I am wondering how you see the difference between the “Zionist overlords” and the corporations that require middle class subservience. Isn’t it today’s monopolies in the corporate world leveraging religious zealots to do there bidding as in the day of Constantine’s cleansing of the trade routes to the middle east . . . under the guise of protecting the holy pilgrimages?

Maybe this is an over simplification. I would appreciate your response,
~RuthAnn
PS my daughter was just accepted to Northeastern
I wonder if one day she will study with you and I will benefit from more of your insights

Unsurprisingly there is much rhetorical posturing about “the Periphery” to follow but very little of substance.

Marx cannot escape the orientalist charge himself:http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol6no1_2007/sahay_marxorient.html

Moreover,post-Cold War there still appears to exist a residue of leftists who want to saddle themselves with the ideas of a man whose economic theories were nurtured and channeled by a subversive elite in the East India Company’s Haileybury School of economists.Bentham and Smith were Marx’s intellectual forebears and they were old school imperialists.

Seen in this light Marx’s notion of how the elite could dangerously augment their power by recruiting the best minds from the ranks of the dominated seems something akin to an autobiographical fragment! After all,as Sahay reminds us-in mitigation for the orientalist direction Marx’s pieces for the NY Tribune took-Marx was perennially hard-up.

Whether Sahay thinks this meant Marx was catering for an audience hungry for Orientalist stereotyping of “the Periphery” or whether he thinks he was made vulnerable to NY Illuminati manipulations is not vouchsafed.

I would tend to the view that Marx’s indigence is a convenient leftist excuse for what should,by now,be blindingly obvious-Marx and Engels were both Illuminati Freemasons.According to Francis Wheen’s biography of him,on the “Eastern Question” Marx was not well informed and the Tribune pieces on these matters were ghost-written in Manchester for him by Engels.

Just why Engel’s (aka.Marx’s) ideas were so interesting to the NY Tribune’s nearly quarter million readers is the central question we need to answer in order to see Marx’s ideas in their true perspective.He gave an interview to The NY World in 1871 as well.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/71_07_18.html

R.Landor clearly suspects the involvement of British intelligence and masonic circles in the Internationale machinations behind the 1871 revolt in Paris.Marx confirms the latter but merely laughs off the influence of Mazzini,a known British intelligence asset.

By 1911,US awareness of Marx’s influence among Anglo-American banking elites was even more acute as attested by Robert Minor’s cartoon:DEE-LIGHTED in the St Louis Despatch.

http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-cartoon.html

It shows our hero embraced by Wall St. magnates,John D Rockefeller and J P Morgan.

People in those days were a lot better informed than they are today.

They would have known quite clearly what Marx and his finance capital monopolist disciples had planned for Wall Street as well as India and “the Periphery”.They were clearly less vulnerable prey for the vulturecrat elite than today’s NY readers!

The borderlands piece includes discussion of Marx’s denigration the anti-colonial struggles then raging in India,China and Algeria.There is also compelling evidence that Marx’s understanding of societies like India whose religious differences made them “compelling prey for conquest” was gleaned from his imperial masters.

The imperial masters of whom we speak were hand in glove with Illuminati Freemason banking families.In fact Marx’s NY Tribune articles wherein he suggested various means whereby capitalism could be expanded in the Orient were for editors who included Horace Greeley and Charles Dana both members of the NY Columbia Illuminati Lodge.

Now those Illuminati knew a thing or two about rendering cultures down to the point where they make “compelling prey for conquest”.

and the quote above remains as something of an autobiographical actually expresses