Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the Peak Kinyonas show dot 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 yourself sack or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road 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 pekan yonasshow
dot 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 doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together
and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are
doing together on kindinal philosophy, it's all because of you.
And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank
you enough. So thank you. The pekan Yonashow dot com.
Everything's there. I want to welcome everyone back to the
pekan yonas show. Well this is different. We're not here
to read two hundred years together. We're here to talk
about something else. How are you doing, dotor Johnson?
Speaker 2: You know 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 or
a social body wanted 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 tried He
I wasn't sure if he was feeling left out or
if he was 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, no, you know
so I this is not guitar or anybody else.
Speaker 1: Yeah. This is in reference to apparently doctor Johnson didn't
know about the whole Katari meme where where all the
the new the hasbra for the last six months to
a year has been that, No, it's actually Qatar and
not Israel and not Jews. It's Katari's and not Jews.
Who all of the United States government because you know, uh,
you know, the actpack is the biggest you know, has
a babysitter for every congressman. And you know the Katari's
control Hollywood and the porn industry and banking and and
the press. So yeah, yeah, so.
Speaker 2: Yes, I'm proud to have been unaware of that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right. Well the reason I asked you to
come on today was about a month ago. You you
did an article and then you talked about it on
your show about Karl Marx is uh a jew? How
do you pronounce a judenra?
Speaker 2: But on the Jewish question?
Speaker 1: Yeah, on the Jewish question. Yeah, and yep. I think
when the Jewish question is discussed mostly in our circles,
it's discussed from 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 from the far left. So you know, you can
start anywhere you want.
Speaker 2: Doctor 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 you know,
philosophy hadn't fully come together yet. And you know, we
don't have a lot of people who can properly interpret
it because I know, you know, I spent decades on
Hegel and but the relationship between Hegel and Marx is
is you know, minimal. But it's more foyerback in 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 weirdro atheist types. But talking about
what we've been talking about on the sultanies and stuff,
the nature of assimilation. So this is a very 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,
Prude Home, several others, founders of leftist movements, all were
vehemently opposed to the capital, the dominations the Jews had
over Europe. The statements that Karl Marx makes here are
only made by us anymore. 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 in the very beginning of
this of this paper, and I knew this was going
to be a hit. I know, people going to be
talking about this. I've got 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 literas
the secondary literature on this hasn't written by Jews. In fact,
it's very hard to come across either academic or popular,
you know, intellectual popular that's not it'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
how many anarchists in the streets know about prudhon Or
or about Kunin's views on the Jews, but it does
bear some connection to what we're talking about in Souls Andieds,
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 we don't have a full definition of this. They're
going to remain Jew And this is the whole question
that that Bauer brings up, and this is in response
to Bower'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 Machiavelians 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. He'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 destriptive by itself. It can refer to a
culture and ethnicity or religion 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 Mark says, it's
not possible, but we all know what that will mean
in practice. So that's what that's the marx Essential criticism.
There's no need to abolish any kind of religion with
political emancipation, 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 Nmarks thought were a matter of alienation. The state
also refers to the nation, not just the not just
the you know, 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 nationalists
political thought. Marxist early view. You know, the party would
absorb civil society, and that's where human amount of patient
would 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 citizship, nor is it a circumvention 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 strive
to achieve the liberation, the state can then 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 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, you
want to 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 that it would be Jewish community.
But in terms of thought, in terms of basic attitudes,
that all be thinking the same way. The 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 tea you know, Marx
was thirteen when Hegel died. Someone who was far closer
was Ludwig Fourierback, 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 couldn't 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 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 a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions.
It is the opium of the people, which is another
way of saying that if the revolution, religion would wither away.
And I'm always worried about the use of everyon 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,
you know, primitive communism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism. That's the linear, basic,
simplistic description of how history goes in the in the
Marxist 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 Marxist doesn't have an identity. So Karl Marx was
vehemently opposed to any like you know list and others Affiicta,
who was course earlier, who wanted any tariffs on Prussia
later Germany, and he talked about sovereignty to Marx 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 passions.
It justifies oligarchy. E. Michael Jones wrote in one of
my favorite books of his back in twenty fourteen, and
we say bourgeois revolution, we mean, you know, the French Revolution,
English Revolution before it, eighteen forty eight, etc. Anything. But
what happened in nineteen seventeen bourgeois revolutions allowed the rapacious
capitalists 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
it was certain Luthering, 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 marks come from? He kind of exploded on
to the scene. As Bakunin will say, he had roth
trail money to do it. Only the only the international
version of socialism is called socialism today, not all the
other you know, left nationalism and evilism, 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 the rapaciousness of the honigarchy, 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 the Marx Marx says here and 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. A list. Herder
Mueller fixed it in Germany, the Slava files 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 Sultanisen, but the proletarian is this group
of people and sociologically speaking, who had to leave the
village to go to the cities to work in the
new factories during and after the Industrial Revolution. Usually they
were alone. Their families were back, but that means that
they were subject to new temptations. They were cut off
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 twenty hours a day as
a worker. That level, that sort of person is what's
needed for the Socalis 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 as 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 in any connection with a working man. None of
them angles was a factory owner of all things, who
took advantage, who had mistresses who worked in his factories.
But it's precisely because they were in such a vulnerable
state that the party can kind of project whatever they
want on to them. That kind of alienation made them
perfect for this. And as Jones many others said, because
of Marx and 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, under selling, saying bad
things about your competition that was unknown in Europe up
until you know, or the late eighteenth century nineteen the
middle of the nineteenth 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 Mark says here,
and this is what gets them into trouble. And we'll
go into detail here in a little bit. What is
the worldly cult of the Jew huckstring? What is his
worldly god money? Now, Marxist don't talk like that. Marx
did as in all the founders of leftists movements. Angles
was very much aware given his position that Jewish emancipation
would mean the almost, you know, almost a Darwinian rule
of Jews over everyone else, or at least the total
exportation of the poor by the rich. Emancipation also meant
that they no longer had any of these revolution especially
in 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 element are always secondary to the ethnic element. Now,
his argument from hereon 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 complain I could picture these
young lefsist coming across as he allowed to say that
special connection between Judaism as a religion and today's economy,
whether it be eighteen forty five or twenty twenty five.
Free trade is extremely important for Karl Marx, and he
made his free trade in speech and Brussels in eighteen
forty eight, and he says this. He says, generally speaking,
the protective system he means tariffs in these days, is conservative,
while the free trade system works destructively. It breaks up
old nationalities and carries antagonism of prolitarian 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 Jukes. Now I talked
about projecting whatever they want onto this abstract proletarian. Here's
what Engels says. I quoted this actually from Baron Metal
twenty fourteen. The great mass of proletarians are up by
the very nature, free from national prejudices, and their whole
dispensation and movement to the essentially humanitarian anti nationalists order.
The proletarians can destroy nationality. Only the awakening proletarian can
bring about fratmization between different nations. This is what I
mean when I say that they're just projecting whatever they want.
He has no evidence for that. Jews. The biggest problem
we have that Jews monopolized 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, you know, the founder of socials,
but he was a Jew. He says this, He's now
he's talking about Bruno Bauer Bower's core argument that as
long as Jews remain Jewish, they are too consumed with
Jewish self interest in communalism to be worthy of full citizenship.
In in fact, 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 opption. And see, Jews were not hated because they
were misunderstood, since true understanding not ultimately ultimately 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, etc. Now, of course that's true.
Bauer doesn't even mention if this, or you know, Draper
does even wonder if this is true or false. It's
just anti Stomitic. It's as an argument argument in and
of itself. We all know why Jews were treated poorly
from time to time in Christmas and science. Now I
think Draper against 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 well,
Bauer echoed the general presidicial representation of the Jewish merchant
and money man March for Pulse 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. An other words, white pic on the Jews.
The practical spirit of Judaism is money making as power suggests.
This hardly distinguishes Jews from the greater array of non
Jewish entrepreneurs, merchants, bankers who have risen to ascend and
seeing a temporary society. The idea that the Jew is
fundamentally more rooted in money making than the Christian is
wrong headed. It's as wrongheaded as the idea of the
Jews 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 Rothchild family, played a
significant role as international bankers. But Marx insisted that this
progressive role played by Jews in the development of capitalism
was coming to an end. The practical spirit of money
making was as general as the growth of nation states,
national banks, and national capital. Now I'm saying that you know,
Vraper speaks for most Jews. This is a very common
way to approach this. The one thing he can handle
is that Jews created the modern commercial state. No matter
where we're analyzing, Jews come to control a huge share
of its mercantile trade, using debt to take huge amounts
of property to themselves from detters who go under. This
isn't prejudicial. This has been the direct experience of millions
all over Europe. International banking was the Ross style family.
In other words, if you're a socialist and you believe
that these kind of concentrations of capital and a few
hands are wrong, why are you ignoring the Jews? It's
all special pleading. But because socialism, ear 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. Bower still thinks of it
as a theology. No, Mark sees it as a natural
part of a bourgeois society. In other word, by religion
he means the economic and experience existence of predatory Jews etalmutus.
Because Marx knew that practical Judaism was huckstring 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 is 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,
didn't matter if it was capitalist or socialist. Yeah, in
poor Russia. They were the core of the Bolsheviks in
nineteen seventeen. They were the core of the Oligarchs in
nineteen ninety two. 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 maternity. Although I do note here
that some persecution, as we talked about with Silda Eats,
and some persecution is necessary for the Jews, they need it,
not too much of it. We saw what their very
distortive view of the programs 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, guyam whoever, but not to each other. Sombart
says that the entire modern conception of ego driven prophets
seeking comes from the Jewish idea of how they treat
non Jews. Jews sy the entire world is as hostile,
and their influence would then loosen the bonds of any
kind of feudal duties and repeat and replace them with
simple individualism. And that was totally foreign a Christian Europe.
But Jews can't be talking like that today. I also
cite Hiam Makubi, another Jew. It's hard to find gentile
writers on this, and I think a lot of them
just don't understand it because it is, you know, it's
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 antisemitism. Marx argues that the
modern commercialized world as a triumph of Judaism, a pseudo
religion who's got his 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 use Jews as
a yardstick of evil. Now he doesn't give any evidence
of this, but that's again another very common theme in
the these articles written on this paper. If you're anti capitalist,
how do you avoid looking at the Jews? There 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 their cognitive dissonance. Now,
Sombart did teach me something in the Jews of Modern Capitalism,
which he wrote nineteen eleven. The wealthiest Jews going back
not only either either were tumultus scholars themselves or finance them,
and he says on page one thirty three, the most
learned talmudusts were also the cleverest financiers, medical men, jewelers, merchants.
Were told that some of the Spanish ministers of finance, bankers,
and court physicians that they devoted to the study of
the Holy Writ, meaning the Talmud, not only in the
Sabbath day, but also at least two nights of each week. Now,
I went to some 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 Sultan Eats 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 with E.
Michael Jones. It's their essence is a rejection of logos,
and that culminates by definition and revolution of the world.
The German Enlightenment gave birth to the Jewish revolutionary mentality
we talked about in Schultants, and how these shuttles very
quickly once they were abolished, became revolutionary communist cells, bringing
about the state and the US A song and I
love that you, Michael Jones says. You know, when the
German Enlightenment affected the Jews, it led to as 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 Marxist world, they're capable of becoming emancipated.
They all were entitled, egoistic, alienated individuals. Both would attain
true feed fruit only in society liberated from Judaism. Carl
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
this in 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 a religious
opposition to the dominant religion. But the Jew, too, can
behave towards the state only in a Jewish way, that is,
by treating a something alien to him, by counterposing his
imaginary nationality to the real nationality, by counterposing his illusory
law to the real one, by demming himself justified, and
separating himself from mankind, by abstaining on principle from taking
part in any historical movement, by putting his trust in
the future which has nothing in common the future of
mankind in general, by seeing himself as a member of
the Jewish people, the Jewish people as chosen people. Quake
that goes away, though, when you make Jews out of everybody,
which you know, if freemationary was supposed to do the
Jewish way. Of course, as we all know, we all
know how they view going. At best, they're there to
be led to the Enlightenment, you know, or pushed to
the enlightenment sometimes by fours, 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. March 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 six, 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 there's 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 as a different story. They
have to destroy religion. It always interested me, you know,
rush of all places had functioning in the broad definition
of the term socialist institution, the commune itself, the artell,
the monastery, the Brotherhood of the Holy Cross, all of
these kinds of things. That was the first thing to
be destroyed. The Jewish element of it added something different,
and this is what Proudhone had such a problem with it.
It adds this hate field element to it. Now, the revolution,
of course, ultimately 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 life,
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 worker's 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, this imaginary unit, who lacks
the resources to do much of anything. How can he
approach the What does freedom mean to a mainline this
when he signed a contract? Are they equal parties? Neighbor
unions were destroyed, the guilds were destroyed, the estates were destroyed.
Now I'm gonna get to the heart of the matter here.
This is what people, either pro or Khan take out
of the Jewish question. Here's what Mark says, and the
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 and
his religion, but let us look for the secret of
his religion in the Jew what's the 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
have bollished the preconditions for huckstring, and therefore the possibility
of huckstring would make the Jew impossible. We recognize in
Judaism therefore a general antisocial element 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. I wish 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 into far as
the Christians have become Jews. That sentence is the core
of the Book of the Essay. The Jews have emancipated
themselves in so far as the Christians have become Jews.
So Marx is very clear Judaism cares about that, not
the mystification 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 right to raps tract. 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 talked about the Talmud practical
need egoism. It's the 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 wish to know
whether God may exist. Money to grades all the gods
of man turn 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 its 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 the secularized, has become secularized, and has
become the God of the world. The Bill of exchange
is the real God of the jew Is God is
only the illusiony 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 Mark's is saying is that,
you know, Judaism is not a religion. It's almost to
cover for everything. It's a revolutionary doctrine. You know, people
like drapers, the dynamic spirit of the present the spirit
of practical rationality in private game, which is just another
word for British free trade, oligarchy, imperialism. A lot of
people don't realize it isn't just you know, even right
up right up uti. Almost the twentieth 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, take
away your neighbour's customers was contemptible on Christian and the moral.
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 or another what
you would not have another note due to you. It was, however,
more than a rule. It became an ordinance, with over
and over again in Mayen's the Warding as as follows.
No one shall prevent another from buying, or, by offering
a higher price, make a commodity deer 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
In Saxony. It'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 Sombart cites a huge number of local laws and
ordinances from seventeenth century eighteenth century 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 capitalists.
That's a necessary step to revolution before socialism could even
be considered, and Jews were a central element of both transitions. Essentially,
it was a non inquisitive society, almost impossible for us
to really understand.
Speaker 1: I mean, it 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 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
tell you, for granted, it all comes from them, and
we praise it because we've been told that people in
the Middle Ages, or people people five hundred years ago, well, yeah,
they had no happiness. They were slaves, They were slaves
on the land. They didn't own their land. Ya da 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 as say this is
complete nonsense.
Speaker 2: 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 my brain because we remember conservatives.
You know, when I was, you know, seventeen eighteen, I
got into the conservative movement. A capitalist competition was a
wonderful thing. We had to read Adam Smith. You know,
this was a great thing, really not realizing just how
viciously revolutionary it was. Yeah, it might work, you know
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.
Sombart says, the peasant had his land, the town dweller
his customers. In neither case there was a source went
spraying his livelihood. In neither case they were of a
scien 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 the you know, And that's why I
bring up Sombart in this in this paper. I knew
I had to, Otherwise you can't really make sense out
of it. What does car marks mean? Where you know,
Christians have become Jews, and you see how people like
how draper of tried to reverse it like this is
perfectly normal for Christians to be well, how they're rich
and acquisitive Christians too, right, And either he doesn't know
or he doesn't care that that wasn't the case by
and large, not that long ago. So what Karl Marx
generally says, along right with Sombart, many years later, prophet
seeking at the expense of another was a Jewish practice
that spreads to the rest of society. And that's what
Sombart has shown. Let me quote Marx again from you know,
part two of zer Judean Frog or a Jewish question.
Christianity is a sublime thought of Judaism. Judaism is a
common practical application of Christianity. This application has only become
general after Christianity has 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 alienable, vendable, sellable objects subject to slavery
of egoistic need, into 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 miminion 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 fore Ibach,
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, for all you know, you
have the Reformation, especially Vinism, money making becomes almost a
commandment the scientific revolution coming from alchemy in the Kabbalah,
you know, a positive man as ruling nature, not as
a part of it. Judaism took a huge uh, 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 the corporeal egoism of
the Jew. Heavenly needs turned into world need, subjectivism into
self interest. We explain 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 secondarized, civil society can only could not convince
the Jew of the unreality of his religious nature. This
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
bringing them to such a point of mystery that they
can't function anymore. And revolution is almost assured.
Speaker 1: What came to my mind right there is Yeah, the
gentiles that brag about working sixteen hours a day and
how hard they work. Where did that come from? Uh?
That's is that the Protestant work ethic. Oh okay, maybe
think about that.
Speaker 2: Then out of that came mation ring, and out of
that came the scientific revolution and then the industrial revolution.
You know. I think the reason that Jews are socialists
of all types can't handle this document they is because
it is an accurate portrayal of the Machiavelian 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 change the moral economy
of Christian Europe. This is part of Marx's whole philosophy
of history. Let me quote Sombard again, and this is
why it's so important to quote him relative to Karl Marx.
On the Jews 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.
We shall therefore not be surprised to find Jews availing
themselves of this weapon. You 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
under sells, 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 seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries wherever Jews did business with that concept was
completely foreign to Christian society. And then by the time
Charles Darwin, you know, built The Survival of the Fittest,
That was music for 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 some Bard into this only because he
just piles on the evidence that through most of you know,
Christian European history, what we take for granted, the competition
and advertising and underselling and stuff like that, it was
not just not the norm. It was it was a
horrible thing to do to somebody. Poland he talked about
the sweetest part. He has so many examples here, there's
no denying it. Brandenburg, Frankfurt, Magaburg. You know, it's the
exact same thing over and over again. And he quotes
so many people. In the supplication of Augsburg in the
nineteenth 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 obtained goods from
people who need money badly at changeful prices, then spoil
the market by selling them at a cheaper rate. That
seems kind of most people. It is 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 both of it 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. It's
interesting we said, well how did the Jews? How could
he 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 senses. 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 product, which they
tried to find using advertising in pr to manipulate the buyer.
The mafia concept, that's how they operate in 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 Bacunan says. And again the founder of anarchism
in Russia. Yeah, well, I shouldn't say prud Homin Bakunin.
There were the three founders of anarchism. Pacunin writes on
the study of the German Jews. He said, the Jewish
sect constitutes a veritable power in Europe. It rains despotically
in commerce and banking, has invaded three quarters of German journalism,
in a very significant part of the journalism of other countries.
Then woe to him who makes the mistake of displeasing it.
That actually was quoted disapprovingly by Draper and his article.
And Bakunin said that Marx and Lenin, Marx and Engels
were on the uh Roth Toronald 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, Bakunan's stature. Now, as far as far as
he left his concern saying this kind of thing, give it.
But Counan says himself, a Jew Marx has around him
in London France, but especially in Germany. A multitude of
more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews everywhere, commercial
banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents 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 a
political opinion the Jewish world today's and the most part
of the disposal of Marx, and at the same time
the disposal of Rothschild. That may seem strange, but Kunanas,
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 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, but Kunan
is not a nobody. He's one of the major names
in early anarchism. You come across, you know. 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.
Anti Semitism is a Jewish nightmare. PJ. Prude I will
end here. PJ. Prude Home who actually came up with
the word anarchism to describe as movement. I always liked them.
He's an atheist, but everything else seems pretty solid. And
he also created the phrase property as theft. Now this
was only a note to himself December twenty sixth, eighteen
forty seven. He's saying this like a note, he says,
write an article. He's talking to himself. Write an article
against the race that poisons everything by sticking its nose
into everything, without every mixing with any other people. Demand
is expulsion from France, Abottish synagogues. Don't let them into
any employment. Demand is expulsion. Pursue the abolition of this religion.
It's not without cause that the Christians call them dias
signs the Jews the enemy of man. The Jew must
disappear by steel or by fusion or by expulsion. The
hatred of the Jew, the hatred of the English, 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 nineteenth century, Prude, Home, Marx,
and Bukunen 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 nineteen forty five, same time
Marx wrote his our year after, called the Essence of Money.
He says pretty much the same thing. The main minds
the nineteenth 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,
one hundred or so years ago, maybe one hundred and
fifty years ago. Yeah, But people like Hess and Marx,
the way ahead was to increase the power of the
what do they call it money wolves, to reduce the
proletariat to hopeless poverty, and then take advantage of their
alienation to take over the massive animals. Because that's what
has said entirely, and call it a labor paradise. Pruto
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 usery and
but Kunan 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 ross Channlel's in Britain. And then once the
proletariat becomes the norm and their miserable condition, then at
some point you'll have Bolshevism.
Speaker 1: 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 the average man. The average man
now could have things that only wealthy people could have
before you 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 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 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 that there's capitalism,
and that there's absolutely no one between. Well, no, it's
both of them need to be a that there's another way.
There are, 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 the Jews will use against you. They'll
be like, oh, you say we control everything. We don't
control everything. You know you have to control yeah, yeah, yeah,
you you don't have to control everything. If you have people,
if if you're over represented 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 it 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,
what and even what Marx 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.
Speaker 2: Socialism in general, up until Marx and even even afterwards,
socialism was a right wing phenomenon. Capitalism was revolutionary. There
was nothing. You know, if we can picture the factory
in eighteen fifty in London. I don't think people comprehend
the evil. How many killed kids were killed there because
they were trial labor and everything else. This is a
cost of modernity. It was Thomas Carlyle, it was the royalists,
the social monarchists. You had national social nationals of all stripes,
going back even even before the Industrial Revolution, opposing the
scientific revolution, opposing the rule of money. As time went
on the Industrial Revolution. At the time this was written,
no one could deny that the factory system was evil.
No one could possibly see that system and think that
this is good. And the agrarian movement, the royalists, you know,
the monastic all of this. 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,
they are not opposites, and number two, I mean no
one exploited. The same factory system exists in the Soviet
Union with far greater levels of exploitation, far greater levels.
You know, you'd had no days off in the late
Leninist In the Stalinist era, it was absolutely absolutely vicious,
and they tried to turn in the collective system in
the countryside to make even the farm life a factory.
That's what the collective collective form 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 they're certainly non opposite. The other reason is that
there are so many other options that you have no
access to. There's so many great right, mean, Thomas Carlyles
just comes to mind because he was God. I you know,
I spent a lot of time talking about them. But
East and the West, so many great writers condemning this system.
Speaker 1: Uhchester to say that man, didn't Spangler compare the city
to the army barracks, where you're just.
Speaker 2: You're just something there.
Speaker 1: You live in this barracks and then you go to
work and good luck, good luck getting home.
Speaker 2: You're well, yeah, that was that was their life of
the proletarian.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, you're you're just as libelself die on the job,
as you would on the battlefield.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's called human sacrifice.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's the cost of all this. Yeah.
Speaker 1: 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 derascinate people from
their families, from their religions, from everything, and here we
are and.
Speaker 2: That and that was that was you know, Marx's point.
That's why he was so in favor of free trade.
And he knew he was a Jew, of course, but
he acts like he's, you know, above it all. And
he he says, you know, the Jews are absolutely necessary
because you know, and he's of course 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 read, this is really and he mentioned it
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, two percent of the population.
There's no getting out of that. Here, here's here's the
last sentence of my paper on this, and I say
today's Jews and left his 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, so they
never hear them. They know them only through caricature. But
this means they're not only intellectually lazy hiding behind walls
of law enforcement and censorship, 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 social revolution, but in the capitalist one.
Judaism is not a really 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 Sombart,
and it took me a while to put the two together. Wait,
this is exactly what Sombart's talking about. I'm pretty sure
on the first one to ever bring those together in
that regard, because in a 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, but the Bolsheviks. Lenin 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 yeah, anyone can anyone
can say that. Now, it's exactly what Marx wanted, as
Bakunin said, total centralization. But to think that Marxism and
postmodern capitalism our opposites is absolutely absurd. They're the same
Enlightenment ideology. I think the Soviets spent more time, you know,
physically punishing people, while in the West they psychologically do it.
I'm not sure which is worse. Well, the physical part
is getting worse as time goes on, and I think
the psychological part may last longer. So that's my understanding
of Karl marxis on the Jewish question, it's purpose and
why I think we have to bring people like Sombart
into it to explain Marx's statement that Christians have become Jews.
And that's exactly what Marx means by that.
Speaker 1: All right, well, we will be back to our regular
programming in a couple of days of recording two hundred
Years Together. But in the meantime, as I always do,
go to the show notes on this and to the
to the video of the video descriptions of two hundred
Years Together, and yeah, support doctor Johnson's work. He's not
only is this an incredible essay that he shared with
us today, but you know, the continuing two hundred 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 in power and wealth
and influence and propaganda and everything. You know, they have
their their hands are in all the pause. It's 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 your beneit. Yeah, you think
you're benefiting by it, and you actually you actually celebrate it.
Speaker 2: So and my paper. You're gonna upload my paper so
that anyone could just download.
Speaker 1: It too, right, absolutely, I will. Okay, all right, so
go support dot com Johnson's work, and we'll be back
in a couple of days with the next episode of
two hundred Years Together.
Speaker 2: See you then, M M.