Karl Marx: Founding Father of the Jewish Left?  

Should The Culture of Critique (CofC) be revised to focus on Karl Marx, the founder of the world’s first Jewish intellectual and political movement? As the Jewish founder of “scientific” socialism, he began a radical critique of European society that has continued into the twenty-first century. Although CofC is concerned specifically with twentieth-century Jewish intellectual and political movements, it would certainly broaden perspective on the Jewish left if Marx could be placed firmly within its framework as the founder of the intellectual and political movement that would guide so much of the Jewish left in the twentieth century.

The first question that must be asked is whether Marx qualifies as a self-identified Jewish leader of a Jewish intellectual and political movement? MacDonald’s CofC lays down a number of guidelines for making this determination. Let’s go over these in some detail.

MacDonald’s methodology is a straightforward one. The first step is to “find influential movements dominated by Jews, with no implication that all or most Jews are involved in these movements and no restrictions on what the movements are.” The second step is to “determine whether the Jewish participants in those movements identified as Jews AND thought of their involvement in the movement as advancing specific Jewish interests.”[i] Finally, we discuss the influence and impact of these movements on European and Euro-American societies.

Given MacDonald’s criteria, we believe that Marx’s scientific socialism certainly qualifies on both counts:

First, Marx had a direct role in the founding of the main organizations of the Left in the nineteenth century. Most of the earliest socialist organizations were directly influenced by Marx, i.e. the Communist League, co-founded by Marx and Engels in 1847; the Social Democratic Party of Germany, founded in 1863; the Socialist Labor Party of America, founded in 1876; the French Workers’ Party, co-founded by Marx’s son-in-law Paul Lafargue in 1880; and the British Social Democratic Federation, founded in 1881. Most of these organizations would eventually shape the political life of twentieth-century Europe and North America.

Marx’s longtime Shabbos Goy, Engels, acknowledged the preponderance of Jews in nineteenth-century leftist movements:

“In addition, we owe a great deal to Jews. Not to mention Heine and Börne, Marx was of purely Jewish origin; Lassalle was a Jew. Many of our best people are Jews. My friend Victor Adler, who is now paying in a prison in Vienna for his devotion to the cause of the proletariat; Eduard Bernstein, the editor of the London Sozialdemokrat, Paul Singer, one of our best men in the Reichstag—people of whose friendship I am proud, and all of them Jews! I myself was made a Jew by the [conservative weekly] Gartenlaube. To be sure, if I had to choose, then rather a Jew than ‘Herr von’!”[ii]   

In 1911, the sociologist Robert Michels drew attention to the “abundance of Jews among the leaders of the socialist and revolutionary parties”:

“In Germany, above all, the influence of Jews has been conspicuous in the labour movement. The two first great leaders, Ferdinand Lassalle and Karl Marx, were Jews, and so was their contemporary Moses Hess. The first distinguished politician of the old school to join the socialists, Johann Jacoby, was a Jew. Such also was Karl Höchberg, the idealist, son of a rich merchant in Frankfort-on-the-Main, founder of the first socialist review published in the German language. Paul Singer, who was almost invariably chairman of the German socialist congresses, was a Jew. Among the eighty-one socialist deputies sent to the Reichstag in the penultimate general election, there were nine Jews, and this figure is an extremely high one when compared with the percentage of Jews among the population of Germany, and also with the total number of Jewish workers and with the number of Jewish members of the socialist party.”[iii]

Second, far from being a self-hating Jewish anti-Semite, Karl Marx had a strong Jewish group identity and was heavily involved in the Jewish community:

“Toward Jews and Jewishness Marx always retained many positive ties. Among his closest friends were the Jews Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Kugelmann; for a time he was close to Moses Hess, and he helped the former Cologne communist Abraham Jacoby emigrate to America (where he became an influential physician).”[iv]

Indicating a strong Jewish identification, when Jacoby was promoting revolution in Europe, his agenda was Jewish “emancipation”—the naturalization and enfranchisement of Jews. Like Marx, his closest associates also had a strong sense of Jewish group identity, with shared goals, beliefs and commitments to Jewish emancipation.

Marx’s sustained intellectual criticism of European societies was due to feelings of marginality. He was an ethnic Jew raised in a liberal Jewish household shaped by Enlightenment values. His father embraced Enlightenment universalism because of Jewish marginality in European society. As a result of this marginality, Marx became hostile to European values and culture. In response, he constructed a positive Jewish social identity by portraying Jewish money-oriented behavior as a source of ethnic pride, rather than something to be demonized. Marx’s belief that the emancipation of bourgeois society from Judaism would make the Jew “impossible” does not mean dissolution of Jewish ethnic identity, but the transformation of European societies into proletarian communist or, more accurately, secular Jew-friendly societies. He came to believe that secular Judaism would play a positive role in European Christian societies. The world triumph of communism would be the world triumph of secular Judaism, leaving Jews safe to pursue their own collective interests in Judaized, but formerly European societies. In this respect, Marx was no different from the Hebrew prophets — who called for Israelite world dominance under messianic kingship, with the exception Marx disguised his Jewish ethnic particularism in the universalist garb of the liberal Enlightenment.

In On the Jewish Question, he not only agitated for Jewish emancipation, but challenged “anti-Semitism.” He would do so again in The Holy Family, which was published in 1844. These essays were written to refute Bruno Bauer, who considered the Jewish race an “eyesore” that had contributed nothing to the “making of modern times.”[v] Marx believed anti-Jewish prejudice in European societies could be eliminated by turning them into proletarian communist utopias that would tolerate the continued existence of Judaism. There appears to have been no self-deception involved in Marx’s advocacy of Jewish emancipation, since he was consciously aware of his Jewish identity and the need to protect Jews from White persecution by promoting universalism at the expense of European-majority societies.

The most important disciples of Marx were either Jews or persons of Jewish ancestry, such as Adler, Bauer, Bernstein, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky and the members of the Frankfurt School. Even though this was the case, Jewish Marxists downplayed the Jewish identity of its membership to present the struggle for Jewish emancipation as part of the struggle against bourgeois society. As noted in CofC, Jewish ethnic activists typically downplayed their Jewish ethnicity, and they often recruited non-Jews to serve as window dressing it what was in reality a Jewish movement. By disguising their Jewishness, the Jewish Marxist leadership was able to promote its pro-Jewish agenda with minimal opposition, and this guise also helped them recruit naive goyim. Although modern socialism owes its origins to a Jew and was dominated by Jews, the movement attracted numerous goyim, some of whom became prominent, like Bebel and Liebknecht. It is interesting that after Marx’s death in 1883, his most prominent spokesman was Engels, a Shabbos Goy.

Marx portrayed himself as a friend of the proletariat, while maintaining close ties with the Jewish community. Like all Jewish ethnic activists, Marx was obsessed with fighting anti-Semitism wherever he found it; to avoid alienating the goyim, the struggle against anti-Semitism was merged with the struggle against bourgeois society. This served a vital strategic purpose because it allowed Marx to hide his animus against European society, while attracting non-Jews to the new secular Jewish faith—non-Jews who would also help him fight anti-Semitism under the guise of proletarian world revolution. As a tiny minority within European societies, Jews have always been forced to recruit non-Jews to their causes, whether it’s Marxists attempting to appeal to the interests of the proletariat or neoconservatives attempting to advance the interests of Israel by appealing to mainstream conservatives.

Marxist analysis and apologetics typically relied on “scientific skepticism” and “scientific obscurantism.”[vi] Reliance on these obfuscatory tactics is a common practice among the twentieth-century Jewish ethnic activists discussed in CofC. Capitalism must meet a high standard of evidence to be considered a viable economic system, despite a long record of success in producing economic growth, whereas communism is always assumed to be workable, despite what has turned out to be its embarrassing record of police state authoritarianism, mass impoverishment, totalitarian excess and environmental catastrophe. A double standard in terms of burden of proof is maintained in order to present Marxism as a viable belief-system. Similarly, Marx’s Jewish supporters still argue, disingenuously, that it “is not that socialism has failed but that Stalinism, i.e. bureaucratic dictatorship, has failed.”[vii]

Marx’s economic analysis was so “Hegelianizing” that it was difficult for critics and followers alike to pin down his exact meaning. His writings, like The German Ideology and Das Kapital, continue to inspire debate over their interpretation. He also dressed his teachings up in the language of science to give his prophecies a veneer of credibility. For example, Marx’s socialism was called “scientific” socialism to distinguish it from “utopian” versions. Presenting his version of socialism as “scientific” was just another example of Marx’s willful obscurantism. In actuality, Marxian socialism was a secular Jewish religious cult whose principles were dogmatic assertions not susceptible to revision, even when presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary. To date, none of Marx’s laws of capitalist development have ever been empirically falsified nor have any of his prophecies ever come to fruition.

It’s interesting that Franz Boas was not the first Jewish intellectual to subject the social application of Darwinism to withering intellectual criticism; that distinction belongs to Marx and his personal Shabbos Goy, Engels. They were originally enthusiastic about Darwin’s Origin of Species, believing that natural selection confirmed the dialectical materialist analysis of historical development. Nevertheless, Marx and Engels found Darwin’s theory to be “metaphysically unacceptable”:

“Because Darwin viewed the struggle in nature as in large part between individuals, his theory seemed to undermine the very possibility of class solidarity and the final elimination of human conflict. …  [T]he gravest shortcoming of Darwin’s theory from Marx’s point of view was its emphasis on the random and indeterminate nature of variations, which made progress beyond the social world of brutes ‘purely accidental’ and not ‘necessary,’ as Marx desired and his theory required (Marx, quoted in Feuer 1978, p. 121). Darwinism threatened the faith of Marx and Engels in the beneficence of the historical process.”[viii]

Because Darwinian biology imposed limitations on the explanatory power of their historical dialectic, Marx and Engels preferred environmental and subjectivist explanations instead:

“Because other theories of evolution, such as those of Trémaux and Lamarck, emphasized the causation of adaptive variances either by the direct action of the environment on the species or race or as an automatic response to the needs of the organism, they proved far more attractive to Marx and Engels (as they were to to Stalin and Lysenko) as a ‘scientific’ sanction for their world view.”[ix]

Like the Jewish ethnic activists of CofC — Boas, Lewontin, Gould etc. — Marx and Engels opposed the social application of Darwinism because it undermined their ability to impose on European societies an environmentalist perspective that could envision a new human race to be constructed by engineering the environment according to Marxist ideas. In the event, Communists had no qualms about murdering millions of people who had dissident tendencies in order to make way for the new man created by the Communist educational system.

Marx was known for his dictatorial tendencies, a trait he shares with the Jewish ethnic activists of CofC. This Jewish striving for power led to accusations of authoritarianism by his opponents. In 1850, Eduard Müller-Tellering published Vorgeschmack in die kuenftige deutsche Diktatur von Marx und Engels, or A foretaste of the future German dictatorship of Marx and Engels, lambasting Marx for being a “control freak.” The two had a falling-out, which Müller-Tellering blamed on the “future German dictator” Marx’s desire to get revenge on Müller-Tellering for publicly attacking Jews in Marx’s own newspaper, the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. He attributed Marx’s behavior to the unforgiving and vengeful nature of Jews, as well as to Jewish wickedness.

Marx’s authoritarian tendencies alienated anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), who wrote:

“This whole Jewish world which constitutes a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people, a collective parasite, voracious, organised in itself, not only across the frontiers of states but even across all the differences of political opinion — this world is presently, at least in great part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand and of the Rothschilds on the other. I know that the Rothschilds, reactionaries as they are and should be, highly appreciate the merits of the communist Marx; and that in his turn the communist Marx feels irresistibly drawn, by instinctive attraction and respectful admiration, to the financial genius of Rothschild. Jewish solidarity, that powerful solidarity that has maintained itself through all history, united them.”[x]     

Note that Bakunin is well aware that Marx had a large Jewish following—that the Jewish world was split between Marx and Rothschild. Bakunin rejected Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat because it demanded centralization of state power, which would lead to control by a small elite. They were constantly at odds with each other; Bakunin was always demanding a “decentralized confederacy of autonomous communes,” while Marx would assail Bakunin by advocating proletarian dictatorship. After Marx’s supporters and Bakunin’s anarchist faction clashed at the Hague Congress in 1872, Marx personally ordered Bakunin’s expulsion from the First International.

Like the Jewish ethnic activists in CofC, Marx was engaged in ethnic warfare against European societies. His scientific socialism threatened to undermine Europe’s moral and intellectual foundations by transforming it into a secular society compatible with the continued existence of Judaism. For example, Das Kapital, Marx’s magnum opus, attempted to uncover the inner workings of the capitalist mode of production in Western Europe, explaining why it would collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions, preparing the way for proletarian revolution. The dictatorship of the proletariat was envisioned as having strong centralized, authoritarian control. When it was imposed on Russians by the hostile elite that assumed control after 1917, it would mean the murder of many millions and the political oppression of all, and it is quite reasonable to suppose that Marx would have been quite happy to inflict such a regime on Europeans generally. Although Jewish advocacy of universalism in White societies means White cultural and racial self-destruction, it creates an ideal environment for Jews to thrive in, maximizing Jewish control over the European host population, while minimizing Jewish fears of anti-Semitic persecution.

Marx developed the ideological foundations of the main strand of twentieth-century Jewish ethnic activism. Within the framework of CofC, Marx’s significance is thus interpreted as resulting from his being the secular Jewish founder of a Jewish intellectual and political movement that originated in the mid-nineteenth century and whose influence continues into the present.  For example, the most influential contemporary Jewish intellectual movement, the Frankfurt School, began as an orthodox Marxist sect but revised Marxism away from class struggle to a theory emphasizing White ethnocentrism as the fundamental problem and inaugurating what is now often termed cultural Marxism.

The conclusion is that Jewish involvement in the left reaches back to the mid-nineteenth century and continues to exert influence in the contemporary world as a force opposed to the interests of Europeans.


Blumenberg, Werner. “Eduard Von Müller-Tellering: Verfasser Des Ersten Antisemitischen Pamphlets Gegen Marx.” Bulletin of the International Institute of Social History, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1951, Pp. 178—197. Jstor, Www.jstor.org/stable/44629595.

Cofnas, Nathan. “Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy.” Human Nature, vol. 29, no. 2, 10 Mar. 2018, pp. 134—156, 10.1007/s12110-018-9310-x. Accessed 13 Dec. 2019.

Draper, Hal. Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution / [Vol. 1], State and Bureaucracy. New York ; London, Monthly Review Press, 1977.

—. Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution / [Vol. 4], Critique of Other Socialisms. New York ; London, Monthly Review Press, 1990.

Fine, Robert, and Philip Spencer. Antisemitism and the Left : On the Return of the Jewish Question. Manchester, UK, Manchester University Press, 2018, www.manchesteropenhive.com/view/9781526104960/9781526104960.00007.xml. Accessed 13 Dec. 2019.

Kaye, Howard. Social Meaning of Modern Biology: From Social Darwinism to Sociobiology. Routledge, 2017.

MacDonald, K. The culture of critique: An evolutionary analysis of Jewish involvement in twentieth-century intellectual and political movements. Westport: Praeger, 1998.

‌‌Marx, Karl. “On The Jewish Question by Karl Marx.” Marxists.org, 2019, www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/. Accessed 13 Dec. 2019.

—. “The Holy Family by Marx and Engels.” Marxists.org, 2019, www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch04.htm. Accessed 13 Dec. 2019.

‌—. Early Texts. Translated and Edited by David McLellan. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1971.

‌— and Engels, Friedrich. Collected Works. / Volume 41, Marx and Engels, 1860-64. New York, International Publishers, 1985.

Michel, Robert. Political Parties : A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democrary. New York, Free Press ; London, 1962.

‌Seigel, Jerrold E. Marx’s Fate : The Shape of a Life. University Park, Pa., Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993.

Wartenberg, Thomas E. “‘Species-Being’ and ‘Human Nature’ in Marx.” Human Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, Dec. 1982, pp. 77—95, 10.1007/bf02127669. Accessed 26 Nov. 2019.

‌Wistrich, Robert S. “Karl Marx and the Jewish Question.” Soviet Jewish Affairs, vol. 4, no. 1, Jan. 1974, pp. 53—60, 10.1080/13501677408577180. Accessed 21 Nov. 2019.‌

[i]      Kevin MacDonald. Culture of Critique, pp. 11-2.

[ii]     Frederick Engels. “On Anti-Semitism.” Arbeiter-Zeitung, No. 19, May 9, 1890. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/04/19.htm

[iii]    Robert Michels. Political Parties, pg. 246.

[iv]    Jerrold Seigel, Marx’s Fate, pg.114.

[v]     Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. “The Holy Family.” Marxists.org, 2019, www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch04.htm.

[vi]    Kevin MacDonald. Culture of Critique, pg. 122.

[vii]   Ernest Mandel. The Roots of the Present Crisis in the Soviet Economy (1991). https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1991/xx/sovecon.html.

[viii] Howard Kaye. Social Meaning of Modern Biology, pg.25.

[ix]    Ibid.

[x]     Hal Draper, Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution, Vol.4, pg. 596.

21 replies
  1. Alexander Baron
    Alexander Baron says:

    Marx was a crank. He was also the man who wrote Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas; he was the man who referred to the Jewish nigger Lasalle. And communism had been around a long time before he was born. The roots of Jewish hatred for the Aryan goyim go back to the Pale Of Settlement. And they are not the only ones, far from it. At the end of the day it is bad ideas rather than bad races who cause all these problems. I could name a dozen Jews I would rather have seen beat Trump in 2016 rather than Hillary Clinton.

    • Billy Thistle
      Billy Thistle says:

      Seems like the Jews have had more than their shares of bad ideas. And who would these dozen Jews that you’d rather have beaten Trump in 2016 be?

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Be assured, that Thistle is not alone in wanting to know your preferred choices for President. Let’s have your dozen of superior choices.
      The IDEA of Bolshevism didn’t kill up to 11 millions in the Holodomor. The brothers Kaganovich and tens of thousands of their confreres did: drawing heavily on the premises of their Talmud.

      As I said months ago here: Russian does not have an H, which is substituted with a G [ as in Adolf Gitler ] So we arrive at Kahanovich.
      The ” vich ” is the Russian patronymic for ” son of “. Ergo: ” Son of [the priestly] Cohan “.

      Synagogues were legislatively protected after 1917: Orthodox cathedrals were leveled and later turned into gigantic, outside, heated swimming pools. Their leaders and congregants butchered.

      None of which is meant to imply, that there are no Jews, who, through their intellectual and temporal consistency have proven their allegiance to our value system: variously religiously and/or culturally determined across millennia.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        A dozen Jews who would have been preferable to Trump?

        Let’s see….

        1) Bobby Fischer (but unfortunately he’s dead, along with some of the others I’m naming)
        2) Roger Dommergue
        3) Gilad Atzmon
        4) Nathanael Kapner
        5) Israel Shamir
        6) Israel Shahak
        7) Ron Unz
        8) Norman Finkelstein
        9) Samuel Roth
        10) Yoav Shamir
        11) Gerhard Menuhin
        12) Maurice Samuel

        Jews who have been unpopular with other Jews.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      @ Alexander Baron

      Worse than a crank.

      This is an opportunity to quote the sadly now dead Roger Scruton: “…in the 1970s and early 1980s, when the theories of Marx were being recycled as the true account of the sufferings of humanity under ‘capitalist’ regimes, it was rare to find any mention in the left-wing journals of the criticisms that Marx’s writings had encountered during the previous century. Marx’s theory of history had been put in question by Maitland, Weber and Sombart; his labour theory of value by Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, and many more; his theories of false consciousness, alienation and class struggle by a whole range of thinkers, from Mallock and Sombart to Popper, Hayek and Aron” – “Fools, Frauds and Firebrands” (2019), pp.6-7.

      Whether or not Marx is regarded as a Jew of any sort whatever, he hardly deserves to be lauded as a superior personality and constructive intellect, especially In comparison with more or less contemporary thinkers like Galton, Nietzsche, Spencer or List. His “thought”, and the activities of his followers, have had a “baneful influence on life in the twentieth century” (Prof. N. Scott Arnold).

  2. Eric
    Eric says:

    “Should “The Culture of Critique” (CofC) be revised to focus on Karl Marx?”

    I would say “No.”

    I’ve seen no book more cited by red-pilled goyim than the CofC in its present form.

    “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

  3. Leon Haller
    Leon Haller says:

    I intend to read what looks to be this excellent essay by Bardamu. But I have an unrelated question.

    Is The Occidental Quarterly being discontinued? AR said it was no longer going to be a print publication. Does that mean it will be online only? And will that mean that all back issues will get posted online, as the first decade’s ones are now? Thanks.

  4. Arlene Johnson
    Arlene Johnson says:

    I’m surprised the author didn’t state what Karl Marx’s real name was. It was Mordechai Levi. And Rothschild paid this man to write the Communist Manifesto. Now, here’s what I have on anti-semitism:

    Not in my work, but an excellent description of Anti-semitism:

    People who take up the sword against so-called “anti-Semitism” generally have no understanding of what they are saying. They are psychologically conditioned to react to a label, the bottle of which is without content but adduced as an instrument of dishonest political strategy. Approximately ninety per cent. of modern Jewry is not Semitic but of Ashkenazic central European origin. The numerically few Sephardim only are Semitic. Moreover the Arabic peoples, who comprise a large segment of humanity are Semitic. Many critics and commentators do not even spell the word correctly, which error speaks to their gross ignorance of the subject and the prevailing low level of academic rigour–or integrity, whichever the case may be.
Anyone who is familiar with the writings of early Zionist protagonists will have observed that they adopted “anti-Semitism” as a primary strategic weapon essential to achievement of their ultimate policies and objectives. In other words, where it did not exist it would have to be created. The term must be inculcated incessantly in the public psyche by constant discussion in the information media and “educational” institutions. Guilt is a potent factor in determining human action. If it can be implanted in the human mind it can be employed as a powerful abstract instrument to influence human behaviour. 
Unless self-righteous zealots and/or sentimentalists, who are more reactive than rational in taking up the cause against the misnomered and abstract “anti-Semitism” can present a concrete definition of the chimera against which they imagine themselves to be arrayed, their basic intelligence, academic objectivity and ethical integrity must be subject to close scrutiny. At very least they are surely naïve souls who are mere uncomprehending tools in a political strategy which transcends their understanding.

    Arlene Johnson
    To access the rest of my work, click on the icon that says Magazine.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      The Marx family was distantly related to some of the Rothschilds. What is the proof that one of them paid for the writing of the Communist Manifesto (1848) and precisely for what purpose?

      The question of the Jewishness of “Marxism” has been plagued by forgery and disinformation. The so-called letter from “Baruch Levi” to Karl Marx is a fake, whereas the article by Karl Marx in the NY Daily Tribune, January 4, 1856, attacking the powerful “loan-mongering Jews of Europe” whose exposure was “timely and expedient” is authentic.

  5. Michael Adkins
    Michael Adkins says:

    Perhaps there’s another way to look at Marx:

    After all, it should not be forgotten that toward the end of his life, Marx told Engels in a letter written in 1882 that “You know very well where we found our idea of class struggle; we found it in the work of the French historians who talked about the race struggle.”

    Michel Foucault

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      @ Michael Adkins

      Three components of “Marxist thought” – “French Socialism [e.g. Thierry], German Philosophy [e.g. Feuerbach] & English economics [e.g. Ricardo]” – Engels (1880); ditto, Lenin (1913).
      For some details of their intellectual “plagiarism” see e.g. F. J. Hearnshaw, “A Survey of Socialism” (1928) & Nesta Webster, “World Revolution” (1921); Constanzo Preve has added Epicurus & Rousseau.

      In my view, subject to correction, is that Marx owed very much to Georg Hegel and very little to Moses Hess, let alone Moses ben Maimon or Moses ben Amram, whatever anti-Semites may suppose.

  6. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    I missed an even marginally overlapping interrelationship with the pan-European revolutions of 1848 in this article. Pro-con-irrelevant ???

  7. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    One could argue that Marx preferred to talk about class conflicts because tribal-national discourse tended to focus on We Goyim vs Them Jews, though, to be sure, national/imperial wars among goyim led to plenty of violence, e.g. Nazi Germany’s terrorization of Slavs of Poland and Russia. Or maybe on a subconscious level, Marx was trying to drive a wedge between goy masses and goy elites by promoting class conflict.

    But me thinks Marx really did believe that his prophecy was about social justice and would lead to a better world. Besides, he was no fan of Jews. Indeed, he pretty much equated Jews with capitalism. He thought the only way Jews could become full members of humanity was if the source of their greed and power was taken away, and that was Capital, an abstract form of wealth that is easily transferred across the world via the Jewish network.

    Also, working class conditions were truly atrocious in the 19th century, and socialist movements did a lot of good in struggling for better wages and conditions for workers. Mussolini began as a socialist, and his brand of Fascism was meant to harmonize capital and labor. And the National Socialists understood that true nationalism needed a socialist element. A nation mustn’t just be about ME but about WE. Nazis won power by combining nationalism and capitalism with socialism. Where communism ultimately failed was in trying to totally replace capitalism with communism. In contrast, National Socialism and New Deal understood that the best formula was to tame capitalism with elements of socialism for the good of nationalism. Nazis failed in the end because they went from nationalist to imperialist mode.

    Also, even though many Jews gravitated toward communism as being more amenable to Jews, they were also driven by the conviction that Jews would be better people as fellow workers and comrades than as capitalist blood-suckers. They believed that much of antisemitism originated from the image of the Jew as the greedy merchant. And even though Jews were prominent in early Soviet communism, they lost special power and privilege as time went on. In contrast, it was capitalism that made Jews superpowerful and the rulers of the world. Given what Jewish capitalists have done to the US and the world(and Russia in the 90s), it is time for us to be skeptical of raw capitalism as well.

    It seems leftism and libertarians are both anti-conservative but for different reasons. Libertarians find conservatism too moralistic and intolerant of individual liberty and ‘rights’ whereas leftists believe conservatism isn’t moralistic enough and too tolerant of injustice. Libertarians prize individual freedom uber alles whereas Leftists prize social justice uber alles.
    But over time, what happened is that libertarianism and leftism merged to the point where libertine decadence & degeneracy, such as globo-homo debauchery and drug use, are now regarded by the Left as sacred moral causes. Immorality of unfettered freedom have been packaged as the New Morality.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Two strains of libertarianism:

      Left- emotional, relativist, subjectivist, do yer own thing, and so on. Anti-racist.

      Right- Fact oriented above all else, anti-hedonist, rational, racialist. A poster here, the late Professor Ralph Raico was one of these. He held a conference on open borders in 1998- only one speaker favored open borders- Dr. Walter Block- a jew. Hans Hoppe [German] is one of these right wingers. Here Hans speaks on open borders:


  8. Anon
    Anon says:

    “There appears to have been no self-deception involved in Marx’s advocacy of Jewish emancipation, since he was consciously aware of his Jewish identity and the need to protect Jews from White persecution by promoting universalism at the expense of European-majority societies.”

    I think that this is going to look a bit imbalanced. Removing the restrictions on minority rights is not really something most people would see as “costing” the majority; most people would say that it is removing the “cost” that the majority put on the minority.

    It seems that Marx might have actually been trying to unify Europeans and Jews. I think that this would have been a great idea. Certainly, in Russia, where Marxism was implemented, the Jews seem to have assimilated faster than most everywhere else in the world, including the USA. I might be wrong about that.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      You are wrong about that. Jews in Russia are not like average Russians. They continue to do what they can to wield power and influence far out of proportion to their percentage of the majority population, just as they do in the United States.

      As for the “cost” that you say the majority puts on the minority, just what costs do you have in mind? Disproportionately high use of welfare benefits paid for by the majority? Disproportionately low contributions in tax payments? Affirmative action programs that discriminate against the majority in favor of the minority? Obtaining special privilege (in the case of the Jews) through a centuries old international network of self-promotion in the form of thousands of Jewish groups (but if whites formed groups to promote THEIR interests, they would be accused of racism, Nazism, anti-Semitism, etc.)?

Comments are closed.