Karl Marx: Jewish Bankers decide the destiny of Europe

By Peter Myers; date September 23, 2017; update February 4, 2023.

My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at http://mailstar.net/marx-jewish-finance.html .

(1) Marx' writings on Jews & Finance - Censored as being Anti-Semitic
(2) On the Jewish Question, by Karl Marx
(3) The Loanmongers of Europe, by Karl Marx (
also published as The Jewish Bankers of Europe)
(4) The Russian Loan, by Karl Marx
(5) Lenin censored Marx' essay "On the Jewish Question" - Encyclopaedia Judaica
(6) 'Philo-Semitic' Marxists deny the authenticity of The Loanmongers of Europe, and The Russian Loan
(7) Researches at New York Public Library: Articles in N-Y Daily Tribune bore no Author's Name
(8) Karl Marx and Henry Carey at the New York Tribune
(9) The Birth of the Byline, by Ford Risley
(10) Marx's analysis of Jewish Finance and Power is about the Ruling Class, the 1%
(11) Left-wing Billionaires, a consequence of the Rise of the Jewish Financial Aristocracy
(12) The Rothschilds and Rockefellers don't show up in the Forbes Rich List

(1) Marx' writings on Jews & Finance - Censored as being Anti-Semitic

Karl Marx' essays on the preponderance of Jews among Bankers and Finance are somewhat suppressed these days.

He wrote three such essays: On the Jewish Question, which used to be well-known but is hardly mentioned today; The Jewish Bankers of Europe, and The Russian Loan. The latter two are excised from Marx's writings, in Trotskyist circles, and unknown elsewhere. This website was the first place where the text was online.

The Marxists Internet Archive (https://www.marxists.org/) is a Trotskyist site; Trotskyists downplay the 'anti-Semitic' content in Marx's writings.

On the Jewish Question (1843) is from The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert Tucker, New York: Norton & Company, 1978.

The Jewish Bankers of Europe, and The Russian Loan are from The Karl Marx Library Volume 5 On Religion (arranged and edited, with an introd. and new translations, by Saul K. Padover McGraw-Hill Book Company New York 1972).

(2) On the Jewish Question, by Karl Marx

On the Jewish Question has two parts. In the first part, Marx is commenting on Bruno Bauer's paper Die Judenfrage (The Jewish Question). In this second part, Marx is commenting on Bruno Bauer's paper Die Fahigkeit der heutigen Juden und Christen frei zu werden (The capacity of the present-day Jews and Christians to become free).

from The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert Tucker, New York: Norton & Company, 1972. The online version (linked to below) is from the 1978 edition; but the page#s provided below are from the 1972 edition.


{p. 46} Let us consider the real Jew: not the sabbath Jew, whom Bauer considers, but the everyday Jew.

Let us not seek the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us seek the secret of the religion in the real Jew.

What is the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need, self interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money.

Very well: then in emancipating itself from huckstering and money, and thus from real and practical Judaism, our age would emancipate itself.

An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions and thus the very possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would evaporate like some insipid vapour in the real, life-giving air of society. On the other hand, when the Jew recognizes his practical nature as invalid and endeavours to abolish it, he begins to deviate from his former path of development, works for general human emancipation and

{p. 47} turns against the supreme practical expression of human self estrangement.

We discern in Judaism, therefore, a universal antisocial element of the present time, whose historical development, zealously aided in its harmful aspects by the Jews, has now attained its culminating point, a point at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.

The Jew has already emancipated himself in a Jewish fashion.

"The Jew, who is merely tolerated in Vienna for example, determines the fate of the whole Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may be entirely without rights in the smallest German state, decides the destiny of Europe. While the corporations and guilds exclude the Jew, or at least look on him with disfavour, the audacity of industry mocks the obstinacy of medieval institutions." {Marx is here quoting from Bauer's Die Judenfrage (The Jewish Question)}

This is not an isolated instance. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only by acquiring the power of money, but also because money has become, through him and also apart from him, a world power, while the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves in so far as the Christians have become Jews. [...]

In North America, indeed, the effective domination of the Christian world by Judaism has come to be manifested in a common and unambiguous form; the preaching of the Gospel itself, Christian preaching, has become an article of commerce, and the bankrupt trader in the church behaves like the prosperous clergyman in business. "This man whom you see at the head of a respectable congregation began as a trader; his business having failed he has become a

{p. 48} minister. This other began as a priest, but as soon as he had accumulated some money he abandoned the priesthood for trade. In the eyes of many people the religious ministry is a veritable industrial career."

According to Bauer, it is "a hypocritical situation when, in theory, the Jew is deprived of political rights, while in practice he wields tremendous power and exercises on a wholesale scale the political influence which is denied him in minor matters."

The contradiction which exists between the effective political power of the Jew and his political rights, is the contradiction between politics and the power of money in general. Politics is in principle superior to the power of money, but in practice it has become its bondsman.

Judaism has maintained itself alongside Christianity, not only because it constituted the religious criticism of Christianity and embodied the doubt concerning the religious origins of Christianity, but equally because the practical Jewish spirit - Judaism or commerce - has perpetuated itself in Christian society and has even attained its highest development there. The Jew, who occupies a distinctive place in civil society, only manifests in a distinctive way the Judaism of civil society.

Judaism has been preserved, not in spite of history, but by history.

It is from its own entrails that civil society ceaselessly engenders the Jew.

What was, in itself, the basis of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism.

The monotheism of the Jews is, therefore, in reality, a polytheism of the numerous needs of man, a polytheism which makes even the lavatory an object of divine regulation. Practical need, egoism, is the principle of civil society, and is revealed as such in its pure form as soon as civil society has fully engendered the political state. The god of practical need and self-interest is money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, beside which no other god may exist. Money abases all the gods of mankind and changes them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-sufficient value of all things. It has, therefore, deprived the whole world, both the human world and nature, of their own proper value. Money is the alienated essence of man's work and existence; this essence dominates him and he worships it.

{p. 49} The god of the Jews has been secularized and has become the god of this world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.

The mode of perceiving nature, under the rule of private property and money, is a real contempt for, and a practical degradation of nature, which does indeed exist in the Jewish religion but only as a creature of the imagination.

It is in this sense that Thomas Munzer declares it intolerable "that every creature should be transformed into property - the fishes in the water, the birds of the air, the plants of the earth: the creature too should become free."

That which is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion - contempt for theory, for art, for history, and for man as an end in himself - is the real, conscious standpoint and the virtue of the man of money. Even the species-relation itself, the relation between man and woman, becomes an object of commerce. Woman is bartered away.

{no thought of Same-Sex Marriage, in those words - Peter M.}

The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the trader, and above all of the financier.

The law, without basis or reason, of the Jew, is only the religious caricature of morality and right in general, without basis or reason; the purely formal rites with which the world of self-interest encircles itself.

Here again the supreme condition of man is his legal status, his relationship to laws which are valid for him, not because they are the laws of his own will and nature, but because they are dominant and any infraction of them will be avenged.

Jewish Jesuitism, the same practical Jesuitism which Bauer discovers in the Talmud, is the relationship of the world of self interest to the laws which govern this world, laws which the world devotes its principal arts to circumventing.

Indeed, the operation of this world within its framework of laws is impossible without the continual supersession of law.

Judaism could not develop further as a religion, in a theoretical form, because the world view of practical need is, by its very nature, circumscribed, and the delineation of its characteristics soon completed.

The religion of practical need could not, by its very nature, find its consummation in theory, but only in practice, just because practice is its truth.

Judaism could not create a new world. It could only bring the

{p. 50} new creations and conditions af the world within its own sphere of activity, because practical need, the spirit of which is self-interest, is always passive, cannot expand at will, but finds itself extended as a result of the continued development of society.

Judaism attains its apogee with the perfection of civil society; but civil society only reaches perfection in the Christian world. Only under the sway of Christianity, which objectifies all national, natural, moral and theoretical relationships, could civil society separate itself completely from the life of the state, sever all the species bonds of man, establish egoism and selfish need in their place, and dissolve the human world into a world of atomistic, antagonistic individuals.

Christianity issued from Judaism. It has now been re-absorbed into Judaism.

From the beginning, the Christian was the theorizing Jew; consequently, the Jew is the practical Christian. And the practical Christian has become a Jew again.

It was only in appearance that Christianity overcame real Judaism. It was too refined, too spiritual to eliminate the crudeness of practical need, except by raising it to the ethereal realm. Christianity is the sublime thought of Judaism. Judaism is the vulgar practical application of Christianity. But this practical application could only become universal when Christianity as perfected religion had accomplished, in a theoretical fashion, the alienation of man from himself and from nature.

It was only then that Judaism could attain universal domination and could turn alienated man and alienated nature into alienable, saleable objects, in thrall to egoistic need and huckstering.

Objectification is the practice of alienation. Just as man, so long as he is engrossed in religion, can only objectify his essence by an alien and fantastic being; so under the sway of egoistic need, he can only affirm himself and produce objects in practice by subordinating his products and his own activity to the domination of an alien entity, and by attributing to them the significance of an alien entity, namely money.

In its perfected. practice the spiritual egoism of Christianity necessarily becomes the material egoism of the Jew, celestial need is transmuted into terrestrial need, subjectivism into self-interest. The tenacity of the Jew is to be explained, not by his religion, but rather by the human basis of his religion - practical need and egoism.

It is because the essence of the Jew was universally realized and secularized in civil society, that civil society could not convince the Jew of the unreality of his religious essence, which is precisely the ideal representation of practical need. It is not only, therfore, in

{p. 51} the Pentateuch and the Talmud, but also in contemporary society, that we find the essence of the present-day Jew; not as an abstract essence, but as one which is supremely empirical, not only as a limitation of the Jew, but as the Jewish narrowness of society.

As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism - huckstering and its conditions - the Jew becomes impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object. The subjective basis of Judaism - practical need - assumes a human form, and the conflict between the individual, sensuous existence of man and his species-existence, is abolished.

The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.


Marx wrote On The Jewish Question in German, in 1843. The title: An Der Juden Frage. At that time, he was not writing in English. Later on, he did.

Various translations have appeared, including one by Dagobert Runes that imputed a genocidal motive to him: "A World Without Jews".

Marx was NOT genocidal, He was saying that Jews should stop being Jewish, i.e. change their cultural practices - which he saw as arising from their religion.

(3) The Loanmongers of Europe, by Karl Marx (also published as The Jewish Bankers of Europe)

from The Karl Marx Library Volume 5 On Religion, arranged and edited, with an introd. and new translations, by Saul K. Padover. Published by McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 1972.

{p. 219} The Jewish Bankers of Europe*

* From "The Loanmongers of Europe," published in the New York Daily Tribune, November 22, 1855.

TAKE Austria, for instance - a country which suffers from chronic scarcity of cash. What is she doing at this moment? She proposes to raise money by negotiating the mortgage bonds of the landowners of the Austrian dominions. But how is such an operation possible?

Through the Jewish houses, who, shut out from all more honorable branches of business, have acquired in this an inevitable degree of aptitude. There are in Vienna the Rothschilds, and Arnsteins, and Eskeles, and the Jew-Greek house of Seria, for whom the management of a loan of $100,000,000 is a matter of most easy accomplishment. The way they start at the loan is to get all their correspondents to canvass their business constituencies, and with the allurements of a particular commission, their correspondents of course do their best to ensnare their customers.

The broad facts we have pointed out have naturally produced all over Europe, especially in its northern, western, and central portions where the indolence which prevails in the southern part (as Italy, Spain, and Portugal) is modified by dimate, all manner and kinds of capitalists, speculators, and jobbers, who have no other business beyond that of dealing in money. Now there are posted in every point of Europe Jewish agents who represent this business and who are the correspondents of other leading Jews. It must here be borne in mind that for one big fish, like Rothschild, there are thousands of minnows. These make play and find food chiefly in Amsterdam, London, Frankfurt, Vienna, Berlin, Hamburg, Paris, and Brussels, and, as a general thing, loans are distributed among them in the following proportion:

{p. 220} Amsterdam, say $25,000,000 London $25,000,000 Frankfurt $15,000,000 Vienna $10,000,000 Berlin $10,000,000 Hamburg $5,000,000 Paris $5,000,000 Brussels $5,000,000 Total $100,000,000

Beside the regular agents every one of these places swarms with Jews who aid in placing the stock. All over Germany and Holland, in Hanover, Brunswick, Cassel, Carlsruhe, Mannheim, Cologne, Rotterdam, The Hague, Antwerp, and again in Poland and the adjoining countries, in Breslau, Gacow, Warsaw, and so almost throughout Europe, there are to be found in almost every tovn a handful of Jews who deem it an honor to take a little of the new stock on speculation if the Rothschilds or any other of the great Jewish houses are connected with the negotiation. It is this business Free Masonry among the Jewish bankers which has brought the barter trade in government securities to its present height.

It remains to be seen, and the time is not distant, how the chief houses connected with this barter trade will stand when distrust makes their customers disgorge the securities which have heen forced down their throats and the markets become overglutted with unsalable bonds. Bearing in mind the havoc which the first Napoleon's wars created among these loanmongers, we have heretofore pointed out the smash, which from a knowledge of their financial position and connections we have no hesitation in predicting as sure to happen as a consequence of the present war to the representatives of this particular race.

That very compact machinery which is their greatest power of success in times of prosperity is their greatest cause of danger in time of adversity. Let the confidence in the Rothschilds be only once slighdy shaken, and the confidence in the Foulds, the Bischoffsheims, the Stieglitzes, the Arnsteins and Eskeles is gone. The results of despotism and monopolism are precisely similar. Let Louis Napoleon be chopped off, as he may be any moment by some Pianori, and France is in confusion. Let Lionel Rothschild of London, James of Paris stagger under any clever combination of disasters, and the whole loanmongering fabric of Europe will perish.


Here is a jpg image of p. 4 of the 1855 NY Tribune issue of November 22, featuring "The Loanmongers of Europe" (it's on p.4): NY-Daily-Tribune-18551122p4.jpg .

(4) The Russian Loan, by Karl Marx

from The Karl Marx Library Volume 5 On Religion, arranged and edited, with an introd. and new translations, by Saul K. Padover. Published by McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 1972.

{p. 221} The Russian Loan*

THE issue of a new Russian loan affords a practical illustration of the system of loanmongenng in Europe, to which we have heretofore called the attention of our readers.

This loan is brought out under the auspices of the house of Stieglitz at St. Petersburg. Stieglitz is to Alexander what Rothschild is to Francis Joseph, what Fould is to Louis Napoleon. The late Czar Nicholas made Stieglitz a Russian baron, as the late Kaiser Franz made old Rothschild an Austrian baron, while Louis Napoleon has made a Cabinet Minister of Fould, with a free ticket to the Tuileries for the females of his family. Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.

The loan is for fifty millions of rubles, to be issued in 5-percent bonds, with dividends payable at Amsterdam, Berlin, and Hamburg, at the exceedingly moderate price of 86 rubles - that is to say, in consideration of paying 86 rubles, in several installments, the paver is entitled to 5 rubles dividend per year, which amounts to nearly 6 percent, and to a bond of 100 rubles endorsed by the Russian Government, as security for his capital, which is redeemable at some remote period between this and doomsday. It is worthy of notice that Russia does not appeal, as Austria has recently done, to the moneyed enthusiasm of her own subjects, stirred up by the stimulus of bayonets and prisons; but this shows only the greater confidence which she has

* Published in the New York Daily Tribune, January 4, 1856.

{p. 222} in her credit abroad, and the greater sagacity which she possesses in raising money without embarrassing and therefore without disappointing the people at home. Baron Stieglitz does not propose to retain one single kopeck of the fifty millions for the Greek, Sicilian, American, Polish, Livonian, Tartarian, Siberian, and Crimean sympathizers with Russia, but distributes seventeen millions of the loan to Hope & Co. of Amsterdam, the same share to Mendelssohn & Co. of Berlin, and sixteen millions to Paul Mendelssohn-Bartholdy of Hamburg. And although British and French houses do not, for obvious reasons, court a direct participation in the loan, we shall presently show that indirectly they contribute largely to furnishing their antagonists with the sinews of war.

With the exception of a small amount of 5- and 6- percent Russian bonds negotiated at London and Hamburg, and of the last Russian loan - which was taken up by the Barings-Stieglitz of St. Petersburg in connection with Hope & Co. of Amsterdam, have been tbe principal agencies for Russian credit with the capitalists of Western and Central Europe. The 4-percent Hope certificates, under the special auspices of Hope, and the 4-percent Stieglitz inscriptions, under the special auspices of Stieglitz, are extensively held in Holland, Switzerland, Prussia, and to some extent even in England. The Hopes of Amsterdam, who enjoy great prestige in Europe from their connection with the Dutch Government and their reputation for great integrity and immense wealth, have well deserved of the Czar for the efforts they have made to popularize his bonds in Holland. Stieglitz, who is a German Jew intimately connected with all his coreligionists in the loanmongering trade, has done the rest. Hope commanding the respect of the most eminent merchants of the age, and Stieglitz being one of the Free Masonry of Jews which has existed in all ages - these two powers combined to influence at once the highest merchants and the lowest jobbing circles, have been turned by Russia to most profitable account. Owing to these two influences, and to the ignorance which prevails about her interior resources, Russia, of all the European continental governments, stands highest in the estimation of 'Change, whatever may be thought of her in other quarters.

But the Hopes lend only the prestige of their name; the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities, and the changing of money and negotiating of bills in a great measure arising therefrom. Take Amsterdam, for instance, a city harboring many of the worst descendants of the Jews whom Ferdinand and Isabella drove out of Spain, and who, after lingering awhile in Portugal, were driven thence also, and eventually found a safe place of retreat in Holland. In Amsterdam

{p. 223} alone they number not less than 35,000, many of whom are engage in this gambling and jobbing of securities. These men have theil agents at Rotterdam, The Hague, Leyden, Haarlem, Nymegen, Delft, Groningen, Antwerp, Chent, Brussels, and various other places in the Netherlands and surrounding German and French territories. Their business is to watch the moneys available for investment and keenly observe where they lie. Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler's valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader.

These small Jewish agents draw their supplies from the big Jewish houses, such as that of Hollander and Lehren, Konigswarter, Raphael, Stern, Sichel, Bischoffsheim of Amsterdam, Ezekiels of Rotterdam. Hollander and Lehren are of the Portuguese sect of Jews, and practice a great ostensible devotion to the religion of their race. Lehren, like the great London Jew, Sir Moses Montefiore, has made many sacrifices for those that still linger in Jerusalem. His office, near the Amstel, in Amsterdam, is one of the most picturesque imaginable. Crowds of these Jews assemble there every day, together with numerous Jewish theologians, and around its doors are congregated all sorts and manners of Armenian, Jerusalem Barbaresque, and Polish beggars, in long robes and Oriental turbans. The language spoken smells strongly of Babel, and the perfume which otherwise pervades the place is by no means of a choice kind.

The next Jewish loanmongering concern is that of Konigswarter, who came from a Jewish colony in Furth in Bavaria, opposite Nuremberg, whose 10,000 inhabitants are all Jews wirh some few Roman Catholic exceptions. The Konigswarters have houses at Frankfurt, Paris, Vienna, and Amsterdam, and all these various establishments will place a certain amount of the loan. Then we have the Raphaels, who also have houses in London and Paris, who belong, like Konigswarter, to the lowest class of loanmongering Jews. The Sterns come from Frankfurt, and have houses at Paris, Berlin, London, and Amsterdam. One of the London Sterns, David, was for some time established at Madrid, but so disgusted tbe chivalrous Spaniards that he was compelled to quit. They have married the daughters of one of the rich London Goldsmiths, and do an immense business in stock. The only man of ability in the family is the Paris Stern.

The Bischoffsheims are, next to the Rothschilds and Hopes, the most influential house in Belgium and Holland. The Belgian Bischoffsheim is a man of great accomplishments and one of the most respected bank directors and railway magnates. They came from

{p. 224} Mayence, and owing to the genius of this Belgian Bischoffsheim, have attained to their present eminence. They have houses at London, Amsterdam, Paris, Brussels, Antwerp, Frankfurt, Cologne, and Vienna, and have recently sent a clerk or agent to New York. They have intermarried with a Frankfurt Jew of the name of Goldschmidt, who, however, is not distinguished either for wealth or genius, although pretending to both. One of these Goldschmidts - and the most insignificant of the firm - presides over the London concern, while one of the Bischoflfsheims rules over that of Amsterdam, and the other over those of Brussels and of Paris.

As far as the seventeen million rubles assigned to Holland are concerned, although brought out under the name of Hope, they will at once go into the hands of these Jews, who will, through their various branch houses, find a market abroad, while the small Jew agents and brokers create a demand for them at home. Thus do these loans, vhich are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loanmongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners. It principally sprang up in Europe since Rothschild was made a baron by Austria, enriched by the money earned by the Hessians in fighting the American Revolution. The fortunes amassed by these loanmongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told.

We have sufficiently shown how the Amsterdam Jews through their machinery at home and abroad, will absorb in a very little time the seventeen millions of rubles put at the disposal of Hope. The arrangements attendant on the placing of the amount in Berlin and Hamburg are of a similar nature. The Mendelssohns of Berlin are descended from the good and learned Moses Mendelssohn, and count among the more modern members of the family the distinguished musical composer. In their case, as in that of the Lessings and a few other Frankfurt, Berlin, and Hamburg families, owing to some peculiar literary tradition or some peculiar influence of refinement, their houses are far superior in character to those of the general clique of loanmongers. Their representauve in Hamburg too, Mr. Beschutz, is a man of high character, and there is little doubt that under their auspices the thirty-three millions put by Stieglitz at their disposal will soon be taken. But, as in the case of Hope of Amsterdam, tbe part taken by the Mendelssohns will only be nominal, and to lend the prestige of their name. Rothschilds' special agent at Berlin, Simon Bleichroder, and their occasional agents, the Veits, will very likely take a portion on speculation, and sell it with a profit to the small Jew fry of Berlin, Hanover, Magdeburg, Brunswick, and Cassel, while the Frankfurt

{p. 225} Jews will supply the small fry of Darmstadt, Mannheim, Carlsruhe, Stuttgart, Ulm, Augsburg, and Munich. This small fry again distribute the stock among still smaller fry, until eventually some honest farmer of Swabia, some substantial manufacturer of Crefeld, or some dowager Countess of Isenburg has the honor of becoming the permanent creditor of the Czar by locking the stock up as a permanent investment. The Jew jobbers of Breslau, Ratisbon, Cracow, and Posen, the Frankels of Warsaw, Benedick of Stockholm, Hambro of Copenhagen, Magnus of Berlin, vith his extensive Polish constituency, Jacobson of the same city, and Ries and Heine of Hamburb - both houses of great influence in Jew financial circles, especially Heine - will each and all disseminate a goodly amount among their multitudinous customers and bring the stock within the reach of all the northern section of Europe. In this wise any amount, hovever large, is soon absorbed. It must be borne in mind that bcsides the local and provincial speculations, there is the immense stock-jobbing machinery between the various European gathering points of the loanmongering confederation now all connected by telegraph communication, which, of course, vastly facilitates all such operations. Moreover, almost all the Jew loanmongers in Europe are connected by family ties. At Cologne, for instance, we find the principal branch house of the Paris Foulds, one of whom married a Miss Oppenheim, whose brothers are the chief railway speculators of Rhenish Prussia and, next to Heistedt and Stein, the principal bankers of Cologne. Like the Rothschilds and the Greeks, the loanmongering Jews derive much of their strenth from these family relations, as these, in addition to their lucre affinities, give a compactness and unity to their operatioons whuch insure their success.

This eastern war is destined at all events to throw some light upon this system of loanmongers as well as other svstems. Meantime the Czar will get his fifty millions and, let the English journals say what they please, if he wants five fifties more, the Jews will dig them up. Let us not be thought too severe upon these loanmongering gentry. The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The laonmongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatize their organization.

* Published in the New-York Daily Tribune, January 4, 1856.


Here is a pdf of p. 4 of the 1856 NY Tribune issue of January 4, featuring "The Russian Loan" (it's on p.4): NY-Daily-Tribune-18560104p4.pdf.

The whole issue (including the front page) is at NY-Daily-Tribune-18560104.pdf.

(5) Lenin censored Marx' essay "On the Jewish Question" - Encyclopaedia Judaica



Encyclopaedia Judaica

COPYRIGHT 2007 Thomson Gale

COMMUNISM , the international revolutionary Marxist movement that evolved [...] were not Soviet-oriented.

[Binyamin Eliav]

Bolshevik Theory (1903­1917)

[...] Although generally relying on Marx on questions of fundamental importance, Lenin did not resort to Marx's famous essay "On the Jewish Question" when dealing with Jewish affairs, because of its anti-Jewish implications. He rejected outright any suggestion that the Bolsheviks should ignore anti-Jewish policy and propaganda in czarist Russia, let alone make use of its popular appeal. Lenin regarded the czarist anti-Jewish hate campaign as a diversionary maneuver, an integral part of the demagogic campaign against "the aliens" conducted by henchmen of the czarist regime.

(6) 'Philo-Semitic' Marxists deny the authenticity of The Loanmongers of Europe, and The Russian Loan

Kevin B. Anderson wrote in Marx at the Margins: On Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Non-Western Societies ( University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2010):

{p. 262} Notes to Pages 52-62

18. Padover has created a convenient digest of the problematic discussions by Marx on Judaism and Jews (KML 5, 169-225). Padover errs, however, when he attributes to Marx "The Russian Loan," a particularly noxious Tribune article about Jewish bankers published on January 4, 1856 (KML 5, 221-25). In "Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der 'New York Tribune' " (2001), an illuminating essay that forms part of the apparatus to MEGA I/14, the volume's editors (Hans-Jürgen Bochinski and Martin Hundt, with Ute Emmrich and Manfred Neuhaus) write that the earlier attributions of "The Russian Loan" to Marx can "definitely be ruled out," this on the basis of a close textual analysis (903). Ledbetter

Anderson displays his philo-Semitism elsewhere too:

{p. 51} Unfortunately, not all of Marx's discussions of Jews show as much sympathy. A considerable number of anti-Semitic characterizations crop up in his writings. For example, in the important "first thesis" on idealism and materialism in the "Theses on Feuerbach" (1845), Marx attacks Feuerbach not only on philosophical grounds as a crude materialist, but also for having developed a notion of praxis that was "defined only in its dirty-Jewish [schmutzige jüdischen] form of appearance" (MECW 5,6). This text was not intended for

{p. 52} publication, and elsewhere in the unpublished material, such as Marx's letters to Engels, even more virulent references to Jews can be found. Marx also made some extremely problematic comments on Jews in his published work.18 Such references marred his otherwise penetrating critique of liberal democracy in the 1843 essay, "On the Jewish Question" (Marx [1843] 1994; see also MECW 3, 146-74), and can also be found in some of his later work, especially Herr Vogt (1860).19 Several Marx scholars have argued with some justice that similar references abound in the writings of nineteenth-century secular radical intellectuals, including others of Jewish origin such as the poet Heinrich Heine (Rubel in Oeuvres ); see also Draper 1978). Others have pointed to the limitations of the secular and assimilationist perspective shared by Marx and many other pre-twentieth-century writers, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who, while supporting political and civil rights for Jews, nonetheless continued to make very troubling pejorative comments about Jewish life and culture (Traverso 1994, Jacobs 1998). None, not even Marx's strongest defenders on this issue, however, have suggested that Marx made a signi!cant positive contribution on the issue of Jews and anti-Semitism.20

Marx's references to Judaism and Jews were certainly problematic. They showed the downside of a universalistic secular outlook that, by condemning all religion, sometimes failed to distinguish between the impact of such attacks on a dominant religion and those on a persecuted minority one. These remarks, as problematic as they were, were for the most part occasional ones that were not typical of Marx's overall discussions of nationalism and ethnicity. (I leave aside the psychological issue of Marx's possible personal ambivalence toward his own Jewish origins.)

{end quote}

Anderson is more concerned about offending Jewish sentiment, than examining whether Marx' analysis of Jewish Power - the nexus between Money and Power - was actually correct. Anderson's somewhat grovelling tone undermines his case.

If Marx did not write The Loanmongers of Europe and The Russian Loan, who did? Only he had the required combination of expertise on Capitalism, inside information about Jewish practice, and his incisive style of writing. Anderson did not bother to disclose the name of any alternative author.

Saul K. Padover was a reputable author. Wikipedia has this on him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_K._Padover

and this on The Karl Marx Library: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx_Library.

Lenin never mentioned (ie censored) Marx's materials on Jews. Those who reject The Loanmongers of Europe and The Russian Loan belong in that camp too.

A book of selections of Marx' essays in the New York Tribune also excludes The Loanmongers of Europe and The Russian Loan, among others. However, it makes no claim to be complete.

This book is Dispatches for the New York Tribune: Selected Journalism of Karl Marx,
Selected and with an Introduction by JAMES LEDBETTER
Foreword by Francis Wheen
Penguin Books, London 2007

"James Ledbetter is deputy manager editor of CNNMoney.com."

Given the nexus of Money, Power and Media, it would be surprising if Ledbetter is not a philo-Semite.

"Francis Wheen is a journalist, author and broadcaster. ... His biography of Karl Marx ... won the Isaac Deutscher Memorial Prize".

But Deutscher was a Trotskyist who called Trotsky a "Prophet".

Dispatches is online at https://libcom.org/files/Marx%20-%20Dispatches%20for%20the%20New%20York%20Tribune.pdf

(7) Researches at New York Public Library: Articles in N-Y Daily Tribune bore no Author's Name

I asked Bruce Brown, of New York, to look up the original articles at New York Public Library. Here is his report:

Bruce Brown <address withheld> 2 May 2017 at 12:20 To: Peter Myers <myerspeterg@gmail.com>

Peter -

Your long wait has been handsomely rewarded. Indeed, you've hit the jackpot!

In a nutshell, I found both articles in the original New-York Daily Tribune on the dates you gave.

First the librarian at the front desk searched for articles in the Daily Tribune by Karl Marx. She found seventeen and printed out the search results, but Loanmongers and Russian Loan were missing.

Then, by searching for the articles by title only, she found the missing two.

Then I went to the microfiche room. The librarian there was able to access the two issues in question from a computer database. I will forward his e-mail containing the complete Nov 22, 1985 issue (Loanmongers).

Here's what shocked both of us. NONE OF THE ARTICLES IN THE N-Y DAILY TRIBUNE WERE BY-LINED! ZERO ATTRIBUTION OF AUTHORSHIP! Not just on that page, but on all pages. We then looked up the New York Times issue of the same date and discovered that none of their articles were by-lined either.

The resourceful librarian found a history of by-lining in U.S. journalism. There we discovered that by-lining was not practiced until ordered by Gen. Hooker, a Union general in the Civil War, in 1863. Prior to that, it was simply "not done."

Meaning that, with rare exceptions, NO ONE CAN PROVE AUTHORSHIP OF ANY ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE U.S. PRESS BEFORE 1863. Attribution of articles to Karl Marx -- or anybody else, for that matter -- is ENTIRELY CONJECTURE IF BASED ON THE PUBLICATION ALONE!

The librarian then found a whole book about the articles of Karl Marx in the N-Y Daily Tribune, which he included as a link.

That "book about the articles of Karl Marx in the N-Y Daily Tribune" is Dispatches, as I have discussed above.

(8) Karl Marx and Henry Carey at the New York Tribune


Political Economy and the Press: Karl Marx and Henry Carey at the New York Tribune

Posted May 19, 2008

For many years, Karl Marx earned his living as a correspondent for the widely read New York Daily Tribune. ...

The Tribune published 487 articles from Marx. He wrote 350 by himself and 12 together with Engels. The other 125 articles he submitted were written by Engels (Ibid., p. 287). Almost one-quarter of his contributions were printed as unsigned editorials (Padover 1980, p. 168) ...

In spite of Marx's apparent triumph at the Tribune, his initial cautious instincts were correct. By the next April, he lamented that his best work was printed anonymously. "Of late the Tribune has been . . . putting my name to nothing but rubbish" (Marx to Engels, 22 April 1854; in CW 19, pp. 439). Later, that year, Marx and Dana agreed that all Marx's articles were to appear as anonymous contributions "from our London correspondent" (Rubel and Manale 1975, p. 114).

(9) The Birth of the Byline, by Ford Risley

Union General Joseph Hooker stopped the journalistic practice of anonymous authorship, during the Civil War.


Birth of the Byline


New York Times

April 22, 2013 12:30 pm

Union General Joseph Hooker had never been shy around the press. [...] But on the eve of the spring campaign in 1863, Hooker began having some of the same problems with the press that other commanders had experienced.

A newspaper published a story about the Surgeon General's office that contained information about the size and location of the Army of the Potomac. A furious Hooker complained to Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton that the chief of the Secret Service "would have willingly paid $1,000 for such information" about Confederate forces.

Indeed, during the first two years of the war, an increasingly aggressive and competitive press had published stories that infuriated military leaders on both sides. The Civil War was the first war widely covered by American newspapers. And in their zeal to report the greatest event of their lives, newsmen produced a decidedly mixed bag of stories.

On one hand, many reporters honestly and faithfully chronicled the fighting. Tireless correspondents went to extraordinary lengths to report stories, often on tight deadlines. However, other newsmen mistakenly, and in some cases recklessly, reported the conflict. Correspondents less concerned with the facts and more interested in rushing stories into print wrote damaging stories that hurt their side.

Following the journalistic practice of the day, correspondents wrote anonymously during the war, most using a pen name or no name at all. Newsmen liked the custom, believing the secrecy allowed them do their work better. As one reporter wrote, "The anonymous greatly favors freedom and boldness in newspaper correspondence . . . . Besides the responsibility it fastens on a correspondent, the signature inevitably detracts from the powerful impersonality of a journal."

However, commanders did not like the practice because newsmen often could not be held accountable for what they wrote. McClellan had complained to Stanton of reporters repeatedly "giving important information" about the Army in their stories. "As it is impossible for me to ascertain with certainty who these anonymous writers are," he wrote, "I beg to suggest that another order be published holding the editors responsible for its infraction."

The best newsmen on both sides recognized that irresponsible correspondents sometimes wrote stories that hurt their side. In a letter to the Savannah Republican, Peter W. Alexander, one of the most skillful Southern correspondents, wrote, "The truth is there are correspondents who invariably magnify our successes and depreciate our losses, and who when there is a dearth of news will draw upon their imagination for their facts."

But Alexander and others also argued for the necessity of a free press. "This is the people's war," he wrote. "Their sons and brothers make up the army. . . . And shall they not be allowed to know anything that is transpiring within that army? . . . Is the army to be a sealed book to the country?"

After the news leak, Stanton told Hooker that the War Department would support any measure to control journalists. That same day, the general issued General Order No. 48 requiring that all reporters with the Army of the Potomac "publish their communications over their own signatures." The byline, as it came to be known in newspaper circles, was born.

Newsmen in the North reacted variously to the new requirement that their names appear on stories. A New York Herald reporter said, "It is discouraging for correspondents to have their names paraded before the public as authors of carefully written letters; for sometimes the letters are written on horseback or in woods, and often with the shells screaming to us to 'hurry up!'" But another correspondent remarked that including their names would make correspondents "exert extraordinary means to achieve success." [...]

Thanks to the recognition they received in covering the fighting, reporters increasingly were becoming the face of their newspapers with the public. And developing professional practices during the war made them more responsible for the accuracy and suitability of what newsmen wrote. The byline was one of those traditions.

Clarification: The names of some writers appeared on newspaper stories as early as the mid-1830s. The practice was not widespread, however, and the bylines of Civil War reporters did not appear until Hooker's order requiring them for the reasons discussed. Nonetheless, it was misleading to say that the byline technically was "born" during the war.

Ford Risley is professor of communications and head of the department of journalism at Penn State University. He is the author of "Civil War Journalism."

(10) Marx's analysis of Jewish Finance and Power is about the Ruling Class, the 1% - Peter Myers

Marx's analysis of Jewish Finance - and the nexus between Money and Power - deals with the Big End of Town, the Ruling Class, what we now call the 1%.

He showed that the old landed Aristocracy has been displaced by a new class of Financiers - predominantly Jewish. To suppress that information is a betrayal of the People.

To hide it or disown it, on the ground that Jews might be offended, is cowardly. But given that Lenin censored On the Jewish Question, one can expect no better of the philo-Semites today.

Karl Marx wrote The Loanmongers of Europe and The Russian Loan in 1855 and 1856. The Trotskyists claim to be the true descendants of Marx - but what have they added to our knowledge on that topic, in the last 160 years?

Perhaps because they take money from George Soros?

The Trots have changed the meaning of the word "Left". Today, the author of the above articles would be branded "Far Right".

But we don't have to let the Trots be the arbiters.

(11) Left-wing Billionaires, a consequence of the Rise of the Jewish Financial Aristocracy - by Peter Myers, September 24, 2017

As the Ruling Class (the 1%) has become increasingly Jewish, it has adopted Jewish ideologies and tastes, and even Yiddish words.

Jews have championed 'Minority' causes - but mainly in the Diaspora, where they are a minority, not in Israel / Palestine with regard to the native Palestinians, Bedouin etc.

Our Ruling Class now promote Gender Feminism, Same-Sex Marriage, and Trans-Sexualism. The old landed aristocracy would never have done so - it was Christian (Anglican) - but the increasingly dominant Jewish Financial Aristocracy promotes such 'Left' causes. These policies are Post-Christian.

It's widely called 'Cultural Marxism'; but Karl Marx himself would not have recognized this as either 'Marxist' or 'Left'. It's his Trotskyist, largely Jewish, disciples who have foisted these changes on us.

These stances are called 'Left', but this is a Fake Left.

Marx wrote, in On the Jewish Question (see above): "Even the species-relation itself, the relation between man and woman, becomes an object of commerce. Woman is bartered away".

No hint of Gay Marriage there. This is traditional Complementarity between the sexes.

The Financial Aristocracy promotes the Fake Left; anything but the real Left.

The True Left would abolish Tax Havens, remove the Tax-Free status of Foundations funded by big business, abandon Free Trade Agreements, jail the Bankers for their crimes, and tax the 1% so heavily that the National Debt would disappear.


(12) The Rothschilds and Rockefellers don't show up in the Forbes Rich List - by Peter Myers, October 8, 2017

The 1% include the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, but they don't show up in the Forbes Rich List.

Very wealthy people want privacy; they use their money to suppress media scrutiny by, for example, withdrawing advertising from media that expose them.

They use Trust Funds to minimize tax by imputing the income amongst family members. The most wealthy people hide their wealth from tax authorities, and from the public.


Why The World's Richest Families Are Not Included In Forbes' Rich List

Sep 23, 2015

By: Gabriela Motroc

Every year Forbes' Rich List crowns billionaires and offers them the title of 'world's richest people,' but names such as Rothschild and Rockefeller are never listed, although the combined wealth of these two families is estimated to be over a trillion dollars.

These two families, who are believed to be the world's only trillionaires, are excluded from Forbes' Rich List every year, along with royal families. [...]


Why? Because they are so wealthy that Forbes dare not risk offending them by publicising that wealth.

The 1% operate as a mafia. We can't identify them, because Tax records are fraudulent.

But there is a way to counter their piracy:

Tax Havens should be treated as the Pirate Dens they are.

A Government of the People would repudiate all debts owed to companies in Tax Havens, and nationalize (without compensation) all assets that are owned by companies in Tax Havens. The Fed would be nationalized, and made a department of the Treasury. It would issue Dollar Notes instead of Government Bonds. The infrastructure of the nation would be funded by debt-free money.

More on this theme - The Left Flank of the Protocols: leftprot.html .

Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.

Write to me at contact.html.