Again, referring back to his idea of there is no love in a bourgeois capitalist society and that women are merely a means to be exploited by the people in power, IE what he means men. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Sheep Get Sheared podcast. I'm your host, Austin Creed, and my friends, you're in for a treat. Today, we're going to break down how Karl Marx fractured the nuclear family. Now, I'm probably going to break this. Into two parts. Reason being that this is a very complex and very deeply philosophical issue and I really want to take this from the 19th century all the way up until the modern dating marketplace. Why I came up with the idea of. Typical bachelor ISM, all of it. I want to touch on all of it and we're going to do that. So that's. Probably. Why? I'm going to split this into two separate sections so that it's not just like a super long single shell. That being said, I'm probably going to make a lot of political statements. You're going to hear where I stand on it. You're going to hear about the history of the Communist manifesto, might even bring up a little bit of just coffee tall. We're going to talk about how the womanism feminist movement was born. From the Communist manifesto itself, we're going to talk about all of those things. So strap yourself in. You're in for a treat. Well, I will tell you is throughout the show you might have the desire to express yourself whether you agree with me, you think I left something out. You disagree? You want to say something? All those things are welcome. I welcome you to leave your comments below because people don't like to talk about these things. I have not heard somebody really break this stuff. Maybe it's true somebody has. But I haven't seen it. So in the desire to truly set the record straight, we're going to go through this. I've heard other content creators talk about this in passing, but we're going to break all of this down because when we talk about the sheep getting sheared, it's not just. Something that sounds kind of fun to say. The sheep, the first person. And instead of just. Slaughtering, they'll shear you to come back for more. Because it's a constant supply of resources. So when I look at the government today, when I look at how the corporations and the government have largely begun to work hand in hand against you. I understand that a lot of what I might. Says might seem. Socialist or communist. But I am not a communist. Communism is evil. Socialism is evil in my opinion, because it takes hard work and gives it to the bum. The Mook, a person who doesn't understand the value of the dollar, the person who would rather shoot up drugs in the street than. Get themselves out of bed and go to work. Oregon struggle to build some. That being said, I'm not going to put her around anymore. We're going to jump right in and right into the belly. Of the beast. And what we're going to do is I'm going to bring up Karl Marx himself in his own writings. We're going to break this down, OK, so. This is called the Marxist. Marxists.org this is a collection. If you go on to this website, it's a collection of a lot of things that marks angles. Trotsky, Lennon, all of these people have said letters, documents, books, all a lot of these things that they've said. But one thing that I really want to highlight is this right here. This section right here. I'll read it to you. It reads the following. The bourgeoisie sees his wife. A mere instrument of production, in this case the bourgeoisie, he's referring to the Maya. Those of you don't know what the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is. It's communist rhetoric for the haves and the have nots. Bourgeoisie is the middle class. Upper class military are the working class, the lower poor people. So in this case, he's comparing men as the haves and the woman as the have nots. Or in other words, the man as the oppressor and the woman as being oppressed and in his own words is the Communist manifesto. 1848, he says the following he says the bourgeois. Z sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common and naturally can come to no other conclusion than the law of being common to all will otherwise fall to the woman in other. Words. He's saying that because the bourgeoisie or the men see the women as mere instruments of production, they are a means to be exploited. That is what he is saying, and not only by that man. He's saying in general, by society, women are to be exploited, is what he's. Saying he's saying that women are being oppressed by the man. That is why he did not like the idea of the nuclear. Family. He thought the nuclear family was something akin to slavery, akin to in *******, and it was his desire to see the woman freed from that *******. But don't worry. If it sounds too good to be true, it is. We're gonna get. We're gonna explore what he would have instead. Let's keep going. Let's go back to what Paul Mark said. He said he has not even a suspicion. But the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production for the rest, nothing is ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeoisie at the community of women, which they pretend is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. I understand this might be a little hard to grasp because he speaks some very old language that's more old school. He's not a modern writer. This document is over 150 years old. But. Online translated at that, but. Here's what he's saying. The communists do not like. Communism, I'm sorry. The communists do not like capitalism. Capitalism is seen as the enemy, as in a system of exploitation. The same man called Mark said that there is no love in a bourgeois capitalist society. Mighty use is the only currency in this bourgeois capitalist society, so he's comparing this used as the only currency to women being instruments of production. In other words, they are a means to be exploited because there is no love in the capitalist society and in other words. It is only through this community of women rounding against their oppressors that they can then find true community in the halls and the warm embrace of communism and the communists. He says the communists have no need to introduce community of women. It has existed almost from time. Immoral. OK, So what he's saying is the Communists have no desire to control the women. They're promising them freedom. But here's the thing. That's the same thing that the feminist movement is saying, right? We want to free women, liberate them. Sound familiar? It's all familiar. We need to liberate women from the shackles of men and the laws that they make. Sound familiar? It's almost like they read the Communist manifesto, our bourgeoisie. Not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. In other words, he's saying that men take pleasure in the attempting to seduce another man's wife. Which is why in the mosaic law it says that one shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, covet thy neighbor's house, covet thy neighbor's dog, his oxen, anything that belongs to his neighbor. So what he's saying is the capitalists are hypocrites because while they claim to. Be content with their wives and their daughters. What they do is they seduce other men's daughters and other men's wives. And they. Take pleasure and pump themselves up on their ability to do so. Again, referring back to his idea of there is no love in a bourgeois capitalist society and that women are merely a means to be exploited by the people in power, IE what he means men. Says bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common, and thus at the most what the Communists most possibly be reproached with. With is thou they desire to introduce and substitution for a hypocritically. Concealed and openly legitimized community of women, in other words, what he's. Saying is. Women are already. Workers of the night, they're already treated. People are already sharing each other's wives, is what he's saying. He's saying people are already kind of schooly pooping on the side. They're they're cheating. They're they front with morality. But around the around the side, they're sneaking around, fornicating with each other. That's what he's saying. So he's saying we need to take down this system to then allow women the freedom. To both in public and in private be prostitutes. Why do you think that people like Kamala Harris have said that sex work is work? Why do you think sugar Baby culture has become so prevalent? Why do you think that pay for play has replaced dating, which I've talked about before? These are all things that have been done in tandem with the writings and the philosophies of. Angles and marks these. This is why we're seeing what we're seeing today. Because they saw marriage as nothing but a front, a system of oppression that stripped women of choice. Knowing that the women would return exactly back to that which they attempted to run away from *******, they wanted to put the bonds ******* on themselves because that apparently is freedom. You see how this doesn't make a lot of sense? Let's continue. For the rest it is self-evident, but the abolition. Of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, IE a prostitution, both public and private. See, that's exactly what we just talked about. Again, this is what he wrote in 1848. Is this not sound like things you've heard the feminist movement say? Oh, and I'll bring up their quotes. Let's look at them right here. Wanting this liberation from men wanting this liberation from the so-called shackles of society. Look, we must endure many defeats, but we must not be Maya Angelou. That's borderline trotskyism. There, the revolution never stopped. We must always push forward for progress is good. Anything that is forward is bad, even if I mean anything. Forward is good. Anything backwards is bad, even if you're going in a circle, which is what we're seeing today. Let's see who else has good quotes here? The fact that I was a girl never damaged my ambition to be a Pope or an emperor. Again. This is why people like Sigmund Freud came up with the idea of the penis envy theory. A lot of women who actually are attracted to women wish that they were men. Which then leads you to wonder who pioneered the feminist movement? It was largely women who agreed with Marx and who were attracted to women. If you can read between the lines of what I'm saying, I can't use the exact words I want to use because I'd probably be censored. But if you could read it to the lines of what I'm saying, you will see who was the forerunners of the feminist movement. It was not the housewives with signs that you've been told, because that is exactly what Rockefeller and his friends, the robber Barons, wanted you to believe so that you'd vote for. Because they knew that if. They. Could end their attempt. They were so greedy that they knew where this would go, but they knew that they stood to make money and make their their counterparts from the government happy by adding more tax revenue and thus helping to erode the family by corrupting the children as Lennon. That give me a generation and I'll control the next 10 as I believe what he said. And then if you then lead forward, you say if we have control of the children through daycare, through public education, through entertainment, through social media, we then see the society we have now. Every woman has the same software of I don't need no man. Men are oppressive. Women need to be freed from men. I don't you know. You hear this in different words and in different ways from the actions of women across every western nation, and increasingly amongst the eastern ones as well. That's where we're going to leave the first part I mentioned at the beginning of the show that I wanted to split this most likely into two different parts because at the end of the day, I don't want this to all just be 1 long form video because at the end of the day I think it's hard to digest everything that we've talked about thus far. So what we're going to do is I'll put this video out at 5:00 tonight and then tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM. Mountain Standard Time is when I'm going to release the next part of this series, and that's when we'll pick it up then. So again, in the meantime, you're welcome to put down your thoughts about what we've talked about thus far. I look forward to hearing about it. Always do your own research. I talk about this every single time on the show because. I present my side of the argument, which has tremendous historical impact, tremendous research behind it, but there's always people who want to add more. You're welcome to add more, even if I don't. Even if I don't agree with it, that's totally fine. It's your choice. I look forward to hearing about that, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say next. I'm out of here. Peace.