxists have been licking that wound since 1848, and two World Wars were fought in the name of this man’s science, so you better not neglect the mumbo-jumbo, Gen Z.  Your socialist and Marxist buddies are expecting you to fight World War III to finish what they started.

And what did they start?

A cascade of psychosis spelled out in Das Kapital.

You see, the problem with the German Ideology is that nobody read it.  A malcontent named Frederick Engles was wealthy enough to pay Karl Marx to spend a couple years in London inflating The German Ideology with mumbo-jumbo to make it seem “scientific”.  Karl Marx had an opium habit to support, so he took Engles up on it.

Ironically, a capitalist paid Karl Marx to write Das Kapital.

In the final analysis, this is what Karl Marx proscribed in Das Kapital:

• Societies, like individual human beings, evolve.
• The day the Proletariat evolve, they begin planning a violent revolution to break the “alienation of labor” and end starvation.
• The proletariat stage their revolution and exterminate the Nobility, the Aristocracy and the Middle Class since these classes are irredeemable.

This sequence of events is the revolutionary phase of Marxism.  The revolutionary phase, obviously, leaves only the Proletariat and the peasantry alive.  Only after the Proletariat have established their dictatorship over everyone remaining, and have begun re-educating everyone that doesn’t think like they do, will the evolutionary phase of Marxism begin. 

The evolutionary phase of Marxism is marked by two phases, Socialism and Communism.  Under Marxism, any Marxist society which is still in the re-education phase is defined as a Socialist society.

After generations of re-education, Marx’s hypothesis promises, everyone will evolve into the proletariat.  At that stage in evolution, the Proletariat will no longer need to enforce their dictatorship because everyone will be naturally enlightened.  In that moment all the cumbersome artefacts of economy, like cash and jobs and corporations, will all disappear because everyone will just do what is required by their fellow man.

This, the final stage in social evolution, Marx called Communism.

What now?  Gen Z has another question.  I swear, Gen Z, you do have a lot of questions.

What is that?

I think I understand.

Gen Z wants to know if this final phase is not just “Libertarianism”.

Functionally, yes, it is exactly the same as Libertarianism. 

Libertarianism promises we can get to the same place in history together, a place where government and other “leading” institutions are unnecessary.  Libertarians just think we can get there without exterminating everyone who disagrees with us, or re-educating everyone that survives that nightmare.

What’s that?

Gen Z just said Marx was bat-shit crazy.

God Bless Gen Z.  Gen Z gets it. 

Allow me to conclude where we began, on Walden Pond.

You see, in 1848 one man took the path least travelled by and, as Gen Z just pointed out, went bat-shit crazy.  Henry David Thoreau, in his series of essays immortalized in “On Walden Pond”, deliberately lived primitively, in nature, without the interference of opium.

In the same summer Marx pawned regicide and genocide off as science, Henry David Thoreau codified in modern, philosophical terms, the path the righteous have followed across the ages when society, or economy, goes off the rails.

Henry David Thoreau proposed Civil Disobedience where Karl Marx proposed genocide.

Choose your path wisely.  One appears extremely scientific but will only lead to a nightmare.  The other appears philosophical and leads to reforms.

From the summer of 1848, Classical Scholars followed Henry David Thoreau and Atheist Scholars followed Marx.

Agnostics, whom we must not forget in the mix, follow neither and thus surrendered all moral authority.  Agnostics find the moral contest between the Classical School and the Atheist School to be a distraction from “real science”.

The next scientific dot to be connected is Louis Pasteur.  I have not decided if Louis Pasteur is a Classical Scholar or an Agnostic Scholar, and frankly I don’t care.  I am just grateful he was not a Marxist, for what he is about to learn under the microscope would have been dangerous if Marxists had understood then what even Louis Pasteur did not.