Jews and Communism

		On the Jewish Question - Karl Marx, anti-Semitism and the War against the West by Chuck Morse Kindle Price: $2.99 Auto-delivered wirelessly

Jews and Communism
By Charles Moscowitz

Many Jews are still soft on Communism, which is one of the reasons why a vigorous and objective examination of the history of Jews and Communism remains taboo. There is also a legitimate fear that such an examination may play into the hands of those who may fan the flames of anti-Semitism. The problem with this argument is that the historic involvement of many prominent Jews in the communist movement was itself responsible for fanning those flames. This involvement contributed to the atmosphere that culminated in the Nazi Holocaust. I realize that I'm wading into controversial waters by weighing in on this topic, which is why I've avoided it until now. I believe, however, that an honest and responsible rendering of history outweighs any other factor. Truth serves in the interest of good and can only contribute to positive change and healing.

The unpleasant and indisputable fact of the matter is that many Jews did play a prominent role in the hated Bolshevik coup of November 1917 and subsequent communist revolutions and movements in Europe and elsewhere. Prominent Jewish Communists would be at the forefront of some of the worst aspects of those bloody revolutions. This fact was not lost on Europeans, especially those who suffered under the brutal communist yoke in the years leading up to Hitler. The Nazis would use these unpleasant facts as part of their Jew hating conspiracy theories and propaganda as they planned the liquidation of the innocent Jews of Europe.

Communism introduced unprecedented levels of atrocity and totalitarianism to Europe in the years before Hitler, starting with the 1917 Bolshevik coup itself, Stalin's collectivization of farms, wars against the Kulaks, the engineered famines of 1931-32 which killed upwards of 5 million Ukrainians, the communist inspired atrocities of the Spanish civil war and other examples. Jewish Bolsheviks played prominent roles in the Russian coup including, among others, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Apfelbaum), Kamenev, Radek, and Uritzky. The question of why Jews would embrace godless communism in the first place is interesting and beyond the scope of this brief treatise. Suffice it to say that significant numbers of Jews did sign on to an amoral political faith that caused unprecedented loss of freedom, poverty, oppression and death.

It is an unpleasant fact that many of the worst Communists, those associated with many of the worst atrocities, were of Jewish background. Lazar Kaganovich, who personally claimed to be responsible for 20 million killed, stood atop the rubble of a Christian church proclaiming, "Mother Russia has been cast down, we have torn away her skirts!" Genrikh Yagoda sent hundreds of thousands to work on the Baltic Sea canal project where countless numbers of Russians, Ukrainians, and Baltic's perished. Natalfy Frenkel and Mathias Berman founded the infamous Gulag system, with camps commanded by figures such as Rappoport, Solz, and Spiegelglas, all of whom are mentioned at length in the work of Sozhenitzen. Ilya Ehrenburg, the World War II communist counterpart to Goebbels, incited Soviet troops to rape and maim German, Polish, and Czech women as a form of punishment.

Europeans were aware of Russia's oppression and were cognizant of the fact that communist atrocities were, by and large, covered up in the western media. Hitler, no doubt, noticed this as well and perhaps assumed that he, a National Socialist, would be given the same favorable treatment. The aftermath of World War I witnessed a Jewish communist, Bela Kun, presiding briefly over a reign of terror in Hungary. Jewish communists Kurt Eisner and Rosa Luxemburg did the same briefly in Bavaria. Because of the prominence of a few Jews, many Europeans wrongfully took to blaming all Jews for the disaster and suffering that communism caused in their lives as well as the real threat communism posed to the nations that remained free.

Not widely discussed in examinations of World War II is the fact that many eastern Europeans, including Ukrainians, Russians, Belarussians, and Baltic's, considered the 1941 German invasion of Russia, at least in its early stages, as liberation from Soviet communist oppression. Many prominent Soviet officials, including political Commissars, party officials, and NKVD agents would be rounded up and shot, as a form of vigilante justice and an inordinate number of these officials were Jews. Scores of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarussians were motivated to join forces with the Germans in order to crush Stalin.
I can't help it if this information fuels the fecund imagination of Jew haters with their sick views. I realize as well that this article might enrage many of my "liberal" Jewish friends. My hope is that a better understanding of a primary cause of anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe and Russia will contribute toward reconciliation. Perhaps, as well, this article could contribute to a degree of soul searching amongst "liberal" Jews.

Barack Obama, his Minister, and the Wellstone Funeral

Subscribe to BrookesNews’ Bulletin

Barack Obama, his Minister, and the Wellstone Funeral

Chuck Morse
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 7 April 2008

The hate filled rhetoric of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who Senator Barack Obamahas described as "a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith" poses as a threat to the presidential ambitions of the Democratic candidate not because of the undeniably racist nature of the minister's comments, but, rather, because the rhetoric is yet another naked and crude display of old fashioned left-wing agitprop.

The inflammatory rhetoric of Obama's minister, and the indignant reaction to that rhetoric by the public at large, reminds me of the October 2002 memorial rally that followed the funeral of the iconic liberal Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone who was tragically killed in a plane crash. The left-wing political pep rally that followed the funeral, attended by approximately 20,000 people, included televised images of well known liberal icons such as former President Bill Clinton, former Vice Presidents Walter Mondale and Al Gore, and Senators Hillary Clinton and Teddy Kennedy sneering from their seats and engaging in such antics as waving their fists in the air as a succession of speakers mounted the stage to regurgitate predictable left-wing slogans.

It has been generally acknowledged that the Wellstone funeral, in which Vice President Richard V. Cheney was dis-invited to attend and in which Senator Trent Lott was booed, was a disaster for the Democrats in the 2002 mid-term elections. The negative reverberations were felt during the 2004 presidential campaign of Democratic Senator John Kerry.

The left just doesn't get it.

They just don't realize that most Americans are simply not burdened with the same malevolent hatred for this country that is the hallmark of their debased outlook. Most Americans don't damn their country, as did Obama's minister, or do they blame their country for the ills that beset other countries, many of which suffer under the stultifying yoke of the very same left-wing systems that are so admired by the elites who dominate the Democratic Party and by the likes of the rabble rousing spiritual councilor to Barack Obama.

No, in fact, most Americans embrace a more positive view of the American way of life. Most average Americans aspire to achieve the kind of success that has been experienced by Barack and Michelle Obama, by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and by the insufferable gang of liberals who attended the rally following the Wellstone funeral. Most African-Americans appreciate the gains they have been able to achieve as they enter the middle and upper classes in increasing numbers. While much progress still awaits, most Americans understand that the best hope for the future lies in capitalism, patriotism, and in an embrace of the traditional values that have provided the undergirding for genuine progress.

The vile speeches of Obama's minister, like the Wellstone rally, provide rare examples of left-wing arrogance on display for all to see in all of it's ugliness. These candid moments, more often covered up by liberals, often even within themselves, are instructive and revealing. Let's examine these events very carefully and lets remember these unguarded moments of unvarnished honesty. They provide an opportunity to learn the true nature of many of those who seek to influence our culture and public policy. These unguarded moments are a gift and a blessing in disguise.

---

Chuck Morse is a Boston-area radio-talk-show host, author, columnist and former Republican congressional candidate. Web Site, email, phone:            (617) 271-5044      .

Subscribe to BrookesNews Bulletin 

COMMENTARY

THE LONG MARCH TO DESTROY ISRAEL

Exclusive: Chuck Morse sees both Gramscian, Bolshevik strategies at work in Mideast

• 
  

In the 1930s, Italian communist Antonio Gramsci advocated the “long march through the institutions” as the most effective means for communism to prevail in the Western democracies. He sought to overthrow capitalism and enthrone an authoritarian ideology he sincerely believed would usher in an age of equality and social justice. History has conclusively proven him to have been wrong. Gramsci disagreed with the methods of his contemporary compatriots, the Bolsheviks, who were implementing communism in Russia through violence, or what they called revolution. Gramsci’s tactics involved quietly infiltrating and then dominating cultural institutions, the media, academe, foundations and the arts, and using those resources to impose an informal cultural dictatorship. Gramsci understood that by controlling the culture, what Marx called the “means of communication,” communism could be imposed under another name and in such a way that the democracies would find themselves asleep at the switch.

The Gramscian method is now being attempted as a means of undermining and eventually destroying the state of Israel. All of this would of course be moot if the speedier Bolshevik approach employed by Iran under Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah and Hamas proxies firing missiles and their development of a nuclear bomb is successful. Well-meaning liberals, including an increasing number of pro-Israel Jewish liberals, are incrementally moving away from believing in Zionism as a moral and ethical force in the same way the Gramscians of previous generations gradually moved liberals away from free-market democracy. Zionism, it should be stated, is the national aspirations of the Jewish people in the modest state of Israel, nothing more and nothing less.

Ads by Google

• How to Fix Your Marriage.There are 7 Secrets. Get them Free. New Alternative to Counseling.www.MarriageMax.com/Free-Advice
• Publish A Christian BookFollow Your Calling With Westbow. Let Us Help You Make An Impact.www.WestbowPress.com

To truly understand anti-Israel vitriol in Middle East read Morse’s “The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini”

The line of reasoning employed, and couched in the type of intellectual sophistries and sweeping moral jargon the left is used to hearing, is that Israel, as a Jewish state, is a “theocracy” that should be replaced by a morally superior secular democracy where Jews and Arabs share the land in a perpetual state of equality and social justice. Some Palestinians have even offered the profound and astonishingly magnanimous concession that Jews might even be allowed to continue to live in such a state as an appeal to those whom V.I. Lenin called useful idiots. Washington Examiner columnist Asaf Romirowski reports that Palestinianlawyer and activist Jonathan Kuttab wrote in the L.A. Times that “Zionism will ultimately need to redefine its goals and aspirations, this time without ignoring or seeking to dispossess the indigenous Palestinian population. Palestinians will also have to deal with this reality, and accept – even enthusiastically endorse – the elements required to make Jews truly feel at peace in the single new state that will be the home of both people.”

J Street is an American lobbying and advocacy group that is particularly vulnerable to the tender ministrations of the Gramscians. Made up of mostly American Jewish liberals, J Street advocates the so-called two-state solution to the degree that they apply pressure on the U.S. government to coerce Israel into negotiations with the Palestinians even though Gaza is under the direct control of the Iranian-sponsored Hamas. Israel had previously handed Gaza over to the Palestinian Authority on asilver platter, ethnically cleansed of its Jewish population, with the hope that the Palestinians would use the opportunity to create a responsible and sovereign Palestinian Arab state. Israel, along with the U.S. taxpayer and other nations, provided Gaza with money to assist the state in the making. The Palestinians were handed an opportunity, one of many going back almost a century, to create a prosperous and free society existing peacefully alongside Israel. Instead, Gaza became a launching pad for thousands of missiles launched against Israel. J Street and their ilk ignore these facts and push forward in pressuring the Obama administration to pressure Israel to yet again lop off another slice of land. President Obama has been more than happy to comply.

By not acquiescing to this utopian idea, the Gramscians portray Israel as obstructing their definition of the peace process. They wrap the Palestinians, who would otherwise have access to the resources of the oil-rich Arab nations and U.S. taxpayer money if they truly sought the road to peace, as the poor victims. At the same time, and for public consumption, they claim that the carving out of another Arab state west of the Jordan River would be a step toward peace. History and present realities, particularly in Gaza, indicate that a significant proportion of the Arab population west of the Jordan will never recognize a Jewish state, and the tactics employed, whether Gramscian or Bolshevik, prove this – not that any proof is necessary.

---

Chuck Morse is the author of “The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini.”

Darwin and the Nazi Holocaust

Apostles of Evolution: The Practical Result of the Evolutionary Faith  by Charles Moscowitz   Learn more

April 19 is Yom Ha-Shoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. In order to honor the day and to remember the dead, it is proper to reflect upon how the genocide against the six million Jews of Europe happened and why. The answers to this question are obviously complex and varied but the question must nevertheless be asked continuously and not a stone must be left unturned in the quest for understanding. Only in this way can we insure that it never happens again.

The influence of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution on the Nazi movement and the Nazi way of thinking must be considered as part of the mix of ideas that made up the Nazi core. Darwin’s theory, in its essence, is a theory of breeding, what Darwin called “natural selection.” The word “species” is Latin for race and Darwin used the words species and race interchangeably in his writings. Darwin’s work was infused with the idea of impending doom for the human “species” unless the evolutionary process was advanced. Darwin wrote of the survival of the fittest and he viewed this as a natural process in which the superior, or the more evolved members of the human species would advance while the so-called inferior members would naturally die off or be annihilated. Darwin was heavily influenced by the scarcity theories of Thomas Malthus, the world’s first advocate of population control as a means to save mankind.

The belief in biological evolution formed the core of Nazi thinking. They believed that the Aryan race, a mythic conception that they derived partially from the theosophy of Madame Helena Petrova Blavatsky, was a more evolved species or, to use the vernacular, a superior race. They believed that if the Aryan were properly bred, and if the blood of inferior races were bred out of the potential Aryan population, than a new and more evolved species would emerge, what they called the Ubermench, or the Superman. The Ubermench, bred from the blood of German Nordic stock, would be blond, with blue eyes, would possess a perfect physique, would live up to two centuries, and would possess cosmic consciousness.

Like Darwin, and like many of his followers, the Nazis believed in the concept of scarcity and that time was running out to save mankind. They believed that the best way forward was to evolve a better species of human beings. They believed it was their moral duty to isolate and to cull the populations of lesser species as they defined the term. Ironically, they did not believe that the Jews were an inferior species but rather they considered the Jews to be a highly evolved species that posed as a lethal threat to the supremacy of the Aryan species. Thus, they reasoned, in order for the Aryans to lead mankind toward the more evolved and perfected stage of biological human development, the Ubermenchen, the Jews had to be annihilated.

From a Darwinian perspective, the Nazi theory actually made sense. Unlike the Judeo-Christian concept, which holds that all men and women are created in the image of God, and are therefore created equal, the Nazis, deriving their idea from the scientific notions of the theory of evolution, believed that men and women were born un-equal and in different stages of the evolutionary cycle. Thus, to the Nazis, the German was more evolved than the non-German and was therefore more fit to survive. 

Darwin captured the essence of the Nazi outlook in the following quote from his second book The Descent of Man:

At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even then the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. 

Member Center | Log Out

Today's Globe    Opinion    Politics    Magazine    Education    Science    NECN    Special reports    Obituaries

Traffic  |  Weather  |  Mobile

HOME > NEWS > NATION Frank, Morse spar over Iraq, book claims By Benjamin Gedan, Globe Correspondent  |  October 25, 2004 NEW BEDFORD -- To prepare for his debate last night against one of the quickest quippers in Congress, Chuck Morse studied tapes of John F. Kennedy's debate with Richard Nixon. His opponent, US Representative Barney Frank, skimmed passages from Morse's book, "Why I am a Right Wing Extremist." Frank's preparation paid off. Last night, the 24-year congressman from Newton skewered Morse for what Frank said were glowing passages about former Senator Joseph McCarthy and for a suggestion that President Clinton was behind the Oklahoma City bombing. "I don't think his defense of Senator Joseph McCarthy was jocular," Frank said, rejecting Morse's claim that the book was meant to be parody. "I understand you support McCarthy -- you emulate him." Morse largely defended his essays but said the book did not represent his platform. "I'm not backing away," he said, "and I'm not running as poet laureate." The hour-long debate was the third campaign encounter between Frank and Morse, in what even Morse concedes is his long-shot bid to unseat the veteran Democrat. Frank is treating the race much like a prize fighter treats a sparring partner; he already is readying a run for the US Senate if John F. Kerry wins his race for the White House. Morse just hopes to slow down Frank. "I'm a pretty good communicator," insisted Morse, a conservative radio talk-show host, assessing the debates he has had with Frank during the campaign. "I can certainly hold my own against Barney Frank." Frank is not impressed: "I didn't notice any great skill," Frank said of Morse, before last night's event at New Bedford's Wamsutta Club. "He began our first debate saying he was intimidated." Frank spent most of last night's heated debate disputing Morse's wide-ranging allegations, including a charge that legislation Frank sponsored in 1990 helped the 9/11 hijackers enter the United States. Responding to claims that his ties to industry lobbyists cost New Bedford banking jobs, Frank began the debate by calling Morse's attacks "the local version of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Speaking to a crowd of 50 in New Bedford, Morse criticized Frank for standing by as Sovereign Bank cut 350 jobs after buying Compass Bank. He also said the Democratic representative could not work with the state's Republican governor, Mitt Romney, or the Republicans in the White House and in Congress. "Where does Barney Frank turn?" he asked. In other clashes, Morse defended the invasion of Iraq, which Frank called a $120 billion "unnecessary war." Morse also praised the Patriot Act, which Frank opposed, as well as the $89 billion spending bill on Iraq and Afghanistan. Frank, 58, was rated by a CSPAN survey as the Democratic Party's most effective speaker. The September issue of The Washingtonian magazine called him the Democrats' best debater in Congress. On his AM radio show, "Morse Code" on WROL, and cable TV program in Brookline, Morse has sparred with such liberal heavyweights as Howard Zinn, Gloria Steinem, and Noam Chomsky. "Talkers Magazine" listed him among the "hot 100 upcoming talk show hosts in America." He debated Frank by phone three times on his talk-radio show. In March, the two dueled over Iraq policy, an encounter that left Morse confident he could take on the veteran representative. An earlier debate with Frank in Mattapoisett left Morse "stammering," according to an account in the New Bedford Standard Times. Morse's spokesman, Ben Kilgore, conceded he was "too polite." "Morse is a good talker, but he knows absolutely nothing about anything," said Kay Reis, 70, a longtime member of the League of Women Voters, which sponsored the Mattapoisett debate. "Barney encouraged him to make a raving fool of himself and he obliged." Morse has acknowledged his uphill battle. Frank recently purchased $350,000 of air time, mostly on Boston TV stations, in what was seen as an effort to raise his profile in case he runs for Senate. He has raised more than $1 million through Sept. 30. Morse has $140,000 in his campaign account. Frank has agreed to debate Morse several times, including the Oct. 14 encounter at Old Rochester Regional High School in Mattapoisett and another debate three days later in Newton for a cable TV program scheduled to be shown today on local access Channel 9 at 2:09 p.m. The candidates plan a final meeting tonight on New England Cable News. © Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.

THE LINCOLN CONTROVERSY

THE LINCOLN CONTROVERSY
ATTACKING OUR HEROES OF HISTORY

By: Charles Moscowitz

Abraham Lincoln is almost as controversial a figure today as he was 136 years ago at the time of his assassination in 1865. His legacy is presently under attack from some on the left as well as from some on the libertarian/conservative right. Leading the charge on the left is court historian Doris Kearns Goodwin and Hollywood producer Steven Spielberg. They are, reportedly, spearheading an effort to knock Lincoln off his pedestal with charges of racism and mental problems. They are smearing his wife. This is the same school that wants Washington and Jefferson discredited, along with their utterances concerning freedom and liberty, because they were slave owners. This is nothing short of a concerted effort to denigrate the American civilization with it's notions of individual rights, liberty, private ownership etc..by attacking our heroes of history. The attack from the conservative side is, however, quite astonishing to me. Since my recent article, Abraham Lincoln - America's Greatest President, I have received extremely vituperative, and in some cases, downright personal email from conservatives. One conservative publication, which usually carries my articles, refused to print this one presumably because it favored Lincoln. Reasonable people can differ, and these differences make me proud to be conservative as opposed to a left that generally demands conformity. My position, however, remains the same with regard to Lincoln and I will try to spell it out here. Lincoln, I contend, was, besides George Washington, our greatest president because he dealt with the most dangerous conspiracy this Republic ever faced, one that intended to smash this nation to smithereens. The issue of slavery, while certainly a source of friction, was enflamed, on both sides, by interests that sought to destroy the USA. This was the same dialectical process that the Communists attempted to use to create class warfare in the 1930's and race warfare in the 1960's. The conspiracy Lincoln confronted made the Communist conspiracy look like a picnic in comparison and Lincoln confronted it head on to the degree that he sacrificed his own life. This was not an issue of North verses South. The idea of secession actually started in New England during the War of 1812. This was not an issue of slavery per se because Lincoln clearly stated that, if elected, he would not attempt to abolish slavery in the slave states. This was not an issue of states rights. The southern slave states were demanding more federal control over the states to protect slavery. The three examples of this were the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Kansas/Nebraska Act of 1854 and the Dred Scott decision of 1858, all favoring unconstitutional federal interference over all the states to protect slave interests. Several factors contributed to the destruction of the Union. Lincoln stated that "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary machinery of peacetime government had assumed control of various Southern states." This "combination" Lincoln referred to was, most likely, the Knights of the Golden Circle, a secretive organization that counted much of the Confederate elite, including Jefferson Davis, as members. The KGC sought the establishment of a huge slaveholding empire including the Southern states, Mexico, the West Indies, Central America and parts of South America. Much was known about this group at the time, but they are rarely mentioned today. The secession, and the KGC influence was not limited to the South. According to Jim Marrs, author of Rule by Secrecy, the KGC agitated, through a network of pro Confederate Copperheads, to create a "Northwest Confederacy" made up of mid western states. This would be accomplished by the seizure of federal arsenals and the freeing of Confederate prisoners. These plans were thwarted by Lincoln who responded by declaring a state of semi martial law. Lincoln was dealing with a subversive emergency far graver than the Communist subversion of the 20th century. Under the circumstances, Lincoln acted appropriately by protecting the Nation. There is every evidence, based on his writings, that he intended to return to the status quo ante after the emergency had subsided. The British and the French were clamoring to enter the war on the side of the Confederacy. With regimental bands playing "Dixie," according to Marrs, Britain sent eleven thousand additional troops to Canada which had become a haven for Confederate agents. France installed Archduke Maximilian as emperor of Mexico where supplies were transported across the Texas border, in defiance of the Union naval blockade, and French troops were poised on the Texas border. Marrs contends that both France and England were ready to step in just as soon as the North and South had bled each other dry. International bankers were loaning money to both sides and appeared to be playing each side off against each other. Lincoln rebuffed efforts by the "money power," as he called it, to establish a central bank, which would loan the government money at interest. Instead, Lincoln authorized, in 1862, the issuance of Greenbacks, interest free, fiat currency, which emanated directly from the US Treasury and bypassed the banks. There would not be another attempt by the bankers to establish a central bank in this country until 1913 and the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. Lincoln also spurned the efforts of the Radical Republicans as all of his writings indicate that he intended to return to the status quo ante after the insurrection with regard to states rights and the southern states. He did not seek the revenge that would eventually be wracked on the South after his assassination. His only qualification for a re admittance into the Union for the South would have been the abolition of slavery in accordance with the emancipation proclamation. Lincoln's writings indicate a profound respect for, and understanding of our constitution. He was dealing with an emergency that, the likes of which, God willing, this Republic will never face again.

The Origin of May Day

On May 1, 1776, Adam Weishaupt, a professor of Canon Law at the University of Ingolstadt, established a secret society in Munich Bavaria known as the Order of the Illuminati. From that time until today, May Day, which has origins in ancient Rome, has been observed as an international holiday by Socialists, Communists, and by other so-called progressives. The modern origin of May Day is well known and is viewed as accepted history in Europe, yet the origins of May Day, which commemorates the founding of the Illuminati, is virtually unknown to Americans.

Adam Weishaupt described the immediate goal of his secret society, originally called the Perfectablists, as nothing short of the abolition of the Monarchies and religion in Europe. The ultimate goal of the Illuminati, a goal to be achieved gradually, was what Weishaupt, who used the name Spartacus in his secret society, referred to in his writings as the creation of a “New World Order.”

The Illuminati then, like the left today, was largely made up of wealthy aristocratic types and middle class intellectuals, those to whom we now refer to as the top 1% and their supporters. The exclusive club back then, as it does today, marketed itself as the champion of the poor while gradually gathering the strands of wealth, power and influence into their own hidden hands.

After its 1776 founding, which was ironically the same year as the issuance of the freedom oriented American Declaration of Independence, the Illuminati spread rapidly across Europe by means of its initiates infiltrating and attempting to dominate the already existing and generally conservative Freemasonic lodges of the major European cities. The Illuminati was exposed when a currier carrying its secret papers was arrested in Bavaria in 1784. Further investigations by Bavarian authorities led to the banishment of Weishaupt and his organization. Weishaupt spent the rest of his life under surveillance as a court councilor to Duke Ernst of the Duchy of Gotha where he died in 1811. In exile, Weishaupt wrote A Complete History of the Persecutions of the Illuminati in Bavaria (1785), A Picture of Illuminism (1786), An Apology for the Illuminati (1786), and An Improved System of Illuminism (1787).

According to the French Jesuit priest Agustin Barruel, 1741-1828, who published an authoritative four volume set entitled “Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism”1798-1799, the Illuminati established the Jacobin Club that would subvert and disseminate the otherwise peaceful and pro-American 1789 French Revolution in 1793. The Jacobins, who were responsible for beheading the popular French King Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette, launched the Reign of Terror and established the world’s first Communist regime. Fr. Barruel claimed to have gathered his information for his books from the Illuminati papers that had been confiscated by the Bavarian authorities.

George Washington, whose presidency coincided with the Jacobin Reign of Terror, expressed concern about the Illuminati coming to America in a letter, archived in the Library of Congress, dated October 24, 1798, in which he wrote: it was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

Whether the Illuminati continue in the formal sense is not known and is not relevant. What is known is that the ideas initiated by the Illuminati, ideas that were expounded upon by Karl Marx and Frederick Engles, continue marching through history. Marx manifesto expanded the initial proposition of Weishaupt, an end to governments and Christianity as a means to create a new world order, by proposing, in addition, an end to private property, the family, business, free trade and, indeed, to end individual identity itself. Once these goals were accomplished, according to Marx, once mankind had become collectivized, than all government would “wither away” and man would exist in a state of perfect equality.

May Day should be observed as a day to remember the tens of millions of victims of the demented utopian fantasies that were launched on that day by Adam Weishaupt. Their blood cries out from the grave for truth and for justice.   

The Assassins

The Assassins 
 By Charles Moscowitz 
web posted September 17, 2001 

 The Islamic terror network, the one which just shoved a dagger into our hearts, has astonishing similarities to an ancient Islamic terror sect known as the Assassins, founded by Hasan bin Sabah, 1094. The modern term "assassination" is derived from their name. During the Crusader period, they became famous for their policy of using murder as a ritualistic tactic of terror. Like their modern counterparts, the Assassins indoctrinated their adherents into believing that murder was a religious duty. The Assassins were also known as the "Hashshasin" or hashish smokers. Their adherents would smoke hashish as a means of preparing for their missions of murder. 

 In 1094, Hasan bin Sabah, a friend of the great Persian poet Omar Khayyam, established himself in a mountain fortress on the Caspian Sea called Alamut where he would cultivate a violent personality cult. According to Nesta Webster, a source that, admittedly, should be approached with a grain of salt, "The final object was domination by a few men consumed with the lust of power under the cloak of religion and piety, and the method by which this was to be established was the wholesale assassination of those who opposed them." The Assassins, a tightly knit secret society, established a pyramidal structure of organization and initiation that would later be imitated by Freemasonry and most other fraternal orders. According to Webster, the higher initiates into the order of the Assassins believed that "Nothing is true and all is allowed." Jim Marrs, the author of "Rule by Secrecy" states that a belief of the Assassins was that "everything in creation, including humankind, is part of a universal whole, a concept along the lines of Einstein's unified field theory." 

The atheistic and amoral Assassins believed in the concept of might makes right, an early version of Social Darwinism. They, like their modern counterparts, cloaked themselves in Islam while in fact they, like their modern counterparts, sought to subvert and destroy Islam. Hasan, according to the writings of Marco Polo, built elegant palaces with lush landscaping in a hidden valley. Future recruits would be drugged, taken to the palace where they would spend several days in the company of opulence and beautiful women, and then, after having been drugged again, returned to their ordinary lives. After a couple of repeat visits, Hasan would promise his new recruit this "paradise" eternally. The gateway to this paradise, however, was through assigned murder. This sounds an awful lot like the belief of today's modern Assassins. I wonder if their modern handlers are taking their new young recruits to some modern paradise, perhaps under the influence of hashish or some other drug, with the same promises in exchange for suicide. It certainly seems familiar and entirely plausible. 

 The Assassins, at their pinnacle of power, held great influence over most of the rulers of the Middle East. This was accomplished through spectacular acts of violence and maintained through a threatening network of terror cells. The Assassins had no particular loyalty to Islam as they allied themselves with the Crusader Knights Templars in their war against the Saracens. They were early practitioners of what is presently called "realpolitique." Total power was the goal and unspeakable violence was the means. The Assassins would eventually be weakened by their own murderous nature, as Hasan would be assassinated by his son, Mohammed, who would in turn be poisoned by his son, who had learned of a plot by his father to kill him. Mongol hoards would eventually finish them off altogether. 

Perhaps our government should consider these terrorists, who just assassinated many of us, as a modern version of the Assassins because that is exactly what they appear to be. Through violence and threats of violence, they are controlling many of the world's governments outright while others are trembling with fear. They operate as a secretive syndicate who employ assassination to terrorize anyone, including Muslims, who gets in the way of their power. They are probably involved in international drug trafficking and also probably employ secretive pyramidal organizational techniques. By understanding the nature and means of this subversive international conspiracy, our leaders should be able to thwart these modern Assassins as the Mongol hoards did to their predecessors.

Was Karl Marx Satanic?

Examining the life and faith of Karl Marx, the patron saint of the left, offers insights into the mind and the actions of the left today. Rev. Richard Wurmbrand, the author of Marx & Satan makes a convincing case regarding the satanic beliefs and practices of Marx and his coterie of radicals. The amoral philosophy of Marx, the dialectic, the convoluted and inverse style of communication, the worship of earthly power, these are all telltale signs of satanic worship and are the hallmark of the left approach to life and politics today. Certainly Marx’ spawn, Nazism and Communism, unleashed more evil into the firmament than have any other cults in history. As Jesus said on the Mount: “A good tree cannot bear evil fruit, an evil tree cannot bear good fruit…know them by their fruits.”

Marxist ideas have been submerged into an unwitting culture, a culture that is not consciously engaging in satanic worship. Yet the satanic influence of Marx continues to permeate society today whether or not one is literally a devil worshipper. Wurmbrand speculated that Marx was a follower of British occult figure Joanna Southcott, one of the many 19^th Century expositors of the “new age.” This author considers the 18^th Century Jewish Satanist and occultist Jacob Frank to have more in common with Marx’ approach to life and politics.

Jacob Frank (1726-1791) claimed to be the Messiah and formed a secretive heretical sect that broke away from Judaism. Frank was a follower of Shabtai Zvai, another Jewish false messiah from the previous century. The Frankists, followers of Jacob Frank, formed secret societies after a rabbinic excommunication of him and his followers from Judaism at the 1722 Assembly of Lemberg. The satanic nature of the Frankist movement was indicated by their belief in the virtue of reversing all norms of sexuality and morality while glorifying that which is considered immoral. Sigmund Freud, who popularized the concept of polymorphous perversity, was probably influenced by the Frankists.

Marx viewed himself as a messiah. Like Jacob Frank, who claimed along with his followers to have converted to Catholicism, and like Frank’s predecessor in heresy Shabtai Zvai and his followers, who claimed to have converted to Islam in 1666, Marx advocated subversion and the necessity of shape-shifting ones image and tactics to suit conditions. The necessity and justification to lie was codified in leftist thinking by Russian revolutionary Sergei Nechayev and his influential tract Catechism of a Revolutionist. This author has noticed that some left-wing guests on his radio talk show over the years become conservative once they get wind of the conservative orientation of the host. By this means, by deception, the left-wing guest avoids an argument that might require an explanation and defense of leftist positions and beliefs.

Like Frank and his followers, Marx and his coterie believed in God as a common misconception about Marx is that he was an atheist. Marx and his colleagues sought to overthrow God. This view was summed up by Michael Bakunin, a close collaborator of Marx and a fellow founder of the First International:

The Evil One is the satanic revolt against divine authority, revolt in which we see the fecund germ of all human emancipations, the revolution. Socialists recognize each other by the words “In the name of the one to whom a great wrong has been done.”

Satan [is] the eternal rebel, the first free thinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.

The skill of the leftist political communicator today is to say absolutely nothing in long and elaborately adorned sentences that sound important and profound. The ultimate sign of a skilled left-wing dialectician is noted by the ability to state two diametrically opposite principles in the same speech and even the same sentence. These two talents are verbal examples of the satanic method which is one of deceit and or extolling an overthrow of conventional norms. President Barack Obama is an example of a highly skilled left-wing dissembler and dialectician.