top of page
  • Writer's picture738

Marx and the Jews

Updated: Jan 21

Marx says that everyone today is a Jew—he takes the Jews, so he says, as they are, not as they wish to be; and that means he takes them not as their religion demands but as they behave in concrete terms, and that means as self-interested “hucksters” and “stock-jobbers” who put money and self-seeking above all. He then maintains that the entire world is this way, so that the emancipation of the Jew is not just about the removal of civil disabilities placed upon him (unable to vote, hold office) but the abolition of the system that Judaises the world—capitalism.

Marx lays out how this situation has come about through the dialectical movement of history:

a. In the classical world, state and religion are one—all Greek city-states are, to the modern, “totalitarian” or “total” states, there is no such entity as a separate “civil society”; everything is fused—yet there is a contradiction between the individual and the state.

b. Christianity is founded by “philosophising Jews” and introduces into the classical world a division: Rome and the state cult were synonymous, but now people are invited to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s”—hence the rise of civil society, individuals shepherded by the Church—the individual and state exist in a new relation.

c. Yet there is a contradiction still—a “Christian state” is an oxymoron, because the demands of state contradict the Gospels (e.g. per the woman taken in adultery, you can’t punish anyone if you’ve committed a sin—and everyone has, especially as Jesus says that to think of a sin is the same as to commit it; the implication is that a Christian state can’t punish anyone—i.e. it can’t function as a state without hypocrisy, which Jesus also condemned).

d. This contradiction is resolved by the advent of the French and American revolutions—the state is now secular, doesn’t claim to be Christian, yet in America religion flourishes. But this is a different type of religion—Marx quotes various visitors to America, Tocqueville and Hamilton, to the effect that for an American religion is just a way to make money; preachers become businessmen when they make enough from their congregations, and bankrupt businessmen become preachers—nobody is embarrassed about this situation.

e. “The spirit of Judaism” has realised itself through a dialectic movement, in its most acute form in America, where everyone is a huckster (livestreamer), mountebank, hustler, trader—even in religion, the cynicism is total; it’s all just a means to serve Mammon, whether dressed up as “hatha yoga” or “the evangelical Gospel”.

The answer, for Marx, is a final dialectical turn back to a genuine community, as preached by Jesus—as found in its primitive form in early communism, except now, through a series of transformations that developed high technology, returned at a higher level and without any “spiritual mystification”.

He thinks in this way because, for Marx, religion is alienation from reality. Illustration: I have a statue of Horus—I pray to the statue, I get what I prayed for, I think Horus gave it to me. Marx would say that is “mystification”—I projected my consciousness onto the statue and then deluded myself into the idea that “the god gave me a new car” but, actually, it was my effort that did it.

Marx asks me to “withdraw my projection” and accept “it all came from me”—I will then not only be “complete” as a human (i.e. not alienated from myself) but also capable of more “Promethean” developments because I understand that my actions and my situation are within my ambit, not the whim of a god (it opens up more scientific possibilities, for example).

Now, I don’t accept this view—and I’ll explain why in a moment—but that’s what Marx thinks and it’s relevant because he thinks the same has happened with regards to ideas like “contracts”, “constitutions”, and “the laws of supply and demand”. He thinks that men, in the Renaissance period, emancipated themselves from the worship of “God” or statues of Jesus—and this reached its apogee in the Enlightenment.

However, they had merely erected, in a dialectical process, “new idols”—these being ideas like “constitutions”, “contracts”, and “the laws of supply and demand”. This new religion, new mystification, prevents us from the apprehension that we could be one human community if we just understood that the “laws of supply and demand” are a mystification like “Horus”—we just think they’re the rules of nature, just like we used to think, in feudal times, there were “laws of God”.

This is why you get this odd irrational “effort” aspect to Marxism—because ideas like “supply and demand” are fictional mystifications, it follows that any economic problems can be overcome with more collective effort; so that what starts out as a rational analysis ends in some commissar pouring wave after wave into some hopeless canal project.

Anyway, in our current mystification we swapped out God and Jesus for contracts, constitutions, and laws of supply and demand—and so we became atomised individuals, and so we all became Jews; we’re just self-interested hucksters who crawl over each other to get “the best deal”.

And this is most intense in America, the most perfectly bourgeois nation—the nation that most perfectly swapped God for “a Constitution” (it’s also the society where Jews feel most at home, because all Americans are cultural Jews—and have even circumcised themselves to become symbolically identified with their masters).

Marx would say “the answer is socialism”—which will do away with the Jew qua Jew and also the pseudo-Jew of capitalism. But we know socialism doesn’t work—and yet I think the basic model sketched out by Marx is right, only that I need to “turn him upside down” just like he turned the man whose model this really is, Hegel, “upside down” (which he called “the right way up”—which was really a perversion).

So rather than this all being a progressive development upwards—from classical states, to feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism—I say this is a down-going from the most sacred societies, classical societies in direct contact with the gods, to feudalism, to capitalism (to America—seat of the AntiChrist, rule by the Jews; the “Great Satan”—just as the seat of the Industrial Revolution, the “bourgeois revolution”, or, to be exact, the Jewish revolution, was England “the Little Satan”).

Marx was incorrect about Horus, about mystification. This is because magic is real—i.e. when I mix my consciousness with my Horus statue it really does help me get that car; not in a direct cause-and-effect way, but by opening certain chances, opportunities, or fortune to me (that is what prayer does).

Marx has a limited view as regards consciousness—he thinks it should all be contained within the individual, that is not to be “mystified” (not to think “my crops are at the mercy of the thunder god who makes rain—if he is displeased, we starve; nothing we can do” or “there’s a market glut, so we’re laying people off—nothing we can do, just have to wait for the market to self-correct”).

Well, what if consciousness is spread out—what if I’m like a radio tower that picks up waves of consciousness? What if I can reflect or pool consciousness into a Horus statue and make it rain? Marx doesn’t see it like that—consciousness has been “misattributed” to sky gods and the market, and it needs to be “stuffed back” into man’s head (which is where it’s “really” from—an unargued assumption). But people have prayed to gods and respected market trends for centuries—perhaps, Herr Marx, these are real things, objective and outside in some way (or related to us through action at a distance, through consciousness in some way)…

Magic works—so Marx is incorrect; but that’s an experiential matter and, of course, it’s unreasonable to expect a mid-19th-century Victorian like Marx, in a society that was in some ways more “scientistic” than our own, to credit that. But we have demonstrated that it’s tenuous to think that to say “the Horus statue granted me the car” is false—it takes a restricted view as to what consciousness is (in many ways, the left always wages war on consciousness—on awareness).

Yet you agree with Marx that “we’re all Jews now”? Yes—but not for the reason he gives, not because there’s some new materialist turn that will “reconcile the contradiction” (it was called the USSR, it failed) but because we’re going to turn back to religion in a big way; it’s not that we’ve overcome religious “mystification” and moved on to “a new mystification”—it’s that we’ve become ever-more embedded in materialist lies.

Marxist premises emerge from Hegelian thought—which is Hermetic, organic, and difficult to refute (it’s like trying to refute the Tao, because it’s based on the interpenetration of opposites). But let’s apply Hegel’s nemesis, Schopenhauer, to this question—let’s take a sharp example from life. The NHS is the kind of institution Marx sees as overcoming “man’s estrangement from man under capitalism”—but what is it like in practice? Anecdote from a relative, a nurse: employees on the ward steal toilet roll, because “it’s the people’s loo roll, so why can’t I have it?”.

This is the “Schopenhauerian” actuality—not a new consciousness created by a change in the ownership of the mode of production (or is a hospital about “distribution”—of organs?); no, just the same old human types up to the same old games that they play if they’re given a chance—of which socialism gives them many chances (i.e. to steal, to squander, to laze). Hence the Marxist dialectic is refuted with cold observation (though they still protest—only when the dialectical manoeuvre is complete, only when all industry is nationalised, only then will consciousness change; and yet the thieving went on in the USSR—on a grander scale).

So it doesn’t come to pass—and so is this is it, perpetual Judaism across the world? Perpetual greed? Perpetual stock-jobbery? Perpetual American livestreamers who tell you how to pick up women for five years, then convert to Russian Orthodoxy and talk about that—but always, whatever they talk about, whether God or whores, take coin (like the Jews they are)?

No—because religion is real. Marx just observed the ever-deeper slide into the kali-yuga—into the world where family means nothing, where race means nothing, where religion means nothing; and where all that exists is a constant demand to make money and look good—and kill anyone who gets in your way.

9/11. What is its significance? The greatest work of art in the 21st century. Arguably, the only work of art in the 21st century. Why? It cannot be bought or sold—in the land of Mammon, in the land of the Jew, in the land of sodomy and usury, an act was committed that cannot be bought and sold. Even now, though some American has undoubtedly tried, you can’t make t-shirts and baseball caps and sell them, not easily, as “the 9/11 experience”. Why? Not because it was a “socialist” act—but because it was a religious act. It was a divine act.

It’s irrational! It’s doesn’t make sense! How do we negotiate with these people!? So cried what Marx would call “the bourgeoisie”—the “Lockean”, the contract and compromise man (the Judaised European—what’s the bottomline?). There is no bottomline—there is no point, it is not rational, it is from God.

There’s a parallel in school shootings in America—at the mundane level, these are about American schools which, so far as I can tell, are a particular type of hell, not because they are violent but because they are based on democracy, popularity, and total conformism. Total destruction of the individual to serve, ultimately, the market, Mammon—the Jew, American Pie, the “high school movie”.

School shootings, like 9/11, are totally irrational, totally unreasonable, totally unmarketable—I’m sure someone’s tried, I’m sure an American would like to, but nobody has actually made a successful first-person-shooter called High School (although, in fact, all those FPS games Americans play are little simulators, little introjection kits, little shamanic experiences, where you put on the mask to prepare yourself to splatter your classmates and work colleagues).

It’s the desire for the divine—for what can’t be bought and sold and piled up under the Golden Calf; and that just isn’t reasonable or rational—it’s inexplicable…I don’t know why he did it, they always say after these events…you mean, it’s a mystery…Precisely.

It’s not socialism, not the eventual communism it is meant to blossom into, that is the final dialectical move in this scenario—it’s Islam. The worldwide Judaisation is real, but Marx was a materialist—he perverted Hegel’s spiritual philosophy, the progression of History towards God. No, the world has stepped down to this level because it has bowed to the AntiChrist—and the antithesis is Islam, and the final dialectical move is the return of the classical city-state, of the god-emperor, of the men with direct knowledge of the divine, and the end of today’s man who has, in his supposed triumph, sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.


Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page