About the Chinese: “It would seem as though history had first to make this whole people drunk before it could raise them out of their hereditary stupidity.” (MECW, Vol. 9, p. 99)
About Mexicans: “The Spaniards are indeed degenerate. But a degenerate Spaniard, a Mexican that is the ideal.” (MECW, Vol. 29, p. 347)
About Scandinavians: “Obviously, the more primitive a nation is, the more ‘scandinavian’ it must be.” (MECW, Vol.7, p. 422)
Both founders of Marxism looked down even on their fellow socialists, especially if there were disagreements between them on some issues. The most infamous example is the characterization of Ferdinand Lassalle behind his back as a “Jewish nigger.” Thus, Marx wrote to Engels, “It is now perfectly clear to me that, as testified by his cranial formation and hair growth, he is descended from the negroes who joined Moses’s exodus from Egypt (unless his paternal mother or grandmother was crossed with a nigger). … Well, this combination of Jewish and Germanic stock with the negroid basic substance is bound to yield a strange product.” (MECW, Vol. 30, p. 210)
But Kate Smith sang a bad word in 1930!!!
Heh heh heh … all those massacres and deportations that span the historical expanse of “socialism” had nothing to do with the politics of those murdered, but with the racial (and “class”) hatreds of the murderers.
Stalin, Hitler, and Mao (chronologically) based their genocides on the racial classifications of their times – though, ultimately, the genocides were committed to entrench the “Party” at the expense of the racial groups.
Funny how everybody seems to miss that.
izlamo delenda est …
US Founding Fathers vs. Marx/Engels . . . compare and contrast.
True story: Back in the late ’80s I was staying with my aunt (no internet) for a time. All she had to read were back issues of Reader’s Digest and a collection of bodice-rippers. But I also found the book “Dianetics” by this guy, L. Ron Hubbard. (Auntie wasn’t interested in Scientology and couldn’t remember where she’d acquired the book.) I tried to read it and eventually made a game of trying to understand what he was getting at, but had to give up. My impression of L. Ron Hubbard was that if one had to gussy up what they were selling by creating a whole new lexicon around it (for no reason I could discern) there must be something he’s hiding behind all those shiny new ideas.
Not surprisingly, I had the very same reaction to reading Marx in college. That happened to also be a very stressful quarter and I remember arguing a lot with the professor about how deceptive Marx was for shrouding his ideas in near-indecipherable language. “What is he hiding?!”
My theory of Marx is that he, like Hubbard, was actually pushing a new kind of slavery.
History is full of bat guano “leaders” and their followers, some of this dude’s disciples are still around:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Yod
I suppose when you’re perfect like Marx & Engels everyone else is expendable.
Outrageous! The latest advances in Phrenology disprove almost half of these baseless claims.
You do understand that “American Thinker” is a platform for (dare I call it) “satire”? That it’s producers think was rejected by “The Onion” because it is too subtle? Not because it is poorly conceived. And executed. And (too often) internally inconsistent. (Satire only works if you, at least pretend, to commit to the premise.) You do “get that”? Don’t you?
AA, my late wife called romance novels Bodice rippers which are written by hack writers just like L Ron Hubbard who wrote for pulp magazines and truly bad science fiction like Battlefield Earth. Marx was a self loathing Jew who was a freeloader and treated his family like crap. I always thought that Groucho Marx was the funnier of the Marx brothers like in Firesign Theaters album How Can You Be In Two Places At Once When You’re Not Anywhere At All on the album cover.