ISSUE 28 - FEBRUARY 2020 COPIES
What Do the Four Beasts of Revelation Represent?
- The Lamb represents Jesus, the Lamb of God, who was slain for our sins. (John 1:29)
- The great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns represents the fallen angel, Lucifer, who is also called Satan or the devil. (Revelation 12:9)
- The leopard-like beast with seven heads and ten horns represents Babylon. (Revelation 14:8; 18:2-4) Babylon will form during the first four trumpets and rule over the world as a church-state government.
- The beast with two horns like the Lamb, but speaks like the dragon, represents Lucifer in human form. The devil and his angels will be released from the Abyss (the spirit realm) at the fifth trumpet. (Revelation 9:1-11) These evil beings will be given physical bodies so the inhabitants of Earth can see them, touch them, and freely talk with them.
The Lamb
Ever since the day that Adam and Eve sinned, a flawless lamb has been used to represent the sinless life of Jesus Christ. Although the Bible does not explicitly say the first burnt offering was a lamb, the Bible does say, “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.” (Genesis 3:21, italics mine) Since the Bible does not elaborate further on the first sin offering, we can deduce two things. First, the use of skin for clothing indicates an animal died. Second, when we assemble everything God has said in the Bible about sin offerings, it is safe to assume that Adam sorrowfully killed the first lamb because “. . .sin entered the world through one man and death through sin . . . .” (Romans 5:12)When Jesus began His ministry on Earth, John the Baptist announced the mission of Jesus with a single sentence: “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ ” (John 1:29) I am sure that God chose a lamb to represent Jesus for several reasons. First, what are more adorable than baby lambs? They are loving, gentle, and easily bond to human beings. Second, in terms survival, sheep were valuable animals in Bible times, providing a source of food and clothing. They are hearty creatures and they reproduce often. Sheep often have multiple births, and since gestation is only five months, a herd of sheep can quickly double in size. Symbolically, Jesus is to eternal life what a lamb was to earthly life in Bible times. Last, sheep are social creatures. They are typically meek and gentle. Consider the words of Isaiah concerning Jesus: “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter [i.e., without resistance], and as a sheep before her shearers is silent [submissive], so he did not open his mouth.” (Isaiah 53:7, insertions mine) When we put these features together, a lamb symbolizes the life of Christ very well.
Notice John’s description of Jesus in Revelation 5: “Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the [24] elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes which are the seven spirits [the seven angels] of God sent out into all the earth. He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.” (Revelation 5:6,7, insertions mine) Three fascinating aspects about Jesus are highlighted in this passage. First, John saw a “resurrected Lamb” standing in the center of God’s throne. This indicates the scene occurs after the cross. Second, John saw seven horns on the Lamb. This means the Lamb has sovereign power (the number seven represents completion and horns represent authority). Third, the Lamb has seven eyes. These eyes represent the seven angels who stand (notice their posture) before the throne of God. (Revelation 1:4) These eyes are the seven angels who receive the seven trumpets. (Revelation 8:2) They are also called “seven spirits” (as in seven ghosts) because they are highly exalted beings who can appear and disappear on command. (Revelation 1:4, 3:1, 4:5, 5:6) Notice Paul’s words: “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?” (Hebrews 1:14, italics mine) The seven eyes of the Lamb are the seven angels of the seven churches, the seven angels who receive the seven trumpets, and the seven angels who pour out the seven bowls. (Revelation 1:20; 8:2; 15:6) These seven angels are servants of Jesus. They are sent from the throne and they report back to Him whatever they see. The beauty of understanding the seven eyes is that they serve an omnipotent Lamb who had been slain.
The Great Red Dragon
“Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars* out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth [to Jesus], so that he might devour her child the moment it was born.” (Revelation 12:3,4, italics and insertion mine)* Note: Before Jesus created Earth, Lucifer caused one third of Heaven’s angels (the stars) to join him in open rebellion against God. They were thrown out of Heaven. See Isaiah 14:12-17 and Ezekiel 28:12-17.
The great red dragon symbolizes Lucifer. We know this is true because the Bible interprets the symbol with a relevant text: “And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down – that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.” (Revelation 12:7-9, italics mine) The great red dragon is the devil. He is God’s adversary and man’s accuser. (Revelation 12:10)
Please consider two points that will prove useful later in this study:
- The great red dragon and the Lamb are not governments or nations. I emphasize this distinction because some people insist that beasts in Bible prophecy always represent nations or governments. This assertion is not valid. The four beasts in Daniel 7 do represent four world empires because Daniel 7:17 says the four beasts are world empires, but Daniel 7:17 does not force the four beasts in Revelation to be four world empires. The Bible is not internally conflicted. If we allow the Bible to define symbols with texts that point to the symbol, we will find that the Lamb in Revelation 5 represents Jesus, and the great red dragon in Revelation 12 represents His adversary, the devil. These two beasts are caricatures of two supernatural beings – Jesus and Satan.
- The great red dragon has seven heads and ten horns when he is introduced in Revelation 12:3. Later, we will learn that these seventeen features represent future extensions of Satan’s authority over mankind. In other words, when the story begins in Revelation 12 (at the birth of Jesus), the seven heads and ten horns on the great red dragon are not functioning, but they will “come alive” and function when their appointed time comes. This technique is not unusual in apocalyptic prophecy. When the fourth beast (Rome) rises out of the sea in Daniel 7:7, it has ten horns. History says that Rome began to function as a world empire in 168 B.C., but the ten horns did not begin functioning until six hundred years later. The beasts in Daniel and Revelation may have various parts when they are introduced in a story, but these parts may not have any function when the beast is first introduced.
The Devil’s Name
The devil was an exalted angel before he was cast out of Heaven. Please consider three different translations of the same verse:KJV
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12, italics mine)
NIV
“How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12, italics mine)
NASB
“How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12, italics mine)
The translators of the KJV chose to translate the Hebrew word heylel with the Latin name “Lucifer,” whereas the translators of the NIV and NASB chose to translate heylel as “morning star” or “star of the morning.” The difference between the KJV and later translations stems from an ancient practice. Venus was a prominent morning star during the first century A.D. Pliny the Elder (A.D. 23-79) lived during the time of Christ and he wrote, “The star called Venus [has two names] … when it rises in the morning it is given the name ‘Lucifer’ [which means ‘light bringer’]… but when it [Venus] shines at sunset it is called ‘Vesper.’ ” (Pliny the Elder, Natural History, Book 2, par. 36, insertions mine) Early translators of the Bible, as far back as Jerome’s fifth century Latin Vulgate, preferred to use the Latin name “Lucifer” for heylel rather than translating the Hebrew word as “morning star.” This is how the name Lucifer found its way into the KJV because Lucifer’s given name is unknown. It is ironic that Venus shone brighter than any of the other stars each morning and in a spiritual sense, Lucifer allowed his surpassing glory to bring about his downfall. “You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.” (Ezekiel 28:12-15)
A review of Isaiah 14:12-17 and Ezekiel 28:12-18 reveals that Lucifer was once an anointed cherub in Heaven. Eventually, he became arrogant and self seeking. He became dissatisfied with God and His government. He coveted the worship and adoration that belonged to Michael, the archangel.* When Lucifer became jealous of the archangel, Michael, Lucifer did not know Michael was God living “in the feathers.” Let me explain what I mean. The Bible indicates that Jesus, the Creator, lived among the angels. This seems to be Jesus’ pattern. Jesus created the angels and lived among them (as Michael) – He also created man and lived among us. Michael lived among the angels, but Lucifer did not recognize that Michael was God. This mistake led to his undoing. Lucifer’s experience in Heaven is similar to what happened when Jesus lived as a man on Earth. The Jews did not know that Jesus was God living “in the flesh.” Our Creator (whether of angels or men) so closely identifies with His creation that no one can know that He is God unless there is a revelation of this truth! (This is the essential reason for the upcoming revelation of Jesus Christ!) Through malicious lies and deceptive innuendo, Lucifer persuaded one-third of Heaven’s angels to join him in rebellion against Michael, and this is how Lucifer became the Antichrist. The Godhead loved Lucifer and his followers. They did everything possible to change the feelings and attitudes of their subjects, but there was no repentance. When it became evident that extended mercy would bring no change and have no redeeming effect, God’s forbearance ended. God cast Lucifer and his angels out of Heaven. Jesus told His disciples, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven.” (Luke 10:18)
* Note: For further study on the topic of Michael/Jesus, please see Chapters 1, 2, and 3 in my book, Jesus: The Alpha and The Omega.
When Lucifer and his angels were cast out of Heaven, their anger and bitterness toward the Godhead turned into a roaring rage. To get even, they focused their wrath on the Jesus’ handiwork – the creation of Earth. The devil studied Adam and Eve for several years before he developed his subtle and deadly approach. The devil led Eve to disobey God and Eve led Adam into disobedience. Of course, the devil did not stop there. Cain, the firstborn of Adam and Eve, became a murderer. Astoundingly, within ten generations of creating Adam, human beings became so degenerate that God grieved that He had even made man! (Genesis 6) Consequently, God washed Earth with a flood of water, sparing just eight people – Noah and his family. The flood may have slowed the devil’s efforts to destroy mankind, but Peter reminds us that the devil is relentless. He goes around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour! (1 Peter 5:8, 9)
Satan Allowed to Live After Being Cast Out of Heaven
Many people have asked the question: Why did God allow the devil to live after casting him out of Heaven? Why didn’t God exterminate the devil and his angels right away and protect the universe from Lucifer’s rebellion? These are great questions and the answers are just as important. Consider the following:- Before Lucifer rebelled, the universe, with all its created beings, did not understand the nature or impact of sin. If God had immediately annihilated Lucifer and one-third of the angels, He would have been unable to justify His actions. If God had destroyed Lucifer as soon as he had sinned, surviving angels would have concluded, “Whoa! God does not tolerate angels having views that are contrary to His.” If God had immediately annihilated His opposition before the knowledge of good and evil had a chance to mature, reasoning and highly intelligent angels would not have loved and trusted God. Angels (and mankind) should love God because He is fair, reasonable, generous, and forgiving, not because sudden death is a consequence for disagreement. If God had killed Lucifer and his followers before the outcome of their rebellion matured, the remaining angels would have concluded that God was a bully. They would have said, “He may claim to be a God of love, but His actions just proved that it is His way or death.”
- God has infinite wisdom and perfect foreknowledge. His ways are perfect. He foreknew that sin needed a few thousand years to mature so that all the universe could understand its deadly and horrible consequences. By allowing the devil and his angels to live, God gave the universe two contrasting governments to study – one in Heaven (free of rebellion, full of joy, happiness, and peace) and one on Earth (full of sin, decadence, depravity, selfishness, and death). By permitting two governments to simultaneously exist, intelligent beings can see the difference for themselves. God does not have to defend Himself.
- God gives the power of choice to each created being. This means that His subjects do not have to obey Him, love Him, or respond to His goodness or generosity. Lucifer and his angels have proven that free will actually exists. They chose to rebel against God and His law. God gave Adam and Eve the power of choice and they also chose to disobey. For 6,000 years, sin has flourished on Earth. History has proven over and over again (with the rise and fall of numerous civilizations) that human beings always suffer in direct proportion to our departure from the laws of God. Sin may offer some temporary pleasure and excitement, but it always extracts a price that is far greater than its benefits. Sin takes us farther than we want to go and sin costs more than we want to pay. No matter how well Satan disguises sin, “the wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23) God foreknew that lawlessness would end in death and His Kingdom is established on laws that prevent sorrow and death. Created beings who rebel against God’s laws are not really arguing with God’s authority because created beings do not have omnipotence. The argument with God is over wisdom. Who knows best what the endless corridors of eternity require – the Creator or the created?
- The Father certainly foreknew the consequences of allowing Satan and his angels to live, so He created a plan to save everyone who would live on Earth. He loved the people of the world so much that He gave us Jesus as our atonement for sin. For no other reason than love, Jesus was willing to become a man and die in our place so the penalty for our sin could be paid! The Godhead has suffered more and paid a higher price for the existence of sin than any human being will ever know! Incidentally, and this is an important point, God did not create a plan of salvation for Lucifer and his angels because they were confronted with the truth many times yet remained willful and defiant, and chose to reject God’s counsel. Without question, Lucifer and his angels committed the unpardonable sin. (Matthew 12:31,32)
A Demon with Many Titles
The devil is called by a variety of names in the Bible. Daniel calls him a stern-faced king. (Daniel 8:23) Ezekiel calls him the ruler of Tyre. (Ezekiel 28:2) Isaiah calls him the king of Babylon. (Isaiah 14:4) Paul calls him the man of lawlessness. (2 Thessalonians 2:3) John calls him an enormous red dragon (Revelation 12:3), the beast that comes up from the Abyss (Revelation 11:7), a beast having two horns (Revelation 13:11), the false prophet (Revelation 16:13), and the angel king of the Abyss (Revelation 9:11).God gave Lucifer various titles for several reasons. Here are two: First, the devil is invisible and different titles help us understand his vast capabilities. Second, God gives the devil various titles to undercut the devil’s deceptions! For example, when the devil physically appears on Earth, he will gloriously masquerade as Almighty God. His deception will be so convincing that it could deceive the “very elect” if that were possible. (Mark 13:22) Notice how the title, “the man of lawlessness,” describes the behavior of Lucifer after he appears. Lucifer will do as he pleases and no one can stop him. The laws of mankind will mean nothing to him. The devil will create and enforce many laws that will have no purpose but angst and destruction. God gave Bible writers all of Lucifer’s titles and each one speaks volumes about Lucifer’s character, power, and ways.
Babylon, the Leopard-like Beast
“And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The [great red] dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast.” (Revelation 13:1-3, italics and insertion mine)Ever since the book of Revelation was written, there has been a great deal of speculation about the identity of the leopard-like beast. This beast has numerous specifications and resolving each one takes more than time and effort. Valid results require a valid set of rules. If a person just wants to accept any interpretation that seems reasonable, there are many interpretations from which to choose. However, there is only one solution to the problem of identifying this beast, and to get to the truth, we need to address and correctly resolve each specification.
To make this presentation as simple as possible, I have decided to identify the leopard-like beast first so you can see how each specification contributes to the conclusion as we proceed. The leopard-like beast will be a religious authority, a crisis government that religious and political leaders of the world will create shortly after the great tribulation begins. The leaders will create this beast of a government to mediate between God and man.
When the censer in Revelation 8:5 is cast down and the first four trumpets fall on the world in rapid succession, it is a gross understatement to say that the survivors will be overwhelmed and terrified. The destruction of thousands of cities and 1.75 billion people is unimaginable – incomprehensible. As the survivors survey the damage, almost everyone will concede that God is angry with this world because mankind is far more degenerate and decadent than we should be. We live on a degenerate and decadent planet, but most people do not know that God’s wrath has been overdue since 1994 when the Jubilee Calendar ended. We have been living on borrowed time. God’s wrath is stirred when He sees children abused, women raped, people robbed, elderly cheated out of their savings, addicts agonizing for more drugs, endless violence, and bloodshed.
GO TO PAGE # 9
Pëtr Kropotkin
Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles
I
Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin.
It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic
and the political fields which characterize the nineteenth century, and
especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the
anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and
machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that
all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property
of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in
common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism,
they maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is
a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a
minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and
action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations --
freely constituted -- all the infinitely varied needs of the human
being.
As regards socialism, most of the anarchists arrive at its ultimate
conclusion, that is, at a complete negation of the wage-system and at
communism. And with reference to political organization, by giving a
further development to the above-mentioned part of the radical program,
they arrive at the conclusion that the ultimate aim of society is the
reduction of the functions of government to nil -- that is, to a
society without government, to anarchy. The anarchists maintain,
moreover, that such being the ideal of social and political
organization, they must not remit it to future centuries. but that only
those changes in our social organization which are in accordance with
the above double ideal, and constitute an approach to it, will have a
chance of life and be beneficial for the commonwealth.
As to the method followed by the anarchist thinker, it entirely differs
from that followed by the utopists. The anarchist thinker does not
resort to metaphysical conceptions (like "natural rights," the "duties
of the State," and so on) to establish what are, in his opinion, the
best conditions for realizing the greatest happiness of humanity. He
follows, on the contrary, the course traced by the modern philosophy of
evolution. He studies human society as it is now and was in the past;
and without either endowing humanity as a whole, or separate
individuals, with superior qualities which they do not possess, he
merely considers society as an aggregation of organisms trying to find
out the best ways of combining the wants of the individual with those of
cooperation for the welfare of the species. He studies society and
tries to discover its tendencies past and present, its growing
needs, intellectual and economic, and in his ideal he merely points out
in which direction evolution goes. He distinguishes between the real
wants and tendencies of human aggregations and the accidents (want of
knowledge, migrations, wars, conquests) which have prevented these
tendencies from being satisfied. And he concludes that the two most
prominent, although often unconscious, tendencies throughout our history
have been: first, a tendency towards integrating labor for the
production of all riches in common, so as finally to render it
impossible to discriminate the part of the common production due to the
separate individual; and second, a tendency towards the fullest freedom
of the individual in the prosecution of all aims, beneficial both for
himself and for society at large. The ideal of the anarchist is thus a
mere summing up of what he considers to be the next phase of evolution.
It is no longer a matter of faith; it is a matter for scientific
discussion.
In fact, one of the leading features of this century is the growth of
socialism and the rapid spreading of socialist views among the
working-classes. How could it be otherwise? We have witnessed an
unparalleled sudden increase of our powers of production, resulting in
an accumulation of wealth which has outstripped the most sanguine
expectations. But owing to our wage system, this increase of wealth --
due to the combined efforts of men of science, of managers, and workmen
as well -- has resulted only in an unprecedented accumulation of wealth
in the hands of the owners of capital; while an increase of misery for
great numbers, and an insecurity of life for all, have been the lot of
the workmen. The unskilled laborers, in continuous search for labor, are
falling into an unheard-of destitution. And even the best paid artisans
and skilled workmen labor under the permanent menace of being thrown,
in their turn, into the same conditions as the unskilled paupers, in
consequence of some of the continuous and unavoidable fluctuations of
industry and caprices of capital.
The chasm between the modern millionaire who squanders the produce of
human labor in a gorgeous and vain luxury, and the pauper reduced to a
miserable and insecure existence, is thus growing wider and wider, so as
to break the very unity of society -- the harmony of its life -- and to
endanger the progress of its further development.
At the same time, workingmen are less and less inclined to patiently
endure this division of society into two classes, as they themselves
become more and more conscious of the wealth-producing power of modern
industry, of the part played by labor in the production of wealth, and
of their own capacities of organization. In proportion as all classes of
the community take a more lively part in public affairs, and knowledge
spreads among the masses, their longing for equality becomes stronger,
and their demands for social reorganization become louder and louder.
They can be ignored no more. The worker claims his share in the riches
he produces; he claims his share in the management of production; and he
claims not only some additional well-being, but also his full rights in
the higher enjoyments of science and art. These claims, which formerly
were uttered only by the social reformer, begin now to be made by a
daily growing minority of those who work in the factory or till the
acre. And they so conform to our feelings of justice that they find
support in a daily growing minority among the privileged classes
themselves. Socialism becomes thus the idea of the nineteenth century; and neither coercion nor pseudo-reforms can stop its further growth.
Much hope of improvement was placed, of course, in the extension of
political rights to the working classes. But these concessions,
unsupported as they were by corresponding changes in economic relations,
proved delusions. They did not materially improve the conditions of the
great bulk of the workmen. Therefore, the watchword of socialism is:
"Economic freedom as the only secure basis for political freedom." And
as long as the present wage system, with all its bad consequences,
remains unaltered, the socialist watchword will continue to inspire the
workmen. Socialism will continue to grow until it has realized its
program.
Side by side with this great movement of thought in economic matters, a
like movement has been going on with regard to political rights,
political organization, and the functions of government. Government has
been submitted to the same criticism as capital. While most of the
radicals saw in universal suffrage and republican institutions the last
word of political wisdom, a further step was made by the few. The very
functions of government and the State, as also their relations to the
individual, were submitted to a sharper and deeper criticism.
Representative government having been tried by experiment on a wide
field, its defects became more and more prominent. It became obvious
that these defects are not merely accidental but inherent in the system
itself. Parliament and its executive proved to be unable to attend to
all the numberless affairs of the community and to conciliate the varied
and often opposite interests of the separate parts of a State. Election
proved unable to find out the men who might represent a nation, and
manage, otherwise than in a party spirit, the affairs they are compelled
to legislate upon. These defects become so striking that the very
principles of the representative system were criticized and their
justness doubted.
Again, the dangers of a centralized government became still more
conspicuous when the socialists came to the front and asked for a
further increase of the powers of government by entrusting it with the
management of the immense field covered now by the economic relations
between individuals. The question was asked whether a government
entrusted with the management of industry and trade would not become a
permanent danger for liberty and peace, and whether it even would be
able to be a good manager?
The socialists of the earlier part of this century did not fully realize
the immense difficulties of the problem. Convinced as they were of the
necessity of economic reforms, most of them took no notice of the need
of freedom for the individual. And we have had social reformers ready to
submit society to any kind of theocracy, or dictatorship in order to
obtain reforms in a socialist sense. Therefore we have seen in England
and also on the Continent the division of men of advanced opinions into
political radicals and socialists -- the former looking with distrust on
the latter, as they saw in them a danger for the political liberties
which have been won by the civilized nations after a long series of
struggles. And even now, when the socialists all over Europe have become
political parties, and profess the democratic faith, there remains
among most impartial men a well-founded fear of the Volksstaat
or "popular State" being as great a danger to liberty as any form of
autocracy if its government be entrusted with the management of all the
social organization including the production and distribution of wealth.
GO TO PAGE # 14
FROM PAGE # 6
Babylon, the Leopard-like Beast
The chapter on the seven trumpets showed that God has many objectives for His judgments. God wants everyone to know about Jesus and His salvation. God will judge the living and terminate the sin problem. God will wipe the universe clean and start over. His plans are written in the books of Daniel and Revelation. Unfortunately, few people really want to understand the ways of God. The mysteries of apocalyptic prophecy are often ignored because they take too much work and many people think “they do not pertain to salvation.” Nevertheless, once the world sees the awesome destruction caused by God’s wrath (the first four trumpets), everyone on Earth will be traumatized. What does it say about man’s degeneracy when a God of love has to destroy a third of the planet and twenty-five percent of its inhabitants to get the undivided attention of the survivors?
God’s wrath will bring the religious and the political leaders of the world together and for the first time since the flood in Noah’s day, this gathering will be a humble meeting. God’s judgments will embarrass them because these events will force the leaders of the world to recognize the higher power and reality of a living God who holds everyone accountable for his actions. Together, the leaders of the world will work out a solution to appease God’s anger. Their solution will be to create the leopard-like beast. The leopard-like beast will be a religious authority, designed to carry out a global mandate: Appease God so that His wrath will cease. While the idea of appeasing God’s wrath may sound appropriate, the process will be impossible from the start because our world is so religiously diverse. Nevertheless, religious leaders will conclude that God’s anger can be stopped if decadence and corruption can be eliminated. The leopard-like beast will have the authority to determine for each nation the best process for outlawing decadence and corruption, and the political leaders of the world will voluntarily submit to the demands of the beast. At first, almost everyone will cooperate with the leopard-like beast because no one wants to experience more of God’s wrath, but this is only the beginning of the story and a lot of tribulation. . . .
Several years ago, I had the opportunity to visit an automobile manufacturing plant in Dayton, Ohio. It was an unforgettable experience. I was like a kid in a candy store. As I walked through the huge building that covered about thirty acres, I saw all kinds of interesting parts and pieces that would eventually come together to make up an automobile. I was overwhelmed, but the one thing that most astonished me was the amount of coordination and communication that goes into the construction of each vehicle. Items of all kinds – tires, engines, seats, horns, carpets, tail pipes, and headlights – were moving around on tracks and as each moving chassis reached another assembly station, the necessary parts for that vehicle also arrived at that station. It was so interesting how the correct items arrived just in time to put that item on the chassis! I have shared this experience with you because I want you to consider a parallel. At the end of the tour, our tour guide told us that enough parts were in the building at any given time to build approximately 100 vehicles, even though there was only one completed vehicle in the building at any given time. Similarly, all of the parts necessary to create the leopard-like beast exist on Earth today, but the beast itself has not been assembled. The appointed time for assembly does not arrive until after the fourth trumpet.
Leopard-Like Beast of Revelation 13 and the Beast of Daniel 7 are Not the Same
Many people mistakenly assume the fourth beast in Daniel 7 and leopard-like beast in Revelation 13 are the same beast. This understanding is incorrect for five reasons:- The leopard-like beast does not exist prior to 1798. When the leopard-like beast rises from the sea, John saw that one head on the leopard-like beast “seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed.” (Revelation 13:3) For reasons that will be presented later, this head represents the Roman Catholic Church. History records that the Catholic Church lost its authority over the kings of Europe during the French Revolution (1789-1799). The pope was exiled to France in 1798 and the authority of the church was badly wounded. Now notice that when the leopard-like beast rises from the sea, the deadly wound is healed. This specification forces the appearing of the leopard-like beast after 1798 because the fatal wound cannot be healed before the deadly wound is inflicted!
- Earlier in this study we learned that various parts of a beast’s anatomy may or may not be functional when a beast is introduced. This feature exists with both the ten horns on the fourth beast in Daniel 7 and the seven heads and ten horns on the great red dragon in Revelation 12. Even though Daniel saw ten horns on the fourth beast in Daniel 7 when it rose out of the sea, history verifies that the ten horns did not function in a prophetic sense until 600 years later. The leopard-like beast has a similar feature. John describes the leopard-like beast as having seven heads when it rises to power and “one of its seven heads seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed.” (Revelation 13:3)Some people read Revelation 13:3 and conclude that the leopard-like beast must have existed prior to 1798 because one of the heads on the beast was wounded in 1798, but this is not the case. Read the specifications carefully! When the leopard-like beast rises from the sea, it comes up from the sea with a head that “seems to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed.” Did you notice the past perfect tense? The past perfect tense means action completed in the past. For example, suppose I saw a new automobile roll off the assembly line and I said to you, “The car had a bad tire, but the tire had been repaired by the time it rolled off the assembly line.” Does my statement require the auto to be complete and functioning before the bad tire was discovered or does my statement mean the bad tire was discovered and repaired before the auto rolled off the assembly line? The latter meaning is the intent of my statement.The papacy existed before 1798, but the leopard-like beast is not the papacy. The papacy is only one part of the leopard-like beast. The leopard-like beast has seven heads – seven religious systems, not one! One head is described with precise language which eliminates any wiggle room on its identity. Daniel 7 indicates that the little horn power was empowered for 1,260 years (A.D. 538-1798). Daniel 7:11 states that the little horn power would recover from its wound, and again speak boastfully after 1798. History confirms this prediction and recent history affirms the recovery of the papacy. Today, the Roman Catholic Church is again a respected world power. The church has diplomatic relations with 170 nations! God used precise language in Revelation 13 for two reasons. First, God wants everyone to know that the wounded/healed head represents the Roman Catholic Church. If we can identify that one head is a religious system, then the remaining six heads must be religious systems, as well. Second, God wants everyone to know that the rise of the leopard-like beast has to occur after 1798, because the language specifically states that the wounded head is healed when the beast rises from the sea
- Notice that the leopard-like beast has body parts that belong to a lion, a bear, and a leopard, and it just so happens that the first three beasts in Daniel 7 are a lion, a bear, and a leopard. Furthermore, the fourth beast in Daniel 7 has ten horns when it rises from the sea and so does the leopard-like beast! Many people have noticed these similarities and then make a big mistake. They leap to the conclusion that the fourth beast in Daniel 7 and the leopard-like beast in Revelation 13 are the same beast even though the “head count” is different – one in Daniel and seven in Revelation. This leap in logic is not supported by the facts or the specifications. The fourth beast in Daniel 7 and the leopard-like beast in Revelation 13 are very different beasts, and even more importantly, they live at different times. Even though they share certain similarities, they are separate and distinct entities.Consider the similarities between the two beasts: Both beasts persecute the saints of God for a specific amount of time. The fourth beast in Daniel 7 persecuted the saints for 1,260 years. (Daniel 7:25) The leopard-like beast will persecute God’s people for forty-two months during the Great Tribulation. (Revelation 13:5) These two time periods cannot be the same time period. If they are, then the leopard-like beast would have to rise to power along with the fourth beast in 168 B.C. Of course, this is not possible because John documented that when he saw the leopard-like beast rising out of the sea, the deadly wound had been healed! (Revelation 13:3)
- The Bible predicts, “All inhabitants of the Earth will worship the [leopard-like] beast. . . .” (Revelation 13:8, insertion mine) There has never been a historical time when “all inhabitants of the Earth” worshiped the fourth beast of Daniel 7 and there never will be a future time. The fourth beast in Daniel 7 was given power to rule over Europe for 1,260 years. The leopard-like beast will be given power to rule over the whole world for a literal period of forty-two months. If the forty-two months in Revelation 13:5 and the time, times and half a time in Daniel 7:25 represent the same time period, then an insurmountable problem is created. It would mean that both beasts are powerless during the great tribulation because their empowerment is limited to the Dark Ages (A.D. 538-1798).
- Finally, the fourth beast in Daniel 7 and the leopard-like beast in Revelation 13 have ten horns, but they are not the same ten horns. The ten horns on the fourth beast in Daniel 7 represent ten tribal nations that divided and conquered Rome by A.D. 476. The ten horns on the leopard-like beast represent ten kings who will be alive at the Second Coming! (Revelation 13:1; 17:12-14; Daniel 2:42)Consider the math: The Bible predicted that three of the original ten horns on the fourth beast in Daniel 7 would be uprooted and destroyed by A.D. 538.* History affirms the fulfillment of this prediction. Then, the little horn (the papacy) became the eighth horn and it ruled over the remaining seven horns until it received a deadly wound in 1798. Therefore, the fourth beast in Daniel 7 ended up having eight horns for 1,260 years.* Note: For further discussion on the fall of the Roman Empire and the identity of the ten horns on the fourth beast in Daniel 7, please see Chapter 3 in my book, Daniel: Unlocked for the Final Generation. Notice the difference. When the leopard-like beast rises to power during the Great Tribulation, it will have seven heads and ten horns – not eight horns! The ten horns on the leopard-like beast represent ten kings who will be alive at the Second Coming! The angel told John, “The ten horns you saw [on the leopard-like beast] are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the [great red dragon] beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the [great red dragon] beast [the devil]. They will make war against the Lamb [at the Second Coming – Revelation 16:14-16], but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings – and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.” (Revelation 17:12-14)
GO TO PAGE # 15
Ancient and Modern Babylon
The leopard-like beast is called Babylon six times in the book of Revelation because there are many parallels between the ancient empire of Babylon and the modern empire of Babylon. Consider these parallels: Ancient Babylon was a world empire* and modern Babylon will be a world empire. Ancient Babylon worshiped false gods and modern Babylon will worship false gods. The prophets and gods of the ancient Babylonians were shown to be grossly inferior to the true prophets of God and the same thing will happen in modern Babylon. Ancient Babylon captured and persecuted God’s people. Modern Babylon will capture and persecute God’s people. The king of ancient Babylon set up an image which everyone was required to worship. Anyone refusing to worship the image was to be killed. The king of modern Babylon will do the same thing. The king of ancient Babylon did not recognize the sovereign authority of the Most High God. The king of modern Babylon will do the same. Ancient Babylon was defiant and insulting to God and modern Babylon will be the same. Modern Babylon will experience the same fate as ancient Babylon.* Note: Even though ancient Babylon was a great empire (605-538 B.C.), one can factually argue that ancient Babylon (and Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome) did not rule over the whole world. However, ancient Babylon did rule over that part of the world where God’s people lived and using this point of reference, one can say that Babylon was a world empire. Starting with ancient Babylon, each succeeding empire became geographically larger and larger until finally, during the time period of the feet, the whole world is represented as “a divided kingdom” made up of many nations that are both strong and weak. (Daniel 2:41) At the end, ten kings will rule the whole world during the final days of Earth’s history. Compare Daniel 2:42 with Revelation 17:12-14.
The king of modern Babylon (Lucifer) will prove to be more blasphemous than the king of ancient Babylon. Remember the ego and vanity of King Nebuchadnezzar. “[H]e [King Nebuchadnezzar] said, ‘Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?’ The words were still on his lips when a voice came from heaven, ‘This is what is decreed for you, King Nebuchadnezzar: Your royal authority has been taken from you.’ ” (Daniel 4:30,31, insertion and italics mine) After being warned about his exceeding arrogance and pride (Daniel 4:4-27), Nebuchadnezzar continued to ignore the warning which the Most High God had given him. The king vainly reasoned that Babylon was the product of his genius and his great power. One day, after speaking boastful words (Daniel 4:29,30), God instantly turned Nebuchadnezzar into a raving madman. The king was driven away from his residence in the city to live among the wild beasts of the field for seven years. (Daniel 4:31-33) At the end of his sentence, God not only restored the king’s mind, but He also restored the king to his throne. (Daniel 4:34,35) Nebuchadnezzar confessed to his empire that indeed, there is a Sovereign God who rules over the kingdoms of man and gives them to anyone He wishes. (Daniel 4:36,37) It is ironic that Nebuchadnezzar could not bring himself to tell his empire that the Sovereign God of the universe, who restored his good fortune, was the God of the Jews. God rarely gets the credit He deserves. Unfortunately, Nebuchadnezzar’s offspring did not learn from his experience or testimony. A few years after Nebuchadnezzar died, Belshazzar became king, and after insulting the God of Heaven one too many times, God destroyed him. (Daniel 5) The fate of Belshazzar, king of ancient Babylon, and Lucifer, king of modern Babylon, will be the same.
Babylon – A Hand Puppet of the Devil
The great red dragon (the devil) has an anatomy that is similar to the leopard-like beast (Babylon). There is a good reason for this. When the time comes, the great red dragon will enter the leopard-like beast similar to the way a hand is inserted into a latex glove. The Bible says “The dragon gave the [leopard-like] beast his power and his throne and great authority.” (Revelation 13:2, insertion mine) Babylon will become a hand puppet of the devil. Remember, Babylon’s mandate will be simple: Appease God so that His judgments will cease. People will think the solution will be to eliminate decadent and degenerate behavior. Therefore, Babylon will create many “sin-less” laws which civil authorities will enforce. Notice this profound point: If a person obeys the laws of Babylon, he actually worships the leopard-like beast because the biblical meaning of the word “worship” is submission. Today, we usually interpret the word “worship” to mean a religious celebration, a church service, or a religious gathering, but the Greek word for “worship” is proskuneo which means “to surrender obedience, to prostrate oneself, or to kiss with submission.” (Remember Judas’ kiss. Matthew 26:49) When Abel worshiped God, he killed the sacrificial lamb as God demanded. On the other hand, Cain did not worship God, but instead presumed to worship God by putting fruit on the altar. Obeying the laws of Babylon means worshiping the devil. The Bible cannot make it any clearer: “Men worshiped [obeyed] the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped [obeyed] the [leopard-like] beast and asked, ‘Who is like the [leopard-like] beast? Who can make war [resist his authority and argue] against him [without being punished]?’ ” (Revelation 13:4, insertions mine)Babylon will be a “monster-sized” church-state empowered by the devil. Remember, the devil’s focus is a specific group of people – the remnant of the woman. He tried to kill Jesus at birth and failed. He tried to keep his seat in God’s government, but Jesus cast him out on Resurrection Sunday. He chased the woman for 1,260 years and failed to destroy her in the wilderness. Therefore, this ancient scholar of Scripture knows full well this will be his last chance, and he is determined to totally destroy God’s people. “Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring – those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” (Revelation 12:17) The devil has a plan and Babylon will be the perfect tool for executing it. The devil will manipulate Babylon’s leaders. He will dictate laws through them, and the governments of the world will enforce these laws – thinking that they are appeasing God. Ultimately, Lucifer will persecute billions of people through Babylon’s blind leaders. (Luke 6:39)
Given the global diversity of mankind today, it seems foolish to predict that a time is coming when the whole world will voluntarily submit to one religious authority. A global church-state is unthinkable and impossible right now, but the Bible predicts it will surely occur. The Bible says, “The whole world was astonished [by the first four trumpets and recognizing their need to appease the wrath of Almighty God, the political leaders of the world laid aside their objections] and followed the [demands of the leopard-like] beast.” (Revelation 13:3, italics and insertions mine)
The leopard-like beast will be man’s solution to God’s wrath. Babylon’s logic will be simple: Appease God by outlawing decadent behavior. Religious leaders will trample on the inalienable rights of human beings and the political structures of all nations. If anyone speaks against Babylon, he will be accused of blasphemy and punished accordingly. (This is why we need to spread the word now – before freedom of speech is lost.) To make matters worse, the political leaders of the world will yield to Babylon’s authority and what choice will they have? If they refuse to comply with Babylon’s demands, more wrath from God will surely fall! In short, the nations of Earth will be caught in a no-win situation, and the political leaders of Earth will allow Babylon to rule over them. A horrible world order will be established without firing a single bullet. The devil will rejoice! He will energize false religion and paralyze politicians with fear so that he can persecute the saints. The first four trumpets will remove the political leaders of the world from their exalted posts of duty and the religious leaders of the world will take their place for 890 days. During this time frame, God intends to confront the seven false religions of Earth head on and expose them for what they are. You may recall that God did the same thing with the religious leaders in ancient Babylon. (See Daniel 2.)
FROM PAGE # 11
Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles
Recent evolution, however, has prepared the way for showing the
necessity and possibility of a higher form of social organization which
may guarantee economic freedom without reducing the individual to the
role of a slave to the State. The origins of government have been
carefully studied, and all metaphysical conceptions as to its divine or
"social contract" derivation having been laid aside, it appears that it
is among us of a relatively modern origin, and that its powers have
grown precisely in proportion as the division of society into the
privileged and unprivileged classes was growing in the course of ages.
Representative government has also been reduced to its real value--that
of an instrument which has rendered services in the struggle against
autocracy, but not an ideal of free political organization. As to the
system of philosophy which saw in the State a leader of progress, it was
more and more shaken as it became evident that progress is the most
effective when it is not checked by State interference. It has thus
become obvious that a further advance in social life does not lie in the
direction of a further concentration of power and regulative functions
in the hands of a governing body, but in the direction of
decentralization, both territorial and functional -- in a subdivision of
public functions with respect both to their sphere of action and to the
character of the functions; it is in the abandonment to the initiative
of freely constituted groups of all those functions which are now
considered as the functions of government.
This current of thought has found its expression not merely in
literature, but also to a limited extent in life. The uprising of the
Paris Commune, followed by that of the Commune of Cartagena -- a
movement of which the historical bearing seems to have been quite
overlooked -- opened a new page of history. If we analyze not only this
movement in itself, but also the impression it left in the minds and the
tendencies manifested during the communal revolution, we must recognize
in it an indication showing that in the future human agglomerations
which are more advanced in their social development will try to start an
independent life; and that they will endeavor to convert the more
backward people of a nation by example, instead of imposing their
opinions by law and force, or submitting themselves to the
majority-rule, which always is a mediocrity-rule. At the same time the
failure of representative government within the Commune itself proved
that self-government and self-administration must be carried further
than in a merely territorial sense. To be effective they must also be
carried into the various functions of life within the free community. A
merely territorial limitation of the sphere of action of government will
not do -- representative government being as deficient in a city as it
is in a nation. Life gave thus a further point in favor of the
no-government theory, and a new impulse to anarchist thought.
Anarchists recognize the justice of both the just-mentioned tendencies
towards economic and political freedom, and see in them two different
manifestations of the very same need of equality which constitutes the
very essence of all struggles mentioned by history. Therefore, in common
with all socialists, the anarchist says to the political reformer: "No
substantial reform in the sense of political equality and no limitation
of the powers of government can be made as long as society is divided
into two hostile camps, and the laborer remains, economically speaking, a
slave to his employer." But to the state socialist we say also: "You
cannot modify the existing conditions of property without deeply
modifying at the same time the political organization. You must limit
the powers of government and renounce parliamentary rule. To each new
economic phase of life corresponds a new political phase. absolute
monarchy corresponded to the system of serfdom. Representative
government corresponds to capital rule. Both, however, are class-rule.
But in a society where the distinction between capitalist and laborer
has disappeared, there is no need of such a government; it would be an
anachronism, a nuisance. Free workers would require a free organization,
and this cannot have any other basis than free agreement and free
cooperation, without sacrificing the autonomy of the individual to the
all-pervading interference of the State. The no-capitalist system
implies the no-government system."
Meaning thus the emancipation of man from the oppressive powers of
capitalism and government as well, the system of anarchism becomes a
synthesis of the two powerful currents of thought which characterize our
century.
In arriving at these conclusions anarchism proves to be in accordance
with the conclusions arrived at by the philosophy of evolution. By
bringing to light the plasticity of organization, the philosophy of
evolution has shown the admirable adaptability of organisms to their
conditions of life, and the ensuing development of such faculties as
render more complete both the adaptations of the aggregates to their
surroundings and those of each of the constituent parts of the aggregate
to the needs of free cooperation. It has familiarized us with the
circumstance that throughout organic nature the capacities for life in
common grow in proportion as the integration of organisms into compound
aggregates becomes more and more complete; and it has enforced thus the
opinion already expressed by social moralists as to the perfectibility
of human nature. It has shown us that, in the long run of the struggle
for existence, "the fittest" will prove to be those who combine
intellectual knowledge with the knowledge necessary for the production
of wealth, and not those who are now the richest because they, or their
ancestors, have been momentarily the strongest.
By showing that the "struggle for existence" must be conceived not
merely in its restricted sense of a struggle between individuals for the
means of subsistence but in its wider sense of adaptation of all
individuals of the species to the best conditions for the survival of
the species, as well as for the greatest possible sum of life and
happiness for each and all, is has permitted us to deduce the laws of
moral science from the social needs and habits of mankind. It has shown
us the infinitesimal role played by positive law in moral evolution, and
the immense role played by the natural growth of altruistic feelings,
which develop as soon as the conditions of life favor their growth. It
has thus enforced the opinion of social reformers as to the necessity of
modifying the conditions of life for improving man, instead of trying
to improve human nature by moral teachings while life works in an
opposite direction. Finally, by studying human society from the
biological point of view, it has come to the conclusions arrived at by
anarchists from the study of history and present tendencies as to
further progress being in the line of socialization of wealth and
integrated labor combined with the fullest possible freedom of the
individual.
It has happened in the long run of ages that everything which permits
men to increase their production, or even to continue it, has been
appropriated by the few. The land, which derives its value precisely
from its being necessary for an ever-increasing population, belongs to
the few, who may prevent the community from cultivating it. The coal
pits, which represent the labor of generations, and which also derive
their value from the wants of the manufacturers and railroads, from the
immense trade carried on and the density of population, belong again to
the few, who have even the right of stopping the extraction of coal if
they choose to give another use to their capital. The lace-weaving
machine, which represents, in its present state of perfection, the work
of three generations of Lancashire weavers, belongs also to the few; and
if the grandsons of the very same weaver who invented the first
lace-weaving machine claim their right to bring one of these machines
into motion, they will be told, "Hands off! this machine does not belong
to you!" The railroads, which mostly would be useless heaps of iron if
not for the present dense population, its industry, trade, and traffic,
belong again to the few -- to a few shareholders who may not even know
where the railway is situated which brings them a yearly income larger
than that of a medieval king. And if the children of those people who
died by thousands in digging the tunnels should gather and go -- a
ragged and starving crowd -- to ask bread or work from the shareholders,
they would be met with bayonets and bullets.
Who is the sophist who will dare to say that such an organization is
just? But what is unjust cannot be beneficial to mankind; and it is not.
In consequence of this monstrous organization, the son of a workman,
when he is able to work, finds no acre to till, no machine to set in
motion, unless he agrees to sell his labor for a sum inferior to its
real value. His father and grandfather have contributed to drain the
field, or erect the factory, to the full extent of their capacities --
and nobody can do more than that--but he comes into the world more
destitute than a savage. If he resorts to agriculture, he will be
permitted to cultivate a plot of land, but on the condition that he
gives up part of his product to the landlord. If he resorts to industry,
he will be permitted to work, but on the condition that out of the
thirty shillings he has produced, ten shillings or more will be pocketed
by the owner of the machine. We cry out against the feudal barons who
did not permit anyone to settle on the land otherwise than on payment of
one quarter of the crops to the lord of the manor; but we continue to
do as they did -- we extend their system. The forms have changed, but
the essence has remained the same. And the workman is compelled to
accept the feudal conditions which we call "free contract," because
nowhere will he find better conditions. Everything has been appropriated
by somebody; he must accept the bargain, or starve.
Owing to this circumstance, our production takes a wrong turn. It takes
no care of the needs of the community; its only aim is to increase the
profits of the capitalist. And we have, therefore, -- the continuous
fluctuations of industry, the crisis coming periodically nearly every
ten years, and throwing out of employment several hundred thousand men
who are brought to complete misery, whose children grow up in the
gutter, ready to become inmates of the prison and workhouse. The workmen
being unable to purchase with their wages the riches they are
producing, industry must search for markets elsewhere, amid the middle
classes of other nations. It must find markets, in the East, in Africa,
anywhere; it must increase, by trade, the number of its serfs in Egypt,
in India, in the Congo. But everywhere it finds competitors in other
nations which rapidly enter into the same line of industrial
development. And wars, continuous wars, must be fought for the supremacy
in the world-market -- wars for the possession of the East, wars for
getting possession of the seas, wars for the right of imposing heavy
duties on foreign merchandise. The thunder of European guns never
ceases; whole generations are slaughtered from time to time; and we
spend in armaments the third of the revenue of our States--a revenue
raised, the poor know with what difficulties.
And finally, the injustice of our partition of wealth exercises the most
deplorable effect on our morality. Our principles of morality say:
"Love your neighbor as yourself"; but let a child follow this principle
and take off his coat to give it to the shivering pauper, and his mother
will tell him that he must never understand moral principles in their
direct sense. If he lives according to them, he will go barefoot,
without alleviating the misery around him! Morality is good on the lips,
not in deeds. Our preachers say, "Who works, prays," and everyone
endeavors to make others work for him. They say, "Never lie!" and
politics are a big lie. And we accustom ourselves and our children to
live under this double-faced morality, which is hypocrisy, and to
conciliate our double-facedness by sophistry. Hypocrisy and sophistry
become the very basis of our life. But society cannot live under such a
morality. It cannot last so: it must, it will, be changed.
The question is thus no more a mere question of bread. It covers the
whole field of human activity. But it has at its bottom a question of
social economy, and we conclude: The means of production and of
satisfaction of all needs of society, having been created by the common
efforts of all, must be at the disposal of all. The private
appropriation of requisites for production is neither just nor
beneficial. All must be placed on the same footing as producers and
consumers of wealth. That will be the only way for society to seep out
of the bad conditions which have been created by centuries of wars and
oppression. That will be the only guarantee for further progress in a
direction of equality and freedom, which have always been the real,
although unspoken goal of humanity.
GO TO PAGE #18
The Dragon's Crowns Move from the Heads to the Horns
We have already noticed that the leopard-like beast has seven heads and ten horns just like the great red dragon. However, the crowns are moved from the seven heads on the great red dragon in Revelation 12:3 to the ten horns of the leopard-like beast in Revelation 13:1. This relocation of the crowns indicates a shift in persecuting authority.The Greek language has two words that mean “crown.” The first word is diadema and the second is stephanos. A diadema is a crown of authority (a king’s crown), whereas a stephanos is a winner’s crown (such as the Miss America Pageant’s crown). The book of Revelation uses and identifies both types of crowns. The woman in Revelation 12:1 wears a winner’s crown (a stephanos) that has twelve stars in it, whereas both beasts wear a diadema – a crown of authority.
The dragon chases the woman into the wilderness for 1,260 years as Revelation 12 begins. The crowns’ placement on the red dragon is important because the diadema are on the heads of this beast. In other words, persecution comes from the religious authorities. Religious authorities persecuted Jesus (and His followers) and religious authorities also persecuted Christians during the Dark Ages. However, when Babylon rises from the sea, the diadema are located on the ten horns. This means the devil will use civil authorities to persecute God’s people. How clever! The devil will speak through Babylon’s clergy. They will create many “sin-less” laws designed to appease God. Babylon will then dictate these laws to the nations of Earth and civil authorities in each nation (e.g., national police, security services, armies, etc.) will enforce them. Civil authorities will end up doing the devil’s dirty work! Very clever.
While the mechanics of demonic possession are complex, the result is rather easy to understand. A demon possessed person has a deranged mind. A demon possessed person cannot control his emotions, thoughts, or impulses, at times. A demon possessed person has moments of no tolerance or compassion, and a demon possessed government is no different. Demon possessed leaders like Herod are not concerned about the welfare of their subjects. They are obsessed with exercising and maintaining absolute power and control. They think nothing of imposing suffering and torture on their subjects to accomplish their goals.
After Babylon forms, it will quickly become a demon possessed government. Babylon will create laws that will become increasingly oppressive as time passes. Penalties for “civil disobedience” will escalate accordingly. This will be a telltale sign that the devil has gained control of Babylon, for there is nothing that brings Lucifer greater joy than to have human beings inflict horrible suffering upon one another. The devil rejoices every time an injustice is done. He rejoices every time a violent act is committed. The devil rejoices to see innocent victims suffer and die. Make no mistake, he also rejoices when the real perpetrators of crime languish in prison or receive due justice. The devil does not care about anyone – the perpetrator or the victim of crime. The dragon wants human beings to suffer because he wants Christ to suffer. Lucifer knows that nothing produces more grief in the heart of Jesus than human suffering.
FROM PAGE # 11
Babylon – A Hand Puppet of the Devil
II
The views taken in the above as to the combination of efforts being the
chief source of our wealth explain why most anarchists see in communism
the only equitable solution as to the adequate remuneration of
individual efforts. There was a time when a family engaged in
agriculture supplemented by a few domestic trades could consider the
corn they raised and the plain woolen cloth they wove as productions of
their own and nobody else's labor. Even then such a view was not quite
correct: there were forests cleared and roads built by common efforts;
and even then the family had continually to apply for communal help, as
is still the case in so many village communities. But now, in the
extremely interwoven state of industry of which each branch supports all
others, such an individualistic view can be held no more. If the iron
trade and the cotton industry of this country have reached so high a
degree of development, they have done so owing to the parallel growth of
thousands of other industries, great and small; to the extension of the
railway system; to an increase of knowledge among both the skilled
engineers and the mass of the workmen; to a certain training in
organization slowly developed among producers; and, above all, to the
world-trade which has itself grown up, thanks to works executed
thousands of miles away. The Italians who died from cholera in digging
the Suez Canal or from "tunnel-disease" in the St. Gothard Tunnel have
contributed as much towards the enrichment of this country as the
British girl who is prematurely growing old in serving a machine at
Manchester; and this girl as much as the engineer who made a
labor-saving improvement in our machinery. How can we pretend to
estimate the exact part of each of them in the riches accumulated around
us?
We may admire the inventive genius or the organizing capacities of an
iron lord; but we must recognize that all his genius and energy would
not realize one-tenth of what they realize here if they were spent in
dealing with Mongolian shepherds or Siberian peasants instead of British
workmen, British engineers, and trustworthy managers. An English
millionaire who succeeded in giving a powerful impulse to a branch of
home industry was asked the other day what were, in his opinion, the
real causes of his success? His answer was:-- "I always sought out the
right man for a given branch of the concern, and I left him full
independence -- maintaining, of course, for myself the general
supervision." "Did you never fail to find such men?" was the next
question. "Never." "But in the new branches which you introduced you
wanted a number of new inventions." "No doubt; we spent thousands in
buying patents." This little colloquy sums up, in my opinion, the real
case of those industrial undertakings which are quoted by the advocates
of "an adequate remuneration of individual efforts" in the shape of
millions bestowed on the managers of prosperous industries. It shows in
how far the efforts are really "individual." Leaving aside the thousand
conditions which sometimes permit a man to show, and sometimes prevent
him from showing, his capacities to their full extent, it might be asked
in how far the same capacities could bring out the same results, if the
very same employer could find no trustworthy managers and no skilled
workmen, and if hundreds of inventions were not stimulated by the
mechanical turn of mind of so many inhabitants of this country.
The anarchists cannot consider, like the collectivists, that a
remuneration which would be proportionate to the hours of labor spent by
each person in the production of riches may be an ideal, or even an
approach to an ideal, society. Without entering here into a discussion
as to how far the exchange value of each merchandise is really measured
now by the amount of labor necessary for its production -- a separate
study must be devoted to the subject--we must say that the collectivist
ideal seems to us merely unrealizable in a society which has been
brought to consider the necessaries for production as a common property.
Such a society would be compelled to abandon the wage-system
altogether. It appears impossible that the mitigated individualism of
the collectivist school could co-exist with the partial communism
implied by holding land and machinery in common -- unless imposed by a
powerful government, much more powerful than all those of our own times.
The present wage system has grown up from the appropriation of the
necessaries for production by the few; it was a necessary condition for
the growth of the present capitalist production, and it cannot outlive
it, even if an attempt be made to pay to the worker the full value of
his produce, and hours-of-labor-checks be substituted for money. Common
possession of the necessaries for production implies the common
enjoyment of the fruits of the common production; and we consider that
an equitable organization of society can only arise when every
wage-system is abandoned, and when everybody, contributing for the
common well-being to the full extent, of his capacities, shall enjoy
also from the common stock of society to the fullest possible extent of
his needs.
We maintain, moreover, not only that communism is a desirable state of
society, but that the growing tendency of modern society is precisely
towards communism -- free communism -- notwithstanding the seemingly
contradictory growth of individualism. In the growth of individualism
(especially during the last three centuries) we see merely the endeavors
of the individual towards emancipating himself from the steadily
growing powers of capital and the State. But side by side with this
growth we see also, throughout history up to our own times, the latent
struggle of the producers of wealth to maintain the partial communism of
old, as well as to reintroduce communist principles in a new shape, as
soon as favorable conditions permit it. As soon as the communes of the
tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries were enabled to start their own
independent life, they gave a wide extension to work in common, to trade
in common, and to a partial consumption in common. All this has
disappeared. But the rural commune fights a hard struggle to maintain
its old features, and it succeeds in maintaining them in many places of
Eastern Europe, Switzerland, and even France and Germany; while new
organizations, based on the same principles, never fail to grow up
wherever it is possible.
Notwithstanding the egotistic turn given to the public mind by the
merchant-production of our century, the communist tendency is
continually reasserting itself and trying to make its way into public
life. The penny bridge disappears before the public bridge; and the
turnpike road before the free road. The same spirit pervades thousands
of other institutions. Museums, free libraries, and free public schools;
parks and pleasure grounds; paved and lighted streets, free for
everybody's use; water supplied to private dwellings, with a growing
tendency towards disregarding the exact amount of it used by the
individual; tramways and railways which have already begun to introduce
the season ticket or the uniform tax, and will surely go much further in
this line when they are no longer private property: all these are
tokens showing in what direction further progress is to be expected.
It is in the direction of putting the wants of the individual above
the valuation of the service he has rendered, or might render, to
society; in considering society as a whole, so intimately connected
together that a service rendered to any individual is a service rendered
to the whole society. The librarian of the British Museum does not ask
the reader what have been his previous services to society, he simply
gives him the books he requires; and for a uniform fee, a scientific
society leaves its gardens and museums at the free disposal of each
member. The crew of a lifeboat do not ask whether the men of a
distressed ship are entitled to be rescued at a risk of life; and the
Prisoners' Aid Society does not inquire what a released prisoner is
worth. Here are men in need of a service; they are fellow men, and no further rights are required.
And if this very city, so egotistic to-day, be visited by a public
calamity -- let it be besieged, for example, like Paris in 187I, and
experience during the siege a want of food--this very same city would be
unanimous in proclaiming that the first needs to be satisfied are those
of the children and old, no matter what services they may render or
have rendered to society. And it would take care of the active defenders
of the city, whatever the degrees of gallantry displayed by each of
them. But, this tendency already existing, nobody will deny, I suppose,
that, in proportion as humanity is relieved from its hard struggle for
life, the same tendency will grow stronger. If our productive powers
were fully applied to increasing the stock of the staple necessities for
life; if a modification of the present conditions of property increased
the number of producers by all those who are not producers of wealth
now; and if manual labor reconquered its place of honor in society, the
communist tendencies already existing would immediately enlarge their
sphere of application.
Taking all this into account, and still more the practical aspects of the question as to how private property might
become common property, most of the anarchists maintain that the very
next step to be made by society, as soon as the present regime of
property undergoes a modification, will be in a communist sense. We are
communists. But our communism is not that of the authoritarian school:
it is anarchist communism, communism without government, free communism.
It is a synthesis of the two chief aims pursued by humanity since the
dawn of its history--economic freedom and political freedom.
By taking for our watchword anarchy in its sense of no government, we
intend to express a pronounced tendency of human society. In history we
see that precisely those epochs when small parts of humanity broke down
the power of their rulers and reassumed their freedom were epochs of the
greatest progress, economic and intellectual. Be it the growth of the
free cities, whose unrivaled monuments -- free work of free associations
of workers -- still testify to the revival of mind and of the
well-being of the citizen; be it the great movement which gave birth to
the Reformation -- those epochs when the individual recovered some part
of his freedom witnessed the greatest progress. And if we carefully
watch the present development of civilized nations, we cannot fail to
discover in it a marked and ever-growing movement towards limiting more
and more the sphere of action of government, so as to leave more and
more liberty to the initiative of the individual. After having tried all
kinds of government, and endeavored to solve the insoluble problem of
having a government "which might compel the individual to obedience,
without escaping itself from obedience to collectivity," humanity is
trying now to free itself from the bonds of any government whatever, and
to respond to its needs of organization by the free understanding
between individuals pursuing the same common aims.
Home Rule, even for the smallest territorial unit or group, becomes a
growing need. Free agreement is becoming a substitute for law. And free
cooperation a substitute for governmental guardianship. One after the
other those activities which were considered as the functions of
government during the last two centuries are disputed; society moves
better the less it is governed. And the more we study the advance made
in this direction, as well as the inadequacy of governments to fulfill
the expectations placed in them, the more we are bound to conclude that
humanity, by steadily limiting the functions of government, is marching
towards reducing them finally to nil. We already foresee a
state of society where the liberty of the individual will be limited by
no laws, no bonds -- by nothing else but his own social habits and the
necessity, which everyone feels, of finding cooperation, support, and
sympathy among his neighbors.
Of course the no-government ethics will meet with at least as many
objections as the no-capital economics. Our minds have been so nurtured
in prejudices as to the providential functions of government that
anarchist ideas must be received with distrust. Our whole
education, from childhood to the grave, nurtures the belief in the
necessity of a government and its beneficial effects. Systems of
philosophy have been elaborated to support this view; history has been
written from this standpoint; theories of law have been circulated and
taught for the same purpose. All politics are based on the same
principle, each politician saying to people he wants to support him:
"Give me the governmental power; I will, I can, relieve you from the
hardships of your present life." All our education is permeated with the
same teachings. We may open any book of sociology, history, law, or
ethics: everywhere we find government, its organization, its deeds,
playing so prominent a part that we grow accustomed to suppose that the
State and the political men are everything; that there is nothing behind
the big statesmen. The same teachings are daily repeated in the Press.
Whole columns are filled up with minutest records of parliamentary
debates, of movements of political persons. And, while reading these
columns, we too often forget that besides those few men whose importance
has been so swollen up as to overshadow humanity, there is an immense
body of men -- mankind, in fact-growing and dying, living in happiness
or sorrow, laboring and consuming, thinking and creating.
And yet, if we revert from the printed matter to our real life, and cast a broad glance on society as it is, we are struck with the infinitesimal part played by government in our life. Millions of human beings live and die without having had anything to do with government. Every day millions of transactions are made without the slightest interference of government; and those who enter into agreements have not the slightest intention of breaking bargains. Nay, those agreements which are not protected by government (those of the exchange, or card debts) are perhaps better kept than any others. The simple habit of keeping one's word, the desire of not losing confidence, are quite sufficient in an overwhelming majority of cases to enforce the keeping of agreements. Of course it may be said that there is still the government which might enforce them if necessary. But without speaking of the numberless cases which could not even be brought before a court, everyone who has the slightest acquaintance with trade will undoubtedly confirm the assertion that, if there were not so strong a feeling of honor in keeping agreements, trade itself would become utterly impossible. Even those merchants and manufacturers who feel not the slightest remorse when poisoning their customers with all kinds of abominable drugs, duly labeled, even they also keep their commercial agreements. But if such a relative morality as commercial honesty exists now under the present conditions, when enrichment is the chief motive, the same feeling will further develop very quickly as soon as robbing someone of the fruits of his labor is no longer the economic basis of our life.
And yet, if we revert from the printed matter to our real life, and cast a broad glance on society as it is, we are struck with the infinitesimal part played by government in our life. Millions of human beings live and die without having had anything to do with government. Every day millions of transactions are made without the slightest interference of government; and those who enter into agreements have not the slightest intention of breaking bargains. Nay, those agreements which are not protected by government (those of the exchange, or card debts) are perhaps better kept than any others. The simple habit of keeping one's word, the desire of not losing confidence, are quite sufficient in an overwhelming majority of cases to enforce the keeping of agreements. Of course it may be said that there is still the government which might enforce them if necessary. But without speaking of the numberless cases which could not even be brought before a court, everyone who has the slightest acquaintance with trade will undoubtedly confirm the assertion that, if there were not so strong a feeling of honor in keeping agreements, trade itself would become utterly impossible. Even those merchants and manufacturers who feel not the slightest remorse when poisoning their customers with all kinds of abominable drugs, duly labeled, even they also keep their commercial agreements. But if such a relative morality as commercial honesty exists now under the present conditions, when enrichment is the chief motive, the same feeling will further develop very quickly as soon as robbing someone of the fruits of his labor is no longer the economic basis of our life.
Another striking feature of our century tells in favor of the same
no-government tendency. It is the steady enlargement of the field
covered by private initiative, and the recent growth of large
organizations resulting merely and simply from free agreement. The
railway net of Europe -- a confederation of so many scores of separate
societies -- and the direct transport of passengers and merchandise over
so many lines which were built independently and federated together,
without even so much as a Central Board of European Railways, is a most
striking instance of what is already done by mere agreement. If fifty
years ago somebody had predicted that railways built by so many separate
companies finally would constitute so perfect a net as they do today,
he surely would have been treated as a fool. It would have been urged
that so many companies, prosecuting their own interests, would never
agree without an International Board of Railways, supported by an
International Convention of the European States, and endowed with
governmental powers. But no such board was resorted to, and the
agreement came nevertheless. The Dutch associations of ship and boat
owners are now extending their organizations over the rivers of Germany
and even to the shipping trade of the Baltic. The numberless amalgamated
manufacturers' associations, and the syndicates of France, are
so many instances in point. If it be argued that many of these
organizations are organizations for exploitation, that proves nothing,
because, if men pursuing their own egotistic, often very narrow,
interests can agree together, better inspired men, compelled to be more
closely connected with other groups, will necessarily agree still more
easily and still better.
But there also is no lack of free organizations for nobler pursuits. One
of the noblest achievements of our century is undoubtedly the Lifeboat
Association. Since its first humble start, it has saved no less than
thirty-two thousand human lives. It makes appeal to the noblest
instincts of man; its activity is entirely dependent upon devotion to
the common cause, while its internal organization is entirely based upon
the independence of the local committees. The Hospitals Association and
hundreds of like organizations, operating on a large scale and covering
each a wide field, may also be mentioned under this head. But, while we
know everything about governments and their deeds, what do we know
about the results achieved by free cooperation? Thousands of volume'
have been written to record the acts of governments; the most trifling
amelioration due to law has been recorded; its good effects have been
exaggerated, its bad effects passed by in silence. But where is the book
recording what has been achieved by free cooperation of well-inspired
men? At the same time, hundreds of societies are constituted every day
for the satisfaction of some of the infinitely varied needs of civilized
man. We have societies for all possible kinds of studies -- some of
them embracing the whole field of natural science, others limited to a
small special branch; societies for gymnastics, for shorthand-writing,
for the study of a separate author, for games and all kinds of sports,
for forwarding the science of maintaining life, and for favoring the art
of destroying it; philosophical and industrial, artistic and
anti-artistic; for serious work and for mere amusement -- in short,
there is not a single direction in which men exercise their faculties
without combining together for the accomplishment of some common aim.
Every day new societies are formed, while every year the old ones
aggregate together into larger units, federate across the national
frontiers, and cooperate in some common work.
The most striking feature of these numberless free growths is that they
continually encroach on what was formerly the domain of the State or the
Municipality. A householder in a Swiss village on the banks of Lake
Leman belongs now to at least a dozen different societies which supply
him with what is considered elsewhere as a function of the municipal
government. Free federation of independent communes for temporary or
permanent purposes lies at the very bottom of Swiss life, and to these
federations many a part of Switzerland is indebted for its roads and
fountains, its rich vineyards, well-kept forests, and meadows which the
foreigner admires. And besides these small societies, substituting
themselves for the State within some limited sphere, do we not see other
societies doing the same on a much wider scale?
One of the most remarkable societies which has recently arisen is
undoubtedly the Red Cross Society. To slaughter men on the
battle-fields, that remains the duty of the State; but these very States
recognize their inability to take care of their own wounded: they
abandon the task, to a great extent, to private initiative. What a
deluge of mockeries would not have been cast over the poor "Utopist" who
should have dared to say twenty-five years ago that the care of the
wounded might be left to private societies! "Nobody would go into the
dangerous places! Hospitals would all gather where there was no need of
them! National rivalries would result in the poor soldiers dying without
any help, and so on,"--such would have been the outcry. The war of 187I
has shown how perspicacious those prophets are who never believe in
human intelligence, devotion, and good sense.
These facts -- so numerous and so customary that we pass by without even
noticing them -- are in our opinion one of the most prominent features
of the second half of the nineteenth century. The just-mentioned
organisms grew up so naturally, they so rapidly extended and so easily
aggregated together, they are such unavoidable outgrowths of the
multiplication of needs of the civilized man, and they so well replace
State interference, that we must recognize in them a growing factor of
our life. Modern progress is really towards the free aggregation of free
individuals so as to supplant government in all those functions which
formerly were entrusted to it, and which it mostly performed so badly.
As to parliamentary rule and representative government altogether, they
are rapidly falling into decay. The few philosophers who already have
shown their defects have only timidly summed up the growing public
discontent. It is becoming evident that it is merely stupid to elect a
few men and to entrust them with the task of making laws on all possible
subjects, of which subjects most of them are utterly ignorant. It is
becoming understood that majority rule is as defective as any other kind
of rule; and humanity searches and finds new channels for resolving the
pending questions. The Postal Union did not elect an international
postal parliament in order to make laws for all postal organizations
adherent to the Union. The railways of Europe did not elect an
international railway parliament in order to regulate the running of the
trains and the partition of the income of international traffic. And
the Meteorological and Geological Societies of Europe did not elect
either meteorological or geological parliaments to plan polar stations,
or to establish a uniform subdivision of geological formations and a
uniform coloration of geological maps. They proceeded by means of
agreement. To agree together they resorted to congresses; but, while
sending delegates to their congresses they did not say to them, "Vote
about everything you like -- we shall obey." They put foreward questions
and discussed them first themselves; then they sent delegates
acquainted with the special question to be discussed at the congress,
and they sent delegates -- not rulers. Their delegates returned from the congress with no laws in their pockets, but with proposals of agreements.
Such is the way assumed now (the very old way, too) for dealing with
questions of public interest-not the way of law-making by means of a
representative government.
Representative government has accomplished its historical mission; it
has given a mortal blow to court-rule; and by its debates it has
awakened public interest in public questions. But to see in it the
government of the future socialist society is to commit a gross error.
Each economic phase of life implies its own political phase; and it is
impossible to touch the very basis of the present economic life --
private property -- without a corresponding change in the very basis of
the political organization. Life already shows in which direction the
change will be made. Not in increasing the powers of the State, but in
resorting to free organization and free federation in all those branches
which are now considered as attributes of the State.
The objections to the above may be easily forseen. It will be said of
course: "But what is to be done with those who do not keep their
agreements? What with those who are not inclined to work? What with
those who would prefer breaking the written laws of society, or -- on
the anarchist hypothesis -- its unwritten customs? Anarchism may be good
for a higher humanity, -- not for the men of our own times."
First of all, there are two kinds of agreements: there is the free one
which is entered upon humanity, -- not by free consent, as a free choice
between different courses equally open to each of the agreeing parties.
And there is the enforced agreement, imposed by one party upon the
other, and accepted by the latter from sheer necessity; in fact, it is
no agreement at all, it is a mere submission to necessity. Unhappily,
the great bulk of what are now described as agreements belong to the
latter category. When a workman sells his labor to an employer and knows
perfectly well that some part of the value of his produce will be
unjustly taken by the employer; when he sells it without even the
slightest guarantee of being employed so much as six consecutive months,
it is a sad mockery to call that a free contract. Modern economists may
call it free, but the father of poltical economy -- Adam Smith -- was
never guilty of such a misrepresentation. As long as three-quarters of
humanity are compelled to enter into agreements of that description,
force is of course necessary, both to enforce the supposed agreements
and to maintain such a state of things. Force -- and a great deal of
force -- is necessary to prevent the laborers from taking possession of
what they consider unjustly appropriated by the few; and force is
necessary to continually bring new "uncivilized nations" under the same
conditions.
But we do not see the necessity of force for enforcing agreements freely
entered upon. We never heard of a penalty imposed on a man who belonged
to the crew of a lifeboat and at a given moment preferred to abandon
the association. All that his comrades would do with him, if he were
guilty of a gross neglect, would probably be to refuse to have anything
further to do with him. Nor did we hear of fines imposed on a
contributor to the dictionary for a delay in his work, or of gendarmes driving the volunteers of Garibaldi to the battlefield. Free agreements need not be enforced.
As to the so-often repeated objection that no one would labor if he were not compelled to do so by sheer necessity, we heard enough of it before the emancipation of slaves in America, as well as before the emancipation of serfs in Russia. And we have had the opportunity of appreciating it at its just value. So we shall not try to convince those who can be convinced only by accomplished facts. As to those who reason, they ought to know that, if it really was so with some parts of humanity at its lowest stages, or if it is so with some small communities, or separate individuals, brought to sheer despair by ill success in their struggle against unfavorable conditions, it is not so with the bulk of the civilized nations. With us, work is a habit, and idleness an artificial growth. Of course when to be a manual worker means to be compelled to work all one's life long for ten hours a day, and often more, at producing some part of something -- a pin's head, for instance; when it means to be paid wages on which a family can live only on the condition of the strictest limitation of all its needs; when it means to be always under the menace of being thrown tomorrow out of employment -- and we know how frequent are the industrial crises, and what misery they imply; when it means, in a very great number of cases, premature death in a paupers' infirmary, if not in the workhouse; when to be a manual worker signifies to wear a life-long stamp of inferiority in the eyes of those very people who live on the work of these "hands;" when it always means the renunciation of all those higher enjoyments that science and art give to man -- oh, then there is no wonder that everybody -- the manual workers as well -- has but one dream: that of rising to a condition where others would work for him.
Overwork is repulsive to human nature -- not work. Overwork for
supplying the few with luxury -- not work for the well being of all.
Work is a physiological necessity, a necessity of spending accumulated
bodily energy, a necessity which is health and life itself. If so many
branches of useful work are so reluctantly done now, it is merely
because they mean overwork, or they are improperly organized. But we
know -- old Franklin knew it -- that four hours of useful work every day
would be more than sufficient for supplying everybody with the comfort
of a moderately well-to-do middle-class house, if we all gave ourselves
to productive work, and if we did not waste our productive powers as we
do waste them now.
As to the childish question, repeated for fifty years: "Who would do disagreeable work?" frankly I regret that none of our savants
has ever been brought to do it, be it for only one day in his life. If
there is still work which is really disagreeable in itself, it is only
because our scientific men have never cared to consider the means of
rendering it less so. They have always known that there were plenty of
starving men who would do it for a few cents a day.
As to the third -- the chief -- objection, which maintains the necessity
of a government for punishing those who break the law of society, there
is so much to say about it that it hardly can be touched incidentally.
The more we study the question, the more we are brought to the
conclusion that society is responsible for the anti-social deeds
perpetrated in its midst, and that no punishment, no prisons, and no
hangmen can diminish the numbers of such deeds; nothing short of a
reorganization of society itself.
Three quarters of all the acts which are brought before our courts every
year have their origin, either directly or indirectly in the present
disorganized state of society with regard to the production and
distribution of wealth -- not in perversity of human nature. As to the
relatively few anti-social deeds which result from anti-social
inclinations opf serperate individuals, it is not by the prisons, nor
even by the resorting to the hangmen, that we can diminish their
numbers. By our prisons, we merely multiply them render them worse. By
our detectives, our "price of blood," our executions, and our jails, we
spread in society such a terrible flow of basest passions and habits,
that he who should realize the effects of these institutions to their
full extent would be frightened by what society is doing under the
pretext of maintaining morality. We must search for other remedies, and the remedies have been indicated long since.
Of course now, when a mother in search of food and shelter for her
children must pass by shops filled with the most refined delicacies of
refined gluttony; when gorgeous and insolent luxury is displayed side by
side with the most execrable misery; when the dog and the horse of a
rich man are far better cared for than millions of children whose
mothers earn a pitiful salary in the pit or manufactory; when each
"modest" evening dress of a lady represents eight months, or one year,
of human labor; when enrichment at somebody else's expense is the avowed
aim of the "upper classes," and no distinct boundary can be traced
between honest and dishonest means of making money -- then force is the
only means of maintaining such a state of things. Then an army of
policemen, judges, and hangmen becomes a necessary institution.
But if all our children -- all children are our children --
received a sound instruction and education -- and we have the means of
giving it; if every family lived in decent home -- and they could
at the present high pitch of our production; if every boy and girl were
taught a handicraft at the same time as he or she receives scientific
instruction, and not to be a manual producer of wealth were
considered as a token of inferiority; if men lived in closer contact
with one another, and had continually to come into contact on those
public affairs which now are vested in the few; and if, in consequence
of a closer contact, we were brought to take as lively an interest in
our neighbors' difficulties and pains as we formerly took in those of
our kinsfolk -- then we should sort to policemen and judges, to prisons
and executions. Anti-social deeds would be nipped in the bud, not
punished. The few contests which would arise would be easily settled
arbitrators and no more force would be necessary to impose decisions
than is required now for enforcing the decisions of the family tribunals
of China.
And here we are brought to consider a great question: what would become of morality in a society which recognized laws and proclaimed the full freedom of the individual? The answer is plain. Public morality is independent from, anterior to, law and religion. Until now, the teachings of morality have been associated with religious teachings. But influence which religious teachings formerly exercised on mind has faded of late, and the sanction which morality derived from religion has no longer the power it formerly had. Millions and millions grow in our cities who have the old faith. Is it a reason for throwing morality over and for treating it with the same sarcasm as primitive cosmogony?
And here we are brought to consider a great question: what would become of morality in a society which recognized laws and proclaimed the full freedom of the individual? The answer is plain. Public morality is independent from, anterior to, law and religion. Until now, the teachings of morality have been associated with religious teachings. But influence which religious teachings formerly exercised on mind has faded of late, and the sanction which morality derived from religion has no longer the power it formerly had. Millions and millions grow in our cities who have the old faith. Is it a reason for throwing morality over and for treating it with the same sarcasm as primitive cosmogony?
Obviously not. No society is possible without certain of morality
generally recognized. If everyone grew accustomed to deceiving his
fellow-men; if we never could rely on each other's promise and words; if
everyone treated his fellow as an enemy, against whom every means of
wars justifiable -- no society could exist. And we see, in that
notwithstanding the decay of religious beliefs, the principles of
morality remain unshaken. We even see irreligious people trying to raise
the current standard of morality. The fact is that moral principles are
independent of religious beliefs: they are anterior to them. The
primitive Tchuktchis have no religion: they have only superstitions and
fear of the forces of nature; and nevertheless we find with them the
very same principles of morality which are taught by Christians and
Buddhists, Mussulmans and Hebrews. Nay, some of their practices imply a
much higher standard of tribal morality than that which appears in our
civilized society. In fact, each new religion takes its moral principles
from the only real stock of morality--the moral habits which grow with
men as soon as they unite to live together in tribes, cities, or
nations. No animal society is possible without resulting in a growth of
certain moral habits of mutual support and even self-sacrifice for the
common well-being. These habits are a necessary condition for the
welfare of the species in its struggle for life -- cooperation of
individuals being a much more important factor in the struggle for the
preservation of the species than the so-much-spoken-of physical struggle
between individuals for the means of existence. The "fittest" in the
organic world are those who grow accustomed to life in society; and life
in society necessarily implies moral habits. As to mankind, it has
during its long existence developed in its midst a nucleus of social
habits, of moral habits, which cannot disappear as long as human
societies exist. And therefore, notwithstanding the influences to the
contrary which are now at work in consequence of our present economic
relations, the nucleus of our moral habits continues to exist. Law and
religion only formulate them and endeavor to enforce them by their
sanction.
Whatever the variety of theories of morality, all can be brought under
three chief catagories: the morality of religion; the utilitarian
morality; the theory of moral habits resulting from the very needs of
life in society. Each religious morality sanctifies its prescriptions by
making them originate from revelation; and it tries to impress its
teachings on the mind by a promise of reward, or punishment, either in
this or in a future life. The utilitarian morality maintains the idea of
reward, but it finds it in man himself. It invites men to analyze their
pleasures, to classify them, and to give preference to those which are
most intense and most durable. We must recognize, however, that,
although it has exercised some influence, this system has been judged
too artificial by the great mass of human beings. And finally --
whatever its varieties -- there is the third system of morality which
sees in moral actions-in those actions which are most powerful in
rendering men best fitted for life in society -- a mere necessity of the
individual to enjoy the joys of his brethren, to suffer when some of
his brethren are suffering; a habit and a second nature, slowly
elaborated and perfected by life in society. That is the morality of
mankind; and that is also the morality of anarchism.
Such are, in a very brief summary, the leading principles of anarchism.
Each of them hurts many a prejudice, and yet each of them results from
an analysis of the very tendencies displayed by human society. Each of
them is rich in consequences and implies a thorough revision of many a
current opinion. And anarchism is not a mere insight into a remote
future. Already now, whatever the sphere of action of the individual, he
can act, either in accordance with anarchist principles or on an
opposite line. And all that may be done in that direction will be done
in the direction to which further development goes. All that may be done
in the opposite way will be an attempt to force humanity to go where it
will not go.
Additional Note to "Anarchist Communism"
Kropotkin's earlier writings as to the methods of organizing production
and distribution after a revolutionary seizure of property were based on
the assumption that there would be sufficiency of goods for each to
take what he needed and to work as much as he felt able. After his
experience with the Russian Revolution he came to a quite contrary
conclusion. He recognized the obstacles to production on a new basis as
well as the poverty of the capitalist world and expressed his changed
opinion in a postscript to the Russian edition of Words of a Rebel,
published in 1919. His method for organizing production follows his
previous teaching, but his statement of it after the Russian Revolution
adds interest to it. (R.N.B.)
CHAPTER ONE
COMMUNISM AS DESTROYER
Of all revolutionary systems, which throughout human history have been devised for the destruction of our civilised values, Communism is without doubt the most perfected, most efficient and most merciless. In fact it represents the most advanced epoch of the world revolution, in whose postulates it therefore not only acts to destroy a definite political, social, economic or moral institution, but also simultaneously to declare null and void the Holy Catholic Church as well as all cultural and Christian manifestations which represent our civilisation.
All revolutionary currents of Jewish origin have attacked Christianity in its different aspects with particular one-mindedness. Communism, spawned from this same revolutionary stream of thought, seeks to banish Christianity for the purpose of causing it to vanish from the face of the earth, without even the slightest trace remaining. The destructive fury of this satanic striving, which brings before the eyes of the world the most terrible pictures of terror and destruction which are possible to imagine, can only be based on the essence of Nihilism and the most evil, hate-filled rejection of everything hitherto existing. For otherwise, one would not be able to understand the indescribable insanity of its criminal acts and the spirit of destruction, of annihilation, of insult, of contradiction and of resistance by its leading personalities against everything, which represents fundamental features not only of Catholicism but of religion in general.
The purpose of Communism is, as we have indeed seen in Russia and in the other lands where it has been introduced, none other than to enslave the people in the economic, political, social, human and super-human sense, in order to make possible a minority rule through violence. From an international aspect, the goal cannot be clearer:
“To attain through violence world domination by an insignificant minority, which destroys the rest of humanity by means of materialism, terror and, if necessary, by death, completely indifferent to whether in the process the enormous majority of the population must be murdered.”
The urge to murder, which has characterised the leading Soviet personages, is known well throughout the world. There are few, who upon learning of the bloody purges, which have been undertaken by the Marxists in Russia, will not be seized by shudders of horror. One needs only to recall a few details to fill the most stout hearts with fear and alarm.
“In its beginnings the Red Terror strove above all to exterminate the Russian Intelligentsia.”1 As proof of this assertion S.P. Melgunow affirms the following, in which he refers to the “Special Committees”, which appeared in Russia in the first period of the Social revolution:
“The special committees are not organs of law, but of merciless extermination according to the decisions of the Communist Central Committee. The special committee is neither a commission of investigation nor a court of justice, but itself determines its own powers. It is an instrument of battle, which acts on the internal front of the civil war. It does not pardon whoever stands on the other side of the barricades, but kills them.
“It is not difficult to form ideas of how in reality this extermination proceeds, when in place of the nullified legal code only the revolutionary experience and conscience command. This conscience is subjective and experience allows complete free play to the will, which always, according to the position of the judge, takes on more or less furious forms.”2
“Let us not carry on war against individual persons” – wrote Latsis – “but let us exterminate the Bourgeoisie as a class. Do not investigate, through study of documents and proofs, what the accused has done in words and deeds against the Soviet authority. The first question to be placed before him runs as to what class he belongs to, what is his origin, his education, his training and his profession.”3
During the bloody dictatorship of Lenin, the Committee of Investigation under Rohrberg (Rohrberg, C.), which after the capture of Kiev entered this city with the White volunteers in August 1919, reported the following:
“The entire concrete floor of the large garage (this was the place where the provincial Cheka of Kiev had carried out executions) was swimming in blood, which did not flow but formed a layer of several inches; it was a grisly mixture of blood with brain and skull fragments, as well as strands of hair and other human remains. The entire walls, holed by thousands of bullets, were spattered with blood, and fragments of brain as well as head skin adhered to them.
“A drain ditch of 25 cm width and 25 cm deep and about 10 m long ran from the middle of the garage to a nearby room, where there was a subterranean outlet pipe. This drain ditch was filled to the top with blood.
“Usually, immediately after the massacre, the corpses were removed in lorries or horse-drawn wagons from the city and buried in a mass grave. In the corner of a garden we came upon an older mass grave, which contained about 80 corpses, in which we discovered signs of the most varied and unimaginable cruelties and mutilation. There were corpses from which the entrails had been removed; others had different limbs amputated and others again were cut into pieces. Some had had the eyes poked out, while the head, the face, the neck and the torso were covered with deep wounds. Further on we found a corpse with an axe in the breast, while others had no tongues. In a corner of the mass grave we discovered many legs and arms severed from the trunk.”4
The enormous number of corpses, which have already been laid to the account of Communist Socialism and which increase terrifyingly all the while, will perhaps never be exactly known, but it exceeds everything imaginable. It is not possible to learn the exact number of the victims. All estimates lie below the real figure.”
In the Edinburgh newspaper “The Scotsman” of 7th November, 1923, Professor Sarolea gave the following figures:
“28 Bishops; 1,219 priests; 6,000 Professors and teachers; 9,000 doctors; 54,000 Officers; 260,000 soldiers; 70,000 Policemen; 12,950 estate owners; 355,250 intellectuals and of the free professions; 193,290 workers and 215,000 peasants.”
The Information Committee of Denikin on the Bolshevistic intrigue during the years 1918-1919 records in a treatise about the Red Terror in these two years “one million, seven hundred thousand victims.”5 In the “Roul” of 3rd August 1923, Kommin makes the following observation:
“During the winter of 1920 there existed in the USSR, 52 governments with 52 Special Committees (Chekas), 52 Special Departments and 52 revolutionary courts. Besides countless subsidiary Chekas, transport-networks, courts on the railways as well as troops for internal security, there were mobile courts, which were dispatched to mass executions in the places concerned.”
To this list of courts of torture must be added the special departments, i.e., 16 army and divisional courts. All in all one must estimate 1000 torture chambers. If it is borne in mind that at that time district committees also existed in addition, then the number rises further. In addition the number of governments of the USSR increased. Siberia, the Crimea and the Far East were conquered. The number of Chekas grew in geometrical ratio.
According to Soviet data (in the year 1920 when the terror had still not ebbed and the reporting of news was not restricted) it is possible to establish an average figure for every court; the curve of executions rises from one to fifty (in the great cities) and up to one hundred in the regions recently conquered by the Red Army. The crisis of terror was periodic and then ceased; in this manner one can daily estimate the (modest) figure of five victims..., which, multiplied with the thousand courts, gives a result of five thousand, and thus for the year roughly one and a half million. We recall this indescribable slaughter, not because in its totality it was either the most numerous or the most merciless to arise from the special situation and inflamed passions consequent on the first victories of the Bolshevist revolution, but because today, forty-five years after these mass executions took place, all this might otherwise be obliterated from the present Communist picture, even for the persons who were contemporaries of the events and who today, still alive, have forgotten those tragedies with the ease with which people forget not only unpleasant events which do not directly concern them, but even those to which they fell victim.
Unhappily, time has shown us a truly demonic excess of Communism in its murderous activity, about which we give no details and do not present the monstrous statistics because all this is known to us. Several of these cruel bloodbaths have only taken place recently, so that one still seems to hear the lament of the persecuted, the death-rattle of the dying and the dumb, the terrible and haunting complaint of the corpses.6
It may suffice to recall the recent giant bloodbaths in Hungary, Poland, East Germany and Cuba as well as the earlier mass killings by Stalin and the annihilation of millions of Chinese through the Communist regime of Mao-Tse-Tung. But also the Communist attempts at revolution, which failed to achieve lasting permanence, such as that of Bela Kun who occupied Hungary in such a brutal way in the middle of 1919; of Spain in 1936, where the Bolsheviks gained control of Madrid and parts of the Spanish provinces and murdered more than 16,000 priests, monks and nuns, as well as 12 Bishops; further the happily unsuccessful attempt in Germany, its most successful realisation in the Red Republic of Bavaria in the year 1919. All these attempts were in fact orgies of 1918, which was directed by Hugo Haase, and which had blood and unrestrained bestiality.
One must also not forget that this Apocalyptic storm, which brings a flood of corpses, blood and tears, falls upon the world with the sole goal: to destroy not only the Catholic Church but the entire Christian civilisation.7 Before this shattering picture the world asks itself with heavy heart: who can hate our Christian features in such a form and try to destroy them with such Godless fury? Who has become capable of instigating this bloody mechanics of annihilation? Who can with such insensitivity direct and order this monstrous criminal process? And reality answers us completely without doubt that the [Bolshevik] Jews are those responsible, as will later be proved.
CHAPTER TWO
THE CREATORS OF THE SYSTEM
There is absolutely no doubt, that the Jews are the inventors of Communism;
for they have been the instigators of the dogma, upon which that monstrous
system is built, which at present with absolute power rules the greatest part
of Europe and Asia, which stirs up the lands of America and with progressive
certainty floods over all Christian peoples of the world like a deadly
cancerous growth, like a tumour, which steadily devours the core of the free
nations, without apparently an effective means of cure being found against this
disease.
But the Jews are also the inventors and directors of the Communist methods, of effective tactics of struggle, of the insensitive and totally inhuman government policy and of aggressive international strategy. It is a completely proven fact that the Communist theoreticians were all Jews, unheeded of what system the Jews lastingly use, as well as the theoreticians and the experienced revolutionaries, which has veiled from the eyes of the people, where they lived, their true origin.
1. Karl Heinrich Marx was a German Jew, whose real name was Kissel Mordekay, born in Trier, Rhineland, son of a Jewish lawyer. Before his famous work “Das Kapital” which contains the fundamental idea of theoretical Communism, whose concepts he strove with inexhaustible activity up to his death in the year 1887 to spread over the world, he had written and published with the Jew Engels in the year 1848 the Communist Manifesto in London; between 1843 and 1847 he had formulated in England the first modern interpretation of Hebrew Nationalism in his articles, as in the publication in the year 1844 in the periodical “Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbücher” (German-French Year Books) under the title “Concerning the Jewish question”, which shows an ultra-national tendency.
2. Friedrich Engels, creator of the “First International”, and close collaborator of Marx, was a Jew and born in Bremen (Germany). His father was a Jewish cotton merchant of the city. Engels died in the year 1894.
3. Karl Kautski, whose real name was Kraus, was the author of the book “The Beginnings of Christianity”, in which he mainly combats the principles of Christianity. He was the most important interpreter of Karl Marx and in 1887 published “The Economic Doctrine of Karl Marx Made Intelligible for All.” “The Bloodbath of Chisinaw and the Jewish Question”, in the year 1903, “The Class Struggle”, which for Mao-Tse-Tung in China was the fundamental book for Communist instruction; and the work with the title “The Vanguard of Socialism”, in the year 1921. He was also the author of the “Socialist Programme” from Erfurt/Germany. This Jew was born in the year 1854 in Prague and died in 1938 in the Hague (Holland).
4. Ferdinand Lassalle, Jew, born in the year 1825 in Breslau. He had interfered in the democratic revolution of 1848. In the year 1863 he published his work entitled “Open Answers”, in which he outlined a plan of revolution for the German workers. Since then he worked tirelessly for a “Socialist” crusade, which was directed at the rebellion of the workers. For this purpose he published a further work under the title “Capital and Labour.”
5. Eduard Bernstein. A Jew born in Berlin in the year 1850. His principal works are “Assumptions concerning Socialism”, “Forward, Socialism”, “Documents of Socialism”, “History and Theory of Socialism”, “Social Democracy of Today in Theory and Practice”, “The Duties of Social Democracy”, and “German Revolution”. In all his writings he expounds the Communist teaching and bases it on the views of Marx. In the year 1918 he became Finance minister of the German Socialist state, which, however, could fortunately only maintain itself a few months.
6. Jacob Lastrow, Max Hirsch, Edgar Loening, Wirschauer, Babe, Schatz, David Ricardo and many other writers of theoretical Communism were Jews. In all lands are found writers, almost exclusively Jewish, who preach Communism to the masses, although with many opportunities they strive to give the appearance in their writings of a feeling of humanity and brotherhood. We have indeed already seen in practice what this means.8
However theoretical all Jews mentioned may have been, they were not satisfied with setting up the doctrinaire bases, but each one of them was an experienced revolutionary, who busied himself in whatever particular land he found himself, to factually prepare the upheaval, to direct or to give it support. As leaders or members of revolutionary associations known only to one another, they took more and more active part in the development or Bolshevism. But apart from these Jews, who in the main were regarded as theoreticians, we find that almost all materialist leaders, who develop Communist tactics, also belong to the same race and carry out their task with the greatest efficacy.
As indisputable examples two movements of this type can be recorded:
A) In the year 1918 Germany was showpiece of a Communist, Jew directed revolution. The Red Councils of the republic of Munich was Jewish, as its instigators prove: Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Kurt Eisner and many others. With the fall of the monarchy the Jews gained control of the country and the German government. With Ministers of State Haase and Landsberg appear Kautsky, Kohn and Herzfeld. The Finance minister was likewise a Jew, had his racial fellow Bernstein as assistant and the minister of the Interior, likewise a Jew, and sought the collaboration of his racial brother, Doctor Freund, who helped him in his work.
Kurt Eisner, the President of the Bavarian Councils Republic, was the instigator of the Bolshevist revolution in Munich.
“Eleven little men made the revolution”, said Kurt Eisner in the intoxication of triumph to his colleague, the Minister Auer. It is no more than right to preserve the unforgettable memory of these little men, who were, in fact, the Jews Max Lowenberg, Doctor Kurt Rosenfeld, Caspar Wollheim, Max Rothschild, Carl Arnold, Kranold, Rosenhek, Birnbaum, Reis and Kaisser. These ten with Kurt Eisner van Israelowitsch led the presidency of the Revolutionary court of Germany. All eleven were Freemasons and belonged to the secret lodge N.° which had its seat in Munich at No. 51 Briennerstrasse.9
The first cabinet of Germany in the year 1918 was composed of Jews.
1. Preuss, Minister of the Interior.
2. Freund, Minister of the Interior.
3. Landsberg, Finance Minister.
4. Karl Kautski, Finance Minister.
5. Schiffer, Finance Minister.
6. Eduard Bernstein, secretary of the State Treasury.
7. Fritz Max Cohen, director of the official information service. (This Jew was earlier correspondent of the Jewish “Frankfurter Zeitung”).
The second “German Socialist government” of 1918 was formed of the following Jews:
1. Hirsch, Minister of the Interior.
2. Rosenfeld, Justice Minister.
3. Futran, Minister of education.
4. Arndt, Minister of education.
5. Simon, State secretary of finances.
6. Kastenberg, director of the department of science and art.
7. Strathgen, director of colonial department.
9. Wurm, secretary of food.
10. Merz, Weil, Katzenstein, Stern, Lowenberg, Frankel, Schlesinger, Israelowitz, Selingsohn, Laubenheim, etc., took up high posts in the ministries.
Among the remaining Jews who controlled the sectors vital to life of the German state, which had been defeated through the American intervention in the war, were found in the year 1918, and later:
1. Kohen, President of the German workers and soldiers councils (similar to the Soviet council of soldiers and workers of Moscow in the same year).
2. Ernst, police president of Berlin.
3. Sinzheimer, police president of Frankfurt.
4. Lewy, police president of Hessen.
5. Kurt Eisner, Bavarian state president.
6. Jaffe Bavarian finance minister.
7. Brentano, Industry, trade and transport minister.
8. Talheimer, minister in Württemberg.
9. Heimann, another minister in Württemberg.
10. Fulda, in the government of Hesse.
11. Theodor Wolf, chief editor of the newspaper “Berliner Tageblatt.”
12. Gwiner, director of the “Deutsche Bank”.10
B) Hungary in the year 1919. On 20th March 1919 the Jew Bela Kun (Cohn) took over power in Hungary and proclaimed the Hungarian Soviet republic, which from that moment on was submerged in a hair-raising sea of blood. Twenty-eight (28) Commissars formed with him the new government and of these 18 were Israelites. That is an unheard of proportion, when one bears in mind that in Hungary lived one and a half million Israelites compared to 22 million inhabitants. The 18 Commissars held the actual control of rulership in their hands and the eight Gentile Commissars could do nothing against them.11
“More than 90% of the members of the government and the confidence men of Bela Kun were also Jews. Here follows a list of members of the Bela Kun government:
1. Bela Kun, general secretary of the Jewish government.
2. Sandor Garbai, “official” president of the government, who was used by the Jews as a Hungarian man of straw.
3. Peter Agoston, deputy of the general secretary; Jew.
4. Dr. E. Landler, Peoples commissar for internal affairs; Jew.
5. Bela Vago, deputy of Landler, a Jew with the name Weiss.
6. E. Hamburger, Agriculture Commissar; Jew.
7. Vantus, deputy of Hamburger; Jew.
8. Csizmadia, deputy of Hamburger; Hungarian.
9. Nyisztor, deputy of Hamburger; Hungarian.
10 Varga, Commissar for financial affairs; Jew by name Weichselbaum.
11. Szkely, deputy of Varga; Jew by name Schlesinger.
12. Kunftz, Education minister; Jew by name Kunstater.
13. Kukacs, deputy of Kunfi; a Jew, who in reality was chilled Lowinger and was the son of the director-general of a banking house in Budapest.
14. D. Bokanyi, Minister of labour; Hungarian.
15. Fiedler, deputy of Bokanyi; Jew.
16. Jozsef Pogany, War Commissar; a Jew, who in reality was called Schwartz.
17. Szanto, deputy of Pogany; a Jew named Schreiber.
18. Tibor Szamuelly, deputy of Pogany, a Jew named Samuel.
19. Matyas Rakosi, trade Minister; a Jew, who in reality was called Matthew Roth Rosenkrantz, present Communist dictator.
20. Ronai, Commissar of law; a Jew named Rosentstegl.
21. Ladai, deputy of Ronai; Jew.
22. Erdelyi, Commissar of supply; a Jew named Eisenstein.
23. Vilmas Boehm, Socialisation Commissar; Jew.
24. Hevesi, deputy of Boehm; a Jew named Honig.
25. Dovsak, second deputy of Boehm; Jew.
26. Oszkar Jaszai, Commissar of nationalities; a Jew named Jakubovits.
27. Otto Korvin, political examining Commissar; a Jew named Klein.
28. Kerekes, state lawyer; a Jew named Krauss.
29. Biro, chief of the political police; a Jew named Blau.
30. Seidem, adjutant of Biro; Jew.
31. Oszkar Faber, Commissar for liquidation of Church property; Jew.
32. J. Czerni, commander of the terrorist bands, which were known by the name “Lenin youth”; Hungarain.
33. Illes, supreme police Commissar; Jew.
34. Szabados, supreme police Commissar; a Jew named Singer.
35. Kalmar, supreme police Commissar; German Jew.
36. Szabo, supreme police Commissar; Ruthenian Jew, who in reality was called Schwarz.
37. Vince, Peoples Commissar of the city of Budapest, who in reality was called Weinstein.
38. M. Kraus, Peoples Commissar of Budapest; Jew.
39. A. Dienes, Peoples Commissar of Budapest; Jew.
40. Lengyel, President of the Austro-Hungarian bank; a Jew named Levkovits.
41. Laszlo, President of the Communist revolutionary court; a Jew, who in reality was called Lowy.12
In this government which for a time held Hungary in thrall, the chief of the Hungarian Cheka Szamuelly, besides Bela Kun, distinguished himself through countless crimes and plunderings. While the latter rode through the land in his luxury automobile (with the symbol of a large gallows mounted on the vehicle, and accompanied by his capable Jewish woman secretary R. S. Salkind, alias Semliachkay), the former travelled through Hungary in his special train and sowed terror and death, as a contemporary witness describes:
“That train of death travelled snorting through the black Hungarian nights; where it stopped, one saw people hanging from trees and blood which ran on the ground. Along the railway line naked and mutilated corpses were to be seen. Szamuelly dictated his judgements in his train, and whoever was forced to enter never lived to tell the tale of what he saw. Szamuelly lived constantly in this train. Thirty selected terrorists ensured his security. Selected executioners accompanied him. The train consisted of two saloon wagons, two first-class wagons, which were occupied by the terrorists, and two third-class wagons for the victims. In the latter executions were carried out. The floor of this wagon was stiff with blood. The corpses were thrown out of the windows, while Szamuelly sat comfortably in the elegant workroom of his compartment which was upholstered in rose-coloured damask and decorated with polished mirrors. With a movement of the hand he decided over life or death.”13
CHAPTER THREE
THE HEAD OF COMMUNISM
Of all revolutionary systems, which throughout human history have been devised for the destruction of our civilised values, Communism is without doubt the most perfected, most efficient and most merciless. In fact it represents the most advanced epoch of the world revolution, in whose postulates it therefore not only acts to destroy a definite political, social, economic or moral institution, but also simultaneously to declare null and void the Holy Catholic Church as well as all cultural and Christian manifestations which represent our civilisation.
All revolutionary currents of Jewish origin have attacked Christianity in its different aspects with particular one-mindedness. Communism, spawned from this same revolutionary stream of thought, seeks to banish Christianity for the purpose of causing it to vanish from the face of the earth, without even the slightest trace remaining. The destructive fury of this satanic striving, which brings before the eyes of the world the most terrible pictures of terror and destruction which are possible to imagine, can only be based on the essence of Nihilism and the most evil, hate-filled rejection of everything hitherto existing. For otherwise, one would not be able to understand the indescribable insanity of its criminal acts and the spirit of destruction, of annihilation, of insult, of contradiction and of resistance by its leading personalities against everything, which represents fundamental features not only of Catholicism but of religion in general.
The purpose of Communism is, as we have indeed seen in Russia and in the other lands where it has been introduced, none other than to enslave the people in the economic, political, social, human and super-human sense, in order to make possible a minority rule through violence. From an international aspect, the goal cannot be clearer:
“To attain through violence world domination by an insignificant minority, which destroys the rest of humanity by means of materialism, terror and, if necessary, by death, completely indifferent to whether in the process the enormous majority of the population must be murdered.”
The urge to murder, which has characterised the leading Soviet personages, is known well throughout the world. There are few, who upon learning of the bloody purges, which have been undertaken by the Marxists in Russia, will not be seized by shudders of horror. One needs only to recall a few details to fill the most stout hearts with fear and alarm.
“In its beginnings the Red Terror strove above all to exterminate the Russian Intelligentsia.”1 As proof of this assertion S.P. Melgunow affirms the following, in which he refers to the “Special Committees”, which appeared in Russia in the first period of the Social revolution:
“The special committees are not organs of law, but of merciless extermination according to the decisions of the Communist Central Committee. The special committee is neither a commission of investigation nor a court of justice, but itself determines its own powers. It is an instrument of battle, which acts on the internal front of the civil war. It does not pardon whoever stands on the other side of the barricades, but kills them.
“It is not difficult to form ideas of how in reality this extermination proceeds, when in place of the nullified legal code only the revolutionary experience and conscience command. This conscience is subjective and experience allows complete free play to the will, which always, according to the position of the judge, takes on more or less furious forms.”2
“Let us not carry on war against individual persons” – wrote Latsis – “but let us exterminate the Bourgeoisie as a class. Do not investigate, through study of documents and proofs, what the accused has done in words and deeds against the Soviet authority. The first question to be placed before him runs as to what class he belongs to, what is his origin, his education, his training and his profession.”3
During the bloody dictatorship of Lenin, the Committee of Investigation under Rohrberg (Rohrberg, C.), which after the capture of Kiev entered this city with the White volunteers in August 1919, reported the following:
“The entire concrete floor of the large garage (this was the place where the provincial Cheka of Kiev had carried out executions) was swimming in blood, which did not flow but formed a layer of several inches; it was a grisly mixture of blood with brain and skull fragments, as well as strands of hair and other human remains. The entire walls, holed by thousands of bullets, were spattered with blood, and fragments of brain as well as head skin adhered to them.
“A drain ditch of 25 cm width and 25 cm deep and about 10 m long ran from the middle of the garage to a nearby room, where there was a subterranean outlet pipe. This drain ditch was filled to the top with blood.
“Usually, immediately after the massacre, the corpses were removed in lorries or horse-drawn wagons from the city and buried in a mass grave. In the corner of a garden we came upon an older mass grave, which contained about 80 corpses, in which we discovered signs of the most varied and unimaginable cruelties and mutilation. There were corpses from which the entrails had been removed; others had different limbs amputated and others again were cut into pieces. Some had had the eyes poked out, while the head, the face, the neck and the torso were covered with deep wounds. Further on we found a corpse with an axe in the breast, while others had no tongues. In a corner of the mass grave we discovered many legs and arms severed from the trunk.”4
The enormous number of corpses, which have already been laid to the account of Communist Socialism and which increase terrifyingly all the while, will perhaps never be exactly known, but it exceeds everything imaginable. It is not possible to learn the exact number of the victims. All estimates lie below the real figure.”
In the Edinburgh newspaper “The Scotsman” of 7th November, 1923, Professor Sarolea gave the following figures:
“28 Bishops; 1,219 priests; 6,000 Professors and teachers; 9,000 doctors; 54,000 Officers; 260,000 soldiers; 70,000 Policemen; 12,950 estate owners; 355,250 intellectuals and of the free professions; 193,290 workers and 215,000 peasants.”
The Information Committee of Denikin on the Bolshevistic intrigue during the years 1918-1919 records in a treatise about the Red Terror in these two years “one million, seven hundred thousand victims.”5 In the “Roul” of 3rd August 1923, Kommin makes the following observation:
“During the winter of 1920 there existed in the USSR, 52 governments with 52 Special Committees (Chekas), 52 Special Departments and 52 revolutionary courts. Besides countless subsidiary Chekas, transport-networks, courts on the railways as well as troops for internal security, there were mobile courts, which were dispatched to mass executions in the places concerned.”
To this list of courts of torture must be added the special departments, i.e., 16 army and divisional courts. All in all one must estimate 1000 torture chambers. If it is borne in mind that at that time district committees also existed in addition, then the number rises further. In addition the number of governments of the USSR increased. Siberia, the Crimea and the Far East were conquered. The number of Chekas grew in geometrical ratio.
According to Soviet data (in the year 1920 when the terror had still not ebbed and the reporting of news was not restricted) it is possible to establish an average figure for every court; the curve of executions rises from one to fifty (in the great cities) and up to one hundred in the regions recently conquered by the Red Army. The crisis of terror was periodic and then ceased; in this manner one can daily estimate the (modest) figure of five victims..., which, multiplied with the thousand courts, gives a result of five thousand, and thus for the year roughly one and a half million. We recall this indescribable slaughter, not because in its totality it was either the most numerous or the most merciless to arise from the special situation and inflamed passions consequent on the first victories of the Bolshevist revolution, but because today, forty-five years after these mass executions took place, all this might otherwise be obliterated from the present Communist picture, even for the persons who were contemporaries of the events and who today, still alive, have forgotten those tragedies with the ease with which people forget not only unpleasant events which do not directly concern them, but even those to which they fell victim.
Unhappily, time has shown us a truly demonic excess of Communism in its murderous activity, about which we give no details and do not present the monstrous statistics because all this is known to us. Several of these cruel bloodbaths have only taken place recently, so that one still seems to hear the lament of the persecuted, the death-rattle of the dying and the dumb, the terrible and haunting complaint of the corpses.6
It may suffice to recall the recent giant bloodbaths in Hungary, Poland, East Germany and Cuba as well as the earlier mass killings by Stalin and the annihilation of millions of Chinese through the Communist regime of Mao-Tse-Tung. But also the Communist attempts at revolution, which failed to achieve lasting permanence, such as that of Bela Kun who occupied Hungary in such a brutal way in the middle of 1919; of Spain in 1936, where the Bolsheviks gained control of Madrid and parts of the Spanish provinces and murdered more than 16,000 priests, monks and nuns, as well as 12 Bishops; further the happily unsuccessful attempt in Germany, its most successful realisation in the Red Republic of Bavaria in the year 1919. All these attempts were in fact orgies of 1918, which was directed by Hugo Haase, and which had blood and unrestrained bestiality.
One must also not forget that this Apocalyptic storm, which brings a flood of corpses, blood and tears, falls upon the world with the sole goal: to destroy not only the Catholic Church but the entire Christian civilisation.7 Before this shattering picture the world asks itself with heavy heart: who can hate our Christian features in such a form and try to destroy them with such Godless fury? Who has become capable of instigating this bloody mechanics of annihilation? Who can with such insensitivity direct and order this monstrous criminal process? And reality answers us completely without doubt that the [Bolshevik] Jews are those responsible, as will later be proved.
CHAPTER TWO
THE CREATORS OF THE SYSTEM
But the Jews are also the inventors and directors of the Communist methods, of effective tactics of struggle, of the insensitive and totally inhuman government policy and of aggressive international strategy. It is a completely proven fact that the Communist theoreticians were all Jews, unheeded of what system the Jews lastingly use, as well as the theoreticians and the experienced revolutionaries, which has veiled from the eyes of the people, where they lived, their true origin.
1. Karl Heinrich Marx was a German Jew, whose real name was Kissel Mordekay, born in Trier, Rhineland, son of a Jewish lawyer. Before his famous work “Das Kapital” which contains the fundamental idea of theoretical Communism, whose concepts he strove with inexhaustible activity up to his death in the year 1887 to spread over the world, he had written and published with the Jew Engels in the year 1848 the Communist Manifesto in London; between 1843 and 1847 he had formulated in England the first modern interpretation of Hebrew Nationalism in his articles, as in the publication in the year 1844 in the periodical “Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbücher” (German-French Year Books) under the title “Concerning the Jewish question”, which shows an ultra-national tendency.
2. Friedrich Engels, creator of the “First International”, and close collaborator of Marx, was a Jew and born in Bremen (Germany). His father was a Jewish cotton merchant of the city. Engels died in the year 1894.
3. Karl Kautski, whose real name was Kraus, was the author of the book “The Beginnings of Christianity”, in which he mainly combats the principles of Christianity. He was the most important interpreter of Karl Marx and in 1887 published “The Economic Doctrine of Karl Marx Made Intelligible for All.” “The Bloodbath of Chisinaw and the Jewish Question”, in the year 1903, “The Class Struggle”, which for Mao-Tse-Tung in China was the fundamental book for Communist instruction; and the work with the title “The Vanguard of Socialism”, in the year 1921. He was also the author of the “Socialist Programme” from Erfurt/Germany. This Jew was born in the year 1854 in Prague and died in 1938 in the Hague (Holland).
4. Ferdinand Lassalle, Jew, born in the year 1825 in Breslau. He had interfered in the democratic revolution of 1848. In the year 1863 he published his work entitled “Open Answers”, in which he outlined a plan of revolution for the German workers. Since then he worked tirelessly for a “Socialist” crusade, which was directed at the rebellion of the workers. For this purpose he published a further work under the title “Capital and Labour.”
5. Eduard Bernstein. A Jew born in Berlin in the year 1850. His principal works are “Assumptions concerning Socialism”, “Forward, Socialism”, “Documents of Socialism”, “History and Theory of Socialism”, “Social Democracy of Today in Theory and Practice”, “The Duties of Social Democracy”, and “German Revolution”. In all his writings he expounds the Communist teaching and bases it on the views of Marx. In the year 1918 he became Finance minister of the German Socialist state, which, however, could fortunately only maintain itself a few months.
6. Jacob Lastrow, Max Hirsch, Edgar Loening, Wirschauer, Babe, Schatz, David Ricardo and many other writers of theoretical Communism were Jews. In all lands are found writers, almost exclusively Jewish, who preach Communism to the masses, although with many opportunities they strive to give the appearance in their writings of a feeling of humanity and brotherhood. We have indeed already seen in practice what this means.8
However theoretical all Jews mentioned may have been, they were not satisfied with setting up the doctrinaire bases, but each one of them was an experienced revolutionary, who busied himself in whatever particular land he found himself, to factually prepare the upheaval, to direct or to give it support. As leaders or members of revolutionary associations known only to one another, they took more and more active part in the development or Bolshevism. But apart from these Jews, who in the main were regarded as theoreticians, we find that almost all materialist leaders, who develop Communist tactics, also belong to the same race and carry out their task with the greatest efficacy.
As indisputable examples two movements of this type can be recorded:
A) In the year 1918 Germany was showpiece of a Communist, Jew directed revolution. The Red Councils of the republic of Munich was Jewish, as its instigators prove: Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Kurt Eisner and many others. With the fall of the monarchy the Jews gained control of the country and the German government. With Ministers of State Haase and Landsberg appear Kautsky, Kohn and Herzfeld. The Finance minister was likewise a Jew, had his racial fellow Bernstein as assistant and the minister of the Interior, likewise a Jew, and sought the collaboration of his racial brother, Doctor Freund, who helped him in his work.
Kurt Eisner, the President of the Bavarian Councils Republic, was the instigator of the Bolshevist revolution in Munich.
“Eleven little men made the revolution”, said Kurt Eisner in the intoxication of triumph to his colleague, the Minister Auer. It is no more than right to preserve the unforgettable memory of these little men, who were, in fact, the Jews Max Lowenberg, Doctor Kurt Rosenfeld, Caspar Wollheim, Max Rothschild, Carl Arnold, Kranold, Rosenhek, Birnbaum, Reis and Kaisser. These ten with Kurt Eisner van Israelowitsch led the presidency of the Revolutionary court of Germany. All eleven were Freemasons and belonged to the secret lodge N.° which had its seat in Munich at No. 51 Briennerstrasse.9
The first cabinet of Germany in the year 1918 was composed of Jews.
1. Preuss, Minister of the Interior.
2. Freund, Minister of the Interior.
3. Landsberg, Finance Minister.
4. Karl Kautski, Finance Minister.
5. Schiffer, Finance Minister.
6. Eduard Bernstein, secretary of the State Treasury.
7. Fritz Max Cohen, director of the official information service. (This Jew was earlier correspondent of the Jewish “Frankfurter Zeitung”).
The second “German Socialist government” of 1918 was formed of the following Jews:
1. Hirsch, Minister of the Interior.
2. Rosenfeld, Justice Minister.
3. Futran, Minister of education.
4. Arndt, Minister of education.
5. Simon, State secretary of finances.
6. Kastenberg, director of the department of science and art.
7. Strathgen, director of colonial department.
9. Wurm, secretary of food.
10. Merz, Weil, Katzenstein, Stern, Lowenberg, Frankel, Schlesinger, Israelowitz, Selingsohn, Laubenheim, etc., took up high posts in the ministries.
Among the remaining Jews who controlled the sectors vital to life of the German state, which had been defeated through the American intervention in the war, were found in the year 1918, and later:
1. Kohen, President of the German workers and soldiers councils (similar to the Soviet council of soldiers and workers of Moscow in the same year).
2. Ernst, police president of Berlin.
3. Sinzheimer, police president of Frankfurt.
4. Lewy, police president of Hessen.
5. Kurt Eisner, Bavarian state president.
6. Jaffe Bavarian finance minister.
7. Brentano, Industry, trade and transport minister.
8. Talheimer, minister in Württemberg.
9. Heimann, another minister in Württemberg.
10. Fulda, in the government of Hesse.
11. Theodor Wolf, chief editor of the newspaper “Berliner Tageblatt.”
12. Gwiner, director of the “Deutsche Bank”.10
B) Hungary in the year 1919. On 20th March 1919 the Jew Bela Kun (Cohn) took over power in Hungary and proclaimed the Hungarian Soviet republic, which from that moment on was submerged in a hair-raising sea of blood. Twenty-eight (28) Commissars formed with him the new government and of these 18 were Israelites. That is an unheard of proportion, when one bears in mind that in Hungary lived one and a half million Israelites compared to 22 million inhabitants. The 18 Commissars held the actual control of rulership in their hands and the eight Gentile Commissars could do nothing against them.11
“More than 90% of the members of the government and the confidence men of Bela Kun were also Jews. Here follows a list of members of the Bela Kun government:
1. Bela Kun, general secretary of the Jewish government.
2. Sandor Garbai, “official” president of the government, who was used by the Jews as a Hungarian man of straw.
3. Peter Agoston, deputy of the general secretary; Jew.
4. Dr. E. Landler, Peoples commissar for internal affairs; Jew.
5. Bela Vago, deputy of Landler, a Jew with the name Weiss.
6. E. Hamburger, Agriculture Commissar; Jew.
7. Vantus, deputy of Hamburger; Jew.
8. Csizmadia, deputy of Hamburger; Hungarian.
9. Nyisztor, deputy of Hamburger; Hungarian.
10 Varga, Commissar for financial affairs; Jew by name Weichselbaum.
11. Szkely, deputy of Varga; Jew by name Schlesinger.
12. Kunftz, Education minister; Jew by name Kunstater.
13. Kukacs, deputy of Kunfi; a Jew, who in reality was chilled Lowinger and was the son of the director-general of a banking house in Budapest.
14. D. Bokanyi, Minister of labour; Hungarian.
15. Fiedler, deputy of Bokanyi; Jew.
16. Jozsef Pogany, War Commissar; a Jew, who in reality was called Schwartz.
17. Szanto, deputy of Pogany; a Jew named Schreiber.
18. Tibor Szamuelly, deputy of Pogany, a Jew named Samuel.
19. Matyas Rakosi, trade Minister; a Jew, who in reality was called Matthew Roth Rosenkrantz, present Communist dictator.
20. Ronai, Commissar of law; a Jew named Rosentstegl.
21. Ladai, deputy of Ronai; Jew.
22. Erdelyi, Commissar of supply; a Jew named Eisenstein.
23. Vilmas Boehm, Socialisation Commissar; Jew.
24. Hevesi, deputy of Boehm; a Jew named Honig.
25. Dovsak, second deputy of Boehm; Jew.
26. Oszkar Jaszai, Commissar of nationalities; a Jew named Jakubovits.
27. Otto Korvin, political examining Commissar; a Jew named Klein.
28. Kerekes, state lawyer; a Jew named Krauss.
29. Biro, chief of the political police; a Jew named Blau.
30. Seidem, adjutant of Biro; Jew.
31. Oszkar Faber, Commissar for liquidation of Church property; Jew.
32. J. Czerni, commander of the terrorist bands, which were known by the name “Lenin youth”; Hungarain.
33. Illes, supreme police Commissar; Jew.
34. Szabados, supreme police Commissar; a Jew named Singer.
35. Kalmar, supreme police Commissar; German Jew.
36. Szabo, supreme police Commissar; Ruthenian Jew, who in reality was called Schwarz.
37. Vince, Peoples Commissar of the city of Budapest, who in reality was called Weinstein.
38. M. Kraus, Peoples Commissar of Budapest; Jew.
39. A. Dienes, Peoples Commissar of Budapest; Jew.
40. Lengyel, President of the Austro-Hungarian bank; a Jew named Levkovits.
41. Laszlo, President of the Communist revolutionary court; a Jew, who in reality was called Lowy.12
In this government which for a time held Hungary in thrall, the chief of the Hungarian Cheka Szamuelly, besides Bela Kun, distinguished himself through countless crimes and plunderings. While the latter rode through the land in his luxury automobile (with the symbol of a large gallows mounted on the vehicle, and accompanied by his capable Jewish woman secretary R. S. Salkind, alias Semliachkay), the former travelled through Hungary in his special train and sowed terror and death, as a contemporary witness describes:
“That train of death travelled snorting through the black Hungarian nights; where it stopped, one saw people hanging from trees and blood which ran on the ground. Along the railway line naked and mutilated corpses were to be seen. Szamuelly dictated his judgements in his train, and whoever was forced to enter never lived to tell the tale of what he saw. Szamuelly lived constantly in this train. Thirty selected terrorists ensured his security. Selected executioners accompanied him. The train consisted of two saloon wagons, two first-class wagons, which were occupied by the terrorists, and two third-class wagons for the victims. In the latter executions were carried out. The floor of this wagon was stiff with blood. The corpses were thrown out of the windows, while Szamuelly sat comfortably in the elegant workroom of his compartment which was upholstered in rose-coloured damask and decorated with polished mirrors. With a movement of the hand he decided over life or death.”13
CHAPTER THREE
THE HEAD OF COMMUNISM
There exists therefore not the slightest doubt, that the Marxist theory (Communism) is a Jewish work, just as is also its every action, which aims at putting this doctrine into practice.
Before the final establishing of Bolshevism in Russia the directors and organisers of all Communist movements in their entirety were almost solely Jews, just as the great majority of the true organisers of the revolutions were to which they gave the impetus. But in Russia, as the first land where Bolshevism finally triumphed, and where it was and still is the fulcrum or driving force for the Communising of the world, the Jewish paternity of the system of organisation and of Soviet praxis also allows no doubt or error. According to the irrefutable data, which has been fully and completely proved and recognised by all impartial writers who have dealt with this theme, the Communist work of the Jews in the land of the Czars is so powerful that it would be useless to deny this disastrous triumph as their monopoly.
It suffices to recall the names of those who have formed the governments and the principal leading organs in the Soviet Union, in order to know what one has immediately to think of the clear and categorical proof of the evidence.
I -
MEMBERS OF THE FIRST COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT OF MOSCOW (1918)
(Council of Peoples Commissars)
1. Ilich Ulin (Vladimir Ilich Ulianov or Nikolaus
Lenin). President of the Supreme Soviet, Jew on mother’s side. His mother was
called Blank, a Jewess of German origin.(Council of Peoples Commissars)
2. Lew Davinovich Bronstein (Leo Trotsky), Commissar for the Red Army and the Navy; Jew.
3. Iosiph David Vissarionovich Djugashvili-Kochba (Joseph Vissarianovich Stalin), Nationalities Commissar; descendant of Jews from Georgia.
4. Chicherin; Commissar for foreign affairs; Russian.
5. Apfelbaum (Grigore Zinoviev), Commissar for internal affairs; Jew.
6. Kohen (Volodarsky), Commissar for press and propaganda; Jew.
7. Samuel Kaufmann, Commissar for the landed property of the State; Jew.
8. Steinberg, law Commissar; Jew.
9. Schmidt, Commissar for public works; Jew.
10. Ethel Knigkisen (Liliana), Commissar for supply, Jewess.
11. Pfenigstein, Commissar for the settlement of refugees; Jew.
12. Schlichter (Vostanoleinin) Commissar for billetings (confiscation of private houses for the Reds); Jew.
13. Lurie (Larin), President of the supreme economic council; Jew.
14. Kukor (Kukorsky), Trade Commissar; Jew.
15. Spitzberg, Culture Commissar; Jew.
16. Urisky (Radomilsky), Commissar for “elections”; Jew.
17. Lunacharsky, Commissar for public schools. Russian.
18. Simasko, Commissar for health; Jew.
19. Protzian, Agriculture Commissar; Armenian.
In the Appendix at the end of this volume can be found the interesting and illustrative lists of the Jewish officials in all the government bodies of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party, the Red Army, the Secret Police, the trade unions, etc.
Of a total of 502 offices of first rank in the organisation and direction of the Communist revolution in Russia and in the direction of the Soviet State during the first years of its existence, no less than 459 posts are occupied by Jews, while only 43 of these offices have been occupied by Gentiles of different origin. Who then has accordingly carried out this terrible revolution? The Gentiles perhaps? Another statistic, which was published in Paris by the counter-revolutionary newspaper “Le Russe Nationaliste”, after the victory of the Jewish Communists in Russia, reveals that of 554 Communist leaders of first rank in different offices the racial composition was as follows:
Jews
|
447
|
Lithuanians
|
43
|
Russians
|
30
|
Armenians
|
13
|
Germans
|
12
|
Finns
|
3
|
Poles
|
2
|
Georgians
|
2
|
Czechs
|
1
|
Hungarians
|
1
|
Today it is almost completely proved that Stalin had Jewish blood, although he neither confirmed nor denied the rumours, about which mutterings began in this direction.14
GO TO PAGE # 18
Matthew 13:47
In the fourth pair of the parables of Matthew 13, Jesus continues to instruct His disciples apart from the general multitude to which He had spoken earlier. The seventh parable in the chapter, the Parable of the Dragnet (verse 47) teaches that in the professing church, the good and evil who intermingle on earth will be completely separated "at the end of the age." This set time of separation will be, for the good, a time of rejoicing in a bright, eternal future, but for the evil, it will be a time of mourning before eternal oblivion.
In Matthew 4:18-20, Jesus says to Peter and Andrew, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men," providing a partial interpretation of this parable. When Jesus Christ later made the twelve disciples fishers of men, they went out and brought in "catches" of converts. Thus, the church, composed of the "called," are caught in God's net, which His servants draw in.
Peter, Andrew, James, and John had been fishermen prior to their calling, so to them, the idea of the dragnet was a familiar and vivid picture. Their work entailed using a net - a dragnet - of great length, weighted by lead and designed to sweep the bottom of the sea, gathering fish in masses. Two boats would drag this net between them, sweeping a section of the Sea of Galilee, after which the sailors would haul the net to shore. There, the fishermen would go through the entire net, keeping the good fish but burning the substandard ones to avoid catching them again later.
The symbol of "the sea" is similar to that seen in the beasts rising out of the sea and out of the earth (Revelation 13:1, 11). It designates origination, representing the realm of the earth. Christ's origin is the realm of heaven, but the beasts, part of a corrupt system, come from the sea and the earth. The sea, a body of water, symbolizes "peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues" (Revelation 17:15).
In the parable, when the fish are caught in a net thrown in the sea, Jesus signifies that members of His church are "the called" out of the world (Romans 1:5-6; 8:28). The dragnet gathers some of every kind; God's net catches fish without partiality to age, sex, race, ethnicity, class, wealth, intelligence, language, beauty, and so forth. His interest is in developing our character and whether He can work with us (Romans 2:11; 5:8; 9:18, 21).
https://www.bibletools.org
FROM PAGE # 32
THE HEAD OF COMMUNISM
Let us look at a list of the Soviet officials in the government of Stalin:
1. Zdanov (Yadanov), who in reality was called Liphshitz, foriner commander in the defence of Leningrad during the 2nd world war. Member of the Politbüro up to 1945 and one of the instigators of the decision which excluded Tito from the Cominform in the year 1948 and who shortly afterwards died.
2. Lavrenty Beria, Chief of the M.V.D. Police and of Soviet heavy industry, member of the Soviet Atom industry, who was executed upon orders of Malenkov, and in fact for the same reason for which Stalin liquidated Yagoda.
3. Lazar Kaganovich, director of Soviet heavy industry, member of the Politburo from 1944 to 1952, then member of the Presidium and at present President of the Supreme Presidium of the USSR.
4. Malenkov (Georgi Maximilianovich Molenk), member of the Politburo and Orgburo until 1952, then member of the Supreme Presidium, President of the Ministerial Council after the death of Stalin; Minister in the government of Bulganin since 1955. He is a Jew from Ornsenburg, not a Cossack, as is asserted. The name of his father, Maximilian Malenk, is typical for a Russian Jew. In addition there is a very important detail, which reveals the true origin of Malenkov and also of Khrushchev. The present wife of Malenkov is the Jewess Pearlmutter, known as “Comrade Schans chuschne” who was Minister (Commissar) for the fish industry in the Soviet government in the year 1938. If Malenkov had not been a Jew, it is extremely unlikely that he would have married a Jewess, and the latter would also not have married him. There exists no official description of the life of Malenkov. This is certainly to be attributed to the fact that he does not want his Jewish origin to be discovered.
5. Nikolaus Salomon Khrushchev, present chief (1963) of the Soviet Communist party, member of the Politburo since 1939, i.e. since the year when Malenkov was chosen member of the Orgburo. He is the brother of Madame Malenkov, i.e. of the Jewess Pearlmutter. Khrushchev is a Jew and his real name is Pearlmutter. Also, the present wife of Khrushchev, Nina, as well as the wives of Mikoyan, Voroshilov, Molotov, etc., are Jewesses.
6. Marshal Nikolaus Bulganin, at present first Soviet minister, former bank official, was one of the ten Jewish members of the Commissariat for the liquidation of private banks in the year 1919.
7. Anastasio Josifovich Mikoyan, member of the Politburo since 1935, member of the Supreme Presidium since 1952, Trade Minister and Vice-president in the Malenkov government. He is an Armenian Jew and not a true Armenian as is believed.
8. Kruglov, chief of the M.V.D. after Beria. Upon command of Kruglov the imprisoned Jewish doctors were released who had been imprisoned by Riumin, sub-chief of the police, during the rulership of Beria, in the year 1953. Likewise Jew.
9. Alexander Kosygin, member of the Politburo up to 1952, afterwards deputy in the Supreme Presidium and Minister for light industry and food in the Malenkov government.
10. Nikolaus Schvernik, member of the Politburo up to 1952, then member of the Supreme Presidium and member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist party; Jew.
11. Andreas Andreievich Andreiev, who was known as the “Politbureaucrat” of 3 A, member of the Politburo between 1931 and 1952, Jew from Galicia (Poland). He writes under a Russian pseudonym.
12. P. K. Ponomareno, member of the Orgburo in the year 1952; afterwards member of the highest Presidium and culture minister in the Malenkov government.
13. P. F. Yudin (Jew), deputy member of the highest Presidium and titulary of the Ministry for building material in the Malenkov government in the year 1953.
14. Mihail Pervukin, member of the Presidium of the central committee of the Communist party since 1953.
15. N. Schatalin, official in the sub-secretariat of the Central Committee of the Community Party.
16. K. P. Gorschenin, Justice minister in the government of Malenkov.
17. D. Ustinov (Zambinovich), Soviet ambassador in Athens (Greece) up to the second world war; defence minister in the Malenkov government.
18. V. Merkulov, Minister for state control at the time of Malenkov.
19. A. Zasyadko, Minister for the coal industry under Malenkov.
20. Cherburg, Soviet propaganda chief.
21. Milstein. one of the Soviet espionage chiefs.
22. Ferentz Kiss, Chief of the Soviet espionage service in Europe.
23. Postschreibitscher (Poschebicheve), former private secretary of Stalin, at present chief of the secret archives of the Kremlin.
24. Ilya Ehrenburg, delegate for Moscow in the Supreme Soviet, Communist writer; likewise Jew.
25. Mark Spivak, delegate from Stalino (Ukraine) in the Supreme Soviet of Moscow.
26. Rosalia Goldenberg, delegate from Birobudjan in the Supreme Soviet.
27. Anna E. Kaluger, delegate of Bessarabia in the Supreme Soviet, Her brother, not Koluger, but Calugaru in Rumanian, is a Communist official in the government of Rumania.
Also Kalinin, one of the great Soviet officials under Stalin who died some time ago, was a Jew.15
It is only too well known, that the Anti-Semitism of Stalin was a misrepresentation of the facts, and that the blood bath among the Jews (Trotskyists) which he carried out in order to assert his power, was performed by other Jews. In the last instance the struggle between the Jew Trotsky and the Jew Stalin was a struggle between parties for control over the Communist government, which they created, it was purely a family dispute. As proof, the following list of Commissars for Foreign Affairs, during the period when Stalin got rid of some certain Jews, who had become dangerous for his personal power.
1. Maxim Maximovich Litvinoff, Minister for Foreign Affairs up to 1939, when he was replaced by Molotov. He afterwards occupied high offices in the same ministry up to his death in February 1952. He was born in Poland as son of the Jew Meer Genokh Moiseevich Vallakh, a bank clerk. In order to conceal his real name Maxim Moiseevich Vallakh, Litvinoff used various pseudonyms during his real career, among them Finkelstein, Ludwig Nietz, Maxim Harryson, David Mordecay, Felix, and finally, when he became an official in the Communist regime of Russia, he took on the name of Litvinoff or Litvinov. When this Jew was replaced by Molotov in the Year 1939, the Jews of the western world and the entire Jewish-Freemasonic press began to cry out that he had been removed by Stalin because he was a “Jew”, but they kept quiet afterwards concerning the fact that up to his death Litvinov remained in the ministry. Why also say this, if it was not of interest for the conspiracy? In the Memoirs of Litvinov, which were published after his death, he wrote that in his opinion nothing would alter in Soviet Russia after the death of Stalin. In fact, Stalin died a year after Litvinov and nothing was altered in the Soviet’s internal and external policies.
What the West calls change in the policy of the USSR, is simply nothing further than a skilled propaganda for the necessities of the plan for world rule through the Jews. Nothing has altered since the death of Stalin. A certain unrest may have arisen on account of the lack of a new leader of the stature of Stalin or Lenin, that is all. For this reason the Jewish-Freemasonic conspirators of the West wish to paint the Soviet-Communist black raven over with the glittering colours of “Pacifism”, “Coexistence”, “Human friendliness”, etc., in order to introduce it to the world as something harmless, until a dictator with the same lusts of his predecessors arises.
When Litvinov asserted that nothing would alter with the death or Stalin, he knew very well, that this would be so, because Stalin was nothing more than one of the handymen of the Jewish band, which rules the USSR, and because after him other Jews would be at hand, to carry on the plan of world domination, for which Bulganin, Baruch, Reading, Thorez, Mendes France, David Ben Gurion and many others are cooperating.
In continuing the list of Jews in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, we mention:
2. Andreas Januarevich Vishinsky, now dead, who was foreign minister of the USSR before the death of Stalin and afterwards permanent representative of the Soviet Union in the UNO. There he missed no opportunity to sling his obscenities against the non-Communist lands, exactly as in the times when he was “Peoples Judge.” His Jewish name was Abraham Januarevin.
3. Jakob Malik, Soviet representative in the UNO and a great personality in the Soviet diplomatic hierarchy; Jew.
4. Valerian Zorin, for a time ambassador in London and likewise a great figure of Soviet diplomacy, who changes his post according to necessity.
5. Andrei Gromyko, diplomat, Minister for foreign affairs since 1958.
6. Alexander Panyushkin, former Soviet ambassador in Washington, ambassador in Peking during the year 1955, who is regarded as the actual dictator of Red China.
7. Zambinovich (Ustinov), ambassador in Athens up to 1940.
8. Admiral Radionovich, ambassador in Athens between 1945 and 1946, i.e., as the Communist coup d’état in Greece was prepared; Jew.
9. Constantin Umansky, ambassador in Washington during the Second World War and afterwards official in the Ministry for foreign affairs in Moscow.
10. Manuilsky, former representative in the Ukraine and in the UNO, at present President of the Ukraine; likewise Jew.
11. Ivan Maisky, ambassador in London during the war, afterwards high official of the Foreign Ministry in Moscow.
12. Madame Kolontay, ambassador in Stockholm until her death in March 1952; Jewess.
13. Daniel Solod, ambassador in Cairo in the year 1955. The latter, supported by a Jewish group which belongs to the diplomatic corps in Cairo, directs the Israelite conspiracy inside the Arab world under Soviet diplomatic protection, without the Egyptian government noticing this. This government should not forget that David Ben Gurion, first minister of Israel, as well as Golda Meyerson, Israel’s Minister in Moscow, are Russian Jews like David Solod.
At present, according to confirmed data, 80% to 90% of the key positions in all ministries in Moscow and the remaining Soviet republics are occupied by Jews.
“I do not believe that there can be any doubt of the origin of all those who occupy the highest posts in Moscow since the first moment of the revolution; for the Russians it is a lamentable fact that after all this course of time things are much worse, for the number of Jews who live in Russia has increased in frightening degree. All important leading positions are in their hands...”16
As in Russia the countries of Europe where Bolshevism has gained control, are also completely ruled by a Jewish minority; the latter always appears in the direction of the Communist government with an iron, criminal and merciless hand, so as to attain the utter enslaving of the native citizens through an insignificant group of Jews.
More convincing than any other proof is an exact surveying of the most principal leaders of the Bolshevist governments of Europe, which are always found in the hands of the Israelites. We will quote the most principal ones:
A - HUNGARY
1. The most important Communist leader since
the occupation of this land by Soviet troops is Mathias Rakosi, an Israelite,
whose real name is Mathew Roth Rosenkranz, and who was born in the year 1892 in
Szabadka.2. Ferenk Münnich, First Minister in Hungary in the year 1959 after Janos Kadar.
3. Erno Gero, Minister of the Interior until 1954.
4. Szebeni, Minister of the Interior before the Jew Gero.
5. General Laszlo Kiros, Jew, Minister of Interior since July 1954, simultaneously chief of the A.V.O., i.e. the Hungarian police, which corresponds to the Soviet M.V.D.
6. General Peter Gabor, chief of the Communist political police of Hungary up to 1953, a Jew, who in reality was called Benjamin Ausspitz and was earlier a tailor in Satorai-Jeujhely, Hungary.
7. Varga, State secretary for economic planning; a Jew, who in reality is called Weichselbaum; former Minister of the Bela Kun government. He was also President of the supreme economic council.
8. Beregi, Minister for foreign affairs.
9. Julius Egry, Agriculture minister of the Hungarian Peoples Republic.
10. Zoltan Vas, President of the supreme economic council; a Jew, who in reality was called Weinberger.
11. Josef Reval, the editor of the Hungarian press and director of the Red newspaper “Szabad Nep” (The Free People); a Jew; who is really called Moses Kahana.
12. Revai (another), Minister for national education; a Jew named Rabinovits.
13. Josef Gero, transport minister; a Jew named Singer.
14. Mihaly Farkas, Minister for national defence; a Jew named Freedman.
15. Veres, Minister of State.
16. Vajda, Minister of State.
17. Szanto, Commissar for purging of enemies of the State, in the year 1951 sent by Moscow; a Jew named Schreiber; former member of the Bela Kun government.
18. Guyla Dessi, Justice Minister up to 1955; today chief of the secret police.
19. Emil Weil, Hungarian ambassador in Washington; he is the Jewish doctor who tortured Cardinal Mindszenty.
Among other important Jewish officials to be mentioned are:
1. Imre Szirmay, director of the Hungarian radio company.
2. Gyula Garay, judge of the Communist “Peoples court of Budapest.”
3. Colonel Caspo, Sub-chief of the secret police.
4. Professor Laszlo Benedek, Jewish dictator for educational questions.
The sole important Communist of Gentile origin was the Freemason Laszlo Rajk, former minister for foreign affairs, who was sentenced and executed by his Jewish “brothers” for his “betrayal.”
B - CZECHOSLOVAKIA
1. Clemens Gottwald, one of the founders of
the Communist party in Czechoslovakia and president of the country between 1948 and 1953; a
Jew, who died shortly after Stalin.2. Vladimir Clementis, former Communist minister of Czechoslovakia for foreign affairs, “sentenced and executed” in the year 1952; Jew.
3. Vaclav David, present foreign minister of Czechoslovakia (1955); Jew.
4. Rudolf Slaski, former general secretary of the Communist party of Czechoslovakia, “sentenced” in the year 1952; a Jew by name of Rudolf Salzmann.
5. Firi Hendrich, present general secretary of the Communist party; Jew.
6. Andreas Simon, sentenced in the year 1952; a Jew named Otto Katz.
7. Gustav Bares, assistant of the general secretary of the Communist party; Jew.
8. Josef Frank, former assistant of the general secretary of the Communist party, “sentenced” in the year 1952; Jew.
C - POLAND
1. Boleislaw Bierut, President of Poland up
to 1954; Jew.2. Jakob Berman, general secretary of the Communist party of Poland; Jew.
3. Julius Kazuky (Katz), minister for foreign affairs of Poland, who is well known for his violent speeches in the UNO; Jew.
4. Karl Swierezewskv, former vice-minister for national defence, who was murdered by the Anti-Communist Ukrainian country population in south Poland (the mass of the people is not always amorphous); Jew.
5. Josef Cyrankiewicz, first minister of Poland since 1954, after Bierut; Jew.
6. Hillary Mink, Vice-prime minister of Poland since 1954; Jew.
7. Zenon Kliszko, minister of justice; Jew.
8. Tadaus Kochcanowiecz, minister of labour; Jew.
The sole important Polish Communist of Gentile origin is Wladislaw Gomulka who was removed from political leadership since 1949, when he lost his post as first minister. Sooner or later he will share the same fate as Rajk in Hungary.
D - RUMANIA
1. Anna Pauker, Jewess, former minister for
foreign affairs of the “Rumanian Peoples Republic”, and spy No. 1 of the
Kremlin in Rumania up to the month of June 1952. Since then she has remained in
the shadows in Bucharest up to the present day, naturally in freedom. This
Jewish hyena, who was originally called Anna Rabinsohn, is the daughter of a
rabbi, who came to Rumania from Poland. She was born in the province of Moldau
(Rumania) in the year 1892.2. Ilka Wassermann, former private secretary of Anna Pauker, at present the real directress of the ministry for foreign affairs.
3. Josef Kisinevski, the present agent No. 1 of the Kremlin in Rumania, member of the central Committee of the Communist party and vice-president of the council of ministers. He is a Jew and comes from Bessarabia; his correct name is Jakob Broitman. Also he is the real chief of the Communist party of Rumania, although “officially” the general secretary of the party is the Rumanian locksmith Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dez, who, however, only plays the simple role of a political front. Kisinevski took his present pseudonym from the name of the city of Kisinau in Bessarabia, where before the arrival of the Red Army he owned a tailor’s workshop.
4. Teohari Georgescu, minister for internal affairs in the Communist government of Bucharest between 1945 and 1952; at the present time he has been reduced to a second-rank post, although he was “officially” “expelled” from the Communist party. He finds himself in the same position as Anna Pauker. His real name is Baruch Tescovich. He is a Jew from the Rumanian Danube harbour of Galatz.
5. Avram Bunaciu, likewise a Jew, is the present (1955) general secretary of the Presidium of the great national assembly of the “Rumanian peoples republic”, i.e. the real leader of this assembly, for the “official” president Petru Groza is only an old Freemasonic marionette, who is married to a Jewess and plays only a purely static role. Avram Bunaciu is called in reality Abraham Gutman (Gutman translated into Rumanian is the corresponding name for “Bunaciu”, i.e. the pseudonym taken on by this Jew).
6. Lotar Radaceanu, another Minister of the Communist government of Bucharest “deposed” in the year 1952, but who in 1955 reappeared on the honorary tribune. He is a Jew from Siebenbürgen and is called Lothar Würtzel. Since the “Würtzel” in Rumanian translates “Radicinu”, this Jew has simply transferred his Hebraic name into Rumanian and is now called “Radaceanu”.
7. Miron Constantinescu, member of the central Committee of the Communist party and minister for mining and petroleum. Now and then he changes his ministerial posts. He is a Jew from Galatzi (Rumania), who in truth is called Mehr Kohn, and as is customary among them, uses a Rumanian pseudonym.
8. Lieutenant General Moises Haupt, commander of the military district of Bucharest; Jew.
9. Colonel General Zamfir, Communist “security chief” in Rumania and responsible for thousands of murders, which this secret police has perpetrated. He is a Jew and comes from the Danube harbour of Braila. He is called Laurian Rechler.
10. Heim Gutman, chief of the civil secret service of the Rumanian Peoples republic; Jew.
11. Major-General William Suder, chief of the information service and of counter-espionage of the Rumanian Communist army. He is a Jew, by name Wilman Süder and former officer of the Soviet Army.
12. Colonel Roman, former director of the E.K.P. service (education, culture and propaganda) of the Rumanian army up to 1949, and at the present time Minister in the Communist government. His name as Jew is Walter.
13. Alexander Moghiorosh, minister for Nationalities in the Red government; Jew from Hungary.
14. Alexander Badau, chief of the Control Commission for foreigners in Rumania. He is a Jew who originates from the city of Targoviste whose real name is Braustein. Before 1940 his family in Targoviste possessed a large trading firm.
15. Major Lewin, chief of press censorship, Jew and former officer of the Red Army.
16. Colonel Holban, chief of the Communist “Security” of Bucharest, a Jew named Moscovich, former Syndicate (Union) chief.
17. George Silviu, general governmental secretary of the ministry for internal affairs; a Jew named Gersh Golinger.
18. Erwin Voiculescu, chief of the pass department in the ministry for foreign affairs. He is a Jew and is called Erwin Weinberg.
19. Gheorghe Apostol, chief of the general labour union of Rumania; he is a Jew named Gerschwin.
20. Stupineanu, chief of economic espionage; Jew by name Stappnau.
21. Emmerick Stoffel, Ambassador of the Rumanian Peoples Republic in Switzerland; a Jew from Hungary and specialist in bank questions.
22. Harry Fainaru, former legation chief of the Rumanian Communist embassy in Washington up to 1954 and at present official in the ministry for foreign affairs in Bucharest. He is a Jew named Hersch Feiner. Before the year 1940 his family possessed a grain business in Galatzi.
23. Ida Szillagy, the real directress of the Rumanian embassy in London; Jewess; friend of Anna Pauker.
24. Lazarescu, the “Chargé d’Affaires” of the Rumanian government in Paris. He is a Jew and is really called Baruch Lazarovich, the son of a Jewish trader from Bucharest.
25. Simon Oieru, State under-secretary of the Rumanian state; Jew with name of Schaffer.
26. Aurel Baranga, inspector general of arts. He is a Jew; Ariel Leibovich is his real name.
27. Liuba Kisinevski, president of the U.F.A.R. (Association of anti-Fascist Rumanian women); she is a Jewess from Cernautzi/ Bukowina, and is called in reality Liuba Broitman, wife of Josif Kisinevski of the central Committee of the party.
28. Lew Zeiger, director of the ministry for national economy; Jew.
29. Doctor Zeider, jurist of the ministry for foreign affairs; Jew.
30. Marcel Breslasu, director general of arts; a Jew by name Mark Breslau.
31. Silviu Brucan, chief editor of the newspaper “Scanteia”, official party organ. He is a Jew and is called Brükker. He directs the entire campaign of lies that attempts to deceive the Rumanian people concerning the true situation created by Communism. At the same time the Jew Brükker directs the fake “Antisemitic” campaign of the Communist press of Rumania.
32. Samoila, governing director of the newspaper ‘‘Scanteia”; he is a Jew; Samuel Rubenstein.
33. Horia Liman, second editor of the Communist newspaper “Scanteia”; Jew with the name of Lehman.
34. Engineer Schnapp, governing director of the Communist newspaper “Romania Libera” (Free Rumania), the second Communist newspaper on the basis of its circulation; likewise a Jew.
35. Jehan Mihai, chief of the Rumanian film industry, Communist propaganda by means of films; a Jew, whose name is Jakob Michael.
36. Alexander Graur, director general of the Rumanian radio corporation, which stands completely and solely in the service of the Communist party. He is a Jewish professor and is called Alter Biauer, born in Bucharest.
37. Mihail Roller, at present President of the Rumanian academy, is a sinister professor, a Jew, unknown before the arrival of the Soviets in Rumania. Today he is “President” of the Academy and in addition he has written a “new history” of the Rumanian people, in which he falsifies the historical truth.
38. Professor Weigel, one of the tyrants of the university of Bucharest, who directs the constant “purging actions” among Rumanian students who are hostile to the Jewish-Communist regime.
39. Professor Lewin Bercovich, another tyrant of the Bucharest university, who with his spies controls the activity of Rumanian professors and their social connections; an immigrant Jew from Russia.
40. Silviu Josifescu, the official “literary critic”, who censures the poems of the best poets like Eminescu Alecsandri, Vlahutza, Carlova, etc., who all died centuries ago or more than half a century ago, and alters form and content, because these poems are “not in harmony” with the Communist Marxist ideas. This literary murderer is a Jew, who in truth is called Samoson Iosifovich.
41. Joan Vinter, the second Marxist “literary critic” of the regime and author of a book with the title “The problem of literary legacy” is likewise a Jew and is called Jakob Winter.
The three former secretaries of the General Labour League up to 1950, Alexander Sencovich, Mischa Levin and Sam Asriel (Serban), were all Jews.
E - YUGOSLAVIA
1. Marshal Tito, who with his real Jewish
name is called Josif Walter Weiss, originates from Poland. He was an agent of the Soviet secret service in Kabul, Teheran and Ankara up to 1935. The true Brozovich Tito, in origin a
Croat, died during the Spanis civil war in Barcelona.2. Moses Pijade, general secretary of the Communist party and in reality the “grey eminence” of the regime, is a Jew of Spanish origin (Sefardit).
3. Kardelj, member of the Central Committee of the Yugoslav Communist party and minister for foreign affairs; is a Jew of Hungarian origin and is called in reality Kardayl.
4. Rankovic, member of the Central Committee of the Yugoslav Communist party and minister for internal affairs, is an Austrian Jew and was earlier called Rankau.
5. Alexander Bebler, member of the Central Committee of the Communist party and permanent representative of Yugoslavia in the UNO, is an Austrian Jew.
6. Ioza Vilfan (Joseph Wilfan), economic advisor of Tito, in reality the economic dictator of Yugoslavia, is a Jew from Sarajevo.
Since not so many Jews live in Yugoslavia as in other lands, we find a greater number of natives in the Communist government of this land, always however in posts of the second rank; for the abovementioned principal leaders in reality control the Yugoslav government completely and absolutely.17
CHAPTER FOUR
THE FINANCIERS OF COMMUNISM
International Jewry strives in its entirety towards Communistic socialism in accordance with the doctrine of Marx, which has at present been realised by it in the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and all its satellites. The direct goal of Communism is the striving for world domination and complete power over all peoples of the earth. This standpoint it has always manifested and from the beginning onwards striven for this goal. This Communist aim is understood with absolute unanimity by all Jews as their own goal, although many non-Jewish persons, who are lacking in knowledge and who are intentionally deceived, think that the great number of Jewish multi-millionaires which there are in the world and who even control world finance, must necessarily oppose this current, which attempts to snatch their wealth away from them.
At first sight there is nothing more self-evident than to see in a rich financier, a well-to-do trader or an important industrialist, the natural and keenest enemy of Communism. But if the industrialists, traders or financiers are Jews, there is not the slightest doubt that they are also Communists; for the Communistic Socialism of Marx has been created and carried out by them, and in fact not in order to lose their goods and chattels which they possess, but to steal everything which does not belong to them and to hoard together in their own hands the entire wealth of the world, which according to their assertion is unlawfully withheld from them by all who do not belong to the Jewish race.
The well-known Jewish (?) writer Werner Sombart says: “The fundamental characteristic feature of the Jewish religion consists in the fact that it is a religion which has nothing to do with the other world, but, as one might say, is solely materialistic. Man can experience good or evil only in this world; if God wishes to punish or reward, then he can do this only in the lifetime of man. Therefore the just man ( righteous) must attain well-being here on earth and the Godless suffer.”18
“It is useless to dwell upon the difference which derives from this contrast of two outlooks, relating to the attitude of the devout Jew and of the devout Christian, with regard to the acquisition of wealth. The devout Christian who has got into debt with the usurer, was tortured on his deathbed by pangs of regret (repentance) and was ready to abandon everything which he possessed; for the knowledge of the unjustly acquired goods consumed him. On the other hand the devout Jew, when the end of his life approached, regarded with contentment the trunks and cases filled to bursting-point, in which the profits were accumulated, which during his long life he had taken off the wretched Christians and also the poor Musulmans. It was a spectacle on which his devout heart could feast, for every roll of money which lay locked up there, he saw as a sacrifice brought to his God.”19
Simultaneously, Jewish money (which at present represents the greatest part of the money in the world ) is the most powerful tool of all, which in vast extent has made possible the financing of revolutionary movements without the help of which the latter would never have been able to triumph and be able in such manner to destroy Christian civilisation in all its appearances; be it whether the individual is materialistically influenced by it being taught that money is to be preferred to other-worldly values, or be it through the direct methods, which they know how to use so energetically, like bribery and embezzlement in public offices and taxation swindling as well as the general buying of consciences.
The Jewish idea of accumulating all the money in the world through Communism appears in all transparency with many famous Jewish writers like Edmond Fleg, Barbusse, Andre Spire and others; in particular most expressly in the well-known letter that the famous new Messianer Baruch Levy sent to Karl Marx, which was discovered in the year 1888 and published for the first time in the same year. The text is as follows:
“The Jewish people as a whole is its own Messiah. Its kingdom over the universe is obtained through the uniting of the other human races, through the suppression of frontiers and of monarchies, which are bulwarks for particularism and hinder the erection of a world republic where citizenship is everywhere recognised to the Jew. In this new organisation of mankind, the sons of Israel, who at present are scattered over the entire earth surface, will all be of the same race and of the same traditional culture, without, however, forming another nationality, and will be without contradiction the leading element in all parts, particularly if it is successful in laying upon the masses of workers a permanent leadership by some Jews. The governments of peoples all pass with the formation of the universal republic effortlessly into the hands of the Israelites in favour of the victory of the proletariat. Then the personal property of the rulers will be able to be suppressed by the rulers of the Jewish race who will everywhere govern over the property of the Peoples. Then the promise of the Talmud will be fulfilled, that when the time of the Messiah has come, the Jews will have the goods of all peoples of the world in their possession.”20
If one follows these tactics of economic accumulation, then it is completely natural that we see how the richest financiers and the most important bankers of the world finance the Communist revolutions; it is also not difficult, bearing in mind the data mentioned, to explain a situation, which superficially studied appears senseless and absurd, namely that one always sees the richest Jews of the world united with the Israelite leaders of the Communist movements. If the explanations of the most well-known Jews suffice to show us this close connection with clarity, then the evident facts are still all the clearer, so that they wipe away even the slightest trace of doubt.
After the French defeat of 1870 and the fall of the Emperor Napoleon III, the Marxists, led by Karl Marx from London, formed the Commune from the 18th March 1871 onwards. During this period of more than two months, in Paris the National Guard, which had been transformed into an armed organisation, was through and through dependent on the Marxist International.
When the Commune could not resist the attack of the troops of the government, with its seat at Versailles, and the Communists saw their defeat as unavoidable, they devoted themselves to robbery, murder and incendiarism, in order to destroy the capital, in accordance with the plan already proposed by Clauserets in the year 1869:
“Ourselves or nothing! I promise you, Paris will belong to us or cease to exist.”
Upon this occasion was clearly revealed the joint guilt of the French Jewish bankers together with the Communists, when it is established how Salluste in his book “Les origines sécrètes du bolchevisme” alludes to the fact that Rothschild exercised pressure on one side in Versailles with Thiers, the President of the republic, in order to prevent a decisive fight against the Marxist Communists, by his talking of a possible understanding and agreements with the central committee of the Federals (Marxists), and on the other side enjoyed a total protection of his person as also of his property in the city of Paris, which was thrown into a horrible and bloody chaos.
In this respect Salluste tells us in his afore-mentioned work, page 137:
“It is certain that M. Rothschild had good reasons to hold a conciliation possible: his villa in the Rue Saint-Florentin was protected day and night by a guard troop of the Federals (Marxists), who had the task of preventing any plundering. This protective troop was maintained for two months, up to the moment when the great barricade, which was only a few paces away, was taken by the Versailles troops.
“While hostages were shot, the most beautiful palaces of Paris went up in flames and thousands of Frenchmen died as victims of the civil war, it is worth mentioning that the protection granted by the Communists to the great Jewish banker did not cease for a moment.”
In the year 1916, the Lieutenant-General of the Imperial Russian Army, A. Nechvolodof, described secret information which had been received from one of his agents, which on the 15th February of the same year reached the supreme command of the Russian General Staff and read as follows:
“The first secret assembly, which reveals the beginning of the acts of violence, took place on Monday, the 14th February, in the East Side of New York. Of the 62 representatives gathered, 50 were veterans of the revolution of 1905, and the others new members. The greater part of those present were Jews and among them many educated people, as for example, doctors, writers, etc... Some professional revolutionaries were also found amongst them...
“The first hours of this assembly were almost exclusively devoted to testing the methods and the possibilities of carrying out a great revolution in Russia. It was one of the most favourable moments for this.
“It was stated that the party had just received information from Russia, according to which the situation was completely and absolutely favourable; for all previously agreed conditions for a favourable rising were present. The one serious hindrance was the question of money; but scarcely was this remark made, when several members at once answered that this circumstance should cause no reflection, for, at the moment when it was necessary, substantial sums would be given by persons who sympathised with the movement for freedom. In this connection the name of Jakob Schiff was repeatedly mentioned.”21
At the beginning of the year 1919, the secret service of the United States of America provided high officials of the French republic who visited America with a memorandum, in which the participation of the most principal bankers in the preparation of the Russian Communist revolution was categorically revealed:
7-618-6
|
Provided by the General Staff of
the 20th Army.
|
|
No.
912-S-R.2.
|
copy
|
1. Jakob Schiff; Jew.
2. Kuhn, Loeb & Co; Jewish firm.
Directors:
Jakob Schiff; Jew.
Felix Warburg; Jew.
Otto Kahn; Jew.
Mortimer Schiff; Jew.
Hieronymus H. Hanauer; Jew.
3. Guggenheim; Jew.
4. Max Breitung; Jew.
At the beginning of the year 1917, Jakob Schiff began to protect the Jew and Freemason Trotsky, whose real name is Bronstein; the mission given to him consisted in the directing of the social revolution in Russia. The New York paper “Forward”, a Jewish-Bolshevist daily paper, likewise protected him for the same purpose. Also he was aided financially by the Jewish firm of Max Warburg, Stockholm, the Rheinisch-Westfalische Syndicate, the Jew Olaf Aschberg of the Nye Banks, Stockholm, and the Jew Jovotovsky, whose daughter Trotsky married. In this manner relations were established between the Jewish multi-millionaires and the proletarian Jew.
“The Jewish firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. has links with the Rheinisch-Westphalian Syndicate, a Jewish firm in Germany; just as it has links with Lazard-Freres, a Jewish house in Paris, and also with the Jewish firm of Gunzbourg of Paris, and with the same Jewish firm of Gunzbourg of Petrograd, Tokyo and Paris; if we observe in addition that all affairs are likewise handled with the Jewish firms of Speyer & Co., London, New York and Frankfurt/Main, exactly as with the firms of Nye-Banks, who are the agents for Jewish-Bolshevist business affairs in Stockholm, then we can draw the inference from this that the banking firm has relations with all Bolshevist movements; one can see that in praxis it represents the true expression of a general Jewish movement, and that certain Jewish banking houses are interested in the organisation of these movements.”22
In the pamphlet of S. de Baamonde we again find something new about the banking house of Kuhn & Co. Jakob Schiff was an Israelite of German origin. His father, who lived in Frankfurt, was in that city a modest local agent of the firm of Rothschild. The son emigrated to the United States. There he rapidly made a career which soon made him chief of the large firm of Kuhn, Loch & Co., the most important Israelite bank of America.
“In the Jewish banking world Jakob Schiff not only distinguished himself through his knowledge of business and the dare-devilry of his inventive power, but he also occasioned very resolute plans and intentions, even if neither new nor original, concerning the leading political activity that each banking System should exert over the fates of the world: ‘The spiritual direction of human affairs.’ ”
Another of the constant concerns of this plutocrat was mixing at all cost in the political affairs of Russia, in order to bring about a change of regime in that land. The political conquest of Russia, which up to then had evaded the influence of Freemasonry thanks to its regime of reason, should be the best circle of effect to secure the power of Israel over the entire universe.23
In the spring of 1917, Jakob Schiff began to instruct Trotsky, a Jew, how he should carry out the social revolution in Russia. The Jewish-Bolshevistic newspaper of New York, “Forward”, also concerned itself with the same theme:
“From Stockholm as centre, the Jew Max Warburg authorized Trotsky & Co., as did Rheinisch-Westphalian Syndicate, an important Jewish Company, as well as Olaf Aschberg of the Nye Bank of Stockholm, and Yivotousky, a Jew, whose daughter married Trotsky.”24
“At the same time a Jew, Paul Warburg, was found to have such a close connection with the Bolshevists that he was not selected again to the ‘Federal Reserve Board’.”25
The “Times” of London of 9th February 1918 and the “New York Times” alluded in two articles by Samuel Gompers, which were published in the issues of 10th May 1922 and 31st December 1923, to the following:
“If we bear in mind that the Jewish firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. is connected with the Rheinisch-Westphalian Syndicate, a Jewish firm in Germany, with Lazard Freres, a Jewish firm of Paris, and also with the banking house of Gunzbourg, a Jewish firm in Petrograd, Tokyo and Paris, and if we in addition point out that the aforementioned Jewish trading firms maintain close relations to the Jewish firm of Speyer & Co. in London, New York and Frankfurt/Main, as likewise with Nye Banks, a Jewish-Bolshevist firm in Stockholm, then we can establish that the Bolshevist movement in itself is to a certain degree the expression of a universal Jewish movement, and that certain Jewish banking houses are interested in the organisation of this movement.”26
General Nechvolodof alludes in his work “L’Empereur Nicholas II et Les Juifs” (1924) to the strong Jewish financing of the Communist revolution in Russia:
“During the years which preceded the revolution, Jakob Schiff had supplied the Russian revolutionaries with twelve million dollars. On their side the triumphant Bolshevists, according to M. Bakmetieff, the ambassador of the Russian Imperial government in the United States, who died some time ago in Paris, transferred six hundred million gold roubles between 1918 and 1922 to the firm of Loeb & Co.”
GO TO PAGE # 38
The Sea
A sea is defined as "a division of an ocean, or a large body of salt water, partially enclosed by land." That definition is well-suited to the salt-water Mediterranean Sea, but not as well for one of the most well-known "seas" in the world, the fresh-water Sea Of Galilee which is actually a lake (defined as a "body of fresh water surrounded by land"). The Sea of Galilee, from which The Jordan River flows southward, is however also correctly known in The Bible as a lake i.e. "While the people pressed upon Him to hear the word of God, He was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret. And He saw two boats by the lake; but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets." (Luke 5:1-2 RSV) Literal and Symbolic Seas
"Sea" is widely used in the Bible in a literal sense:
"And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas." (Genesis 1:9-10 RSV) (see The Seven Days Of Creation and Seven Days of Creation?) "The Lord said to Moses, "Why do you cry to me? Tell the people of Israel to go forward. Lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that the people of Israel may go on dry ground through the sea" (Exodus 14:15-16 RSV) (see Where Did They Cross The Sea?)"Sea," or "waters," is also sometimes used symbolically in Prophecy, primarily to represent a great multitude of people (i.e. Revelation 17:1,15):
"Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you are increased and possess the land. And I will set your bounds from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines [i.e. the Mediterranean Sea, the Philistine territory consisted in ancient times, just as it still should today, primarily of Gaza - see Palestine), and from the wilderness to the Euphrates; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you." (Exodus 23:30-31 RSV)
"Command the people of Israel, and say to them, When you enter The Land Of Canaan, this is the land that shall fall to you for an inheritance, the land of Canaan in its full extent, your south side shall be from the wilderness of Zin along the side of Edom, and your southern boundary shall be from the end of The Salt Sea [i.e. the Dead Sea] on the east" (Numbers 34:2-3 RSV)
"Daniel said, "I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. And Four Great Beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another." "The first was like a lion and had eagles' wings. Then as I looked its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand upon two feet like a man; and the mind of a man was given to it."Fact Finder: Does God's Throne have a crystal-clear "sea of glass" before it?
"And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear. It was raised up on one side; it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth; and it was told, 'Arise, devour much flesh.'"
"After this I looked, and lo, another, like a leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back; and the beast had four heads; and dominion was given to it."
"After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns."
"I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots; and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things."
"As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took His seat; His raiment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like pure wool; His throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came forth from before Him; a thousand thousands served Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened." (Daniel 7:2-10 RSV)
Revelation 4:6
http://www.keyway.ca
FROM PAGE # 22
COMMUNISM AS DESTROYER
According to these convincing proofs I do not believe that it occurs to anyone to arrive at the optimistic conclusion that there exist wicked Jews (the Communists) and good Jews (the Capitalists); further, that, while the ones strive to cut off the wealth of private persons and to cause private property to vanish, the others strive for the defence of both things, so as not to lose their enormous riches. To the misfortune of our civilisation the Jewish conspiracy shows features of unconditional unity. Judaism forms a monolithic power, which is directed at forcing together all riches of the world without exception, by means of Communist Socialism according to Marx.
At the present time one sees in our civilised world the admission of racial discrimination as the greatest sin into which man could fall. It is alleged to be a fault that leaves behind an eternal and ugly world of barbarity and animal nature, always presupposing that the Jewish people does not in practice commit this fault. Thanks to Jewish propaganda, which is controlled almost exclusively in the world by the Israelites (cinema, radio, press, television, publishing, etc.), anti-Semitism is the most disgraceful of all racial manifestations; for the Jews have made out of anti-Semitism a truly destructive weapon, which serves to nullify the efforts of countless persons and organisations who have clearly recognised who the real head of Communism is, in spite of the camouflage and cunning that this race uses to conceal its true activity. Particularly such persons and organisations that have tried to sound the alarm, since they were filled with horror at the fatal end which draws nearer and nearer.
This network of lies is so successful that the majority of anti-Communists who wish to make an end of the Marxist monster, direct their energetic and courageous attacks against the tentacles of the octopus and know nothing of the existence of the terrible head which renews the destroyed limbs, conducts its movements and brings the activities in all parts of its system into harmony. The sole possibility or destroying the Communist Socialism of Marx consists in attacking the head of the same, which at present is Jewry as the undeniable facts and irrefutable evidence of the Jews themselves allow to be discerned.
While the Christian lands are anti-racialist, because they build up their ideas on the concept of loving one’s neighbour, the Jews were and are at present the most fanatical representatives of racial discrimination, which they base on ideas from the Talmud, because they proceed from the principle that the non-Jew is not even a human being.
However, this Christian opposition to racial discrimination is very skilfully utilised by the Jews; and in the shadow of the same they weld their devilish intrigues against the Catholic Church and all Christian order, by their forming the Communist system, where there is neither God nor church nor supersensual norms of any kind. As soon as they are attacked, they protest with crying lamentation and show themselves as victims of inhuman racial discrimination, only for the purpose of crippling that work of defence which opposes their destructive attacks.
In spite of this, one can regard the real defence against Communism, which must be forcefully directed against the Jews (against the head), in no manner as a sinful manifestation of a feeling of revulsion towards a definite race; for the characteristic of racial discrimination is completely alien to our culture and our Christian principles; however, one cannot avoid a problem of such weight and range out of fear of being described as an “Antisemite”, which doubtless occurs with those who do not understand the present situation of the world.
Thus it is not a question of combating a race out of considerations of racial order. If one at present brings the problem under close inspection, the Jews alone must bear the responsibility of leaving us no other choice because of their racial discrimination in life and death, with their absolute disregard of all who are not of their race and with their greed for world domination.
For Catholics in particular, and for the civilised world in general, who still firmly believe in their established principles and other-worldly values, the confirmation cannot be simpler; for it is a problem of self-defence, which is accepted completely in the moral and just order, if the pure dilemma, which Judaism shows us, is the following: “Either Jewish-Communist domination or extermination.”
CHAPTER FIVE
JEWISH TESTIMONY
In spite of their accustomed seclusion, and even in spite of their deceptive and clandestine manoeuvres, by which they have been successful in remaining concealed, so as not to reveal their Communist plan for world conquest, the Jews have had several weak moments, to which they have been induced either through optimism or excessive jubilation in the studying of their successes and which upon different occasions have called forth impetuous but highly factual declarations. Kadmi-Cohen, a highly regarded Jewish writer, affirms that:
“As far as the Jews are concerned, then, their role in world socialism is so important that one cannot pass quietly over it. Does it not suffice to recall the names of the great Jewish revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries, such as Karl Marx, Lasalle, Kurt Eisner, Bela Kun, Trotsky and Leon Blum, so that in this manner it is clear who are the theoreticians of modern Socialism?”27
“What a brilliant confirmation do the strivings of the Jews find in Communism, apart from the material cooperation in party organisations, in the deep revulsion which a great Jew and great poet, Heinrich Heine, felt against Roman law! And the personal and passionate motives for the anger of Rabbi Aquila and Bar Kocheba of the years 70 and 132 after Jesus Christ, against the Roman peace and the Roman law which was understood personally and passionately and felt by a Jew of the 19th century, who had apparently preserved no bond with his own race.”
“The Jewish revolutionaries and Jewish Communists, who dispute the basic principle of private property whose firmly established foundation is the civil law book of Justinian, of Ulpian, etc., only imitate their forefathers who opposed Vespasian and Titus. In reality it is the ‘dead who speak’.”28
The blasphemous Jewish writer Alfred Nossig tells us:
“Socialism and the Mosaic law in no way oppose one another, but there exists on the contrary a surprising similarity between the basic ideas of both teachings. Jewish nationalism may not remove itself, as a danger that threatens the ideal, further from Socialism than the Jew from the Mosaic Law; for both parallel-running ideals must arrive in the same way at execution.”29
“From the examination of the facts of the case it is revealed in a completely irrefutable manner that the modern Jews have cooperated in a decisive way and manner in the creation of Socialism; their own fathers were already the founders of the Mosaic Law. The seed of the Mosaic Law took effect over the centuries upon doctrine and command, in conscious manner for the one and unconsciously for the other. The modern Socialist movement is for the great majority a work of the Jews; the Jews gave it the stamp of their understanding; it was also Jews who had a striking share in the leadership of the first Socialist republics. In spite of this, the enormous majority of Jewish Socialist leaders were divorced from the Mosaic Law; for in an unconscious manner there took effect within them the racial principle of the Mosaic Law, and the race of the old apostolic peoples lived in their brain and in their social character. Present world socialism forms the first State in fulfilment of the Mosaic Law, the beginning of the realisation of the future World State, which was announced by the prophets.”30
In his book “Integral Jews” he confirms this idea of Socialism as Jewish teaching, when he writes the following:
“If the peoples really wish to make progress, they must lay aside the Mediaeval fear of the Jews and the retrogressive prejudices which they have against the latter. They must recognise what they really are, namely the most upright forerunners of human development. At the present day the salvation of Jewry demands that we openly recognise the programme facing the world; and the salvation of mankind in the coming centuries depends upon the victory of this programme.”31
The reason for this Jewish revolutionary conduct is clearly explained by the well-known Jewish writer E. Eberlin in the following excerpt:
“The more radical the revolution is, all the more freedom and equality for the Jews comes about as a result. Every current of progress strengthens further the position of the Jews. In the same manner, every setback and every reaction attacks it in first place. Often, only a simple orientation towards the Right will expose the Jews to boycott. From this aspect the Jew is the pressure-valve for the social (steam) boiler. As a body the Jewish people cannot stand on the side of reaction; for reaction is the return to the past and means for the Jews the continuation of their abnormal conditions of existence.”32
The ill-reputed Jew, Jakob von Haas, says to us in “The Maccabean” quite clearly that “the Russian revolution that we experienced is a revolution of Jewry. It signifies a change in the history of the Jewish people. If we speak openly, it was a Jewish revolution; for the Jews were the most energetic revolutionaries in Russia.”
In the Jewish-French newspaper entitled “Le Peuple Juif” of February 1919, one can read the following: “The Russian Revolution, which we see at present, will be the exclusive work of our hands.”
One finds the following passage in a book by the famous Jewish writer Samuel Schwartz with a foreword by Ricardo Jorge: “When we ascend from the heights of pure science to the place of battle, which the passions and the interests of men clash against each other, there rises before us the oracle of the new social-political religion, the Jew Karl Marx, the dogmatic leader of war for life and death. He finds in the head and in the arm of Lenin the realisation of his confession of belief and sees in him the forefighter for the Soviet State that threatens to overthrow the firm foundations of the traditional institutions of society.”33
In the same way another Jew, Hans Cohen, confirms in the “Political Idea” that “the Socialism of Marx is the purpose of our striving and efforts.”
In Number 12 of the newspaper “The Communist” which was published in Kharkov on the 12th April 1919, the Jew M. Cohen writes:
“Without exaggeration one can make the assurance that the great social revolution in Russia was carried out by the Jews. It is true that in the ranks of the Red Army there are soldiers who are not Jews. But in the committees and in the Society organisations, just as with the Commissars, the Jews lead the masses of the Russian proletariat to victory with courage.”
“At the head of the Russian revolutionaries marched the pupils of the Rabbinic school of Lidia.” Jewry triumphed over fire and sword, with our brother Marx, who had the mandate for the fulfilment of all that our prophets have commanded, and who worked out the suitable plan for the demands of the proletariat.” All these sentences appeared in the Jewish newspaper “Haijut”of Warsaw of 3rd August 1928.
“The Jewish World”, of 10th January 1929, expressed this blaspheming view: “Bolshevism, the very fact of its existence, and that so many Jews are Bolsheviks, further – that the ideal of Bolshevism is in harmony with the most sublime ideal of Jewry, which in part formed the foundation for the best teachings of the founder of Christianity, all this has a deep significance, which the thoughtful Jew carefully examines.”
In order not to range too widely at this point, we quote in conclusion the allusions which the Israelite Paul Sokolowsky makes in his work, entitled “The Mission of Europe”, where he boasts of the predominant role which the Jews played in the Russian Revolution and reveals details concerning the secret codes which they used to reach understanding with each other, even by means of the press, without the attention of the authorities being drawn to themselves, and how they distributed the Communist propaganda that they prepared through the Jewish children, whom they carefully schooled for these services in their settlements.34
The hellish, Jewish-Communist hate, which is chiefly revealed against Christian civilisation, is not unfounded, but it has its very deep causes, which can be judged with full clarity in this following excerpt from the “Sepher-Ha-Zohar”, the holy book of modern Jewry, which represents the feelings of all Jews:
“Jesu (Jesus), the Nazarene, who has brought the world away from belief in Jehovah, who be praised, will each Friday be again restored. At daybreak of Saturday he will be thrown into boiling oil. Hell will pass, but his punishment and his tortures will never end. Jesus and Mohammed are those unclean bones of offal of which the Scripture says: ‘Ye shall cast before the dogs. They are the dirt of the dog, the unclean, and because they have misled men, they are cast into Hell, from which they never again come out.’ ”35
FROM PAGE # 22
COMMUNISM AS DESTROYER
According to these convincing proofs I do not believe that it occurs to anyone to arrive at the optimistic conclusion that there exist wicked Jews (the Communists) and good Jews (the Capitalists); further, that, while the ones strive to cut off the wealth of private persons and to cause private property to vanish, the others strive for the defence of both things, so as not to lose their enormous riches. To the misfortune of our civilisation the Jewish conspiracy shows features of unconditional unity. Judaism forms a monolithic power, which is directed at forcing together all riches of the world without exception, by means of Communist Socialism according to Marx.
At the present time one sees in our civilised world the admission of racial discrimination as the greatest sin into which man could fall. It is alleged to be a fault that leaves behind an eternal and ugly world of barbarity and animal nature, always presupposing that the Jewish people does not in practice commit this fault. Thanks to Jewish propaganda, which is controlled almost exclusively in the world by the Israelites (cinema, radio, press, television, publishing, etc.), anti-Semitism is the most disgraceful of all racial manifestations; for the Jews have made out of anti-Semitism a truly destructive weapon, which serves to nullify the efforts of countless persons and organisations who have clearly recognised who the real head of Communism is, in spite of the camouflage and cunning that this race uses to conceal its true activity. Particularly such persons and organisations that have tried to sound the alarm, since they were filled with horror at the fatal end which draws nearer and nearer.
This network of lies is so successful that the majority of anti-Communists who wish to make an end of the Marxist monster, direct their energetic and courageous attacks against the tentacles of the octopus and know nothing of the existence of the terrible head which renews the destroyed limbs, conducts its movements and brings the activities in all parts of its system into harmony. The sole possibility or destroying the Communist Socialism of Marx consists in attacking the head of the same, which at present is Jewry as the undeniable facts and irrefutable evidence of the Jews themselves allow to be discerned.
While the Christian lands are anti-racialist, because they build up their ideas on the concept of loving one’s neighbour, the Jews were and are at present the most fanatical representatives of racial discrimination, which they base on ideas from the Talmud, because they proceed from the principle that the non-Jew is not even a human being.
However, this Christian opposition to racial discrimination is very skilfully utilised by the Jews; and in the shadow of the same they weld their devilish intrigues against the Catholic Church and all Christian order, by their forming the Communist system, where there is neither God nor church nor supersensual norms of any kind. As soon as they are attacked, they protest with crying lamentation and show themselves as victims of inhuman racial discrimination, only for the purpose of crippling that work of defence which opposes their destructive attacks.
In spite of this, one can regard the real defence against Communism, which must be forcefully directed against the Jews (against the head), in no manner as a sinful manifestation of a feeling of revulsion towards a definite race; for the characteristic of racial discrimination is completely alien to our culture and our Christian principles; however, one cannot avoid a problem of such weight and range out of fear of being described as an “Antisemite”, which doubtless occurs with those who do not understand the present situation of the world.
Thus it is not a question of combating a race out of considerations of racial order. If one at present brings the problem under close inspection, the Jews alone must bear the responsibility of leaving us no other choice because of their racial discrimination in life and death, with their absolute disregard of all who are not of their race and with their greed for world domination.
For Catholics in particular, and for the civilised world in general, who still firmly believe in their established principles and other-worldly values, the confirmation cannot be simpler; for it is a problem of self-defence, which is accepted completely in the moral and just order, if the pure dilemma, which Judaism shows us, is the following: “Either Jewish-Communist domination or extermination.”
CHAPTER FIVE
JEWISH TESTIMONY
In spite of their accustomed seclusion, and even in spite of their deceptive and clandestine manoeuvres, by which they have been successful in remaining concealed, so as not to reveal their Communist plan for world conquest, the Jews have had several weak moments, to which they have been induced either through optimism or excessive jubilation in the studying of their successes and which upon different occasions have called forth impetuous but highly factual declarations. Kadmi-Cohen, a highly regarded Jewish writer, affirms that:
“As far as the Jews are concerned, then, their role in world socialism is so important that one cannot pass quietly over it. Does it not suffice to recall the names of the great Jewish revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries, such as Karl Marx, Lasalle, Kurt Eisner, Bela Kun, Trotsky and Leon Blum, so that in this manner it is clear who are the theoreticians of modern Socialism?”27
“What a brilliant confirmation do the strivings of the Jews find in Communism, apart from the material cooperation in party organisations, in the deep revulsion which a great Jew and great poet, Heinrich Heine, felt against Roman law! And the personal and passionate motives for the anger of Rabbi Aquila and Bar Kocheba of the years 70 and 132 after Jesus Christ, against the Roman peace and the Roman law which was understood personally and passionately and felt by a Jew of the 19th century, who had apparently preserved no bond with his own race.”
“The Jewish revolutionaries and Jewish Communists, who dispute the basic principle of private property whose firmly established foundation is the civil law book of Justinian, of Ulpian, etc., only imitate their forefathers who opposed Vespasian and Titus. In reality it is the ‘dead who speak’.”28
The blasphemous Jewish writer Alfred Nossig tells us:
“Socialism and the Mosaic law in no way oppose one another, but there exists on the contrary a surprising similarity between the basic ideas of both teachings. Jewish nationalism may not remove itself, as a danger that threatens the ideal, further from Socialism than the Jew from the Mosaic Law; for both parallel-running ideals must arrive in the same way at execution.”29
“From the examination of the facts of the case it is revealed in a completely irrefutable manner that the modern Jews have cooperated in a decisive way and manner in the creation of Socialism; their own fathers were already the founders of the Mosaic Law. The seed of the Mosaic Law took effect over the centuries upon doctrine and command, in conscious manner for the one and unconsciously for the other. The modern Socialist movement is for the great majority a work of the Jews; the Jews gave it the stamp of their understanding; it was also Jews who had a striking share in the leadership of the first Socialist republics. In spite of this, the enormous majority of Jewish Socialist leaders were divorced from the Mosaic Law; for in an unconscious manner there took effect within them the racial principle of the Mosaic Law, and the race of the old apostolic peoples lived in their brain and in their social character. Present world socialism forms the first State in fulfilment of the Mosaic Law, the beginning of the realisation of the future World State, which was announced by the prophets.”30
In his book “Integral Jews” he confirms this idea of Socialism as Jewish teaching, when he writes the following:
“If the peoples really wish to make progress, they must lay aside the Mediaeval fear of the Jews and the retrogressive prejudices which they have against the latter. They must recognise what they really are, namely the most upright forerunners of human development. At the present day the salvation of Jewry demands that we openly recognise the programme facing the world; and the salvation of mankind in the coming centuries depends upon the victory of this programme.”31
The reason for this Jewish revolutionary conduct is clearly explained by the well-known Jewish writer E. Eberlin in the following excerpt:
“The more radical the revolution is, all the more freedom and equality for the Jews comes about as a result. Every current of progress strengthens further the position of the Jews. In the same manner, every setback and every reaction attacks it in first place. Often, only a simple orientation towards the Right will expose the Jews to boycott. From this aspect the Jew is the pressure-valve for the social (steam) boiler. As a body the Jewish people cannot stand on the side of reaction; for reaction is the return to the past and means for the Jews the continuation of their abnormal conditions of existence.”32
The ill-reputed Jew, Jakob von Haas, says to us in “The Maccabean” quite clearly that “the Russian revolution that we experienced is a revolution of Jewry. It signifies a change in the history of the Jewish people. If we speak openly, it was a Jewish revolution; for the Jews were the most energetic revolutionaries in Russia.”
In the Jewish-French newspaper entitled “Le Peuple Juif” of February 1919, one can read the following: “The Russian Revolution, which we see at present, will be the exclusive work of our hands.”
One finds the following passage in a book by the famous Jewish writer Samuel Schwartz with a foreword by Ricardo Jorge: “When we ascend from the heights of pure science to the place of battle, which the passions and the interests of men clash against each other, there rises before us the oracle of the new social-political religion, the Jew Karl Marx, the dogmatic leader of war for life and death. He finds in the head and in the arm of Lenin the realisation of his confession of belief and sees in him the forefighter for the Soviet State that threatens to overthrow the firm foundations of the traditional institutions of society.”33
In the same way another Jew, Hans Cohen, confirms in the “Political Idea” that “the Socialism of Marx is the purpose of our striving and efforts.”
In Number 12 of the newspaper “The Communist” which was published in Kharkov on the 12th April 1919, the Jew M. Cohen writes:
“Without exaggeration one can make the assurance that the great social revolution in Russia was carried out by the Jews. It is true that in the ranks of the Red Army there are soldiers who are not Jews. But in the committees and in the Society organisations, just as with the Commissars, the Jews lead the masses of the Russian proletariat to victory with courage.”
“At the head of the Russian revolutionaries marched the pupils of the Rabbinic school of Lidia.” Jewry triumphed over fire and sword, with our brother Marx, who had the mandate for the fulfilment of all that our prophets have commanded, and who worked out the suitable plan for the demands of the proletariat.” All these sentences appeared in the Jewish newspaper “Haijut”of Warsaw of 3rd August 1928.
“The Jewish World”, of 10th January 1929, expressed this blaspheming view: “Bolshevism, the very fact of its existence, and that so many Jews are Bolsheviks, further – that the ideal of Bolshevism is in harmony with the most sublime ideal of Jewry, which in part formed the foundation for the best teachings of the founder of Christianity, all this has a deep significance, which the thoughtful Jew carefully examines.”
In order not to range too widely at this point, we quote in conclusion the allusions which the Israelite Paul Sokolowsky makes in his work, entitled “The Mission of Europe”, where he boasts of the predominant role which the Jews played in the Russian Revolution and reveals details concerning the secret codes which they used to reach understanding with each other, even by means of the press, without the attention of the authorities being drawn to themselves, and how they distributed the Communist propaganda that they prepared through the Jewish children, whom they carefully schooled for these services in their settlements.34
The hellish, Jewish-Communist hate, which is chiefly revealed against Christian civilisation, is not unfounded, but it has its very deep causes, which can be judged with full clarity in this following excerpt from the “Sepher-Ha-Zohar”, the holy book of modern Jewry, which represents the feelings of all Jews:
“Jesu (Jesus), the Nazarene, who has brought the world away from belief in Jehovah, who be praised, will each Friday be again restored. At daybreak of Saturday he will be thrown into boiling oil. Hell will pass, but his punishment and his tortures will never end. Jesus and Mohammed are those unclean bones of offal of which the Scripture says: ‘Ye shall cast before the dogs. They are the dirt of the dog, the unclean, and because they have misled men, they are cast into Hell, from which they never again come out.’ ”35
Proverbs 29:18-27
18 A nation without
God's guidance is a nation without order. Happy are those who keep God's law!
19 You cannot correct
servants just by talking to them. They may understand you, but they will pay no
attention.
20 There is more hope
for a stupid fool than for someone who speaks without thinking.
21 If you give your
servants everything they want from childhood on, some day they will take over
everything you own.
22 People with quick
tempers cause a lot of quarreling and trouble.
23 Arrogance will bring
your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.
24 A thief's partner is
his own worst enemy. He will be punished if he tells the truth in court, and
God will curse him if he doesn't.
25 It is dangerous to
be concerned with what others think of you, but if you trust the Lord, you are
safe.
26 Everybody wants the
good will of the ruler, but only from the Lord can you get justice.
27 The righteous hate
the wicked, and the wicked hate the righteous.
What Happened To Nations Under Corrupt or Bad Leadership In The Bible?
The Bible tells us
what happens to nations that fall into corruption and ungodly leadership.
Does God Abandon Nations?
What happens to
nations that fall into corruption and who have ungodly leadership? It seems
obvious to most Christians because they can read the history of mankind, but
also the historical accounts written in the Bible where nations departed from
obedience to God and later fell into ruin because of idolatry (with sexually
immoral practices), exceeding greed, and neglect of the poor, like the orphans
and the widows. This was the case with the Roman Empire
where there was rampant sexual immorality, multiple marriages and divorces,
child abuse (physical and sexual), over-taxation, and a growing national debt
that threatened the empire’s solvency and national defense. These and other
causes would all become her downfall. Since nothing happens outside of the
sovereign will of God (Matt 10:29),
this must have been a judgment of God. The national and civilian population had
reached a point that reflected the days of Noah, where all they thought about
was sin (Gen 6:5).
When God Abandons a Nation
During the time of
the judges in ancient Israel,
everyone did what was seen as right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25), but when that happens, the counsel of
God is ignored, and as a result, the fell into captivity time after time. They
would finally repent and God would send them a judge to rescue them, but right
after he (or she) died, they would fall back into their sinful pattern and that
would bring them back into destruction. Similar kings of ancient Israel
(and later, Judah)
took their nations through this same cycle. If you look at history, they cycle
is not unique to Israel.
When Samson judged Israel
for twenty years, he reached such a state of disobedience to God that was said
of him that “he did not know that the LORD had left
him” (Judges 16:20b), and that may be what’s happening to our nation
today and many others around the world. God has left them. We might think that
millions in our nation are Christians, but when it comes to the fruit, the tree
is a bit barren! Many will saw to the Lord on the day of His return, “Lord,
Lord,” but these same “many” will be turned away from the
presence of God (Matt 7:13-23). The Bible teaches that many are called but few
are chosen. Broad is the path to destruction but narrow and difficult is the
path to eternal life and why “few there be that find
it” (Matt 7:14).
When Nations Forsake God
When a nation
finally forsakes God, God will surely forsake them. In fact, He may have
already done so in many cases. That’s because any nation that exists and
operates by indiscriminately breaking (in fact, defying) God’s Laws are subject
to the same fates as the ancient Israelites, the Roman Empire, and any other
people which lives outside of the will of God. The truth is, “When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices”
(Prov 11:10a), and “when the righteous increase, the
people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan” (Prov 29:2).
The groan for the same reasons that others did in the past; over-taxation, a
huge national debt and growing, national defense and security issues, sexual
immorality, and corruption in the private, public, and political sphere.
Consequences for Corrupt Nations
You cannot break
God’s moral laws without them breaking you, and it doesn’t matter if it relates
to one person or an entire nation. If we choose to sin, we choose to suffer,
because we are the ones that choose our way and not God’s, and since God is
sovereign, He will hold each nation and individual responsible; even more so
with the national leaders. He has that authority to do that. It is God Who “changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up
kings” (Dan 2:21a). God is omnipotent; He can punish or bring down any
nation He chooses, just as we read in the Old Testament. He brings up one
nation to punish another, but sometimes the nation can implode from within,
because they’ve been their own worst enemy. The government may be doing more
damage to the nation than her people are, but the people will still feel the
consequences and suffer for it. In Noah’s day, it had grown so bad that “the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was
filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for
all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth” (Gen 6:11-12) and “the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5). This type of
civilization brought God’s judgment and it came suddenly, just as it will again
when Christ returns (Rev 22:12). It
will be when “he is coming with the clouds, and
every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth
will wail on account of him” (Rev 1:8). They wail because they know that
God exists and now they face His judgment. All their lives, they have
suppressed the knowledge of God (Rom 1:18),
despite that fact that’s it’s obvious that God does exist (Rom 1:19-21).
Conclusion
If we are not happy
with who are choices are in political office, that’s no reason not to vote, but
God may use ungodly leadership as a form of disciplining a nation. He did the
same thing with ancient Israel
and then Judah.
He gave them up to their own sins, and then God gave them the king they
deserved. Can we as a nation still hear God’s voice, where He tells His people, “Oh, that my people would listen to me” (Psalm
81:13a), and “I would soon subdue their enemies and
turn my hand against their foes” (Psalm 81:4), but sadly, our nation may
hear the very same thing He told ancient Israel, and that was that “my people did not listen to my voice” (Psalm
81:11). By the way, His voice can still be heard today in His written Word, the
Bible. God speaks to us by His Spirit and through His Word to point us to the
Living Word, Jesus Christ. Whoever is not abiding in His Word (John 15:5), will
be cast into the fire (John 15:6); a fire that is never quenched, and in a
place where their worn does not die (Mark 9:48).
Article by Jack Wellman
Jack Wellman is
Pastor of the Mulvane Brethren
Church in Mulvane Kansas.
Jack is also the Senior Writer at What Christians Want To Know whose mission is
to equip, encourage, and energize Christians and to address questions about the
believer’s daily walk with God and the Bible. You can follow Jack on Google
Plus or check out his book Teaching Children the Gospel available on Amazon
