Monthly Archives: February 2017

Pens and Swords

From The Vengeance of Edward Said

I’ve been thinking about this tendency for white liberalism to encourage nonwhite reactionaries as I’ve been reading perhaps the most influential left-wing book by a Middle Eastern immigrant in American academic history, Edward Said’s 1978 tome Orientalism.

Said was a superbly cultured man. But his legacy has been to make Americans dumber—and smugger over being dumber—about the Arab world.

And that was not an unintended consequence.

orn in Jerusalem in 1935, Said was the wealthy son of a Palestinian Christian father with U.S. citizenship and a Lebanese Christian mother. He used the word “Orient” not in the American fashion of referring to the Far East, but in the European manner of referencing the Middle East and North Africa.

Reading Orientalism almost four decades later, it’s striking how useless it has been for helping anyone understand the Middle East.

That was Said’s intention. Knowledge is power, he believed, so he wanted Westerners to be more ignorant about his homeland in order that they would have less power over it.

No one ever expended more brainpower to encourage stupidity than Said did in Orientalism. He achieved his goal of increasing obliviousness by promoting anti-intellectual ploys, such as castigating pattern recognition as stereotyping the Other, that are now used by even the dimmest social justice jihadi, but which seemed relatively novel in 1978.


Said intensely resented that some Western scholars, writers, and artists had devoted so much attention to what he called the “Arab-Muslim world.” He pejoratively labeled these Western intellectuals as “Orientalists” and blamed them for assembling the vast amounts of knowledge that made possible the Western political ascendancy over his homeland (which had culminated in the Zionist confiscation of his family’s house in Jerusalem).

My suspicion is that, shocking as it may sound to his fans, Said had normal, masculine, conservative affections for his blood and soil.

In particular, Said complained about Western Orientalists depicting the Middle East as feminine and alluring.

This was not just a literary metaphor for Said. For many years, adventurous European artists and writers like Flaubert had engaged in sex tourism in Muslim lands and come back to whip up spicy works for the European market.

Just as the men of Europe are finally starting to object to the sex tourism hegira now running from the Middle East to the blonder lands, Said, as a racial loyalist, resented men of a different ancestry defiling his people’s womenfolk…and, perhaps especially, his people’s boyfolk.

The cover illustration of Orientalism, which was chosen to highlight the evils of Westerners taking any interest in the Middle East, is the vaguely sinister 1879 painting The Snake Charmer by Jean-Léon Gérôme of a naked boy posing with a snake before a group of staring men in a Muslim palace. The painting is basically high-gloss pedophilic gay porn. It gets across the disgust Said felt for boy-bothering Orientalists.

Ironically, Said had the IQ and cultural sophistication to devise complex-sounding and thus hugely influential justifications for his basically redneck and wholesome emotion: Don’t come around here no more.

And so began Post-Colonial Studies, which tells us a lot about the Evil West, but surprisingly little about the Arab World. Hmmm.

America has lots of guns, immense wealth, and a vast array of weapons, which are simply worthless when you give to your enemies the power to shape your media, your minds, and the minds of your children.

Just ask the millions of Christians who send their children to public schools every day, and eagerly fight to destroy their retirement savings, to send their children to pointedly Secularist universities.

But this is not a surprise: the West has left the power of the Truth, as incarnated by Jesus Christ, behind long ago. There are only the True European Gods left:

  • The State
  • The Leader
  • The People
  • The Party
  • The Race

As we observe Secular Europe become properly subjugated, we will discover just how powerful and mighty these profoundly secular, explicitly materialistic gods are.

Gods you can see, and touch, and feel: be it The Leader, the Sacred Soil of the Nation, your flawless DNA pattern, the sound of marching troops… or the impact of a single bullet to the head.

But then again, atheistic materialists were always idolators at heart.

We all know that!

Then we get Divine Welcome: The Ethics of Hospitality in Islam and Christianity by Mona Siddiqui.

Recent work by Christian scholars, as well as Muslims who insist that the public space requires the peaceful diversity of religious voices, propose a new kind of civic engagement. In working together, both sides may have to give something up. As David Fergusson writes, Christians should give up trying to be the dominant moral force in society or maximising church membership. He says, “the ethical witness lies in providing an authentic moral voice in a world too often compromised and confused.”

Ah yes, both sides have to give up something. Christians give up the desire to build an expanding and powerful Christian society, and Muslims in turn give up…


Like Secularists —

and, to our shame, a solid majority of craven Christians, trained as they are in utterly humanistic schools and universities, and ever eager for the approval of the Right Sort

— Muslims prefer to have their churches weak and humbled, far distant from any concept of expanding the Kingdom of God, upholding in public the Commandments, and having Jesus Christ being Lord of Heaven and Earth.

Lots of smiles, lots of soft words…. and absolutely infinite levels of malice and contempt.

Because we all know how Christians are dealt with in Islam-dominant cultures, now don’t we.

(Almost the same as in Secularistic cultures: but with less self-righteous preening and virtue signalling, and more rapes, kidnappings, and murder.

“Either rule yourself, or be ruled by those who despise you.”)

After all, the hatred of the Church and the hunger to suppress the Good News — that Jesus explicitly commands us to spread — is nothing less than the hatred of God.

As for all that talk of hospitality… how curious, that the writer is so passionately interested in underscoring the need for Christian hospitality to Islamic guests, and has zero interest in the behaviour of those Islamic populations in Secularist (ex-Christian) societies.


The inevitable decline and fall of the Secular West was cast in iron the moment multiculturalism became official dogma as per Sweden, that paradise of atheistic reason and comprehensive contempt for Christianity.

A thirst for power so overwhelming, that it simply can’t rest until the very last homeschooling family in Sweden has been Made to Comply.

(Coupled with remarkably little interest in the level of literacy of their New Islamic Friends.)

But of course, while any Christian condemnation of homosexuality is sure to bring in government persecution, any and all Islamic condemnation of such perversion is met with… official silence.

Because — as any Secularist could tell you — there only every was one enemy.

“Either rule yourself, or be ruled by those who despise you.”

And that is the clear lesson that all secular governments have to teach to all Christians. Everything else is blather, meaning nothing.


The Dying Lands: Same Hymn, Different Verse

And from Italy, we get a new twist on the West’s march to oblivion.

From Daniel J. Mitchell’s Move over Greece, Italy’s Crisis Will Be Worse

Simply stated, I fear that Italy, along with certain other “Club Med” nations, has passed the point of no return in terms of big government, demographic decline, and societal dependency.

And this means that, sooner or later, the proverbial wheels are going to fall off the bus. And it might be sooner.

Actually, I vote for later.

“Later” meaning 2021, as opposed to late 2017.

Not a great amount of difference, if you are using proper Biblical timeframes, geared to generations as opposed to a single year.

Here’s what Desmond just wrote about the country’s economy.

…while the euro could very well survive a Greek exit, it certainly could not survive in anything like its present form were Italy to have a full-blown economic and financial crisis that forced it to default on its public debt mountain. …

Well, yes, but for all sorts of reasons the Eurozone isn’t going to make it. Certainly of importance on the great scheme of things — like a Great Recession II, or even a Great Depression II — but this isn’t what my immediate focus is on.

Falling Birthrates

So what’s the Italian government doing to solve these problems? Is it slashing tax rates? Reducing the burden of government? Cutting back on red tape?

Of course not. The politicians are either making things worse or engaging in pointless distractions.

Speaking of which, I’m tempted to laugh at the Italian government’s campaign to boost birthrates. Here’s some of what’s been reported by the New York Times.

…a government effort to promote “Fertility Day” on Sept. 22, a campaign intended to encourage Italians to have more babies. …Italy has one of the lowest birthrates in the world… Italian families have been shrinking for decades. In 2015, 488,000 babies were born in Italy, the fewest since the country first unified in 1861. It has one of the lowest birthrates in Europe, with 1.37 children per woman, compared with a European average of 1.6, according to Eurostat figures.”

By the way, I actually commend the government for recognizing that falling birthrates are a problem.

Not because women should feel obliged to have kids if that’s not what they want. But rather because Italy has a massive tax-and-transfer welfare state that is predicated on an ever-expending population of workers (i.e., taxpayers) to finance benefits to retirees.

But old people are living longer and low birthrates mean that there won’t be enough taxpayers to prop up the Ponzi Scheme of big government.

But while the government deserves kudos for acknowledging a problem, it deserves mockery for thinking empty slogans will make a difference.

Women bear children when there is hope for the future — financially, sure, but culturally as well — and when they can trust their men to find decent work and uphold their commitment to the family.

By far, it is our leading men — and by far it is men, not a bunch of ideologically-driven collectivist puppets feminists (aka anti-women, anti-family, anti-freedom activists) — who, acting as judges and legislators and pastors and professors, created this profoundly anti-masculine, anti-youth, anti-family society.

But then again: if you cut yourself off from the Father, you are going to get gelded. And bedding a new woman a month, or a day, won’t give you back the strength and respect that stems from taking your lawful commitments to the Lord and to your family seriously.

Last but not least, CNN is reporting that the government is also enabling other forms of Italian “culture.”

Italy’s highest court has ruled that masturbation in public is not a crime, as long as it is not conducted in the presence of minors.”

No, this is not a joke.

The decision came down from the Italian Supreme Court…in the case of a 69-year-old man…The man was convicted in May 2015 after he performed the act in front of students on the University of Catania campus, according to documents filed with Supreme Court. The man was sentenced to three months in prison and ordered to pay a fine of €3,200 (around $3,600). However, the defendant’s lawyer appealed the case to the country’s highest court, which ruled on the side of the accused in June but only just made its decision public. Judges ruled that public masturbation out of the presence of minors is no longer deemed criminal conduct due to a change in the law last year, which decriminalized the act.”

Great. I’m looking forward to my next trip to Italy. Though I guess it’s nice to see Italian seniors are staying active in their communities.

When a society dies, the blighted land within it’s borders fill up with filth and rot and worms.

Spiritually at first, then physically.

The Christian’s job is not to weep over Post-Christian America: it is to build up Post-America Christianity.

They may choose death: you choose life.

Defender’s Day

Originally a Soviet holiday celebrating the soldiers who served the wicked Communists, it has been redeemed into a holiday celebrating the men who saved the Russian people and nation, especially in World War II.

It is currently growing into a holiday that simply celebrates men as men, protecting their families and countries, the Defenders of what is right and good.

I approve.

(Yes, the holiday has bad origins… but in the beginning, we were all wicked sinners. What matters is what you are now, and what you are fighting to be in the future… what you were is covered by the Blood of the Lamb, so far as Christians are concerned.

With Divine Grace, there is hope… and the Kingdom of God expands to cover all the earth, and redeem all the world!)

It is grimly amusing that there will never be a public celebration of men as responsible men, Protectors and Defenders, Fighters and Builders, in the modern parody of what used to be the Christian West.

It takes some ex-Commies, led by a KGB man, to remind us of what we are called to be.

How far have we fallen!

But the rotting parody of the West won’t stand up to the hard storms that are coming.

It is up to Christians to build the future. And that future includes actual, masculine, righteous men

men who are able to

  • think and build
  • pray and fight
  • punish and forgive,
  • judging the right thing to do, at the right time,

to secure the future for themselves, their people, and the Kingdom of God.

Eight Unbreakable Rules for Christian Activists

It would be wise for Christians working in the realm of politics to keep this post by Gary North on their mind.

I am hard core. I have been hard core for a long time.

I am writing this for those of you who are equally hard core.

Here are ten facts of American national politics that you must understand to get meaningful change.

1. You can’t beat something with nothing.
2. 80% of politicians respond only to two things: (1) fear; (2) pain.
3. Bureaucrats (tenured) respond only to one thing: budget cuts.
4. Political reform never comes as long as the tax money flows in.
5. The #1 goal is to reduce the government’s funds, not re-direct them.
6. Congress’s club system sucks in 80% of new members by term #2.
7. Politicians listen to their peers, not to their constituents.
8. Money from the government buys off most voters.
9. Most citizens care little about politics and know less.
10. This gives influence to organized swing-vote blocs.

The political system was summed up a generation ago by the man I regard as the elder statesman of the hard-core wing of the American conservative movement, M. Stanton Evans: “Evans’s Law of Political Perfidy.”

When our friends get into power, they aren’t our friends any more.

To this, I add North’s Law of Partisan Politics:

When a movement is in either political party’s hip pocket, it will be sat on.

If you do not believe this, then you are a sheep for the shearing — and then, after several shearings, the roasting. You are on some politician’s menu.


These are eight basic rules of engagement. There may be others, but these are fundamental. If you do not believe these, you are headed for disappointment.

1. Vote for a hard-core challenger on the other side against a squishy incumbent. This rule separates the hard core members from the soft core members. It has a corollary: A first-term incumbent next election is easier to beat than a squishy incumbent this election. It is always hard to defeat an incumbent. Do what you can to defeat any incumbent, no matter which party he belongs to, if he is squishy on the issue you regard as fundamental. Why is this so important? Incumbents must become deathly afraid of your movement. Take out a few dozen of them in the next election and the one that follows, and many others will cooperate. As Sen. Everett Dirksen put it so long ago, “When we feel the heat, we see the light.” In short, you do not settle for the lesser of two evils. You eliminate them both, one election at a time: first the softie, then the newbie.

2. Hold your newly elected politician’s feet to the fire the first time he breaks ranks on a key vote. He is like a puppy. When he leaves a mess on the carpet, get out the switch. “Bad dog! Bad dog!” Let him remember that switch. Let him fear that switch. The second time he does it, warm up the car. You and he will be taking a trip to the pound. You are his voter only for as long as he is your representative. Politicians respond to only two things: fear and pain.

3. Get him to sign a resignation letter. Before you work for him, make sure he has signed a resignation letter. This letter says the following:

To the voters of [district, state]:

I am making this public. If I ever vote for [whatever], I will turn in my letter of resignation to the [government body] within 24 hours.

If I fail to do this, I expect voters to vote against me at the next election, since I clearly cannot be trusted.

I expect my opponent in the primary to defeat me next time, and if he doesn’t, my opponent in the general election will. And should.

Very truly yours,

Name Candidate for [whatever]

This is a political suicide letter. You will see who is serious about your #1 issue and who is not by means of a signed resignation letter. Post it online. If he refuses to sign it, start working to undermine him after he defeats the squishy incumbent. Above all, do not trust him.

WordPress is free ( A domain name costs $10 a year to register. A multi-site hosting service like Hostgator is $10 a month or less. Have a separate site for every candidate and elected official.

This would make a great civics project for home schoolers: track a candidate for the school year. Then turn the task over to a new student. Have the committee run the sites, but students can do the grunt work. It is good practice.

5. Find out who his largest campaign donors are. This will tell you who will have the most clout when he takes office. Investigate the PACs. Investigate the donors who send in the maximum donation allowed. Are they members of one group? Post this information on the site that you set up to monitor his votes.

6. Instill fear. This is your #1 task, once he takes office.

7. Inflict pain. This is the basis of #6.

8. Trust, but verify. If your group refuses to verify, it should not trust.


Politics is not based on love, because civil government is based on coercion. Do not impose “tough love” on a politician. He is not to love you. He is to obey you. You are not to love him. You are to monitor him. Impose negative sanctions and positive sanctions wisely.

[The fundamental sex’n’money’n’power motivations of politicians are snipped here. Just a reminder, that these people are not your friends: so don’t treat them as such.

Always keep the baseball bat close at hand, when dealing with politicians.]

Creative Production, not Creative Destruction

While I cheerfully agree with the main point of Gary North’s article — that the market is essentially creative and productive to all except to the entrepreneurs who guessed wrong — there is one bit that I want to comment on.

North writes:

The phrase “creative destruction” was popularized by the Austrian, but not Austrian School economist, Joseph Schumpeter….

Wikipedia’s entry for “Creative Destruction” says:

Creative destruction (German: schöpferische Zerstörung), sometimes known as Schumpeter’s gale, is a concept in economics which since the 1950s has become most readily identified with the Austrian American economist Joseph Schumpeter who derived it from the work of Karl Marx and popularized it as a theory of economic innovation and the business cycle.

Any concept picked up from Karl Marx is likely to be filthy — not only wrong, but evil — including that of class warfare. Libertarian class analysis, focusing on how the Right Sort use State Power to steal from you and me, and give to themselves and their friends, is much more to the point.

According to Schumpeter, the “gale of creative destruction” describes the “process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one”. In Marxian economic theory the concept refers more broadly to the linked processes of the accumulation and annihilation of wealth under capitalism.

Marx had it wrong. So did Bakunin. So did Schumpeter.

True. The claim of “regeneration through chaos” is quite Satanic at the core, an attempt to build Creation without a lawful Creator, something from nothing.

Gary North’s cover gets the ideal across nicely:


To continue to my personal Trigger Point:

Schumpeter borrowed the concept from a pair of revolutionists, Bakunin and Marx. They preached rival social philosophies that were both based on literal murder, not figurative murder. Schumpeter was impressed by their concept. Felix Somary records in his autobiography, The Raven of Zurich (1986), a discussion he had with the economist Joseph Schumpeter and the sociologist Max Weber in 1918. Weber was the most prestigious academic social scientist in the world when he died in 1920. Schumpeter expressed happiness regarding the Russian Revolution. The USSR would be a test case for socialism. Weber warned that this would cause untold misery. Schumpeter replied, “That may well be, but it would be a good laboratory.” Weber responded, “A laboratory heaped with human corpses!” Schumpeter retorted, “Every anatomy classroom is the same thing.” Weber stormed out of the room (p. 121). I don’t blame him. (I am indebted to Mark Skousen for this reference.)

These loathsome materialist make me gag.

Decentralization: a Few Nitty-Gritty Details

From What Does Decentralization Really Mean?

[My comments in italic square brackets]

Three Types of Decentralization

When people talk about software decentralization, there are actually three separate axes of centralization/decentralization that they may be talking about. While in some cases it is difficult to see how you can have one without the other, in general, they are quite independent of each other. The axes are as follows:

  • Architectural (de)centralization — how many physical computers is a system made up of? How many of those computers can it tolerate breaking down at any single time?
  • Political (de)centralization — how many individuals or organizations ultimately control the computers that the system is made up of?
  • Logical (de)centralization— does the interface and data structures that the system presents and maintains look more like a single monolithic object, or an amorphous swarm? One simple heuristic is: if you cut the system in half, including both providers and users, will both halves continue to fully operate as independent units?

We can try to put these three dimensions into a chart:


Note that a lot of these placements are very rough and highly debatable. But let’s try going through any of them:

  • Traditional corporations are politically centralized (one CEO), architecturally centralized (one head office) and logically centralized (can’t really split them in half)
  • Civil law relies on a centralized law-making body, whereas common law is built up of precedent made by many individual judges. Civil law still has some architectural decentralization as there are many courts that nevertheless have large discretion, but common law has more of it. Both are logically centralized (“the law is the law”).

[Note that a network of Biblical courts would operate on similar principles, just with a far smaller scope. First, no positive law — a Christian government has no executive function, and can only ban things, not compel you to do something — and second, no creation of new law: the law today is the same as the law yesterday, and the law today is the same as the law tomorrow.

There remains only one Lawgiver and one King: so there is ethical centralization in this way. The various political systems and nations should be as small and numerous as possible. Finally, the ‘government’ isn’t only the magistrate: the family, the church, and the individual are also legitimate sovereign forces, with only one overall Sovereign, God.  It is forbidden for the state to cross into family lines, or for the church to take control of what are fundamentally individual matters.- AP]

  • Languages are logically decentralized; the English spoken between Alice and Bob and the English spoken between Charlie and David do not need to agree at all. There is no centralized infrastructure required for a language to exist, and the rules of English grammar are not created or controlled by any one single person (whereas Esperanto was originally invented by Ludwig Zamenhof, though now it functions more like a living language that evolves incrementally with no authority)
  • BitTorrent is logically decentralized similarly to how English is. Content delivery networks are similar, but are controlled by one single company.
  • Blockchains are politically decentralized (no one controls them) and architecturally decentralized (no infrastructural central point of failure) but they are logically centralized (there is one commonly agreed state and the system behaves like a single computer)

Many times when people talk about the virtues of a blockchain, they describe the convenience benefits of having “one central database”; that centralization is logical centralization, and it’s a kind of centralization that is arguably in many cases good…


Architectural centralization often leads to political centralization, though not necessarily — in a formal democracy, politicians meet and hold votes in some physical governance chamber, but the maintainers of this chamber do not end up deriving any substantial amount of power over decision-making as a result. In computerized systems, architectural but not political decentralization might happen if there is an online community which uses a centralized forum for convenience, but where there is a widely agreed social contract that if the owners of the forum act maliciously then everyone will move to a different forum (communities that are formed around rebellion against what they see as censorship in another forum likely have this property in practice).

Logical centralization makes architectural decentralization harder, but not impossible — see how decentralized consensus networks have already been proven to work, but are more difficult than maintaining BitTorrent. And logical centralization makes political decentralization harder — in logically centralized systems, it’s harder to resolve contention by simply agreeing to “live and let live”.

[PS: The American idea of “Let’s make a deal!” and “Live and let live” — strongly propagated by Gary North — are going to become very powerful globally on the macro scale, as time goes on: regardless of what various socialists, totalitarians, or democrats wish. It looks like Christian libertarian-leaning theonomic small-r republicans have got the winning idea!

Too bad for the centralizing Secularist, Marxist, and Islamic alternatives. Not many tears streaming from my eyes, though, I must admit.]

The next question is, why is decentralization useful in the first place? There are generally several arguments raised:

  • Fault tolerance — decentralized systems are less likely to fail accidentally because they rely on many separate components that are not likely to fail.
  • Attack resistance — decentralized systems are more expensive to attack and destroy or manipulate because they lack sensitive central points that can be attacked at much lower cost than the economic size of the surrounding system.
  • Collusion resistance — it is much harder for participants in decentralized systems to collude to act in ways that benefit them at the expense of other participants, whereas the leaderships of corporations and governments collude in ways that benefit themselves but harm less well-coordinated citizens, customers, employees and the general public all the time.

All three arguments are important and valid, but all three arguments lead to some interesting and different conclusions once you start thinking about protocol decisions with the three individual perspectives in mind. Let us try to expand out each of these arguments one by one.

[And this is where I will stop, and recommend that you read the complete article yourself!]

Marx the Man

From Marx the Man

When Karl Marx died in March 1883, only about a dozen people attended his funeral at a cemetery in London, England, including family members. Yet, for more than a century after his death – and even until today – there have been few thinkers whose ideas have been as influential on various aspects of modern world history. Indeed, as some have said, no other faith or belief-system has had such a worldwide impact as Marxism, since the birth of Christianity and the rise of Islam.

As we watch the corpse of Marxism blow away into the wind, it becomes obvious that Satan isn’t nearly as capable as he was when he created Islam.

And even Islam isn’t looking too good nowadays…

In the meantime, Christianity continues to expand and deepen. Sure, Europe is over, but that’s just until Secular Europe finishes dying off — an act directly traceable to her rebellion against God. Between the Arab Muslims and the Christian Africans, my money’s on Africa to inherit Europe by ~2300.

(Sure, Europe could always repent and live – and thus, please God. And the likelihood of this occurring is….)

Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the Rhineland town of Trier. His parents were Jewish, with a long line of respected rabbis on both sides of the family. But to follow a legal career in the Kingdom of Prussia at the time, Karl Marx’s father converted to Protestantism. Karl’s own religious training was limited; at an early age he rejected all belief in a Supreme Being.

So Marx took the public step that many Christian clerics of the time – especially German clerics – had already taken privately. See North’s The Hoax of Higher Criticism for details.

Marx’s only real jobs during his lifetime were as occasional reporters for or editors of newspapers and journals most of which usually closed in a short period of time, either because of small readership and limited financial support or political censorship by the governments under which he was living.

No wonder the Mainstream Media love him so. They recognize a kindred spirit…

In all his researches into the iniquities of British capitalism, he came across many instances of low-paid workers but he never succeeded in unearthing one who was paid literally no wages at all. Yet such a worker did exist, in his own household … This was Helen Demuth [the life-long family maid]. She got her keep but was paid nothing … She was a ferociously hard worker, not only cleaning and scrubbing, but managing the family budget … Marx never paid her a penny …

Typical Marxist.

In temperament, Marx could be cruel and authoritarian. He treated people with whom he disagreed in a crude and mean way, often ridiculing them in public gatherings. Marx had no hesitation about being a hypocrite; when he wanted something from someone he would flatter them in letters or conversation, but then attack them in nasty language behind their backs to others. He often used racial slurs and insulting words to describe the mannerisms or appearance of his opponents in the socialist movement.

For instance, in an 1862 letter to Frederick Engels, Marx described leading nineteenth-century German socialist, Ferdinand Lassalle, in the following way:

The Jewish Nigger Lassalle … fortunately departs at the end of this week … It is now absolutely clear to me that, as both the shape of his head and his hair texture shows – he descends from the Negros who joined Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or grandmother on the paternal side hybridized with a nigger). Now this combination of Germanness and Jewishness with a primarily Negro substance creates a strange product. The pushiness of the fellow is also nigger-like.

The original Social Justice Warrior has spoken!

In Marx’s mind, the Jew in bourgeois society encapsulated the essence of everything he considered despicable in the capitalist system, and only with the end of the capitalist system would there be an end to most of those unattractive qualities. Here is Marx’s conception of the Jewish mind in nineteenth century Europe, from his essay “On the Jewish Question” (1844):

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Haggling. What is his worldly god? Money! … Money is the jealous god of Israel before whom no other god may exist.

Money degrades all the gods of mankind and converts them into commodities … What is contained abstractly in the Jewish religion – contempt for theory, for art, for history, for man as an end in himself … The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Jewishness.

(Marx’s caricaturing description of the asserted “Jewish mindset” rings amazingly similar to those that were later written by the Nazi “race-scientists” of the 1930s, who also condemned Jews for the same self-interested pursuit of money and the resulting degenerative influence that they believed Jews had upon the German people.)

There always was a family resemblance between Marxism and Fascism.

The Marxist can imitate Marx.

The Muslims can imitate Mohammad.
(And yes, the reader is definitely invited to do his own investigation here!)

We are to imitate Jesus Christ.