The Pickering Post
Thursday, 21st February 2019

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


The Workers Paradise

Harry Richardson

Harry Richardson is a long-time student of Islam and author of best seller, "the Story Of Mohammed - Islam Unveiled',


In the last article HERE I talked about how capitalism and property rights were a step towards freedom. The previous system of Feudalism had ruled pretty much all agricultural societies from the beginning.

Under Feudalism the man with the gun (the local baron, lord, king or whoever) owned all the land and rented it out to serfs. Under Capitalism, ordinary people were allowed to own their own property.

Not only that, but the man with the gun (the ruler) would now protect the property rights of the ordinary citizen. This wasn’t an easy feat to pull off.

Not surprisingly, only one country managed it initially, and not without a considerable amount of bloodshed.

In the earlier days of capitalism, there was still an imbalance, with most of the land and resources owned by the “landed” gentry who were the heirs to the feudal overlords.

However, as time went by, fortunes and large estates were gradually squandered and resources began to flow from those who were successful under the feudal system (men with guns), to those who were successful under the capitalist system.

As we saw in part 1, the people who do well in a capitalist society are people who do two things well. The first way to succeed in a capitalist society is to be good at producing things that people want or need.

Under a capitalist system, people can trade cabbages for apples.

The other thing you need to do, is to consume less than you produce. This gives you a surplus which you can invest in more land to grow even more cabbages.

Since thrift and productivity are so strongly rewarded in a capitalist society, surpluses of useful goods, such as cabbages are a common feature.

The poor and working classes saw a huge increase in incomes under Capitalism. Viewed from today’s perspective, they may have looked poor and desperate, yet their situation was improving rapidly. Income inequality was also plummeting though of course, it was not, and never will be, completely equal.

The heirs of the feudal lords now found themselves sharing the top spots with (and in many cases being overtaken by) those who were smart, inventive and hard working.

Inventing ways to produce more of what people wanted was a way to pull oneself (as well as everyone else) out of poverty.

This unleashed the creative genius of the society and laid the foundations of the industrial revolution which enriched people beyond their wildest dreams.

By the mid Nineteenth century, people in the Anglosphere in particular were seeing their incomes and lifestyles improve rapidly.

Into this situation came a couple of spoilt, workshy Germans by the names of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Marx was fascinated by economics and studied the subject night and day. It is hard to know whether he was entirely stupid, or deeply evil but I remain highly suspicious of Marx’s intentions.

Marx claimed (without any evidence) that capitalism would collapse because the rich would just get richer and the poor would get poorer until the system became untenable and people would be forced to change things.

Marx’s crackpot theories depended on several deeply flawed assumptions. These were, in no particular order:

•That wealthy capitalists were a separate breed of people who were intrinsically evil. He insisted that they were entirely unlike the working classes who were all filled with virtue.

•That there were a fixed amount of cabbages in the world.

•That the capitalists would each buy up more and more land and grow more and more cabbages. They would use their excess cabbages to buy up ever larger tracts of land.

•That capitalists would never trade any of their land or cabbages with the workers who would be forced to labour under slave conditions.

•That capitalists would either live for ever, or that their children would be exactly like them and would carry on cornering the market for land and cabbages until everyone else was left destitute and cabbageless.

In Marx’s world, everything was always black and white. Oppressor and oppressed, rich and poor, good and bad, worker and boss, proletariat and bourgeoise.

The two sides were always hostile and in opposition to each other and the only resolution was conflict and revolution.

Marx wanted the working classes to rise up against the wealthy capitalists, smash the entire system and implement his system of communism instead.

Under Communism, all land and property would be stolen by the man with the gun (the Government) who would then direct production and distribute the cabbages according to each person’s needs.

For the working classes in England, who were busy acquiring small chunks of property and belongings for themselves, this deal stank. It was a regression to the old, hated system of Feudalism where the man with the gun held all the property.

In fact, the system of Communism was far worse. Feudalism was a system where the man with the gun owned the property. However, it also entailed a form of profit sharing where the serfs farmed the land and split the proceeds with the Lord of the Manor.

This meant that the serfs had an incentive to grow more, because they would be better off, and the landowner had an incentive not to take too much because if the serfs starved, or buggered off, he would be left with no one to grow his cabbages.

Under the Communist system, the man with the gun not only owned all the land, he would also direct all production. He would decide what type of cabbages to grow, where to grow them, when to plant and when to harvest.

The man with the gun would also decide who would do the planting and weeding, who would do the raking and hoeing, who would lead the horse and who would fix the tools and sew the cabbage sacks.

“But I want to be a real estate agent.”

The whole thing would be micro managed by the man with the gun. Unfortunately, people who are good at killing people and seizing power, don’t know poo about growing cabbages.

One of the starkest examples of this was the transition in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe from capitalism to a form of communism. The successful white landowners were either attacked and driven off their land or murdered.

The men with the guns took over and immediately sold off anything which wasn’t bolted down and then sat around and drank the proceeds. When they ran out of grog, they moved on to the next property.

Even with the best of intentions, the chances that these “war veterans” could have successfully run a farming business were Buckley’s to none. It never has worked, and it never will.

The white Rhodesian farmers working under a capitalist system were good farmers. Those who weren’t good farmers went bankrupt and their farms were bought up by those more capable.

Under a communist system, the land doesn’t go to people who are capable of growing bulk cabbages, it goes to people who are capable of killing anyone who opposes them.

Marx thought that producing things was easy. It isn’t. It takes hard work, skill and dedication. When you put violent killers in charge of production it collapses, and people starve.

That isn’t because they are not implementing Communism correctly. It is because they are implementing it correctly.

Even if the people who violently overthrow the previous regime with violence and murder turned out to be kindly and beneficent (which never happens), the results would still be the same.

Mass starvation followed by brutal repression is baked in the cake of Communism. It happens every time and yet for some reason, some people still think that next time will be different……..

To be continued.

Part 3 can be found HERE


As you are of British descent when are you going to admit that the biggest supporter of communism ever was not a Labour prime minister but Conservative Winston Churchill. In May 1941 Hitler offered to withdraw all German troops from France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Greece and Yugoslavia in return for peace with Britain. He wanted to concentrate on fighting Stalin. The entire British Empire including Australia could have withdrawn from the war and watched from the sidelines as the two dictators fought it out. But no Churchill had to be a repulsive hypocrite and support Stalin while claiming to be fighting against dictatorship.

New Post Up !!

Max Horkheimer (February 14, 1895 – July 7, 1973) was a Jewish philosopher-sociologist born in Stuttgart to a wealthy Jewish family. As a member of the ‘Frankfurt School‘ of social research he was most famous for his work in critical theory, a technique of criticising everything but providing no rational alternative. Horkheimer’s most important works include The Eclipse of Reason (1947) and, in collaboration with Theodor Adorno, The Dialectic of Enlightenment(1947).
“The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.” – Max Horkheimer


False comparison. Many products are restricted and should be. The Portugese seem to have stumbled upon a more effective response to your sponsors marketing campaigns.

Prohibition = No free market = black markets = crime, murder, bribes and lower quality products.

DT....If you know my opinion on what I see is right for Australia and it's future direction.....Islam is Cancer number one...Labour and the greens are close behind when it comes to placement on the Trapdoors below the Noose.......Cancers to ALL our Diggers died to protect for us and future Australians...Filth, one and all.......

Carrrrreful, BKH. You will awaken the lying, drunken, posturing 'never was a' trooper 5.
Still, he probably is so exhausted, from telling his stories of bravery, and how he bought all of the fake medals that he wears, at Hervey Bay RSL Club, that 10 schooners has floored him.
Low life scum.

Pablo...there is no room for U in Labor.

DT....Australia is fast becoming a small Nation....After 4 Years of Labour we will be lucky if the world see us as anything but a Bankrupt Small business.....

Aust 1: Heh bludger get a ribbon and we might listen to you. Then again you are a foul mouthed dickhead so we should just scroll over you.

Is it worth it???

This applies to Australian sacrifices.

Every time Labor forms a “Government “, they fuck small business.


Wow, look at that acronym.

Marxism, Socialism, or Communism in practice are nothing but state-capitalism and rule by a privileged minority, exercising despotic and total control over a majority having virtually no property or legal rights. As is discussed elsewhere herein, Talmudic Judaism is the progenitor of modem Communism and Marxist collectivism as it is now applied to a billion or more of the world’s population.
Only through thorough understanding of the ideology from which this collectivism originates, and those who dominate and propagate it, can the rest of the world hope to escape the same fate. Communism - Socialism was originated by Jews and has been dominated by them from the beginning.
Problem, Reaction, Solution.
Friedrich Engels | German philosopher |
Hegel was a conservative, but his influence on the revolutionaries Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels was profound. They inherited the Hegelian claim to understand the “totality” of history and life as it progressed through a dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Marx’s essay, On the Jewish Question, originally published in 1844 contains the following:
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. 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…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.
1 Timothy 6:10
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.................". If that's the case then Jews must be at the root because their Banks own it all.

If you say so, who are you again?

"Moreover, the moral appeal of the activists’ case would have been weakened by the notion that there had been several waves of Aboriginal migrants, each of whom had violently dispossessed the other. Rather than a story of aggressive white imperialists disrupting an arcadian Aboriginal people living in harmony with one another and their environment, the long term history of Australian habitation would have resembled more that of humanity at large where the stronger have pushed aside the weaker, irrespective of the colour of either side. Hence, instead of a simple moral tale of goodies and baddies, the history of this continent would have reflected more the hard reality of the human condition everywhere."

So there you have it. Modern aboriginals and activists who claim 60,000 years of continuous occupation are not being totally honest with us. They have an agenda, how typically human. I read a lot of literature about Aborigines when I was younger and this article confirms my understanding that the original negrito peoples were displaced by later arrivals who pushed them out until all that were left were the Tasmanians and a few tribes in the QLD rainforests. It would appear that most of the Aboriginals alive today are descended from invaders who displaced the original inhabitants. History repeats, eh.

"..................Changes in society, Marx argued, are not achieved overnight through the efforts and will power of "a handful of men.” [Fedoseyev, p. 233] Instead, they are brought about through a scientific analysis of economic conditions of society and by moving toward revolution through different stages of social development.
That is classical Marxist misdirection, of course, with the blather about a scientific progression of history. It also refutes itself for at least two reasons: 1) Willich and Schapper weren't calling for action by a handful of men, they were calling for action by millions of men and women simultaneously across Europe—the very thing the industrialists feared most. 2) The industrialists had changed society in a matter of decades, and they were in fact “a handful of men.” A few powerful people working together can achieve incredible things, and history is full of examples of that. Marx and his backers knew that, which is exactly why they were publishing manifestoes saying the opposite.
I encourage you to study that last quoted sentence closely. Here it is again: Instead, they are brought about through a scientific analysis of economic conditions of society and by moving toward revolution through different stages of social development. When did anything in history ever happen that way? Answer: it didn't. The French Revolution happened in just the opposite way, with no scientific analysis of economic conditions and no moving through stages of social development. The 17th century overthrow of Charles by Cromwell didn't happen that way, either. Both real history and human nature are the opposite of scientific. They are the opposite of Marxist.
As more evidence of this, I beg you to reconsider Marx's pitting the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. This should have always seemed strange to you, seeing that the great enemy of the worker was not the bourgeoisie, but the very rich industrialists who owned the companies. As now, it was the super rich that were preying on the workers, not the middle class. The lower class and the middle class should have been natural allies against the upper class, since both were and are being preyed upon mercilessly. Well, the upper class recognized that fact, and had to prevent that alliance by any means possible.
Enter Karl Marx.
Do you really think it is a coincidence that Marx came from a family of super wealthy industrialists, and that he was misdirecting attention away from them all along? You will tell me that when he returned to Cologne in 1848, he pressed four of the ten points of the Manifesto, believing that “the bourgeoisie must overthrow the feudal monarchy and aristocracy before the proletariat could overthrow the bourgeoisie.” [Wheen, p. 129.] But again, that is misdirection, since his rich uncle Benny was neither monarchy nor aristocracy. The Philips family was composed of bankers and industrialists, not aristocrats. In fact, these industrialists wanted to supplant the existing aristocracy. It was upper class versus upper class, and in some parts of the world it still is. Remind yourself what happened in Russia: the monarchy and aristocracy were overthrown, but not by the bourgeoisie. They were overthrown by a group of mysterious intellectuals like Marx—Lenin, Trotsky, etc.—and under closer examination we find they too were financed by bankers and industrialists.............................."

Sheesh, am I supposed to report in, haven;'t done much posting 'cause I've been in and out for most of the day, send me your -mail so we can eep in touch

And with Labour and the Greens with the cheque book and an new packet of pens, it ain't going to get any better, regardless....