P. 1
Mitchell Heisman - Suicide Note

Mitchell Heisman - Suicide Note

4.15

|Views: 70,311|Likes:
Published by jarmenl
Mitchell Heisman, Mitchell L. Heisman, a 35-year-old Somerville resident, shot himself on 18 September 2010 on the steps of Memorial Church in Harvard Yard. I uploaded this note/book/manifesto so others can read this genius' work. Lonni Heisman, his mother, said her son would have wanted people to know about it.

News:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/mitchell-heisman-suicide_n_738121.html
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/9/22/heisman-harvard-mother-death/
http://gawker.com/5647036/man-who-killed-himself-in-harvard-yard-left-1900+page-online-suicide-note?skyline=true&s=i
Mitchell Heisman, Mitchell L. Heisman, a 35-year-old Somerville resident, shot himself on 18 September 2010 on the steps of Memorial Church in Harvard Yard. I uploaded this note/book/manifesto so others can read this genius' work. Lonni Heisman, his mother, said her son would have wanted people to know about it.

News:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/mitchell-heisman-suicide_n_738121.html
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/9/22/heisman-harvard-mother-death/
http://gawker.com/5647036/man-who-killed-himself-in-harvard-yard-left-1900+page-online-suicide-note?skyline=true&s=i

More info:

Published by: jarmenl on Sep 25, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/26/2015

pdf

text

original

Strangely enough, Marxism is actually one of the most
influential theoretical culminations of the Anglo-Jewish
convergence. As a German of Jewish descent, Marx was

A VENDETTA CALLED REVOLUTION

1103

susceptible to being duped by the more “politically correct”
interpretations of the “English class system”, especially on
the basis of the political nurturism advanced by Locke. In his
radical, self-consistent thoroughness in exorcising the
theoretical import of his own kinship-ethnic origins, Marx is
comparable only to Hobbes.
The logic of Marxism was made possible by a pattern of
deemphasis of biological factors that is observable among
both Jews and Anglo-Saxons. While Marxism is the classic
example of the more extreme Jewish variety, his theory built
upon repression of the biological basis of the English “class”
system and those particular international gentiles that
spearheaded the industrial revolution and modern
democracy. The Saxon-centric distaste for reminding
themselves of how their political-hereditary inferiority
originated their capitalist-democratic revolt contributed to
an economic over biological-hereditary interpretation of
history. This, in turn, helped Marx verify his bias against
observing the kinship-ethnic origins of English “class”, for
the alternative would imply the theoretical significance of
his own kinship with other Jews.
Just as some Anglo-Saxons repressed their stereotypical
association with the lower class through the empowerment
of a capitalist middle class, Marx repressed the stereotypical
association of Jew and capitalist through his empowerment
of the lower class. The revolutionary English repression of
the association of class and ethnic identity is what gave Marx
historical license to take its Lockean nurturist logic to its
logical extreme.

The utter delusion that the British Empire or the
American Civil War can be understood in purely economic
terms is a by-product of an Anglo-Saxon conquest of the
historical record,
which makes it appear, by default, that

MITCHELL HEISMAN

1104

bourgeois Anglo-Saxons were the sole founding
masterminds behind both the British and American Empires.
Yet this was nothing less than a counter-usurpation of 1066,
a usurpation of the scepters of empire, which had the rather
ironic effect that Anglo-Saxons unwittingly became the very
best friends of Marxist theory. Karl Marx and the Anglo-
Saxons have been sleeping in the same theoretical bed
together because both denied the hereditary and cultural
consequences of 1066.
It was said of the Victorian era English Prime Minister,
Benjamin Disraeli: “the fundamental fact about (him) was
that he was a Jew.”873 Disraeli agreed. He believed that “the
vicissitudes of history find their main solution—all is race”
which is “the key to history”.874 The man famously flaunted
his pride in his Jewish descent, calling himself “the chosen
man of the chosen people.”
Disraeli claimed that “race” is the key to history. Marx
claimed that socioeconomic “class” is the key to history.
Disraeli claimed that “race” could explain “class”. Marx
claimed that “class” could explain “race”. Here we have a
remarkable phenomenon: two diametrically opposite
nineteenth century views of the “English class system” by
Jews who had been converted to Christianity in their
childhood. Crucially, these opposite and incompatible views
of the role of biology in history appear to be directly
dependent on their interpretation of “the English class
system”.

Disraeli saw the upper class and non-upper class in
England as the division of “two nations”. This insight was
the key to the formation of Disraeli’s entire racialistic
Weltanschauung, for it demonstrated that the apparent
exception of the seemingly un-nationalistic English was
actually a confirmation of the rule. I think it is safe to say

A VENDETTA CALLED REVOLUTION

1105

that Disraeli, twice Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,
had a far more subtle and intimate understanding of the
nature of the English “class” system than Marx. If Disraeli
had lived to see the rise and fall of communism in Eastern
Europe, he likely would have predicted the resurgence of
nationalism that followed its collapse.
Disraeli’s insight, albeit partial, is the key to Marx’s
mistake. Marx saw economic development as the driving
force that broke down the medieval valuation of kinship-
community relations. It was, on the contrary, the Norman
Conquest-based “class” system that most distinctly
stimulated the corruption of the legitimacy of kinship ties in
England.

England’s precocious economic development was
stimulated by this internal breakdown of kinship
relationships and a complex cultural cross-fertilization with
France. What Marx overlooked is that it was precisely the
lack of kinship, and hence, the lack of altruism between
“classes”, that both engendered the “class” groupings in the
first place and set the conditions by which biological-kinship
factors could conceivably be considered irrelevant. The lack
of a sense of kinship between classes provided a superficial
empirical verification of Marx’s fully economic view, but it
was this corruption of kinship relations that came first.
In Maestripieri’s comparative behavioral study of rhesus
macaques and humans, he observed that while kinship
corresponded with altruism and nepotism, this did not mean
that mutually beneficial relationships could not be had
between nonrelatives:

When individuals help nonrelatives, however, they typically
expect something in return....Social interactions between
unrelated individuals are business transactions in which
services are exchanged for other services. These business

MITCHELL HEISMAN

1106

transactions are regulated by the laws of supply and
demand.875

Modernity is associated with a general decline of
nepotistic behavior in favor of the “business transaction”
model as the universal, rational basis for human
relationships. The Norman Conquest jumpstarted England’s
precocious path to modernity in many ways, including
updating England with the most “progressive” Continental
developments. The permanent lodgment of Norman-French
influence broke down a more primordial connection of
genes and culture. The Conquest began a process of
breaking down internal English kinship unity in general.
Economic activity was promoted and stimulated by a
sense of the lack of legitimate restraint of political-kinship-
altruism relationships. The highest level of political principle
was permanently corrupted with the façade of righteous
Conquest. The kinship based social values that had
restrained individual selfishness in ancient times crumbled
from the top down. Duties were jettisoned in favor of rights.
Economic relations became a substitute for the kinship
relations that had broken down. It was the breakdown of
kinship-political relationships that uniquely stimulated
economic relationships in England, not economic
relationships that first broke down kinship-political
relationships.

This made England very different from Germany. While
“class” divisions prohibited “race” unity in England, “race”
unity was able to overcome “class” disunity in Germany and
thus ground the most potent anti-Marxist movement the
world has ever known: Nazism.
While Marx was mistaken in thinking that the English
“class” system could be understood on the fundamental

A VENDETTA CALLED REVOLUTION

1107

basis of economic class, Disraeli was mistaken in thinking that
it could be understood on the fundamental basis of race.
Among the reasons for Disraeli’s mistaken assumption was
the import of acquired culture of France. There is no reason to
think that Norman Vikings had an inherent biological
proclivity towards ‘Frenchness’.
Yet distinction through Frenchification was crucial to
maintaining the distinctive identity of the conqueror class.
Historian Gerald Newman referred to the “vivid daily
testimony of the five senses, which gave such extraordinary
power to the new anti-Norman campaign” in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pallid Marxist
abstractions of “class” can hardly portray “the pretty social
climbers twittering their mangled French at the theatre and
calling their countrymen ‘animals’ and ‘canaille,’ affecting to
despise everything English as proof of their own superiority
and ‘eligibility.’”876 It is not hard to see why some would
think that this legacy is better forgotten.
Marx gave no ultimate historical significance to these
visceral social and cultural aspects of “class”. For him, these
were irrelevant epiphenomenon of the economic motor of
history. Newman’s The Rise of English Nationalism helps
clarify Marx’s misunderstanding by showing how the
aristocratic class “cosmopolitanism” that he observed
between England and France before the French Revolution
helped stimulate the protest of democratic nationalism. No,
“class” was not just about England or Britain. Marx
overgeneralized this “international” aristocratic “class”
connection between England and France because he failed to
understand that it was a unique civilization fruition of the
Norman-French conquest of England.

MITCHELL HEISMAN

1108

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->