New Elite Meme? … Dialectical Parallels Between Jesus Christ of Nazareth and Genghis Khan of Mongolia
By Staff News & Analysis - February 27, 2012

While initial efforts at empire building may appear at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing, appropriate analysis brings out that capital is a rigid prerequisite. When we lift a corner of the yurt, we once again find a familiar sight: Organized Jewry." – Khorijin/The Glorious Concomitance of Christ and Khan – a Revisionist View of the Greatest Figures of the Age.

Dominant Social Theme: Not a hair's worth of difference?

Free-Market Analysis: In the depths of the Internet, we have come across several articles explaining not only that Genghis Khan was the logical successor to Jesus Christ, but that the two may even have been funded by the same Money Power.

One such article is entitled, "The Glorious Concomitance of Christ and Khan – a Revisionist View of the Greatest Figures of the Age." It is apparently written by "Comrade Khorijin Of the Borjigin clan (sub clan: Basut)" and has caused quite a stir in certain circles.

Using a long and complex narrative derived in part from brief excerpts via partially-published books on various websites, he attempts to show that the Money Changers Christ drove from the Temple actually became supporters of his. He claims they funded Christ's travels around Israel and much of his proselytizing.

He also claims that when they were no longer welcome in Jerusalem, or even in Rome, a number of them somehow ended up in (what is today) Mongolia more than a thousand years ago. There, they bought up ponies and sheep and lent them out for significant interest. Without their backing, Khorijin makes clear, Genghis Khan would never had had the necessary capital to embark on his depredations. (Khorijin does not however provide cites to back up these latter contentions.)

Paraphrasing Marx, Khorijin writes, "While initial efforts at empire building may appear at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing, appropriate analysis brings out that capital is a rigid prerequisite. When we lift a corner of the yurt, we once again find a familiar sight: Organized Jewry."

Comrade Khorijin makes, as well, the slightly contradictory argument that the rhetoric of Christ and Khan constitute what is called a "dialectic" and that those who are setting up this particular postulate hope to move Western society toward a more authoritarian dynamic. He writes with apparent approval, "ti tou tan zi yi tou re …" (Power springs from the barrel of a gun.)

In reading a translation of the article, it soon becomes clear that Khorijin is not so much out to compare Christ and Khan as to compare their philosophies. Why he wishes to conflate a recognized (by the establishment mainstream) "man of peace" with an energetic conquerer who apparently believed that the "ends justified the means" is not clear to us, but he (and others) are currently expending significant effort to do so.

We have even compared Ludwig von Mises long cogitation on "human action" to the Sermon on the Mount. While we don't mean to imply anything about von Mises larger spiritual status (he was mortal, no Godhead and subject to mortal flaws) we find the similarities of the messages compelling.

Mises placed a premium on individual (uncoerced) decision-making; Christ (as he is represented in mainstream texts) preached VOLUNTARY charitable care and brotherly love … approaches that did not include so far as we know (unlike, say, calls for "social justice") state coercion. Now perhaps some will shout that Christ demanded "morality" while von Mises notoriously refused to make moral judgments, making him "evil" … Yet could this be a puerile, even misleading reading?

Christ (as represented in mainstream historical and religious, "establishment" narratives) used persuasion and counted on the force of his ideas to promote his timeless approach regarding spirituality and brotherly love. Genghis Khan was a good deal more violent and from what we can tell counted on the sword and the scourge of war to advance his ambitions. As Wikipedia (SUCH an authoritative source!) reports:

Many of [his] invasions resulted in the large-scale slaughter of local populations, which have given Genghis Khan and his empire a fearsome reputation in local histories. Mongol campaigns may have resulted in the deaths of 40 million people. (Wikipedia)

Khan is quoted as saying, "The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters."

Of course, Christ, too, created an empire, though it is commonly positioned (by mainstream theologians) as a spiritual one. In fact, the term, "The Kingdom of God" (or Heaven) is fairly commonly used in the Bible.

Comrade Khorijin argues that "empire building is empire building." Much as a "rose is a rose," (funny that he would use a Western, literary allusion, but perhaps he's trying to impress) so an "empire is an empire."

Khorijin even states that if we believe the Dead Sea Scrolls, there seems no doubt that the "King of the Jews" had in mind some sort of military conquest of Palestine and perhaps of Rome. He, of course, quotes Wikipedia: "The 'kingdom' in the War Scroll of the Dead Sea scrolls, and other mentions of 'kingdom' and 'rule' are linked with Messianic expectations, and the establishment of a military-political kingdom on earth."

And he goes further: One of the reasons for Christ's untimely death was the knowledge that Christ had in mind turning his spiritual Kingdom into a temporal one. Within this context, he theorizes that Judas was entirely devoted to peace. What is now seen as betrayal is actually one man's principled resistance to Christ's impending power grab.

Rather than merely betraying Christ, Khorijin implies that Judas (far more than Christ) operated within the rigors of a determinedly pacifistic philosophy. He has considerable evidence for this. He cites a "Mary-Magdalene" web page, in which we come across the following provocative question: Judas Iscariot a Vegetarian? "Eating is a Political Act!"

And he adds, "Comrades, while Judas HEARD the cock crow three times, he never tried to capture the animal, nor to slaughter it. Nor did Judas even seek to confiscate eggs from the area; one might therefore argue that Judas was an 'ovo-vegetarian'."

Comrade Khorijin has found numerous quotes (?) to justify his various positions. Ghengis Khan: "I will rule them by fixed laws so that rest and happiness shall prevail in the world."

Here, in the Christian Bible, he points out that we find similar sentiments: "Roar, sea, and every creature … [The Lord] comes to rule the earth. He will rule the people of the world … " (Psalms 98:7-9).

Comrade Khorijin and others writing on this issue believe that the parallelism they are (selectively?) providing outweighs any contrary evidence. In fact, Khorijin claims as much, explaining toward the end of his article, "shùdao húsun sàn." (When the tree falls, the monkeys scatter.) He seems to believe this proves his point.

We had intended to write a longer rebuttal of Comrade Khorijin's perspectives but we confess we are somewhat stymied. By taking quotations out of context and selectively citing certain "information," he makes what is unexpected seem logical and what is (in our humble estimation) at least startling seem somewhat credible.

One really needs to peer beneath the surface to see how he has selectively incorporated certain information and seemingly twisted facts for reasons known only to him and his colleagues. If the phrase weren't so ancient, we'd surely resuscitate it by labeling Comrade Khorijin a "sophist."

Definition of SOPHIST: 1: philosopher … 2: any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the fifth century b.c. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning … 3: a captious or fallacious reasoner.

Of course, one could argue that here at DB we provide speculative conclusions regarding the themes of the elite that we regularly discuss. Yet we freely admit this and pursue our brief within the context of FREEDOM (trying to analyze what we consider to be manipulations that reduce freedoms worldwide and further restrict people's ability to create fulfilling, significant lives).

As free-market thinkers, we beleve the freer (at least less formally regulated) the society tends to be, the more caring and nurturing its participants, especially when the societies in question are of truly modest size. For this reason, we don't believe in making arguments that buttress statism.

No, Comrade Khorijin! We'd argue that the spiritual voluntarism of Christ (within the ambit of standard Western presentations) is preferable to the initial (often genocidal) coercion of empire, no matter the peace that follows. You may wish to compare Khan to Christ within this context (assuming Western rhetoric) … but we reject the idea that one is merely the cleverly crafted reflection of the other.

Ed Note: Does this seem a good deal like SATIRE, dear reader? And yet, why would we compose something so seemingly outlandish (from Western establishment perspectives anyway)? Perhaps as a response to other statements that have suddenly (for some reason) started to appear on the Internet comparing freedom to various varieties of sinful (even downright evil) cogitation …

Nor, by the way, are we accusing those on the opposite side of a given debate as being ANTI-CHRIST (or even anti-religious), but merely trying to illustrate that FACTS CAN BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.

In order to make the article as clear as possible, we avoided discussing issues of whether or not Christ "actually" existed and whether religion is nothing but another elite meme intended to control the masses, perhaps murderously. Nor did we focus on arguments over the larger "good" that may have been accomplished by Khan within the context of his immediate (historically reported) depredations.

No. For simplicity's sake, we utilized mainstream, establishment (Western) representations of these two individuals (Christ and Khan) to illustrate both "Comrade Khorijin's" perspective and ours. And within THIS context, as you have read, we rejected the idea that Christ and Khan were entirely similar, or perhaps two pre-meditated halves of a larger dialectic.

Here is the larger point: ANY two individuals can be made to to be seen as similar within the context of certain presentations and statements. If properly constructed, selective arguments can be made that make black comparable to white, evil (within mainstream Western contexts) comparable to good, etc. The Internet provides us with manifold opportunities to pursue such sophistry.

And yet why do so? Arguments for freedom are, in our view, preferable to arguments for statism. Arguments that make the case for individual human action are preferable to arguments that make the case for large-scale collectivism. It is probably true that smaller aggregations of people WILL seek to live collectively in tribal or clan groups as they have done throughout history, but free-market thinking (and certain proponents of Austrian economics) have certainly made this case.

To claim otherwise is to misrepresent the actual argumentation. One also, in our view, misreprents the position of libertarians and free-market thinkers generally by maintaining that such individuals believe (in aggregate) in some sort of formal gold standard or are not intellectually open to competing currencies, especially those not advantaged by the state. The evidence for this is overwhelming and can be found repeatedly in articles and feedbacks at this site and others that share similar free-market sentiments.

Some, of course, may find this article in some sense offensive or "over the top." To them, we ask two question: First, assuming our modest screed IS satire, wouldn't someone seeking to make a strong, clear point try to use an "outrageous" example (within the current, mainstream, Western conversation)? And second, is such a formal example any more more insulting than comparing those who believe in freedom and free-market thinking to those practicing (as an example) "Illuminism" as it is currently described?

For more on these issues, see:

After Thoughts

We apologize to anyone who is offended by this article, but as a website devoted to meme-watching, such analysis is surely and necessarily within our purview.

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap