So these idiots mean Karl Marx was Jewish therefore Communism was invented by Jews because Karl had Jewish "racial" lineage even though his father was a Lutheran convert who raised little demonic Karl as a Lutheran. Notice nobody ever accuses Communism of being Lutheran.
Karl renounced his Lutheranism and took up with Satanism in his late teens and declared himself an atheist and then became a Communist in his early 20s. Karl's own (Lutheran) father accused him of having taken up with the devil and being demon-possessed. He did not accuse him of Jewishness.
Think about that for a second, though. Marx BECAME a Communist. That means Communism predated him. That means he didn't invent Communism, or revolutionary Communism, for that matter. He BECAME a Communist after being a demon-possessed lapsed Lutheran who arguably may have sold his soul to Satan in his late teen years, or tried to, at any rate.
The first revolutionary Communist, which is the stripe of Communist Karl Marx represented, was the French revolutionary Francois Noel "Gracchus" Babeuf, who was eventually executed by the Jacobins for being too radical (let that sink in). Babeuf was a messianic Christian (heretic) who believed he was expressing the real Christian ethic with his Communism.
Babeuf and others in his movement were inspired toward their Communism in party by going more radical with ideas drawn from Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Maximillien Robespierre. Rousseau was raised Calvinist, converted to Catholicism, and then kind of made up his own quasi-Christian beliefs. Robespierre was baptized Catholic but turned deist, openly detesting atheism with vigor and eventually founding a Cult of the Supreme Being based on Deism in opposition to Catholicism and the rival Cult of Reason, which he also detested.
Marx wrote about Babeuf and said that Babeuf had the right idea executed wrongly. What Babeuf left out was an inner transformation to Communism (a Christian-ish concept) and the dialectics of Hegel. Hegel was a Hermetic esotericist posing as a Lutheran trained at the infamous Tubingen Stift (a Lutheran seminary in Bavaria). One could properly accuse Hegel of having created a Hermetic social philosophy by hammering the dialectic into a pseudo-Christian mold. Of course, Marx rejected all this spiritualism because he was a staunch materialist atheist (not a believing Jew) like most of the Young Hegelians (the Leftist cult of Hegel after Hegel's death).
The connections between Marx and the French Revolution are also easily drawn, both in philosophical currents and conceptual inspirations. Marx was a member of the Communist League (joining shortly after it was formed in 1847, after he had begun writing about Babeuf and Communism) and the earlier Communist Correspondence Committee, which he helped form in 1845. (Note: Marx was writing about Communism in 1843, if not earlier.)
He got involved in those currents of radicalism, however, by being involved in debates about socialism and radicalism that were hot at the time in Leftist and Young Hegelian circles, particularly drawing socialist influence from Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Proudhon, all of which is very obvious in his early writings. All three of these men were Catholics and not Jewish and with no evidence of Jewish ancestry.
It's worth noting that all these Catholic influences are likely present because of Catholic social teaching, particularly among the Jesuits, going back a couple of centuries at the time (so maybe even 1500s). The Jesuits developed the concept of "social justice," and all of these European Catholic early socialists would have been familiar with and inspired by that idea.
The Communist League itself was a fusion of the Communist Correspondence League (a letters and theory club) with the French-Bavarian radical esoteric secret society called the League of the Just, which was derived from the League of Outlaws and likely a source of inspiration for the Communist Correspondence League. The League of Outlaws was a Antifa-like group of post-revolutionary French radicals and what was left of the Bavarian Illuminati (an occult secret society) after the king tried to eliminate that group completely.
The Bavarian Illuminati was created by Adam Weishaupt, who was a Jesuit (Catholic) turned mystic esotericist and cult leader. The League of the Just was derivative to the League of Outlaws, which was a derived from a Christian Socialist group that abandoned Jesus for with Babeuf's more vigorous radicalism. All of these groups were secular in their official organization and only had minority Jewish membership.
In no way whatsoever did Jews "invent" Communism. You could maybe blame the French for it, or the Jesuits, or French Jesuits, which would still be rather wrong but at least more plausible than "Jews did it."
Of course, the point these idiots are making is that Marx is guilty because he's ETHNICALLY Jewish, which also means they believe that conversion to Christianity is false, given Marx's father and his own raising.
I thought Christians generally believed that once someone becomes a Christian, they're Christian. There is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ-Jesus, wrote Paul. That's not fringe or debatable Christian doctrine.
Of course, these demon-worshippers aren't Christians, though, are they?
From my Woke Encyclopedia, an explanation of the "friend-enemy distinction" of Carl Schmitt, which is the Woke political logic. Link at the end!🧵
(1/13) The friend-enemy distinction refers to the cornerstone object of the political and judicial philosophy of a German theorist named Carl Schmitt, who wrote a number of works of right-wing political philosophy and thought before becoming such an enthusiastic Nazi in 1933, just after Adolf Hitler took power, that he earned the informal title “the Crown Jurist of the Third Reich.”
Though most of his significant political thinking was done both before and after he was a Nazi, during the years when he was a part of Hitler’s National Socialist movement and Party, he contributed strongly to the legal theory that justified the Nazi “total state,” including writing the 1933 piece that gets rendered in English as “The Legal Basis for the Total State,” which is significantly based upon the friend-enemy distinction.
Friend-enemy distinction:
(2/13) Schmitt’s thought is primarily of interest on the Woke Right, where he is a favored thinker and model political mind. He is vigorously forwarded for a handful of his political concepts, perhaps most visibly his “friend-enemy distinction” as the essential criterion of what makes politics political. This idea is first presented and developed in full detail in his 1927/32 book The Concept of the Political.
Friend-enemy distinction:
(3/13) For Schmitt, what makes the politics political is the distinction between (public) friend and (public) enemy, where enemies are defined as those who are interested in destroying one’s way of life and friends are defined as those who are willing to band together in its defense.
Schmitt specifically compares the essential nature of this distinction in politics to the distinction between good and evil in morality, beautiful and ugly in aesthetics, and profitable versus non-profitable in economics.
That is, politics is only political to the degree that it recognizes the possibility of factions that exist in mutual enmity underwritten by the potentially existential threat of violence. Of course, that means that Schmitt believes the essential criterion of politics is war, which he reveals also in part by making his point by completing the identity contained in von Clausewitz’s famous remark that “war is politics by other means.”
All radical movements find themselves in a pinch: they can only really advance when people don't know their true intentions, but they can only really advance by going public with what they're doing. It's an intrinsic dilemma that only rare figures in rare circumstances can win.
Mamdani is a good example of a rare figure (extremely good at presenting himself disingenuously while looking real) in rare circumstances (terrible primary opponent, then running against a terrible combination of Cuomo/Sliwa, then still not winning by huge margins).
The primary reason NYC got Mamdani isn't something to do with the electorate, the climate, or anything else. Mamdani, with tons of weird money, ran a very strong campaign (rare figure) in very weird circumstances, most of which were candidate-specific, not conditional.
Fun fact: If you had a time machine and could go back in time to this day in 2019 but couldn't take any physical evidence with you, you could not convince almost anyone to take the Woke Left threat seriously and would get mocked and yelled at for trying, even by friends.
Your left-leaning friends (if you have any) would make fun of you for not getting it. Your right-leaning friends would laugh at you for making a mountain out of a molehill. No one really understood there was a serious problem with the Woke Left until after summer 2020.
The reason I know this is because I was there and doing this full time already by that point in my life.
Introducing to you two of the "intellectual" Woke Right's favorite contemporary thinkers: Patrick Deneen (left) and R.R. Reno. Here, they demonstrate their inability to see what is plainly in front of them—a Marxist insurgency through Leftist elitist capture—because of their preference for theories of cultural rot and decay.
These kinds of theories about why we are where we are aren't just dangerous misdiagnosed; they're also self-flattering humblebrags, saying in effect, "things got bad because everyone went to shit except people like us who are better than that." Typical Woke virtue signaling except in "modest" conservative form.
Yes, they are popular with Woke Right propagandists.