Seize the means of propaganda to promote the most insidious, Christian hating tatrum; millions of human sacrificing, ideology ever known

Looking through the lens of the most familiar format, using present incarnations, their failures and then my alternatives, I will take apart the ideology that is seemingly untouchable, ever-fashionable among students and impressionable youth: Socialism. Though there are of course many other ways to dissect the ideology, including either pointing out its' multiple failures or its' body count dwarfing that of both world wars combined and doubled. Due to the presentation being ever changing; based on what will make it most appealing to the youth of the day, the defences of marxism and socialism alter slightly with the times, therefore I will focus on countering the arguments of the present day. 

Let's begin with the moral superiority of the creator and co-founder of socialism, karl marx. A man who claimed to be for the working class proletariat. How many working class proletariats whom he felt so passionate for, did he come in to contact with? Apart from his kids' nanny (who we'll get back to), we have a grand total of zero. Yes zero. Let's look at his other mantra today touted as a mark of his benevolence, reimbursing those proletariats fairly for what they produce. That same working class nanny, who worked for him for 30 years. How much was she reimbursed to the exact dollar? $0. According to a biographer who views him favourably (Mary Gabriel) it's likely that he raped that same nanny to have his illegitimate child. The benefits of working as a collective is another virtue espoused by modern tutors. How "collective" was he when refusing to go to his own fathers funeral due to his parents eventually refusing to give him money on that one way financial street that left them more and more restricted due to their sons' poor financial skills and lack of work ethic. Marx' first encounter with his closest friend freidrich engels, following the death of engels' girlfriend, was to request more money from him. 

A very recent addition to the blm movement's motivations is that they are "trained marxists." Perhaps a jump on the popularity of socialism to add steam to their movement. Had they, however, considered the things he had to say about members of their race, or had history teachers been honest, they may not have been as fervent in their support of socialism. Writing to his best friend and biggest financial backer, about his son in-law, "Being in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the animal kingdom than the rest of us..." Just one of such sentiments. So a rapist AND a racist. 

Another contemporary argument is that his society makes the most sense. Which falls flat when looking into actual details, of what his utopia would look like. Apart from to be a nanny state that he could suck the teet of, the only specific he goes into is the overthrowing of Christian society. Raised in one of the most religious places, not just in Germany, but the world, Triste, where Jesus' robe on his way to the crucifixion is believed to be preserved. All marx' poems that he wrote throughout his life, took Biblical tales and added a luciferian slant to them. Ironic he hates the origin of most of his ideas so much. Surrendering to the devil a recurring theme in his hardly C.S Lewis-like tales. 

Not tried properly? Not just a modern defence of socialism, this one has weathered many a storm. A lie told often enough...as spouted by a marx follower. I've yet to hear how this college educated, upper class, never had a career types would indeed try this "properly". How they would do a better job than Hitler, Ceaucescu, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini or Mao, Pol Pot...albeit all very evil but had great leadership and public speaking skills. How would they do better? I feel I'll be waiting a long time for a response here. 

To the final modern argument, "Scandinavian socialism". I'll wipe this out with one huge, though somehow not heavily publicized, statement. "I know that some people in the U.S associate the Nordic model with some form of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear, far from a socialist economy, Denmark is a market economy." To make this statement 'huge' as I said, who stated it? A great economist? A well known intellectual? No, only the Danish Prime minister, Lars Rasmussen. 

Now, we've established those proposing socialism as the ultimate ideal are, at best, very misguided and at worst, morally bankrupt. Now onto the ideology that hasn't just caused infinitely less human sacrifice, more escapes from poverty, but also is morally light years ahead. Capitalism. 

Aside from it's record pulling populations out of poverty, most notably, in everything we now call "the west" and how John James Cowperthwaite took Smithsonian principles to completely transform Hong Kong. Aside from its' immeasurable improvements to individuals and communities lives. By contrast, how many of its founders and players used hatred of an already existing ideology as their fuel? How many of them didn't practice a single thing they preached? How many did not interact at all with the people they claimed to be defending?

Ayn Rand, analysed subjective and intrinsic societal systems, though did not make poems twisting their meanings and killing their outcomes for the sake of their antithesis. Rand wanted to use her mind the way she defined the basis of capitalism, objectivism, to use reason to get to the most sensible answer. She looked into depth each of the systems and provided research and reason as to why the capitalist system was better. 

Unlike marx, John James Cowperthwaite, interacted with poverty stricken citizens of Hong Kong, not publicly assaulting the uses of socialism that had failed miserably at that time, rather he realised how good vs evil was a battle of my ideas versus theirs. Contrary to this, his Smithsonian thinking drew up the free market system wherein an objective view of values enabled the people of Hong Kong to apply reasoning and hard work to make a living that complemented, not usurped the needs of one another.

Adam Smith realised free markets are controlled by innovators and producers. He mapped out much of what now makes the modern west. Growing up in the "Scottish renaissance" he envisioned the ideology that could be recognised by non sacrificial means. Again not smearing or throwing shade (to use modern speak) on other societal systems. 

All three did enough research into the populace that they realised "common good" came with some men's needs taking precedence over others. That no system should be upheld by physical force and none of them were racists who raped their childrens' nanny.