What to make of Marx's anti-semitism? (his essay, 'On the Jewish Question')
(too old to reply)
M. Junaid Alam
2004-09-21 00:59:12 UTC
The essay probably never had a title but it was published as "On the
Jewish Question" in the Marx-Engels reader edited by Robert Tucker,
which I have been going through again for my own education. I never
really read the piece the first time around, but it really strikes me
pretty hard going through it. I flipped the book cover over a few times
just to make sure someone wasn't playing a practical joke on me and
bundling Klan literature in a Marxist paperback. Seriously, what the
fuck is going on here? Marx approvingly quotes Bauer and himself states
that Judaism is a religion of huckstering and scheming, and Jews who
seek political emancipation should first of all stop seeking the special
privilege of being Jewish in the first place, all they care about is
money and banking, etc. I thought Marx himself was Jewish. How in the
hell is it that so many Marxists post-Marx were Jewish, in light of this
essay? Most important, what were the _actual_ social and political
conditions in the history of Jewish-Christian relations that produced
antipathy towards Jews? And how much of this antipathy is rooted in fact
and reality? What was the class content of pogroms and the basis for
Jews as moneylenders, for instance?
2004-09-21 03:04:07 UTC
Partly some of Marx's expression on "the Jewish question" reflect that he
was, after all, a man of his times, partly our shock reflects that we are
not people of his times.

There is a very good book by Abraham Leon, a Belgian Jewish Trotskyist
resistance leader, which is probably a good place to start learning about
the social phenomenon Marx addressed. That is "The Jewish Question: A
Marxist Interpretation." Pathfinder used to publish it. I don't know if it
is still in print.

Intense Red
2004-09-21 03:16:22 UTC
Post by Joaquín
Partly some of Marx's expression on "the Jewish question" reflect that he
was, after all, a man of his times, partly our shock reflects that we are
not people of his times.
Exactly. You have to put yourself in a pre-holocaust period of history.
Also, given his family's conversion to Christianity -- mainly due to job
advancement/social pressures -- you can guess at what additional exposures to
anti-Semitism that must have brought.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who get binary, and those who
Einde O'Callaghan
2004-09-21 13:17:26 UTC
Post by Joaquín
Partly some of Marx's expression on "the Jewish question" reflect that he
was, after all, a man of his times, partly our shock reflects that we are
not people of his times.
There is a very good book by Abraham Leon, a Belgian Jewish Trotskyist
resistance leader, which is probably a good place to start learning about
the social phenomenon Marx addressed. That is "The Jewish Question: A
Marxist Interpretation." Pathfinder used to publish it. I don't know if it
is still in print.
The book is available on-line on my site, REDS - Die Roten, at
http://www.marxists.de/religion/leon/index.htm - it's also available in
the Marxists' Internet Archive at

On thios question it's very instructive to read Hal Draper's "Marx and
teh Economic-Jew Stereotype", an appendix to volume one of his
magnificent "Karl Marx's theory of Revolution". This sets the article in
context and defends Marx against the accusation of anti-Semitism. It
should also be pointed out that the article was a defence of Jewish
emancipation in reply to an article rejecting Jewish emancipation
written by his former associate Bruno Bauer.

Most discussions of the article neglect to consider the contextin which
it was written and tend to distort the tenor because they take no
account of changes in terminology since Marx's time. It should also be
noted that Marx was at the time still a radical democrat groping his way
to what a few years later emerged as historical materialism.

The article is at http://www.marxists.de/religion/draper/marxjewg.htm

Einde O'Callaghan
Walter Lippmann
2004-09-21 03:08:48 UTC
Tom O'Lincoln
2004-09-21 03:49:50 UTC
Here is a link to Hal Draper's detailed discussion of this issue:

andrew c pollack
2004-09-21 05:07:44 UTC
full text at:

Get your name as your email address.
Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!
Louis Proyect
2004-09-21 06:08:07 UTC
Abram Leon wrote "The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation" in 1941
when he was all of 24 years old and at a time when his hands were filled
leading the Belgian Trotskyist movement under conditions of fascist
repression. Eventually, the Gestapo captured him and sent him to
Auschwitz. He did not make it out alive.

Leon's first involvement with radical politics was with the Hashomir
Hatzoir, a Zionist-socialist youth group. He grew disenchanted with
Zionism and became a Trotskyist at the time of the Moscow trials. This
showed a certain independent streak since the Hashomir-ites were
pro-Stalin, as well as being Zionist.

While Leon devoted himself to the Trotskyist movement from this point
on, he never lost interest in the "Jewish Question." He was anxious to
answer the claims of the Zionists, as well as explain the virulent
anti-Semitism that had swept Germany. What was the explanation for the
failure of the Jews to assimilate? Why had this peculiar combination of
race, nationality and religious denomination persisted through the ages?
What was the nature of the hatred against the outsider Jew?

Leon took his cue from Karl Marx who wrote in " On the Jewish Question",
"We will not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but we will
look for the secret of the religion in the real Jew." This led Leon to
examine the socio-economic relations that might explain both the
identity of the Jews and, by the same token, their persecution.

He believed that the key to understanding the Jewish question was their
status as a "people-class." The Jews, according to Leon, "constitute
historically a social group with a specific economic function. They are
a class, or more precisely a people-class." That economic function is
tradesman. The Jew, from the days of the Babylonian exile, have
functioned as tradesmen. Their location in the Mid-East facilitated
commercial exchanges between Europe and Asia. As long as the Jew served
in this economic capacity, the religious and national identity served to
support his economic function.

Leon was strongly influenced in his views by Karl Kautsky, a leader of
the Second International, who theorized the identity of a class with a
people in pre-capitalist societies: "Different classes may assume the
character of different races. On the other hand, the meeting of many
races, each developing an occupation of its own, may lead to their
taking up various callings or social positions within the same
community: race becomes class." The chief difference between Kautsky and
Leon is that Leon made the equation between class and people specific.
Where Kautsky saw tendencies, Leon saw a dialectical unity.

The period that lasted from classical antiquity to the Carolingian epoch
was a time of prosperity and relative well-being for the Jews. In the
Hellenistic era, Jews were part of the commercial elite in cities such
as Alexandria, Antioch and Seleucia. The rise of the Roman Empire saw
their continued success, as cities such as Alexandria continued to
function as trading centers between the West and East. The role of Jews
at Alexandria was so important that a Jew, Tiberius Julius Alexander,
was appointed Roman governor of the city.

It is important to note that what united the Jews in this period was not
wealth and power per se, but their economic role as tradesmen. Within
the group were poorer peddlers and artisans. In the decline of the Roman
Empire, many of these individuals were hardest hit. Their desperation,
argues both Kautsky and Leon, explains the emergence of the Christianity
cult which expressed class hatred of the rich in theological terms.

With the advent of the middle ages, the economic role of the Jew shifts
somewhat. This is the period when the native merchant class begins to
sell commodities produced in artisan workshops, the embryonic form of
the factory. The trade that the Jew engaged in prior to this period was
separate from production, but the Christian tradesman is part of the
network of commodity exchange. Leon notes that "The evolution in
exchange of medieval economy proved fatal to the position of the Jews in
trade. The Jewish merchant importing spices into Europe and exporting
slaves, is displaced by respectable Christian traders to whom urban
industry supplies the principal products for their trading. This native
commercial class collides violently with the Jews, occupants of an
outmoded economic position, inherited from a previous period in
historical evolution."

These circumstances force the Jew to make his living as a usurer. He
lends money to the feudal lords and the kings to finance their war
expenditures and their luxuries. One of the main ways this is done is
through "tax farming." The King "farms out" the collection of tax
revenues to a "Court Jew", who gets a percentage of the take. My family
name "Proyect" means the "counting house of a tax farmer."

This primitive form of banking eventually clashes with banking based on
the production of exchange values, which has been emerging during the
same period as that of the artisan workshops and early factories. The
usurer is hated not only by the lord to whom he charges high interest,
but by the peasants who confront the Jew in his capacity as tax
collector. The hatred builds to a fever pitch in places like London,
Lincoln and Stafford, England in 1189 when massacres of Jews take place.
Shakespeare's "Shylock" reflects the lingering animosity toward the Jew
long after these historical events took place and the Jew had been
driven out of England. The most infamous campaign against the Jew took
place in Spain during the Inquisition, when they were burned at the
stake. The true motive was economic rivalry, according to Leon.

The Jews take flight to Eastern Europe and Poland in particular, where
feudalism continues long after the emergence of capitalism in the West.
An 1810 travel diary notes the following: "Poland should in all justice
be called a Jewish kingdom... The cities and towns are primarily
inhabited by them. Rarely will you find a village without Jews. Jewish
taverns mark out all the main roads... Apart from some are manors which
are administered by the lords themselves, all the others are farmed out
or pledged to the Jews. They possess enormous capitals and no one can
get along without their help. Only some very few very rich lords are not
plunged up to their neck in debt with the Jews."

In the late nineteenth century, capitalist property relations begin to
develop in the Polish and Russian countryside. Lenin writes about this
development in order to refute the Narodniks who held out the
possibility of a village-based socialism. The transformation of
Christian peasants into landless and debt-ridden laborers has dire
consequences for the Jew who is not integrated into the new forms of
capitalist property relations. They continue to act as intermediary
between the peasant and plebeian masses in the countryside on one hand
and the wastrel nobility in the big city on the other. As tensions
arise, the first pogroms take place.

Also, at this time, the Jews begin to undergo class differentiation
under the general impact of capitalism. A Jewish proletariat develops,
which works in small artisan shops producing clothing and household
utensils. This deeply oppressed social grouping is the target of
pogroms, which indiscriminately attack rich and poor Jew alike. The deep
insecurities of this period give rise to the Chassidic sects which
function in much the same way that Christianity functions in the Roman
Empire. It gives solace to a deeply insecure and economically miserable

Eventually the economic suffering takes its toll and mass migrations
back to the West take place, both to Austria and Germany, and across the
Atlantic to the United States. The ancestors of most Jews living in the
United States arrived in this period.

Nobody could have predicted at the turn of the century the awful
consequences of the exodus into Germany. Notwithstanding the vile
utterances of Richard Wagner, Germany had a well-deserved reputation for
tolerance. The German Jews, as opposed to their recently arrived Yiddish
speaking brethren from the East, spoke German and were assimilationist
to the core. Some of the Jewish elites tended to argue for acceptance of
the new Hitlerite regime on its own terms, which they viewed as simply
another species of ultra-nationalism.

For Leon, the rabid anti-Semitism of the post-WWI period fell into the
same category as the age-old forms. It was virulent economic rivalry
that grew out of the collapse of the German economy:

"The economic catastrophe of 1929 threw the petty-bourgeois masses into
a hopeless situation. The overcrowding in small business, artisanry and
the intellectual professions took on unheard of proportions. The
petty-bourgeois regard his Jewish competitor with growing hostility, for
the latter's professional cleverness, the results of centuries of
practice, often enabled him to survive 'hard times' more easily.
Anti-Semitism even gained the ear of wide layers of worker-artisans, who
traditionally had been under petty-bourgeois influences."

When a Trotskyist veteran first presented this theory to me in 1967, it
had powerful explanatory aspects. The true cause of anti-Semitism was
the capitalist system, not some latent and free-floating animus toward
the Jew. The key to the survival of the Jewish people was not the
Zionist state of Israel, but the abolition of the capitalist system.

Recent controversy over the Goldhagen thesis, which tries to explain
anti-Semitism in metaphysical terms, has forced me to rethink Leon's
nominally Marxist interpretation. We must revisit the question of the
explanatory power of Leon's thesis in light of the exterminationist
policy of the Hitler regime. It is very likely that Leon himself had not
been aware of the pending genocide, which did not take shape until 1943
at the Wansee Conference. Leon was trying to explain an anti-Semitism
that was in many ways no more vicious than the anti-Black racism of the
American south. The Nuremburg racial laws of 1935 stripped Jews of their
German citizenry and made intermarriage illegal. This was deplorable,
but after all Blacks could not vote or marry whites in the Deep South in
1935 either.

Another weakness of Leon's work is that he de-emphasizes the people side
of the people-class equation. Most of his work is devoted to an
examination of the Jew's relationship to the means of production, but
very little to their religion, language, culture and values. This is one
of the criticisms found in the chapter on Leon in Enzo Traverso's "The
Marxists and the Jewish Question: The History of a Debate 1843-1943".
The importance of this was driven home to me last night while I watched
a 90 minute documentary on Jewish liturgical music on PBS. There is an
immense variety of influences on Cantorial chanting. The Falashas of
Ethiopia echo African harmonies, while the Turkish Jews employ the oud
and tamboura, typical instruments of the region. In all cases, the
prayers are nearly identical. The narrator of the documentary asks one
Cantor for his explanation of the unity of the Jews over a 3500 year
period, when other nationalities have disappeared from the face of the
earth. His answer: the geographical dispersion of the Jews is the
answer. If the Jews had remained tied to the same territory, they would
have gone the way of the Babylonians, Romans, Greeks, etc. This
certainly makes wonder if an ironic twist lies in store for the state of

It could be argued that this deficiency in Leon has a lot to do with the
exigencies of trying to write about the social and economic factors when
so many others had covered the cultural aspects. It is more likely, as
Traverso points out most tellingly, that the reason for this lack has to
do with Leon's intellectual dependence on Kautsky.

Kautsky's Marxism was deeply problematic. It comes close to economic
determinism. The Second International tended to follow a simplistic
base-superstructure model of Marxism. At its worst, it allowed social
democrats to side with the bourgeoisie against the Russian Revolution.
Since the base of the Russian economy was not fully mature in a
capitalist sense, the Bolshevik seizure of power was premature,
adventuristic and would lead to dictatorship.

The same methodological error appears in Leon. He tries to explain
German anti-Semitism almost exclusively in economic terms. The problem,
however, is that this explanation tends to break down when the Nazi
regime institutes the death camps. After all, there is no plausible
economic explanation for such behavior. It can only be called madness.

In 1933, ten years before the death camps, Leon Trotsky wrote "What is
National Socialism." This article does an excellent job of diagnosing
the madness of the Nazi movement which had just taken power:

"Fascism has opened up the depths of society for politics. Today, not
only in peasant homes but also in city skyscrapers, there lives
alongside of the twentieth century the tenth of the thirteenth. A
hundred million people use electricity and still believe in the magic
power of signs and exorcisms. The Pope of Rome broadcasts over the radio
about the miraculous transformation of water into wine. Movie stars go
to mediums. Aviators who pilot miraculous mechanisms created by man's
genius wear amulets on their sweaters. What inexhaustible reserves they
possess of darkness, ignorance, and savagery! Despair has raised them to
their feet, fascism has given them a banner. Everything that should have
been eliminated from the national organism in the form of cultural
excrement in the course of the normal development of society has now
come gushing out from the throat; capitalist society is puking up the
undigested barbarism. Such is the psychology of National Socialism."

full: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/fascism_and_war/goldhagen.htm
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Lueko Willms
2004-09-21 08:32:43 UTC
. Am 20.09.04
schrieb mjunaidalam at msalam.net (M. Junaid Alam)
in 414F7CE0.6020304 at msalam.net
ueber [Marxism] What to make of Marx's anti-semitism? (his essay, 'On the Je

MJA> The essay probably never had a title but it was published as "On the
MJA> Jewish Question" in the Marx-Engels reader edited by Robert Tucker,

The article was written in 1843 and published in "Deutsch-
Franz?sische Jahrb?cher" of 1844, a magazine edited by Arnold Ruge in

This article is a polemic against another German intellectual,
Bruno Bauer, writin about the question: how to achieve the
emancipation of Jews who in that time of absolute monarchy "by the
grace of God" were subject to a number of regulations and

To be Jew then, was synomymous, as Marx writes, with money lending
etc, and Marx describes "the Jew" because of that form of existence as
the precursor of the capitalist society, and he notes that with the
advent of capitalism as the predominant form of production, which he
was witnessing on the European continent, everybody became a Jew.

The way out is neither that every human becomes a Jew in the above
sense, nor Bauer's ideas that Jews had to convert themselves to former

The task ahead, so Marx, is not just the emancipation of the Jew,
but _human_ emancipation, what in later years he would see to be
achieved by a socialist revolution.

L?ko Willms
/------------ L.WILLMS at jpberlin.de --
/------------ Lueko.Willms at T-Online.de -- "Get PGP Key" im Betreff
Richard Fidler
2004-09-21 13:50:33 UTC
A stimulating discussion on these issues is Enzo Traverso, The Marxists
and the Jewish Question: The History of a Debate 1843-1943 (Humanities
Press International, 1994). The book also contains an interesting
critique of Leon's "people-class" theory and Lenin's opposition to the
Bund's organization as a separate entity within the early 20th century
social democratic firmament. Traverso argues that the European Jews had
elements of a nationality, and that "The Jewish question is... revealing
of certain weaknesses in classical Marxist thought, in particular an
incapacity to perceive the significance of the religious phenomenon in
history and a difficulty in theorizing the nation... The Jewish question
is revealing...of the backwardness and limitations in the approach taken
by Marxists toward forms of oppression not directly related to class,
such as national, but also racial and sexual oppression."(pages

Here is an extract from his discussion of the early Marx on the Jewish
question (pages 19-22, footnotes omitted):

* * *

To criticize The Jewish Question, it is necessary first to historicize
it, to see it as a moment in the evolution of Marx's thought and as a
product, however particular, of a specific cultural context, that of
Germany in the first half of the nineteenth century. With this
criterion, Marx's youthful work reveals a pre-Marxist conception of
capitalism and an incorrect analysis of the Jewish question; an
analysis, on the other hand, typical of certain currents of liberal and
democratic thought of the time. One finds in it also an element that
would become a kind of dogma for the great majority of Marxists in the
following decades: the idea of assimilation. We will attempt now to
identify some of the fundamental weaknesses of this work.

a. Marx demanded civic rights for Jews as a prior condition to the
solution of the problem-very much more profound and substantial-of human
emancipation. But this approach missed completely the real point of the
demand for emancipation: the oppression suffered by the Jewish community
in the Prussian state in the first half of the nineteenth century. It
would be vain to seek in The Jewish Question a reference to or a
denunciation of the discrimination that affected the Jews: namely, a
whole series of restrictions (on movement, on residence, on the exercise
of certain professional activities, on access to the civil service, and
so on), not to speak of the pogroms that took place in Germany up to

b. The Judaism/trade/bourgeois society identification reflected the
immaturity of the economic conceptions of the young Marx, now situating
himself clearly within a communist perspective but having not yet
recognized the proletariat as the subject of universal human
emancipation and inclined to see in commerce and circulation, rather
than in production, the charactistic traits and the fundamental
structure of the capitalist system. In this sense, his 1843 text appears
very much closer to Hess's Essence of Money than to Capital, that is,
closer to a purely moral denunciation of capitalism than to a scientific
analysis of it. In The Jewish Question, as in ?ber das Geldwesen, the
Jew is a symbolic figure of alienated humanity in the bourgeois world,
the incarnation of "the man who has become a stranger to himself."

c. The image of the Jew sketched by Marx, and summed up in the
definition of the chimerical nationality of the Geldmensch, was nothing
other than the transformation into a philosophical category of certain
aspects of the contingent situation in which the Jewish communities of
Central Europe lived during the first decades of the nineteenth century.
At that time, according to Julius Carlebach, small traders and hawkers
constituted 66 percent of the Jewish working population in Prussia,
whereas in Eastern Europe almost all Jews fell into these categories.
From whence the definition of the Jews as the people of Geldmenschen,
destined to be taken up and re-elaborated-in a very much more solid and
complex analytical context-by the Marxists of the following century,
notably with the characterization of the Jews as a "caste" (Kautsky) and
as a "people-class" (Leon). This concept would be taken up again by Marx
in Capital, in reference to the "commercial people of antiquity" who
lived "like the gods of Epicurus, in the intermundia, or rather like the
Jews in the pores of Polish society." Here the Jews no longer appear as
the symbols of modern capitalism but rather as the representatives of
precapitalist commerce, which was very much closer to reality.

d. The molecular process of transition from feudalism to capitalism, as
one could globally situate it in Western Europe between the fourteenth
century and the industrial revolution, was not marked by the symbiosis
of the Jewish communities with the ascendant national bourgeoisies but,
on the contrary, by the socioeconomic decline of the Jews. In the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, they were expelled from all the
principal cities of Central and Western Europe and forced to seek refuge
in hawking and usury or to emigrate toward the east, above all to
Poland. Representatives of a monetary economy in feudal society, the
Jewish traders seemed to have exhausted their historic function in the
period of formation of capitalism, and they were pushed out by the
nascent bourgeois classes. A significant Jewish layer, firmly
established in the domain of industry and finance, would take form only
in the second half of the nineteenth century, after emancipation had
been achieved. The central thesis of Zur Judenfrage is, then,
inconsistent: the "Judaization" of Christian bourgeois society
coincided, historically, with the economic decline and social uprooting
of the Jews.

e. Marx's economist schema led to a mythical vision of Judaism. In his
study, the Judaism /capitalism equation was transformed into an a priori
and antihistoric theory. The Jew was perceived as a figure inseparable
from money and the suppression of capitalism as a path through which the
disappearance of Judaism could be brought about. He did not recognize
the social stratification that marked the German Jewish community of his
time, and he always considered the Jews. as a "uniform entity." In his
later works, Marx abandoned this position. In the Grundrisse, written
fifteen years after The Jewish Question, there is a passage in which the
contemptible characteristics of the Geldmensch are attributed no longer
to Judaism but to Christian Lutheranism: "The cult of money has for its
corollary asceticism, abstinence, sacrifice, saving and frugality,
contempt for the pleasures of the world, temporal and transitory, the
eternal hunt for wealth. From whence the relation of English puritanism
and Dutch Protestantism with the action of making money [Goldmachen]."
This formulation, which one could call Weberian ante litteram,
demonstrates that for Marx-at least in his maturity-the "cult of money"
was not a Jewish specificity and that his argument was not inspired by
an anti-Semitic prejudice.

f. Marx expressed an assimilationist orientation in fairly clear terms:
the Jew would become "impossible" when trade, his reason for existence,
had been eliminated, and true human emancipation would lead to the
extinction of Judaism. The fundamental limitation of this approach lies
in its incapacity to consider he Jews as a community with a specific
cultural and ethnic physiognomy, capable of transforming itself, but
also of conserving itself, beyond and through changes of social and
economic structure (one could say by, with, and in history). But this
approach was common to nearly all the currents of thought favorable to
emancipation, considered in general as the way to eliminate the Jewish
anomaly. The young Marx's article did not constitute, as Robert Misrahi
has written, "one of the most anti-Semitic works of the nineteenth
century," but reflected in reality an attitude very widespread in
Germany among the partisans of emancipation. Gershom Scholem has
remarked with regard to this that emancipation cost the Jcws "the formal
disavowal of Jewish nationality-a price that the outstanding writers and
the spokesmen of the Jewish vanguard were only too happy to pay." Marx
belonged to a generation of German Jewish intellectuals who no longer
recognized themselves in the Haskalah-he conceived human emancipation as
also meaning emancipation from Judaism, whereas Mendelssohn wished to
preserve a Jewish identity while Germanizing and modernizing it-but who
were in a certain fashion the offspring of it. Marx's article can be
situated in a precise historic conjuncture, soon after the (partial)
laws of emancipation in Prussia, which saw the emergence of a "pariah"
Jewish intelligentsia-of which Marx and Heinrich Heine were the first
representatives-and the survival of a layer of Jewish bankers (the
residue of the old "court Jews") who financed the absolutist regimes.
Zur fudenfrage was the product of this conjuncture: it expressed, in the
words of Hannah Arendt, "the conflict between rich Jews and intellectual

One final question in relation to this text concerns its silence on the
situation of the Jews of Eastern Europe, who constituted the great
majority of the Jewish population of the time. Certainly, Marx had no
in-depth knowledge of the problem, but it is difficult to believe that
he would have altered his radical critique of the Jewish religion if he
had studied Hassidism. The Eastern European shtetl would only experience
a great cultural flourishing, founded on the modernization of Yiddish,
at the end of the nineteenth century, but when Marx wrote his article,
it still knew the reality of the ghetto, of an "ecologically" enclosed
and separated community. The Jews of Central and Western Europe, in the
period of emancipation, saw in the Ostjudentum only a negative model,
the image of their own past. Marx was a son of his epoch and shared this
point of view.

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 17-09-2004
2004-09-21 23:22:44 UTC
"Intense" sez: "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who get
binary, and those who don't."

Actually there are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who get binary,
those who don't, and the extraterrestrials with three fingers.


Continue reading on narkive: