/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17866192]

This guy is just an anti-semitic, moronic charlatan. His views on Marx are the best example of this. Even though he acknowledges that Marx virulently criticised the economic activities of European Jews and presented a system which ostensibly takes the side of the (usually white) working class, he still claims that Marx was a "Jewish intellectual pushing for Jewish interests". Why? Because apparently Marx embodies the Jewish spirit of resentment against Christians by criticising the sociopolitical structures of the West. In other words, any Jewish intellectual who does not fawn cum-gurglingly over muh glorious West and support the status-quo in every area is a subversive Jude who is pushing for "Jewish interests" over "white interests", according to MacDonald. Ergo Marx (who said things like "What is the wordly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Money is the jealous God of Israel, in face of which no other God may exist.") becomes a Jewish advocate pushing for Jewish interest simply by virtue of being critical of the way society is structured. For MacDonald, racial Jews are simply not allowed to have divergent opinions on society. This is clearly leaving the realm of evolutionary science at this point and entering into purely racist, political polemicism.
The funniest, however, is when he says Jews don't support movements which advocate for white interests, while defining "white interests" as overtly anti-semitic. Yeah, no shit Jews never supported the Nazis.
I can't believe /lit/ memed me into reading this guy.

[Anonymous No.17866211]

>>17866192
The thing is patrilineal line matters a lot. Aristocratic whites of a noble lineage are of course more valuable than the low-class. The low-class all around the world must know their place as servants to the wise, magnanimous upper-class. Breaking down this order is wrong, and you should accept your place as a slave to your superiors. BOTH race and class are important no doubt.

[Anonymous No.17866222]

>>17866192
The Israelis actually did support naziesque movements in Rhodesia and South Africa. I think this is greatly to their credit

[Anonymous No.17866234]

>>17866192
Yeah I would respect people like this more if they weren’t so bluepilled on Marx. All the people who claim he was some Rothschild shill make me lose braincells.

[Anonymous No.17866244]

But it is true in a certain sense and he's a necessary devil's advocate for this extreme formulation of this position. I consider myself a Marxist and even I can agree with what he's saying. Marx didn't give a fuck about the nations, he and Engels openly canvassed for their overthrow and downfall, they pioneered not just the theory but the practical organisations necessary to organise against the state from within the state. Marx was a Jew in the Jonathan Israel and Frankfurt School sense in which Jews perceive themselves as the heirs of the radical Enlightenment, the destruction of all myths, but most of all the myths of Christianity and European nationhood, and any cultural integrity associated with either. Those have to go first, for some reason.. Even capitalism they're willing to compromise on now, but we need to get rid of nationalism, religion, and all checks against moral degeneracy, NOW! You can't deny that's part of their legacy. Look at Engels' writing on the family etc.

Like I said I am a Marxist and I wouldn't trade the critical apparatus for anything. But that is still the situation. In reality, the Jews should simply not have been in those nations. Werner Sombart turned Marxism into National Socialism, which is what it always should have been. Internationalism was a Jewish fantasy born of hatred for Christian Europeans. Let the Jews have their oblast in Siberia or whatever, there don't need to be "racial Jews" in the German or Russian communist parties in the first place.

[Anonymous No.17866253]

>>17866192
Bakunin on Marx and Rothschild
https://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM4-BakuninonMarxRothschild.htm

>“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, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild.

>This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! 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 ....”

[Anonymous No.17866274]

>>17866253
Is there any literature on this? Fascinating he saw the implications so early. Almost makes you think he's right and other people saw them too, but valued the implications.

[Anonymous No.17866284]

>>17866211
I don't care what your opinion on Marxism is. The fact is that MacDonald has to do some serious mental-gymnastics to show that Marx was pushing for "Jewish interests" in his work rather than having an objective opinion. He vaguely identifies Marx as possessing a "Jewish spirit of resentment against Gentiles/Christians", from which it is clear to see that his work is not really evolutionary science, even though it pretends to be. Evolutionary scientists never use such terms; Circle of Critique is a highly opinionated political diatribe, not an objective analysis of Jews as an ethnic group.
>>17866253
This is just ad-hominem and has nothing to do with the work of Marx but with his personal life. Everyone knows Marx and Engels engaged in market speculation. At least MacDonald at least attempts to analyse his work.

[Anonymous No.17866303]

>>17866234
Bakunin said the same thing about Marx and the commonality he identified between communists and capitalists of his era was the centralized banking system they both used or wanted to use.

[Anonymous No.17866325]

>>17866274
>Is there any literature on this?
Pertaining to what precisely? He touches upon a number of distinct points in that passage.
>Fascinating he saw the implications so early.
It's long been recognized that compulsion to do anything will necessarily result in ever-increasing forms of tyranny. Totalitarianism, the absolute integration and control of the state into ever-more facets of life cannot help but result too in the control of the money supply as well. Factionalism will be in no way reduced either, so any group with a strong conscience of itself and preference for its own interests will also turn itself against others'.
>Almost makes you think he's right
Again, about what? The flaws of communism are easy for anyone to see even if you share its Utopian delusions. The only thing which may not be apparent is the Jewish role and the threat of Central Banking which of course contemporary education has worked tirelessly to remove from the Narrative and thus collective consciousness.
As a socialist, Bakunin agreed in the need to liberate the oppressed, and even too shared Internationalist/Globalist sentiments, but being too an Anarchist he recognized irreconcilable antagonisms between those who advocate for a state versus those who decry them.

[Anonymous No.17866342]

>>17866303
He didn’t want banking. He wanted a system without money. The passage where he gives 10 points was advice for any revolution in 1848 it wasn’t “how to achieve gommunism”

[Anonymous No.17866350]

>>17866253
Based. Jews are evil and goy marxists are retards

[Anonymous No.17866386]

>>17866284
>This is just ad-hominem
So I assume you believe that uncovering the agenda of those who push for certain beliefs and act according to them is irrelevant.
>has nothing to do with the work of Marx
Just because certain unsavory details about how the system and philosophy is *necessarily* going to function once implemented are omitted, does not at all mean that those details do not exist or will not apply. You cannot assume that everyone has intellectual integrity and will admit to the flaws of their way of their thinking.
Besides the fact, even if you're taking particular offense with exposive reminder that Marx is a Jew, there are less politically-charged and more pertinent facts to be reminded of such as that Marx never worked a proletarian job a day in his life and was funded by the capitalistic ventures of Engels's family, without which support he would never have produced the volume of work he did or may even have perished. He was not only an intellectual disconnected from labor, but his livelihood depended upon the sort of sources of income that are implicitly and explicitly denounced in his critiques, which reek terribly of hypocrisy and impotence that ultimately undermine the credibility of his philosophy. It is no different whatsoever than those who point out that Ayn Rand eventually got on welfare, at all.
Yet you newmalishly complain of "ad hominem".

[Anonymous No.17866402]

>>17866192
OP is a jew.

[Anonymous No.17866404]

>>17866253
>No actual proof past adhoms
Yep it’s an anarchist text. Btw anarchism in Russia was way more Jewish than the communist movement was if you want to go that route.

[Anonymous No.17866409]

>>17866325
Specifically pertaining to connections between Marx/early Marxism and Jews who were playing both sides of the con, either with Marx's knowledge or not. And whether Marx had even a hint of foreknowledge of something like Judeo-Bolshevism. I go back and forth on "well at least Marx's intentions were pure."

I still haven't read Culture of Critique but Werner Sombart's The Jews and Modern Capitalism blew my fucking mind because of this. Sombart straight-up accuses Jews of inventing, essentially, everything sickly and evil about the West since the 1700s. Advertising and Bernaysian culture where everything is an invasive attempt to manipulate people, vulture capitalism and the stock market itself. Everything. I tried finding reviews by Jewish scholars because it all seemed so convenient, like any Goodson type book where the narrative is too "tidy" and everything is the Jews. But all the essays I could find, including the preface to the new edition by some Jewish historian, didn't really deny anything he said. So what the fuck?

[Anonymous No.17866435]

>>17866404
>anarchism in Russia was way more Jewish than the communist movement
That's not at all true on the eve of the Russian Revolution, or even post-1900 period. You will have to specify which period you're talking about, such as before or after the assassination of Aleksander II. There was hardly a Communist movement at all in Russia before that tsar's death.

[Anonymous No.17866437]

The Marxism = ZOG crowd can’t explain:
A) The Cold War/Western intervention in the Russian Civil War
B) Israel backing Rhodesia/SA(anti communist white regimes)
C) Why ZOG money power would risk a communist revolution that will seize their money even if they already control the governments/banking/media.
I await to see cope replies and fake infographs.

[Anonymous No.17866447]

>>17866192
To be fair, a lot of the architects of the Russian Revolution were indeed Jewish.
Komrade Stalin took measures to address that thought.

[Anonymous No.17866457]

>>17866244
Marx never saw himself as a Jewish intellectual nor did he admire Jewish culture as you say. He was openly anti-semitic and openly criticised the economic activities of Jews. There is no way to read Marx as pushing for Jewish interests unless you go into some vague notions of the "Jewish spirit of resentment" as MacDonald does. The Frankfurt School may have drawn from Marx but there is nothing in Marx's work which implies their ideas.
As for "Engels' writings on the family", they were for the most part accurate and in-line with current anthropological understanding. It is true that primitive societies are communist and matrilineal. It is true that the development of private property led to the development of the patriarchate and viewing women and children as essentially property. You may disagree with this if you want to, but it is wholly dishonest to say that they were writing this to push Jewish interests and not because they genuinely believed in the things they were saying.
> the Jews should simply not have been in those nations.
The Jews lived in Europe for thousands of years. How long must a people live somewhere before it is considered their homeland? In a sense I agree that the Jews should have been culturally and genetically assimilated into Europe, or otherwise given their own nation to live in, but religious strife prevented this.

[Anonymous No.17866468]

>>17866437
>western intervention in the Russian civil war
How do you figure? Germans safely shipped Lenin back into Russia after the February revolution to help them overthrow the provisional republican government. This is consistent with "western" support for a Marxist authoritarian outcome.
>the cold war
I can only account for this by citing the unique character of Russia. The ZOG globalists was a form a marxism, but not on the national level. They want it on the global level, with no nation states or national culture/identity interfering with the "market."

[Anonymous No.17866479]

>>17866409
>Specifically pertaining to connections between Marx/early Marxism and Jews who were playing both sides of the con, either with Marx's knowledge or not. And whether Marx had even a hint of foreknowledge of something like Judeo-Bolshevism.
Ah yes I see what you mean.
>I go back and forth on "well at least Marx's intentions were pure."
Well defenders love to suggest he was a self-hating Jew or at the least despised certain Jewery with an intensity as if he were not Jewish himself. As far as I've read there's not been a conclusion to what degree Marx's subversiveness was "unconscious" / unintentional vs knowingly malicious---that is, how much he actually believed in the Utopianism of Communism. I myself at the moment wouldn't really doubt he actually believed in what he was saying, but nevertheless was not unaware of how he was proving the rule of Jewish intellectualism.
>So what the fuck?
Well the literature is out there certainly, and when you hear about it it makes sense even if it is incredible or very difficult to believe.
The essence of the claims is that Jews see themselves as foreigners and superiors in their host nations and will always work towards their own benefit even at the expense of those nations. They do not care how much non-Jews may be harmed---in fact, they need to harm non-Jews in order that they may be made less threatening to the Jews, or outright subservient to them. Pushing for egalitarianism and other leftist doctrines weakens and destabilizes the foundations of the communities they seek to exploit. You can tell they don't actually believe in the stuff they sell because they do not implement in their own Jewish society or act those ways towards themselves. They do not have others' best interests at heart.

Again, that is the gist of what anti-semites claim and why Jewish intellectuals like Marx are ruthlessly attacked.

[Anonymous No.17866491]

>>17866468
The West sent troops over to fight with the Whites against the Reds which is what I’m talking about. Why would a ZOG like Britain fight against “Jewish Communism”?

[Anonymous No.17866516]

>>17866284
The apple does not fall far from the tree. Marx only spoke out against Judaism as a religion and the religious attitudes and customs that may have led his fellow non-goyim in a certain direction. The fact is religion is only a tool. Not a fundamental identity. We can see this among liberal marxist jews today and in the soviet union. They work together for their own interests - ruthlessly so - no matter if they are religious or not.

[Anonymous No.17866526]

>>17866457
I think the Jews who were being integrated in 19th c Europe pretty clearly had a kind of crisis of identity going. On the one hand they wanted to be accepted by the majority culture, especially its aristocracy, they admired it. On the other hand they resented and contemned much about that culture, and wanted to be part of the vanguard who were revolutionizing the old forms. Towards their own people and religion/culture they had a similarly conflicted disposition, a kind of embarrassment over the vulgar tendencies bred of insularity and commercial instincts mixed with pride about their resiliency, resourcefulness and intelligence, and the strength of their ethnic bond.

To reduce the surely complex set of thoughts and emotions Marx had about Jews to a caricature, especially one that exists only to tell a reductive story about history, is probably to lose most of the actual information. To characterize Marxism as a plot for Jewish domination is facile. To characterize it as in some sense essentially subversive or alien to Western Civilization and its peoples is not necessarily facile.

[Anonymous No.17866534]

>>17866516
>Marx was a central banking shill because he was vaguely related to the Rothschilds(like many other Germans were)
Lol k

[Anonymous No.17866535]

>>17866491
>Why would a ZOG like Britain fight against “Jewish Communism”?
Because the British Empire was controlled by The City of London which was controlled by The Bank of England which was controlled by the Rothschilds.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180130200730/https://deusnexus.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/rothschilds-vatican-crown/

[Anonymous No.17866540]

>>17866535
Exactly. That’s what I’m saying, Britain was a ZOG. So why then would they fight against Marxists in Russia who you guys are claiming were pro Rothschild central banking, >>17866516 like he claims here.

[Anonymous No.17866561]

>>17866540
Well they notably did not fight against the Marxists during WW2, they fought with and helped them.

[Anonymous No.17866566]

>>17866561
Yeah and then right after that the Cold War started, Churchill even wanted to invade the USSR.

[Anonymous No.17866569]

>>17866540
because war is the bankers greatest profit. Besides help me out here when did the soviets fight the british? never. The fought together against hitler. Anyways as long as they are fighting bankers get to issue loans.

[Anonymous No.17866575]

>>17866540
You can't siphon money and power from a people who are starving...that's the only thing I can think of. You need the buy-in of stable "democracies" to sustain markets.

[Anonymous No.17866584]

>>17866569
> when did the soviets fight the british
Again you guys don’t even know the history of what you’re talking about. Look up British intervention in the Russian Civil War

[Anonymous No.17866591]

>>17866437
>The Marxism = ZOG crowd can’t explain:
>A) The Cold War
Playing both sides and controlling both sides of the conflict which goes all the way back to the Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th Century and has its modern expression within nations in contemporary Two Party systems in representative democracies / republics like The United States of America.
>C) Why ZOG money power would risk a communist revolution that will seize their money
Because they themselves instigated the revolution, control it, and obviously would allow their own property to not only be safeguarded but enriched, because the ideology is just a facade and the real goal was control of the state by any means necessary. Vanguardism isn't Marxist; Soviet nationalism isn't Marxist; intentional famines and oppressing non-bourgeois isn't Marxist---and yet all of these were utilized in the first communist state, because they benefited those in power, virtually none of whom were proletariat. The goals and motives were both ulterior.

[Anonymous No.17866592]

>>17866566
The Cold War was dramatically less hostile than their reaction to the Nazis though, and there is also the question of the creation of Israel and Stalin's resultant suspicion of and persecution of Soviet Jews.

[Anonymous No.17866603]

>>17866457
>The Jews lived in Europe for thousands of years. How long must a people live somewhere before it is considered their homeland?
If you've lived in a place for thousands of years and you are still "apart" from that place, what better proof is needed that you are not a part of that place?

This proves the point that it is trying to dispute. Jews, for whatever reason, generally do not assimilate. They don't want to assimilate. If you want speculations as to why, this guy >>17866479 has it pretty down.

Many Jews were assimilating before Jewish internationalist radicalism/zionism (two sides of the same coin in most cases) became the default Jewish identity in the West. Maybe if this hadn't happened, the assimilation had continued, things would be fine. But then, they wouldn't be Jews any more than the various German tribes are still tribes. There are only Germans now.

You can't have an invasive, self-interested minority in another person's country, let alone in every fucking prosperous country as a normal thing so that they all link up with eachother. It just doesn't work, not in the abstract, and not empirically, since we have proof that Jews do not assimilate and Jews fucking despise Europeans and Christians and Jews actively push for both internationalism and Jewish nationalism at the same time, at least on average, whenever given the chance.

I like Jews and Judaism personally on many levels. But you don't belong in countries that aren't yours. Your inability to see that is, once again, proving the point you're trying to dispute. "But I don't get it!!! Who's to evict me from a country where my people monopolize 47% of prestigious and high-paying positions while being 2% of the population!!!" What kind of question is that? Why wouldn't that be a thing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io2a4SOX22Y

[Anonymous No.17866605]

>>17866566
>Yeah and then right after that the Cold War started
Where nothing happened to either side except to Asians and Latinos. The usage of fear to control the people kept them focused on the theater and not the potential puppet-masters.
>Churchill even wanted to invade the USSR
Churchill was controlled by his creditors. He was a figurehead, or whatever the proper term for someone's front puppet is called. He had no say.

[Anonymous No.17866610]

>>17866591
Way too big a conspiracy to be realistic. Sorry but stuff like this is exactly why I don’t take Jew conspiracies seriously.

[Anonymous No.17866618]

>>17866584
>Look up British intervention in the Russian Civil War
He was clearly specifically talking about World War II era.

[Anonymous No.17866627]

>>17866610
Read Quigley's Anglo-American Establishment and Tragedy and Hope. For "Anglo" and "WASP," read "substantially Jewish."

There's a reason why one summa of these books is called "None Dare Call it Conspiracy."

[Anonymous No.17866630]

Lol this thread is ridiculous. So Jews are everywhere at everytime plotting to take over the world that they allegedly already control through fermenting revolution with the stated goal of abolishing private property so they can control the world through banking(private property)?

[Anonymous No.17866645]

>>17866627
I’ve read Tragedy and Hope. I’m pretty sure he had no citations and Bill Clinton endorsed it. Why would that be some major source of info?

[Anonymous No.17866648]

>>17866192
Sounds Based, I'll check him out :)

[Anonymous No.17866664]

>>17866627
>Read Quigley's Anglo-American Establishment and Tragedy and Hope. For "Anglo" and "WASP," read "substantially Jewish."
I mean the most you could reasonably say is that among this conspiracy of elites, or set of conspiracies, there are many Jews. There are rather obviously also many Anglos. Does this implicate all Anglos and Jews? It shouldn't, it shouldn't even implicated all prominent Anglos and Jews, even those who seem somewhat related may just be responding to incentives creates by power structures with which they have nothing to do.
>>17866630
Nobody is actually going to abolish private property come on lol that's just something they tell the proles to turn them into footsoldiers. The people claiming they will do that will simply take and control the property themselves, which is of course what happens in actual examples of socialist states.

[Anonymous No.17866678]

>>17866645
It's an indication of how these power networks work, deliberately somewhere on the shadowy border between "that's just how capitalism propagates itself bro are you really surprised at corruption and influence peddling lmao" and conscious conspiracy. When the "normal" functioning of the network isn't enough, a little nudge from overt conspiracy helps it out.

The whole point of establishing these banking systems and incentivizing wealthy elites (Anglos initially, now everybody) to destroy their own countries and destroy all their defenses against integration into the diseased world economy was to make it so that the downward spiral mostly runs itself. You are mostly operating through knock-on effects, several steps up the chain of causation. One precedent or law change can cause a thousand bankers to "autonomously" wreck their own nations and become international business criminals.

The conspiracy is using Jews as much as Jews are using it. As Marx said, capitalism will always spit forth the Jew from its own guts.

[Anonymous No.17866681]

>>17866664
Again the point is the goal. They have NO reason to start a revolution that says it will abolish private property and classes, that would be a major risk. If they already control the government there’s absolutely no reason to do it.

[Anonymous No.17866690]

>>17866664
>There are rather obviously also many Anglos.

"The enemy is Das Leihkapital. Your Enemy is Das Leihkapital, international, wandering Loan Capital. Your enemy is not Germany, your enemy is money on loan. And it would be better for you to be infected with typhus, and dysentery, and Bright's disease, than to be infected with this blindness which prevents you from understanding HOW you are undermined, how you are ruined.

The big Jew is so bound up with this Leihkapital that no one is able to unscramble that omelet. It would be better for you to retire to Darbyshire and defy New Jerusalem, better for you to retire to Gloucester and find one spot that is England than to go on fighting for Jewry and ignoring the process.

You let in the Jew and the Jew rotted your empire, and you yourselves out-jewed the Jew. Your allies in your victimized holdings are the bunyah, you stand for NOTHING but usury. And above metal usury; you have built up bank usury, 60% against 30 and 40%, and by that you WILL NOT be saved. Corrupting the whole earth, you have lost yourselves to yourselves."
Ezra Pound

[Anonymous No.17866698]

>>17866681
>They have NO reason to start a revolution that says it will abolish private property and classes, that would be a major risk.
Of course it's not a risk lmao, it wasn't a risk to the Bolsheviks was it? No they just did whatever they wanted and if a prole spoke up about they had just created a new ruling class that controlled the property they were fucked.

The incentive for commie revolution is that they can steal even more than they are stealing now, they can in fact steal *everything*. It's so incredibly dysfunctional as a system that maybe they have learned their lesson and wouldn't try it again, idk.

[Anonymous No.17866701]

Bolshevism, Marxism, Capitalism, it's all fundamentally Judaism. You don't realize it anymore because you have been so utterly conquered. Even National Socialism was primarily the attempt to copy Judaism for Aryans as a weapon, to fight fire with fire. You cannot escape. Klages was right when he said the Jews have waged war on mankind and succeeded.

[Anonymous No.17866703]

>>17866526
>On the one hand they wanted to be accepted by the majority culture, especially its aristocracy, they admired it.
They didn't admire the aristocracy; they aspired toward power. Until around the start of The Long Nineteenth century, peerage was largely restricted to families who'd been noble since the Middle Ages or earlier, and was founded upon the basis of stewarding land rather than one's wealth or other occupations. Jews being largely a class of merchants became commercially powerful in many European societies but still politically disadvantaged, unable to stop any laws or policies which may seek to persecute them at a moment's notice.

It was essential that Jews gain representation in the Nobility in order to safeguard their interests, but this necessitated radical changes to how the Nobility was constituted and functioned, which includes doing away with the traditional bases of lording land and nationalistic loyalty to the kingdom.

They didn't want to be "accepted" by the dominant culture, but stop being persecuted by it.

[Anonymous No.17866719]

>>17866698
Yes it was a major risk considering they were very close to losing the war and then 10 years later Stalin killed all the old commies

[Anonymous No.17866725]

>>17866703
It is impossible to read about 19th c Jews and not see that they very clearly admired the high culture of the gentiles. Look at how Mendelssohn behaved towards Wagner for an especially sad example. Marx himself was obsessed with England and his theoretical work was in a tradition of gentile thought not Jewish.

[Anonymous No.17866727]

>>17866690
>JEFFERSON didn’t believe any nation had the right to contract debts that it couldn’t pay off with reasonable effort within nineteen years.

>“ The best place for keeping money is in the pockets of the people.”

>We have had the century of the “benefits of concentration of capital” (and the malefits).

>Paper money in the popular pocket would not breed stagnation and it would not stay there for the reasons of oriental hoarding. The popolano would want to show it was there. Its distribution would mean greater mobility of goods.

>The first act of the fascio was to save Italy from people too stupid to govern, I mean the Italian communists, the Lenin-less communists. The second act was to free it from parliamentarians, possibly worse, though probably no more dishonest than various other gangs of parliamentarians, but at any rate from groups too politically immoral to govern.

>As far as financial morals are concerned, I should say that from being a country where practically everything and anything was for sale, Mussolini has in ten years transformed it into a country where it would even be dangerous to try to buy out the government. In other countries they excuse inexplicable perfidies by saying “These men are personally honest.” I am now quoting an admiral : “All I know is that all these men are my personal friends and I assure you that they are personally honest.” The implication being that they play the super-crooks’ game because they are stupid and hoodwinked.

>A capacity for being hoodwinked is not in itself a qualification for ruling. It is, let us admit, often a means of getting office in countries where office is elective. Jefferson thought the live men would beat out the cat’s-paws.

>The fascist hate of demi-liberal governments is based on the empiric observation that, in many cases, they don’t and have not.

[Anonymous No.17866739]

>>17866727
>London stank of decay back before 1914 and I have recorded the feel of it in a poem here and there. The live man in a modern city feels this sort of thing or perceives it as the savage perceives in the forest. I don’t know how many men keep alive in modern civilization but when one has the frankness to compare notes one finds that the intuition is confirmed just as neatly or almost as neatly as if the other man saw a shop sign.

>Thus London going mouldy back in say 1912 or 1911. After the War death was all over it.

>Italy was, on the other hand, full of bounce. I said all of this to a Lombard writer. I said: London is dead, Paris is tired, but here the place is alive. What they don’t know is plenty, but there is some sort of animal life here. If you put an idea into these people they would DO something.

>The Lombard writer said yes ... and looked across the hotel lobby; finally he said: “And you know it is terrible to be surrounded by all this energy and ... and ... not to have an idea to put into it.”

>Jefferson thought the formal features of the American system would work, and they did work till the time of general Grant but the condition of their working was that inside them there should be a de facto government composed of sincere men willing the national good. When the men of their understanding, and when the nucleus of the national mind hasn’t the moral force to translate knowledge into action I don’t believe it matters a damn what legal forms or what administrative forms there are in a government. The nation will get the staggers.

>And any means are the right means which will remagnetize the will and the knowledge.

>I think the American system de jure is probably quite good enough, if there were only 500 men with guts and the sense to USE it, or even with the capacity for answering letters, or printing a paper.

>Power is necessary to some acts, but neither Lenin nor Mussolini show themselves primarily as men thirsting for power. The great man is filled with a very different passion, the will toward order. Hence the mysteries and the muddles in inferior minds.

[Anonymous No.17866757]

>>17866630
>So Jews are everywhere at everytime plotting to take over the world that they allegedly already control through fermenting revolution with the stated goal of abolishing private property so they can control the world through banking (private property)?
Again, the idea is that the Jews try to get everyone else to buy into ideas that they themselves know don't "work" or aren't actually all that desirable so that the suckers undermine themselves. The Jews start off with little to no power of their own and try to take what power they can from others so that the balance of power is then shifted; they generally work together as a group toward this end while pretending that there is no such cohesive collusion or malicious intent. They have been extraordinarily successful in convincing people, such as yourself, of just that.

[Anonymous No.17866758]

>>17866192
You're absolutely right, and Mcdonald a faggot.
People just wanna hate on Marx for any reason at all, he is like the biggest braincell remover for people. Anytime you mention Marx most people's brains just get shit out and they can argue the most asinine things in the world.

[Anonymous No.17866798]

>>17866630
>Yes

[Anonymous No.17866821]

>>17866681
>They have NO reason to start a revolution that says it will abolish private property and classes
They do have a reason. It convinces those who work for them to trust them and empower them. Just look at contemporary politics and you remember that politicians rarely keep their promises and once installed almost never can be held accountable for doing so.
>that would be a major risk
It isn't, because by the time they take control it's already too late to remove them, regardless of how or if ever the ruse is discovered.
>If they already control the government
You need to look at which governments were actually controlled and when.
They did not control Russia before World War I.
They did not control Asia and Latin America and the Middle East before The Cold War.
Besides the fact that their are degrees of domination. Suppose that they control most if not all Western governments. Do you think that they would want us discussing this here or anywhere else online? If they could help it, we would not be able to. As it stands, they do not yet have the power to forbid it. There is always more power and more control to push for and rights to take away. When you have no power and no rights you are a slave. Slaves are easiest for an authority to deal with.

[Anonymous No.17866827]

>>17866757
I’m not denying that Jews often do that but the Judeo-Marxism narrative is bs and makes no sense. Jews weren’t even as represented as ppl claim. 1922 they made up 6% of the CPSU and it only kept getting lower.

[Anonymous No.17866833]

>>17866584
Churchill supported Kolchak (white russia - who was controlled opposition - similar to trump) which was a setup to get all the whites who dared to oppose killed. But yes, bankers want nations to fight each other.

>>17866630
It's more of a boom and bust cycle. It goes roughly like this:

1. Usury - Make loans with compound interest -> economy booms, middle class forms
2. Inflation - Make additional loans because debtor cant even pay the interest on the first loan (or just print money to pay back loans)
3. Deflation - Take the money/commodity out of circulation by hording commodities and calling in loans
4. Disposses people if they cant pay back the loan/interest (through taxes / foreclosures).
5. Then:
- Mass Immigration: Sell foreclosed property to unsuspecting foreigners to start the cycle again,
- Force disposessed people into slavery and make them compete with immgrant workers
- drive disposessed people into military and make war to capture wealth of another nation and profit from war loans to both sides of the conflict.
6. At this point there is usually a war. Then the cycle starts again.
- losing side has to pay back massive loans and reparations and has it's wealth looted by the winner who has to give it to the bankers to pay back his own war loans.

The US is at (2) atm.

Usury:
- Loan out 2 baskets of grain and expect to get 3 back. It's arithmetical fraud. There are only 2 baskets of grain in existence.
- The FED prints and loans out 2 trillion dollars and expects to get 3 trillion dollars debt+compound interest back 10 years later. It's impossible. There are only 2 trillion dollars in existence. -> FED prints more money. More debt. It's exponential as you can see on the chart. It's simply fraud.

This is how money lenders own the world (eventually). And the jews started it. Only the most ruthless money lender will come out on top.

[Anonymous No.17866835]

>>17866821
> They did not control Asia and Latin America and the Middle East before The Cold War.
Yeah they did if you buy that UK was Z.O.G.

[Anonymous No.17866874]

>>17866833
Good post. For anyone interested in these topics, I recommend the reading the following four articles:
https://www.counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

Gottfried Feder
>By Mammonism is to be understood: on the one hand, the overwhelming international money-powers, the supragovernmental financial power enthroned above any right of self-determination of peoples, international big capital, the purely Gold International; on the other hand, a mindset that has taken hold of the broadest circle of peoples; the insatiable lust for gain, the purely worldly-oriented conception of life that has already led to a frightening decline of all moral concepts and can only lead to more.

>This [mammonist] mindset is embodied and reaches its acme in international plutocracy. The chief source of power for Mammonism is the effortless and endless income that is produced through interest.

>The idea of interest on loans is the diabolical invention of big loan-capital; it alone makes possible the lazy drone's life of a minority of tycoons at the expense of the productive peoples and their work-potential.

>The only cure, the radical means to heal suffering humanity is the abolition of enslavement to interest on money. The abolition of enslavement to interest on money signifies the only possible and conclusive liberation of productive labor from the hidden coercive money-powers.

>Our anti-Mammonistic battle, which is ranged above the other two battle-fronts, is directed against the world-encompassing financial power, that is, against the permanent financial and economic bleeding and exploitation of our people through large loan capital. This battle however is, on the other hand, also a powerful intellectual struggle against the soul-destroying materialistic spirit of egoism and avarice with all its concomitant corrupting manifestations in all fields of our public, economic and cultural life.
https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/11/two-volumes-by-gottfried-feder/

>If only statesmen had been compelled to study the laws of Compound Interest, the fate of the whole human race might have been very different. ... [T]wo serious conditions began to develop. The first was the decline not merely of the aristocracy but, little by little, of all values that could not be correlated with pounds, shillings, and pence. The age of mechanized man was approaching.
William Joyce
https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/03/economic-development/

[Anonymous No.17866883]

>>17866835

[Anonymous No.17866884]

>>17866192
>>17866234
>marxism is when you help the working class
These posts made by trannies or 16 year olds.

Anyway obviously marxism is subversive and can reasonably be seen as a jewish attack on non jewish europeans. Look at for instance the marxist view of the family or religion. There is nothing in marxism which strengthens europeans.

[Anonymous No.17866990]

>>17866833
bump, dont let the jew slide this.

Read:
A History of Central Banking, Stephen Goodson
The Sumerian Swindle, Gregory Delaney
The Monsters of Babylon, Gregory Delaney
The Creature From Jekyll Island, Edward Griffin
The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, Eustace Mullen

Watch:
The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation (29:54)
The Money Masters: Rise of the Bankers (03:29)
The Secret of Oz with Ben Still (01:50)
The Rothschild Family: Power and Money (55:00)
Europa: The Last Battle

[Anonymous No.17867006]

>>17866990
Good post, thanks for these recs

[Anonymous No.17867213]

>>17866192
You do not seem like a shitlib leftist, and this is a genuine criticism, so nice job anon. Are you Jewish yourself? I am not, but I think the incentive to scapegoat the Jews is a pathological sickeness among coping Christians.
I think the Nazi-Jew dichotomy is overplayed as well, what McDonald fails to see is that tribal ethno-nationalism was doomed to fail as humans have a need for exploration. A basic undestanding of the foundation of Ancient Athens would refute hs mythological notions of race. I do think race exists on a cultural and biological level, but McDonald seems to be mean-spirited and stuck in this warped attacking mentality to remove whites historical achievments and blunders in all honesty. My main contention with him has always been a sort of slave morality implcit to his works.

[Anonymous No.17867232]

>>17866883
Latin America was basically a semi colony due to economic influence and they had a ton of influence over China too

[Anonymous No.17868577]

bump

[Anonymous No.17868821]

When all of you retards are discussing about how jews are the worst evil money people on the world, China is quietly placing itself into the pole position of the economic world. Not saying that it shouldn't or mustn't. But your worldview is fucked up.

[Anonymous No.17869012]

>>17868821
China only has power because the U.S. gave it power. Now, why did the U.S. give China power?...
In any case, it could be revoked tomorrow more or less and the delusion of The Chinese Century rent from fools' minds in an instant forever.

[Anonymous No.17869146]

>>17869012
China has power because it has become the world's factory.
Without China, you wouldn't even have half of the items you own.

[Anonymous No.17869608]

>>17869146
>China has power because it has become the world's factory.
And who was the world's factory before that. Who exports the most native factories to China.

[Anonymous No.17869619]

>>17869608
It's easier to export manufacturing than bring it back. Do you know how many regulations -- zoning, environmental, etc. -- someone in the US has to get through to start a manufacturing plant compared to China?

If the CCP wants more manufacturing, it gets it done. The US is a bureaucratic Hell.

[Anonymous No.17869710]

>>17869619
It is also a producer's paradise full of ravenous consumers. When you cut off this gravy train with policies like tariffs or outsourcing bans, then little China starts sinking into big trouble.

[Anonymous No.17869748]

>>17866884
>marx’s views on the family or religion
You dumb illiterates are all the same. You think without any nuance. You can read marx without taking everything as gospel. Don’t you read things critically? If marx were alive today he would be pro-family and pro-religion. Marx would not be a marxist, but a Laschian. No family or religion only work in Capital’s favor. Times change as do approaches.

[Anonymous No.17869854]

Here's a question for communists:

Why are you opposed to capitalism when it allows everyone in the economy to become an entrepreneur and business owner? Is it because you think not everyone can become one? Are certain people doomed to never becoming entrepreneurs? Why is that? Does it have to do with themselves or their conditions? If it's their conditions, could this not be remedied under a certain form of capitalism? And if it's because of themselves, then does that not mean the egalitarianism that communism is founded upon is false? If so, why continue to try to make unequal things equal?

[Anonymous No.17869990]

>>17866192
Why do people read "On the Jewish Question" as antisemitic? Marx's writing in this essay is not really any different from the orthodox Communist position of "abolishing" the Jewish ethnicity by rendering it irrelevant through eliminating the Material basis for its existence. Of course as we all know this is not how things actually happen with the Jews under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat or any other minority group for that matter, instead it reinforces ethnic nepotism without monetary relations to act as solvent.

[Anonymous No.17870005]

>>17866192
it's a kind of strength that marxist or left leaners don't have to even understand their opponents in order to defeat them

you have yet to understand that you're a buffoon

[Anonymous No.17870046]

>>17869854
Not a commie but their argument would be that they’re not opposed to individual flourishing and creativity and that capitalism if anything holds it back and is bound to fail due to its contradictions. Also say whatever else you want to about Marx but he wasn’t an egalitarian, you can see that in Critique of the Gotha Program.

[Anonymous No.17870225]

>>17866192
>anti-semitic
how much more mileage can the kikes get out of this? do they realize they will eventually run out of white people to protect them? every day fewer people even know what the holocaust is, eventually jews will run out of golems. like who fucking cares if something anti semitic, how long can the jews convince people to care about them?

[Anonymous No.17870376]

>>17870225
>every day fewer people even know what the holocaust is, eventually jews will run out of golems
It's not a problem at all because every year there are more holocaust survivors around to remind them. Never forget.

[Anonymous No.17870378]

>>17870376
kek

[Anonymous No.17870380]

>>17866192
Okay jew.

[Anonymous No.17870764]

>>17866192
>anti-Semitic
Stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.17870787]

Christians hating Jews for the very things Christians do and believe in will never not be completely hilarious, as will be their insistence on hating the Jews, despite that they literally deify a rabbi lol

[Anonymous No.17870843]

>>17870787
You are actually overestimating how much contemporary Christians actually heed Jews, let alone hate them.

What absolutely boggles the mind is that even when you somehow forget all the Bible scenes where Jesus is reprimanding Jews, that the inescapable fact remains that the Jews got Jesus killed.; and not only that, but they continue to deny Christ and go on practicing a religion which has been made obsolete. Yet not only do contemporary Christians tolerate all this, they actually go out of their way to defend Jews and protect them. It's as if contmporary Christians have literally not read The Bible, which when you consider the extreme number of fornicators in the world (something condemned even in the New Testament) who claim to be Christian, would not altogether be surprising---to say nothing of the Old Testament prohibitions such as that against graven images and false witness.

[Anonymous No.17871003]

>>17866833
Don't forget that they're still an essentially nomadic people, so when shit goes tits up, they just pack up their shit and leave en masse.

[Anonymous No.17871028]

>>17870843
>that the inescapable fact remains that the Jews got Jesus killed
Which is most likely complete horseshit. Not only was Pontius Pilate far from the benevolent ruler he’s presented as in the Bible, there’s also zero reference outside of the Bible of any Jewish mob demanding the death of Jesus. His death probably went almost entirely unnoticed by anyone but his closest followers, and the Gospels tell a story that was dreamt up decades after the facts

>and not only that, but they continue to deny Christ and go on practicing a religion which has been made obsolete.
The Jews disagree with that one. Then again, so do the Muslims, who insist that Islam has made Christianity obsolete. I guess that’s the circle of Abrahamic retardation

>It's as if contmporary Christians have literally not read The Bible, which when you consider the extreme number of fornicators in the world (something condemned even in the New Testament) who claim to be Christian, would not altogether be surprising---to say nothing of the Old Testament prohibitions such as that against graven images and false witness.
Yes, I’m sure you’re the only righteous Christian on the planet. By the way, did you give away all your possessions to the poor as Jesus says you should, or is everything you don’t benefit from conveniently a metaphor?

[Anonymous No.17871045]

>>17866192
>For MacDonald, racial Jews are simply not allowed to have divergent opinions on society.
Any individual or ethnic group that is antiwhite is our enemy. No you can not be critical of us as an outsider!

[Anonymous No.17871051]

>>17866739
>>17866727
>live man

what does he mean when he refers to this?

[Anonymous No.17871105]

>>17870843
>>17871028
Technically Jews went on to practice Talmudism, which is a beast of an entirely different magnitude.

[Anonymous No.17871124]

>>17871051
vital, spiritually awake inside, not deadened to things or sunk into torpor

[Anonymous No.17871429]

>>17866192
>antisemite
>slimy manipulator, constantly pushing a secret agenda, quietly redefining words and concepts as he sees fit
The irony is palpable.

[Anonymous No.17871555]

>>17871028
>Which is most likely complete horseshit.
Jesus never existed in the first place and all the events in the New Testament are fictional anyway.

[Anonymous No.17871568]

>>17866211
>Aristocratic whites of a noble lineage
there is nothing noble to inbreeding to the point the very blood tries to leave your body

[Anonymous No.17871641]

>>17866274
>>17866253
kind of an off the wall guy but here
http://mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf

[Anonymous No.17871644]

>>17866540
watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2i6uftJhB8

[Anonymous No.17872012]

>>17866192
>anti-semitic
Based but still not reading your shills

[Anonymous No.17872084]

>>17869710
>When you cut off this gravy train with policies like tariffs or outsourcing bans,
Keep dreaming. US investor are invested in China.

[Anonymous No.17872100]

>>17869854
>then does that not mean the egalitarianism that communism
Bourgeois law is egalitarian. Indeed, it doesn't take into consideration the different of talent and productivity of two different workers. Indeed, they are paid the same.
Bourgeois law doesn't allocate ressources according to talent, or social utility, but according to classes. More precisely, according to who already has the most Capital. The more Capital you have, the more you receive from social production. It has not much to do with talent, except one talent, the talent to accumulate Capital, which isn't the same as the talent to help others and society.

[Anonymous No.17872105]

>>17870005
Most Marxist on 4chan were conservatives before reading Marx. I was natsoc for many years. So i think we understand you quiet well.

[Anonymous No.17872135]

>>17869990
Nepotism is hard to avoid. There is even nepotism in Huterrites communities, or Israeli kibbutzim.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2803264?seq=1

That said, Capitalism is pretty nepostic. I've experienced it myself, from the bad side. Jews and free-masons favor their own much in Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.17872162]

(...)
(from the bad side) I mean i was ousted, for something i worked hard on, when jews and free-masons had a garanteed seat.

[Anonymous No.17872437]

>This guy is just an anti-semitic, moronic charlatan. His views on Marx are the best example of this. Even though he acknowledges that Marx virulently criticised the economic activities of European Jews and presented a system which ostensibly takes the side of the (usually white) working class, he still claims that Marx was a "Jewish intellectual pushing for Jewish interests". Why? Because apparently Marx embodies the Jewish spirit of resentment against Christians by criticising the sociopolitical structures of the West. In other words, any Jewish intellectual who does not fawn cum-gurglingly over muh glorious West and support the status-quo in every area is a subversive Jude who is pushing for "Jewish interests" over "white interests", according to MacDonald. Ergo Marx (who said things like "What is the wordly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Money is the jealous God of Israel, in face of which no other God may exist.") becomes a Jewish advocate pushing for Jewish interest simply by virtue of being critical of the way society is structured. For MacDonald, racial Jews are simply not allowed to have divergent opinions on society. This is clearly leaving the realm of evolutionary science at this point and entering into purely racist, political polemicism.
>The funniest, however, is when he says Jews don't support movements which advocate for white interests, while defining "white interests" as overtly anti-semitic. Yeah, no shit Jews never supported the Nazis.
>I can't believe /lit/ memed me into reading this guy.

[Anonymous No.17872742]

>>17866192
How come the stuff he describes is accurate though?