The Pete Quiñones Show - Episode 1247: Karl Marx's Zur Judenfrage w/ Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson

Episode Date: July 31, 2025

81 MinutesPG-13Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson is a researcher, writer, and former professor of history and political science, specializing in Russian history and political ideology.Dr. Johnson joins Pete to talk about his exposition of Karl Marx's essay, Zur Judenfrage (The Jewish Question).Dr Johnson's PatreonDr Johnson's CashApp - $Raphael71RusJournal.orgTHE ORTHODOX NATIONALISTDr. Johnson's Radio Albion PageDr. Johnson's Books on AmazonDr. Johnson's Pogroms ArticleThe Orthodox Nationalist: Karl Marx “On the Jewish Question” (1844)Article: Karl Marx’s Theses on the Jews and the Necessity of Free Trade: Zur Judenfrage (1844) by Matthew Raphael JohnsonPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design. They move you, even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon, and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera.

Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen, Financial Services, Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings?

We'll mark your calendars from November 28th to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items, all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs. When the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November.

Lidl, more to value. Discover five-star luxury at Trump Dunebeg. Unwind in our luxurious spa. Savour sumptuous farm-fresh dining. Relax in our exquisite accommodations. Step outside and be captivated by the wild Atlantic surrounds. Your five-star getaway, where every detail is designed with you in mind. Give the gift of a unique experience this Christmas,

with vouchers from Trump Dunebeg. Search Trump-Ireland gift vouchers. Trump on Dunebiog, Kush Farage. If you want to get the show early and ad-free, head on over to the piquinos show.com. There you can choose from where you wish to support me. Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me about this,

even though I think on the last ad, I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed, you're going to have to subscribe through substack, or through Patreon. You can also subscribe on my website, which is right there, gumroad, and what's the other one? Subscribe Star. And if you do that, you will get access to the audio file.

So head on over to the Pekignolos Show.com. You'll see all the ways that you can support me there. And I just want to thank everyone. It's because of you that I can put out the amount of material that I do. I can do what I'm doing with Dr. Johnson on 200 years together and everything else. The things that Thomas and I are doing together on continental philosophy, it's all because of you. And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank you enough. So thank you, the Pekingona Show.com.

Everything's there. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekignano Show. While this is different, we're not here to read 200 years together. We're here to talk about something else. How are you doing, Dr. Johnson? You know, at Willis Carter, when I used to work for him, he would occasionally say, you know, all these other people, how come no one's approaching me? Some government or a social body wanting to give me money to say something. How come no one has ever done that?

No one's ever tried to buy me. No one's ever trying. I wasn't sure if he was feeling left out or if he was being complimented. And I feel the same way. you know, no one has ever approached me. I'm starting to wonder, maybe I need to up my game here. You know, no, you know, so I, not guitar or anybody else. Yeah, this is in reference to, apparently Dr. Johnson didn't know about the whole

Qatari meme where all the, the new, the Hosburgh for the last six months to a year has been that, no, it's actually Qatar and not Israel and not Jews. It's Qataris and not Jews who control the United States government because, you know, the ACPAC is the biggest, you know, has a babysitter for every congressman. And, you know, the Qataris control Hollywood and the porn industry and banking and the press. So, yeah. Yeah. Yes, I'm proud to have been unaware of that. Yeah.

Yeah. All right. Well, the reason I asked you to come on today was about a month ago, you did an article and then you talked about it on your show about Carl Marx's, how do you pronounce it, Judenfraga? On the Jewish question. Yeah. On the Jewish question. Yeah. And I think when the Jewish question is discussed mostly in our circles, it's discussed from the right.

And, you know, when you read what Marx is talking about in the Jewish question and then the reactions to it afterwards, I think it's important to see exactly how it was coming from the far left. So, you know, you can start anywhere you want, Dr. Johnson. Well, I don't know why it took me so long. You know, a lot of our people, you know, really don't have the capacity. It's not an easy, it's not an easy article. it's very early. It's what five years before the Communist Manifesto was published. His whole philosophy hadn't fully come together yet.

And we don't have a lot of people who can properly interpret it. Because I know, you know, I spent decades on Hegel. But the relationship between Hegel and Marx is minimal. but it's more Feuerbach and Marx, but the Jewish question was written in response to Bruno Bauer, who for years I thought was Jewish, and he's not. He's one of these weirdo atheist types, but talking about what we've been talking about on with this Solzhenitsyn stuff, the nature of assimilation. So this is a very useful.

young Karl Marx. And most Marxists try to pretend that he never wrote this. But as I say at the very end of this paper, most of the founders, you know, Bakunin, Prudhon, several others, founders of leftist movements, all were vehemently opposed to the capital, the domination the Jews had over Europe. the statements that Karl Marx makes here are only made by us anymore. So this kind of sticks out, even though, you know, I first came across it as a young man in his early manuscripts. And it's funny because the early manuscripts is what the Frankfurt School was trying to stress with the exception of that one.

And as I say in the very beginning of this paper, and I knew this was going to be a hit. I know people are going to be talking about this. I've got a lot of emails about it because we kind of vaguely know it's there that he wrote on this, how harsh he was, but his purpose, that's, you know, that's a separate matter. And I do note that so much of the literary literature on this has been written by Jews. In fact, it's very hard to come across either academic or popular, intellectual popular. That's not a Jewish name or someone obviously Jewish. So, you know, it gets very distorted. And obviously they're never going to ask if it's true what Marx is saying.

But calling Marx and anti-Semite is very strange. You know, because I say, you know, Marxism is one of the official ideologies of the American university, the Western University. So how could we possibly have this, you know, I don't know how many anarchists in the streets know about prudhonest? or Bakunin's views on the Jews. But it does bear some connection to what we're talking about in Solzhenitsyn. Because the debates in Germany, well, you know, what was soon to be Germany at this point, very similar to what we've been talking about. Now, assimilation, you know, we don't have a full definition of this.

They're going to remain Jews. And this is the whole question that Bauer brings up. And this is in response to Bauer's paper of the same name. And of course, the whole assimilation idea is strange, since Jews never considered themselves Russians or Germans. Generally speaking, didn't speak the language. And we know what they thought of the people around them. So the whole concept of emancipation was really something created for a Gentile audience. what it comes down to is that because they're Machiavellians and they're better organized and they have more money.

Any sense of emancipation from the various restrictions that they had would mean, and I quote Moses Hess in this paper saying the same thing, that it would turn, you know, trying to turn them into, they would dominate the society totally turning the Gentiles into Jews. Now, allegedly, Bauer made the argument that Jews had to give up their Judaism if they were to become worthy of equal rights. And I'm quoting Hal Draper there. It's kind of a big name Jewish intellectual. But even there. And Karl Marx actually deals with this.

What does Judaism mean here? It's not really descriptive by itself. It could refer to a culture and ethnicity, a religion. It doesn't say much. Some of the naive Gentile boomers still think that you're talking about, you know, they just go to a different church than we do. But Bauer still was operating under the assumption that Judaism primarily is a religion, not an ethnicity, or even a way of thought.

Now, Karl Marx, again, Marxism hadn't fully been developed yet, but some of the outlines can be found. Marx criticizes Bauer by saying that he doesn't make the distinction, between political and what he calls human emancipation. Human emancipation, of course, is revolution. Political emancipation is just a matter of tinkering reforms. So the political side, the civic side, doesn't require Jews to renounce anything.

It just removes formal restrictions on, you know, like the numerous clauses and things like that. Now, technically, the human emancipation would involve the disappearance of religion and ethnicity altogether. But within the hitherto existing world order, as Marx says, it's not possible. We all know what that will mean in practice. So that's what that's the Marx's essential criticism. There's no need to abolish any kind of religion with political emancipation.

You catch them in the corner of your eye. By design, they move you even before you drive. The new Kupra plug-in hybrid range for Mentor, Leon and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Kupra and discover our latest offers. Kupra. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Arland Limited, subject to lending criteria,

Pending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items, all reduced to clear.

From home essentials to seasonal must-habs. When the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November Lidl, more to value Discover five-star luxury at Trump Dunebeg.

Unwind in our luxurious spa savour sumptuous farm-fresh dining, relax in our exquisite accommodations, step outside and be captivated by the wild Atlantic surrounds. Your five-star getaway, where every detail is designed with you in mind.

Give the gift of a unique experience this Christmas with vouchers from Trump Dune-Begg. Trump Ireland gift vouchers, Trump on Thunbjouk, Kosh Farage. And so, you know, you have to talk about Hegel a little bit to get this right. In his political theory, there's a, in the philosophy of right, the central distinction is between civil society and the state. The fact that those are two different things are both Hegel and Marx thought were a matter of alienation. the state also refers to the nation, not just the government.

Civil society refers to the private sector. And Hegel being a nationalist didn't like the idea. And of course, they were going to be synthesized. You know, the family, civil society, that dialectic leads to the state, which uses both. It's a very profound aspect of nationalist political thought. Marx's early view, you know, the party would absorb civil society, and that's where a human emancipation would take place. So that's how he begins.

So let me quote Marx here early on in the Jewish question. He says, the decomposition of man into Jew and citizen, Protestant and citizen, religious man and citizen is neither a deception directed against citizenship nor is a certain. convention of political emancipation, it's political emancipation itself, the political method of emancipating oneself from religion. Of course, in periods where the political state, as such, is born violently out of civil society, when political liberation is a form in which man's tribe to achieve their liberation, the state can and must go so far as to abolish religion, the destruction of religion, but can only do so in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition

of private property, to the maximum, to confiscation, progressive taxation. just as it goes so far, the abolition of life and the guillotine. And he has certain words, the guillotine is italicized in the original. Abolition of religion is italicized. But Marx is well aware, political emancipation ultimately turns Gentiles into Jews, because once restrictions on Jewish behavior are lifted, they will come to dominate the economy and civil society as a whole. both through their money and through their ethnic cohesion.

That means, when I take this to the final conclusion, there wouldn't be a Jewish community, really. There wouldn't be a Christian one. They all would think this. There would be a Jewish community, but in terms of thought, in terms of basic attitudes, they'd all be thinking the same way.

Jewish community would just be on top. Now, religion, you know, if anyone, you know, Hegel was not a, he was an influence on Marx, but he didn't, you know, Marx was 13 when Hegel died, someone who was far closer was Ludwig Foribach, who I read, started reading many years ago. He was an atheist, and religion essentially is a human construct that reflects human suffering. It's a expression of suffering and a protest against it. And even earlier than this, Marx wrote the critique of Hegel's philosophy of right.

really distancing himself from Hegel in general. But, you know, you can't, so Karl Marx can't really be talking about religion unless you're talking about the social foundation on which it expresses itself. So Marx wrote, and I think, you know, most of us know this, religious suffering is at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heart of the suffering. of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions, it is the opium of the people. Which is another way of saying that after the revolution, religion would wither away. And I'm always worried about the use of, whenever someone uses religion, be very careful. They're usually just talking about Christianity.

But what this means in actual practice is, you know, it's going to be a violent abolition of religion because it's strictly illusory, although it's justified given capitalism. but it doesn't matter if they're opposed to it because religion is actually a demand for the conditions that gave rise to religion to go away. That gives socialism its mandate. They may not know this, but they all want to give up their illusions and we're going to make sure that that happens.

Now, beyond that, there is a question of free trade. Everyone knows that you have, you know, primitive communism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism. That's the linear, basic, simplistic description of how history goes in the Marx's system. Generally speaking, not all the time, but generally speaking, Marx realized that capitalism was an absolutely essential step. He knew that it was revolutionary. It is revolutionary. It continues to be revolutionary today. Capitalism is important, not just because it creates these huge methods of production and money and everything else that the socials will use.

But even more than that, it destroys national boundaries. And as we've also discussed before, it creates an alienated proletariat, which according to them, Marx's, doesn't have an identity. So Karl Marx was vehemently opposed to any, like, you know, List and others, Ficta who was, of course, earlier, who wanted any tariffs. on prussia later germany um any talk about sovereignty to marx was was backwards the french and the british revolutions we got to keep this in mind i mean capitalism is revolutionary for among other things it abolishes the church's control over man's uh passions it justifies oligarchy

e michael jones wrote in one of my favorite books of his back in 2014 when we say bourgeois revolution we mean, you know, French Revolution, English Revolution before it, 1848, etc. Anything but what happened in 1917. Bujo revolutions allowed the rapacious capitalist to gain the upper hand and oppress the poor in a way unknown when Christianity was the source of the social order. So at the time this was written, or throughout Marx's lifetime, the evils of capitalism, especially in the factory system and especially in the Western world, No one could ignore how evil they were.

At the time, it was the right wing. It was Catholics. It was certain Lutheran, certain Anglicans that were, they advocated the abolition of capitalism. Karl Marx made believe that this was his was the first scientific method of doing it. But where'd Marx come from? He kind of exploded onto the scene. As Bakunin will say, he had Rothschild money to do it. Only the international version of socialism is called.

socialism today. Not all the other, you know, left nationalism, medievalism, everything else, national socialism. And I come across people, whether it be in person or in like comments, social media, they hear about, you know, the rapaciousness of the oligarchy. And well, you know, I guess we have to dust off our copy of capital or something. And they really believe that capitalism and Marxism are opposites, which they are not. What did the proletariat mean to Marx. Marx says here, and in many other places, that it's a proletariat because they have no identity, according to him, that's the agent to bring about the end of the existing social order. And he needed to mobilize them, and I say in here, against what we would call, you know,

essentially national socialists, you know, List, Herder, Mueller, Fichter, and Germany, the Slavophiles in Russia, all of them striving to preserve. their nation against predatory, ultimately British capitalism through a free trade. Now, we've talked about this with Soltonitin, but the authoritarian is this group of people, and sociologically speaking, who had to leave the village to go to the cities to find work in the new factories during and after the Industrial Revolution. Usually they were alone. The families were back, but that means that they were subject to new temptations. They were cut off from from the village. They owned nothing at all. That's the foundation of Marxism. The proletariat

has to rent out his own body, you know, for 20 hours a day as a worker. That level, that sort of person is what's needed for the socialist revolution to come later on. And I write here, men with a strong sense of ethnicity and religion don't fight for socialism. Remember, there is nothing conservative about capitalism, not its foundation and not its vicious postmodern variant that we live under today. And Marx and Engels realized that this abstraction, the proletarian, you know, none of them had any real connection to them. We talked about with the Jews in Russia. None of these guys had any connection with a working man. None of them. Engels was a factory owner of all things who took advantage.

who had mistresses who worked in his factories. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast.

Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive. By design. They move you.

Even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon, and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Cooper. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement

from Volkswagen Financial Services, Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Discover five-star luxury at Trump Dunebeg. Unwind in our luxurious spa,

savour sumptuous farm-fresh dining, relax in our exquisite accommodations. Step outside and be captivated by the wild Atlantic surrounds. Your five-star getaway, where every detail is designed with your. you in mind. Give the gift of a unique experience this Christmas with vouchers from Trump Dunebeg. Search Trump Ireland gift vouchers. Trump on Dunebiog, Kush Farage. But it's precisely

because they were in such a vulnerable state that the party can kind of project whatever they want onto them. That kind of alienation made them perfect for this. And as Jones and many others have said, because of Marx in the Rothschild money that went into him, the reaction against British free trade, which was, you know, Marxian socialism was Jewish. And that changed everything. We talked about, you know, Werner Sombart and how the Jews completely altered how economies function.

Things like advertising, underselling, saying bad things about your competition. That was unknown in Europe up until, you know, the late 18th century, the middle of the 19th century. Jewish emancipation would mean that that would, the opposite of that, those evils would become the norm for society. And this is central. It makes Jews out of everybody.

So this is what Marx says here. And this is what gets them into trouble. And we'll go into a detail here in a little bit. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstring. What is his worldly god? Money. Now, Marx just don't talk like that. Marx did, as in all the founders have leftist movements. Angles was very much aware, given his position, that Jewish emancipation would mean the almost a Darwinian rule of Jews over everyone else. Or at least the total exploitation of the poor by the rich. Emancipation also meant that they no longer had any of these revolutions, especially in the French Revolution. There was no duty, as you had in the feudal era, no duty of capital owners to those working for them. Marx argues in this that the so-called Jewish religion, and it's always in quotes, and he means it that way,

is a reflection, so to speak, of not just Jewish life, Jewish economic life. And it's true. the religious elements are always secondary to the ethnic element. Now, his argument from here on in is fairly complex, but he does say that there was a historical choice that the Jew made as a huckster, a particularly financially competent one, and he makes it very plain. I could picture these young leftists coming across.

Is he allowed to say that special connection between Judaism as a religion and today's economy? whether it be 1845 or 2025. Free trade is extremely important for Karl Marx. And he made his free trade in speech in Brussels in 1848. And he says this. He says, generally speaking, the protective system, he means tariffs, and these days is conservative.

While the free trade system works destructively, it breaks up all nationalities and carries antagonism of proletarian and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point in a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. In the revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of free trade. So, in order to bring about so-called human emancipation, Marx had to destroy everything about the social order that had at one time protected them. Private property, family, religion, and most importantly, other races and ethnicities. other than Jew.

Now, I talked about projecting whatever they want into this abstract proletarian. Here's what Engels says. I quoted this actually from Barron Medal from 2014. The great mass of proletarians are, by the very nature, free from national prejudices. And their whole dispensation and movement is essentially humanitarian, anti-nationalists. Only the proletarians can destroy nationality. Only the awakening proletariat can bring about fraternization between different nations. This is what I mean when I say that there's projecting whatever they will.

He has no evidence for that. Jews, the biggest problem we have is that Jews monopolize the writing on this and many other issues concerning Jews. They're blinded by ethnic self-interest. Now, let me quote Hal Draper. I think I mentioned him already. And these Jews have such a tough time with this. They're not really sure what to do with it. Not only because Marx was the founder of socials, but he was a Jew.

He says this. Now he's talking about Bruno Bauer. Bauer's core argument that as long as Jews remain Jewish, they are too consumed with Jewish self-interest and communalism to be worthy of full citizenship. In effect, Bauer was calling for opposition to the nation movement for Jewish emancipation in Germany. His long essay was replete with anti-Semitic themes. If Jews were ill-treated in the Christian world, they provoked this mistreatment by their obstinacy. Jews were not hated because they were misunderstood, since true understanding ought to not ultimately alterly the hatred, Jews had lost interest in the progress of man and concentrated entirely

on personal advantage. Jews had evolved no moral principle from their suffering, et cetera. Now, of course, that's true. Bauer doesn't even mention if this, or, you know, Draper has even wonder if this is true or false. It's just anti-Semitic. It's as an argument in and of itself. We all know why Jews were treated poorly from time to time in Christian society. Now, I think Draper, again, one of these Jews who, you know, you can't ignore this essay, so you have to reinterpret it and mutilate it. And Draper goes on. He says, while Bauer echoed the general prejudicial representation of the Jew as merchant and money man,

March propels was that in the modern world, money had become a world power. And the practical spirit of the Jews has become the practical spirit of Christian peoples. In other words, why pick on the Jews? The practical spirit of Judaism is money-making, as Bauer suggests, this hardly distinguishes Jews from the greater array of non-Jewish entrepreneurs, merchants, bankers, who have risen to ascendancy in contemporary society. The idea that the Jew is fundamentally more rooted in money-making than a Christian is wrong-headed. It's as wrong-headed as the idea that the Jew is less eligible for civil or political rights.

Historically, it's true that many Jews played a significant role as middlemen between landowners and tenants, state and taxpayers, capital and consumers, not a few Jews like the Rothschild family, played a significant role as international bankers, but Marx insisted this progressive role played by Jews in the development of capitalism was coming to an end. The practical spirit of moneymaking was as general as a growth of nation states, national banks, and national capital. Now, I'm saying that Draper speaks for most Jews. This is a very common way to approach this. The one thing he can't handle is that Jews created the modern commercial state. No matter where we're analyzing, Jews come to control.

control a huge share of its mercantile trade, using debt to take huge amounts of property to themselves from debtors who go under. This isn't prejudicial. This has been the direct experience of millions all over Europe. International banking was the Rothschild family. In other words, if you're a socialist and you believe that these kind of concentrations of capital in a few hands are wrong, Why are you ignoring the Jews? It's all special pleading. But because

socialism earlier, you know, thanks to Marx, socialism early on, was very Jewish. They couldn't. The Jewish religion, so to speak, which Karl Marx always kind of says, you know, tongue in cheek. Of course, it doesn't need to disappear. Bauer still thinks of it as a theology.

No, Marx sees it as a natural part of a bourgeois society. In other words, religion, he means the economic and experience existence of predatory Jews, the Talmudis. Because Marx knew that practical Judaism was huckstering, money, and profit seeking, rent seeking. Hence, Christians have become Jews. And ultimately, it's mankind, both, that needs to emancipate itself from this practical Judaism. Now, what does he mean by that? it's another way of saying that Jews have leveraged their financial power

to alter the basic moral code of the societies in which they live. They were the revolutionary core. It didn't matter if it was capitalist or socialist. You know, in poor Russia, they were the core of the Bolsheviks in 1917. They were the core of the oligarchs in 1992. You know, when you introduce dishonest, fraudulent business tactics, into society, well, Gentiles just can't sit there. They have to respond.

It's not a prejudice. This is why Jews get kicked out. So Draper says something like, there is no longer any economic basis for distinguishing between Jew and Gentile, hence no room for legal discrimination between them. Now, Draper thinks that that's Marx's argument for emancipation. He means something a little bit more than that. Society has been Judaized.

It didn't just happen. revolution, you know, the bourgeois revolution just put a stamp on it. The key element is that the influence of the Jews created what we call capitalism, economic modernity. Although I do note here that some persecution, as we talked about with Solzhen, some persecution is necessary for the Jews. They need it. Not too much of it. We saw what their very distorted view of the pogroms meant in Russia. it created a unified Jewish body that didn't exist before, or not nearly to that extent.

So persecution, to exaggerate it, it's absolutely essential. Remember, all the things, all the restrictions in Russia that we've spoken of came from very specific reasons. It didn't just happen. They didn't just write them in there for fun. Firstly, it was because of their dishonest business practices. Then, later, it was their revolutionary violence. the concept of commerce

changed at this period of time. Marx is looking at the Jews here, but in a good way, you know, Jews could charge interest to the strangers, that is, you know, William, whoever, but not to each other. Sambart says that the entire modern conception of ego-driven profit-seeking

comes from the Jewish idea of how they treat non-Jews. Jews see the entire world as, as hostile. And their influence would then loosen the bonds of any kind of feudal duties and replace them with simple individualism. And that was totally foreign to Christian Europe. But Jews can't be talking like that today.

I also cite Hayam Makubi, another Jew. It's hard to find Gentile writers on this. I think a lot of them just don't understand it. because it is you know it's you have to spend a lot of time putting it together in your brain and this is just an example he says of Marx's early anti-Semitism Marx argues that the modern commercialized world is a triumph of Judaism a pseudo religion whose God is money well that's true it's exactly what he's saying here

but then he says well Marx was embarrassed by his Jewish background and used Jews as a yardstick of evil Now, he doesn't give any evidence of this, but that's, again, another very common theme in these articles written on this paper. If you're anti-capitalist, how do you avoid looking at the Jews? They clearly are in charge of huge chunks of capital, way out of proportion to their numbers.

So the only way out is a special pleading, pretending it's not there, cognitive dissonance. Now, Sombart did teach me something in the Jews in modern capitalism, which he wrote in 1911. The wealthiest Jews going back not only either were Talmudic scholars themselves or financed them. And he says on page 133, the most learned Talmudists were also the cleverest financiers, medical men, jewelers, merchants. We're told that some of the Spanish ministers of finance, bankers, and court physicians, that they devoted to the study of the Holy Rit, meaning the Talmud. Not only in the Sabbath's day, but also at least two nights of each week. Now, I went to a handful of writers like Jones have ever bothered to even talk about this.

Jones mentions it once or twice, not too much. Talking about it systematically is, you know, but sometimes it's kind of hard to see how this trajectory is going to go. How do you go from anti-Semite at the same time as being a Jewish revolutionary? and we have spoken of in the Shultanits and stuff, the nature of the Enlightenment, whether the Jewish Enlightenment or the Enlightenment in general. And we know the purpose to dissolve tradition, overthrow the monarchy, to destroy religion. So then when you apply it to Christianity, it makes them Jews. Judaism, and I agree with E. Michael Jones, it's their essence is a rejection of logos.

And that culminates by definition and revolution, the healing of the world. the German Enlightenment gave birth the Jewish revolutionary mentality. We talked about in Solzhenitsyn how these shuttles very quickly, once they were abolished, became revolutionary communist cells, bringing about the state in the USSR. And I love that E. Michael Jones says,

you know, when the German Enlightenment affected the Jews, it led to assimilation in the first generation and socialism in the second. Christianity, didn't dissolve into universal human consciousness, as Bauer thought it might, but a Christian who is placed in this environment becomes a Jew. Thus, in Marx's world, they're capable of becoming emancipated. They all were entitled, egoistic, alienated individuals. Both would attain true freedom. Only a society liberated from Judaism, Karl Marx says, using the phrase the

preconditions of huckstering. Again, it's the same thing. This is a nice way of saying the Jews, took over the morals of society and perverted it in their direction. Let me quote Marx again in this and the Jewish question. The Christian state can behave towards the Jew only in a way characteristic of the Christian state, that is by granting privileges, by permitting the separation of the Jew from the other subject, making him feel the pressure of all the other separate spirits of society, and feel all the more intensely because he's in religious opposition to the dominant religion. But the Jew, too, can behave towards the state only in a Jewish way,

that is by treating as something alien to him, by counterposing his imaginary nationality to the real nationality, by counterposing his illusory law to the real one, by dimming himself justified and separating himself from mankind, by abstaining on principle from taking part

in any historical movement, by putting his trust in a future, which has nothing in common of the future of mankind in general, by seeing himself as a member of the Jewish people, the Jewish people as a chosen people. Quake, that goes away, though, when you make Jews out of everybody,

which, you know, a Freemasonry was supposed to do. The Jewish way, of course, is we all know. We all know how they view Goim. At best, they're to be led to the Enlightenment, you know, or push to the Enlightenment, sometimes by force, or at worst, there to be neutralized entirely. Of course, here we're talking about, you know, proto-Germany, for the most part, Lutheran.

The Jews saw themselves both as separate and superior, They can't be given abstract rights. They're only granted privileges. Now, Marx goes on to talk about the French Revolution and what a right might be. The French Revolutionary doctrine says in the rights of man, Article 6, liberty is the power which man has to do everything that does not harm the rights of others, which is quite a defective view of what freedom is. But we take it for granted.

I mean, Americans take it for granted today. is the absence of restraint. The truth is that that's the removal of Christian principles. That's the restraint. And that permitted the explosion of greed that empowered a new class of capitalist oligarchs and hence Jewish wealth. Political emancipation to him means,

he's writing about the French Revolution, is the overthrow of the French monarchy, and of course the church that went with it. And he writes about the French Revolution, he also means not just the church and the state, but also the guilds and the estates. What's left? The ego, the individual. That leads to materialism, but that's a needed step on a road to capitalist revolution.

And then, at some point, the socialist one. The rights of man are abstract. They're not universals. They're abstractions. Now, socialism is a different story. They have to destroy religion. It always interested me. Russia of all places had functioning in a broad definition of the term socialist institution.

The commune itself, the Artel, the monastery, the Brotherhood of the Holy Cross, all of these kind of things. That was the first thing to be destroyed. The Jewish element of it added something different. This is what Prudhon had such a problem with it. It adds this hate-filled element to it. Now, the revolution, of course, ultimately you really can't talk about the state at all. and certainly can't talk about abstractions like rights. And obviously, free trade is what, you know, free trade affects less, not just commodities.

It affects labor prices too. Labor then competes with one another. So that means, for the libertarians, the highest degree of general competition leads by the same necessity to drive the workers' wages down to the lowest possible level. That ultimately is a goal of free trade. It leads to misery, and according to Marx, that's absolutely necessary for revolution. So what does freedom mean then? To the proletarian, this imaginary body, imaginary unit who lacks the resources

to do much of anything, how can he approach the What does freedom mean to remain like this? When he signs a contract, are they equal parties? Neighbor unions were destroyed, the guilds were destroyed, the estates were destroyed. Now, I'm going to get to the heart of the matter here. this is what this is what people either pro or con take out of the jewish question here's what mark says and they kind of summarize what we've been saying so far let's consider the actual worldly jew not the religious jew the sabbath jew as bower 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 jew what's a secular basis of Judaism, practical need, self-interest. What's the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstring. His God is money. An organization of society, which would abolish the preconditions for Huckstring, and therefore the possibility of Huxring would make the Jew impossible. We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development, to which this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed, has been brought to the present level at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.

In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he's acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power. And the practical Jewish spirit

has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as Christians have become Jews. That sentence is the core of the book, or of the essay. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. So Marx is very clear. Judaism cares about that, not the mystifications of the synagogue, he doesn't care about that. The real Jew, he lives in service to Mammon.

Jews have poisoned Christian life. So Christians are most of them have become materialists. Christians have become Jews. Emancipation, because it's just an abstraction, that would unleash total huckstring. It's a dominant norm. Rights are abstract, but the real Jew is not. Let me continue. This is what Mark says again in the same essay.

The monotheism of the Jew, therefore, is in reality the polytheism of the many physical needs, a polytheism which makes even the lavatory an object of divine law. Of course, he's talking about the Talmud. Practical need, egoism, it's a principle of civil society, and as such appears in pure form. As soon as civil society has fully given birth to the political state. Money is a jealous god of Israel. The faith which no other God may exist, money degrades all the gods of man, turning them into commodities.

Money is a universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world, both the world of men and nature, of a specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man's work and man's existence, and this alien essence dominates the Jew, and he worships it. The God of the Jews has become secularized and has become the God of the world. The Bill of Exchange is a real God of the Jew. His God is only the illusory bill of exchange.

The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for and practical debasement of nature. In the Jewish religion, nature exists. It's true, but it exists only in their imagination. Now, those two quotes that I just, when anyone talks about it kind of from our side, that's what they bring up. Because they're pretty surprised to hear stuff like that. But what Marx is saying is that, you know, Judaism is not a religion. It's almost a cover for everything.

It's a revolutionary doctrine. You know, people like Draper, it's a dynamic spirit of the present, the spirit of practical rationality in private gain, which is just another word for British free trade. imperialism. A lot of people don't realize it isn't just, you know, even right up until almost the 20th century, the concept of competition in the way that we think of the term in the economic marketplace was something very foreign to European cities. I want to quote Werner Sombard here. To take away your neighbor's customers was contemptible, un-Christian and immoral, a rule for merchants who trade in commodities was turn no man's customers away from him either by word of

mouth or by letter and do not another what you would not have another note do to you it was however more than a rule it became an ordinance it's met with over and over again in may hence the wording is as follows no one shall prevent another from buying or by offering a higher price make a commodity dearer or more expensive on pain of losing his purchase no one shall interfere in another's business undertaking or carry out his own on so large a scale as to ruin the other traders. And Saxony's the same thing. No shopkeeper can call away the customers from another shop, nor shall he be signed by signs or emotions, keep them from buying.

Even having a sign outside your shop was out of the question. Advertising was out of the question. It was stability, not profit. That was the ideal of European commerce. advertising was vulgar. That was something also brought in by Jewish traders. And in Sombard cites a huge number of local laws and ordinances from 17th century, 18th century in Europe. But wherever the Jews became more numerous, more powerful, more wealthy, they were able to uproot that system.

That was Mark's response to Bauer. the feudal must give way to the mercantile or the capitalist. That's a necessary step to revolution before socialism could even be considered. And Jews were a central element to both transitions. Essentially, it was a non-inquisitive society, almost impossible for us to really understand. I mean, isn't that just because we've been completely Judaized, as he said? I mean, there's, you can say what you want about Marx. his analysis is correct in in much of this and sombart's book jews and modern capitalism is

important to understand this that there is nothing we do in finance or in business that that isn't jewish we take it for granted it all comes from them and we praise it because we've been told that people in the middle ages or people um people 500 years ago well you know they had no happiness. They were slaves. They were they were slaves on the land. They didn't own their land. Yada yada. You had to have the black plague in order to have private, private ownership of property. And I mean, you can find just as many historians to say this is complete nonsense. Yeah. I don't even think they know how to conceive of it. It took me a while to be able to put it together in in my, in my brain. Because we remember conservatives, you know, when I was, you know,

17, 18, I got into the conservative movement. Capitalist competition was a wonderful thing. We had to read Adam Smith. This was a great thing, not realizing just how viciously revolutionary was. Yeah, it might work in a small town where everyone knows everybody, which is really the perfect capitalist hypothetical situation that Adam Smith has in mind. But now we're talking about national and supernational scales. Sambart says a peasant had his land the town dweller his customers in either case there were the source when sprang his livelihood in either case they were of a size sufficient for his purpose hence the trader had to be short of his custom and many were the ordinances which guarded him against competition it was basically commercial etiquette he says competition was therefore out of the question even look in your neighbor's direction was a problem it was stability

Marx and that's why I bring up Sambard in this paper. I knew I had to. Otherwise, you can't really make sense out of it. What does Karl Marx mean where Christians have become Jews? And you see how people like Hal Draper have tried to reverse it. Like, this is perfectly normal for Christians. They're rich and inquisitive Christians too, right? And either he doesn't know or he doesn't care.

That wasn't the case by and large. Not that long ago. So what Karl Marx generally says, along right with Sombard, many years later, profit seeking at the expense of another was a Jewish practice that spreads to the rest of society. And that's what Sombard has shown. Let me quote Marx again from, you know, part two of Judean Fraga or Jewish question. Christianity is a sublime thought of Judaism. Judaism is a common practical application of Christianity.

But this application can only become general after Christianity as a developed religion, had completed theoretically the estrangement of man from himself and from nature. Only then could Judaism achieve universal dominance and make alienated man and alienated nature into endable, vendable, sellable objects subject to slavery of egoistic need and to trading. Selling is a practical aspect of alienation. Just as man, as long as he's in a grip of religion, is able to objectify his essential nature,

only by turning it into something alien, something fantastic, so under the dominion of egoistic need, he could be active practically and produce objects in practice, only by putting his products and his activity under the dominion of an alien being, bestowing the significance of an alien entity money on them. Religion for Marx is alienating because it involves transferring the essence of man, which came from Forerbach onto some entity. For Jews, though, they did the same thing. Instead, that entity was money.

So when their power reaches a certain critical mass, you know, you have the reformation, especially Calvinism, moneymaking becomes almost a commandment, the scientific revolution coming from alchemy and the cabala. You know, it posited man as ruling nature, not as a part of it. Judaism took a huge, you know, in Calvin and the Puritans, this is Judaized semi-Christianity. And Marx continues.

In its perfected practice, Christian egoism of heavenly bliss is necessarily transformed into corporeal egoism of the Jew. Heavenly need is turned into world need, subjectivism, into self-interest. He explained the tenacity of the Jew, not by his religion, but on the contrary, by the human basis of his religion, practical need, egotism. Since in civil society, the real nature of the Jew has been universally realized and secularized, civil society could only not convince the Jew of the unreality of his religious nature, which is indeed just the ideal aspect of his practical need. But people still stubbornly see it as a theology. Once the Jew comes out of his, you know, not nonsense and totally dominates the society, it creates the conditions for what

he calls a miseration for Gentile workers. A miseration, meaning bringing them to such a point of misery that they can't function anymore and revolution is almost assured. What came to my mind, there is? Yeah. The Gentiles that brag about working 16 hours a day and how hard they work. Where did that come from? Oh, that's, is that the Protestant work ethic? Oh, okay. Maybe think about that. Then out of that came, um, masonry. And out of that came the scientific revolution and then the industrial revolution. Um, you know, I think the reason that, Jews or a socialist of all types can't handle this document. It is because it is an accurate portrayal of the Machiavellian economic thought and action of the Jews at the time and among Gentiles in general.

That's why the secondary literature is almost overwhelmingly in the hands of Jewish authors. Usually they can't even contain their emotion. The Jew changed the moral economy of Christian Europe. This is part of Marx's whole philosophy of history. Let me quote Sambard again, and this is why it's so important to quote him relative to Karl Marx on the Jews and complaints against the Jews. He says, now in a community where quality was regulated, the only effective means of achieving this end, economic dominance, was price cutting. He shall therefore not be surprised to find Jews availing themselves of this weapon. We shall see that it was just this that made them so disliked among Christian traders whose economic outlook was all for maintaining prices.

the Jew undersells, the Jew spoils prices, the Jew tries to attract customers by low prices, artificially low prices. That was the burden of the complaints heard in the 17th and 18th centuries, wherever Jews did business. That concept was completely foreign to Christian society. Then by the time Charles Darwin built the survival of the fittest, that was music to the years of these people. Charles Darwin had far more significance than Adam Smith on capitalism.

And of course, Carl Marx was a huge devotee of Darwin. So I bring Sambard into this only because he just piles on the evidence that through most of Christian European history, what we take for granted, the competition and advertising and underselling and stuff like that was not just not the norm. me it was a horrible thing to do to somebody um poland he talks about the swedest part he has so many examples here there's no denying it brandenburg frankfort magabird um um you know it's the exact same thing over and over again um and he quotes so many people in the supplication of augsburg in the 19th century wholesale merchants against the admission of the jews it says that the jews understand how to derive advantages from the general depression of trade. They obtain goods

from people who need money badly at shameful prices, then spoil the market by selling them at a cheaper rate. That seems kind of, well, most people, that's not what you do. Evil drove out the good because while being good is difficult, and evil was very well organized. It was a moral economy and it gave way to capitalism and free trade. The stages of revolution, and of course, Bolivism, the Jewish left, took over entirely. That's because the ego was set free that couldn't have come into existence had the Enlightenment and British free trade not become the norm. And it's interesting. We said, well, how did the Jews, how could they be underselling all the time? Well, one, they were taken often by dishonest means. How many times did I say in Russia,

the Jews functioned as a mafia organization? They rarely paid taxes. They hid from the census. Second, cheap goods came from the fire sales. You know, once a debtor is liquidated. And three, inferior quality. People were talking about the inferior quality of their products they tried to hide using advertising and PR to manipulate the buyer. The mafia concept, that's how they operate. And Russia became a science. And the only thing that keeps that from becoming known is their control over the press and the legal profession,

all brought about by what Marx calls. political emancipation. Now, we have to stop here. The rest of my paper on this is not necessarily connected with the Jewish question, Marxist Jewish question. My point is that even leftists, you know, here's what Bakunin says. And again, the founder of anarchism in Russia. Yeah, well, I shouldn't say, Prudhon, Pratkin, Bakunin, there were the three founders. of anarchism. Bakunin writes on the study of the German Jews, he said, the Jewish sect constitutes a veritable power in Europe. It reigns despotically in commerce and banking, has invaded

three quarters of German journalism and a very significant part of the journalism of other countries. Then woe to him, who makes the mistake of displeasing it. Now, that actually was quoted disapprovingly by Draper in his article. And Bakunen said that Marx and Lenin, marks and Engels were on the Rothschildoil payroll. He said it many times. That's why he got kicked out of the first international. But now you have a man of Karl Marx's stature, Bakunen's stature, as far as the left is concerned,

saying this kind of thing. He said, he said a Pekunin says, himself a Jew, Marx has around him in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews everywhere. Commercial, banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondence for newspapers, one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement.

Now this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of bloodsuckers, a single gluttonous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders, but across all differences of political opinion. The Jewish world today stands at the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. That may seem strange, but Coonan asked. But there can be in common between communism and the large banks.

the communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail. Now, Bakunin is not a nobody. He's one of the major names in early anarchism. You come across, and the Antifa claims to be anarchists, generally speaking. I don't think they came across this. But leftist anti-Jewish thinking

terrifies the Jews. In fact, most of the founders of the main Jewish-leftist schools in this era talk like this. Leftist anti-Semitism is a Jewish nightmare. PJ Prudan, I will end here. PJ Prudhomme, who actually came up with the word anarchism

to describe his movement. I always liked them. He's an atheist, but everything else he pretty solid. He also created the phrase property is theft. Now, this was only a note to himself. December 26, 1847, he's saying, you know, this is like a note. It says, write an article. He's talked to himself. Write an article against the race that poisons everything by sticking its nose into everything without ever mixing with any other people. Demandist expulsion from France. Abolished synagogues. Don't let them into any employment. Demand this expulsion. Pursue the

abolition of this religion. It's not without cause that the Christians call them deosons. The Jews the enemy of man. The Jew must disappear by steel or by fusion or by expulsion. The hatred of the Jewish should be our first article of political faith. I don't think anarchists know this about their founders. This means that the founders of the socialist left in the 19th century, Prudholm, Marx, and Bakunan. all have come to the same conclusions. Even Moses has, despite, you know, he says the exact same thing. I have him, so we don't have time, but he wrote an essay in 1845, same time Marks wrote his,

or a year after, called the essence of money. He says pretty much the same thing. The main minds, the 19th century that created what we call the left, all say the same thing regarding the role of Jews and capitalism, their takeover public morals. So when we say those things, but we're just saying what you said, you know,

100 or so years ago, maybe 150 years ago. Yet for people like Hess and Marx, the way ahead was to increase the power of the, what did they call money wolves, to reduce their proletariat to hopeless poverty,

and then take advantage of their alienation to take over the mass of animals because that's what has said entirely and call it a labor paradise. Pruton did. didn't give a damn about emancipation. In fact, he came very close to defining anarchism, and he's the one who came up with the word,

as freedom from usury. And Bakunan was very close. And I bring this up because this is exactly what Marx was talking about. All of this, in his mind, is a positive thing, though. I guess the only big difference. Don't pretend the Jew isn't anything than what he is. But without the Jew, of course, future revolution is impossible.

Capitalism is revolutionary. Free trade is meant to destroy national borders, meaning ethnicity, mix everyone up. The Jewish element is very important, as we know, that Rothschild is in Britain. And then once the proletariat becomes the norm in their miserable condition, then at some point, you'll have Bolshevism. You know, one of the things that people listening to this will say, because this is all coming from the left, is that, well, you know, that undercutting of prices and making things cheaper, that just made people on the ground wealthier. That just made the average man. The average man now could have things that only wealthy people could have before, you know, without asking at what cost. because you're just it's when you take that route it's purely materialistic when the metaphysical

disappears family disappears a coherent society and culture disappears because all you have to do is look around i mean where's the coherent where's the you know where's the coherent society where is the the love of family and caring about where you came from when, you know, if you inherit your family land, you're willing to sell it to the highest bidder so you can go and live in the best zip code, you know, that you're told on TV is where you want to live, then people will, you know, admire you. People just don't take into consideration. They think that what I'm saying right now is complete like socialism and leftism. They think that there's a black and a white, that there's socialism and there's capitalism and that there's absolutely no in between.

Well, no, it's both of them need to be a, there's another way. There are many other ways, but you just don't understand it because this is what you've been taught. And you've been taught by this group. I mean, you know, to say that they control everything is, it's a bad argument. And it's an argument that your enemies make against you, that they'll use, that Jews will use against you.

They'll be like, oh, you say we control everything. We don't control everything. You don't have to control. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You don't have to control everything if you have people, if if you're overrepresented in certain places no one's saying that you know the average Jew who's just going to work back and forth and is watching Seinfeld reruns at night is controlling

is controlling anything they may vote poorly or you know whatever but this is if you don't understand if you don't read like what Sombart wrote and what and even what marks wrote here. You don't understand what your predicament is right now and where we are and why you're fighting so hard to keep the status quo or basically you're trying to make their system better. Socialism in general up until Marx and even afterwards, socialism was a right-wing phenomenon. Capitalism was revolutionary. There was nothing. You know, if we can picture the factory in 18 50 in London. I don't think people comprehend the evil. How many kids were killed there? Because they were, you know, I trial labor and everything else. This is a cost of modernity.

It was Thomas Carlyle. It was the royalist, the social monarchists. You had national social, nationalists of all stripes going back even before the Industrial Revolution, opposing the scientific revolution opposing the rule of money as time went on the industrial revolution the time this was written no one could deny that that the factory system was evil no one could possibly see that system and think that this is good um and the agrarian movement the royalists you know the the monastic all of this um russia produced so much of it and i've talked about it at great length of brotherhood of the holy cross is one of my one of my favorites but because of a certain level of control over academic life,

well, I don't like capitalism, therefore I have to become a Marxist or maybe an anarchist because there's nothing else. And that's wrong on two levels. Number one, there are not opposites. And number two, I mean, no one exploited. The same factory system existed in the Soviet Union with far greater levels of exploitation, far greater levels. You'd had no days off in the late Leninist and Stalinist era.

It was absolutely vicious. And they tried to turn in the collective system in the countryside to make even the farm life of factory. That's what the collective farm was. Everything was to be mechanized. Everything was to be a big robotic machine. That's not, you know, Nothing changed in that regard.

So there are certainly not opposite. The other reason is that there are so many other options that you have no access to. There's so many great, right, me, Thomas Carlisle just comes to mind because he was, God, I spent a lot of time talking about them, both the east and the west, so many great writers condemning this system. Chesterton for that matter. Didn't Spengler compare the city to the army barracks where you're just, you're just there, you live in this barracks and then you go to work and good luck,

good luck getting home. Well, yeah, that was their life of the proletarian, yeah. Yeah, you're just as liable to die on the job as you would on the battlefield. Yeah, it's called human sacrifice. Yeah. Yeah. And that's the cost of all this. Yeah. And if people don't realize that that is what that Marx was right and that was going to lead to what he wanted in the end, well, look around you. Just because you can still own a house and go on vacation doesn't mean we're not, you know, headlong, heading, you know, going right into exactly what Marx wanted.

because we're you know mark said that capitalism was needed to be there needed to exist to completely de-rassonate people from their families from their religions from everything and here we are and that and that that was that was you know Marx's point that's why he was so in favor of free trade and I mean he knew he was a Jew of course but he acts like he's you know above it all and he he says um you know the Jews are absolutely necessary because, you know, and he's, because he's making fun of them. He's trying to, he's trying to show that, you know, they're not who they say they are, obviously. But you recall, this is really, and he mentions it in a few other places, but not many.

And there is simply no way to be honest and not notice the fact that capitalism, that huge chunks of financial, even industrial capital, whatever that's left in the West, is in the hands of Jewish financiers. you know, 2% of the population. There's no getting out of that. Here's the last sentence of my paper on this. And I say today's Jews and leftist professors in general have become intellectually soft because they never have to even answer a question as to whether or not any of this is true.

Screaming anti-Semitism is an argument in and of itself. And the EU, the law is clear. One goes to prison for even mentioning these issues. In the mainstream economic world, Jewish academics and public intellectuals never have to worry about refuting these charges or anything else like this, they never hear them. They know them only through caricature. This means they're not only intellectually lazy, hiding behind walls of law enforcement and censorship, but they also have a very narrow view of the world around them. Then soon, they assume their ideology is incontrovertible fact, since they have access to nothing else. unfortunately historical reality doesn't bend that easily

so the Jewish question ultimately is a Jewish role not so much in the socialist revolution but in the capitalist one Judaism is not a religion get rid of that concept he says Bauer makes that huge mistake Judaism is about the revolutionizing of the entire society. That's what free trade and capitalism is. That's why I had to talk about Sambar. And it took me a while to put the two together. Wait, this is exactly what Sambart's talking about.

I'm pretty sure I'm the first one to ever bring those together in that regard. Because in the Jewish question, that's exactly what Marx is saying. They've turned the moral economy into a Jewish one. They've turned Christians into Jews. And that's really the point. Now, of course, you know, There is nothing non-socialist about the Bolsheviks. Lennon was a Marxist. He knew Marx very well, intellectually speaking. There's no reason to believe that it wasn't real socialism. I hate that argument.

And if you ever hear it, you just say, well, this is a real capitalism then. Anyone could say that. Now, it's exactly what Marx wanted, as Bakunin said. Total centralization. but to think that Marxism and postmodern capitalism are opposites is absolutely absurd. They're the same enlightenment ideology. I think the Soviets spent more time physically punishing people while in the West psychologically do it.

I'm not sure which is worse, although the physical part is getting, worse as as time goes on. And I think the psychological part may last longer. So that's my understanding of Karl Marx's on the Jewish question, its purpose, and why I think we have to bring people like Sombard into it to explain Marx's statement that Christians have become Jews. And that's exactly what Marx means by that. All right. Well, we will be back to our regular programming in a couple of days of recording 200 years together. But in the meantime, as I always do, go to the show notes on this and to the video of the video descriptions of 200 years together. And yeah, support Dr. Johnson's work. He's not only is this an incredible.

essay that he he shared with us today. But, you know, the continuing 200 years together series is a, you know, it has been described to me by numerous people. It is the college course that they wish they would have gotten on history and how we got here. And a, you know, a certain group that holds sway over power and wealth and influence and propaganda and everything. You know, they have their hands are in all the pies. It's impossible to, it's impossible at this point not to see it. In order to, in order to not see it now, you just have to be such a good person, and I'm using air quotes there, that it is unseemly to mention it or you think you're benefiting by it,

and you actually celebrate it. And my paper, you can upload my paper so that anyone could just download it too, right? Absolutely. I will. Okay. All right. So go support Dr. Johnson's work, and we'll be back in a couple of days with the next episode of 200 years together.

See you then.