The Jewish Question

Rev Scare wrote:Is there an easily verifiable and valid source for the quote? I cannot seem to find it. It also strikes me as disingenuous to extract the quotation out of proper context and then accuse Marx of having advocated racial genocide.

I couldn't agree more.

I too have not been able to locate a source for the alleged quote. Not surprisingly, the purported statement of Marx was initially popularized by Glenn Beck — thereby explaining its considerable dissemination among conservative/Tea Party blogs, etc.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I believe is the exact quote. According to Marx, races which don't wish to master "communism" must perish. Sounds pretty hateful to me.

That sounds like bullshit to me. Had Marx and Engels actually held such an extreme position on such a critical matter, this fact would have been widely discussed and debated long before Glenn Beck decided to 'alert' the American public of it.

when one identifies as a Marxist they should understand the hateful man they are identifying themselves with; just as those who identify as Hitlerists should do the same, just to be fair.

There is no equating the two. The personal opinions of Marx and Engels regarding various ethnonational groups clearly did not influence the nature of their theories in a manner even remotely resembling that of Hitler — and that is what is of critical importance in this particular case.

Marx was indeed anti-nationalist as he was INTERNATIONALIST. Why do you think Marxist parties have been so hostile to any nationalist groups? Especially the NSDAP, even before the leader's departure from the original socialist doctrine.

There is no fundamental incompatibility between an unyielding commitment to international socialist emancipation, proletarian solidarity, and national self-determination. The expressions of 'nationalism' that find themselves at odds with revolutionary socialist principles are those which actively seek to undermine them.

As for the NSDAP, neither its leader nor its guiding principles ever conformed to a framework that could rationally be considered socialist. Therefore no "departure" took place; Hitler merely discarded his party's 'revolutionary' pretenses once they became a political liability.

Just like every other politician takes donations from racist zionist Jews, why is it only a big fuss when a politician is accused of being a white racist?

This is a straw man point.

Let's be clear. No one here ever accused Ron Paul of being a racist. However, a convincing case could be made to that effect if one simply takes into account the far more significant controversies surrounding the man — e.g. his newsletters, political affiliations, etc. Had I been inclined to pursue that sort of case against Paul, I would have done so. Personally, I am content to reject Paul on the basis of his reactionary political positions alone.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:The Jewish "nation" is a boundless essence, an international consensus. The Jews lack a rooted affection for the land that mothers them and from which is drawn a cold cynacism, a mechanical, precise and clever way of being fixated upon the material. Thus they are champions of the cosmopolitan and urban mindset; with its international Capitalism, international Socialism and psychologically inept intellectualism. The Jew, like many a cosmopolitan urban-dweller, only understands life in terms of intellect and sentiment, never true culture-feeling, never true faith.

So the Jews are afflicted with the various pathologies you attribute to them simply by virtue of the fact they have been without their own plot of land for much of their existence as a distinct people? Excuse me, but such a notion is beyond ridiculous. The Jewish people display the same range of behaviors as every other ethnic group. Throughout the diaspora the Jewish people have exhibited nationalistic sentiments (some progressive, others reactionary), and they continue to do so to this day in Israel. So your contention that they are this innately cosmopolitan people is, quite frankly, without merit. Certain Jews were indeed influential in the development of cosmopolitan movements (literary, cultural, and otherwise), but then so were many gentile intellectuals.

Consider Rand and Marx, albeit in a shallow and economic sense they're "opposed"

Make no mistake, their philosophies, methods of analysis, and political commitments were polar opposites. To characterize their profound differences as being in any way "shallow" is intellectually dishonest.

they both share the one and same cold rationalism which at its heart lies a hatred of the nation and soil - this character is not a result of the fact that Marx and Rand were themselves decadent & bourgeois, it's erroneous to conclude that class character is the only character and no national/cultural character exists - this is what Marx and Rand would have us believe even though a travel of the world with eyes wide open quickly dispels this idea. Mankind is so much more than an economic(and so class)construct.

Neither Marx nor Rand detested "the nation and soil," and claiming they were economic reductionists is patently absurd. Ayn Rand believed that the fundamental nature of mankind was selfish and that, regardless of whether humans could be conditioned to be more altruistic in their social relations, altruism was fundamentally "immoral." Conversely, Karl Marx held that humanity was essentially social in nature, and that the atomized, exploitative, competitive, and hyperindividualist social relations which characterize capitalism alienates us from our true Gattungswesen. Both theories of human nature have economic implications, but they aren't based in the notion that human beings are wholly passive agents of larger economic forces. (Marx did of course acknowledge that the economic base of society influences human behavior and culture, and the trajectory of history in certain respects, but there's nothing incorrect about that observation.)

Culturally and politically the Jews are corrosive to any national feeling in the Western sense.

Exactly how are Jews "corrosive to any national feeling in the Western sense"?

However, the Jews are not without their merits, their proven individual brilliance is an asset that could be utilised for the benefit of all, to extract the Jewish intellect from the barren Jewish soul would be most beneficial.

Whenever I read someone describe the "soul" of a nationality, I can't help but laugh. Do you honestly believe in such nonsense?