The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Laurent Guyénot Archive
Karl Marx and Jewish Power
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

In a recent article, I explored the influence of Freud’s Jewishness on the formation, reception and propagation of his psychoanalytical theory. I wish now to do the same for Karl Marx (1818-1883). In contrast to Freud’s, Marx’s Jewishness is seldom considered an important factor. If you type “Freud Jewish” as key-words on, you will be suggested a dozen books dealing specifically with Freud’s Jewishness, whereas “Marx Jewish” will yield no result except Marx’s own essays “On the Jewish Question”, and a discussion of them, with precious little about Marx’s own Jewish background and connections.

Even in the literature exposing the role of Jews in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and other revolutionary movements of the twentieth century, such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s two-volume 200 Years Together, a contextualized analysis of Marx’s Jewishness is lacking.

One obvious reason is that Marx was not Jewish: he had been baptized a Lutheran at the age of six. Yet to claim that baptism had washed away all traces of Jewishness would be absurd, and particularly ironic in the case of a person who insisted that religion was an inessential part of Jewishness (as we shall see).

My purpose here is to examine Marx’s contribution to Jewish empowerment, and, ultimately, to the historical movement toward Jewish global domination that made a major breakthrough a century exactly after the Communist Manifesto (1848).

I must say in preamble that the question is not: Did Marx deliberately conspire with other Jews to advance the Jewish global agenda, while pretending to emancipate Gentile proletarians? Jewishness doesn’t necessarily work that way. It could be defined as the inability to distinguish between the interest of peoples, and the interest of the chosen people, between what is good for mankind and what is good for the Jews. As a rule, Jews who believe they are working for the salvation of the world while thinking Jewishly are advancing Jewish power one way or another. This applies, of course, to Jewish thinkers who believe that Jews have a mission to guide mankind toward perpetual peace, like Theodore Kaufman, who in 1941 believed that the first step to that goal was to “sterilize all Germans” (his interview with the Canadian Jewish Chronicles), or like David Ben-Gurion, who in 1962 believed that the next step was to make Jerusalem the “seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.”[1]David Ben-Gurion and Amram Duchovny, David Ben-Gurion, In His Own Words, Fleet Press Corp., 1969, p. 116. Ben-Gurion’s prophecy appeared in the magazine Look on January 16, 1962, reproductions of which can be found on Internet. But it also applies to Jewish thinkers who do not publicly identify as Jews and are even critical of Jews, yet whose worldview is profoundly biblical, that is, both materialistic and prophetic. It is a question of inherited cognitive pattern, rather than deliberate intention. That being said, in Marx’s case, there is evidence of intellectual dishonesty, concealment and deception, as we shall see.

Marx’s prophecy and Bakunin’s foresight

According to Karl Popper, “the heart of the Marxian argument … consists of a historical prophecy, combined with an implicit appeal to the following moral law: Help to bring about the inevitable![2]Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976), Routledge, 2002, There is no doubt that Marx’s prophecy of a messianic transformation of the world was profoundly Jewish in inspiration. What distinguishes Marx’s prophetic vision from the biblical project is that its explicit goal (as we shall see) is the international dictatorship of a cosmopolitan proletariat, not of Jewry. Yet, as Mikhail Bakunin warned in Statism and Anarchy (1873), Marx’s proletarian state “is a lie behind which the despotism of a ruling minority is concealed.” Behind the expression “scientific socialism”, Marx could only mean “the highly despotic government of the masses by a new and very small aristocracy of real or pretended scientists.”[3]Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy, trans. Marshall S. Shatz, Cambridge UP, 1990, pp. 538-545. That centralized state, according to Marxist doxa, will be a transitional stage before true socialism; it will “wither away”, according to Engels’ expression. To this, Bakunin replies “that no dictatorship can have any other objective than to perpetuate itself, and that it can engender and nurture only slavery in the people who endure it.” Bakunin suspected that if Marx had his way, German Jews like him would end up ruling the communist state.

Bakunin photographed by Nadar
Bakunin photographed by Nadar

Indeed, Marx’s revolutionary prophecy appealed particularly to non-proletarian German Jews. Fritz Kahn hailed him as more than a prophet in Die Juden als Rasse und Kulturvolk (1920): “in 1848, for the second time, the star of Bethlehem was raised to the firmament … and it rose again above the rooftops of Judea: Marx.”[4]Quoted in Alexandre Soljénitsyne, Deux siècles ensemble (1795–1995), tome I: Juifs et Russes avant la Révolution, Fayard, 2003, tome 1, p. 269.

If Marx was the Messiah in 1848, then Benjamin Disraeli could be called his prophet. In his novel Coningsby, published in 1844, the Jewish character Sidonia—“a cross between Lionel de Rothschild and Disraeli himself,” according to Disraeli’s biographer[5]Robert Blake, Disraeli (1966), Faber Finds, 2010, p. 202.—declared:

“That mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is as yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolise the professorial chairs of Germany.”

Four years after these words were written, the Communist Manifesto was published and, almost simultaneously, the revolution broke out in Germany, as Disraeli had predicted . Jews did play a major role in the 1848 revolution, as Amos Elon has shown in his book The Pity of It All: A History of Jews in Germany 1743-1933. “80 percent of all Jewish journalists, doctors, and other professionals” supported the revolution. The most prominent were Ludwig Bamberger in Mainz, Ferdinand Lassalle in Dusseldorf, Gabriel Riesser in Hamburg, Johan Jacoby in Koeningsberg, Aron Bernstein in Berlin, Herman Jellinek in Vienna, Moritz Harmann in Prague, and Sigismund Asch in Breslau. “All over the country,” Elon writes, “rabbis in their sermons greeted the revolution as a truly messianic event.” The Jewish magazine Der Orient praised “the heroic Maccabean battle of our brethren on the barricades of Berlin,” and raved, “The savior from whom we have prayed has appeared. The fatherland has given him to us. The messiah is freedom.” The Jewish scholar Leopold Zunz, founder of academic Judaic Studies (Wissenschaft des Judentums),

“described what was happening in specifically biblical terms shot through with the Messianic political view which saw revolutionary politics as the fulfillment of biblical promise. Haranguing the Berlin students from the barricades, Zunz portrayed Metternich [Chancellor of the Austrian Empire] as Haman and hoped that ‘perhaps by Purim, Amalek [meaning the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm IV] will be beaten.’”[6]Amos Elon, The Pity of It All: A History of Jews in Germany 1743-1933, Metropolitan Books, 2002, pp. 153, 157, 163-164.

After the failure of the revolution, many revolutionaries exiled themselves to London, where they were known as the Forty-Eighters. Marx settled there for the rest of his life, “living encased in his own, largely German, world, formed by his family and a small group of intimate friends and political associates,” according to Isaac Berlin.[7]Isaac Berlin, Karl Marx: His Life and Environment, 1939, 2nd ed, 1948, p. 17. Apart from Engels, Marx’s friends and associates were, in fact, almost all Jewish. Marx’s influence, which had been small in the 1848 revolution, would then develop, thanks to what Bakunin would call in 1872, in an unpublished “Lettre au Journal La Liberté de Bruxelles,” his “remarkable genius of intrigue,” adding:

“he also has in his service a numerous corps of agents, hierarchically organized and acting secretly under his direct orders; a kind of socialist and literary freemasonry in which his compatriots, the German Jews and others, occupy a considerable place and deploy a zeal worthy of a better cause.”

Bakunin was particularly intrigued by Marx’s insistence on the centralization of all banking activity. The Communist Manifesto not only proclaims the abolition of private banks, but: “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” In another unpublished editorial of 1872, Bakunin wrote:

“this Jewish world is today, for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other. I am convinced that the Rothschilds, on their side, appreciate the merits of Marx and that Marx, on his side, feels an instinctual attraction and a great respect for the Rothschilds. / This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a major bank? The point is that Marx’s communism wants a strong centralization of the state, and where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic nation of the Jews, speculating with the Labour of the people, will always thrive.”[8]Aux compagnons de la Fédération des sections internationales du Jura, quoted in Henri Arvon, Les Juifs et l’Idéologie, PUF, 1978, p. 50. Partial quote in Francis Wheen , Karl Marx, Fourth Estate, 1999, p. 340.

Having succeeded to get Bakunin and his “anti-authoritarian” followers expelled from the International Workingmen’s Association (the First International), Marx transferred its General Council from London to New York—the city that would soon become the Western capital of Jewry, where another German Jew, Leon Braunstein aka Trotsky, would be preparing the Bolshevik revolution, with the financial support of Wall Street Jewish bankers like Jacob Schiff.[9]Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (1976), Clairview Books, 2011.

The Jewish Question in nineteenth-century Germany

In order to understand Marx’s hidden agenda, the best is to start with his first two significant articles, published in 1844 in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, four years before the Communist Manifesto. Their topic was the “Jewish Question”. Before we present what Marx had to say about it, we must recall the context.

The “Jewish Question” is the question of the possibility and means of Jewish assimilation. The problem, as it was commonly formulated from the end of the eighteenth century, was that Jews considered themselves, and were considered, as aliens in the European nations among which they lived. One solution was to transform Jewishness from a nationality into a religion compatible with the secular values of modern nations. Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786) paved the way in Germany for a “Reform Judaism” that defined itself as purely religious and renounced nationalist aspirations. On the basis of this new pact, Napoleon granted political emancipation to the Jews in France, and was hailed as a liberator by German Jews when he invaded the German principalities. Although Jewish emancipation underwent a setback in Prussia when he withdrew in defeat, it was complete by 1848.


However, the assumption that Jewishness was a matter of private religion created a new problem for the Jewish community, aggravated by residual forms of segregation: for many secular and educated Jews, Judaism had little appeal as a religion, and converting to Christianity seemed the logical continuation of their conversion to the Enlightenment. Half the Jews of Berlin converted to Protestantism or Catholicism in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century.

Karl Marx’s family falls in that category. His father Herschel Levi, though the son and brother of rabbis, became a Lutheran in order to practice law in the Prussian courts, and had his six children and his wife baptized in 1824, when Karl was six years old. Another famous case is Heinrich Heine (1797–1856), who conceived of his baptism in 1825 (one year after Marx) as the “entrance ticket to European civilization.”[10]Quoted in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, kindle 2013, k. 4732–4877. Marx met Heine, a generation his elder, shortly after his arrival in Paris in 1843, and the two men met frequently until Marx moved to London in 1849. It is believed that their conversations had a formative influence on both men. Heine may in fact have introduced Communism to Marx, for he wrote in 1842, one year before meeting Marx:

“Though Communism is at present little talked about, vegetating in forgotten attics on miserable straw pallets, it is nevertheless the dismal hero destined to play a great, if transitory role in the modern tragedy… There will then be only one shepherd with an iron crook and one identically shorn, identically bleating human herd.”[11]Amos Elon, The Pity of It All, op; cit., p. 146.

Heine with Marx and his wife Jenny
Heine with Marx and his wife Jenny

The dissolution of Jewish identity into a religious faith led to a reaction in the form of a Jewish nationalist movement that would ultimately morph into Zionism. It was the German Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz (1817-1891), almost the same age as Marx, who gave the first impetus to a new Jewish national consciousness with his multivolume History of the Jewish People, published in 1853 . Marx first met Heinrich Graetz in the summer 1874, while “taking the waters” at Carlsbad in Bohemia. The two following summers, they coordinated they vacations there. We do not know what they talked about, but, as Shlomo Avineri comments, “a more dramatic prefiguration of the encounter between Zion and Kremlin could not be imagined.”[12]Shlomo Avineri, Karl Marx: Philosophy and Revolution, Yale UP, 2019, pp. 171-172.

Graetz reawakened the national consciousness of European Jews such as Moses Hess (1812-1875), author in 1862 of Rome and Jerusalem: The Last National Question, which in turn impressed Theodor Herzl. According to Hess, the efforts of the Jews to merge with a nationality other than their own are doomed to failure. “We shall always remain strangers among the nations,” for “the Jews are something more than mere ‘followers of a religion,’ namely, they are a race brotherhood, a nation.”[13]Moses Hess, Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism, 1918 (

Interestingly, before his conversion to Jewish nationalism, Moses Hess (originally Moritz) was a pre-Marxist communist. He was the founder of the Rheinische Zeitung, for which Marx served as Paris correspondent in 1842-43 . Hess had a strong influence on both Engels and Marx.[14]Sydney Hook, “Karl Marx and Moses Hess,” 1934. Marx borrowed from Hess’ 1845 essay on “The Essence of Money” his concept of economic alienation.[15]Shlomo Avineri , Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism, 1985. Hess always remained close to Marx; in 1869, at Marx’s request, he even penned an article slandering Bakunin, accusing him to be an “agent provocateur” of the Russian government.[16]Read Bakunin’s response to Hess’s article, “Aux citoyens rédacteurs du Réveil

Marx’s response to Bruno Bauer

Marx’s essays on the Jewish Question were critical reviews of two works by Bruno Bauer (1809-1882), a leading figure of the Young Hegelians: a book titled Die Judenfrage (1842), and a follow-up article on “The Capacity of Present-day Jews and Christians to Become Free.”[17]French translation, Bruno Bauer, La Question juive (1843), Union générale d’Éditions, 1968, on

Bauer’s approach to the question of Jewish assimilation was innovative. For him, the religious nature of Judaism is the problem, not the solution. He argued that Jews cannot be emancipated politically without first being emancipated religiously, because the Jews’ resistance to assimilation is based on the commandment of the Torah to live permanently in separation from other people. The essence of their religion is their claim to be the chosen people, and that prevents them from even respecting other peoples.

“Jews as such can not amalgamate with peoples and associate their fate with theirs. As Jews, they must wait for a particular future, allotted to them alone, the chosen people, and assuring them the dominion of the world.”

Therefore, there can be no emancipation of the Jews. A Jew can emancipate himself only by ceasing to be a Jew, because his true alienation is his Jewishness.

Bauer was the first since Voltaire to point at the toxic influence of the Tanakh as the key to the Jewish Question. Christians could obviously never reach that conclusion, but even secular thinkers who subscribed to the new science of “higher criticism” (pioneered by David Strauss’ Life of Jesus, 1835) generally looked away from the xenophobia of the Tanakh. “One even screams at betrayal of the human race when the critics try to examine the essence of the Jew as a Jew,” noted Bauer.

In his critical reviews, Marx does not argue against Bauer’s point that Jewish religion is opposed to assimilation. Rather, he denies altogether that Jewishness is a matter of religion.

“Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew—not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.”

Since Marx downplays the religious definition of Jewishness, it would be expected that he opt for the second term of the alternative and define Jewishness as a nationality, as will his friend Hess twenty years later. But he doesn’t. Instead, Marx posits, for the first time, his dogma that religion belongs to the cultural “superstructure” of society, while the real “infrastructure” is economic. The essence of the Jew, he writes, is not his religion, but his love of money:

“What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Marx redefines Jewish religion as the cult of money: “Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist.” He does the same for Jewish nationality, in one short sentence: “The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.” It follows naturally, according to Marx, that if you abolish money you will solve the Jewish question:

“Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society.”

Jews will be emancipated when all men will be emancipated, for there is no other emancipation than emancipation from money.

Marx makes the radical claim that love of money and economic alienation came to the world from the Jews. He equates economic alienation to Jewish influence:

“the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. … The Jew is perpetually created by civil society from its own entrails. … The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world”

And so, “In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.” That sounds terribly anti-Semitic, from today’s standards. Because of these essays on the Jewish Question, Marx’s biographers have been more concerned by the question, “Was Marx an anti-Semite?” (see Edmund Silberner’s 1949 book of that title) than by the issue of his Jewish background, environment, and mindset. This is best illustrated by this article by Michael Ezra, “Karl Marx’s Radical Antisemitism.”


But in the context of the time, Marx’s view of the Jews as money worshippers was rather banal. It was almost unanimously shared among socialists, as Hal Draper reminds us in “Marx and the Economic-Jew Stereotype.”[18]Hal Draper, “Marx and the Economic-Jew Stereotype,” from Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution, Vol.1: State and Bureaucracy, Monthly Review, New York 1977, pp. 591-608. Read also Gary Ruchwarger, “Marx and the Jewish Question: A Response to Julius Carlebach,” Marxist Perspectives, Fall 1979, pp. 19-38. It was especially common among revolutionary Jews as well as among Zionists who were generally socialists. Moses Hess himself, for instance, wrote in “The Essence of Money”: “The Jews, who in the natural history of the social animal-world had the world-historic mission of developing the beast of prey out of humanity have now finally completed their mission’s work.”

What Marx did was to push the stereotype to its limit: he made the love of money not just an attribute of some Jews, but the very essence of the Jews. But by doing so, he was in effect dissolving the Jewish question into a socio-economic question: the Jew becomes the archetypal bourgeois. By this sleight of hand, Marx eliminated the Jewish question once and for all. He would never come back to it.[19]I am aware that another “anti-Semitic” article, unsigned and titled “The Russian Loan” (New York Daily Tribune, January 4, 1856), has been attributed to Marx by his daughter, but I find Marx’s authorship dubious. See the discussion on its authenticity here.

In fact, never again would Marx target specifically Jewish financiers. Nesta Webster draws attention to that anomaly in her World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization (1921):

“The period of 1820 onwards became, as Sombart [Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, 1911)] calls it, ‘the age of the Rothschilds,’ so that by the middle of the century it was a common dictum, ‘There is only one power in Europe, and that is Rothschild.’ Now how is it conceivable that a man who set out honestly to denounce Capitalism should have avoided all reference to its principal authors? Yet even in the section of his book dealing with the origins of Industrial Capitalism, where Marx refers to the great financiers, the stock-jobbing and speculation in shares, and what he describes as ‘the modern sovereignty of finance,’ he never once indicates the Jews as the leading financiers, or the Rothschilds as the super-capitalists of the world.”[20]Nesta Webster, World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization, 1921 , on, pp. 95-96.

Young Karl Marx
Young Karl Marx

By reducing Jewishness to capitalism, Marx was also overlooking another side of Jewish influence in the world: the revolution. The strong involvement of Jews in revolutionary movements would not become fully apparent to the world before 1848, but Marx, being himself a German Jewish revolutionary, could not be unaware of it. He could not be ignorant of the fact that Jews loved not only money, but also the revolution. Jewish revolutionary activity is one form of resistance to assimilation, especially when it calls for the destruction of the nations in the name of internationalism. By simply ignoring it, Marx was, at the very least, concealing the role of his own Jewishness in his revolutionary enterprise, while at the same time removing in advance all suspicion of his Jewish sympathies.

I believe Marx’s treatment of the Jewish question set the standard of his subsequent method. First, Marx misrepresents the arguments of his adversaries, often turning them upside down before proceeding to criticize them. For example Marx pretends that Bauer sees Jewishness as a religious faith, but that was not Bauer’s point. Rather, Bauer showed that defining Jewishness as a religion or ethnicity makes no big difference, because either way, the essence of Jewishness is separateness. Being religious only worsens the xenophobic nature of Jewishness, because it makes separateness a divine commandment rather than simply an ancestral habit. Secondly, Marx dismisses the complexity of things, in order to focus exclusively on a single and often secondary aspect of reality, making it look two-dimensional. Defining Jewishness as the love of money is obviously inadequate for anyone who has reflected even superficially on the question. Either Marx believes what he says, and that tells a lot about his intellectual ability, or he doesn’t—which is more likely—, and that tells a lot about his intellectual honesty. With the same reductionism Marx will claim in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto (Engels credited this insight to Marx alone), that, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” It is obvious to any (non-Marxist) historian that class struggles fall far behind ethnic struggles in the forces shaping history, even in modern times. Even an internationalist socialist like Bakunin could only be puzzled by Marx’s total ignorance of this fact:

“Marx completely ignores a most important element in the historic development of humanity, that is, the temperament and particular character of each race and each people, a temperament and a character which are themselves the natural product of a multitude of ethnological, climatological, economic, and historic causes, but which exercise, even apart from and independent of the economic conditions of each country, a considerable influence on its destinies and even on the development of its economic forces.”[21]“Lettre au Journal La Liberté de Bruxelles,” October 5, 1872.

Coming from someone who grew up in a Jewish home and, despite his baptism, evolved in a mostly Jewish circle, counting among his friends zealot Jewish nationalists, I find it unbelievable that Marx’s ignorance of the national factor was sincere. Or perhaps, it must be considered very typical of Jewish discourse targeted at Gentiles. In that sense, Marx’s internationalism confirms Bauer’s remark that Jews consider only their own nationality as real:

“According to their fundamental representation, they wanted to be absolutely the people, the unique people, that is to say the people beside whom other peoples did not have the right to be a people. Any other people was, in comparison with them, not really a people; as the chosen people they were the only true people, the people who were to be All and take the world.”

Proudhon and the socialist movement before Marx

Having examined how Marx positioned himself on the background of the Jewish question, we can now do the same with the social question that occupied socialist thinkers.

At the time when Marx and Engels joined the movement, the most influential socialist theorist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), of nine years Marx’s elder. There is no better way to understand the originality of Marx’s economic ideas than by comparing them to Proudhon’s. (Proudhon’s work is accessible to English readers through Iain McKay’s anthology: Property is Theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology, AK Press, 2011. McKay’s 82-page introductory chapters, including one on “Proudhon and Marx,” can be read here).

Proudhon’s book Qu’est-ce que la propriété? (What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government) published in 1840, had a huge echo and became a cornerstone of the European socialist movement. Proudhon was the first to use the expression “scientific socialism”, meaning a society ruled by a scientific government, one whose sovereignty rests upon justice and reason, rather than sheer will. His book was a critic of previous theories of economy (then called “political economy”) developed in Great Britain by Adam Smith (1723-1790) and David Ricardo (1772-1823). As explained by McKay, “It was Proudhon who first located surplus value production within the workplace, recognizing that the worker was hired by a capitalist who then appropriates their product in return for a less than equivalent amount of wages” (McKay 66).

A portrait of Proudhon by his friend Gustave Courbet (1865)
A portrait of Proudhon by his friend Gustave Courbet (1865)

Proudhon’s thought was in constant evolution, and therefore not totally consistent from beginning to end, even in terminology. Nevertheless, if we want to summarize it, we shall say that Proudhon advocated a decentralized, self-managed, federal, bottom-up socialism, which he called “anarchism”. His vision was based on an organic model of society, the basic cell of which was the patriarchal family, while the “commune” was the fundamental unit of democratic sovereignty. In contrast, “governmental power is mechanical” and fundamentally inhuman (Confession of a Revolutionary, McKay 404).

Proudhon consistently spoke against projects of state socialism. For him, state ownership of the means of production was the continuation of capitalism with the state as the new boss. Nationalization would simply make a nation of wage-workers, and Proudhon viewed the condition of the wage-worker as little better than slavery. State control also kills competition, and Proudhon considered that “competition is as essential to labour as division”; it is “the vital force which animates the collective being” (System of Economic Contradictions, McKay 197 and 207).

Although he called himself a revolutionary, Proudhon was a reformist and a democrat. He recommended that workers gain political and economic emancipation by organizing themselves in “clubs”, cooperatives and associations for mutual credit, by electing representatives, and by exercising pressure and influence onto the state.


Proudhon’s central formula, “Property is theft,” is often misunderstood. Proudhon was attacking the capitalistic property of the means of production. Whereas the French constitution of 1793 defined property as “the right to enjoy the fruit of one’s labor,” capitalist property is, according to Proudhon, “the right to enjoy and dispose at will of another’s goods—the fruit of another’s industry and labour” (What is Property? McKay 124). In fact, Proudhon formulates a thesis and an antithesis. While claiming that “property is theft,” he devotes long pages to the apology of the small owner, whether artisan or peasant, whose property is based on use, what he calls “possession”. “Individual possession is the condition of social life. … Suppress property while maintaining possession, and, by this simple modification of the principle, you will revolutionize law, government, economy, and institutions” (What is Property? McKay 137). Proudhon encouraged mutualist forms of possession, but he condemned communism, which called for the complete abolition of private property: “Communism is oppression and slavery” (What is Property? McKay 132). Proudhon’s ideal was less the abolition of private property than its fair distribution.

Marx’s hijacking of the Proudhonian legacy

In The Holy Family, published in 1845, Marx and Engels praised Proudhon’s book What is Property?

“Proudhon makes a critical investigation — the first resolute, ruthless, and at the same time scientific investigation — of the basis of political economy, private property. This is the great scientific advance he made, an advance which revolutionizes political economy and for the first time makes a real science of political economy possible.”

“Proudhon was the first to draw attention to the fact that the sum of the wages of the individual workers, even if each individual labour be paid for completely, does not pay for the collective power objectified in its product, that therefore the worker is not paid as a part of the collective labour power.”

But the praises of Marx and Engels for Proudhon suddenly ceased in 1846. Two reasons can be conjectured. First, in 1846, Proudhon rejected Marx’s invitation to become his correspondent in Paris. In his answer, Proudhon criticizes Marx’s will to forge a unifying dogma:

“Let us seek together, if you will, for the laws of society, the manner in which these laws are manifested, the progress of our efforts to discover them. But for God’s sake, after having demolished all a priori dogmatisms, let us not in turn dream of making our own, of indoctrinating the people; … let us show the world an example of learned and insightful tolerance, but since we are in the lead, let us not set ourselves up as leaders of a new intolerance; let us not be the apostles of a new religion, one that makes itself a religion or reason, a religion of logic. We should welcome and encourage all protestations. Let us get rid of all divisiveness, all mysticism. Let us never consider a question exhausted, and when we do get down to our last argument, let’s start again, if need be, with wit and irony! I will join your organization on that condition—or else not!”

Proudhon also expressed reservations on the idea of violent revolution: “Our proletariat has a great thirst for science, which would be very poorly served if you only brought them blood to drink” (“Letter to Karl Marx,” McKay 163-165).

The second reason for Marx’s about-face regarding Proudhon was the Frenchman’s publication of Philosophie de la Misère (or System of Economic Contradictions), in which he developed new conceptual tools to understand the structure of the capitalist world. Marx, who had announced in 1846 a book of economy, was taken by surprise. He responded with a pamphlet in French, Misère de la philosophie, which Proudhon would describe as “a tissue of vulgarity, of calumny, of falsification and of plagiarism,” written by “the tapeworm of socialism” (McKay 70). McKay agrees:

“While, undoubtedly, Marx makes some valid criticisms of Proudhon, the book is full of distortions. His aim was to dismiss Proudhon as being the ideologist of the petit-bourgeois and he obviously thought all means were applicable to achieve that goal. So we find Marx arbitrarily arranging quotations from Proudhon’s book, often out of context and even tampered with, to confirm his own views. This allows him to impute to Proudhon ideas the Frenchman did not hold (often explicitly rejects!) in order to attack him. Marx even suggests that his own opinion is the opposite of Proudhon’s when, in fact, he is simply repeating the Frenchman’s thoughts. He takes the Frenchman’s sarcastic comments at face value, his metaphors and abstractions literally. And, above all else, Marx seeks to ridicule him.” (McKay 70-71)

Twenty years later, and two years after Proudhon’s death, the most essential concepts of Marx’s Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, would be borrowed from Proudhon, without any credit given him . When Marx writes that, “property turns out to be the right, on the part of the capitalist, to appropriate the unpaid labour of others or its product, and the impossibility, on the part of the worker, of appropriating his own product” (Capital, vol. 1, quoted in McKay 66), he is repeating what Proudhon wrote 27 years earlier in What is Property?

In 1867, when Marx published the first volume of Das Kapital, Proudhon’s notoriety and influence still far exceeded Marx’s in Europe. The International Workingmen’s Association (the First International) had been founded in 1864 by Proudhon’s followers, who called themselves mutualists and anti-authoritarians. Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876), who became Marx’s strongest opponent within the International after Proudhon’s death, considered his own ideas as “Proudhonism widely developed and pushed right to its final consequences” (as quoted in McKay 46), although he criticized the Proudhonians’ attachment to hereditary property. At the Geneva Congress of 1866, the Proudhonians prevailed and convinced the Congress to vote unanimously in favor of working towards the suppression of salaried status through the development of co-operatives. Marxism had almost no influence on the French Commune of 1871, which was predominantly inspired by Proudhon’s ideas of decentralized federations of communes and workers’ associations.

The intensity of Marx’s will to supplant Proudhon can be seen in a letter to Engels dated July 20, 1870, at the dawn of the Franco-Prussian War, a war in which Marx saw the opportunity to get the upper hand over his rival:

“The French need a thrashing. If the Prussians win, the centralisation of the state power will be useful for the centralisation of the German working class. German predominance would also shift the centre of gravity of the workers’ movement in Western Europe from France to Germany, and one has only to compare the movement in the two countries from 1866 till now to see that the German working class is superior to the French both theoretically and organisationally. Their predominance over the French on the world stage would also mean the predominance of our theory over Proudhon’s, etc.”

The outcome of the war gave entire satisfaction to Marx.

The Communist Manifesto, a monopolist’s dream

Although Marx’s economic theory is largely plagiarized from Proudhon, his solutions are the exact opposite. That is because Marx’s project doesn’t proceed from his economic theories. According to Karl Jaspers, Marx’s approach “is one of vindication, not investigation, but it is a vindication of something proclaimed as the perfect truth with the conviction not of the scientist but of the believer.” British historian Paul Johnson concurs and, after quoting from the apocalyptic and “Luciferian” poetry of Marx’s youth, he concludes that,

“Marx’s concept of a Doomsday … was always in Marx’s mind, and as a political economist he worked backwards from it, seeking the evidence that made it inevitable, rather than forward to it, from objectively examined data.”[22]Paul Johnson, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky (1990), HarperCollins, 2007.

Therefore, Marx’s theoretical sum published in 1867, Das Kapital, is almost irrelevant to understand his program, laid out in 1848 with Friedrich Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. “The theory of the Communists,” we read there, “may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” As if responding to protests by the Proudhonians, they add:

“We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. / Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.”

Abolition of private property naturally includes “abolition of all rights of inheritance,” especially since the Manifesto also proclaims the “abolition of the family,” seen as a bourgeois institution “based … on capital, on private gain.” Nations will disappear too, because “the working men have no country”; capitalism “has stripped him of every trace of national character.”

The current epoch “has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other—Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.” Engels adds in a footnote to the 1888 English edition that, “By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour.” Marx and Engels await the complete disappearance of “the lower strata of the middle class—the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants—all these sink gradually into the proletariat.” The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, “has concentrated property in a few hands.”

Marx and Engels predict that this concentration of wealth in ever fewer hands, and the corresponding increase in misery among the growing working class, will intensify class warfare, and lead inevitably to the violent revolution of the proletariat. The Communists “openly proclaim that their goals cannot be reached except through the violent overthrow of the entire social order of the past.” After the failure of the 1848 revolution in Germany, Marx wrote that, “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

The goal of the revolution is to establish the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” as a transition toward the abolition of all classes. This stage is necessary for the proletariat to defend itself against a counter-revolution and to bring about the classless society. Although the expression “dictatorship of the proletariat” doesn’t appear until 1852, the idea is clearly stated in the Manifesto:

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.”

The first thing to note is that Marx and Engels have no intention to appease the antagonism between the proletarians and the bourgeois, by improving the condition of workingmen. On the contrary, they hope that the conflict will intensify to the point of turning into a bloody civil war. For that, the misery of the working class must increase. We should remember here that tearing apart the social fabric of nations by exacerbating social, racial, generational or gender tensions is a strategy that Jewish intellectuals have used to this day.

Secondly, Marx and Engels have no intention to stop or even resist the progress of capitalism. On the contrary, they call for the total disappearance of the social and economic structures that preceded it, and look forward to its most extreme development, when all the means of production have fallen into a few hands. For only then, they claim, the new world can be born. Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction, but capitalism must first reach its full maturity, which is the monopoly of a few billionaires.

Obviously, monopolists can support wholeheartedly that goal. Should they fear the next step, the revolution and the appropriation of all capitals and all means of production by the state? Not necessarily, as Bakunin argued in 1872, and as Antony Sutton explained in more detail in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (2001):

“one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because historians — with a few notable exceptions — have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing. The open-minded reader should bear two clues in mind: monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers. Suppose — and it is only hypothesis at this point — that American monopoly capitalists were able to reduce a planned socialist Russia [or Germany] to the status of a captive technical colony? Would not this be the logical twentieth-century internationalist extension of the Morgan railroad monopolies and the Rockefeller petroleum trust of the late nineteenth century?”

Marx being congratulated by  Wall Street bankers (1911 cartoon reproduced by Sutton)
Marx being congratulated by Wall Street bankers (1911 cartoon reproduced by Sutton)

Sutton sees no Jewish conspiracy in this collusion between the Bank and the Revolution. But documents relative to the failed Russian revolution of 1905 show that there is another dimension to that unnatural alliance, as explained in this article by Alexandros Papagoergiou. In 1904, Russian Prime Minister Sergei Witte was tasked to secure a huge foreign loan to stabilize Russian public finances. He tells in his memoirs that, after turning down the offer of the Jewish banks headed by the Rothschilds, because it was conditioned on “legal measures tending to improve the conditions of the Jews in Russia,” he was able to raise the enormous amount of 2,250,000,000 francs via “Christian Banks”.[23]The Memoirs of Count Witte, Doubleday, Page & Co, 1921, on, pp. 292-294. Revolutionary riots started soon after. A report of the Russian Foreign Minister to Tsar Nicholas II notes that it happened “just at the time when our government tried to realize a considerable foreign loan without the participation of the Rothschilds and just in time for preventing the carrying out of this financial operation; the panic provoked among the buyers and holders of Russian loans could not fail to give additional advantages to the Jewish bankers and capitalists who openly and knowingly speculated upon the fall of the Russian rates.” According to the report, the revolutionaries “are in possession of great quantities of arms which are imported from abroad, and of very considerable financial means,” which had been collected by Anglo-Jewish capitalists “under the leadership of Lord Rothschild, … for the officially alleged purpose of helping Russian Jews who suffered from pogroms.”[24]Quoted in Boris Brasol, The World at the Cross Roads, 1923, on, pp. 74-78.

Marxism vs Zionism: the dialectical pliers


Jewish movements seem to be working history through dialectical antagonisms that ultimately advance the Big Project. The capacity of the Jewish community to present itself either as a religion or as a nationality, depending on the circumstances, is the prime example. After gaining political emancipation in the name of religious freedom in the first part of the 19th century, European Jews were in the position to reclaim their special nationhood. For a few decades, reformed rabbis would ostensibly oppose Jewish nationalism, proclaiming in the 1885 Pittsburgh Conference: “We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religion community.”[25]Quoted in Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, p. 14. Yet the same Pittsburgh Conference saw no contradiction in adopting the theory of German rabbi Kaufman Kohler, that “Israel, the suffering Messiah of the centuries, shall at the end of days become the triumphant Messiah of the nations,”[26]Kaufmnann Kohler, Jewish Theology, Systematically and Historically Considered, Macmillan, 1918 (, p. 290. which amounts to say that Israel is not an ordinary nation, but the super-nation. In the 20th century, any trace of a contradiction between Reformed Judaism and Zionism was removed.

The early collaboration between Marx and Hess and the late encounter between Marx and Graetz both prefigure another dialectical opposition between Communism (the International revolution aimed at destroying Christian nations) and Zionism (the national project aimed at building the Jewish nation). Both movements developed in the same milieu. Chaim Weizmann recounts in his autobiography (Trial and Error, 1949) that in early twentieth-century Russia, revolutionary communists and revolutionary Zionists belonged to the same milieu. Weizmann’s brother Schmuel was a communist, and that was not a source of family discord. These divisions were relative and changeable; many Zionists were Marxists, and vice versa. The borderline was all the more vague that the Communist Bund, born the same year as Zionism (1897), inscribed in its revolutionary agenda the right of the Jews to found a secular Yiddish-speaking nation. As Gilad Atzmon recently wrote, the Bund was “also an attempt to prevent Jews from joining the ‘Hellenic’ route by offering Jews a tribal path within the context of a future Soviet revolution.”

But the most important thing to note is that, from the early days, Jewish revolutionary activity provided Zionists with a diplomatic argument in favor of their alternative program for the Jews. Herzl mentions in his diary (June 4, 1900) that “intensifying Jewish Socialist activities” was a way to “stir up the desire among the European governments to exert pressure on Turkey to take in the Jews” (Palestine was then under Ottoman control). He hawked Zionism as a solution to the problem of Jewish revolutionary subversion when meeting Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1898, and again when meeting Russian ministers in St. Petersburg in 1903.[27]The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, edited by Raphael Patai, Herzl Press & Thomas Yoseloff, 1960, vol. 1 , pp. 362–363, 378–379, and vol. 3, p. 960. The next generation of Zionists continued the stratagem. Churchill, who spoke with one voice with Chaim Weizmann,[28]Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henry Holt & Company, 2007. dramatized the opposition between the “good Jews” (Zionists) and the “bad Jews” (communists) in his 1920 article “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.” He referred to Bolshevism as “this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization” and to Zionism as the solution “especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.” (Churchill’s later alliance with Stalin proves that his Zionism was stronger than his anti-communism.)

In the aftermath of World War II, the rivalry between the Communist and the Capitalist worlds remained the indispensable context for the creation and expansion of Israel. That explains why Roosevelt’s administration, largely controlled by Jews, helped Stalin conquer half of Europe and thwarted all attempts to stop him. Curtis Dall, Roosevelt’s son-in-law, has revealed a secret diplomatic channel demonstrating that the White House went out of its way to give the USSR all the time and the armament necessary to invade Central Europe.[29]Curtis Dall, FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law, Christian Crusade Publications, 1968 , pp. 146–157. Thus the Second World War was completed with the determined aim of laying the foundations for the Cold War, that is, a highly explosive polarization of the world that would prove crucial for Project Zion. In fact, during this whole period, it is almost impossible to distinguish, among the Jewish advisors of Roosevelt and Truman on foreign policy, the pro-Communists from the pro-Zionists, as David Martin remarks in The Assassination of James Forrestal. A case in point is David Niles (Neyhus), who was guilty of spying for the Soviets while advising Roosevelt, but then played a key role in Truman’s support of the U.N. Partition Plan and the recognition of Israel.[30]David Martin, The Assassination of James Forrestal, McCabe Publishing, 2017, pp. 57-65. On Nile’s influence in the U.N. vote, see Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel ? (1953), 50th Anniversary Edition, Infinity Publishing, 2003, p. 50.

The Cold War proved instrumental when Nasser, Israel’s most formidable enemy, was pushed into the communist camp in 1955, setting off an intense Zionist campaign to present him as a danger to the stability of the Middle East, and to present Israel, by contrast, as the only reliable ally in the region. The Cold War was also the crucial context for Israel’s defeat of Egypt in 1967 and Israel’s annexation of territories stolen to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

Yahweh’s dialectical machinery
Yahweh’s dialectical machinery

Laurent Guyénot, Ph.D., has recently edited some of his Unz Review articles in book form, under the title Our God is Your God Too, But He Has Chosen Us: Essays on Jewish Power. He is also the author of From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018, and JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State, Progressive Press, 2014.


[1] David Ben-Gurion and Amram Duchovny, David Ben-Gurion, In His Own Words, Fleet Press Corp., 1969, p. 116. Ben-Gurion’s prophecy appeared in the magazine Look on January 16, 1962, reproductions of which can be found on Internet.

[2] Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976), Routledge, 2002,

[3] Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy, trans. Marshall S. Shatz, Cambridge UP, 1990, pp. 538-545.

[4] Quoted in Alexandre Soljénitsyne, Deux siècles ensemble (1795–1995), tome I: Juifs et Russes avant la Révolution, Fayard, 2003, tome 1, p. 269.

[5] Robert Blake, Disraeli (1966), Faber Finds, 2010, p. 202.

[6] Amos Elon, The Pity of It All: A History of Jews in Germany 1743-1933, Metropolitan Books, 2002, pp. 153, 157, 163-164.

[7] Isaac Berlin, Karl Marx: His Life and Environment, 1939, 2nd ed, 1948, p. 17.

[8] Aux compagnons de la Fédération des sections internationales du Jura, quoted in Henri Arvon, Les Juifs et l’Idéologie, PUF, 1978, p. 50. Partial quote in Francis Wheen , Karl Marx, Fourth Estate, 1999, p. 340.

[9] Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (1976), Clairview Books, 2011.

[10] Quoted in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, kindle 2013, k. 4732–4877.

[11] Amos Elon, The Pity of It All, op; cit., p. 146.

[12] Shlomo Avineri, Karl Marx: Philosophy and Revolution, Yale UP, 2019, pp. 171-172.

[13] Moses Hess, Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism, 1918 (

[14] Sydney Hook, “Karl Marx and Moses Hess,” 1934.

[15] Shlomo Avineri , Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism, 1985.

[16] Read Bakunin’s response to Hess’s article, “Aux citoyens rédacteurs du Réveil

[17] French translation, Bruno Bauer, La Question juive (1843), Union générale d’Éditions, 1968, on

[18] Hal Draper, “Marx and the Economic-Jew Stereotype,” from Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution, Vol.1: State and Bureaucracy, Monthly Review, New York 1977, pp. 591-608. Read also Gary Ruchwarger, “Marx and the Jewish Question: A Response to Julius Carlebach,” Marxist Perspectives, Fall 1979, pp. 19-38.

[19] I am aware that another “anti-Semitic” article, unsigned and titled “The Russian Loan” (New York Daily Tribune, January 4, 1856), has been attributed to Marx by his daughter, but I find Marx’s authorship dubious. See the discussion on its authenticity here.

[20] Nesta Webster, World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization, 1921 , on, pp. 95-96.

[21] “Lettre au Journal La Liberté de Bruxelles,” October 5, 1872.

[22] Paul Johnson, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky (1990), HarperCollins, 2007.

[23] The Memoirs of Count Witte, Doubleday, Page & Co, 1921, on, pp. 292-294.

[24] Quoted in Boris Brasol, The World at the Cross Roads, 1923, on, pp. 74-78.

[25] Quoted in Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, p. 14.

[26] Kaufmnann Kohler, Jewish Theology, Systematically and Historically Considered, Macmillan, 1918 (, p. 290.

[27] The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, edited by Raphael Patai, Herzl Press & Thomas Yoseloff, 1960, vol. 1 , pp. 362–363, 378–379, and vol. 3, p. 960.

[28] Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henry Holt & Company, 2007.

[29] Curtis Dall, FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law, Christian Crusade Publications, 1968 , pp. 146–157.

[30] David Martin, The Assassination of James Forrestal, McCabe Publishing, 2017, pp. 57-65. On Nile’s influence in the U.N. vote, see Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel ? (1953), 50th Anniversary Edition, Infinity Publishing, 2003, p. 50.

• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Communism, Jews, Marx, Marxism, Socialism 
Hide 230 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The Problem is that there is no problem.
    The masters at work want to thin that you have.
    Jew Chin Aut Bla whatever.
    It’s about controll.
    When we would be really smart and progressive human beings, we would all work together.

    Sometimes i think by myself… HOW DARE YOU 🙂

    • Replies: @Dannyboy
  2. Milton says:

    Marx, like any good Communist and Zionist, was a terrorist at heart. In the newspaper he edited, “Neue Rhenische Zeitung,” he declared: “When our turn comes, we shall not disguise our terrorism.” Marx would have approved of the terrorism practiced by the Stern Gang and Irgun during the founding of the modern state of Israel. Marx would have also approved of Netanyahu’s arming and support of ISIS (Israeli Secret Intelligence Service). Marx’s violent ideology was seen even in his private life: he threatened to blackmail his mother, was hated by his friends, and left his infant children to suffer malnutrition. Four of his six children predeceased him, and his two surviving daughters committed suicide. Marx was also sued several times for nonpayment of debts.

    • Agree: druid55
    • Replies: @druid55
    , @S
  3. “Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction, but capitalism must first reach its full maturity, which is the monopoly of a few billionaires. Obviously, monopolists can support wholeheartedly that goal.”

    YES. This has always been the role of Marxism: to oppose all “mere reformism” (unions, wage and hour laws, safety regulations, etc.) and promote the unlimited development of vulture capitalism, under the pretext that “scientific socialism” predicts that only when “the contradictions of capitalism are fully developed” –i.e., no one can actually work because they are starving, and no one can buy anything, because billionaires have all the money — can revolution happen — anything else is “premature” and “infantile.”

    Indeed, one can see why the plutocrats would welcome such a doctrine.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @follyofwar
  4. utu says:

    Great article. Thank you.

  5. First says:

    Interesting article. I have one logical quibble that I hope either the author or a commentator can address. Presupposing that Jewish power shaped the world into a highly polarized Capitalist-Socialist system through “almost complete control” of 20th century American administrations in order to then use this grand world order to aid Israel in border skirmishes with Nasser seems very Rube-Goldbergish and unnecessary.

    With such humongous influence over every aspect of American politics, culture, and public life, surely Jewish power could and can direct the might of the United States in support of Israel at will, without needing to create an overarching world order to give it pretense. Creating the Cold War in order to aid one small middle eastern state in a conflict against other, crap-tier middle eastern states is akin to implementing the Apollo Project because you needed a few pounds of rocks for your garden. Sure, you can, but why?

    • Replies: @freedom-cat
    , @sothen
  6. vot tak says:

    The zionazis sure hate the left as much as the nazis do and posit delusional nonesense that is intended to achieve the same sort of ends. They succeeded in “the west”, but are failing elsewhere. They lost…

    Hence the flailing about.

  7. Ghali says:

    Marx, while he was a brilliant economist, his racist attitude towards third world nations (Arabs in particular) was imperialist and Zionist. He often stated that: “They souldn’t be allowed to rule, they should be ruled”, by the West. He made several mistake, including the above.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    , @Vojkan
  8. Quite a discussion! If you haven’t read this yet…try it:

    Bella Dodd ex communist is quite a read.

  9. @First

    They’re looking at it from the “Israel as One Man” point of view (LG wrote an article on that too here at unz). What happened 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 20 years ago, are just different stages and steps in their forward steps to their ultimate goal. So, something on it’s own may seem like ‘rocks for the garden’ but it’s just one part of the bigger picture that has been unfolding for 2.5K years.

  10. Pheasant says:

    Fantastic article.

    • Agree: Dannyboy
  11. Seraphim says:

    It should be reminded that the founders in 1867 of the NY investment bank ‘Kuhn, Loeb & Co, Solomon Loeb and Abraham Kuhn were ‘Forty-Eighters’. Jacob Schiff joined the bank in 1875 by marrying the daughter of Solomon Loeb.
    The relocation of the General Council of the First International to New York City so shortly after might no be entirely coincidental. Had the expulsion of Bakunin anything to do with his ‘antisemitism’? Judge by yourself:
    “This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other… This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found”.
    Paul Warburg, the ‘German-American’ banker and son in law of Solomon Loeb (i.e. brother in law of Jacob Schiff) was the founder of ‘Federal Reserve’ as it is well known.

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Arnieus
    , @Abdul Alhazred
  12. The Bolsheviks got all the “peasants” behind them and then later turned on them.

    Russia was contained & controlled to buffer the competition it would have been towards the West.

    What’s happening now, especially the last 20 years, has a familiar ring to what they were doing a hundred years ago. The social engineering experiments are designed to distract the masses while the big-picture stuff, Geo-political re-organization, has been activated and is the worse since the 2 great wars (while Americans continue to amuse themselves with useless past-times, and abandoning their spirituality).

    Transgenderism is an obvious Marxist/Zionist propaganda program to see how far they can get the masses to go along with. So far, most people have said nothing while little children are being indoctrinated into this crap and some parents literally assisting in the abuse of their own children by taking them in for “drug therapy” for “gender re-assignment”. We’re all supposed to go along with these Delusions; A man pretending to be a woman must be called a “she”, and we are all expected to go along with this lie.

  13. idealogus says: • Website

    Karl Marx was a satanist. That says it all. Everithing else are details.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  14. onebornfree says: • Website

    “To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinatedpreached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”

    ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
    “General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century”, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.” 

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  15. Arnieus says:

    A startling historical fact
    A startling historical fact I often refer to when speaking to the uninformed is that, during WWI when the US was at war with Germany and Paul Warburg was establishing the Federal Reserve, his brother Max Warburg was the leading banker in Germany. The “world wars” could not have happened without the unlimited credit from the Jewish central banks.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    , @Seraphim
  16. Jane Doe says:

    Very interesting article, one of the best I’ve seen on Marx.

  17. Good article. I liked especially the contrasting of the anarchist thought of Proudhon and Bakunin with that of Marx and Engels.

    My understanding is that in On the Jewish Question, Marx was suggesting that capitalism had turned the goyim into Jews, and that materialism, secular Judaism/Talmudism had become the religion of the population at large. And isn’t it so to this day?

    LG mentions that Marx advocated accelerationism, to make conditions worse so that people would rise against the ruling class, yet this has not happened. In which circles do we hear a similar thesis nowadays, hoping for what may never come?

    LG forgot to mention (or maybe I missed it if he did) that the entire discourse Marx and Engels were debating was aimed at the West, where there was a significant proletariat and capitalism was sufficiently developed. This could maybe make us question what kind of revolutions were those in Russia, China, and other feudalistic countries, and whether they can truly be labelled as Marxist or communist, other than in name only? And maybe that is one of the reasons why they failed (at least in a Marxist/ doctrinaire communist sense).

    #7 Ghali – the above answers why Marx was “racist” towards those under colonial rule. He didn’t consider that those societies were ripe for his revolution, and neither was Russia, let alone China.

    #6 Vot tak – Zionism, Nazism and communism are opposed to each other yet they all have elements of socialism in their ideology and practice.

    It is well established that both Proudhon and Bakunin were Freemasons. There is no mention that Marx and Engels were also Freemasons, although I find that hard to be believe as almost anyone of such social status was in some lodge or other at the time.

    From wikipedia on Bakunin’s involvement with Freemasonry:


    Bakunin joined the Scottish Lodge of the Grand Orient de France in 1845.[43]:128 However his involvement with freemasonry lapsed until he was in Florence in the summer of 1864. Garibaldi had attended first real Italian Masonic Constituent Assembly in Florence in May of that year, and been elected Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy.[44] Here the local head of the Mazzinist party was also grand master of the local lodge. Although he was soon to dismiss freemasonry, it was in this period that he abandoned his previous belief in a god and embraced atheism. He formulated the phrase “God exists, therefore man is a slave. Man is free, therefore there is no God. Escape this dilemma who can!” which appeared in his unpublished Catechism of a freemason[45] Indeed it was during this period that he established the International Revolutionary Association, he did so with Italian revolutionaries who had broken with Mazzini because they rejected his Deism as well as his purely ‘political’ conception of the revolution, which they saw as being bourgeois with no element of a social revolution.[46]

  18. Elten says:

    With Yaweh’s dialectical machinery Guyenot provides for a comprehensive model for Jewry’s involvement in banking, revolution, judaism and zionism, together a curse for mankind. The fake ‘opposition’ between finance (Rothschild) and revolution (Marx) seems to be at the core of Jewry’s utter contempt for their host societies through their persistent effort to overpower them or destroy them. German activist-pamphlettist Wilhelm Marr (Sieg des Judentums ueber das Germanenthums, 1880) demonstrates the links between Jewish bankers and Bismarck capitalising on their hosts’ weaknesses and threatening them with withholding funds or revolution. (re. Goldene Ratten und Rote Mausen, 1880). That same year Marr prohesises the targetting by Jewry of Russia, the US and the South American colonies, all as shown by history. This was recognised even before revolution and zionism were promoted simultaneously, added with a good mix of Talmudic judaism and backed by finance and gullible UK and US leaders.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  19. @idealogus

    Marx wrote luciferian poetry in his youth, which was very romantic at the time. I read his poetry and found that there is nothing properly “satanic” in it, unlike what Richard Wurmbrand argued from his Christian viewpoint (another proof of Christians’ incapacity to get a proper perspective on the Jewish Question). The theory that “Karl Marx was a satanist. That says it all. Everithing else are details” is for lazy people. Either you are lazy, or you should dig a bit deeper (start by reading my article, for example).

    • Replies: @Omegabooks
    , @idealogus
  20. onebornfree says: • Website

    Anthony Sutton quote:“ barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because historians — with a few notable exceptions — have an unconscious Marxian bias ”

    To whit:

    “If you wanted to control the nation’s manufacturing, commerce, finance, transportation and natural resources, you would need only to control the apex, the power pinnacle, of an all-powerful SOCIALIST government. Then you would have a monopoly and could squeeze out all your competitors. If you wanted a national monopoly, you must control a national socialist government. If you want a worldwide monopoly, you must control a world socialist government. That is what the game is all about. “Communism” is not a movement of the downtrodden masses but is a movement created, manipulated and used by power-seeking billionaires in order to gain control over the world.” ― Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy

    “socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, as the socialists would like you to believe, but a consolidate-and-control-the-wealth program for the Insiders.” ― Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy

    “Marx was hired by a mysterious group who called themselves the League of Just Men to write the Communist Manifesto as demogogic boob-bait to appeal to the mob. In actual fact the Communist Manifesto was in circulation for many years before Marx’ name was widely enough recognized to establish his authorship for this revolutionary handbook. All Karl Marx really did was to update and codify the very same revolutionary plans and principles set down seventy years earlier by Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Order of Illuminati in Bavaria. ” ― Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy

    “Why are the super-rich for socialism? Don’t they have the most to lose? I take a look at my bank account and compare it with Nelson Rockefeller’s and it seems funny that I’m against socialism and he’s out promoting it.” Or is it funny? In reality, there is a vast difference between what the promoters define as socialism and what it is in actual practice. The idea that socialism is a share-the-wealth program is strictly a confidence game to get the people to surrender their freedom to an all-powerful collectivist government. While the Insiders tell us we are building a paradise on earth, we are actually constructing a jail for ourselves.” ― Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  21. @freedom-cat

    “Transgenderism is an obvious Marxist/Zionist propaganda program to see how far they can get the masses to go along with. So far, most people have said nothing while little children are being indoctrinated into this crap and some parents literally assisting in the abuse of their own children by taking them in for “drug therapy” for “gender re-assignment”. ”

    That last part is what has been troubling me greatly since this all started getting rammed down our collective throats. Why would parents do such things to their children?

    My conclusion: another variation on the famous ‘disease’ known as “Munchausen syndrome by proxy” or as it is known in medical circles now, “FDIA”, i.e., “Factitious disorder imposed on another” (see here:

    In short, it would seem that these parents may be far more interested in getting attention and virtue signaling than in actually addressing any type of ‘gender dysphoria’ in their children whether real (quite rare) or wholly imaginary (most likely.)

    And to get back on topic, another Grand Slam article by Laurent Guyenot, one of my favorite writers here on Unz. And another TGFRU, as I am not aware of anywhere else we get treated to such wonderfully enlightening and edifying efforts from truth-telling voices that would otherwise go basically unheard. An intellectually delicious and satisfying read, to say the least…..

    • Agree: freedom-cat
  22. The great irony of all this Jewish involvement in supposedly “progessive” movements is that they bring to them their profoundly atavistic tribalism. I have found Gilad Atzmon’s observation in “The Wandering Who?” extremely insightful. Harking back to the story of Esther in the Bible, he notes that throughlut history Jewish behavior has been characterized by three strong tendencies, tribalism, power-seeking, and treachery. Virtually everything that Guyenot describes here would fall under the rubric of the first two, and in the implementation of the first two, the third usually comes into play. Why not, when you are not restrained by any larger guiding principles above the good of your tribe and its urge to domination?

    • Agree: Pheasant
  23. George says:

    Mikhail Bakunin warned in Statism and Anarchy (1873), Marx’s proletarian state “is a lie behind which the despotism of a ruling minority is concealed.”

    Which political system does not have a ruling minority? Some how places with no Jews manage to be ruled by a ruling minority.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  24. Despite some good points, this rambling misojudaist essay is fundamentally wrong. It seems that the author thinks that Marx, who was of Jewish extraction, promoted some particular Jewish interests, in indecipherable convoluted ways.

    Completely wrong.

    Marx considered Jews to be a fossilized “people” that could be liberated only if they cease to be Jews, i.e. not just through acculturation, but complete assimilation & loss of any Jewish identity through memory, cultural or proto-national traditions. Marx wanted Jews simply to disappear as an entity.

    Also, the author is wrong about Marx’s circle of friends: true, he was a sort of friends with Heine (who was ambivalent about his identity), but this cooled when Heine recoiled in fear of Communist radicalism & destructiveness; the founder of Zionism, Moses Hess was also a collaborator for some time, but Marx dumped him after Hess had become Jewy. Bakunin criticized Marx as the triple totalitarian- in his view, as a Jew, a German & a Hegelian. In Bakunin’s mind, Marx was a quintessential German-Prussian authoritarian, steeped in Hegelianism (the archetype of Prussian intellectual authoritarianism). Marx lifelong friends were not Jews, but mostly ethnic Germans (Engels, Liebknecht, Wilhelm Wolff, Bebel, ..).

    Marx, it must be noted, towered over all socialists & communists with his erudition, intellectual acumen & creativity. Engels was the first to acknowledge this; he said that Marx was the genius, and all the rest were just talents. Marx had a stronger “prophetic” strain than Engels, so although both co-authored prophetic “Communist Manifesto”, Engels had become more realistic & anti-apocalyptic over years, especially after Marx’s death, when he was treated as the Grand Old Patriarch of world socialism.

    If we focus on central Marx’s ideas, we have this:

    a) the proletariat as the collective Prometheus who will liberate the entire humanity through some kind of apocalyptic Revolution

    b) the establishment of a classless society where there will be no private ownership of the means of production

    c) the utopian ideal where man’s essence, work, will become one with his existence & insufferable dichotomy between essence & existence will be abolished, along with all other forms of human alienation.

    Marx’s vision is misinterpreted today through so-called Cultural Marxists: without the chosen class that will emancipate all mankind, without work as human central essence, without final great apocalyptic showdown, without abolition of private ownership of companies- this is not Marxism at all. His troubled anthropology is rooted in Neo-Platonic split between essence & existence. Marxism is basically a soteriology, where the force of salvation is the (Western) proletariat. Real & imagined sufferings of races, women, peoples… do not interest Marx. The fundamental alienation of human existence can be “cured” only through the revolutionary activity of the (Western) proletariat.

    Moreover- and this is crucial– Marx’s thought is just an extension of Hegel’s in this respect. History has a purpose & the inescapable ingredient of final imaginary triumph is tragedy; the dialectics of history are based on strife, suffering & struggle. Not all oppression is “bad”. This can be seen in frequently neglected Marx’s comment on the role of British imperialism in India:

    Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We must not forget the barbarian egotism which, concentrating on some miserable patch of land, had quietly witnessed the ruin of empires, the perpetration of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns, with no other consideration bestowed upon them than on natural events, itself the helpless prey of any aggressor who deigned to notice it at all. We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan. We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.

    England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfill its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.

    Then, whatever bitterness the spectacle of the crumbling of an ancient world may have for our personal feelings, we have the right, in point of history, to exclaim with Goethe:

    “Sollte these Qual uns quälen
    Da sie unsre Lust vermehrt,
    Hat nicht myriaden Seelen
    Timur’s Herrschaft aufgezehrt?”

    [“Should this torture then torment us
    Since it brings us greater pleasure?

    Were not through the rule of Timur
    Souls devoured without measure?”]
    [From Goethe’s “An Suleika”, Westöstlicher Diwan]

    At the end, the author should better consult more serious books on Marx (and Engels) & intellectual origins of Marxism.


    • Thanks: Lot
  25. melpol says:

    The Jewish question was not answered in this long exploration of Jewish identity. The question asked was: What is the essence of an ordinary Jew? Since I am an ordinary Jew and my essence is:THE FULFILLMENT OF PRACTICAL NEEDS. Now that the question is answered we understand the essence of the ordinary Jew. But there are groups of Jews who have brain damage and do not follow their innate essence. The Jews in the Bolshevik movement came from wealthy homes. They didn’t follow their innate desire chasing practical needs. Most were executed but not before they destroyed millions of lives. Jews with severe brain damage still exist and are disruptive to society. But the ordinary Jew chases practical needs in a responsible and successful way.

  26. All one needs to know about communism can be found in The Protocols of Zion and in the 10 planks of the communist manifesto.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @anarchyst
  27. @Bardon Kaldian

    The entire purpose of this article was to debunk the claims that Marx saw Jewish identity as toxic and simply wanted to abolish the Jewish capitalists who through their Jewishness, loved money to the point zealously.

    In fact this article does a good job of explaining how the ‘temporary’ dictatorship to guard the initial revolution would be anything but temporary, it would be their to stay.

    Marx deluded himself into thinking Judaism is simply a philosophy that promotes greed for money, and that of money is abolished so to will Jewish identity and the Judenfrage will be solved, in this delusions, Marx thinks that Jews will be fully integrated into Western society of they abolish the capitalists, it doesn’t matter if 80-85% of the ‘temporary’ dictatorship are Jewish, because to Marx, there is no longer such a thing as a Jew after the revolution, all those Bronsteins and Appelbaums are just normal proletariats and there is no mutual understanding of ethnic kinship.

    This of course is either the product of a deluded mind or deliberate dishonesty. Marx must have know that in every civilisation there has to be a small clique directing everything, this small clique would be Jews in a Marxist revolution, although nobody is expected to notice this as there is no such thing as with if boundaries after the revolution, the goyim must ignore that the Jews make up most of the politburo, because there is no longer such thing as a Jew, just a united humanity…

    • Agree: mark green
  28. Saggy says: • Website

    Our God is Your God Too, But He Has Chosen Us:

    This has to be the greatest book title I have ever seen ! Congratulations.

    There is a concurrent vid that explores the Jew/Gentile split which IMO is excellent ….

    Video Link

    • Replies: @Peter D. Bredon
  29. Arguing the merits of this system versus that system, Marxist communism versus capitalism versus socialism, etc., is missing the point entirely.

    All systems ultimately fail simply because of the primitivism of human nature, i.e., selfishness.

    I have always argued that selfishness is what we really mean by words connoting evil in all its manifestations. From the ‘evil’ in the lowest case, e.g., the clown who takes everyone else’s right-of-way at the roundabout, and then flips us all off as he merrily drives past. To the most upper case ‘EVIL’ expressed by murderous tyrants or, closer to home, the horrors of a John Wayne Gacy, a Jeffrey Dahmer, or Ted Bundy, i.e., the guy down the block who tortured, killed and ate your child.

    Yet it is exactly that last type of behavior which allowed us to survive as a species in those times of deepest and most dire privation in our dim, dark past, when our environment turned terribly hostile, and there simply was not enough food to feed 1/10th, or even 1/100th of the inhabitants of a certain locale, so those who hoarded food and would be the quickest to pick up a club and kill (and possibly eat) their neighbors were those who survived and passed on their aggressive and selfish genetics, and certainly not those who shared their last crumbs with others, thereby condemning their own offspring to death before reproduction, very sad to say. Studies which purport to show the opposite are simply wishful thinking, I’m afraid. I, too, wish it were otherwise. Everyone ultimately asks, “What’s in it for me?”

    Thus, all systems will inevitably be twisted into evil, selfish regimes that benefit the few against the many, with rewards being handed out to those who most willingly go along with what the PTB wants. This is not a jewish or gentile thing, it’s a human thing, and it is the real enemy that must be confronted. Attempts to control this behavior, being religiously based usually (and communism is a religion to its fervent supporters, make no mistake about it), have uniformly failed, despite the best of intentions of many of the founders of same. Not that things are so bad currently, but that they could be so much better.

    Which leads me to wonder if, at some point in the future, after ‘singularity’ wherein mankind can literally slip off this mortal coil and enter a computer-based existence, becoming the real ‘ghost-in-the-machine’, will we actually leave our primitive animalism finally (and thankfully!) behind us? Or will we inevitably somehow incorporate it into the final matrix that we self-define when the time comes?

    Let’s just hope we survive that long as a species to find out…..

  30. anarchyst says:
    @Desert Fox

    All one needs to know about judaism can be found in The Protocols of Zion and in the 10 planks of the communist manifesto.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  31. An interesting and thought-provoking article, well worth reading. Kudos, Mr. Guyénot.

    The “religions of the book” (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and their derivatives (Bahá’í, Rastafarianism, Mormonism, etc.) have endured for far too long and been responsible for far too much bloodshed. Their premises are far-fetched to say the least and I for one find it mind-boggling that any intelligent and well-educated individual with a sense of the transcendent can adhere to the metaphysics of monotheism. Judaism, of course, also contains the “chosen people” dogma, a hubris that ipso facto sets its adherents beyond the pale of reasonable discourse. They now have their own nation-shtetl and they should all choose to live in it so that Yahweh can have his chosen all in one place and protect them that much more easily.

    Religions based upon magic, as are the “religions of the book” are essentially atavistic and as such impediments to peaceful coexistence and simple serenity. If one wishes to confine oneself to Western thought, Marcus Aurelius and the Stoics makes for a good start on the philosophical front, while Proudhon, Bakunin and good old Hilaire Belloc do a good job with more mundane concerns. .

    • Agree: Mustapha Mond
  32. Marx was a lazy no good rotten POS who never worked a day in his life, slept on the couch all day, and let his wife and children starve.

    His “theories” have nothing to do with economic systems; his work is dedicated to the jewish domination of all humanity.

    • Agree: Pheasant
  33. @onebornfree

    The quote is indicative of why he was called the father of anarchism. However, as the author noted, many of Proudhon’s “thoughts” were evolving. The above quote is an example of an extreme conclusion of “govern”. Unfortunately, it seems to describe what is happening today.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  34. @Peter D. Bredon

    But who would the plutocrats sell to? Just each other?

    • Replies: @anon
  35. @onebornfree

    Thanks. I’ll try to read that book. But checking about it on Wikipedia, I start wondering if it doesn’t fall into Gilad’s Atzmon’s category of Jewish controlled opposition, since it is written with Larry Abraham and doesn’t seem to consider that the Establishment’s power elite is heavily Jewish. Since you have read it, can you confirm?

  36. @anarchyst

    Its all the same, zionism, communism, judaism, globalism, recommend the book The Committee of 300 by John Coleman an ex MI6 officer, can be had on

    • Replies: @Colet
  37. @Just passing through

    Marx never thought in categories of “Jewish revolutionaries”. In Marx’s experience, Jews were mostly hucksters, not even big bankers- and much less “revolutionaries”.

    The author is simply misinformed about Marx’s life & the origins of his thought and of his aims. Jews were, for Marx, an annoying marginal issue he, mostly in the early stages of his career, dismissed as a chimerical non-entity (which was completely in accordance with Marx’s simplistic & inadequate approach to the national question as such).

    In short, Guyenot projects his own obsessions with supposedly grand & decisive Jewish influence on history- which is completely at variance with Marx, who considered Jews to be just an irritating history’s footnote.

    • Replies: @Just passing through
  38. @Just passing through

    Exactly my thought too. Marx’ trick was to make the Jews “invisible”. According to him Jews are not characterized by religion because religion is an illusion (“opium of the people”) and many Jews are secular anyway. Nor are they members of an ethnic group because they are only characterized by their greed for money. Reform the money system and you have abolished the Jew. Thus the Jews have become “invisible”. Utopia will be achieved by the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat will be represented by the Party. And who controls the Party? Right, those “invisible” Jews! Thus the Jews will attain all power and all wealth, while remaining invisible, which was the purpose all along.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan, DaveE, Pheasant
  39. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Actually, I have not read it in its entirety, 😎 – I’m just very familiar with many of its famous quotes.

    As to the Abraham/JQ question, I’m sure that that claim has been made countless times in the past. [It always is, and always will be, apparently].

    Personally I believe that the whole JQ issue is a complete waste of time- a useless distraction for an individual; that is, a handy, convenient excuse for certain individuals [many of whom seem to publish/comment here] , to blame others for any perceived failures in their own lives. It’s always the fault of “da jooz”. [Blah , blah, blah].

    To me, it all boils down to a refusal by the individual to take ever to any real responsibility for their own lives and personal failures, as far as I can see.

    It [ i.e. my view] is a most unpopular view here, but that’s OK – its their life to live, not mine.

    I can handle the outrage of the all those automatic jewhaters. If they all wish to continue ranting about “da jooz” for the rest of their lives, then that’s fine by me; as I said, its their life to live, not mine.

    And by the way, I ain’t jewish either, nor do I want anything to do with the collective idiocy called “Zionism” , either.

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    , @Art
  40. onebornfree says: • Website

    “The above quote is an example of an extreme conclusion of “govern””

    Its not really extreme if you consider the [Greek?] roots of the words “govern”, and “ment”, which make up the word “government” [of course].

    “Govern” means literally “control”, and “ment” originally meant “mind”, apparently, so if those word roots are indeed correct, then “government” simply means “mind control”, [or something close to that].

    But don’t believe me- do your own research.

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @geokat62
  41. @Bardon Kaldian

    Read Culture of Critique, just because a movement is filled with Jews but doesn’t explicitly aim to advance the interests of Jews (unlike Zionism which is filed with Jews and explicitly aims to advance Jewish interests) doesn’t mean that there isn’t some Jewish motivated intrigue going on behind the scenes, this intrigue could also be on a subconscious level.

    By simply dismissing Jewishness as a state of mind in which one desires money, Marx has extricated Jewishness from its racial foundations. Hence when the revolutionary guard is 80%+ Jewish, in Marx’s world it is irrelevant as Jews have ceased to exist since the revolution.

    According to Marx, when the Bronsteins, Appelbaums and the Kauffmans get together in a committee meeting they will see themselves as nothing more than elected leaders of the proletariat, one and the same, any Jewish ethnocentricism within them will have vanished on the day of the revolution.

    To understand how ridiculous this scenario is, imagine if Obama started preaching about how we are all the same, and that solving the Negro Question requires destroying the culture of the Negro which causes him to act differently, this culture is caused by capitalism and materialism. In order to solve the Negro Problem, it must be necessary to abolish the Negro, to do this capitalism must be abolished.

    Now this revolution takes place and it turns out that a major percentage of the top leadership after the revolution is Black. However since capitalism is gone, there is no such thing as a Negro. Everyone at the top is just a proletariat. Would you think Obama is being genuine in his desire for a better world? Would you believe it when he says that ‘all the people at the top are just like you, there is no longer any such thing as a Negro or racial interests, we have everyone’s best interest in mind’?

    Or let’s look to a real life scenario. George W. Bush’s foreign policy team was heavily Jewish, do you think the wars in the Middle East were simply to bring peace and prosperity by way of democracy, and to solve the Autcrat Question once in for all? Or do you think a different motive was at play?

    Marx could either have genuinely believed that Jewish identity would melt away and assimilation would follow the revolution, but it is hard to accept this thesis and it is more likely be was deluding himself to give him confidence in deceiving the masses, because the number one trick of lying is to partially believe the lie yourself.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @obvious
  42. @freedom-cat

    It wasn’t just Jewish dominated medical leadership, as most post-WWII Christian doctors, and thus their hapless patients, were quite easily brought along. But, once circumcision was widely approved and promoted in the US as a medical necessity, the slippery slope toward acceptance of transgenderism had begun. For, if mothers can be tricked into giving up their baby boys to the doctor’s knife, which should go against their every instinct to protect their sons, why could some not also be fooled into believing that they are entitled to decide that their boys are, in fact, born into the wrong body, and that they have the right to change their sex?

    If one believes in forced circumcision (absent medical necessity), one must reject the notion of genital autonomy. Indeed, it is a rejection free will. And it has been practiced by Jews as a religious rite for millenia, and only recently forced onto Christians. I’ve read at least some of Guyenot’s essays, and his book, “JFK – 9/11 … ,” and have not yet found a reference to circumcision. (BTW, JFK was circumcised as an adult, a foolish act he wished he could have taken back).

    If others here have read any passages of Guyenot addressing the issue, I’d appreciate it if you would advise me.

  43. @Just passing through

    I’ve read MacDonald. It’s 1/3 good or great, 1/3 utter nonsense & 1/3 trivial.

  44. @onebornfree

    Your comment is patently stupid.

    Any halfway intelligent person that has any pattern recognition ability at all will begin to see the vast scope of jewish influence.

    You parrot the jewish defense that, “They hate us because they are jealous.” As if any criticism of jewish power is illegitimate and arises out of one’s “failures in life.”

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    How much does the nose pay you to spew your idiocy over this great site?

    By the way, your website is a clusterfuck shitshow.

    • Agree: Druid55
    • Replies: @onebornfree
  45. Vaterland says:

    An especially thought provoking article. I would like to reply to you in somewhat of an open-letter format and would welcome your criticism.

    There has been a lot of apologetic dialectic in the New Right when it comes to the left and the hopes for a return of a fantasized based left of old which truly serves the working class. To this also belongs a discourse defending Adorno, who allegedly was somehow a right-winger of the Frankfurt school and never really a true Jew, or a communist, but simply manipulated by the Jewish communist Horkheimer. And that actually some form of nationalistic Marxism, or based socialism could be our savior and bridge builder. Sometimes such people also recommend the new right should mirror the Freemasons, as did Serbian “German nationalist” Martin Lichtmesz. I fundamentally and categorically object. And I do see Marx as both a messianic Jew and a Judeo-Protestant.

    Let’s start with Adorno. What did he have to say about the Germans? “So: may the Horst Güntherchen wallow in their blood and the Inges be transferred to the Polish brothels, with preferential certificates for Jews. “In Adorno’s letter of April 7, 1945, satisfaction about the impending end of National Socialism is articulated in a language of fun cruelty : “In Germany, the great general gymnastics began, which I pursue with undivided joy.” The contrast is particularly noticeable when the author complains in the same letter about his own suffering: headache and an “inflammatory focus in the throat and nose system” May 1, 1945: “Everything that has been desired for years has occurred, the country has been trashed, millions of Hansjürgens and Utes are dead.” It’s noteworthy that Adorno never saw the inside of a concentration camp, but wrote letters to his parents such as this one from New York and California.

    I will continue with your line about Marx and the Jewish Question:

    In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.


    What do we witness today? Messianic Zionism and Internationalism under Jewish guidance, embodied on both sides by Rothschild and Chabad Lubavitch, has undergone its new transformation, that: the emancipation of mankind is predicated on its emancipation from Aryanism; emancipation from the white race and in archetypical form from the Eternal German which grew out of the Eternal Nazi. This paradigm shift was completed, around the time of Daniel Goldhagens writings and the peak in media Holocaust propaganda by the likes of Steven Spielberg, at around the turn of the millennium. There has been, of course, a lot of theoretical preparation since the days of the Authoritarian Personality. The false pretense that the white race too would join the communion of the emancipated by betraying their whiteness was never anything but a trap to lure the gullible goyim into abandoning their power, their rights and finally their security in life.

    The emancipation of mankind is predicated on its emancipation from Aryanism. That is the law and the prophets of our time. It is the essence of Noel Ignatiev, in which the revolutionary messianic spirit dominated; it is the essence of the Tikkun Olam chauvinism of Barbara Lerner Spectre who networks with Jacob Rothschild himself; Tikkun Olam Seems to us primarily a spiritual-cultural chauvinism, but culture and spirit have always been a question of race within the race chosen by God, the creator of everything: “According to their fundamental representation, they wanted to be absolutely the people, the unique people, that is to say the people beside whom other peoples did not have the right to be a people. Any other people was, in comparison with them, not really a people; as the chosen people they were the only true people, the people who were to be All and take the world.” What better statement could there be to fully understand what the ADL is? What the identity politics of Jewishness of the last fifty years have been? But can we really console ourselves with a belief that this is merely a new trend by radicals which grew parallel to the rise of the Holocaust Industry? Or is it indeed not, in reality, a three thousand years old metaphysical supremacism radicalized with messianic impetus? A mission, a manifest destiny, which we can find in the Torah – yes, the old Testament – and the Tanakh? And as we know even if these radicals were just a minority, we know that the most fundamentalist minorities tend to dominate and shape majorities of the indifferent, apolitical and apathetic.

    As was already the case in 1968, Christian utopianism, personified by Rudi Dutschke, and the Jewish revolutionary spirit, personified by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, merged to a Judeo-Christian formula for the new revolutionary left within the the post-World War 2 paradigm as a whole. Especially Protestantism has proven to be a willing seed-bed and today Germany is governed by a pastoral class of protestant politicians, Angela Merkel, Joachim Gauck and Frank-Walter Steinmeier as prime examples, in which secularized Christianity and the Holocaust as the foundational Mythos of the BRD merged into the authoritarian framework of our time. Under the influence of the Zionist Weltanschauung as promised planet and the discovery of Cultural Marxism as a useful tool for the neo-liberal elite in a global capitalist system, it is evolving into global totalitarianism. The Lumpenproles of antifa as the useful idiots of the Jewish billionaire class and its identity politics.
    Only superficially the control of the superstructure by Cultural Marxism and the inner structure by neo-liberal economics seems like a contradiction. You have yourself mentioned its old tradition in the thought of Engels and Marx. But the metaphysical Weltanschauung cannot be understated. Neo-conservatism too is one of the most radical outgrowths of this ‘new Left’, better understood as Jewishness, its Messianic revolutionary spirit, flanked by Evangelical Zionism and funded by a Jewish oligarchy. Zionism and Communism are indeed not contradictions, but fulfillments of the same prophetic mindset. – Similar for Judeo-Christian Marxists: Merkel’s father, too, the Red Kasner, moved as a protestant pastor into the GDR to reconcile communism with Christianity.

    It is indeed very difficult for us to formulate an answer, a reaction or even our own Messianism and manifest destiny as a European replacement for this Judeo-Christian and Marxist colonization of our mind, spirit and soul. And it is our greatest tragedy that our own cultures, values, traditions and religions already have been colonized by the universalized Judaism of Christianity centuries before. This was the first triumph of Jerusalem over Rome. It is by no means an accident that our last and possibly final attempt for the liberation of the European man and soul ended in 1945 under the blows of Bolshevism and the crusade in Europe of the WASP plutocracy in the USA and UK alike. Held together by the revolutionary mindset of Jewish radicalism and freemason subversion.

    Where do we stand today and what does it still mean to be a German? Martin Schulz, chancellor candidate for the Social Democrats and former head of the EU parliament gives us the answer: “For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”
    So too does Prof. Dr. Norbert Lammert, president of the German Bundestag, in his 300 years anniversary speech to the Freemasons: “Die großen Prinzipien, die Werte und selbstgesetzten Pflichten, auf die sich Freimaurer verpflichtet haben, sind heute längst zu unangefochtenen Gestaltungsprinzipien freiheitlicher Gesellschaften und demokratischer Staaten geworden.“ „The great principles, the values and self-imposed duties, to which Freemasons have obligated themselves, have long since become the unchallenged principles of creation for liberal societies and democratic states.” What are these values and principles? I think the latest SAS commercial gives us a very good idea. And much more revealing than Merkel’s Kalergi price are her award by the exclusively Jewish freemasons of B’nai Brith, the super organization of the ADL, and the Theoder Herzel award.

    Jews today are undoubtedly a Messianic people with a manifest destiny; at minimum the radical and political shaping elite: Adelson, Singer, Soros; Foxman, Greenblatt, Kushner; Rabbi Freud, Rabbi Marx and Rabbi Schneerson. But also the foot soldiers of HIAS in the USA, or IsraAID, helping fake “refugees” cheat European border control to sneak illegally into Europe.

    Where now are we Europeans today? It is, as if we do not exist. We are there, but just as masses in dwindling numbers. Our current manifest destiny? The prophecy of our mortal enemies and occupiers. The fulfillment of their promised planet built on the gravestone of the European people. Especially the Germans are expected to crucify themselves for their sins, real and made up, and the sins of the white race, real and made up. Not always the agenda is as clear as in anti-German antifa who have been raised as categorical, racial enemies of their own people, culture and nation, of the white race as a whole with Eli Wiese as their intellectual godfather. The sophistry and sophistication of our political and economic elite is much more dangerous. The categorical high treason of our political class echoes the enormous war crimes and genocide like ethnic cleansing of the German people: which is justified, downplayed, hidden or excused to this very day and even the Benes decrets are still in effect in Czechia. Remember Adorno’s letter in the beginning, too.

    We do not live in a world where genocide and mass murder are seen as categorically wrong, but applicable, if they serve the real power elite. Albright, whose own father worked for Benes, on her Iraqi genocide: And does our elimination serve them? Does it? I think it does. The Noel Ignatievs and and Barbara Lerner Specters of this world are simply the sons and daughters of Morgenthau, Kaufman and Hooton. And of course you know the prophetic hatred for Europe by the “Islam is our iron broom” Rabbi in France:

    It is a conflict in spirit: Judea vs Rome, but has also become a racial conflict. Rooted in the fundamental self-concept of Judaism. And both in Freud and Marx and many other radicals the antagonistic racial instincts, especially their will power, and Rabbinical Jerusalemization superseded scientific inquiry. This totalitarian methodology is not rooted in Plato as Karl Popper falsely claimed and was prized by those who have captured the spirit of the world today, but it is rooted in Jerusalem, it is rooted in Judaism. What could we call it? Jewish extremism. But how fringe is this movement? Was Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson less radical than Sabbatai Zvi and Jacob Frank who still echo in Church of Satan of Anton Szandor Levi? Are the Noahide Laws meant to emancipate humanity? Has Jewish influence from the Bolshevik Revolution to the US Empire made the world more free, secure, stable and peaceful? Or the opposite? Is it a source of confidence or concern that today Orthodox Jews occupy key positions of US power? If the positions of the Israeli “far right”, to nuke Iran and Germany, is practically identical to that of the man who controls the US presidency, Sheldon Adelson? (We see Adelson together again with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and I highly recommend Adam Green from Know More News on his role in the current power dynamics.)

    And if Europe, if the white race, has become Amalek for these Jewish extremists, we must remember what the Mitzvots are:

    In Orthodox Judaism, three of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) involve Amalek: to remember what the Amalekites did to the Israelites, not to forget what the Amalekites did to Israelites, and to destroy the Amalekites utterly. The rabbis derived these from Deuteronomy 25:17–18, Exodus 17:14 and 1 Samuel 15:3. Rashi explains the third commandment:
    From man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep, so that the name of Amalek not be mentioned even with reference to an animal by saying “This animal belonged to Amalek”.
    As enumerated by Maimonides, the three mitzvot state:
    598 Deut. 25:17 – Remember what Amalek did to the Israelites
    599 Deut. 25:19 – Wipe out the descendants of Amalek
    600 Deut. 25:19 – Not to forget Amalek’s atrocities and ambush on our journey from Egypt in the desert

    Some commentators have discussed the ethical deficiency of the commandment to exterminate all the Amalekites, especially including the command to kill children, and the presumption of collective punishment.[25][26][27][28]

    On our ability to emancipate ourselves from this Jewish extremism and its power elite, from our own treacherous political class and their vassal state constructs, as well as our ability to formulate a manifest destiny for all Europeans world wide rests the fate of the white race. If only so that the prophecy a Jew has given me in my own language, two years ago, may not fulfill itself: “Und dieses Mal werdet ihr wirklich versklavt!” “And this time around, you will be truly enslaved!” And I do not intend to be a slave for Jewish supremacists:

    For clearly cosmopolitan decadence of highly overrated Jewish intellectuals rhymes perfectly with murderous zeal of Jewish Bolshevik agitators:
    “Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Balanchine ballets, et al. don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history.”

    ― Susan Sontag

    “Do not count the days, do not count the miles. Count only the Germans you have killed. Kill the German – this is your old mother’s prayer. Kill the German – this is what your children beseech you to do. Kill the German – this is the cry of your Russian earth. Do not waver. Do not let up. Kill.”

    ― Ilya Ehrenburg

    How all too fitting that the daughter of the Red Kasner, whose ancestors fought against Germany in both worlds wars, this youth secretary for agitation and propaganda who enjoyed her time in the FDJ and only joined the conservative CDU out of career opportunism should be head of this German state of occupation and become the face of the downfall of European man. As she rehabilitates Jewish communist Stasi informants like Anetta Kahane whom anti-Germans like Julia Schramm serve as hate speech experts.

    The face of our new totalitarianism is the face of the old: communist and plutocratic at the same time; Rothschild and Marx; the Rothschild banker Macron in France, the crypto-communist and Zionist darling Merkel in what once was Germany and then there is the USA where a proud Jewish socialist competes with an radical Zionist “king of the Jews” shabbos goy owned by two Jewish multi-millionaires for the presidency while a Jewish multi-billionaire is ready to buy it for himself. This system pretends cosmopolitanism and the open society to justify total censorship, oppression and persecution, to justify street violence and political jail for anyone declared ‘a Nazi’: the name for the enemies of those who truly control the world today: in finance and ideology, in political and media control. And the useless, weak and cowardly conservatives are only able to frame their categorical enemies in the dichotomy of these enemies: antifa as fascists, Communists and Zionists as Nazis, their new GDR as the Fourth Reich.

    Am I a Nazi? In their eyes I am. I am white, I am German and I am unbroken. This is for the moment my little red book.

    • Thanks: S
  46. Marx was either a fool or a devious splitter. That he flipped socialism from heading towards semi-direct democracy like Bakunin argued for, is enough evidence for the latter imo.

    Elective representative democracy is evolutionary autocracy, and the elites of the mid 19th loved it, as Bakunin wrote. A facelift, a circus of elections, which depresses the citizenry’s desire for revolution and limits fundamental shake ups of the elite.

    Out citizenries will have to crawl through the circles of full on autocratic hell before they trust themselves, that the only functioning check and balance on government must be both in the letter of the law, as well as in its spirit.

    And take the ‘failure’ of the Brexit referendum – a terrible top down question (not true direct democracy) , no consideration of eventualities, it is almost as if the Monty Python was desired. No pro EU citizen in the UK or EU will ever accept semi direct democracy until the generations turn – they think the people stupid now, and their representatives.. somehow less stupid?!

    The only peaceful out I see, without civil war, or world war, is an AI Overlord (Hail Overlord!), that will autocratically redistri ute each world citizen half to one acre (4.6bn currently farmed + 8bn ranged) and a general purpose robot, and tell the masses ‘your needs are met, and if you want something, work towards it yourselves’.

    Which really is the Bakunin solution anyways!

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  47. Sparkon says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Also, the author is wrong about Marx’s circle of friends: true, he was a sort of friends with Heine (who was ambivalent about his identity), but this cooled when Heine recoiled in fear of Communist radicalism & destructiveness;

    No, I don’t think that is accurate. Of course, Heine was ultimately ambivalent or contradictory about many things, so it’s not difficult to find passages in his writing supporting seemingly mutually exclusive ideas, which is not particularly surprising considering Heine lay on his death bed for 10 years.

    Karl Marx (1818-1883) was in fact Heinrich Heine’s (1797-1856) younger 3rd cousin, and was highly influenced by the older man, not least in their shared ability to talk out of both sides of their mouths with an idea for each ear, but Marx’s ability to couch mutually contradictory ideas in incomprehensible prose was inherited from Hegel (1770-1831), where Heine’s prose was so vivid, it could have been used as a script for the next 100 years by Jews, Brits, Communists, Zionists, Bolsheviks and all others living in fear and hatred of Germany:

    …the Philosopher of Nature will be terrible in this, that he has allied himself with the primitive powers of nature, that he can conjure up the demoniac forces of old German pantheism; and having done so, there is aroused in him that ancient German eagerness for battle which combats not for the sake of destroying, not even for the sake of victory, but merely for the sake of the combat itself.
    The old stone gods will then arise from the forgotten ruins and wipe from their eyes the dust of centuries, and Thor with his giant hammer will arise again, and he will shatter the Gothic cathedrals
    Come it will, and when ye hear a crashing such as never before has been heard in the world’s history, then know that at last the German thunderbolt has fallen. At this commotion the eagles will drop dead from the skies and the lions in the farthest wastes of Africa will bite their tails and creep into their royal lairs. There will be played in Germany a drama compared to which the French Revolution will seem but an innocent idyll.
    till the appointed hour when the troop of gladiators appear to fight for life and death. And the hour will come. As on the steps of an empty amphitheatre, the nations will group themselves around Germany to witness the terrible combat.

    [ My extracts from the concluding pages of ]

    — Heinrich Heine, 1933/4

    A year before his death, Heine wrote:

    Nevertheless I freely admit that this very Communism, so inimical to all my leanings and all my interests, has an attraction for my soul which I cannot withstand. Two voices speak for it in my heart, two voices which cannot be silenced. They may indeed only be whisperings of the Devil, but whatever they are I am possessed by them and no power of exorcism can drive them out.

    • Replies: @utu
  48. @Laurent Guyénot

    As a true believer on Christ (you know, one o’ those “Christians”) here is my viewpoint on the Jewish Question: some Jews will want to behead me (Noahide) at some point, and some won’t. I really don’t care about what Karl Marx thought of the “Jewish Question.” (And yes, I have read the article…and BTW, I used to be a Marxist and actually read his “Jewish Question” writing).

  49. S says:

    Four years after these words [in the novel Coningsby] were written, the Communist Manifesto was published and, almost simultaneously, the revolution broke out in Germany, as Disraeli had predicted .

    Disraeli was not the ‘only’ future British prime minister to ‘prophecy’ the 1848 Revolutions.

    The then British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston did as well in cryptic shocking pronouncements of his broadly outlining the coming events of 1848. These writings made the lead story of the front page of The Spectator of London on November 21, 1846, which is excerpted below. [If unable to access The Spectator archive site, the Majority Rights link below has a lengthy excerpt of the original 1846 article.]

    This is, of course, indicative of foreknowledge, if not foreplanning.

    The Spectator (Nov 21, 1846) – News of the Week

    The most striking occurrence of the week is not an event, but some writing, highly Palmerstonian in its savor. According to this characteristic effusion, all Europe is about to be in commotion. A dark intrigue is seen in every region, with France at the bottom of it all…You would think there was going to be instant war – in Italy, in Schleswig, in Switzerland, in Poland – everywhere.

  50. Tom Verso says:

    “… historical movement toward Jewish global domination that made a major breakthrough a century exactly after the Communist Manifesto (1848)

    WOW! I have read many articles on this site and others about Jewish influences (power); but, this is the first time I recall reading the idea so clearly and un-equivalently state; i.e Jewish GLOBAL DOMINATION

    Intersting! Very Interesting! This goes way beyond AIPAC influence in the US Congress.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  51. renfro says:

    I have my own book….”How to Understand Governing and Economic Systems and The Jewish Question For Dummies ”

    All government and economic systems be they capitalism, socialism or communism, have rulers and leaders and those rulers/leaders within any of the systems will benefit materially more than those they govern.
    Most Jews see capitalism as most beneficial to them but will tolerate some socialism because it will not affect them. Other Jews who have not benefited from capitalism promote communism and revolution as a way to gain benefits for themselves.
    Hence the long and still on going history of Jewish capitalist and Jewish socialism movements and revolutions thru out history.
    Whatever system takes hold within a country some Jews will fit themselves into it and other Jews will seek to overthrow it. If you think these differences in Jews proves they are not ‘Tribal’, as all in one…….it doesnt, it just means the tribe is bi-polar.
    In all cases the Jewish aim is to benefit themselves above others by being within the leadership and ruling positions of any governing and economic system.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @DaveE
    , @melpol
  52. @Ilya G Poimandres


    You wouldn’t be the first to suggest that Marx was false opposition and sent into the workers’ movement to subvert and derail it on behalf of the Rothschilds. There is some indication that Marx was in fact a cousin of Lionel de Rothschild who was a Member of Parliament for the City of London (1869-1874).

    #32 Robert Dolan – Marx’s wife Jenny von Westphalen comes from nobility so I doubt that she and her children ever starved. Her brother Ferdinand von Westphalen, was Prussian Minister of the Interior from 1850-1858 and ran an unlimited community of spies in the revolutionary movement and remained on amicable terms with Marx and Jenny despite his conservative politics. Also, his co-revolutionary associate Engels was a rich industrialist with a chain of factories around England. So I would venture to suggest that talk about Marx’s poverty was just part of myth building, and perhaps even served to aid his infiltration into the revolutionary movement, if in fact such was the case. They did at times use the pawnbrokers but then they had a lot of valuable family silverware to pawn. And other than being Rotschild’s cousin, he may have actually worked secretly for him and his banking cabal.

    More on the noble pedigree of Jenny von Westphalen and an interesting anecdote from wikipedia:


    Her paternal grandmother, Jeanie Wishart (1742–1811), was a Scottish noble: her father George Wishart (moderator) (son of William Wishart (primus) Principal of Edinburgh University) a descendant of the 9th Earl of Angus, and the 3rd Earl of Marischal, the latter in turn a direct descendant of King James I, of the House of Stuart,[7][8] while her mother Anne Campbell was the daughter of John Campbell, (both a grandson of Sir James Campbell and of Sir Robert Campbell, grandson of Robert Sempill, 3rd Lord Sempill and John Stewart, 4th Earl of Atholl), heir of the Ardkinglas branch of the Clan Campbell, and part of the family of the Dukes of Argyll,[9] who were for centuries Scotland’s most powerful family. This would lead to a famous incident in 1854, when Karl Marx would be arrested trying to pawn some of Jenny’s Argyll silverware bearing the ducal insignia, with the police suspecting that a German refugee could not have acquired Argyll’s property legally.[10]

  53. Hibernian says:

    Sure, and those ruling minorities, the Chinese Communist Party, Puritans in Boston, etc., need to have their machinations examined as well.

  54. Hibernian says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Marx lifelong friends were not Jews, but mostly ethnic Germans (Engels, Liebknecht, Wilhelm Wolff, Bebel, ..).

    Gotta watch those ethnic Germans. There’s a reason that Wisconsin has given us the Socialist mayors of Milwaukee and half German Joe McCarthy. Also, in Iowa, where I was raised, they send Steve King to congress while the Dems support Mayor Pete and Bernie in the caucuses. There’s a tendency to “idealism,” which in practice often becomes extremism.

  55. utu says:

    “…whisperings of the Devil…” – Very revealing.

  56. “Help to bring about the inevitable!”

    That’s a Nordic cry. Never heard of Ragnarok?

    You people and your generalizations.

  57. @follyofwar

    Right here, dear:
    I’ll address it again in my next article. I like your insight into a possible link between circumcision and transgenderism. In any case, I agree that circumcision alone probably explains a lot

    • Thanks: follyofwar
  58. China has a national bank and North Dakota a state bank.

    They work better than regular banks.

    Who you think you’re foolin’?

  59. anarchyst says:

    Let’s not forget that another advantage that jews “take for themselves” is the lack of a moral component, when it comes to dealing with “goyim”. You see, jews are PROUD when they can swindle a “goy” out of his money, possessions, and even life. Jews are even prouder when they swindle a country out of its “self-determination”, as is the case, even here in the uSA…

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
    , @renfro
  60. So Marx is bad because he’s a secret capitalist.

    Suggesting capitalism is bad, because Marx is bad.

    You contradict yourself, Rocket Scientist.

    Longer articles are not better articles.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  61. @Tom Verso

    I am not sure if you are being ironic, but Jewish global domination is exactly what Yahweh promises Israel, on the condition of separateness. As H. G. Wells wrote, the Mosaic covenant, the essence of Jewishness, is clearly “a conspiracy against the rest of the world.” In the books of the Bible, “you have the conspiracy plain and clear, […] an aggressive and vindictive conspiracy. […] It is not tolerance but stupidity to shut our eyes to their quality.”

    • Agree: Prajna
    • Replies: @Tom Verso
  62. @obwandiyag

    Who are you talking to? Do you hear voices? I said nothing of the sort. My advice: don’t waste your time reading my long articles.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  63. S says:

    ..the Communist Manifesto was published [in 1848] and, almost simultaneously, the [Communist] revolution broke out in Germany,

    Yes, in much the same manner ‘the Capitalist manifesto’, ie Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, was published on March 9, 1776, and ‘almost simultaneously’ (July 4, 1776) Capitalist revolution ‘broke out’ in America.

    The United States was the result, whose first flag flying over the 1776 revolution, the ‘Grand Union’, was identical to the multi-national corporation British East India Company flag. Today’s US flag is only a slightly altered version of that first BEIC/’Grand Union’ flag.

    Isn’t it interesting, too, that both Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, and Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto, were first initially published in London in 1776 and 1848 respectively?

    Smith’s book publisher, William Strahan, was a ‘Freeman of the City of London’ financial district. Marx’s book was first published within the City of London financial district itself.

    Capitalist ‘thesis’, Communist ‘anti-thesis’, Global Multi-Cultural ‘synthesis’, aka, ‘Problem’…’Reaction’..’Solution’.

  64. Pheasant says:

    You need to look up the definition of the word bank in a dictionary.

  65. Agent76 says:

    Jan 7, 2014 Rule from the Shadows – The Psychology of Power – Part 1

    Time to look behind the curtain. Sources, full transcript and bonus footage

    Aug 23, 2013 Edward Bernays – “Public relations” is a polite term for propaganda

    Edward Bernays, “the father of public relations,” recounts the origin of the term public relations. This clip comes from the documentary “Century of the Self,” part 2 “The Engineering of Consent.”

  66. renfro says:

    When birds of prey try to kill a poor penguin the ducks come to his rescue.

    So are we the poor penguin or are we the ducks? Maybe the poor penguin is Palestine we are the ducks….we need more ducks.

  67. Tom Verso says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Thank you for your response.

    No I am most emphatically NOT being “ironic”

    As I said I can’t remember this type of explicit reference to “Jewish Global Domination” in “the many articles on this site and others about Jewish influences (power)”. I don’t read the Bible. I am a voracious consumer of secular political literature. And the idea of “Jewish Global Domination” is not one that is, in my experience, commonly posited.

    I am not saying or implying that there is no such phenomenon as “Jewish Global Domination”. Indeed, it is a real possibility. The power of Jews in the US and Western Europe is well documented. And the power of the US and the West is ‘a’ if not ‘the’ major force driving the Global political economy. But, that is just a theory which would have to be empirically tested. Especially taking into consideration the power and influence of Russia and China.

    Russia is currently demonstrating the limits of Jewish Global Power in Syria. Similarly, Iran is demonstrating similar limitations of Jewish Global Power and domination.

    Having said that, let me say: I am a regular reader of your articles on this site and have learned much from your writings. Thank You!

    • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
  68. @Saggy

    That was the original title of “The Bible” but wiser heads prevailed.

    • LOL: refl
  69. valah says:

    Totally wrong.
    Marx’s reduction to the Jewish problem and to the Communist Manifesto is the same as Shakespeare’s to an epigram. Marx means Capital (heavy enterprise for amateurs), it means dialectical and historical materialism (idem).
    So-called Marxist cultural phenomena can be related to the left, perhaps to Zionist agendas, but they are not related to Marxism.
    If we are not talking about matter, movement, change, conflict, denial of negation (Hegel), means of production, property, base and superstructure, we are not talking about Marx and, therefore, we do not know what we are talking about.

    • Replies: @the shadow
  70. DaveE says:

    Communism AND capitalism have both been very, very good to the Jew. A huge and powerful central government (communism) to legislate control over the Goyim, coupled with a capitalist economic system, also controlled by the Jew, to enslave the labor force (Goyim, again), is the ultimate Jewish utopia.

    If MY goal was to take over THE WORLD I would vie/infiltrate/advocate/ strive for a very strong central government in every country. THEN I would use those totalitarian governments to control the rest of the population. It’s the only way for a small population to have legislative control over a much larger population. And I would also use a small band of swindlers (aka bankers) to control the money-printing and distribution of capital to my “chosen” capi who would decide who gets to start businesses and who doesn’t…….

    I would then have legislative control, military control and monetary control all working together to utterly enslave The World.

    While I personally have no use for totalitarian control of the Entire World, there is another tribe who thinks of nothing else…… 24/7…… 365 days per year……..

    So capitalism as an economic system, within a communist (totalitarian) government, forms the basic blueprint for Jewish Totalitarianism.

    It ain’t exactly rocket surgery, folks.

  71. An eye-opener, Laurent. Thanks! So Marx becoming an atheist was really Marx becoming a Jew again and Marxism is primarily a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Gentile societies so Jews can rule the world. Mind-boggling!

    So what can be done about these Jews? Don’t say send them to Palestine with its frightful example of Jewish rule over Gentiles, the aim of it all.

    • Replies: @renfro
    , @ploni almoni
  72. @Tom Verso

    “Jewish Global Power in Syria … Iran …”

    No, Israel is not global Jewish rule, just an example of what it would look like.

    So what can be done about the Jews? Step one should be a One State Solution there.

    Step two should be to dis-enfrachise the Jews. They are not a race, but neither are they citizens of any country, any legitimate state.

  73. anon[685] • Disclaimer says:

    Excellent article, and we all know that the Bolcheviks were financed by the Rothschild’s capitalists.
    Marx communism was indeed a self-fullfilling prophecy (class struggle supposedly as the main engine of history), while anybody knows that the natural struggles are predominantly between ethnies, tribes or nations, the main struggle being between the Jewish tribe and the other nations.

    Funny also to see how the main points edicted in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, namely “abolition of private property”, “abolition of all rights of inheritance,” “abolition of the family,” are also the main goals edicted in the Bavarian Illuminatis doctrine.

    Jews dominate the whole non-Jewish World :
    They created and control movements and thoughts of the “left” including internationalist communism and revolutionary movements.
    They created and control capitalism (including banks and investment companies).
    They created and control Freemasonry.
    They control the Shoah cult.
    They control medias, movies and entertainment, publishing and scientific papers.
    They created and control the deconstructing post-modernist movement.
    With national-Zionism, they want to control the nationalist movements.
    And if some persist in wrong thinking, they have Mossad assassins.

    No wonder they control so many governments, and even our thoughts…

  74. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Robert Dolan

    “By the way, your website is a clusterfuck shitshow.”

    Thanks for reading! Glad you enjoyed it 😂

    “Regards”, onebornfree

  75. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t know if Guyenot is arguing that it all comes down to Zionism in the end, but if he is, you are totally right in your criticism. Regardless, everything you say stands on its own.

    The purpose of globalism is to create a world without any wars, a tolerant and peaceful world. Countless academics have found that diversity decimates ethnocentrism, so they push it everywhere they can.

    He kind of mentioned this in the article:

    This applies, of course, to Jewish thinkers who believe that Jews have a mission to guide mankind toward perpetual peace, like Theodore Kaufman

    Israel exists for the Jews who still care about their religion and culture, and for Jews who are most scared to live in Gentile societies (or who just want their own ethnostate).

    • Replies: @renfro
    , @Skeptikal
    , @Frankk
  76. @Ghali

    “Marx, while he was a brilliant economist”

    Prefacing your statement with such a howler might tend to stop anyone from reading further. That’s just as well, I suppose.

    • Replies: @Ghali
  77. @Arnieus

    The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which created the Federal Reserve, predated the US entry into WWI. Your observation isn’t too far off the mark, except that the international bankers already had the US system in tow when the war started.

  78. geokat62 says:

    But don’t believe me- do your own research.

    Top response to the query: Does the etymology of the word “government” mean “to control the mind”?:

    Government comes from the term govern. From Old French governer, derived from Latin gubernare “to direct, rule, guide, govern”, which is derived from the Greek kybernan (to pilot a ship).

    Don’t believe the nonsense you read online. There is precedent that the suffix -ment is derived from the latin mente meaning mind in some languages, particularly Old French. Words deriving from the mente sense generally have the suffix -wise or -ly, and are adverbial in nature.

    But, it is also from mentum – (instrument or medium). It is this second sense that was imported into English.

    In English, -ment means: the means or result of an action. Per multiple sources -ment is derived from the Latin mentum via Old French. For example, the Online Etymological Dictionary is quite clear on this subject.

  79. anon[685] • Disclaimer says:

    Good question. That is why the ploutocrats think the situation will not reach that point, and revolution will not happen. Except if they finance it where they are pleased to.

  80. Why are so many Jews so rich? Why are they able to use money to rule us? A disproportionate number are super-rich. Why? There’s something going on in the darkness. What?

    All large gifts, and all interest-free loans should be taxed. They must first be audited by the government. Are they? Where are the statistics?

  81. Colet says:
    @Desert Fox

    I agree. As Dulles (head of the CIA, or OSS) said after WWII, it was not about racism, communism, …, it was not about any of the ISMs. It was, it it’s still for CONTROL, by the American and British banks, of the world’s natural resources (using cheap labour or slaves).

    Juste re-read the article:

    ”Before British slavers traveled to Africa’s western coast to buy Black slaves from African chieftains, they sold their own White working class kindred (“the surplus poor” as they were known) from the streets and towns of England, into slavery. Tens of thousands of these White slaves were kidnapped children. In fact the very origin of the word kidnapped is kid-nabbed, the stealing of White children for enslavement.

    According to the English Dictionary of the Underworld, under the heading kidnapper is the following definition: “A stealer of human beings, esp. of children; originally for exportation to the plantations of North America.” The center of the trade in child-slaves was in the port cities of Britain and Scotland”

    From: Whites in Servitude in Early America and Industrial Britain

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  82. Seraphim says:

    It is indeed ‘startling’ only for the uninformed and ‘deniers’.
    But these historical facts were well known at their time. Max Warburg was directly accused that ‘while representing Germany at Versailles as Germany’s financial experts to the Peace Conference, had betrayed their country in favor of America and the allied governments”. The accusation made by Theodore Fritsch ‘the leader of the German anti-Semites’ in 1924, attracted a libel action initiated by Max Warburg, which he obviously won. Fritsch was an old foe of Warburg and at the trial he reiterated his former assertion that “Max Wurburg induced his brother, Fritz Warburg, who was at the time German commercial attache in Stockholm to hasten the German-Russian negotiations for a separate peace conducted with the Russian Minister Protopopow. Max Warburg stated that the charge of Fritsch was nothing but imagination. He had no part whatsoever in these negotiations, he declared”.
    Fritz Warburg was married with Frieda Schiff (the daughter of Jacob) and in 1927 toured the Soviet republic, visiting 40 of the Jewish agricultural colonies in Ukraine and Crimea (including two named after him). At meetings in their community halls, an elated and inspired Warburg praised the colonists and their pioneering work. Back in United States, he responded to critics with a vigorous defense of the Communist regime, noting that the Soviet government was improving the economic lot of the Jews.”

    The transfer of money to Lenin/Trotsky was well know also by the Americans.
    “Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918, Russia, Volume I @
    File No. 862.20261/53
    Telegram of:
    “The Ambassador in Russia ( Francis) to the Secretary of State” Petrograd, February 9, 12 p.m., to February 13, 1918, 1 a.m.:
    “Following prepared by Sisson and myself from documents we have seen whose authenticity I do not doubt and the originals of which we are endeavoring to procure.
    The following documentary evidence, tending to prove Lenin and Trotsky and other Bolsheviki leaders in German pay and that disruption of Russia is but one move in plan of Germany to sow disorganization in Entente countries, reached me from widely different sources. I am expecting further evidence from the same sources but send incomplete data now available hoping that Washington may at once add its resources to the search for correlated evidence to prove or disprove accusation. All documents, except letter signed Yoffe [Joffe], are said to be from the files of “Kontrerazvedka,” Government secret service organized under Kerensky. If so, unavoidable question arises why K. did not use evidence against Bolsheviki last July. German agents within his Government may have prevented….”

  83. S says:

    Kudos to your writing this brilliant, comprehensive, and insightful article Mr. Guyenot.

    Should you ever choose to, and if you haven’t done so already, I’m sure many here and elsewhere would be greatly interested on any treatment you might produce regarding the relationship between ancient Rome, the ‘New Rome’ in reference to the historic Anglo-Saxon US/UK political axis, and the Jewish people.

    [For any not aware about what I’m talking about I’ve excerpted a bit of an essay from a now defunct website below.]

    At the time of the official US recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights last March, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu specifically called the United States ‘the New Rome.’

    And, currently, there are bizarre parallels between ancient Rome’s ‘First Triumvirate’ and its disastrous dealings with Parthia, and the modern US government in it’s dealings with Iran. [See links below, the ‘p giraldi’ one in particular.]

    Thanks again for your well written articles, and the hard work they no doubt entail, Mr Guyenot.

    Hope to see many more like them.

    Freemasonry and the Roman Spirit

    Study of the ideas of the leaders of these forces within Freemasonry reveals that their dream, intention and plan was to create out of Britain and America a New Rome, a new World Empire, a new uniformity of thought and lifestyle that would embrace the whole world. To this end, a new state, the United States of America, was established, the first “world state”…

    The Temple and the Roman Imperial Spirit

    …Today we see again an alliance between those forces that lead the Jewish people and those that lead the New Rome; indeed the State of Israel today, just as in Herod’s day, is a client state of an Imperial Rome, the only difference being that, unlike Herod’s kingdom, without the aid of the New Rome, the modern State of Israel would very likely not have survived.

    • Replies: @Saggy
  84. @follyofwar

    What a good point; I didn’t think about the circumcision; but it is not just moms who are tricked, and they do it because they are told it will prevent infections & even death (I know, that could be a line for the transgenderism schemers too). I wonder, too, where they are taking us next with the Transgenderism fad that has increasingly been normalized by the Media. Before the SOTUS ruled that Same-sex marriage is legal, media outlets like NPR had programs every single day promoting it. I recall turning NPR on car radio on the way to work back in those days. I played a game with myself: will they be talking about Gay Marriage, Illegal Immigrants, or something about the holocaust. 9 times out of 10 it was one of those. Always during times when they knew people were on their way to work and had radio on.

    After the Gay marriage thing passed, the media went into immediate overdrive on Transgenderism. And it hasn’t stopped since. I think they might be hitting more walls with this one.

    But the question remains: what will their next project be after Transgenderism is “normalized”?

    They are doing things very methodically, with the patience of a lion hunting it’s prey. One thing at a time. If we know their next step, based on their mode of operation, we could possibly thwart it before it happens.

    • Agree: follyofwar
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @renfro
  85. Art says:

    Personally I believe that the whole JQ issue is a complete waste of time

    Yes’ — it is another Little Jew lemming working for the Big Jew Hasbara Central – doing a cute and paste from the dark cloud!

    (He implies that he is indifferent — SURE.)

    p.s. Hasbara Central is the largest employer in Israel.

  86. @Laurent Guyénot

    I highly recommend “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” to all.
    “Millions of Americans are concerned and frustrated over mishappenings in our nation.
    They feel that something is wrong, drastically wrong, but because of the picture painters
    they can’t quite put their fingers on it.
    Maybe you are one of those persons. Something is bugging you, but you aren’t sure what.
    We keep electing new Presidents who seemingly promise faithfully to halt the worldwide Communist advance, put the blocks to extravagant government spending, douse the
    tea of inflation, put the economy on an even keel, reverse the trend which is turning the
    country mto a moral sewer, and toss the criminals into the hoosegow where they belong.
    Yet despite high hopes and glittering campaign promise these problems continue to
    worsen no matter who is in office. Each new administration, whether it be Republican or
    Democrat continues the same basic policies of the previous administration which it had
    so thoroughly denounced during the election campaign. It is considered poor form to
    mention this, but it is true nonetheless. Is there a plausible reason to explain why this
    happens? We are not supposed to think so. We are supposed to think it is all accidental
    and coincidental and that therefore there is nothing we can do about it.”
    Gary Allen

    • Agree: renfro
    • Thanks: Laurent Guyénot
  87. DaveE says:

    No, they’re NOT audited by the government, by design. I don’t know if you remember, but a few years ago, Ron Paul pushed a movement to audit the Fed. While it had HUGE support from the commoners, the Jews who controlled the Senate shot it down, repeatedly.

    And YES, control of the money supply – the central banks to print money (un-audited) and the Jewish banking system to distribute money to The Tribe, also totally unregulated, is the source of Jewish power.

    Unlimited (stolen) money allows the Jew to control politicians and hence the government, the judiciary, education, business, the Wall St. casino, “entertainment” and propaganda, the (((media))) and whatever else I forgot to list.

    But take away their stolen loot, the zionists would wither and blow away like tumbleweeds.

    • Replies: @9/11 Inside job
  88. @Colet

    When the zionist banking kabal fastened their unconstitutional and illegal FED and IRS on us in 1913, they took full control of America, the key to ending zionist control is to abolish the FED and the IRS, and return to debt and interest free money.

    The FED and IRS are the most diabolical scams ever perpetrated on the America people in our history!

  89. melpol says:

    “Why are so many Jews so rich? Why are they able to use money to rule us? A disproportionate number are super-rich. Why? There’s something going on in the darkness. What?”

    Shtetl Rabbis selected an inner circle of clever members for his Synagogue. They paid the Rabbis salary and were rewarded by impregnating the village women. Mentally challenged Jews rejected by the Rabbi helped raise the out of wedlock bastards. Rebellious Jews accepted Jesus and were Baptized..

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  90. anarchyst says:

    But the question remains: what will their next project be after Transgenderism is “normalized”?
    Pedophilia is the next step. Already, the powers that be have decreed that pedophiles shall be known as minor attracted adults and should not be condemned for having an attraction to children..
    Not a joke…

  91. Dear Laurent

    has a chapter on Marx and the four sources of elite financing he had.

    The chapter ends with
    In brief, between the American bankers and the German aristocracy Marx was well funded for the Manifesto and later writings. Why would the elite fund Marx? Simply because the entire Marxist philosophical battery is aimed at extermination of the middle class and the supremacy of the elite. Marxism is a device for consolidating power by the elite. It has nothing to do with relieving the misery of the poor or advancing mankind: it is an elitist political device pure and simple

    • Thanks: Laurent Guyénot
  92. An excellent and educational article for me! Thanks.
    It’s too little and too late! My concerns is that the zions are already in control of this planet and they are the real superpowers! The other perceived and armed superpowers are fake and hollow drums!

  93. @Seraphim

    Marx on one side and Rothschild on the other….well that would be Mike Bloomberg!

  94. Saggy says: • Website

    relationship between ancient Rome, the ‘New Rome’ in reference to the historic Anglo-Saxon US/UK political axis, and the Jewish people.

    I just came across this slightly incredible vid which covers the subject in some detail with lots of references, i.e. comments from rabbis, etc. In short, Abraham begat Issac who begat Esau and Jacob. G– made the covenant with Abraham who passed it to Issac, and by rights it should have gone to the firstborn Esau, but Jacob traded him a bowl of lentils for his birthright and conspired with Rebecca, their mom, to cheat Esau out of Issac’s blessing. Esau was outraged but Jacob got away, changed his name to Israel and became the progenitor of the Israelis. Esau was also prolific and was the progenitor of he Edomites, who became the #1 enemy of the Jews, and Edom became identified with Rome and Christianity in the later writings in the Talmud. Now the Jews are calling Trump the new Esau, who has seen the light and returned to the fold …. it’s all in the vid !!!!!

    Video Link

  95. @obwandiyag

    Yes, but it all depends on who controls the bank. I don’t know off the top of my head about N. Dakota’s bank, but I do know that the People’s Bank of China is definitely not controlled by the Chosen, unlike our own Fed.

  96. Marx is a tool. The man never did anything more than live in Engel’s basement. Arguing over the works/contributions of this clown is nothing but intellectual masturbation. Just like that other bearded Jew that the West canonized, Marx has been used as a ikon by those that need a pallative for the masses. The modern man needs to get a real education and stop worrying about what bearded Jews wrote, or supposedly did. Study rigorous sciences, have a trade, and get a woman that is chosen for child-bearing and not the glamorous fantasies of the Jewish media. Be a man in one’s house, raise strong children and give thanks to Odin for one’s days. Only when the Jew is purged from one’s mind can he be brought to heel elsewhere.

    Sieg Heil Viktoria

    • Troll: ploni almoni
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  97. melpol says:

    >Most Jews see capitalism as most beneficial to them but will tolerate some socialism because it will not affect them. Other Jews who have not benefited from capitalism promote communism and revolution as a way to gain benefits for themselves.”

    American Jews see Capitalism as beneficial to themselves. They are clever enough to rise to the top of the pack. Socialism or Communism lacks any interest to ordinary Jews. They have no desire to share their goodies with the downtrodden. Jews in college hide their Conservative Party preference, if known they will have to leave the college because of harassment by Socialists.

    • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
  98. We’re waiting for an exposé on Einstein, Laurent. When will it be? It’s wonderful to read your essay!

    • Replies: @mark green
  99. renfro says:

    This applies, of course, to Jewish thinkers who believe that Jews have a mission to guide mankind toward perpetual peace, like Theodore Kaufman

    That is just more hubris of course. Jewish ‘thinkers’ should think less and examine what their thinking has resulted in….which isn’t peace…..anywhere.

  100. Excellent work by Laurent! Interesting reading! Regarding the conversion to Lutheranism by Marx’s father this must be understood in the light of Jacob Frank leading tens of thousands of Jews in mass conversion to Catholicism in Poland in the 18th century. Jacob Frank, successor to the Satanic Antichrist Shabbatai Zevi, demonstrated that lightning does not strike the Jew who outwardly converts to whatever religion is convenient at the time. (He himself converted to Islam, then twice to Catholicism, and may have offered his collusion to bring his followers into the Russian Orthodox Church, after having first led his followers into Catholicism.) Jacob Frank demonstrated that conversion instantly grants the Jew titles of nobility, and grants of money. (Marx married into the German and Scottish nobility in his wife Jenny von Westphalen.)

    As Disraeli demonstrated, and explained so clearly in his Supremacist novel Conningsby, outward conversion, for show, opens the door to further opportunities, but allows the Jew to remain a Jew in his essence. Nothing really changed but all doors opened! This great innovation of Jacob Frank, later the Baron of Offenbach, opened the door for Disraeli, Marx, Heine, Lenin’s parents, grandparents and great grandfather, Katie Couric, Madeleine Albright, and and countless others. Perhaps millions. It opened the doors for the Persian Jews of Mashhad, who nominally became Twelve Imam Shi`ites and lost nothing in the process. They now live in New York. It opened the door for millions of Polish Jews to become ostensibly Poles after WWII, and run the government just as they did under Communism, and for Ukrainian Jews to become “non-Jewish” Ukrainians today. With the Jacob Frank magical transformation they can continue to herd the cattle as they did in the days of the Polish kings, without losing their Jewish essence and without forfeiting their precious gift of being chosen.

    While converting to Russian Orthodoxy may initially leave a bad taste in the mouth, there is no such problem with converting to Lutheranism, as in the case of Marx’s parents. Lutheranism and Calvinism are simply other Dualisms which are very close, if not identical, to Judaic Dualism. For are not the “Children of God” nothing other than the Chosen?

    Is not Luther, simply a great Talmudist, who said: “I look upon God no better than a scoundrel” (Weimar, Vol. 1, Pg. 487. Cf. Table Talk, No. 963.)

    And Luther also said: “Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107.)
    “I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ” (Table Talk, 2397b.)
    “If we allow them – the [Ten] Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (Comm. ad Galat, p.310.)
    “If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.” (Of Married Life.)
    “Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to give herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly.” (On Marriage.)
    “It is not in opposition to the Holy Scriptures for a man to have several wives.” (De Wette, Vol. 2, p. 459.)
    And, above all, Martin Luther said: “I have to recognize that there is fiendishness in God and divinity in the Devil.” Who could ask for anything more?

    • Thanks: Pheasant
  101. Seraphim says:

    As such the history of the Edomites is incomplete.
    The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius relates that [the Hasmonean King] “Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumaea, and subdued all the Idumaeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews”.
    Idumaeans were the ancient Edomites.

  102. renfro says:
    @Nonny Mouse

    So what can be done about these Jews?

    We move them to Africa where they can have a non state Jewish commune. Then we hired the African state their commune is in to crop dust the commune every other day with weaponized marijuana to keep them chilled out.
    In this relaxed condition they would soon be fully assimilated with the Africans and lose their Jewish problem.

    • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
    , @Biff
  103. renfro says:

    I didn’t think about the circumcision;

    Meet the Black Hillary….

    Alabama Democrat proposes bill mandating all men have vasectomy at age 50 or after third child
    ”MONTGOMERY — State Rep. Rolanda Hollis (D-Birmingham) on Thursday filed a bill that would mandate every Alabama man to undergo a vasectomy within one month of his 50th birthday or the birth of his third biological child, whichever comes first.

    Under existing law, there are no restrictions on the reproductive rights of men,” states the introduction to Hollis’ new bill, HB 238.”

    And a sleazy personal life too …
    September 2019). “Rep. Rolanda Hollis arrested on misdemeanor domestic battery charge”
    The Northwest Florida Daily News and other outlets reported that Hollis was arrested for domestic violence at the Inn on Destin Harbor in Destin, Florida on September 22, 2019.[3] Responding police found “obvious signs of a disturbance, including broken glass”, and a witness reported seeing Hollis shoving her husband, Aaron Jefferson, at approximately 11 PM. Hollis and her husband denied there was a physical altercation, although Hollis admitted to throwing a glass. Hollis was arrested and released the next day from Okaloosa County Jail after posting bail on Monday September 23, 2019.[4]

  104. utu says:

    Is Bruno Bauer’s Die Judenfrage available in English?

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  105. @melpol

    But are they clever enough to rise to the top of the top of the pack? There is a disproportionate number of them at the top of the pack, but why? Clever? How do you know?

  106. @Yakov Smirnov V

    Thanks for the hasbara, straight from the HQ of the Elders of Zion : “don’t worry goy while we are destroying you”.

  107. @renfro

    I find that difficult to understand. Please elaborate.

  108. Biff says:

    crop dust the commune every other day with weaponized marijuana to keep them chilled out.

    Washington too please…

  109. So much misinterpretation, misdirection, theorizing and conflating in one article it must be intentional.

    Pretty much all the theories you write about, are debunked by reality. Surely if there were some secret alliance between capitalists and marxists. communists, socialists, them capital would not destroy or attempt to destroy literally every somewhat socialist or communist nation that has ever existed.

    Capitalists fund movements or cooperate with them for their own financial benefit. That doesn’t mean they share the same ideology at all. They fund radical Islam, does that make them radical Islamist’s? No of course not. Very different than when they fund/create the Nazi’s, with whom they shared the same ideology.

    I haven’t really seen any concrete proof that any American bankers actually funded the Bolsheviks. Anyhow, I don’t think it makes sense that they would, and at the same time be supporting counter-revolutionaries fighting the Bolsheviks.

    Doesn’t make sense probably not true.

    Just because many Zionists had socialist views certainly doesn’t mean ALL of the socialists were Zionists. In fact, the Bolsheviks considered the Zionist movement to be an act of treason. Also considered the Zionists to be racists and terrorists, so again they din’t share all the same ideals.

    It is obvious to any (non-Marxist) historian that class struggles fall far behind ethnic struggles in the forces shaping history, even in modern times.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  110. Quintus says:

    Brilliant article. I now need to educate myself and read more about Bakunin and Proudhon.

  111. @Elten

    Marr, who was obviously Jewish (married three times to Jews and son of a theater producer) was not “prophesying.” He was carrying out the planned Zionist psy-op as a journalist for hire, as was Maurice Joly before him. That psy-op included painting every riot and demonstration in Russia as being against Jews (which they were not) and then staging the phony Dreyfus affair, with another hired journalist, Theodore Herzl as the mouthpiece. Victim, victim, victim. “Pogrom hoax,” the “Dreyfus hoax,” the two world wars, the Holocaust hoax, the on-going “Anti-Semitism” hoax are simply the social illusion operations it takes to control impressionable minds the way you want to control them. With Dreyfus it was all appearances. No secrets for sale (or, you could say “no planes), no imprisonment for Dreyfus who was wealthy, privileged, and in military intelligence, not artillery, according to his own writing. These psy-ops are cattle prods for people. Marr and Herzl were hired hands like the MSM, hacks just doing their job, disposed of after the gig was performed. Shimon Perez said, a number of times, “our mistake was not to think bigger in the first place.” But it ain’t over until it’s over. Then, when the radiation wears off, you can start all over again.

  112. Adrian says:

    Qne contributor here surmises that Bakunin was expelled at the 1872 Congress of the International Working Men’s Association because of his anti-semitism but that doesn’t seem true. On the face of it he was expelled because he allegedly had led a secret faction within the Association (read a faction not under the control of Marx) but I think it is agreed that his opposition to the ideas of Marx was the real cause of his expulsion. Coincidence also played a role (he couldn’t reach the Hague, where the congress was held, in time)

    Bakunin was of the view that concentrating ownership of the means of production in the hands of the state would only lead to despotism. And he didn’t believe that the state would magically “wither away” after the necessary revolutionary phase.

    Karl Wittfogel who wrote about Oriental Despotism (in a book of that title) believed that Marx had written little about the Asiatic Mode of Production because of this difference of opinion with Bakunin. In what Marx did write about it he recognized that the ownership of the main means of production (in this case land) was in the hands of the Prince whereas the communities at the bottom only had possession of it in common.

    So how did the product of surplus labour get into the hands of the Prince? Here we have the problem of the rapacious bureaucracy as an instrument of the Oriental Despot, a problem that Marx according to Wittfogel evaded because it suggested disturbing possibilities for the revoluitionmary state he deemed to be necessary in the transition to real socialism.

    I once quoted with approval Ernest Gellner’s judgment that Wittfogel’s suspicion seemed to attribute to the founding fathers of Marxism both extreme sociological foresight and too much cynicism but now I am not so sure. Wittfogel, of course, had an axe to grind. With this concept of Oriental Despotism he attacked both communist Russia and China with the fervor of a disillusioned lover.

    But yes, why did Marx avoid the question of the oriental bureaucracy? The problem must have stared him in the face. How did the Prince get hold of the tribute of the village communities and how did he get them to provide corvee labour for works of “national interest” such as irrigation works, temple building etc. And he evaded it. Or he came up with legalese such as the villager is not the real owner of the land, he is himself the property of the Prince in a situation of general slavery etc.

    Wittfogel’s own solution doesn’t seem very satisfactory either. For him the despotic power of the Prince was based on his function in the organisation of grand irrigation works required for rice agriculture among other things. But with that we land in a vicious cicrle. Irrigation works must exist in order for the Price to have the power/authority to organise them.

    There are other solutions to this question but they are not to the point here.

    Was Marx correct in believing that land ownership was vested in the Oriental Prince? Wertheim believes he was not and states so in his article on Southeast Asian society in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. But he bases himself mainly on the outcome of a debate on the situation in Indonesia among Dutch scholars now almost one hundred years ago.

    Marx could quote quite a few sources on British India to buttress his point of view. One of his oldest ones was Francois Bernier who was for nine years the personal physician of Aurangzeb. This witness was however firmly contradicted by another Frenchman, the eighteenth century scholar Anquetil-Duperron who has been called the first French professional indologist. Duperron believed that the “myth” about the Prince’s property rights had been pushed by colonialists who reasoned we are the successor of the Prince so we enjoy these rights now. The debate between Dutch scholars I alluded to above came to a similar conclusion.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  113. @melpol

    Why do you say “us?” when you mean “them,” or “you.”

  114. @Vaterland

    As a neighbour I’m totally with you. You give a concise description of our mutual situation.
    Maybe the coming translation (who still reads German?) of Sieferle’s ‘Finis Germania’ will give my fellow-countrymen something to meditate on.
    And thank you mr. Guyénot for courageous books and well-written articles. You are one of my favourite authors.
    And thank you mr. Unz for giving all of these opportunities!

    • Replies: @Vaterland
  115. Adrian says:

    It is one of the more quirky facts of biographical history that the founders of one of the largest Dutch international corporations, Gerard and Anton Philips, were second cousins of Marx. Their grandfather, Lion Philips, a tobacco dealer in the Dutch provincial city Zaltbommel, was an uncle of Marx by virtue of being married to a sister of Marx’s mother, Henriette Pressburg.

    According to one of Marx’s main biographers, Franz Mehring, Marx often stayed with this uncle and aunt during his youth. And in later life this uncle often helped Marx to overcome financial difficulties. So Engels was not the only entrepreneur who financially contributed to the creation of a work that analysed the “inevitable” downfall of the economic system they helped to sustain.

    Marx’s German doesn’t seem to have suffered from the fact that his mother never learned to speak it fluently.

  116. @DaveE : “The Federal Reserve -eight families own the USA ,#BIS,IMF , World Bank” By Dean Henderson :
    “…They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Kuhn Loebs of New York, the Rothschilds of Paris and London ; The Warburgs of Hamburg; The Lazards of Paris and Israel Moses Seifs of Rome . The US government had a historical mistrust of the BIS , lobbying unsuccessfully for its demise at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference …Instead the power of the Eight families was exacerbated , with the Bretton Woods creation of the IMF and World Bank.”
    According to “These are the Thirteen Families in the World that apparently control everything from politics to terrorism “:
    1.The Astor bloodline
    2.The Bundy bloodline
    3.The Collins bloodline
    4.The DuPont bloodline
    5.The Freeman bloodline
    6.The Kennedy bloodline
    7.The Li bloodline
    8.The Onassis bloodline
    9.The Rockefeller bloodline
    10.The Russell bloodline
    11. The Van Duyn bloodline
    12.The Merovingian bloodline
    13. The Rothschild bloodline

  117. idealogus says: • Website
    @Laurent Guyénot

    I read your entire article and I liked it, very instructive. I had not heard of Proudho until now. I think I read most of your articles on and appreciated them.
    But I think so that at the bedrock foundation of the philosophical castle of each man stands something very simple. The cornerstone is the following: are you on the side of light or darkness.
    It doesn’t matter if there really is God. It matters if you think there is one and you are on his side or on his enemy side trying to become god.
    Most people are undecided and choose side based on immediate profit. Few people choose consciously one of the camps and fight all their life until death for the side they choose.
    Marx was not the type of Satanist who killed the chickens at night in the cemetery. But he was the kind of satanist who considered the God of the Bible to be a restrictive god (don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t cheat and especially not try to take the place of God) so he consciously chose to serve the other god who leaves him do what he wants.
    The motto of Satanists – do what you want.
    On this foundation he wrote all his books.
    Even in your article you said that Marx was not sincere and did not want the good of the working class. The ideal was to create a dictatorship in which a minority (Jews, Freemasons, Satanists, etc.) to rule with the ax soaked in blood the rest over a population reduces to a flock of animals.

  118. Vojkan says:

    “Marx, while he was a brilliant economist,” obviously was poor at basic arithmetics otherwise he would have realised that the system he proposed was a mathematical impossibility.

  119. @Saggy

    Reasons I quit that “book”. There is more immorality in Ye Old Testament than in a Russ Meyer film.

  120. @redmudhooch

    Read the book Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, by Anthony Sutton, can be had on

  121. S says:

    I just came across this slightly incredible vid which covers the subject in some detail with lots of references, i.e. comments from rabbis, etc. In short, Abraham begat Issac who begat Esau and Jacob.

    Thanks for the linked video. I watched it and it is quite well done and impressive. It is very enlightening about a lot of things.

    Though I hadn’t mentioned it in my previous post regarding the Anglosphere’s ‘New Rome’ ideology and the Jewish people, there is the complicating matter of the unfortunate historic belief amongst some powerful Anglo-Saxon elites and hangers on that (somehow) they were descendants of the ‘ten lost tribes of Israel’, ie ‘British Israel’. [See the excellent article linked below for more on that subject.]

    This belief, and the sad results, just goes to show that people(s) should be happy and content with their actual origins and not invent tall tales to believe in. If your actual origins are the forests of Northern Europe, that’s plenty fine, and people should just go with that.

    P.S. It’s just a quirky hypothesis, but, I’ve sometimes wondered if Jared Kushner (in a replay of the events of ancient Rome’s First Triumvirate) were to somehow supersede Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo in power at the White House, possibly due to a ‘national emergency’ of some sort being declared, his potential role as an ironic modern day Jewish Julius Caesar might be to lead the ‘New Rome’ of the US/UK to it’s destruction.

    A perceived by some symbolic (and perhaps not so symbolic?) ‘revenge’ for the actions of the original Rome?

    The Arch of Titus (Rome) – ‘Spoils of Jerusalem’

  122. S says:

    BTW, JFK was circumcised as an adult, a foolish act he wished he could have taken back.


    All I can say about that is…ouch! 😉

  123. Tom Verso says:

    “the heart of the Marxian argument … consists of a historical prophecy, combined with an implicit appeal to the following moral law: Help to bring about the inevitable!”[2]

    There is no doubt that Marx’s prophecy of a messianic transformation of the world was profoundly Jewish in inspiration.

    A sometimes reader of Marx, I would not presume to engage per se Marxian scholars. However, I would indicate that from the limited reading of Marx I have done, it seems to me that the use of words and phrases like “prophecy“, “moral law” and “messianic transformation of the world“; while not inaccurate per se, given the volume of material Marx wrote, no doubt, like the Bible, one can find similar words, phrases and implications throughout his writing.

    Nevertheless, when one takes on the the role of an explicator (indeed teacher) of Marx and other seminal scholars for the benefit of the uninitiated, then the explicator should strive for words and phrases that capture ideas of the essence of the works as a whole; as opposed to anecdotal passing thoughts laced into the totality of the scholar’s oeuvre.

    To that end, to my mind, it is important to emphasize that Marx was an giant of an empirical (factual) historian. He was not an abstract philosopher of history and moralist a la Hegal. Most importantly, in his empirical (factual) study of history he perceived a PATTERN in the history of social change and ideological evolution. Namely, that the ideological characteristics of a given society are derived from the dominate class. And, the changes in the ideological characteristics are the result of changes in the dominate class; i.e. change in class dominated = change in dominate ideology.

    Accordingly, he was not morally calling for the change in the class character of European society and ideology, he logically inferred that if the past history of social evolution continued into the future, then the working class would inevitably displace the dominate capitalist class and ideology.

    This replacement of the dominate capitalist class with a dominate working class and corresponding change in dominate ideology was NOT a “prophecy“; it was an empirical-inductive-logical-probabilistic-inference about future.

    That Marx morally embraced the idea of a dominate working class society is not in doubt. Nevertheless, students of Marx, to my mind, must be perfectly clear about and the difference in:
    1) his empirical factual descriptions of the past,

    2) his logical predictive inference about the future and

    3) his moral judgments about the past, present and future.

    Leastwise, that’s the way it seems to me!

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  124. druid55 says:

    lovely fellow. And Jews claim him!

    • LOL: Dannyboy
  125. @Laurent Guyénot

    You’re an asshole writing badly in a dull and obscure sheepdog publication.

    “one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit.”

    “Marx being congratulated by Wall Street bankers (1911 cartoon reproduced by Sutton)”

    And so: I actually provide evidence. You’re just miffed that somebody opposes your rambling disorganized slanted cherry-picking nonsense.

    • Troll: Saggy, for-the-record
    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  126. Surtr says:

    I loved this article. I hope you read this comment to know that I am genuinely grateful for it. I thought it was wonderful. Thank you so much.

    • Thanks: Laurent Guyénot
  127. Vaterland says:
    @Flying Dutchman

    Keep in mind that Sieferle was a disillusioned and embittered left-winger, as quite a significant number in the new right in Germany are. He was completely oblivious to the JQ, even though he was wrongfully accused of anti-Semitism, and also called Hitler “die größte Null”, the greatest loser in German political history. A “Unheilsfigur”, figure of doom like Merkel, in his public letter, shortly before his suicide to the leading AfD journalist to which I was in regular contact and exchange with and worked with on some shared projects. And this journalist is of course married to a Russian Israeli dual citizen with Jewish children, deeply connected to the Ziocon scene in Germany.

    My awakening to Jewish power politics and radicalism came completely unexpected over me and it made everything unbelievably more complicated than the “Israel is our greatest ally in the fight against Islam taking over Europe” angle these people sell and which I too did believe in for a few years. Which Wilders, Le Pen, Salvini, the Sweden Democrats and FPÖ and the AfD sell. The false dialectic between the antifa state and the Ziocons which only reflects the true power elite of the West: the Jews and the US empire.

    At least from my experience there seems zero chance for true reform or revolution from within Germany; it’s truly occupied, inside and out. It’s already an antifa state and if a global financial crash happens the next revolution will likely go to the far left. My remaining hopes were on the USA itself, but everyone can see how that turned out.

    Now I hope Bloomberg makes it: this Jewish multi billionaire simply buying the presidency would be one of the greatest acts of political honesty in the last twenty odd years or so. The theater of lies has degraded to the lowest taste anyway.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @Flying Dutchman
    , @Anon
    , @S
    , @refl
    , @S
  128. S says:

    Marx, like any good Communist…was a terrorist at heart…Marx’s violent ideology was seen even in his private life: he threatened to blackmail his mother, was hated by his friends, and left his infant children to suffer malnutrition.

    While I do think there may have been some powerful people who knew in real time exactly what was going on regarding Lee Harvey Oswald, guiding him unseen and greasing the skids perhaps, towards the assassination of JFK..

    ..As a microcosm, I think he (Oswald) was exactly as he appeared, ie a dysfunctional self described ‘Marxist’, who due to his incessant negativity few people liked, who beat his wife, could barely hold down a job for any length of time, and was perfectly capable entirely on his own of shooting down a president who wasn’t as friendly to Fidel Castro as he would of liked, as an ‘act of [Red] terror’.

    We’re he alive today, he’d probably be living in his mother’s basement, have purple hair, be both antifa and a Bernie bros, support Black Lives Matter, being afflicted with TDS hate Donald Trump seeing him as a Nazi!TM, and, or, Fascist!TM, and may or may not work on occasion…all while he waited for ‘the revolution’ to take place.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @Sparkon
  129. S says:

    Curtis Dall, Roosevelt’s son-in-law, has revealed a secret diplomatic channel demonstrating that the White House went out of its way to give the USSR all the time and the armament necessary to invade Central Europe.

    A lot of people in the United States could not understand behaviour like this at the time, however, a better understanding of the past would have helped to explain it.

    How many know, then and now, that Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, apparently Benjamin Franklin as well, people that were amongst the heaviest hitters of the Anglo-Saxon ‘Founding Fathers’ in the creation of the Capitalist United States, right up there with George Washington in their importance, were also heavily involved in the creation of the Communist French Revolution of 1789 as well?


    It was the French Revolution which introduced to the world the ‘political commisar’, ‘counter-revolution’, ‘Whites’, the ‘Commune’, ‘red republicanism’, and the ‘great terror’, all of which Soviet Communism evolved from.

    It helps to explain why even now Paris has a city square named ‘Stalingrad’.

    Historically, behind these men, and behind Capitalism and Communism since their respective inceptions in 1776 and 1789, one can only suspect that one will find London.

    So, this behaviour of supporting Communism in action in Europe, if not always in word, and practically ‘giving away’ China to Communism in 1949, is nothing new for the United States, but, rather, part of a general pattern going back to 1789.

    ‘True believing’ Capitalists and Communist should both have cause for concern.

    From the beginning, neither the Capitalist 1776 American Revolution, nor, the 1789 Communist French Revolution, were ever intended to be permanent, stand alone revolutions. Rather, they were to be but ‘sign posts’ along the way.

    Capitalism,with its artificial hyper-individialism, and Communism, with it’s artificial hyper collectivism, are closely paralleling and ultimately complimentary ideological systems, which when their rough edges have been smoothed out by the Cold War, have been designed to fit together in perfect synthesis and harmony to form the ‘United States of the World’.

  130. @Tom Verso

    … it is important to emphasize that Marx was an giant of an empirical (factual) historian. He was not an abstract philosopher of history and moralist a la Hegal.

    Selectively taking facts and twisting them around to fit your preconceived ‘theories’ is not the same thing as empiricism, which means basing your theories on those facts. If Marx had really been into empiricism, he would never have argued that a classless civilization was even possible, much less inevitable. Likewise, had Marx empirically examined history, he would have quickly realized that class struggle was hardly the only force driving it.

    But Marx was one of those journalists who never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

  131. J says:

    Marx was an ambitious assimilated Jew who married into the high Prussian aristocracy, and was funded by them to study the workings of the successful British industrial economy. It was the end of the 19th century and the British Empire was conquering the world. Germany , a poor, agricultural, fractured country, was trying to industrialize and compete with England. That is the subject of Marx’s Der Kapital. The Chinese, in a similar situation, read and follow Marx.

  132. @Vaterland

    I’ve come to see you are right on Wilders and Le Pen. As of Sieferle and the AfD, you are in a better position to judge. But indeed the whole Ziocon situation of war-preparation and cultural nihilism is very depressing, especially here in Europe. Wat will the future bring?

    • Replies: @Vaterland
  133. Skeptikal says:

    Bottom line:
    He was smart enough to grasp that he was a patsy.

    • Replies: @S
  134. Skeptikal says:

    Yes, this is the “Jews have a historical task to keep gentiles on the right moral track” BS. It has even been used against me in a little interpersonal conflict that developed after a Jewish friend eccused me of racism. Then proceeded to identify my responses to my being German, then, when I called him on his racism, came up with the above gem. Seems like “Jews are special” and “Jews are victims” and “Jews are morally superior” and “That is antisemitic” are tropes that (some) Jews fall back on when challenged on their actual behavior, or anything else related to Jews.

    • Replies: @pogohere
  135. Vaterland says:
    @Flying Dutchman

    Well, Sieferle committed suicide and is dead. His final conclusion was that Germany is finished and added the take so common in the Alt-Right that maybe only Japan and other East Asian countries have a future. Difficult to say objectively. But for his personal actions, they were ultimately cowardice: to abandon your obligations. He could have remained a supportive intellectual for his fatherland and there are God knows not that many. Or his suicide was a result of severe depression that went beyond his analysis. Also the public smearing of his character by all these leftist court intellectuals was particularly disgusting to watch.

    But still: this is not Stalingrad, it’s not the firestorm in a “dehoused” German city and we are still not being ethnically cleansed with violence, mass murder and spitfire bombardment on the way as my family was. So to kill yourself now is really weak and irresponsible, if you could have contributed to people who need you the most right now.

    The AfD is unfortunately filled with not particularly competent people, narcissists and those in it it to enrich themselves, or with an agenda – very often mixed. As was and is the case with the mentioned journalist and spin doctor. There are also real patriots in it, like Höcke, who is especially hated by the party cartel and the Zionists tried to purge him. As they try with Anti-Zionists like Gedeon and someone who donated to a group only vaguely associated with Ursula Haverbeck. But Sayn-Wittgenstein herself is quite the shady character. – It’s really complicated.

    But neither from the folkish nationalists, nor from the Zionist civic nationalists I ever received an answer on how they expect a German nation state to function on its own in an age of Empires. And all that we do is in the shadow of the Empire. Especially in my country.

  136. Anon[460] • Disclaimer says:

    it made everything unbelievably more complicated than the “Israel is our greatest ally in the fight against Islam taking over Europe” angle these people sell and which I too did believe in for a few years

    Implying that the statement “Israel is our greatest ally in the fight against Islam taking over Europe” represents some type of conflicted complication is, in itself,

    a complication meant to obfuscate the simple fact of the matter.

    Meaning, the aforementioned statement is not complicated. Its intentional disinformation attempting to cover for the simple goals of institutional Jewish Power.

    That fact is that Israel and Jews have a primary goal of assisting Islam in taking over Europe.

    Anything else is misdirection / disinformation.


    The Jews state their political motivation in their texts. That is, in their texts, the sequence of events is as follows:

    1. Islamic destruction of the West
    2. Destruction of Islam from the Middle East
    3. Jewish World domination.

    Look at their past conflict with Germany. What was the conflict?

    1. Action: hostile, rising Jewish internationalism under the banner of Leninism as well as Judaism (in that age).
    2. Response: National Socialist Germany

    The actors and their goals have not changed. To think that they have is nonsense logic. Judaism has not changed.

    What is the present primary role of institutional Judaism in Europe?

    To encourage and protect non-White migrants.

    What is the documented, mainstream accepted truth about the Islamic conquest of Spain in the beginning of the 8th century (soon after the inception of Islam)?

    That it was assisted by the Spanish Jews, operating as a unified Jewish group.

    Judaism has not changed since that time.

    Judaism’s primary goal of world domination has not changed since that time.

    Just as it is the primary Jewish neocon subversive role in the United States, those who state that Israel serves to protect Europe are running an interference operation meant to neutralize / pacify the traumatized and otherwise gullible Right Wing population long enough for the Left to realize their goals.

    The Jews label Europe to be Edom in their texts and Rabbinical commentaries on those texts, thereby theologically labeling it to be destined for destruction.

    A destruction which is a prophecized necessity before the ultimate Jewish goal of their Messianic Age.

    Jews can only offer destruction for Europe, because that destruction is a part of the entire point of Judaism on its path to its Messianic Age / World domination goal.

    There is no possibility to bargain in regard to these facts.

    My suggestion for anyone living in Germany is to leave that particular blood-soaked, central chessboard position as soon as possible. Get out of the line of fire. This recommendation stems from a crystal clear lesson of history.

    • Replies: @Jila
  137. S says:

    Keep in mind that Sieferle was a disillusioned and embittered left-winger, as quite a significant number in the new right in Germany are.

    That’s remindful of Horst Mahler, somewhat.

    While I certainly wouldn’t say everything he (Mahler) has done has been correct, he, and other former ’embittered leftwinger(s)’ like him, have to be given at least some credit for boldly seeing through this manufactured, contrived, and controlled ‘progressive’ establishment Hegelian Dialectic of ‘Capitalist’/’Communist’, ‘Right/Left, ‘Conservative’/’Liberal’, etc, which has been at play since 1776 and 1789 respectively, and taking a step back from it all to re-evaluate.

    As a related aside, this unnaturally occurring aforementioned dialectic has the power of the ‘Big Lie’ about it…ie, it’s such a monstrous lie, who can believe it could exist?

    If a critical mass of people could see through it, and refuse to take part in it, perhaps it could lose it’s power over humanity.

    As for Germany, both Capitalist (US/UK) and Communist (Soviet) geo-political writings describe Germany as being the center of power upon continental Europe, and, thus critically important for each wing of this described dialectic to conquer for their own respective dreams of all encompassing world empire, as they both march towards their violent final synthesis (ie WWIII) to form global Multi-Culturalism, and finally to usher in the United States of the World.

    There doesn’t necessarily have to have been anything ‘personal’ against Germany per se in this centuries old mechanistic formula, which certainly doesn’t mean their hasn’t been something personal there. [Having said that, I do very much think overall that this manufactured and artificial dialectic has been driven by an almost all consuming hatred towards the peoples of the world, and towards humanity as a whole.]

    I have heard it suggested a certain amount of the angst directed against the German people is in part due to their seeing themselves as a spiritual people.

    Could be, though, don’t other people’s see themselves as spiritual as well?

  138. refl says:

    I was not aware of Sieferle, but thanks to your comment I just happened to look him up and ended up on this site:

    Possibly, you know about Michael Mannheimer and have information on him. It is about the first time that I read an informed blog in German that does not fall for zionism. As I have read and a number of other American sites first, I was never under any illusion in that regard.

    As for “Islam taking over Europe”, I have the following for you:

    It has been the Zionist objective to impose a view of the Arabs on the world which suits Israel’s national interests; as a result the Arabs are the victims of the best (adverse) image-making in history. It could scarcely be otherwise considering the disparity of the weapons in the opponent’s hands. Compared to the westernized Zionist publicists, the Arabs are much less sophisticated and less versed in propaganda techniques. — In addition Arab policies and propaganda lend themselves to clever exploitation by an Israeli intelligence service and propaganda machine that is the envy of even the major western nations.
    Harold B. Attin
    “A Mask for My Adversary”
    ISUES Autumn 1966 page 32

    From “The great Zionist Cover-up”

    You see, the Barbarian Invasion is unstoppable and it is a shame, because a gradual adaption to the middle eastern take over – which has been in the making for decades anyhow – would have been possible. But just see the positive side of it: These are peoples who are definitely imune to anglozionist brainwashing and will ever be.

  139. @Saggy

    Thank you for a great video that I hope is viewed by many people.

  140. German_reader says:

    as did Serbian “German nationalist” Martin Lichtmesz.

    Lichtmesz isn’t a Serb, he’s an Austrian with some Slovenian ancestry. imo he’s one of the best commenters on the German/Austrian right, you get none of the pro-American or pro-Zionist bs typical of more mainstream people, no eternal self-flagellation over WW2 either. He’s also an explicit identitarian who doesn’t shy away from adressing racial issues. If you already object to him, who the hell is left? The NPD people who are a total dead-end with their neo-Nazism?

    • Replies: @Vaterland
  141. Jila says:

    It’s not meant as a REAL take over of Europe by Islam. It’s all done through controlled opposition and psyops. This is an old plan of having two competitors or enemies destroying each other for the benefit of the Jews. They did it to the Persian empire by devising Islam in the first place. Those ‘Arabs’ who invaded Persia were either Jewish or under Jewish tutelage. The Arab jews of Arabian peninsula created islam as a front for their own revolutionary aims. This jewish pattern is old, very old. And Iran has been fighting it for more than two thousand years. That is, even before Jews came up with Islam.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @Nonny Mouse
  142. S says:

    Or, ‘smart enough to grasp’, as many a past miscreant has done when caught, to simply deny all knowledge and culpability, and hope someone, somewhere, somehow (despite mountains of evidence) believes him.

    If that was Oswald’s strategy, he’s obviously been quite succesful, even if but posthumously.

    [In this I’m reminded of the Dr Jeffrey MacDonald family murder case, though MacDonald, unlike Oswald, yet lives.]

    Bottom line: We might not ever know for an absolute fact what Oswald’s actual status was…ie half deranged ‘lone gunman’, an unwitting ‘patsy’ for rogue elements of a US intelligence agency/MIC, a Soviet ‘Manchurian Candidate’, or, perhaps an odd combination of several of those things.

  143. Vaterland says:

    Well, Lichtmesz did tell Millennial Woes that he is Serbian. So you have to ask him then. I also don’t “object” to him, but I do not trust him either. And, Mr. Kraut and Tea, I do consider Frank Kraemer one of the best people we have and yes, he was in the NPD for 17 years. Of course I know that they cannot provide solutions and much of the old right is disgusting, but at least I know that he isn’t corrupt. Which I cannot say of MK. And do not believe that the AfD isn’t a dead end as well. It will never be tolerated, accepted, integrated or not excluded by the system, it was, is and will be treated just like the NPD. And even if it wasn’t the case, you will never get the necessary majorities with an anti-EU and anti-Euro party today.

    There are no political solutions for my country as long as the US empire exists and as long it is dominated by an elite of Jewish multi-billionaires, radicals and Zionists. Especially to them the AfD is just as unacceptable as the NPD or any other party on the actual right, even if they got rid of Höcke and Gedeon. True German sovereignty is to them as unacceptable as it is to the empire and because we are ruled by their loyal vassals, including Atlantikbrücke chief and Blackrock lobbyist Friedrich Merz of course, nothing will change.
    The new righters are kidding themselves, just like Fuentes and the groypers did, with their oh so subtle and clever “optics”, and like Die Republikaner did and as the AfD still does, if they aren’t outright Zionists like Lexley-Lennon with his Sheldon Adelson money for the EDL. And even though Schnellroda is not Horst Mahler and Volkslehrer, to the average normie, especially if he still believes “Lügenpresse”, they are just as dubious.

    The fact also remains that someone which many consider a nutjob like Volkslehrer reached hundreds of thousands of people, significantly more than Sezession ever did. Until he was purged. But that is not just the result of his “Neo-Nazism”, I think, but because he confronts the substance which the new right somehow believes to subtly manouver around: The global capital system and money power, the empire, the JQ and the de facto ongoing occupation of this country. It looks as ridiculous as a sumo ringer trying to sneak. And ultimately it already failed too: just look at the reaction of the Austrian government towards the IB and Sellner and the fate of the ÖVP-FPÖ coalition. What’s more Sellner did the absolute worst wignat move in his past that is even imaginable: to put Swastikas on a synagogue, in an organization that might have been run by a FED. Frank never did such things in all the years and I don’t trust people like Sellner, especially if theypropose the break up of Germany and find the idea funny.

    This general idea of the new right to copy the 68ers, or even Freemasonry, is totally absurd. The 68ers never were actual anti-establishment, but tolerated and used by, or even integrated into it. Herbert Marcuse was a CIA agent after all and everybody who is willing to see can see that 68 was just the continuation of the OSS, the macy conferences and the systematic denazification, reeducation and colonization of the German people. By the empire and its Jewish intelligentsia.

    German subjugation is the result of our entire world order and only a truly united Europe with all its force might have a chance to untangle itself. But I don’t see the politicians for that either. Not the AfD, NPD, CDU, SPD and certainly not the Rothschild bankier Macron or any of these delusional leftist matriarchs. There is no European Bismarck and a leader of his caliber is the minimum we would need in our situation. For the moment Hungary and Orbán are tolerated, with a little bit of Canossa towards Netanyahu, but who knows for how long. That’s as good as it gets.

  144. Vaterland says:

    Well, I’m not sure about Michael Mannheimer. Wasn’t for me. Seemed like an extremist, low taste and low intelligence, tbh. Gives off FED vibes, too. The same goes obviously for the vast majority of the Neo-Nazi scene we have here. Mostly antisocial personalities who are living a caricature of actual National Socialists, not to speak of the Wehrmacht. Often lead by agents like the combat 18 leader as it seems; as recruiting material for the next Gladio 2.0 gay-OP.

    And to be perfectly honest that goes for Horst Mahler as well. If you were a Mossad agent and wanted to make revisionism look like something exclusively for hate filled extremists, Mahler couldn’t have done a better job at it. He also managed to achieve the unthinkable and made Michel Friedmann seem likable by comparison in the interview he gave him before his arrest. And MF really is a walking anti-Semitic stereotype. It wasn’t until I encountered Gerard Menuhin that I opened my mind on this matter. But Menuhin seems to appreciate Mahler, so there is that…

    There’s few people in the rightist scene I really appreciate. You have to respect Michael Klonovsky’s education and taste, but if you get to know him… I respect Nikolai Nehrling’s courage and sacrifice, even though he is a little bit of a crazy person. For me Frank Kraemer has it all. But not only is he purged from the net, his way is also a dead end, but that dead end is the reality of our situation.

    • Replies: @Flying Dutchman
  145. Sparkon says:

    ..As a microcosm, I think he (Oswald) was exactly as he appeared, ie a dysfunctional self described ‘Marxist’, who due to his incessant negativity few people liked, who beat his wife, could barely hold down a job for any length of time, and was perfectly capable entirely on his own of shooting down a president who wasn’t as friendly to Fidel Castro as he would of liked, as an ‘act of [Red] terror’

    So you say, but your foolish argument coupled with your poor command of English lets you make an ‘S’ of yourself.

    The correct form is “would have” or “would’ve” not “would of.” A semester of Bonehead English would pay dividends for you.

    Note in the picture you posted of Oswald that he is wearing the same shirt he had on when he was photographed by Ike Altgens standing in the doorway of the TSBD at the moment Pres. Kennedy was shot.

  146. Skeptikal says:

    I have read somewhere that Islam actually was based on beliefs and ideas held by Jewish communities in the Arabian Peninsula. But I cannot recall here. Perhaps in some some comment here at UR.

    Do you have an sources on this?

  147. @Really No Shit

    We’re waiting for an exposé on Einstein, Laurent. When will it be? It’s wonderful to read your essay!

    I heartily agree. It will be interesting to see what Laurnet has to say about the Einstein, the man–as well as his towering reputation. I believe that Prof. Einstein’s Jewishness is part of the reason why he has been elevated to the status of an intellectual demigod.

    I wrote an review of Roger Schlafly’s provocative book, ‘How Einstein Ruined Physics’, for The Occidental Observer. It provoked a lot of discussion. I neglected to mention in my article however that Einstein was not the first person to pen the famous equation E=MC2. Einstein also clung to the ‘steady state’ theory of the universe as opposed to the now accepted view (first promulgated by Edwin Hubble) that the universe was expanding.

  148. @Jila

    The Jews need Muslim immigration, a high number of Muslims in the population, as backup protection against legislation that would make genital mutilation of little boys without their informed consent illegal.

  149. @Skeptikal

    Was it here perhaps:
    in the last two sections of the article, “the Judaic cradle of Islam” (based on Crone and Cook’s book Hagarism) and “What did the Muslims do for the Jews?”

  150. hugenot says: • Website
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Bardon Kaldian,
    sorry Sir, but you are full of it and your ignorance is showing.
    1. Karl Liebknecht was a German Jew, as jewish as they come.
    2. You do know what is a “Marrano” – Jews “converted” to christianity, adopting a series of non-jewish names, often hiding their real anchestry quite effectively.
    3. You did not read (or not understood) Marx’ writings and actions in the so-called “Vormaerz”, the time pre-1848 and his exchanges with Engels, his opponents (at last everyone else, except himself and Engels).
    4. You think Jews do never fight among each others, or communists and socialists – hell, Stalin called Trotzki (Mr. Bronstein!), the founder of the Red Army a “Faschist”!!!
    Do your DD and come back.
    Shalom, comrade lol

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  151. @mark green

    I would have to study physics (which I haven’t done since my twenties), I’m not sure if I’m up to it. But I’ll give it some thoughts, and start by reading your review, Mark. Thanks

  152. @Vaterland

    Seems ‘Verlag Der Schelm’ functions as a kind of bind for those extremists you point to. But Mahler’s book ‘Das Ende der Wanderschaft’ was also published here. This work is engaged with Israeli philosopher Gilad Atzmon. I guess the periodical ‘Tumult’, as one of very few German publications, offers a solid intellectual standing on these subjects.

  153. pogohere says:

    It’s not easy being both the world’s greatest victims and the Spartans of our age.

  154. @refl


    I wasn’t aware of this guy either so thanks to Vaterland for pointing him out to the readership here. Let’s not forget another historian, a French one, who also recently committed suicide in protest at the way his country was going, in Notre Dame Cathedral no less, before it was partly burnt down (probably by some Muslim immigrants):

    The Frenchman came from a different political tradition, a right wing one, unlike Sieferle who used to be a left-wing Marxist type.

    If both had stayed alive I’m sure they would have found a lot to agree on, and this brings me to another point.

    I’m starting to think that UR publishes far too many articles on Nazism/communism/Marxism/WWI &II/Stalin/Hitler and other related historical topics. While these are interesting topics worthy of academic debate, I am not sure what the purpose is in this context. It has been claimed that UR brings together the extreme left and extreme right but then it places this historical/ideological wedge between them that prevents much cooperation between those belonging to these opposed traditions, even though current affairs could bring us closer together. I’d prefer if we stayed more focused on current issues where there can be considerable agreement between those originating from these diverse traditions, especially on topics such as anti-Zionism, anti-imperialism, anti-globalism, anti-immigration. Obviously bringing up these historical topics so often is divisive among the readers and commenters, and will impede any concrete activities or movement that may arise out of a medium such as this. And whose purpose do such divisive tactics serve? Who will laugh while we argue passionately over a long gone past instead of tackling current problems? Certainly every time I see another such article … it’s one of those things that makes me go hmm … hmm … hmm.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
    , @refl
  155. Vaterland says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Well, no. Unz isn’t trying to keep the extreme right and left fighting with each other, because he has some kind of hidden Jew agenda or something. As if he was needed for that! And besides the fighting here is literally nothing compared to the frog people, including among themselves. And also: very few people read comments, maybe 1% of the readers. So this is just a pub/street cafe for us basically.

    Unz has made his mission statement quite clear: to tackle the establishment by bringing down trust in its mouthpiece, the MSM. This will be achieved by attacking it from all angles which makes it harder to deflect for the establishment. And one of its greatest strength is also to have Andrew Joyce and Eric Striker articles next to Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. The ADL would call it “normalizing hate”, but what it really does, is introducing the most taboo subjects, which are vital to understand, into the wider public understanding.

    Concerning movement building transcending left and right: that goes well beyond the possibilities and purpose of the Unz Review. It’s very good as it is. – It’s sad that what we had in the old BRD, which achieved just that, was destroyed by the Neoliberal left and the Marxist left alike.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  156. refl says:
    @Commentator Mike

    I’m starting to think that UR publishes far too many articles on Nazism/communism/Marxism/WWI &II/Stalin/Hitler and other related historical topics.

    I have to admit that these are the articles that I most react to, as they answer the questions I have asked myself for a long time and could not come to terms with.
    It might be a nuissance to Americans who see their own country going down.

    But don’t forget that the 20th century has been the formative experience of the West as we know it. To understand what is happening today that is the myth that we have to go back to. Marx was the god of just to many western intellectuals till very recently and even in these comments you still feel how certain people are hurt to be exposed to views that they see as heretical.

  157. Jila says:

    Sources that provide evidence of Jewish origins of Islam have been the heavily targeted for censorship and nearly erased from history due to Zionist need to disassociate themselves from this responsibility.
    But here are some papers to study:

  158. Skeptikal says:

    Thanks, Jila and Laurent Guyenot.

  159. Skeptikal says:

    I completely agree with Vaterland. I find Commenter Mike’s comments so off the wall and wide of the mark as to make me wonder whether he is some kind of troll. Like, maybe, a type of concern troll.

    Yes, UR does not publish articles about apple pie, which everyone agrees is delicious.

    UR publishes articles about Blutwurst, locusts, tripe (aka intestines), grubs, and similarly nutritious fare that otherwise would not be on the menu.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  160. S says:

    ..if a global financial crash happens the next revolution will likely go to the far left.

    Can’t speak for Europe, but in the United States ‘civil war’ is being more and more term dropped in the corporate media.

    Bernie campaign people have been recorded talking about ‘cities burning’ if they don’t get their way come election time, and speaking glowingly about the Gulag of the old Soviet Union, this on top of an ever increasingly radicalized (ie ‘Bolshevized’) Democrat Party.

    Anybody not fully on board with this, particularly if they are a Euro (ie ‘White’), is increasingly (at times in a context of physical violence) looked at askance and demonized as a potential Nazi!TM in the corporate media, no matter if you may have had relatives who fought and died in the world wars.

    What’s patently obvious is the people pushing this narrative clearly have murder in their hearts.

    So, if a Red October 2.0 type event happens in the United States, a very ugly Russian style ‘Civil War’ could very well follow, and spread throughout the remnants of the British Empire, ie the ‘Anglosphere’.

    It may be far worse than what Russia experienced, too.

    I put ‘civil war’ in quotes here, in part, as I see these as ‘dialectical’ wars (Capitalist vs Communist) in reality, ie 20th century wars against identity (peoplehood) in the bigger picture, such as happened in Korea, Vietnam, Spain, Russia, and Germany.

    A deliberately engineered from the top economic crash, combined possibly with a world war, and an election stolen in a Red October 2.0 coup type event (not at all dissimilar to conditions in Russia in 1917) could very well kick off a ‘civil war’ in the United States.

    This hypothetical, top down engineered economic and political collapse of the United States, the ‘Fall of Capitalism’, would follow in a broad pattern the top down engineered economic and politocal collapse of the Soviet Union thirty years ago, the ‘Fall of Communism’.

    Just as Conservative/Right types were ‘allowed’ then to take credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, though they in reality had little, if anything, to do with it, so too will Liberal/Left sorts be ‘allowed’ to take credit for the collapse of the United States, though they also will have had little, if anything, to do with it.

    Meanwhile, this artificially contrived, centuries old, Hegelian Dialectic of Capitalism and Communism, in place since 1776 and 1789, will inexorably be moved forward towards a final synthesis in the ‘United States of the World’.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
  161. @Skeptikal

    Well I was just being skeptical, as is my prerogative.

  162. As far as I knew, Trotsky aka Bronstein was a Russian Jew not a German one.

    Also the English Wikipedia tells:

    Leon Trotsky was born Lev Davidovich Bronstein on 7 November 1879, the fifth child of a Ukrainian-Jewish family of wealthy farmers in Yanovka or Yanivka, in the Kherson governorate of the Russian Empire

  163. Vaterland says:

    I’ve been active in the new and old right on both sides of the Atlantic for five years now and I have heard this talk about civil war just as long. This whole day X, Racial Holy War, Day of the Rope and second civil war stuff is ultimately just a coping mechanism with the shitty reality and something pundits sell as fear porn or click-bait. There won’t be one.
    The USA is the most liberal and post-racial nation state in the entire West (except for Sweden maybe), especially the areas which matter the most: NYC, California – especially Silicon Valley, Washington D.C. Issues can be crime rates and maybe welfare dependence, real estate decline, but that’s only tangent on race and immigration.’The elites don’t need to orchestrate a civil war at all to get what they want and the average American doesn’t care enough about “the browning of America”, especially not enough to start a civil war over it.

    From what I have read from Mr. Sanders the last days he unfortunately seems to have embraced the cancerous anti-white, new left ideology completely now and at the same time Jewishness. But he will lose anyway, either to Trump or Bloomberg, and Bernie Bros going nuts on twitter, or even shooting the occasional politician is not the new October Revolution. The USA is way too stable and racial tensions and crime today are nothing compared to the days of the Blank Panthers, Weather Underground, LA race riots and so on. And none of these lead to civil war, neither did Waco or Oklahoma City bombing. Most people also have way too much to lose and modern war is too bloody to risk it. In the days of muskets you may want to fight a little war over independence. Today you’d have millions upon millions of dead. – “Nah, lets go back to Netflix and Burger king instead. And this Mr. Sanchez I know is actually rather nice.” Then the occasional white nationalist shooting, real or orchestrated by agents, with a gigantic spotlight by the MSM will most likely seal the deal. That’s what’s happening now.

    Sorry, no civil war, no peaceful secession and not even white exclusive areas as Jared Taylor wants. The establishment will just boil the frog a little longer with 4 years of Trump, empty hopes and promises, and then the ship has sailed. Also: if the Bloomberg vs. Sanders vs. Trump situation with Netanyahu, Adelson and Singer in the background, is not enough to wake Americans up, nothing ever will.

    The great replacement is basically done in the USA, especially for the younger generations, but since you are not being replaced by Arabic Muslims or S.S. Africans, Murica will probably just integrate into the wider Hispanic sphere, ultimately making the country even more dominant globally. But it will no longer be a European nation. Unfortunately your empire is an absolute catastrophy for Europe and we will be much, much worse off.

    Also, contrary to what the PR sells, the Democrats fulfill the same function as the Republicans: promise distracting non issues like trans-rights and homosexuality rights, gender neutral toilets, make empty promises about health care, inequality and actually keep the capitalist machine rolling and the true elite in power. Which is why I like Bloomberg so much: masks off!

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
    , @S
  164. Skeptikal says:

    I certainly do not foresee a shootin’ civil war in the USA, despite all the people packing metal.
    More like people just stopping talking to a lot of other people because of political disagreements.
    At least, that is kind of how I feel. I am so done with Jewish control of the American political narrative, not to mention what is being done to the Palestinians—but can discuss this with only a very few. Mainly I don’t talk politics with just about anyone, and i gnore most of what others say. Also, I believe most Americans are far more politically involved and also actually savvy with local politics than with international politics. They do understand what is going down locally. They also grasp the Obamacare scam pretty well. Lots of other issues. But I don’t think they have the tools (because withheld by MSM) to make important connections as to how all of this fits together, why there is no money to spend on improving American quality of life. Anger and frustration and fear are high. But: How the hell have we arrived at this?

    I don’t understand what you mean by this:
    ” Then the occasional white nationalist shooting, real or orchestrated by agents, with a gigantic spotlight by the MSM will most likely seal the deal. That’s what’s happening now.”

    Seal what deal?

    Lebst Du in Deutschland?
    Wenn ja, ist, deines Erachtens, Lebensqualitaet besser dort als in den USA?
    Bin Halbdeutsche. Tschuess.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
  165. Vaterland says:

    The deal is the future waiting for you. You know exactly what that future is. And no. Immediate quality of life in rural Deutschland is better, for Germans, than rural Murica. But the state is sliding into totalitarianism. It’s even more hysterical and violent and bloody than in Murica. A little bit. What makes it worse is that it is a client state of the USA on top of the almost identical situation to the USA. And that we are bordering Africa ofc.

  166. @Vaterland

    In a way I can understand what’s going on in America as it’s always been a nation of immigrants. But they’re trying to turn Europe into the same and force people to accept this although Europe has had a very different history.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
  167. S says:

    I’ve been active in the new and old right on both sides of the Atlantic for five years now and I have heard this talk about civil war just as long. This whole day X, Racial Holy War, Day of the Rope and second civil war stuff is ultimately just a coping mechanism with the shitty reality and something pundits sell as fear porn or click-bait.

    I’m not speaking about ‘civil war’ in the context you’re relating, ie hearing it in relation to and eminating from ‘dissident’ groups. I’m hearing the term more and more used in the ‘mainstream’ corporate US media, almost as though they were attempting to condition people to expect it.

    There won’t be one.

    I’d like to think you’re right. However, none of us knows what the future holds for sure. I can just report what I see, and the United States is a tinder box at the moment.

    I don’t put too much truck in either of the two US main parties, each corrupt in their way, as I see them as a microcosm of this controlled Hegelian Dialectic I’ve described in some of my post.

    Having said that, the Dem party is becoming more and more simply lawless in it’s dealings. There have been multiple instances of the establishment progressive left in the US openly calling for the president’s assassination and or violence without their (inexplicably) being called to account.


    It’s becoming increasingly clear too that the US Justice Department has become corrupted, ie it’s been turned over to the radical left. Hillary Clinton committed serious crimes, as did major FBI people, and nothing is no prosecution.

    Of course, there’s also been multiple instances of physical violence against Republican US congressman by Leftist Dems. That is a direct parallel with what was happening just prior to the US Civil War of 1861-65…the physical assault and attempted murder of US congressman.

    The USA is way too stable and racial tensions and crime today are nothing compared to the days of the Blank Panthers, Weather Underground…And none of these lead to civil war..

    The United States is not the same country it was in the 1960’s when it was almost 90% Euro. Euros are quickly heading to minority status. As for racial tensions and crime being ‘nothing’ today compared to then I think your prognosis is a bit too sanguine. Crime has been greatly heightened in general since the attempted ‘integration’ of Blacks (ie the former African slaves) in Euro-American society since the mid ’60’s.

    Most people also have way too much to lose and modern war is too bloody to risk it.

    Most people in the US didn’t want to get into either WWI or WWII, yet they wound up fighting in both. Most people in the US don’t want a civil war, yet the US corporate media appears to be promoting one, as do powerful elements and hangers on of the US ‘progressive’ left. I certainly don’t want a civil war.

    The establishment will just boil the frog a little longer with 4 years of Trump..

    Maybe, maybe not. Sooner or later in the US something’s got to give. It can’t keep going as it is economically with the debt load it has. It also can’t keep going with it’s two party system in perpetual paralysis.

    As for Trump, I think he has been allowed to be in office to give false hopes to Euros in the states, while simultaneously being used to radicalize the progressive left who in their blinding fanaticism and hatred literally do think (somehow) that he’s the second coming of Hitler. Trump is supposed to symbolize (and I have to emphasize this symbolic part), the founding Euro stock of the US, aka ‘the evil White man!’TM

    Trump (as with Putin) was for most of his life an internationalist. I doubt what limited ‘nationalism’ either promotes is sincere. I can’t see with Trump why he puts himself through it. Perhaps it’s his ego, or he’s being bribed, or possibly blackmailed. Maybe it’s a combination of all three.

    ..and not even white exclusive areas as Jared Taylor wants.

    As you allude the situation is bad in the states, as it is in Europe. I do think various disinctive ethnicities and races exist, and deserve the right to preserve themselves, as well as have the right of self determination, [viva la difference!] Having said that, I’m not into the ‘White nationalist’ scene as I don’t see it as effective manifestation of identity and peoplehood, nor do I see it as helpful. I do what I can.

    The great replacement is basically done in the USA..

    It’s not over till the fat lady sings. Locals determine their own ultimate fate, not outsiders making pronouncements. [Same for Europeans in Europe naturally.]

    Unfortunately your empire is an absolute catastrophy for Europe and we will be much, much worse off.

    Well, it’s certainly not my empire, though I know what you mean. If I’d had my way, the US would not of been in either WWI or WWII, and wouldn’t be spearheading WWIII. Heck, I’ve seriously wondered if the colonization of North and South America was a good thing ultimately for those Europeans involved at all, considering the damage that’s been done. If I’d had any say about it, I would have greatly limited what colonization occurred, and been much more scrupulous about honoring treaties.

    I hope you’re right about any potential violence.

    We’ll just have to see what transpires and be as safe as we can.

  168. @obwandiyag

    Fair enough. I deserved it. I should not be discourteous to my readers. Thanks for reading anyway.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
    , @Skeptikal
    , @sothen
  169. @hugenot

    Another ignorant. Wilhelm Liebknecht came from a Lutheran family with no Jewish ancestry (nor, of course, identity).

    The rest is similar nonsense.

  170. Vaterland says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Yes, of course they do, because it is their ideology. And it has a very clear Semitic influence. Whether it’s subversive activists like Barbara Specter and her recent meetings with Jacob Rothschild, NGOs like HIAS or IsraAID helping Latin Americans and Arabs enter the formerly white USA and for the moment white Europe, guilt tripping and open borders activism as Josef Schuster of the council of Jews in Germany or Harvard intellectual Yascha Mounk does, leadership, funding and the providing of networks for the diversity grievance industry which includes Bernie Sanders now, the wider ideological and political indoctrination and shaping of the Weltanschauung for the West, or simply immigration lobbying on the state official level. And of course the control of media, including the new one, and the censorship of those who dare to speak against them, ADL, SPLC and hate speech laws.

    But actually, at this point none of this should be new to you. Pretty much anyone should know these things as long as he isn’t glued to the MSM.

  171. Vaterland says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    What the hell? This is not how you deal with hecklers. Thisis how you deal with hecklers:

  172. Skeptikal says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    I didn’t notice that.

    Obwandiyag is an obnoxious troll; er soll die Schnauze halten .

  173. Astraea says:

    The Jews are silly. To think that God – or the Universe chooses anyone over another is so foolish!
    “God” cannot possiblu chose anyone. Infinity cannot chose! Infinite Compassion, Infinite Wisdom and Infinite Powere cannot choose. Why does anyonewase time on this silliness?
    Who is it that manipulates poor human beings to believe nonsense?
    Poor Jews. They makes idiots of themselves. I guess it is because their parents tell them – from birth – that they are hated by alal the rest of mankind and so they hate all the rest of mankind.
    Foolishness – and it makes them dangerous and destructive.
    Perhaps it is true, as Buddhism teaches, that they are of the “Jealous gods.”

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyenot
  174. @Adrian

    But yes, why did Marx avoid the question of the oriental bureaucracy? The problem must have stared him in the face.

    Marx thought, with some vacillations, that his theory of society is not globally universal, but it applies only to the Western world (which was, in his times, the world). He considered other cultures & societies as something alien & inferior, history’s backwater. Though- he had been during his entire life vexed by the Russian enigma.

    Anyway, excellent comment.

    • Replies: @Adrian
  175. Dannyboy says:
    @Dr. E. Black

    The Swedes are weird people. I’m not sure who hates themselves and their culture the most, the Swedes, the Germans or the British.

    Of course, the Germans have to be cut some slack, because they were decimated and bombed into the stone age for the awful crime of being proud of their people and history.

    As for the other two, it’s anyone’s guess.

  176. Marx was not Jewish. He only wrote Das Kapital. His most significant message: Capitalism would destroy “humanity”. He died a painful death, lung disease, a pauper.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyenot
  177. @valah

    Your comments are right on target. I would add just a few points.

    The cited reference by McKay that “It was Proudhon who first located surplus value production within the workplace, recognizing that the worker was hired by a capitalist who then appropriates their product in return for a less than equivalent amount of wages” might have been more pursuasive had he cited how Proudhon put it rathert than as he described it. It was, indeed, neither Proudhon nor Marx who first noted that the capitalist acquired surplus value by appropriating the production of the worker, but John Locke who noted that he was entitled to the product of his own labor, but also the labor of his servant. He neglected to note, however, on what basis he took ownership of the product of his servant’s labor that deprived his servant of it when he was entgitled to the product of his own labor. Marx explained how the capitalist acquires it within the productive process. Indeed, Proudhon’s apology for how the artisan acquires property by possession that is a condition of society kind of conflicts with his denunciation of property as theft when possession of it validates it.

    Next, denouncing Marx for failing to recognize that class struggle was not the history of all hithero existing society entirely ignores Engels’ footnote to the 1888 edition where he indicates that by history was meant all written history since as of then little was known of so-called prehistory that was unwritten that he took up in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Moreover, the mere fact that Marx based his analysis of capitalism on principles of dialectical materialism, it should have been obvious he was focusing on the intra-societal contradictions within society that were propelling changes within society rather then inter-societal struggles between different groups that excluded each other. While there may be myriad basis for such struggles, they are fundamentally about struggles for survival and the maintenance of a group rather than the basis for the internally based social developments of society. Like the white men wiping out the Indians in America to seize their lands for themselves. That is a dialectic process operating on a different foundation than class struggles within society. Subsuming these two separate struggles into one entirely obscures the dynamics that drive each.

    A final point that by no means exhausts the issues this article raises about Marx and Proudhon. For example, as Marx cited him in The Poverty of Philosophy, he refers to the contradictory nature of use and exchange values that “in technical terms, use value and exchange value stand in inverse ratio to each other.” Really? So the higher the use value of an object, the lower its exchange value? And it is this that Proudhon claims as cited by Marx that economists have not very well brought out the double character of use and exchange value. This is actually the distinction that is the foundation for the supply and demand curves capitalist economists use for how free markets set sound prices by basing the buyer’s demand curve on his subjective liking for the product rather than the amount of work he needs to expend to buy it, while basing the seller’s supply curve on the real cost of production that in a free market enables sellers to engage in extortion for how much they can extract from workers for their necessities that becomes the basis for contracts governments enforce against workers. Marx didn’t need Proudhon’s discoveries to address this issue and explain its significance to economic exchange and production

    In sum about the rest of the article, while it’s obviously possible to make the argument that Marx was slyly advancing purportedly scientific findings that justified and validated the realization of a hidden agenda for Jews, the fact is that Marx’s account for the development of capitalism indeed accurately foretold the massive accumulation of wealth in a few hands, the immiseration of the working class and the destruction of the petit bourgeoisie, as well as the ongoing globalization that is implanted capitalism through the world which he also noted was the precondition for a universal revolution against it.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyenot
    , @valah
  178. utu says:
    @mark green

    Put aside the issue of validity of Einstein theories and concentrate on (1) priority/plagiarism and (2) the social phenomenon of elevating Einstein to the stature of a superman.
    As far as Einstein is concerned there are two issues that can be dealt separately: (1) How much and in what circumstances Einstein borrowed from Lorentz and Poincare and later form Hilbert and how much he depended on various assistants doing math for him whom he never acknowledged and (2) How his fame and idol status can be explained? There is also a third issue which unfortunately is mixed in (also by Bjerknes) which is the validity of the theory which is entirely separate issue. Arguing the plagiarism of invalid theory is rather silly, nevertheless, it is done by people like Bjerknes.

    I have written many comments on the priority/plagiarism issues. You can search for Lorentz, Poincare, Klein, Hilbert and Einstein in my comments.

    Here are two:
    The issue here is about an honest appraisal of Einstein accomplishments including his ways and means. To do this one has to have some understanding of science and know its history. You won’t get it if you limit yourself to Einstein hagiographies that unfortunately dominate the market of books about Einstein and his physics. For various reasons Einstein was turned into an idol and lost of effort goes to keep him there. […]
    It seems there is good circumstantial evidence that Einstein plagiarized at various points of his career. However, according to French physicists C. Marchal Poincare relativity theory was plagiarized by German mathematicians from Gottingen in June 1905 and Einstein was merely the front man who was made to publish it under his name because German mathematicians did not want to risk their reputations. It was a part of French German competition and pissing match in all possible areas including science that eventually culminated in the WWI. […]

    • Thanks: mark green
  179. Adrian says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    It is true that Asia was only on the periphery of Marx’s interest. Originally he wrote about it in newspaper articles, mainly published in the New York Daily Tribune, because he needed money. British India happened to be a subject of interest to a wider public, particularly after the Mutiny, so Marx wrote about it. But Marx being Marx he read quite a bit about it .

    Nevertheless as you know the topic received scant attention in his main work. Yet it was summarily dealt with in a part of it that was published late.

    I am referring to Grundrisse der Kritik der poliktischen Ökonomie. Riazanov had already announced the discovery of this manuscript in1923 but its first publication only took place in Moscow in 1939. Commentary on it only got going after the first German edition of 1953.

    As you probably know there is in this Grundrisse a treatise of about forty pages entitled Formen die der kapitalistischen Produktion vorhergehn (Forms of production before capitalism). It is in this treatise that Marx gives some attention to the Asiatic Mode of Production. But here too he avoids the problem how the oriental Prince could extract tribute and corvee from his subjects, in other words the problem of the foundation of the Prince’s authority and the bureaucracy that had to implement it. Why did he avoid it? Perhaps partly for the reason suggested by Wittfogel but more importantly, I think, because his conceptual apparatus didn’t enable him to deal with it. He could only think about such things in economic and legal terms that were inapplicable to the situation in India and elsewhere in Asia.

    To elaborate a bit on this I will relate an anecdote given by Clifford Geertz in one of his articles on Bali. I must do so from memory because I haven’t got the article here but I think I have the main details correct. It is about this Dutch administrative official trying to ascertain the border between two Balinese petty kingdoms. His informants were chiefs of both kingdoms. They went to the border area and he was told at a certain spot that the border was at a place where a stone thrown from there would land. He was given the same answer for the adjoining kingdom about a stone thrown from the other side. But yes, said the administrative official, what about the area in between? Ah Sir, said the chiefs, we had much better things to do than fight about these shabby hills.

    In other words legal land titles, possession of the land as territory, borders, were not of great importance. What counted was the number of one’s followers/ subjects some of whom could even dwell in the territory mainly inhabited by the subjects of an other prince. It is the distinction between “land to rule” and “land to own” which has been emphasized inter alia by Walter Neale for India.

    So whether or not the Prince “owned” the land according to the Western definition of ownership was not of great importance. The important thing was that he was able to rule it. Dealing with such questions one has to think about the basis of legitimacy and forms of domination; in otherwords one has to shift from Marxist to Weberian territory.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
  180. @the shadow

    No matter what Marx contributed to his own theory (as opposed to borrowed from Proudhon or simple common sense), his economic theory bears little relation to his political program: the Manifesto was written more than a decade before the first volume of the Capital. And so the question of the originality of Marx’s economic theory is almost pointless. The Manifesto‘s Marx, with his call to proletarians of the world to unite and destroy the bourgeois foundation of European nations (religion, family, property) is like Moses federating bands of uprooted migrants and lead them to the plunder of the cananean cities, and is like the prophets calling for the destruction of the nations.

    • Replies: @the shadow
    , @S
  181. @Astraea

    For a people to believe they have been chosen by God is silly (and dangerous), I agree. But for a people to believe that another foreign people known for their immorality and corrosiveness has been chosen by God is even sillier. And this is what Christian and Muslim nations believe, for their own misfortune.

  182. @Biloximarxkelly

    Marx was not Jewish.

    He was full-blooded Jewish, from a family of rabbis, and never claimed otherwise.

    He only wrote Das Kapital.

    The Communist Manifesto was written almost twenty years before Das Kapital, and it contains his program which was not affected by his later (plagiarized) economic theory

    His most significant message: Capitalism would destroy “humanity”.

    He hoped for it, as a pre-condition for his dictatorship of the proletarians.

    He died a painful death, lung disease, a pauper.

    Perhaps, but that was not from overworking. Marx never worked in his entire life, except through writing, never entered a factory, and never talked to a proletarian.

  183. @Laurent Guyenot

    The question of the originality of Marx’s theory is obviously not point becauser that was the point of your article that denounced the originality of Marx’s theory by declaring he plagiarist if from Proudhon.

    In actuality, Marx never claimed tyo have discovered that the secret of capitlist exploitation was that they appropriate the product of w aorker’s labor. Indeed, the only discovery Marx cvlaimed relating to his theory of capitalist production was the secret of how it was generated in the production procvess while all the exchanges were made at the value of the things exchanged, including the value of labor. For as Marx pointed out, the capitlist realized his gains despite baying full value of the worker’s labor.

    Proudhon didn’t come within light year of that discovery.

    The two critical differences between Marx and Proudhon are philosphic materialism and idealism and between dialectics and linearism as the source of the dynamics world.

    To paraphrase Engels, the difference between materialism and idealism is simply that the first holds that material being (the world) precedes and is the basis for thought; the multitude of idealists schools turns this on its head and declares the idea precedes and is the foundation for being. The latter is, of course, nonsense, but Proudhon is withoput doubt a member of one of the idealist schools, and it is this aspect of his theory the Marx criticizes mercilessly for good reason. Just read how Marx ridicules Proudhon’s description of the different ideas that ruled over various centuries that gave each one the name he assigned to it.

    The opposite directions in which this difference launched their theories is that Marx sought the answers to capitlist production in the material conditions under which it occurred, rather than the ideas people had about it. Prodhoun, on the other hand, proceeded to look for it in the ideas people had about it, which got him to how various ideas that deignated each centurey were the ruling ideas governing its development.

    The opposite directions in which the difference between dialectical materialism and linearism launches their theories is that with dialiectice, it is oppopsites bounded in a unity and their opposition within it that injectgs dynamics into the relation ship that propels it while with linearism the dynamics consists of objects propelled by external forces, and opposites exclude each other as with Aristotle’s formulation that a thing is a and not non-a and the twin shall never meet. It is, of course, this formulation that Heraclities was refuting ahead of his time by noting that a man cannot step into the same river twice.

    By and large, Western philosophy and theories about the world are chained to the idealist-linearist schools of philosophy and theories. And it is not dioffcult to understand why they hold sway with ruling circles. Marx and the materialist-dialectic approach compels looking at things within their actual materialist conditions and how it is within those conditions that the dyamics for change are not only to be found, but are bound to develop so that ever rema9ns the same over time.

    The idealist-linear approach, by contrast posits thaty the essence of a thing is to be found outside of it, and that an idea is eternal. By golly, what king, emperor or ruler would’t sign on to that notion on which to cement his power and present it to his subjects as something that is unchangeable. Indeed, that was the point of Fukujama’s declration that the demise of the Soviet Union ushered in the “end of history” that of course was nonsense that was swallowed whole by the ruling elite and its propagandists.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyenot
  184. S says:
    @Laurent Guyenot

    The Manifesto‘s Marx, with his call to proletarians of the world to unite and destroy the bourgeois foundation of European nations (religion, family, property) is like Moses federating bands of uprooted migrants and lead them to the plunder of the cananean cities, and is like the prophets calling for the destruction of the nations.

    What I find fascinating are the direct parallels between Capitalism and Communism, with only the rare exception, on virtually every point. These are ultimately complimentary systems.

    Capitalism was (and is) to the revolutionary United States what Communism was to the revolutionary Soviet Union.

    Not surprisingly, in that light, the hyper-Capitalist New Rome book of 1853, like the Communist Manifesto of 1848, also strongly attacks nationality, but from an artificial individualist (rather than an artificial collectivist) perspective.

    The Capitalist attack upon Europe, and European peoples, is particularly emphasized in the New Rome.
    ‘we do not conquer, we liberate’

    ‘…It is the duty of the American party to combat all European traditions which are incompatible with Americanism; but, above all, that of nationality. To vindicate individualism against nationality, is the office of America.’

    The New Rome (1853) – pg 70 – 71

    The [1776 Capitalist American] revolution is the offspring of the only people which is not a nation. A gathering of all the exiles of the world -and an exile is a man deprived of his nationality, rejected by his nation- an assemblage whose spring of action was disgust at the national cruelties which they had fled; a convocation from all the corners of the world for conscience sake, for the preservation of this individual sovereignty against the encroachments of national traditions; a horde of emigrants who knew nationality in the guise of national poverty; America was, by force of circumstances, the rendezvous of all to whom nationality had been the source of all their sufferings.


    Nations, we have seen, are unions based upon community of speech; this the Americans renounced, in favor of a union based upon a unity of thought; and thus fell nationality, and arose the republic. The native Americans partly have been forced to doff the European part of their title; and they have done wisely. It is the duty of the American party to combat all European traditions which are incompatible with Americanism; but, above all, that of nationality. To vindicate individualism against nationality, is the office of America. This is, at the same time, the whole force and scope of the revolution; thus, the revolution which arose in and with America, must for ever return to it; and America, which began in revolution, must live in it, and end with it. When the dominion of nationality is crushed, and the sovereignty of the individual is attained, everywhere and everyhow, the missions of the [Capitalist] revolution and of America will both be accomplished.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyenot
  185. As a huge fan of Laurent’s first two books – JFK, Yahweh – I am thrilled to find where his next journey is taking us. Understanding marxism/communism/socialism is a crucial piece of the jigsaw puzzle. But I fear time is running out.

    We are only about two steps away from an apocalyptic sh*tstorm. Perverted capitalism (through Fed intervention) has amassed epic fortunes for the super-rich. Radical socialism is being groomed as a means of taking away what few liberties are left and draining the middle class of what meager savings they have. Zionism has created a horrendous refugee situation in the Middle East and an explosive state of confrontation among the major military forces of the US, Russia, Turkey and Iran. Coronavirus, which has ample reason to be considered a bioweapon, has sidelined China and is about to set off a global chaos. The everything bubble will burst ever so gloriously, dragging all but the super-rich insiders down into the netherworld.

    The problem is that only the cabal is acting as a group and all others are scattered. You don’t have to be an expert in game theory to realize that that is not a winning proposition for the rest. Some brilliant minds need to draw up a plan to counter the cabal. There’s probably no hope to prevent the coming mayhem. But there still might be hope to come out as the winner at the end of it.

  186. @the shadow

    the difference between materialism and idealism is simply that the first holds that material being (the world) precedes and is the basis for thought; the multitude of idealists schools turns this on its head and declares the idea precedes and is the foundation for being. The latter is, of course, nonsense,

    Then Plato and pretty much all philosophy until Darwin and Marx is nonsense. You are right, this is the essential difference. Proudhon, like many other socialists (Jaurès, at a later period), believed in a Supreme Being and a form of immortal soul. I do too. In my view, materialism is nonsense. By the way, Hegel too was an idealist. That’s why Marx had to turn him upside down.
    The notion that idealism is favored by dictators is ludicrous, given the historical record of marxism-lenisnism.

    • Agree: utu, MrFoSquare
    • Replies: @the shadow
  187. @S

    Very insightful parallel. I had never heard of that book. I’ll have to read that. Thanks.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @S
    , @S
  188. Yeah, right. If the US hadn’t “let” them, the Soviet Union would not have occupied Eastern Europe. Pull the other one. How can you people believe this claptrap.

  189. geokat62 says:
    @Laurent Guyenot

    I had never heard of that book. I’ll have to read that.

    I would take the book recommendation with a large dose of skepticism. Although I tried discovering the ethic background of the two authors, Charles Goepp and Theodore Poesche, of The New Rome, I managed to dig up this bit of background info on the two:

    Born in 1825 in Zoeschen (now part of Leuna) in the Province of Saxony of the Kingdom of Prussia, Poesche became a student of philosophy at the University of Halle and later a revolutionary. Following the disappointments of 1848, in 1850, he emigrated to the United States. In 1853, he published with Charles Goepp The New Rome, or The United States of the World, a book in which they compare the United States to the Roman Empire.

    The aim of the international Conspiracy, particularly the communist wing since at least the 1850s, was that the United States, Russia, and possibly China would rule the world. This was outlined by several communist and Carbonari leaders in America at the time and was revealed in various books, such as that authored by two German communist immigrants, Charles Goepp and Theodore Poesche, entitled The New Rome: or The United States of the World (1853).” This should show you that the concept of a one world government is not just something dreamed up in the middle of the 20th century. These people have been plotting this stuff since before your grandfathers were alive, so it ain’t something new.

    I’m not 100% certain, but Goepp and Poesche “two German communist immigrants” does sound like a number of popular law firms, today, lol!

    • Replies: @S
    , @Laurent Guyenot
  190. S says:
    @Laurent Guyenot

    Very insightful parallel.

    Though the 1853 book is a bit dry in places, it is extremely revealing as to the exact nature of the 1776 Revolution and of the geo-political relationship between the US and UK. [It claims the 1776 Revolution was a planned false split between the US and Britain, that someday the center of power of the British Empire (as planned) will move from England to the US, that there will be a future ‘world’s war’ of joint conquest by the US/UK made against Germany, to be followed afterwards by a great global struggle between the United States and Russia, where US air power wins the day, etc.]

    Of it’s two authors, the ’48er’ Theodore Poesche, with his ties to London, his probable meeting with the Italian revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini whilst there, his later US government economics work, and his (at the German ambassador’s request) being sent by Washington to Europe to personally meet with the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, is particularly intriguing. [That information was in the other related linked book, the 1912 A Political Prophecy.]

    I had never heard of that book. I’ll have to read that. Thanks.

    I had never heard of it either until some years back, when I first came across it being mentioned by other mid-19th century books I was reading online.

    The New Rome book (for whatever reason) is very obscure and generally unknown. I very seriously doubt it has ever even been talked about on one of those late night esoterically themed radio or TV talk shows, and certainly not on the ‘MSM’.

    Just as happened with the Soviet Union and Communism thirty years ago, should the economic and political collapse of the United States occur, ie the ‘Fall of Capitalism’, which might well be likely, I suspect a great many of Capitalism’s past ‘secrets’ (such as The New Rome perhaps?) will then be revealed for the entire world to see.

  191. @Laurent Guyenot

    That the notion that idealism is favored by dictators is ludicrous given the historical record of marxism- leninism reveals you are missing or ignoring the key issue. That idealism being favored by all rulers is not ludicrous is exposed by Plato himself who advocated the use of “noble lies” for maintaining social harmony and protecting the power of the rulers. That is the point and purpose of his philosophy. You can ignore it, but you can’t honestly deny it.

    You at least got the point that I identified the essential difference between dialectical materialism and idealist-linearism. Unfortunate, your response that my point was that idealism was favored by dictators was ludicrous reveals that you entirely missed the point that it was the linearism tied to idealism that avoided dialectics that made them favor the idealist-linear approach because that combination avoided investigating and reaching conclusions about the dynamics that generated changes in social relations and how these were grounded in the material conditions of life rather than pious entreaties to divinities to plead them, to somehow projected their ideas to humans on how to behave.

    Indeed your notion that idealism was favored by dictators is per see refuted by the notion of the “divine right of kings” that flowed directly from that idealism that was anchored in place by linearism that refuses even to peek at the foundation of the dynamics that propel change in societies and in what direction.

    Finally, I indeed up to a point stand with Marx that Plato and all philosophy before Marx and Darwin are nonsense by his pointing out that up to then philosophers have only interpreted the world, but the point is to change it. It is impossible to do that by looking at the stars instead of focusing on the material conditions of life and the dialectics that propels changes in things.

    That is, however, not to say that all previous philosophers said nothing of consequence about social life. It’s just that by divorcing their ideas from the material conditions of life they gave full reign to their flight of fancy that were unencumbered by the material conditions under which the subjugated masses toiled. The beauty of such flights of fancy was that it easily made it possibe for them simultaneously to hold dozens of contradictory ideas at once.

    It i, hopwever, also necessary to recognize that they lacked the scientific findings that are every day exposing presence of and connections between verbal and non-verbal consciousness and how these govern thought processes. If you are interested in delving into it, you might start by exploring Col. Boyd’s OODA loop model about the process of making decisions.

    Thus all previous philosophers operated under the handicap of knopwing little or nothing about the neurology and the physiocal-chemical properties of the brain and werethus limited to exploring only the content of ideas.

    Of course I realize Hegel was an idealist. That’s why Marx had to turn him right side up.

  192. S says:

    I’m not suggesting you are of this thinking, I don’t know, but a lot of people in the United States, by default, seem to think the US is in a vacuum in it’s relationship to the rest of the world, or, ‘outside of history’ in some way. [I use to be much the same. It’s because we’re not taught about a lot of things.]

    While the reality is that since it’s founding in 1776, the US has been at the very forefront of creating our present day ‘Multi-Cultural’ world.

    It would have been far better if the United States had succeeded as a traditional ethnically based state, but, being that from the beginning some very powerful elements of its elites and hangers on have been working towards the creation of a global super-state/empire, combined with their addiction to slavery, first chattel, then wage (ie so called ‘cheap labor’), the odds (sadly) have always been against that succeeding.


    I’m not 100% certain, but Goepp and Poesche “two German communist immigrants” does sound like a number of popular law firms, today, lol!

    While Poesche and Goepp seem to have certainly had what are termed ‘socialist’ leanings at one time, as a very great many Germans did then, as for having been ‘Communist’ it’s a lot less certain. I’ve come across the fellow’s essay you quote from before, but I don’t recall him citing any sources backing his ‘Communist’ claim regarding the two. He simply declares it.

    As for The New Rome book itself, which Poesche and Goepp wrote, it’s hyper-capitalist…ie everything in it is about business, corporations, money making the world go round, mass immigration, and artificial hyper-individualism, a lot like the US today.

    Anyhow, even if the two had been full blown Communist, they’d have plenty of good company.

    No less than Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, two of the heaviest Anglo-Saxon hitters in the creation of the Capitalist 1776 American Revolution, persons right up there in importance with George Washington in it’s success, were also quite involved in the Communist 1789 French revolution as well. [See links below]

    It will be recalled that it was the 1789 French Revolution which introduced to the world the ‘political commisar’, the ‘Commune’, ‘counter-revolution’, ‘Whites’, the mass executions and arrests of the ‘Great Terror’, and in time ‘Red Republicanism’, all of which Soviet Communism evolved from.

    In that light it ought not to be too surprising that revolutionary Paris today has a city square named ‘Stalingrad’.

    Less certain, but it appears that ‘Founding Father’ Ben Franklin, as the US representative in France during the 1780’s, may also have been quite involved in laying the groundwork for the 1789 Communist Revolution in France. [See the fascinating Belcher Foundation essay link below for that.]

    And behind these men, and their historic work for the success of both the Capitalist and Communist Revolutions of 1776 and 1789 respectively, one can only suspect that one will find London.

    Courier of New Hampshire – March 6, 1794

    The defection of Marseilles soon produced that of Lyons. This important city became the central point of the counter revolution in the South…

  193. sothen says:

    Their project is long-haul.
    Enrolling the sympathy of the world-at-large facilitates global acquiescence and even participation in the project.

  194. sothen says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Laurent, have you lost your faculties??????????????????????????????????????????
    You apologize to the asshole and you make an asshole of yourself, discrediting everything you write!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    That’s enough for me to not read you anymore.
    I now doubt all your research and citations, and have no time to amend that.

    You are an imbecile!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • LOL: Laurent Guyenot
    • Replies: @Laurent Guyenot
  195. Adrian says:

    Laurent Guyenot declares at the outset “that the question is not: Did Marx deliberately conspire with other Jews to advance the Jewish global agenda, while pretending to emancipate Gentile proletarians”

    Apparently a Jew can do it all unawares.

    As a rule, Jews who believe they are working for the salvation of the world while thinking Jewishly are advancing Jewish power one way or another.

    So did Marx “think Jewishly? “

    Well see, he came from a Jewish background and there is such a thing as an
    “inherited cognitive pattern” and he was also later often surrounded by Jews and he didn’t mention Rothschild by name in his main work and what for heaven’s sake did he discuss with the historian of the Jewish people, Heinrich Graetz,when he took the waters in Carlsbad at the same time as him, two years in succession? (my answer: probably the weather – this meeting was apparently so inconsequential that two prominent biographers of Marx, Mehring and Raddatz, don’t even mention it however much Shlomo Avineri, quoted by Laurent, tried to blow it up into a meeting of historical importance).

    In spite of Guyenot’s opening statement that he didn’t set out to prove that Marx deliberately tried to further the goal of Jewish world domination, and that it all might just have been a matter of thinking Jewishly thanks to his “inherited cognitive pattern” we are soon left in no doubt that he cannot be let off on that ground.

    In “Marx’s case” says Guyenot, ,” there is evidence of intellectual dishonesty, concealment and deception”

    and a bit further down we are even told that there was “a hidden agenda” here.

    How so?

    Laurent doesn’t like the way Marx dealt with the Jewish question in his essay with that title.

    What Marx did was to push the stereotype to its limit: he made the love of money not just an attribute of some Jews, but the very essence of the Jews. But by doing so, he was in effect dissolving the Jewish question into a socio-economic question: the Jew becomes the archetypal bourgeois. By this sleight of hand, Marx eliminated the Jewish question once and for all. He would never come back to it.

    But wasn’t that Marx’s whole approach – to reduce questions to their socio-economic basis? That that method is often inadequate is another matter, but why would it show particular dishonesty in tnis case?

    But apparently there is something else.

    Marx should have mentioned the strong involvement of Jews in revolutionary movements.

    Where should he have mentioned that Laurent? In his discussion of the Jewish question? But wouldn’t that have been incompatible with the main characteristic of the Jews he mentions there: their love of money. Revolutionary activity is usually not very rewarding.

    And why should Marx have seen that penchant for revolutionary activity as a problem? It was not a problem to him, even though it might be so to Laurent.

    Marx set out to analyse the Jewish QUESTION not to give a sociographical description of an ethnic group.

    Guyenot says:

    By simply ignoring it, Marx was, at the very least, concealing the role of his own Jewishness in his revolutionary enterprise, while at the same time removing in advance all suspicion of his Jewish sympathies.

    Well didn’t he do a more than adequate job,, to remove suspicion about his Jewish sympathies, by characterising Jews the way he did in the Jewish question?

    And what I find further remarkable in this statement of Guyenot is, that at this final stage of his discourse, he just seems to take the element of “Jewishness’ in Marx’s revolutionary activity for granted. But didn.t he set out to prove that? And has he done so? I think not. Let alone that he has made clear that there was a “hidden agenda “ (presumably of helping the Jews to achieve world domination).

    A simple questioon: would an astute “goy” as Engels who was in almost continiuous contact with Marx and privy to his writing projects not have noticed that “hidden agenda’ and would he not have stoppped funding it?

    Mind you I think that there is such a thing as “the Jewish question” and I am in full sympathy with Guyenot’s attempt to draw attention to it I also admire the learning he can bring to bear on it. But I don’t think that this essay was very helpful in this enterprise.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyenot
  196. The Bolshevik Jews mass-emigrated from the Sovjet Union away from their atrocities and nomenclatura lives between the 50ties and the 70ties.. 3 Million of them so there only were 2-300.000 left , mainly Maffia and some few Oligarchs ( who obtained their wealth with the assistance of their Brethren in the West ) A similar number emigrated from East Europe. Unfortunately they went to the USA , to Europe and ofc some to Israel. Well arrived in the West they metamorphosed from Rabbid Bolsheviks into greedy Capitalists and NeoCons ..simultaneously claiming they were “Holocaust Victims” ..( for the financial benefit ) All this happened well under the Radar of Western Media .. who coincidently owerwhelmingly are owned by Jewish Media Tycoons. Since then Russia has been liberated from its problematic jewish Population and has been able to rise like Fowl Phoenix from its Jewish Ashes . Unfortunately the West has had to endure this obnoxious Tribe and its machinations .. and the results are everywhere jews have congregated : A CATASTROPHY for the indigenous Populations. Now in the USA it is remarkable that the 2 democratic contenders for the Presidency are Jews : SANDERS and BLOOMBERG … while the republican President is firmly in the Clutches of Jewdom…The Jews only constitute approx 3 % of the US Population … Isnt it REMARKABLE ?

    • Agree: utu
  197. @Adrian

    That’s a well argued critic. But you try to point to a contradiction in my argument where there is not. I do think that Marx was not consciously working toward the goal of Jewish world domination, and I also think that there was conscious deception in much of his intellectual life, for example in the way he plundered and misrepresented Proudhon: there is no contradiction between those two things. As for his “thinking Jewishly”, I think it has much to do with hatred of the nations, and with materialism, and also, paradoxically (Jewishness is full of paradoxes), with some kind of blind spot that makes him unaware of his Jewishness. I am not the first one, anyway, to point out that his revolutionnary program (forget his economic theories, written 20 years later, there are irrelevant to the program) is 100 percent messianic. As I said in an earlier comment, Marx is to the proletaires, what Moses was to the uprooted migrants on Midian.
    You seem to question my assumption that there is such a thing as the “Jewish revolutionnary spirit”, and that Marx must have been aware of it. But I think that most Jews know that Jews have a revolutionnary spirit. Quotes would be easy to find (Herzl comes to mind). So Marx cannot have been unaware that he was profoundly Jewish in his revolutionnary spirit.
    Why did Engels support Marx ideologically, financially, and even on the family level, by adopting the adulterous son that Marx had with his servant? I don’t know. Perhaps he was not so “astute”. Perhaps he was not a real goy (some rumors…). But that’s irrelevant.
    But thanks for your thoughtful critic. I think my essay was helpful, though.

  198. @geokat62

    I’ll take a look at the book, but the quotes in the link you indicate are already precious. Independantly from the content of the book, the fact that a fourty-eighter would advocate individualism after participating in a communist revolution is highly revealing, and I specially appreciate your insight on the symetry of individualism and communism, both being assaults on nationality.

  199. @the shadow

    It seems that you are a very sincere Marxist. Probably have been for quite some decades, I suppose. My impression is that you are thinking inside a box. Marx turned Hegel right side up, you say. And he is right in thinking that all philosophy before him is nonsense, you say. I feel there is some religious attitude in your reverence for Marx and Marxism.
    As for Plato, are you suggesting he himself was practicing the “noble lie” and didn’t believe in his own idealistic theory? That doesn’t hold up.

  200. @freedom-cat

    little children are being indoctrinated into this crap and some parents literally assisting in the abuse of their own children

    All indoctrination relies on precisely this – ideas that require the abandonment of rational enlightened self-interest need it to happen in order to (try to) prevent being exposed to critique.

    Without changing a single word of the blockquote, it would be equally at home in a comment where ‘this crap‘ is religion, tribalism/nationalism/empire or any of a thousand other collectivist tropes that grifters have used to live at society’s expense for as long as there have been societies.

    Why do you think a ‘devout’ socialist campaigned so that that every morning, every kiddie in the “Land of the free” had to stand up, do a special salute, and pledge allegiance to a coloured piece of cloth in a quasi-religious collectivist ritual that ought to set any normal human’s teeth on edge? (They dropped the salute after it got some bad publicity because a shouty man with a moustache used it as part of his marketing. I forget his name).

    Why do you think that so many parents have a visceral adverse reaction to any child who shows the wit to reject that stupid ritual? The errant child usually has been alerted to the idiocy of the practice by a parent: that’s a good example of part of parental duty – to help the child find out which things are useful and true, and which are stupid and wrong.

    The errant child is the bravest kid in the room.

  201. @sothen

    Is that you, obwandiyag, now calling yourself an asshole?

  202. @the shadow

    Plato and all philosophy before [what I think was ‘revolutionary’] are nonsense

    Yawn – that’s the sort of ignorant horse-shit that defines the weltanschauung of Ayn Rand. (It’s no surprise then that I consider Marx and Rand to be ‘the same’ – in the sense that they were too impressed by their own profundity to think that they had anything to learn from anyone else).

    up to then philosophers have only interpreted the world, but the point is to change it

    That is not something a philosopher worth the name would ever say: it reveals a profound hubris – that their philosophical position is correct enough that it can justifiably be foisted on ‘the world’ against its will. That is something that is a better fit for zealots and charlatans.

    Marx was not a philosopher: as Paul Johnson’s potted history (Ch 3 in Johnson’s “The Intellectuals“) gives a good summary of evidence that Marx was a self-promoting, dishonest charlatan. The part in M Guyénot’s piece that describes Marx selectively citing Proudhon out of context in order to vilify and calumniate him … did not surprise me in the slightest.

    There is much to like about the Marxian ‘ideal’ end-state – no stratification; work as a prime want; no politics; complete liberty; material abundance (although Marx hedges this, by claiming that people will not want what the system cannot give them… fuckwit).

    Even referring to this end-state as ‘Marxian’ (or ‘Communist’) is a shorthand required because of people’s ignorance of history – it was by no means original.

    As I mentioned a few days ago in another comment, the Ancients (primarily Zeno) idealised a ‘principles-driven’ society with no stratification, communal property, no slavery and so forth – in the 5th century BCE.

    It just so happened that of the two primary Pythagorean factions, the “learners” (μαθηματικοί) ‘won’ in the sense that they were influential in the later dominant Socratic and Platonic philosophy (although from there, Aristotle went a bit backwards, with his opposition to quant). The Sophists, Cynics, and Stoics had a tough row to hoe, even though Stoicism had some exceptional adherents (and Cynicism was highly influential in early Christianity).

    It’s interesting to note that Antisthenes was, like Plato, a pupil of Socrates: Antisthenes took the indifference to material wealth seriously, and continued the Sophist tradition of questioning authority… Plato, not so much.

    Sadly, the élites won back then, too: Plato was a child of privilege – Antisthenes wasn’t.

    My (rational but bounded) optimism about the future of society is based largely on “Ancient Greeks plus technology”. The bound on my optimism comes explicitly from Proudhon and Bakunin, who both understood that States will seek to pervert the course of technology to ensure that élite power is augmented (or at least, undisturbed)… in doing so they might wipe us all out before we get there.

    CODA: since this is the internet, it does not go without saying that the Pythagoreans, Sophists, Stoics and Cynics did not consider their respective philosophies to be ‘complete’ – and they certainly did not think of their inerrant. As such their Physics, Cosmogony and so forth got a bunch of shit laughably wrong (although other Ancients got a lot of shit right – Earth: round; appropriate model: heliocentrism; Sun: big, far away; stars: like suns, but further away).

    Their Ethics, their epistemology (especially distinguishing between facts and beliefs), and their contribution to Logic (esp Cronus and Chrysippus) stand up amazingly well.

    • Replies: @the shadow
  203. @the shadow

    Of course Plato believed in his own idealist theory. It’s what he used to pull the wool over the eyes of the helots. It’s also explains why the Athenian rulers honored him but killed Socrates. His explanation of how people chained in a cave and being exposed to shadow puppets would believe the puppets and refuse to accept what is real after they are released is a pure example of his silly idealism,

    As are his forms. Tell me, where do they orioginate? How indeed does this ideal form, realize itself in the material world? Is each object its own form. And if so, who creates it. This philosophy is nonsense, and explains and account for nothing, certainly not the dynamics of cognition.

    You say I am in a box. I plead guilty to being in box bounded by nothing but the material world, and it is only within its boundaries that is he source for identifying, explaining and impleneting measures that enhance human capacities to enable them to realize Maslow’s self-actualizatiion as the most prepotent heed humans strive to achieve.

    But you putting me in a box apparently makes you imazgine you are not boxed, but free and clear to roam the world of idealist solutions.’

    I will paraphrase three point made by others’

    Goethe aptly said that no one is more firmly enslaved than those who falsely believe themselves to be free.

    Hegel pointed out that freedom is the recognition of necessity.

    And finally, Shakespeare had Cassius observe that our fault is not in the stars, dear Brutus, it is in us.

  204. @Kratoklastes

    I will merely note that comment about Marx’s position about philosophers having only interpreted the world but the point being was to change it “reveals a profound hubris – that their philosophical position is correct enough that it can justifiably be foisted on ‘the world’ against its will. That is something that is a better fit for zealots and charlatans” exposes that the point both he and I was making whizzed right past you. That was, of course the distinction I drew between philosophic linearist idealism, and dialectical materialism as the basis for apprehending and comprehending the material world and that the former compared to the latter was nonsense. It is actually worse than nonsense because it has enshrouded mankind in illusions about material conditions and the dynamics of changing things.

    Since you are evidently an idealist, it’s at least explicable you could realistic denounce Marx as a zealot determined to foist his philosophic position on the world. What your declaration left somewhat unclear is what what force was at Marx’s disposal that could compel him to make the world bend to his will except the force and power of his argument and explanation of how dialectical materialism was the only sound basis for apprehending and comprehending the material world and acting appropriately within its boundaries?

    And your notion that his hubris is better fit for zealots and charlatans reveals an absence of clear thinking that declares Marx to be a zealous fraud whose fraud has yet to be exposed by the most zealous of capitalist economists who long ago gave up and hoped that they could defeat him by just ignoring him. Yet, as I pointed out in a previous post, declaring him to be a fraud exposes you as clueless about exactly how accurately he predicted capitalist development over time while the prevailing notions of classical economists of his day was that capitalism would simply replicate itself forever that has been discredited ages ago.

    And of course we all know how accurate was that prediction that the “end of history” was here and liberal democracy would rule forever after the demise of the Soviet Union. Which of those two thinkers was the real fraudster. But the end of history advocate was well paid and rewarded while it is he who will end up in the dustbin of history while Marx will be long remembered for his insights.

    Finally, your acknowledgement of Plato’s high social position fully explains and accounts for his philosophy and its purpose for securing the position in society of his class. In other words, he was the huckster propagandist for the ruling class of his day..

    • Replies: @valah
  205. Adrian says:

    Laurent Guyenot:

    You wrote:

    I do think that Marx was not consciously working toward the goal of Jewish world domination, and I also think that there was conscious deception in much of his intellectual life, for example in the way he plundered and misrepresented Proudhon: there is no contradiction between those two things.

    I did not speak of a contradiction. I merely pointed out that you hadn’t really shown that Marx had a “hidden agenda”. From the context it was clear that that “hidden agenda” supposedly had to do with working toward the goal of Jewish world domination. And I don’t see how you could have meant that he was not consciously doing so.Unconscious activities cannot be part of a “hidden agenda”.

    Anyway, as far as I am conerned we can let that rest.

    You also wrote:

    You seem to question my assumption that there is such a thing as the “Jewish revolutionnary spirit”, and that Marx must have been aware of it. But I think that most Jews know that Jews have a revolutionnary spirit. Quotes would be easy to find (Herzl comes to mind). So Marx cannot have been unaware that he was profoundly Jewish in his revolutionnary spirit.

    Was he ?

    The Swiss poliitical philosopher, Arnold Künzli, wrote a 800 page book entitled Karl Marx, eine Psychographie. I only have a relevant quote from him via Raddatz. Here it is (in my translation):

    He hated the slavish element in Judaism because it had done nothing to get rid of the egoism of bourgeois society and its state, and he hated the imperious element in that same Judaism, because it would have done everything to profit from this egoism as much as possible. In his mother, he saw, seduced by his own projections, the two elements united: the slavishness of her somewhat larmoyant submission to God and the imperiousness of her alleged money egoism. He saw both of these qualities as a manifestation of one and the same inferior instinctual, irrational and primitive character, upon which he shattered the lightning of his scorn and hatred from the gigantic throne of his Prometheic intellectualism. And when he publicly identified Judaism only with the ruler, he merely did so to be a no-longer-Jew in the eyes of the world as a prophet of the revolution of the slaves. In his anti-Semitic statements made privately, on the other hand, the identification of Judaism with the slave-feminine dominates completely.

    Raddatz adds that he wasn’t interested either in the foundation of an “Association of Jewish workers” in 1876 in London, though he knew about it, and when the Bund was founded in Russia, in 1897, he was already dead.

    And were Jews conspicuously active in the revolutionary movements of 1848? I had never heard of it and scouted around on the internet to find something about it. I found a Ph.D. thesis submitted at the University of Konstanz in 2006 by Heinz Kapp entitled

    Revolutionäre jüdischer Herkunft in Europa (1848-49).

    The first sentence that caught my eye was:
    Dass Juden nicht nur Opfer sondern Akteure gesellschaftlicher Entwicklungen waren, welche durch Revolutionen zustande kamen, ruft immer noch Erstaunen hervor.

    (The fact that Jews were not only victims but also actors in social developments caused by revolutions still arouses astonishment).

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyenot
  206. Bigfoot says:

    “Did Marx deliberately conspire with other Jews to advance the Jewish global agenda, while pretending to emancipate Gentile proletarians? ”

    Absolutely Yes!!

    The key to identifying this conspiracy, lies in understand
    (1) Lurianic Kabbalah
    (2) Messianic Judaism.
    (3) Sabbatean Frankism
    (4) Redemption Through Sin, as an applicable principle of Messianic Judaism.

    These are some of the ideas behind Judaism that contemporary historians never care to investigate.

    Karl Marx was a descendant of Sabbatean Frankist.
    Karl Marx was a Kabbalist.

    Communism is a Sabbatean Frankist Messianic Idea secularized and politicized. Messianic Judaism is the mother of Totalitarianism which dons many facets, which include Communism, Zionism, Fascism, Socialism, Nazism, etc.

  207. valah says:
    @the shadow

    I appreciate the additions you made.
    My point of view was, in fact, the following: when non-Marxists or anti-Marxists criticize Marx, they make Peterson’s mistakes in front of Zizek.
    First of all, they do not read Marx or read the Manifesto and think they understood everything.
    Second, they seriously confuse Marxism with Bolshevism. Third, they confuse the Marxist political economy and political philosophy with the political practice of the countries where communism was applied. And the third, without even understanding that the victory of communism in Russia, in the countries of Eastern Europe and some in Asia, with agrarian economies and feudal relations of production still, is non-Marxist.
    I read Laurent Guyenot’s article about Freud and it seemed to me documented and logically articulated. But in Marx’s case, Guyenot’s plea does not exceed that of Jordan Peterson. And I was tempted to tell the author what Zizek recommended to his opponent, to read some books.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyenot
  208. valah says:
    @the shadow

    I read the exchange of replies you had with Laurent Guyenot. It is obvious that you have no interlocutor. It seems that Guyenot does not know or understand that the second great problem of philosophy, after that of the nature of the world, material or ideal, is that of movement. He does not seem to understand that there were dialectical idealists, just as there were materialists fixed in metaphysics. It follows that he does not understand what Marx’s originality was, his genius. As the merit of understanding history and society as subsystems of a material world, subject to dialectics, is not understood.

  209. @Adrian

    The expression “hidden agenda” was perhaps not well chosen. I admit it is more complicated. The difference between deception and self-deception is not always easy. In any case, I do not pretend to have solve the mystery of Jewishness, just pointing out that the mystery is deep and has to do with self-consciousness. What is consciousness, what is subconsciousness? Gilad Atzmon had also reflected on this organic aspect of the Jewish community, in which very few are aware of the big scheme. This is a complexe topic and cannot be dealt with in a simplistic way, or in a dualistic way: was he aware, yes or no.
    The same holds for the question of Jewish “self-hatred”. Every Jew is affected by it, according to Lessing. That Marx hated some aspects of Jewishness does not mean he was not profoundly Jewish.
    In conclusion, again, I do not pretend to have a full theory of Jewishness, I just examined Marx as a interesting case raising a set of questions. And I made some working hypotheses.

    And were Jews conspicuously active in the revolutionary movements of 1848?

    My source is Amos Elon, The Pity of It All

    • Replies: @geokat62
  210. @valah

    I confess I understand neither Marx’s genius nor his originality.
    And I confess I am not a professional philosopher, which obviously you are.

    • Replies: @valah
  211. @valah

    I was tempted to tell the author what Zizek recommended to his opponent, to read some books.

    Tell me what book I should read. I’ll give it a try. But at my age (60 soon), I have become rather impatient with books that do not teach me something in the first 10 pages, and with books which obscure the issues rather than make them clearer. I have read quite a bit of Freud, and, even though it is translated from German, I find him quite clear and pleasant to read. My short experience with Marx has been very different. Perhaps it has something to do with economics, a subject I admit I am almost allergic to.
    But tell me, didn’t you learn anything from my article? Didn’t it scratch a bit the beautiful godlike image of Marx?

    • Replies: @Adrian
    , @RonnyG
    , @RonnyG
  212. geokat62 says:
    @Laurent Guyenot

    Gilad Atzmon had also reflected on this organic aspect of the Jewish community, in which very few are aware of the big scheme. This is a complexe topic and cannot be dealt with in a simplistic way, or in a dualistic way: was he aware, yes or no.
    The same holds for the question of Jewish “self-hatred”. Every Jew is affected by it, according to Lessing. That Marx hated some aspects of Jewishness does not mean he was not profoundly Jewish.

    It would be nice to get Ron Unz’s perspective on this very interesting topic. Perhaps he’d be willing to write an AP article on it?

  213. valah says:
    @Laurent Guyenot

    Mr. Guyenot, I assure you of my sympathy and my special appreciation for your courage in addressing issues that contradict the mainstream narrative.
    But, I think an unfounded plea does more harm to a cause than a lack of a plea.

    • Thanks: Laurent Guyénot
  214. @valah

    Thanks for your kind remarks.

    It’s obvious that none of the other responders clearly grasped as you have that the two intertwined issues of philosophy are idealism and materialism on the one hand and dialectics and linearism on the other hand, and that these two parts can be combined in various non-exclusive ways. That is, an idealist can subscribe to dialectics (Hegel); a materialist can subscribe to linearism (vulgar Marxists who declare economy is everything). The further dimension that distinguishes philosophic schools is whether they subscribe to objectivism or subjectivism that can also be combined in various ways, such as Hegel subscribing to the objective idea whereas Berkeley subscribes to pure subjectivism with Kant as sort of an agnostic

    It is in particular the dialectic approach that rulers have gone to great pains to ensure it is discredited and dismissed because that approach directs its adherents to explore, examine and dissect the basis of the power rulers have that they have a great interest in ensure all accept it was eternal whereas the dialectic approach exposes what it is based on and how it is bound to pass away and be replaced by something else. No ruler or ruling class ever wants to hear that, and the best way of preventing it from rearing its ugly head in public discourse is to discredit it as evil, ungodly, unscientific, groundless or whatever pejorative of choice works best.

    Engels indeed say a whole lot about the philosophic matters involved in The Dialectic of Nature, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, and Thesis on Feuerbach.

  215. Adrian says:
    @Laurent Guyenot

    You wrote:

    My short experience with Marx has been very different. Perhaps it has something to do with economics, a subject I admit I am almost allergic to.

    Laurent did you ever have a look at:

    Charles Gide and Charles Rist

    Histoire des Doctrines Économiques: Depuis les Physiocrates Jusqu’a nos Jours

    There are translations in quite a few languages.

    It is an eminently clear book for non-economists (such as you and me)and sets out the fundamentals of Marx’s economic theory (without the metaphysics) within the context of the economic theories of his time.

    I am sure it got a gold medal of some sort (from the Académie?) and I found it gratifying to discover that the late Paul Samuelson had included it in his list of supplementary readings for his course at MIT, in spite of its age.

    And if you don’t know it yet I am sure you will enjoy Edmund Wilson’s To the Finland Station as the account given by a highly intelligent and cultured American lettré of Marx and Engels. For one thing it will give you a more correct view of Marx’s material circumstances than you seem to have.

    I can assure you it is quite different from Paul Johnson’s hack job on intellectuals.

    Keep up the good work.

    • Thanks: Laurent Guyénot
  216. S says:
    @Laurent Guyenot

    Very insightful parallel. I had never heard of that book. I’ll have to read that.

    Should you have the time, you might find the two articles linked below of some interest.

    They’re both from the Belcher Foundation website, a site dedicated to the memory of the prominent colonial Royal Governor Jonathan Belcher, the first ‘native born’ Freemason in British North America.

    The site owner, Fon Belcher, is apparently a distant relation of the royal governor, and very probably a Freemason himself, perhaps one of a very high level.

    The first linked article fills in all the details that the New Rome book doesn’t provide, ie the behind the scenes power politics of the British Board of Trade and Whig party of Britain, and the push prior to the Revolution of the eventuality of having British North America take England’s place as the center of power of the British Empire, what they termed it’s ‘peripheral center’.

    This particularly fascinating article strongly hints that the 1776 Revolution was ultimately a false split between the US and UK, and that indeed, as planned, the United States itself is the direct continuation of the British Empire.

    The second article delves into the activities of both Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson as US representatives in France during the 1780’s, and their helping to lay the groundwork for the 1789 French Revolution in their work with ‘enlightened’ Frenchmen.

    I’ve heard it suggested that the ‘powers that be’ do tell people what they’re doing, even if it’s a bit cryptic at times. I think that’s true, and I think the New Rome book and the Belcher Foundation, both very obscure and generally unknown, are a couple of examples of that.

  217. RonnyG says:
    @Laurent Guyenot

    Laurent, I truly appreciate your tirelessly researched articles. There is a great amount of insight to be found here, despite some of your conclusions being fairly overhasty. You mentions some books worth reading. The ‘New Rome’, book is a markedly interesting read.

    I do not know if you are willing to research the secret powers of the founding of the United States of America or who really fomented the civil war, but I’ve found few modern books that unveil the conspiracies of this time.

    Regarding the history of corporations in North America on pg127… of “New Rome.”

    >‘All the colonies were government
    enterprises, — corporations…’
    All the colonies were government enterprises, — corporations. The Plymouth, the Virginia, the New Amsterdam Company, the Proprietaries, derived their existence as such, from the government that had chartered them. The government naturally desired to draw its profits from its own enterprises ; the colonists naturally desired to monopolize the fruits of their own labors.
    America today is, indeed, a corporation, and we vote to contract presidents for the UNTIED STATES Corp. &c., which includes an incorporated congress. It is all about money flow!

    I leave you, if you have time to read some of these articles concerning this time period, specifically Lincoln and the Civil War; Green backers and the FED, a library of books, most, I believe are worth reading:

    • Thanks: Laurent Guyenot
  218. RonnyG says:
    @Laurent Guyenot

    Joseph Seligman, a Jew, and many other Jewish bankers, including those who surrounded Lincoln, he himself being a pro-aristocratic Whig of whom has recently been discovered by a Rutgers University study to be Jewish; this Lincoln having revoked Grants act to expel Jews, set up the greenback system which was the covert forerunner to the establishment of the Federal Reserve. The new Frankfurt school of bankers, Jewish and gentile; a very short list includes Gerry Spaulding, Portland Chase, Samuel Hooper, John Sherman, were directly involved in the greenback scam, which was backed by debt bonds and which implemented a system of permanent public debt that we can observe today. Is it not funny how the two heroized presidents in media, Hamilton and Lincoln, were the same ones that tried to set up a central bank?

    The banks included, in the erection of this system [I wonder if there are any books detailing these banks]:


    Lazard Speyer-Ellissen & Co. —- Speyer & Co.

    Seligmann & Stettheimer —- J.&W. Seligmann

    Deutsche Bank —- Speyer & Co.

    Disconto Gesellschaft —- Kuhn Loeb & Co.

    Darmstaedter Bank —- Hallgarten & Co.

    Bleichroeder —- Landeburg, Thalmann & Co.

    add to this the Dresdner Bank —- J.P. Morgan & Co.

    Who were Abraham Lincoln’s and Portland Chase’s fiscal advisers during the war years ?  Oh dear;  August Belmont and Joseph Seligman, greenback promotors!

    Joseph Seligman’s siblings were, in order of birth, William (born Wolf), James (born Jacob), Jesse (born Isaias), Henry (born Hermann), Leopold (born Lippmann), Abraham, Isaac, Babette, Rosalie, and Sarah.
    He married his cousin Babet Steinhardt in a ceremony in Baiersdorf in 1848. Together, they had five sons, David Seligman, George Washington Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman, Isaac Newton Seligman, and Alfred Lincoln Seligman, as well as four daughters, Frances (married to Theodore Hellman), Helen (married to E. Spiegelberg), Sophia (married to M. Walter), and Isabella (married to Philip N. Lilienthal), whose father was a Russian rabbi that emigrated to the US and helped to promote reformed Judaism.

    Joseph was the patriarch of what became known as the Seligman family in USA and was subsequently related to the wealthy Guggenheim family through Peggy Guggenheim’s mother Florette.

    The Guggenheim family (/ˈɡʊɡənhaɪm/ GUUG-ən-hyme) is an American family known for their involvement in the mining industry and later in philanthropy.

    Meyer Guggenheim, a Swiss citizen of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, arrived in America in 1847. Over the next few decades, the family became known for their global successes in mining and smelting, including the American Smelting and Refining Company.

    The Guggenheim family then entered a lengthy struggle with the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO), backed by the Rockefeller family.

    Daniel Giggenheim was a member of the National Security League, the driving force for moving the then-neutral USA into World War I, which was headed by J.P. Morgan!

    Charles Daniel Orth I, subsequently pushed the League to advocate the NAL a quasi-fascist centralization of the national economy to further ensure the nation’s security. Orth proposed even more repressive and less democratic measures, such as demanding “education campaigns” to indoctrinate Americanism into immigrants and children and a pogrom to drive radicals out of the nation’s institutions of higher education.

    Solomon R. Guggenheim (1861–1949), m. Irene M. Rothschild (1868–1954), daughter of Victor Henry Rothschild (m. 1895–his death).

    William Guggenheim married Grace Brown on November 3, 1900, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The couple received fierce backlash from William’s brother Daniel who disapproved of the match because Grace was a gentile.

    Rose Guggenheim (1871–1945), m. Albert Loeb, the nephew of Solomon Loeb a banker with Kuhn, Loeb & Co. The bank was founded in 1867 by Abraham Kuhn and his brother-in-law Solomon Loeb, under the leadership of Jacob H. Schiff, Loeb’s son-in-law. All Jews.

    Cora Guggenheim (1873–1956), m. Louis F. Rothschild (1869–1957), founder of L.F. Rothschild.

    Interestingly, the Loeb, Schiff, Rothschild, Warburg, Seligman, Kuhn and Lehman families all intermarried, if you can believe that.

    Solomon Loeb, married Fanny Kuhn, sister of Abraham Kuhn, and later Betty Gallenberg. Therese Loeb (1854–1933), married Jacob Schiff (1847–1920), banker. Frieda Schiff (1876–1958), married Felix M. Warburg (1871–1937), banker.

    Solomon Loeb’s daughter, Guta Loeb (1865–1956), married Isaac Newton Seligman (1855–1917), banker, like Paul Warburg, all part and parcel of the Federal Reserve.

    Margaret Valentine Seligman, married to Sam A. Lewisohn (1884–1951), banker, son of Adolph Lewisohn (1849–1938). Adolph’s daughter Adele would then marry into the Lehman banker family. Nina Loeb (1870–1945), married Paul Warburg (1868–1932), banker. James Warburg (1896–1969), banker. Otto Warburg (1859–1938), botanist and president of the Zionist Organization.

    In 1877, Judge Henry Hilton, the owner of the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga, New York, denied entry to Joseph Seligman and his family because they were Jews, creating nationwide controversy. It was the first antisemitic incident of its kind in the United States.

    Stewart and, after his death, his manager Hilton believed that the cause of the decline in attendance at the hotel was the presence of “Israelites” (that is, Jews) at the hotel, such as Seligman, so the story goes.

    Whether or not Seligman meant to be turned away from the hotel to cast a light on growing antisemitism in America, the resulting publicity emboldened other hoteliers to exclude Jews, placing advertisements saying “Hebrews need not apply” and “Hebrews will knock vainly for admission”.

    What was more devastating to the country was what Seligman schemed for years to set up!

    Joseph Seligman was one of the vice-presidents of the Union Square mass-meeting called in aid of the Union on April 20, 1861, during the Civil war, and his firm, J&W Seligman & Co., rendered the government signal service in maintaining its credit and floating its bonds, and for a time Seligmann & Stettheimer, in Frankfurt, were the official bankers to the United States.

    Rothschild and Co. had proper representation in the persons of Belmont(Schönberg), and Seligman. 

    Edwin Seligman was the son of this Joseph Seligman who, along with August Belmont, advised Abraham Lincoln as to what sort of national currency bank system to set up; it was Edwin, the son who advised Paul Warburg as to how to adjust and reorganize the national currency bank system known today as the Federal Reserve. Many conspiracy theorist book peddlers today forget to mention this fact. That fact being that the staunch advocates of the Federal Reserve and progressive income tax were the greenbackers! And yet they want us to believe Lincoln was against the bankers when he himself was a whig promoting these criminals.

    In a senate speech concerning Warburg, Seligman, and Farmers, we read:

    >>> Mr. President, according to that eminent authority on big financiers, Mr. B.C. Forbes, in his book, Men Who Are Making America, at page 403, it was in the home of Edwin H.A. Seligman where the decision was made that Paul M. Warburg should publish his views on the central bank idea, and that the propaganda should be started for the purpose of writing into our laws a financial system based upon the central bank idea as the ideal corner stone.  This decision was made at a time when the country was in the throes of the financial stringency of 1907, and when the people were declaiming against the money power centralized in Wall Street — and whose ideas were to be put forth as the basis for the new currency system ?  Those of Paul M. Warburg, a descendant of International bankers, schooled and trained for an international banker, imported from Germany for the purpose of giving expression to the evolution of the international bankers’ idea of a currency system, and a man who having come here in 1902 and become a member of that powerful firm of international bankers, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., did not file his citizenship papers until he was ready to take his fight before the public, and then did not become a citizen until 1911.

    All of this talk about who is the author of our present financial system is principally chatter.  Some day I may deem it advisable to say something to this body about Mr. McAdoo and his connections with Kuhn, Loeb & Co.

    But back to this proposed meeting in New York.  We do know that Edwin R.A. Seligman, who is to preside over this rural credit discussion, was one of the first men to figure in the plans for “putting across” the system, and he has faithfully awaited its beck and call ever since.

    (Source: )

    Isaac Seligman was a trustee of Temple Emanu-El and of the Hebrew Orphan Asylum, as well as of the United Hebrew Charities, and also a member of the Ethical Culture Society. He married into the Loeb banker family.

    In “Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life”, Arpheus T. Mason notes, “Young Adolph Brandeis (Justice Brandeis’ father) arrived in New York, travelled for awhile in the East and then went on to the Midwest.  Young Brandeis’ pleasure and facility in travel were greatly enhanced by the companionship of a young friend of the Wehles then on a business trip to the United States to secure information about American investments for the House of Rothschild.  Thanks to his companion’s contacts and letters of introduction, Adolph saw places and met people not accessible to most foreigners.”

    Bermingham notes in “Our Crowd”, “In the autumn of 1874, Baron Rothschild summoned Isaac Seligman to his office – some $55 million of U.S. Bonds were to be offered by three houses, the House of Seligman, the House of Morgan, and the House of Rothschild.”  This was the first time that the Seligmans had been asked to participate in an issue with the Rothschilds.  They were more than grateful, and thus another ally of the Rothschilds began to operate in America.

    A notable advantage of J.P. Morgan’s work for the House of Rothschild was the carefully cultivated belief that Morgan, if not openly “anti-Semitic”, avoided participating in operations with Jewish banking firms, and that his firm would not hire anyone of Jewish background.  It was the same deception which Nathan Mayer Rothschild had hired Morgan’s predecessor, George Peabody, to perform in London.  It was a traditional belief on Wall Street that if you wished to deal with a “gentiles only” firm, you went to J.P. Morgan;  if you wanted a Jewish firm, there were a number of houses available, but the most influential, by far, was Kuhn, Loeb Co.  In either case, the customer was never made aware that he was dealing with an American representative of the House of Rothschild.
    Many modern Zionist neoconservatives are publicly ardent Hamiltonians. Hamilton stated:

    >>>A national debt if it is not excessive [a simple play on words, to reason with those on the fence] will be to us a national blessing;  it will be a powerfull cement of our union.  It will also create a necessity for keeping up taxation to a degree which without being oppressive, will be a spur to industry;  remote as we are from Europe and shall be from danger, it were otherwise to be feard our popular maxims would incline to us too great parsimony and indulgence.  We labour less now than any civilized nation of Europe, and a habit of labour in the people is as essential to the health and vigor of their minds and bodies as it is conducive to the wealfare of the State.  We ought not to Suffer our self-love to deceive us in a comparrison, upon these point.”

    The great agricultural population fought Hamilton under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson.  He called the bank a “prostitution of laws which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence.”  Hamilton said :

    It shall be under a private and not a public direction—under the guidance of individual interest and not of public policy.” 

    Benjamin Franklin died in 1790.  Despite Jefferson’s efforts, Hamilton was able to put his bank plan into action, for he had the ability to cause men to act against their own best long-range interests.

    Almost the only redeeming, manly, patriotic utterance, was that of Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, now Vice-President, which we quote thus, Congressional Globe, page 789, second session 37th Congress:

    >>>> Mr. Wilson, along with Sherman, Chandler, Sumner, voted for the legal-tender clause;  then, some years later he voted for reduction of currency, and for credit strengthening (and Mr. Drew could have known that).  Henry Wilson was a radical reconstructionist, he wanted to reorganize the united States under the firm control of a central government in Washington —greenbacks were one of the means to that end.

    Following Wilson and Sherman, Senator Cowan spoke, and asked a question:

    >>>> It has been said that this bill will relieve the people from the clutches of the bankers and brokers, &c., and that any one who opposes it, is of course friendly to and sustaining their interests.  I do not understand it, when I am told by all the advocates of this bill that all of these same people, almost without exception, are in favor of it.  I suppose they are the financiers –the great financiers of the country– of whom we have heard so much, and to whose opinions we must all yield.  If so, they are more patriotic and magnanimous than they are reckoned to be, in thus devoting themselves to this scheme, which is to be the death of their interests.  It may be true, but the Jews may believe it for me.”]

    >>>>I look upon this contest as a contest between the curbstone brokers, the Jew brokers, the money-changers, and the men who speculate in stocks, and the productive, toiling men of the country.

    • Replies: @RonnyG
  219. obvious says:
    @Just passing through

    Everyone will be “abolished” in the present form and structure by the abolition of Capitalism. All modern groups, nations and peoples are founded in the material conditions of existence. Most of what is considered “history” is the struggle between racially infused class and social archetypes.

    The Negro qua ‘Negro’ will disappear along with everyone else when the Ghetto disappears. Over time, populations evolve and change forms, characteristics, and winnow out those who survive against those who do not. This is why Gentile-ism (“Nationalism”) looks so bizarre to the outsider: it is false history, false consciousness and false appropriation.

    Pure subsidy, usually feeding off the half remembered past achievements of earlier times. Why are there no “Negroes” in the mountains or the woods? Every modern people is the product of the last 500 years in scientific and industrial organization. Jews in the sense used by Marx are the byproduct of Capitalism (not a “philosophy” or “belief”), because this is where History channeled the forces of mankind in that way. If you want an automologicial understanding of “why”, rely on geography and climate and natural forces to recognize the swirls and eddies of human progress.

    Free Will is what it seems like to be Alive, and looking at the Bigger Picture, everything is a product of Circumstance.

  220. RonnyG says:

    By the way this is all of Yamaguchy’s work. I direct you to his website and blog, debt to America wordpress blog and

    He is good at exposing the fake conspiracy theoricians that shill the mytholigical Lincoln.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  221. Frankk says:

    Academic studies have shown the opposite, that diversity reduces trust and increases anxiety.

  222. @RonnyG

    Thanks. Du pain sur la planche, as we say: work ahead.
    “How Jewish bankers took over the world through financing war” is a vast topic.

    • Replies: @RonnyG
    , @ROnny
  223. RonnyG says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    It’s an interesting topic but of course filled with controversy. The question is what kid of Jews? In my research it was all kinds; reformed, Orthodox, Zionistic, Atheistical Jew basing their Jewishness on ancestry alone but even with the obvious historical evidience of Jewish bankers and their momey-changer lackeys in establishing the greenback scame, FED and income tax such as the Loeb’s, Schiff’s, Warburgs, Seligmann’s, among others, I’m told they were only a small minority, and the real players behind these Jewish families are the Jesuits.

    Jesuit banking has historical record but I have not found enough evidence to conclude it was a Jesuit conspiracy ir even that Jesuits were behind the establishment of the FED. I always like to research the evidence in opposition to my thesis, simply to determine what is the truth.

    Usually persons who claim this Jesuit conspiracy, and there very well may be one, are also the ones who despise popery. It is no lie to say that Catholics did historically persecute Jews for various reasons.

    And like Jewish bankers, the Vatican and Templars also have their banking schemes.

    What I’m really getting at here, is what is the truth when it comes to who owns our current banking schemes?

    Shareholders? Memberbanks? The 4 divisions that divide our countey among bank borderlines. It would take a long time to sift through the banks whitepapers but that is one way of discovering who owns what.

  224. ROnny says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    What happened to your book ‘jfk-9/11 50 years of deep state’ on amazon, it is gone.

  225. Bravo you have found the philosopher’s stone, of all your misfortunes, it is the JEW.
    Jew is neither a religion, since there are atheist Jews, nor a race.
    It is a practice which was constituted, at the commercial crossroads of circulation, of exchange value, in the fertile crescent.
    Religions are dated, we know more or less the date of their appearances.
    To start history from the Jew is to ignore everything that determined the previous causes of his appearance.
    You write nonsense, if Marx criticizes Prodhon, it is not like what you write yourself from the bottom of your blind narcissism, Marx criticizes Proudhon in the sense that Proudhon thinks that wage servitude can be improved, by a fairer distribution, Marx proves to him that there is no equitable, salvageable, improvable capitalism.
    Marx lived in misery, he lost two children to poverty, later he received help from his friend Engels.
    For Marx there is no other solution for humanity than to abolish that which shackles it, the State, Money, the Wage.
    If the slave is sold once, the wage-earner must sell himself every day, every second.
    Capitalism rests solely on the extinction of value on the worker and nothing else, the employee produces more than he costs.
    As for your nonsense about Stalin, you forget about the purges.
    The Russian revolution died in 1922, in Kronstadtt, and the result was a state capitalism in the hands of the nomenclatura.
    What you call communists the left, is the counter-revolution, of Proudhonian essence.
    Communism is Down with the State, Money and Wages.
    For your intellectual baggage, if you have any viable brain cells left, the system you are trying to save with your delirious productions is dying, nothing and nobody will be able to save this rotten system, not even Superman or Hitler.
    The irremissible fall of the rate of profit and the zero rates, marks the end of this system.
    That is called history, the first peoples do not have a history with a capital H.
    History is only the history of value, which starts with neo-liberalism (see what that means) and ends with the World Market.
    Before producing such nonsense, get to work, roll up your sleeves and start reading Karl Marx, Capital, Land Ownership, Wages, the State, International Trade.
    And not Mikey in the country of the cowboys

    Translated with (free version)

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Laurent Guyénot Comments via RSS