Occupy Wall Street? No!

by Tom Wise

Let's be straight. The "protesters" in lower Manhattan who have become vagrants in the business district, and no more than that, are among the most pathetic of beings. Not only do they have no particular collective message, nor meaning in their lives, but they wish to infect all who they meet with this disease of the mind. If only they possessed the Hegelian dialectic so that we might uncover their deceit and use it against them. But - alas! - they are like blind protozoa, scurrying amid teeming pools of nutrition, with no eyes, no arms, and no central nervous system. We can learn nothing from them, and they will take away little from their experiences.

Ah, but who arrives to egg on these zombies? None other than the cultural elite, exiting limousines to deliver weighted speeches directly from method acting. It is to our eternal regret that we have not raised children keen enough to recognize that an actress in front of a captive audience is not the same as a motivational speaker. These Sarandons and Moores are sanctimonious hypocrites, lecturing the uneducated on matters of which it is well known they are ignorant. They are only slopping the hogs before going on to their next multi-million dollar project.

If in fact anyone cared for these disheveled and hopeless souls, it would be to offer them substantive work. But as it says in the Book of James, and I paraphrase, "Your prayers do not feed the hungry, and your hearty positivity does not shelter the homeless."

Extrapolating, is it truly surprising that bankers have turned out to be pure businessmen and not shown compassion? Apparently, demagoguery is effective, for this Occupy Wall Street crowd is under the impression that the purpose of a bank is to provide capital for lazy nitwits, then to forgive their debt as it becomes necessary or suits rabble-rousers. Surely, those who are "protesting" must realize that this protracted act of rebellion cannot possibly convert financiers into Santa Claus or George Bailey. Or have they so taken such leave of their senses that their mission is not to convince but to estimate some ability in themselves to topple a system in which they in fact have not a whit of talent? They cannot occupy a position at any firm, let alone occupy Wall Street!

Chaos. It might not be in the hearts of these disillusioned, but it is the desire of those who would see bankers "get theirs." Yet, those with such motive are not interested in the spare lives of these mere puppets, but have greater dreams of grandeur, such as establishing new world currencies. The irony is that the Occupy Wall Street-ers are only pawns in a great chess game between capitalism, communism, and fascism. If there were any logic to spare between them, those who occupy would become those who awaken. Perhaps actual conversations concerning individual success and what that means might take place within conclaves of self-interested and motivated, not to mention like-minded, beings. But we see that their despair has overtaken them, and not for poverty but for some concept of "fairness," as if the opportunity to attain is not available to every one of them.

On display is the worst type of idealism, cries for new economic and governmental frameworks which have already failed many times over - democracy (mob rule), socialism (mediocrity), communism (death), anarchy (a lie). It is as if history means nothing or never occurred. We should not, however, be surprised at this since these functional illiterates also cannot fathom that their "heroes" live as well or better than those they apparently oppose. If they cannot see through the Hollywood activist, how shall they know that their successful future is a gulag. Or do they truly believe that they will thrive when a strong leader comes to fill the power vacuum? Please....

And then there is Roseanne Barr, who projects her fear as violent fantasy. Her calls for guillotines against stubborn capitalists is not new but its openness leads one to believe that she is racing to the finish post, afraid that if she is not in charge of the beheading she will herself be a victim. But why so panicky, Ms. Barr? Can it be that your wealth is visible and you think that if you behave as the mob behaves it will save you? There again is a Tinseltown queen reciting her good Marxist lines while she counts her own off-shore savings. Please...

So, if anyone from Occupy Wall Street should be reading this, wise up. Your best strategy to wealth is not to take it, not to whine about it, not to congregate in a mass therapy session, and not to take the advice of actors and madmen. In fact, it is as it always has been - wealth is created by providing value, and having many customers who see that value. But if you take wealth by force, distribute it and spend it, where do you think it will end up? That's right - in the hands of the same people you claim to despise. You who must have an Apple iPhone or iPad, a Yamaha guitar, a Volkswagen, a Pepsi, a Snickers bar - you will have none of it because no one will produce value unless the system for profiting from value produced exists. You are therefore poor and silly children, tearing down the very structure that feeds, clothes, shelters, transports, communicates. Are you Amish? Are you technophobes? Are you nomads? What lifestyle are you aiming for? But whichever it is, I guarantee you that George Soros, Michael Moore, Van Jones and the rest are not going to live in a tent with you. Think about that.

Lesson 4: Karl Marx’s "Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right"

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our fourth meeting.

Synopsis of Week 4 Meeting:

The entire meeting was devoted to discussing Karl Marx’s Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, in which religion is described as “the opiate of the people.” The following individual quotes actually run together, but I’ve broken them up for “translation” and explanation. It would be wise after this to read the entirety of that manuscript for context and continuity.

“Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.” Translation: Religion is for those who are immature or weak-minded, who have either not broken past religion or else returned to it in failure.

Notice that Marx uses philosophy to open many of his gambits. This type of self-absorption is supposedly the antithesis of Marxism. However, one can immediately see the structure by which he intends to discredit the individuality of human experience. Specifically, the opportunity to fail in society is meant to be addressed. This is the start of the victim-oppressor mindset which we have discussed mightily in Week 3. This is Hegelian reasoning coming at you. It is under the pretense of caring that Marx proposes systems shall be destroyed and rebuilt.

“But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world.” Translation: You are not an animal.

Thank you, o great Marx. Without you I would not know my own humanity. This pap appeals to those who are hopeless. It is a bumper-sticker salute to those who have given up. Whereas Marx complains in his prior statement that religion acts as a surrogate for self-esteem, he now extends his own hand as that which he claims to reject! In other words, Marxism shall be your religion.

“Man is the world of man—state, society.” Translation: Mankind is egotistical. Individuality is the problem. The state and society built on this individualism is destined for ruin.

“This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world.” Translation: The frailty and danger of society built on individual freedom produces the need for a haven. It is not religion’s fault, Marx asserts, but the fault of the ideology on which free society rests. Religion is only mirroring the carnage outside its walls. The world outside the chapel is itself upside down.

This is only one of many pithy witticisms with which Marx intends to pummel the pliable soul. Sweet-sounding metrics deliver the most wretched messages. Here, it is that religion itself is a victim of the oppressor society. Now, having earned our knowledge from prior weeks’ study, we can say with some certainty that Marx is hammering stakes to provide a Christian “shelter” from Judaism. For as we have already learned, Marx believed that capitalism, a free and individualistic society filled with creativity, private property and wealth, is a mere invention of the Jews. This is putrid not only from our long view of history but also because it invalidates the human ability to make best choices. It never occurs to Marx that humans should be free to screw up their surroundings, only that some avenue must be established to correct corruption. Admirable... but misguided. Before Marx was Jesus, and before Jesus (the Word made flesh) was Torah (the Word itself). We have preexisting tenets, both for obedience and repentance. What is Marx doing? Setting up for himself a messianic palace.

“Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification.” Translation: Religion is the basis for the ordered world of humans, its intelligent recourse, its focus for honor, its conscience. Religion provides humans with a serious view of life, but also makes room to console the mourners and to allow rectification of grievous wrongs, i.e., sins.

Marx is a clever panderer. He intersperses his passive-aggressive digs against religion with high compliments for it. However, he is merely, as we shall see, setting up the greater fall.

“It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality.” Translation: If you dig religion, you’re kidding yourself.

Bumper-sticker cliché masquerading as wisdom. This is an assumption based on philosophy and subjective observation. It is important to understand that Marxism prides itself on the “scientific” approach, so this is even hypocrisy piled on top of self-absorbed fraud.

“The struggle against religion is, therefore indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.” Translation: Religion isn’t the true enemy; the true enemy is the idea that religion does any good.

It really doesn’t matter from which end you approach this, it’s the same message. You are now experiencing the Hegelian dialectic which you hopefully recognize. Have you not heard this before? It’s called double-talk. It’s also called lying, deliberate deceit, and disingenuousness (if we’re being kind). For whether you think it is religion which is dangerous or society which is perilous, Marx has you captured. The main point is, You are a victim and it’s not your fault. Religion and society is a setup from the day you were born. You can’t win. But Marx will lead you out of the wilderness to the promised land. This is Marx channeling the future, acting in advance like a post-Wilsonian welfare-state American politician (that is, a progressive).

“Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.” Translation: You’re a sucker.

When Marx says that religious suffering is “real” suffering, he isn’t being generous with his compassion. To the contrary, it is an indictment of religion. And when Marx says that religious suffering is a “protest” against itself, it is yet another assumption, and furthermore a contemptible assignment of himself as god and savior. We are to thank Marx for pointing out that we suffer under bondage to religion, and bow to his understanding that we yet rebel against that to which we do not wish to be rebellious. In other words, he sees the strain of religion as a burden, not a responsibility. He thinks of religious thought as a shackle. He loses sleep that countless persons pray and do not get relief from their pain. On this latter statement, I am naturally being sarcastic. Marx cared not a whit for anyone but himself, and his personal life is littered with that truth. The fact that he was able to construct a mythical utopia does nothing to overturn that disaster.

One might argue that Christianity is just as bad as Marxism, but that is besides the point. There is no reward to relinquishing Christianity for Marxism if they are equally destructive. In fact, if these two are to be compared, it must not be for ultimate goals (that is, salvation) but for journeys. The journey of Christianity is foundationally repentance for sins, change of attitude from negative to positive, involvement in helping others, and so forth. The journey of Marxism, on the other hand, is infiltration of organizations, seeding discontent by painting some as victims and others as oppressors, and leading often-violent revolution against the powers-that-be. I leave it to the reader to decide if this is both correct and clear, and which pathway is best.

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.” Translation: Alas, poor you!

Though focused on religion, Marx is actually condemning capitalism and individualism. The “oppressed creature” does not sigh for religion, but for the discomfort not found in the promise of religion. Marx exploits this gap between the advertising and the product. The same is expected from picking out the “heartless world” and the “soulless conditions.” On these latter two points, Marx is not identifying spiritual vacuums but material discrepancies. The “conditions” are not of your heart but of your home. Religion is then, according to Marx, a system through which capitalistic society sends its rejects. The “oppressed” are not only victimized by a dehumanized society that puts dog-eat-dog as its idol, but also denies their happiness by a failed religious experience. It’s double jeopardy for these poor souls, and Marx is only too happy to convert them to his particular brand of cultism. Marx preys on those who are most helpless, offering the disillusioned something too good to be true. And even if it is, he is sure they will never return to that dastardly capitalism. In essence, Marx uses religion against capitalism, even though he previously stated that they were part and parcel of the same immoral fabric! Marx makes religion simultaneously the oppressor and the oppressed! This is Hegel and Marx – say anything as long as it sounds halfway logical and fully attractive, and as long it furthers your agenda. Here, Marx colors capitalist society as covetous, thieving, murderous, idolatrous, blasphemous, dishonorable, and so forth; but the answer is not religion or God. No, no! It is the rejection of religion and God! Aren’t you glad Marx can save you?

“It is the opium of the people.” Translation: “Wake up!”

I agree with Marx to this extent: Religion which is lazy has no place in society. Organized religion which permits sinners to occupy pews, which does not actively pursue transparent and worthy charity, which does not provide guidance at a high level, which does not teach God’s Law – these are useless. If one is to be a patriot, one must know his Constitution. If one is to be godly, one must know his Torah. Faith in country and God is essential, but without proper authority and limitations, both of which contractually derive from Law, the religious follower is merely “winging it.” So, yes, wake up!

Marx, however, means something very different. He means to wake up and walk out. He means to go on strike against the oppressive “boss” of the pulpit. Marx is pretending to be Jesus in the Temple, overturning tables; but he has no such standing. How can a man who teaches against God’s Law, against God, tell you in which godly manner to behave? Marx is teaching against God’s Law (the tool of the oppressor), and therefore he is to be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Marx is an antichrist.

Whether or not you are religious, Marx’s views on religion are also irrelevant, for no simpler reason than he flips off religion. It is not that religion should be respected (this is up to the individual) but that religion is personal, and it is not up to one man to say in which manner religion should collectively be conducted. This admonishment applies to Marx, to Congress, and to your clergyman. Individual freedom of religion is not meant to be a safe and antiseptic experience but a road of challenge and victory through overcoming. No one has the right or ability to say that religious experience, and therefore religion, must be eradicated for its sorrows and scrapes. Where it concerns Marx, his interference is especially from the height of arrogance, for Marxism, the supposed correct prism, is all about disappointment and misery.

“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” Translation: Just what it sounds like.

If you read Marxian philosophy without attendant translation and explanation, you will have come to this point perhaps agreeing with Marx. But having looked deeply into his platitudes it is clear that the strategy in play is to gain friendship with the afflicted by way of sympathy and offering solutions. The Hegelian dialectic is in high gear, specifying two straw men (religion and anti-religion) as the choices by which society either progresses or stagnates, and demanding through crocodile tears the “better” choice for all concerned. This, of course, is in opposition to those many who actually gain some profit from religion, organized or otherwise. But this is exactly the point: Religion is “unfair” in its solace and comfort. While some prosper in God’s love, others are left stranded in front of that proverbial brass wall. Marx’s solution is not to leave each to their individual destinies but to take away, by force if necessary, the spiritual wealth accrued by the fortunate. Sound familiar? It should. It is the same analysis provided for the intrinsic disparity within capitalistic economic structure. It is the same mindset used in youth sports leagues where “everyone is a winner” (that is, no one is a winner). It is the “compassion” of Marx which thwarts the “wickedness” of competition, individuality, and success.

This is a disease which must be combated and eventually cured. Practically speaking, we must participate fully and cannot avoid the confrontations sure to come. Therefore, if someone asks (for example), “You want clean air and water, don’t you?” - your answer as a free being ought to be, “Not if it means you control the type of car I drive, the type of energy I use, the type of light bulb I can burn, the type of toilet paper I can buy...” – and so forth. Their Hegelian dialectic sustains the Overton Window mentality which sets up two falsities: (1) the Earth will suffer if we continue your (capitalist) way, (2) humanity will benefit for countless generations if we do it our (Marxist) way. Your response avoids their frame of reference, and decimates their assumptions and arguments. Your answer is: “I choose freedom, not slavery to fairness, compassion, political correctness, social justice, and other trigger words meant to corral my individuality, openness, and rejection of Marxism.” It is not necessary to give power to collectivists for everyone to prosper. In fact, that is not even possible. Instead, it is necessary to give autonomy and sovereignty to individuals who will succeed or fail on their own, without government intervention.

This stance will create enemies for you. If not on their team, or at least not open to hearing them, you will be attacked, smeared, vilified, ostracized, isolated, insulted, and worse. That is the price you pay for being a free being. People congregate to security, and freedom causes insecurity. You are therefore a threat to the many who have and will fail. And, as the world careens into worse sloth, greed, and covetousness, you will make actual and more enemies. The government is weakening daily to collectivism, worse than we ever imagined. Be prepared to defend your rights.

“To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.” Translation: We may have to forcibly tear religion from those who like or need it.

While Marx’s Hegelian dialectic sounds paternal and non-committal, it’s actually very strenuous and quite clear. Marx concludes that religion is an illusion, promising, but not delivering to all, security and happiness. He is Captain Obvious, isn’t he? But somehow this message has filtered widely and successfully through the 150 years since it’s been pitched. The key is that the young can be reached through the freedom of press and public libraries. While older folks are set in their ways, restless adolescence can be shaped in its dissatisfaction. The broken promises from childhood church-going are harvested by propaganda which promises disappointed idealistic energy a utopian place to dwell. Whether you like it or not, it’s like giving a hungry man bread. Reach the children, mold the future.

Those who continue with Marxism into adulthood may possibly take power, and this probability is accentuated by the fact that Marxists greatly push “civic duty.” To compound matters, Marxism takes advantage of a weak people by demanding that “racist” civics (read: true civics) be dropped from school curricula. Thereby, those uneducated in our Constitution may be indoctrinated into the concepts of “living documents” and legislation for the “greater good” rather than in firm principles and limited government. Those left over, who don’t participate in politics per se, can be enlisted to protest, even riot, in the name of “compassion” and “equal rights.”

It’s really not their fault. Kids are at heart dreamers, and all it takes is a Willie Wonka of the wrong variety to hand them a delightful chocolate, and they are hooked to it. It is euphoria for the young to think thoughts of wrongs righted. More so, it is a sense of power that they can change the world. Marxism exploits this lingering angst as much as it waters the sprout of anger in the workplace and the welfare state.

“The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.” Translation: Religion cannot protect you from capitalistic life because religion is capitalistic life.

Clearly, Marx had a messianic complex. First, he identifies “the problem.” Who can argue that religion has not caused much pain? But who can argue that religion has not brought much comfort? It is the height of self-righteousness to claim judgment on the behavior of billions of people. Second, he claims to have “the solution.” This idea that one can “save the world” by the removal of religion is obviously as filled with faith as any religion! You must have belief of steel to buy this. Not only that, but it is religious to think in terms of “saving” humanity, and therefore Marx was just as superstitious and more hypocritical than those he despised. Hitler took this Marxian faith to its ultimate end, claiming he was the messiah of the master race and would purge first the evil of the Jews.

You must understand how very serious this is. The communist has counted for 150 years on the anti-Semitic history of mankind to continue unabated and with less mercy than ever. The communist perpetuates myths about Jews while clinging to his own myths. The communist pretends to be a friend of the Christian against the Jew. The communist also pretends to side with Islam over America, calling America a Zionist nation. These things are not accidental. This is a coordinated effort to brainwash by repetition anti-Judaism so that the Law of God can eventually be extinguished. For it is that at the conclusion the only competition communism will truly have is God’s Law. It is not capitalism that will defeat communism unless it is godly (lawful) capitalism. It is not armaments which will defeat communism unless they are used for godly (Torah) purposes. If you understand this as superstition, you may be already brainwashed.

The communist will argue that, at the core, I am incorrect simply because I spout philosophy, and that Marxism does not use philosophy but science. This is incorrect. Marx’s own Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts (1844) is a philosophical document, decommissioned by communists as too humanist and too liberal, that is, too bourgeoisie, but it does exist. In it, Marx speaks of the alienation of a man from his own human nature by the system of capitalism. Feuerbach had previously in 1841 written about man’s alienation from his human nature by the idea of God, and Stirner would further the idea by saying that man is alienated from himself by “humanity.” If that isn’t philosophy, what is? But I expect no more from communists (and their progressive-liberal ilk) than this double standard, where something is OK for you but not for me.

But not only is Marxism a philosophy, even its arguments and “mathematics” are faulty. Marx’s work is based on erroneous assumptions which, frankly, were already becoming archaic by the boom in the Industrial Revolution. It may be stated fairly that Marx is like a broken clock, always ringing the same time and therefore right twice a day, but this is a poor excuse to follow it.

The freer is a society, the more likely it is that such conditions as Marx describes (and hopes for) will never come to be. The fact that this alienation of man delineated by Marx exists today in America is not due to capitalism but to government intervention in markets and in people’s lives. The bailouts to shore up criminal banks and whining automakers are a dangerous example. By this, a message is sent that businesses and financiers may break the rules of monetary physics without culpability or repercussion. This is the behavior of an oligarchy more than of a democracy or republic. But let’s not kid ourselves: Marx was NOT asserting Jefferson or Franklin, that freedom must be guarded vigilantly; but rather that capitalist freedom is an illusion and that the capitalists, that is, the Jews, will eventually watch it all fall down while they count their money. It is this feeling of hopelessness and hatred which Marx hope to capture, the revolution in his head to be fulfilled in the reality of darkness.

Why Torah Defeats Communism

I have been asked why in the course of teaching Anti-Communism do I focus so much upon the Jewish people. The answer is simple: Because Marx did.

Though his goal was the eradication of all religion, he did not savage Christianity. In fact, a quick scour of the Internet and Google Books will show not only that Marx had a kindly view towards the Christians (insofar as he believed they were “this close” to being communist) but also that Marxism has its Christian admirers.

The Jews were his target. According to Marx, Jews were a backwards people. His central idea towards capitalism is that Jews invented it, whether through Judaism (which he considered money-centered), or, more deeply, through Jewish nature, i.e., their DNA. His further plank is that capitalism is spread to non-Jews via contact with Jews (naturally, this is both mystical and unscientific, two adjectives the Marxists supposedly hate). Since capitalism is ostensibly the scourge of all ills, there must be a “solution.” We know where that leads.

But why did Marx concentrate on the Jewish religion? To discredit it. It’s one thing to say that the Jewish people have particular traits described as (and continue to be characterized as) “dangerous.” Such philosophy can usually be dismissed as baseless hatred, that is, bigotry. It’s quite different to say in a pseudo-scientific manner that all society, including the Jews, can be “saved” from their Judaism (a basic tenet of Marx’s contribution to On the Jewish Question). This is, in their view, “kindly.” But let’s be clear: Marx knew that the end of Judaism would be the end of Torah. The core of Judaism is Torah. If you destroy the Jewish religion, you destroy Torah. If you destroy Torah, God’s Law is destroyed for a great many (perhaps all) people. This is a difficult thing for non-Jews to understand, but Marx understood it quite well.

Now, you may ask, what did Marx know? (1) The core of Jesus Christ is Torah. Jesus defeated Satan with Torah (in the wilderness). He kept Torah (for example, Passover). He taught Torah (in the temples). He condemned anyone who would mess with Torah (Matthew 5:19, et al). If you destroy Torah, you leave only an empty husk of Christ. Christianity might continue, but it would be based on ideas rather than facts. Destroy Torah, destroy Christianity as a true religion. (2) The foundation of the United States Constitution is Torah. “Judeo-Christian” values are all Torah. “Love thy neighbor” is Torah. The Ten Commandments is Torah. American jurisprudence (“innocent until proven guilty”) is Torah-based. Thrift and preparedness is Torah. Freedom and liberty is Torah (the First Commandment). Is it Christian also? Sure, but Torah came well before Christ. Jesus always quoted and upheld Torah (and the prophets, and Proverbs, etc). If you discredit Torah, the Constitution, and therefore freedom, can be torn to shreds. (3) The foundation of Islam is Torah. Islamic law is, like Christian ordinance, a product of Torah. You may consider Islamic law as the “aggressive half-brother” of Torah in the same manner that Ishmael was (and is) the “wild man” half-brother to Isaac. Marx’s idea was certainly to destroy “Mohammedanism” by disassembling Moses, Torah, and Judaism.

What about Buddhism? I've said elsewhere that perhaps Buddha learned from Jesus, but I see I was incorrect. Buddha lived 500 years before Christ. However, saying that Christ possibly taught Buddha was another way for me to say that Buddha believed Torah. Did he? In a manner of speaking, yes. Not in rules and distinctions per se, but there is no escaping the “first cause” God. See this link for more:

http://torahandmeditation.weebly.com/judaism-and-buddhism-clarified.html

And although Buddhism in non-theistic, there is no escaping the basic pre-existing truth of Torah. See a Buddhist’s example here:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/buddhismjudaism/

As before, let me say that my goal is not to make you a Jew (as I am) but to explain why Marx was so dead-set on the destruction of Judaism, why Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews, why Marxists and Nazis today blame “the Jews” for banking cartels and economic woes, why Israel is under assault, why “Zionism” is so vilified, why the United Nations has a double standard regarding Middle East conflict. Racism and genocide is the outcome, but the goal was and is to unhinge the world from Torah.

We are only at the beginning. We now see open revolution against our Constitution, the bravery to speak treason in the streets, the rampant attitude to covet and steal private property. This is evil. This is antichrist. This is anti-Torah. This is communism.

Lesson 3: Marx Begins a Serious Attack on Religion (1835-1843)

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our third meeting.

Synopsis of Week 3 Meeting:

1. In 1836, at 18 years of age, Karl Marx became engaged to a Prussian baroness (whom he married in 1843). This relationship broke several taboos of the time: (1) Gentile aristocrat/Jew, (2) upper class/middle class, (3) older woman/younger man. Likely, his knowing involvement in breaking such barriers caused his revolutionary blood to bubble.

2. Marx soon thereafter became involved in a group known as Young Hegelians. These studied German philosopher Hegel, especially the concept of the “dialectic” (radical social change through synthesis of competing ideas, that is, by revolutionary means, whether natural or man-caused) but were critical of his metaphysical approach. Simply, they liked Hegel’s ideas but detested his approach. One might say that the Young Hegelian utilization of Hegel’s dialectic permitted them to circumvent its founder (their actions perhaps even based on “Do as thou wilt,” the motto of Satanism [see Synopsis - Week 2]).

The Hegelian dialectic is not only normative for communist pabulum but is also used in other types of mind control, everything from office politics to world domination. In large part, the common use of the dialectic rests on a principle of blame, but with specious, confusing, and often contradictory arguments. It is a shifting of responsibility for events. It is conscious passive-aggressiveness.

It is also the basis for the Overton Window, which changes mass paradigm to accept something formerly unacceptable, usually by offering a choice between terrible and not-so-bad, without ever acknowledging as viable third and fourth choices.

This is the seed of communist revolutionary strategy.

Try this link for more on Hegel:

http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html

and/or,

http://broodsphilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/10/29/simple-explanation-of-hegelian-dialectic-method/

3. In 1841, Marx wrote his doctoral thesis, The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature. This piece is described as “a daring and original piece of work in which he set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom of philosophy.” This reveals a major effect of Hegel on Marx: That religion is of the past and that man’s intellect must rule in the present. The Hegelian dialectic deemed to Marx that such transpiration of events is not only necessary but natural (even if Hegel himself did not espouse such practical end). In one manner, all of German philosophy (read Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, even Luther) is dangerous, deriving from particularly nihilistic cultural, even ethnic, roots. That Marx misconstrued Hegel from the Russian view (though Marx was by birth Jewish) is evidenced by Hitler’s ethnic slant on the Teutonic superman (master racist) mythos and resulting ethos.

For more on Hitler’s connection to Hegel, see (for example):

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb970219.htm

and

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Hegel.htm

In modern times, the application of this Overton Window offensive can be seen in the Internet film sensation Zeitgeist. While purporting to be a “new” way to combat the forces of evil, it is really just another world domination scheme (couched in other cloth). As a matter of fact, “zeitgeist” (though this term was coined in the 1700’s) is most associated with Hegel’s philosophy (dialectic) on history. See, for example, here:

http://gary-lilienthal.suite101.com/hegelian-zeitgeist-philosophy-statism--human-rights-violations-a229308

Another anti-theist use of Overton Window via Hegelian dialectic is through cultural characters like Bill Maher, whose constant attacks on religion cause some to view authoritarianism (as compared to religious liberty) to be comical. It is also by this dialectic that Maher, in order to ostensibly appear fair, pits one religion against another while simultaneously bashing that “victim” (more peaceful) religion against the wall. By strangling and manipulating vocabulary and language cues, clever dialectics can be built that do not cause doubt (which in reality is good) as much as malfeasance. For it is not the cause of freedom that one like Maher espouses, but that of rigid control.

4. “Marx moved to the city of Cologne, Germany in 1842, where he began writing for the radical newspaper Rheinische Zeitung, expressing his increasingly socialist views on politics. He criticized the governments of Europe and their policies, but also liberals and other members of the socialist movement whose ideas he thought were ineffective or outright anti-socialist. The paper eventually attracted the attention of the Prussian government censors, who checked every issue for potentially seditious material before it could be printed. Marx said, ‘Our newspaper has to be presented to the police to be sniffed at, and if the police nose smells anything un-Christian or un-Prussian, the newspaper is not allowed to appear.’ After the paper published an article strongly criticizing the monarchy in Russia, the Russian Tsar Nicholas I, an ally of the Prussian monarchy, requested that the Rheinische Zeitung be banned. The Prussian government shut down the paper in 1843. Marx wrote for the Young Hegelian journal, the Deutsche Jahrbücher, in which he criticized the censorship instructions issued by Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm IV. His article was censored and the newspaper closed down by the authorities shortly after.” (source: Wikipedia)

Historically, Prussia had been involved in the French Revolutionary period, specifically aligning with the monarchies against the peasant citizenry (not that it worked). Naturally, French mob rule cannot be equated with our own American Revolution, but one can see that Marx’s affections lay with that oppressed group of proletariat. Prussia was the dominant power in Marx’s time, which fits the schematic that revolutionaries should target such dominance. This is evidenced in current times by their persistent attacks on free nations such as the United States or Israel.

Note that Karl Marx’s chosen environment, the Christian Prussian Empire, was almost a theocracy. Nevertheless, if we understand the Hegelian dialectic employed, it is apparent that religious persecution was never of interest to these radicals – it was only the ploy to distract one class and attract another. It was a game of power. This Hegelian energy is still today the primary driver of communist and other radical (including Islamic) movements.

5. The first goal of the Marxist is to set up, even before organizing, opposition to tyranny. Since tyranny has always been prevalent in human society, this is an easy foundation to lay. Basically, find a large enough group to call “victim” and blame the government (or other authority, such as “management”) for such oppression, even if the government has been compassionate beyond all bounds. Since society cannot accommodate every group with equality of results, there is always a faction looking for a savior.

The second goal is to create a network of compassion which exceeds the oppressive nature of the current living conditions. The 1960’s Black Panthers achieved their thankful base by providing food, legal services, and other necessities to an impoverished black community. They were pseudo-government (handouts are handouts). This radical organization learned well the Marxist-Hegelian philosophy, but failed for their overzealous aspirations (the Panthers lost their bearings and community support when they became common criminals).

The third goal is mass uprising. This can take the form of protest or strike, preferably the latter in order to proliferate a blame game. If, for example, the longshoremen’s union can be persuaded to lock up the docks, or the Teamsters can be sufficiently riled to block food transport, there is a real crisis for which “the bosses” can be blamed . General strikes of this nature have notably occurred in Seattle (1919) and San Francisco (1934), but also recently in Spain and Italy. The discomfort of garbage strikes, mail strikes, and the like is a constant reminder that workers need to be treated fairly, if for no other reason than Marxists lie in wait for every opportunity to exploit the exploited.

Protests are effective also. The recent (2011) Wisconsin public employees tumult is evidence that dissatisfaction is eternally with us, even among the fortunate who own contract jobs, relative high wages, and taxpayer-funded health benefits. Do not for a moment think these were all Marxists, but do not be deceived that Marxists did not agitate every second, hoping for some escalation on which to pin police brutality.

Once the Hegelian dialectic is fully understood (and it’s not as difficult as some say), every protest, every revolt, every riot can be understood from two perspectives: (1) there is true oppression in this world, (2) Marxists have, through infiltration into various segments of society, a sensitive network which hears and anticipates, if not instigates, every rumble of dissent. For this reason, Marxism always has the upper hand. It is not that Marxists are more caring, but that their opportunities lay in dark places usually not investigated by true problem-solvers until too late. By the time the public is aware of a potential fiery conflict, it has been exaggerated, mistranslated, and transformed into a grandiose power play by the communist.

6. It used to be in America that communism was almost universally viewed as evil; and that if a communist gave a public speech, a patriotic crowd pulled the plug on the offending microphone. Freedom-lovers used to recognize communism as treason against liberty. But today, our children are “educated” by the communist dialectic, our media utilizes this method to destroy dissent, our elected officials are embroiled in it at every turn, and our religious freedom is assailed by it (for example, Christmas carols are verboten but Wiccan rituals embraced). Even radical Islam uses the Hegelian dialectic to blame, claim, and inflame. Shall we now allow our entire nation to be swallowed by Marxism while proudly flying the flag of all-inclusiveness?

Some have interpreted this downward spiral as an opportunity to embrace a choice between liberty and security, but Benjamin Franklin wisely noted, “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” However, the Prussian model of crackdown on radicals is not desirable for a free society. First, the idea that Christianity (or any religion) should be upheld by governmental force is neither constitutional nor godly. Second, criticism of government is both a good thing and protected free speech. Ironically, these guaranteed freedoms are utilized by communists to spread their filth by print, airwave, and bandwidth. We are thus nearly trapped by our own goodness, and prisoners to our ideals as defined by our enemies.

Yet, there is a solution. It is “We, the people” who must by vigilance and personal action stem the rising tide of master racism. We cannot and should not depend on government for this. It is our responsibility to learn and teach liberty, through God’s Law and Constitution, to our family, friends, and neighbors; to take positions on local school boards and other important posts; to bend the media (including the Internet) as much as possible to the message of individuality over collectivism.

7. In 1843, Marx published On the Jewish Question. In this important treatise, fellow Hegelians argued over the nature of capitalism, property rights and religion. The document’s gist is that Judaism is to blame for most or all societal and/or economic woes, and is the obstacle to the communist’s ultimate goal, the utopian state. Marx took the position that the religion of Judaism had strangled “the state” by its supposed focus on all things monetary. In fact, Marx called the “Jewish god” money:

“Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.”

The “secret of his religion” also happens to be the target of Marx’s frustration: capitalism (self-interest and practical need). Taking the position of the Catholic Church (!), Marx regarded usury (charging interest) as sinful. In medieval times, the Church did not allow Christians into the money-lending occupations, but Jews were not forbidden and in fact encouraged. That Jews took these opportunities speaks more for their marginalization than for any natural or religious inclination to become usurers. Yet, when economic hard times inevitably came (the Church was notorious for profiteering on fiat money), the Jews were in unenviable positions of blame. This led to expulsions and pogroms against them. Marx gathered this history, as well as philosophical planks of questionable validity, and produced a modern-day superstition against Judaism (promotion of “evil capitalism”), and therefore the Jews.

According to On The Jewish Question, it is Judaism which causes the Jew to be a Jew, and which “pollutes” the Christian to also be a Jew, that is, capitalistic:

“The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.”

The charge is that Christians must oppose Judaism on two grounds: (1) capitalism is evil, (2) Christianity is superior to Judaism:

“In its perfected practice, Christian egoism of heavenly bliss is necessarily transformed into the corporal egoism of the Jew, heavenly need is turned into world need, subjectivism into self-interest.”

Naturally, Marx was not blind to his own manipulations. The goal was obviously to incite Christians against Jews, in the same manner that the Catholic Church permitted the Jews to take the blame for currency crashes and banking debacles during the Middle Ages*. Marx’s claim was, however, original in that its core principle rested on the Jew’s nature. There is no doubt that Marx believed the Jew incapable of separating himself from his religion, and, insofar as he caricatured Judaism as “huckstering,” Marx laid the groundwork for a new level of blame, to the DNA of the Jew. In this case, it would be not only the collapse of regional banking or currencies, but also the failure of societal evolution, which would be placed directly at the feet of Judaism and Jews, including all non-Jews who participated in capitalism.

* This information is widely available, even in (seriously) Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies (For Dummies).

The key to this scheme is, of course, the destruction of capitalism. Historically, this has been attempted or accomplished by three major avenues: (1) direct opposition (strikes, riots, et al), (2) establishment of a socialist society (Scandinavia, Canada, et al), (3) establishment of communist tyranny (Russia, et al). However, we currently face newer, sophisticated “inside job” techniques within China (capitalism? - I don’t think so) and the United States (“we’re all socialists now”). The abolition of religion is the cornerstone to the plot. Theoretically, once Judaism and “polluted” Christianity are rendered an anachronism, capitalism is dead (Marx’s view of Islam is of special interest and will be studied at a later time).

8. As a product of Hegelian dialectic, the responsibility for economic turmoil is not initially rested on persons taking part in the credit system, only on the Jew (or pseudo-Jew). This is the worst type of syllogism. Imagine a merchant being blamed for the habit of smoking, that the ill effects of cigarettes exist only because someone sells them. This is madness and the worst type of irresponsible behavior.

Let us widen this net. The Marxist dialectic pushes that the current recession (2007-on) is to blame on the banking industry (Marxist code: the Jews). However, no responsibility is placed upon unworthy applicants who received loans for which there was no personal historical basis of credit, wages, or even community morality. Even the government is by the communist mostly exonerated, although various federal agencies (working through Marxist petitioning) pressured banks to show “compassion” for certain potential borrowers. The motivation for the politician to participate was a mixture of phony glory (essentially, self-aggrandizement for a continued career in politics) and real payoffs (“campaign contributions” and “ground forces”). The loan recipient did not become a transformed human being by this handout. His or her bad credit and/or poor wages were not magically improved.

In reality, the banks were responsible only for caving to monstrous government pressure. Nevertheless, the incessant Marxist squealing is directed towards these entities rather than at the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), FNMA, or Congressional oversight committees (among many villains). And the political class, eager to retain power, is satisfied to allow such misguided missiles. And the American people, as dupes, cry in solidarity for those whose lives were shattered. This all feeds the Hegelian dialectic, and pushes the Marxist concept of “blame the Jews” to newer heights, the ultimate goal being the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of “a better system.”

This mortgage debacle is in fact an extension of the communist-laden “public housing” concept. Before the “projects” became big business in the 1960’s, impoverished individuals were expected to pull themselves up by hard work and the grace of God. That some groups were targeted and excluded from various avenues is not disputed, but it is likewise that blacks (for example) were able to find self-respect by achievement. True, many failed but we can imagine more from their circumstances than from free choices. With public housing, many succumbed to the “gimme” attitude and simply stopped trying. Public housing therefore became a failure and a disgrace. The CRA only moved this public housing mentality to the next level, the McMansion phenomenon (“You deserve a house, not just a free apartment!”). It is not difficult to see how government-driven lax banking structures and aggressive marketing suckered even the responsible to abandon the affordable American dream for distended utopia. This is a prime (or sub-prime – ha ha) example of Marxism and the administration of the Overton Window, here at work in the housing industry.

9. On the Jewish Question not only invokes old lies and superstitions against the Jews, it also propagates a scientific argument that they are genetically predisposed to capitalism. This establishes Marxist foundation for eugenics and genocide. An “inferior” race which cannot help being evil must be eradicated out of mercy, not malice! Communism is therefore not liable for murder!! The Nazis adopted this exact mindset.

But On the Jewish Question is not scientific in the least. Marx accords a mystical influence to that Judaism and money which he claims “poisons” non-Jews.

If anything, On the Jewish Question is a clarion call to all religions. The message is work together or perish together. For if religions do not band together peacefully against communism, it will be divide and conquer. Remember, “first they came for the Jews, and I said nothing...”

Finally, On the Jewish Question places a wall between Christians and Torah, that is God’s Law. God is invisible, and therefore He cannot be defined, and so can be called a mere superstition. But the Law of God is written, as they say, in stone. This is a problem for the materialist communist. He cannot say the Law is not written. He cannot say collectivism or the dialectic philosophy existed before the Law, and if he does (invoking, for example, Nimrod), he cannot say that it is good or effective. Having thus lost the materialist argument, the communist must begin with dialectic: “The Jew is to blame for our anxiety. The Jew is genetically predisposed to capitalism, which has caused our anxiety. The Jew is an animal, in that he cannot escape his nature to destroy society.” This is the Overton Window regarding religion: Just reject Torah because it is Jewish. No, the truth is that Marxists want you to reject Torah because it is from God. Reject Torah, and they will establish themselves as God. Guess how that turns out?

******************************************************************

Comments welcome. Keep it civil.
You may distribute the above material in any manner you like.

Lesson 2: Marx and Satanism

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our second meeting.

Synopsis of Week 2 Meeting:

1. Is communism atheistic?

It claims so. The core of the communist state is the eradication of all religion, so we believe that atheism is its engine. However, read on.

2. Is communism satanic?

Since Satanism is a religion, one would think not. However, in Marx and Satan, a fascinating book by imprisoned Romanian minister and prolific author Richard Wurmbrand, a solid case is presented that Karl Marx may have been from his adolescence a practicing Satanist. The proof? Correspondence, dramatic writings, third-party accounts, and odd events. Wurmbrand himself says that the verdict is not without doubt, but you will shake your head at the mass of evidence he was able to gather. I recommend you read this book. A synopsis is here:

http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/tag/marx-and-satan/

or read it for free here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31067286/Marx-and-Satan-Richard-Wurmbrand

3. Does it matter if communism is atheistic or if it is satanic?

Yes. If atheistic, communism is no danger to religion. Atheism is by its very definition neutral to spiritual beliefs. The peril to religious freedom is ANTI-theism, not atheism. Anti-theism is against all forms of worship on the grounds that religion is dangerous. Of course, the methods by which anti-theists would discard religion are equally as oppressive and violent as claims they make against Christianity or Islam (if they had the guts). The key element to removing you from your religion is, as previously stated in last week’s synopsis, to divide you from the rules. Faith can be quite unbreakable but also without firm foundation, so that what is believed passionately can also be gravely in error. On the other hand, God’s rules (Torah), though they may be maligned, distorted, diluted, or absorbed into a different mode, stand on their own merit. The communist is unable to change the written Law of God, which is why infiltration of church and temple at the personal level of faith is their approved strategy. As a prime example, social justice (a communist theme) is often incorporated with Christian theology in order to hoodwink congregants weak in God’s Law. But those who understand with legal precision the Biblical tenets of charity and loving thy neighbor, as well as the more capitalistic themes of investment (for example, the parable of the talents), can never be pulled aside to the doctrines of collective resources or collective salvation.

4. How can one recognize this infection?

It appears from the outset as humanism, that is, rationalism. It begins with benign pleas for “sharing the wealth” as a method to fulfill vague commandments of compassion. If such communitarian behavior is rejected by certain of the flock, they are ostracized. Soon, that church or temple becomes a place of finger-pointing and coveting. This is the route by which Satan becomes involved in communism.

5. What is the communist goal for the church?

Communism denies religion on the basis of economics and so-called reason. Social justice and liberation theology are manners by which communism breaks down the church stone by stone. The actual aim of the communist is the dissolution of the church, not only its infiltration. It is, in fact, the same game that China plays with economics. China is not a capitalist nation; it is only capitalist long enough to wear down capitalism! At that point, when it has become the dominant economic superpower, it will forego capitalism for communism, i.e., slavery.

6. Where does Satanism itself come in?

The satanic angle is the lie. While social justice has its Torah prescription in the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the communist view is that no atonement is made without the community, and certainly not without remuneration for past wrongs, that is, by redistribution of wealth. This is false (and therefore satanic).

7. How do we know this?

God’s commandments, and the punishments for their transgression, are written and specific. Further, the oracles (interpreters) of the Law, the Jews (see last week’s synopsis), have a body of knowledge called Talmud. Talmud is intentionally vague and/or seemingly contradictory on a great many subjects. Many times, several diverse opinions confer the same righteousness by nevertheless adhering to a specific commandment. The backbone to this fogginess is that much of Torah was never meant to be absolutist. As it concerns social justice, one may follow such a path, and another not, and both would be within Torah parameters. This “innocent until proven guilty” apparatus has not translated well to the Christian community, which normally functions on singular correctness (“guilty until found innocent”). Thus, preachers such as Jeremiah Wright can spin Talmudic truths into segregationist and racial diatribes by claiming that opposing viewpoints are – you guessed it – satanic. In terms of lawful adherence to God’s Law, this is tripe. In terms of communism, this is propaganda. Likewise, liberation theology would not float without the false promise that the poor are so favored by God that all men must forego even their individual freedom to help these vulnerable (a doctrine known as “option for the poor”). The insidiousness is not that the poor must receive care (this is Torah commandment) but that religious organizations should form to specifically protect their interests. Fundamentally, this is exploitation of the poor. Combined with communism, this is for the sake of gaining power over men. What would Jesus do? Note that when Mary’s use of an expensive ointment was called into question (“it might have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor”), Christ immediately intervened with an admonishment to the grumblers (“the poor will always be with us”).

8. Why is Torah the antidote?

Communists are among us. They have not your best interests at heart. Their goal is destruction of the church and temple by the utilization of its inner workings. Communist infiltration into the government works the same way – topple it from the inside. They work this magic by promising everything, and it is the gullibility and greed of human nature which allows such promises (lies) to take root. Only knowledge based in God’s Law can dull the luster and appeal of satanic offerings posing as communist utopian outlooks, again posing as godly measures. Take Christ’s experience as your template. In the wilderness, when confronted by Satan who offered him all things, Jesus quoted verbatim three times from Torah: (1) “Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God” (Deuteronomy 8:3), (2) “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” (Deuteronomy 6:16), and (3) “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve” (Deuteronomy 6:13 & 10:30). Satan promptly fled, and Christ collapsed from exhaustion, having expended all his energy in rejecting sin. How did Jesus recognize the devil? Was “old scratch” carrying a pitchfork and sporting a tail? Did he smell like brimstone and cackle like an old hag? No. Satan comes not in repulsiveness but in attractiveness. If you think that Jesus was not in his human nature able to be tempted, you misunderstand the lesson and underestimate your enemy. Christ was able to discern the serpent only through a Torah prism. How did Jesus retain his righteousness? Jesus wasn’t laughing at a weak foe but fought and thwarted Satan with the powerful sword of written commandment. Concerning this weapon, Christ said, “I did not come to send peace but a sword” (Matt. 10:34), and this sword is the word of God (Hebrews 4:12, et al), which even for the non-Jews Paul did not deny (Ephesians 4:12). If you value your spiritual liberty, you will invoke God’s Law against both communists and Satanists.

*****************************************************************

Comments welcome. Keep it civil.
You may distribute the above material in any manner you like.

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

In 1963, Congress took up the subject of sedition and communist takeover in the United States. This was 48 years ago, but notice how far gone we are.

***********************************************************************

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

Congressional Record, Vol. 109 88th Congress, 1st Session Appendix Pages A1-A2842 Jan. 9-May 7, 1963 Reel 12

***********************************************************************

POSTSCRIPT: On June 17, 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that any Bible reciting or prayer, in public schools, was deemed unconstitutional.

Lesson 1: Marxism

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our first meeting.

Synopsis of Week 1 Meeting:

1. What is communism?

An end result.

2. Why do communists insist that there has never been a communist state?

Because they've never been able to get past stage 1, the violence.

3. Why does there need to be a violent stage?

Because it is the only way to get capitalists out of power. You don't think they're going willingly, do you?

4. What is capitalism?

According to Marx, it is a genetic disease.

5. Who carries this disease?

According to Marx, Jews.

Before you go purple, I am a Jew, and I am telling you this to educate you about communists NOT Jews!

6. Why did Marx say this?

He made it up. He looked at the mixed history of medieval Judaism, the Christian church, and socio-economics, and decided to inflict his philosophy/scheme against his own people (Marx was born Jewish).

7. Why would people believe this?

Christians were by the church historically denied the career of banker or financier. They "allowed" the Jews to do this. When the economy fell apart in any region, the Jews were blamed. Mix this with superstition against Jews and you have a cultural bias that was/is easy to manipulate further.

8. Do communists believe this today?

Yes. The corollary is that any Christian or other non-Jew who embraces capitalism must be... get ready... a Jew by proxy. Therefore, communists believe that the only way to rid capitalism from the Earth is to segregate Jews, reeducate non-Jews, and finally have their revolution.

9. Why would Christians fall for this?

First, Christians have a great weakness when it comes to rules. They tolerate too much evil, and they guess too much about right and wrong. Second, whether you like it or not, the old prejudices against the Jews is alive and strong today. Not only in Europe and the Middle East, but here in America, as anti-Zionism, anti-banker, anti-Israel, etc.

10. Am I being too harsh?

No. Look at Islam. Strong in rules, scary to everyone, including communists. Jews, strong in rules, but weak in numbers and not scary - a convenient target. So, rather than blaming savagery on those who commit it, the weak-minded point their finger at those who are least willing or able to take over the world - the Jews. The communists and Islamic radicals count on this weakness of mind. Guess who really wants to take over the world?

11. What about Nazis?

They believe not only that capitalism is a Jewish plot, but also that COMMUNISM is a Jewish plot! Thus, they are insane.

12. Are communists insane?

They are... but not in philosophy. They are actually very clever. Whereas Nazism is based on the master racism of ethnicity (Aryan), communism is based on the master racism of ideology. They claim to be more scientific and analytical than either capitalists or Nazis.

13. What can be done?

Christians - learn your rules. Read Romans 3:1-2, Matthew 23:2-4, John 3:14 (research this brazen serpent in Exodus and 2 Kings), Acts 15:20-21. Understand where Christianity comes from (the Jews) and understand that communists not only want you to reject Jews but also Judaism and law. This will make you easy pickings. Unfortunately, you have been taught weak law, but Jesus, the apostles, and Paul taught STRONG Law. God's Law. Torah Law. If you want to win against communism and Islamic radicalism, you'll have to be stronger than just complaining about savagery - you'll have to enforce it. Remember - the final goal of communism and Islamic radicalism is for you to reject Jesus - and since Christ and his disciples were Jews, this is supposedly made easier. Finally, Jesus was not a Jew-hating Jew, he LOVED his people. What will you do?

14. Why this focus on Jews?

Why not? Marx was a Jew by birth, but left it because he hated God. Jesus was a Jew and did not leave it. The difference between the Truth and lies is quite clear. Jesus is the truth IF we listen to him. Marx is a liar - period. The Jews are to be of great concern not only in the next year or so, but also in the end times. This is written in scripture, and we know it. The real reason the communists want to destroy religion is that the Law of God, the RULES, must be expunged before the state can truly become "god." But if you've read the verses I've recommended and studied them, you'll see that communism can never win when a people are strong not only in faith, but also in the Law of God, the true RULES.

******************************************************************

Comments welcome. Keep it civil.
You may distribute the above material in any manner you like.