I am one of those people who likes to dig deep when I do research and to be as thorough as possible. I first read the 1872 edition of The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels (in reality, just Marx) when I was a student at Oxford. Later, as a young teacher, I subscribed to numerous communist periodicals and books including much of the Moscow-based English-language literature of The Novosty Press Agency Publishing House's many books on the Soviet Union. But my greatest interest in the communist world was the German Democratic Republic (GDR or DDR) as the East Germans alone seemed to be able to make communism work, as did their forerunners in the Volga German Autonomous Region of Russia which was held up by Stalin a model of socialist endeavour before he dismantled it following the Nazi invasion of 1941. I was a regular subscriber to an East German English-language periodical and followed East German affairs with great interest to its final demise. This, I believe, was to prepare me for what I would later find in Sweden when I moved there in 1997 for little did I then know that the entire Swedish educational system was modelled on that of the DDR.
I do have to say from the outset that whilst I was never a communist (I have, for most of my life, been slightly right of centre, and for a period, slightly left of centre) and had nothing but contempt for the whole Marxist system, I did admire what the East Germans achieved economically. But I credit that more to the achievement of German industriousness and ingenuity than I do the failure that is Marxist economics. I visited East Berlin twice and was impressed by what had been done with so many limitations. As an impoverished student I did, of course, appreciate being able to live relatively comfortably during my brief stays. I also visited communist Hungary (when I was finishing my Historical Atlas of Modern Europe and Africa) and became acquainted with Bulgaria and Ukraine just after these countries abandoned Marxism. Knowing people who lived through the communist period was perhaps the most fascinating part of my education. It was indeed a boon to be watching the transition from Erich Honnecker to Egon Krenz and finally to the outright annexation by West Germany (BRD or FRG) (itself an artificial state created by the Western Allies, just as the DDR had been by the USSR, with no basis in legality in international law).
Never did I in my wildest imagination expect to get an expanded Marxist education in situ in a supposedly western democracy, Sweden. Not that I paid much attention at first as I was mostly a weekend commuter from work in Norway in my first two years. Not until the war against homeschooling started in 2009 did I dig deep to find out what was really going on in order to understand the mentality here. This latter study of Communism/Marxism was not because of academic interest but out of the need to survive as a free man.
The thesis of this new study, the likes of which I have never made before, is somewhat controversial, and it is this: that communism is really a religious movement and an extremely evil one. I believe Karl Marx was far from being an atheist even though he publically professed to be one. I believe his agenda was a kind of spiritual jihad, that he did not care a fig about the working class or their desperate needs in the 19th century but was driven by hate. In the jargon to today's political correctness, he should head the list as a hate criminal. Accordingly, it is my conclusion that Marxism was, is, and always will be a death cult - it is anti-human in its most virulent form, like its fascist offshoot. I now intend to present the data in support of this thesis and then argue why Marxism is worse than a cancer in the political and social scene, and worse than any "opium of the people" - it is pure poison.
The early life of Karl Marx is a bit of mystery. Normally you can trace the development of the thoughts and beliefs of an individual through clearly discernable phases that follow a logical progression. The evolution of the politics of Benito Mussolini, for instance, is quite easy to follow, and how he changed from being a communist revolutionary to a fascist since the changes required were not so great (see Modern Leftism as Recycled Fascism). Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Stalin - it is not that difficult to trace the evolution of their belief system. Even following the demise of the Third Reich, it is not hard to comprehend how, as one historian put it, the German East Zone of Occupation "made the relatively easy transition from nazism to communism". But Marx himself is something quite different. From being a devout Christian of Jewish origin - suddenly, overnight it seems - he became a completely different species of being. You'll see what I mean as we work through his early life.
The thesis of this short paper is that Karl Marx, the founder of communism, was a man of profound religious beliefs who formed what basically amounts to an "anti-Christian religion". Why he became anti-Christian is the central mystery of his life. Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the founders of Communism, grew up in wealthy families far removed from a life of poverty and is one of the contradictions to be found in the lives of communist leaders. Their sucecssors - Lenin, Trotsky and the others who led the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 - became multi-millionnaires, as the documentary, Novo Ordo Seclorum - The Slaughterhouse of Osiris, which you can view at the end of this article, demonstrates. As one historical commentator notes:
(Thomas Sowell, Is Reality Optional?, Hoover Institution: 1993 p.81).
"Running left-wing movements has always been the prerogative of spoiled rich kids. This pattern goes all the way back to the days when an over-indulged and affluent young man named Karl Marx combined with another over-indulged youth from a wealthy family named Friedrich Engels to create the Communist ideology.
"The phoniness of the claim to be a movement of the working class was blatant from the beginning. When Engels was elected as a delegate to the Communist League in 1847, in his own words, 'a working man was proposed for appearances sake, but those who proposed him voted for me.' It may have been the first rigged 'election' of the Communist movement but it was certainly not the last.... The anointed have always wanted to create their own kind of people, as well as their own kind of society."
(Thomas Sowell, Is Reality Optional?, Hoover Institution: 1993 p.81).
Ironically, Dennis Skinner, the outspoken former left-wing British Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Labour Party under Neil Kinnock and much feared by the right-wing in Parliament, declared his admiration of Jesus Christ because He was a friend of the masses of the working class! Skinner was no religious man but an authentic socialist in that he actually cared for the poorer class. Even so, he would have been appalled by the book published by Gidlunds of Stockholm, Sweden, which was on the shelves of the children's department in our local library in Avika (before I purchased it) called Kamrat Jesus - Comrade Jesus by Sven Wernström (1971) - which presents the founder of Christianity as a communist zealot inciting the people to violent revolution, the very opposite of what He taught in real life! Though Kjell Dellert describes the book as "an amusing falsification of history" a child reading the book would not know any better and assume it to be the truth. As a piece of communist propaganda it is masterful but what was it doing in the children's section of a Swedish library? However, that is not my main point that I wish to raise here, which is this: since the historical Jesus was so obviously a man of the people, and concerned about their welfare -temporal as well as spiritual - why did left-wing democratic politician Skinner admire Jesus while Marx came to loathe Him? Surely, if communism was about the betterment of conditions for the working people, all allies would be welcome to the cause, religious as well as non-religious?
Whatever finally drove Karl Marx it was not egalitarianism but hate. He wrote in the Communist Manifesto:
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of man is a requisite for their real happiness."
This the Bolsheviks did. By the time of its collapse in 1991, only a third of the Russian people were believers. Today it is two-thirds and the vast majority will tell you that they are a lot happier today than they were under communism. Since the majority are happier with their Russian Orthodox faith than they were with forced communism, this somewhat givs the lie to Marx's statement - the abolition of religion does not equate with happiness. Forced religion is another matter but then that wasn't Marx's objection - it's mine , just as I object to forced atheism - the Bolsheviks killed 30 million people who would not be come communists in the first four years of their reign. 300 million have died in the name of that poisonous ideology in 100 years - that's 3 million people per year.
And yet the leaders were not atheists. Georges Solomon in his book, Among the Red Rulers, claimed that the Soviet leadership actually worshipped the pagan god, Moloch. We will be looking at the evidence for that later. The communists' cynical attitude towards human life certainly gives some grounds for this. The forced starvation of millions of Ukrainians in the 1930's was done, they said, for the welfare and happiness of the people. It was their double-speak - calling good, evil - and evil, good - that would inspire the writings of George Orwell who exposed the whole grotesque system in his parody, Animal Farm and 1984.
Marx was one of those secular visionaries that Nigel Farage, Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and leader of the libertarian United Kingdom Independence Party warned about in no uncertain terms:
"The most dangerous politicians depend on the Great Lie. Once the Great Lie has been ingested, it readily and rapidly grows into doctrine. Then a political preference becomes a religion, its champion a demigod and any aberration heresy. The politician excuses himself for abominations because he has seen the way clear to that shining city upon a hill. He has a duty to follow that path and to shepherd or lash others onto it for their own good. The Great Lie is just this: one day, time will stop...for Marxists, [it is] the Worker State, for romancers, the Happy Ever After, for buyers of cosmetics, Eternal Youth, for childish idealism, John Lennon's Magic Roundabout Elysium where there are no countries, no religions (and hence, presumably, no customs or loyalties) and all the people live (half-)life in peace...It is, of course, irresponsible gibberish. It serves only to make life's rich and only occasionally disgusting stew...appear unsatisfactory and affords nearly infinite power to the man with the hastily scrawled treasure map...The leaps of faith whereby these were turned into the Great Lie, however, initiated centuries of totalitarianism and intolerance...As for Lennon's brutal nightmare world, by what grotesque means is its survival for more than a split second to be assured? Brutal regimentation and compulsory unisexing, I assume" (Nigel Farage, MEP, in Fighting Bull, pp.232-233)
Marx's followers pursued an anti-Christian Utopia that - from the beginning - focused on political power, not on meeting the needs of the poor. Like today's seductive vision of change, their socialist/communist transformation required a "crisis" and a "purpose" that would capture public attention and provide the needed momentum. Thomas Sowell continued:
"Marx, it is said, was deeply humane. He was dominated by one idea: how to help the exploited masses. What impoverishes them, he maintained, is capitalism. Once this rotten system is overthrown, after a transitional period of dictatorship of the proletariat, a society will emerge in which everyone will work according to his abilities in factories and farms belonging to the collective, and will be rewarded according to his needs. There will be... no wars, no revolutions, only an everlasting, universal brotherhood..." (Op.cit, p.5).
In his youth Marx appears to have been a devout Christian, raised in the faith of his father whom, as I mentioned earlier, had been converted from Judaism. But by the time he had finished German High School his views had radically changed. What we don't know - either because no detailed documentary evidence ever existed or because it never survived - was the process that resulted in this change. But there are plenty of insights into the mind of the young Marx which enable us, I believe, to reconstruct a fairly accurate picture of what he became after he abandoned Christianity. And, in spite of the attempts by communists and socialists to "explain it away" the evidence is strong that Marx did not move from being a Christian to being an atheist but that he embraced what I have dubbed the beliefs and teachings of a death cult. Thus when commentators write that "Marx was anti-religious because religion obstructs the fulfillment of the Communist ideal which he considers the only answer to the world's problems" we have to ask ourselves the question, in light of the evidence which I will present, that "the communist ideal" was not so much an atheistic ideal but a religious one albeit a different one to Christianity. In a poem he wrote called Invocation of One in Despair, he sets his motive for abandoning Christianity out lucidly:
"I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above."
Far from being a denial of the existence of "the One who rules above", Marx's political philosophy may be seen as a vendetta against "the One". What is not clear is why he felt this way. If you do not believe in a God, is it not surely enough to attempt to prove by intellectial means that Theism is not logical, and to be content, at most, with scorn? When you hate something you are admitting that it has some sort of objective existence. Not only did Marx believe that there was "the One" but also He "rules above". Marx neither denied God's existence nor His authority - he simply wanted revenge for some wrong he felt that had been done against him or perhaps those he cared for.
Marx cannot have been angry about his physical circumstances. He came from a relatively well-to-do family. He had never experienced hunger in childhood and he was much better off than many of his fellow students. So what was he so angry about? What generated this terrible hatred which has since spilled into the lives of millions of people who believe in his communistic teachings? He writes in his poem:
"So a god has snatched from me my all
In the curse and rack of destiny.
All his worlds are gone beyond recall!
Nothing but revenge is left to me!
"I shall build my throne high overhead,
Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
For its bulwark -- superstitious dread.
For its Marshall -- blackest agony."
Clearly, this is not about the plight of other people - this is not some anger that has risen out of a sense of indignation over the oppressed masses at the hands of capitalists. Something has happened to Marx himself and he is giving vent in his poem. He is attributing to God something traumatic that has happened to him, or perhaps this is his perception of God's failure to protect him against some of the self same trauma.
The language of the poem is biblical: "I shall build my throne high overhead." It echoes the words of Isaiah in which the devil declares:
"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! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: 'Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?' All the kings of the nations lie in state, each in his own tomb. But you are cast out of your tomb like a rejected branch; you are covered with the slain, with those pierced by the sword, those who descend to the stones of the pit. Like a corpse trampled underfoot, you will not join them in burial, for you have destroyed your land and killed your people" (Isaiah 14:12-20, New International Version)
If Marx was an atheist at this stage of his life, why was he so clearly quoting from the Bible and angrily addressing the Creator? He is venting his spleen against the one he has hitherto loved and served. Why does Marx want this throne - representing political and spiritual power? We may glean the answer from a little-known drama (which he also composed during his student years) called Oulanem. It reads remarkably like a Black Mass receited by devil-worshippers that is then usually followed by an orgy. But before we quote from this drama, we need to get some further background from another poem the young Marx wrote called, The Player, which, predictably, came to be downplayed by both himself and his followers (you can figure out for yourself why):
"The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain,
Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed.
See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me. -
For me beats the time and gives the signs.
Ever more boldly I play the dance of death"
With this background in mind, we now proceed to Marx's drama, Oulanem:
"And they are also Oulanem, Oulanem.
"The name rings forth like death, rings forth
Until it dies away in a wretched crawl.
Stop, I’ve got it now! It rises from my soul....
"Yet I have power within my youthful arms
To clench and crush you [i.e., personified humanity] with tempestuous force,
While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.
You will sink down and I shall follow laughing,
Whispering in your ears, 'Descend, come with me, friend.'"
To understand Marxism, Communism and Socialism, you have to understand Marx and what it was that drove him, and how communists of the 20th and 21st centuries have translated his theories into action. Every teaching, political, philosophical or religious, must be judged by its fruits (see Fascism and Marxism are the Same Thing). And if a teaching consistenly brings forth the same fruits, then we can get a handle on it and judge it as to its safety for humans or otherwise.
Swedish Social Democracts thought that they could defang and tame communism to make it serve a noble end. It is the thesis of this website in its explanation for the banning of homeschooling in Sweden, that you cannot hope to expect to mix poison (a religion of hate posing as atheism) with sweetness (libertarianism) and expect the poison to have no effect. The Swedish 'Dilute and Mix' may not be mass-murdering people's bodies but there can be no doubt that it has become a pale - though just as human-unfriendly - version as the concentrated original. You can't mix hate with love and expect pure love - what you end up with is a two-headed monster, embracing you one minute and then strangling you the next.
I do not know what turned Marx on his head and filled him with so much hate but I do know from experience that those who pose as Christians and yet commit bestial acts against minors can catalyse such behaviour. My speculation is that Marx was somehow abused by a person or persons of trust who claimed to be Christians. We all know, for example, the scandals that have been rocking the Roman Catholic Church of late. A lot of innocents have been hurt by pedophile priests. I may be completely wrong though I am at a loss to find other explanations. Whatever happened to Marx was real and traumatic and kindled a hate within him not only of God but of people too. Marx had loved the words of Mephistopheles in Faust, "Everything in existence is worth being destroyed." Everything — including the proletariat and the comrades. Marx quoted these words and Stalin acted on them, destroying even his own family. Oulanem, the person for whom Marx speaks in his drama, does not contest eternal life. He asserts it, but as a life of hate magnified to its extreme.
Marx's correspondence with his father testifies to his squandering great sums of money on pleasures and his constant quarreling with parental authority about this and other matters. Thus Marx is only mouthpiece of a dark power when he utters in his poem, Invocation of One in Despair, the words: "I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above." Though I realise this is very controversial, the evidence does seem to stronly point to the fact that Karl Marx somehow got involved in a devil-worshipping cult in Germany. Listen to the end of Oulanem:
"If there is a Something which devours,
I’ll leap within it, though I bring the world to ruins —
The world which bulks between me and the abyss
I will smash to pieces with my enduring curses..."
These are not the words of a budding egalitarian, philanthropist or democrat. In Oulanem Marx does what the devil does: he consigns the entire human race to damnation. Oulanem is probably the only drama in the world in which all the characters are aware of their own corruption, which they flaunt and celebrate with conviction. In this drama there is no black and white... All are satanic, corrupt, and doomed. Marx was 18 when he wrote these things. His life’s program had already been established. There was no word about serving mankind, the proletariat, or socialism. He wished to bring the world to ruin. He wished to build for himself a throne whose bulwark should be human fodder.
In another letter to his father, Marx writes:
"My holy of holies was rent asunder and new gods had to be installed."
Whatever was happening to the young Marx - and it may just have been an intellectual crisis rather than some traumatic experience - his father was very deeply concerned about a son who had, until recently, been a confessed Christian. His father wrote these words to him:
"Your advancement, the dear hope to see your name being once of great repute, and your earthly well-being are not the only desires of my heart.... Only if your heart remains pure and beats humanly and if no demon will be able to alienate your heart from better feelings, only then will I be happy."
Why was his father suddenly so fearful for his son? Had, perhaps, Marx sent a copy of his poems to him? At any rate, in one of his other poems about the philosopher Hegel, Karl Marx writes:
"Words I teach all mixed up into a devilish muddle.
Thus, anyone may think just what he chooses to think."
In his poem, The Pale Maiden, he writes:
"Thus heaven I’ve forfeited, I know it full well.
My soul, once true to God, is chosen for hell."
Here he admits his former Christianity as well as a new system of belief which he believes will send him to the Abyss. Whether this is true or not (from a Christian theological point-of-view) is not at all certain for there have been many Christians who have come to false conclusions about their relationship with God. I am not saying this happened with Marx as the object of this essay is not to discuss the merits or demerits of particular theological systems but to try and understand why Marx became what he did and to understand the driving force behind Communism. Whatever led Marx to conclude what he concluded, and whatever personal choices he made, one thing is abundantly clear: he was predominantly driven by hate and decided to pursue a course in life that mirrored the then contemporary Christian picture of hell.
This, it must be understood, is the backdrop of Communism, which is why communist apologists have (understandably) tried to downplay Marx's poems and drama, which are an accute 'embarrassment' if the images of a man deeply passionate about the suffering of the working class that communists want us to believe in are actually true. And whilst I absolutely believe there are socialist idealists who genuinely want to better the plight of the masses, I do not believe they necessarily fully understand their Marxist roots or the grotesque hatred and mental sickness that originally inspired and still drives the marxist system as it did its founder, Karl Marx. I think a lot of socialists are both in historical denial about Marxism as I believe they are in denial about the oppression that marxism continues to cause in 'democracies' like Sweden. Likewise, I think they are in a double-bind, because they see the oppressiveness of the other 'wing' that houses fascism when in truth what they and everyone needs is authentic libertarianism.
Upon this vengeful religious vision Marx then added his political theories. When Marx met Moses Hess, he embraced socialism and must have so eloquently brought it to life by means of his mental acumen that Hess came to call Marx his "idol" and concluded that he would "give the last kick to medieval religion and politics." The target was "medieval religion", as we would expect of someone on an anti-Christian Crusade, and looking for an ideology and philosophy to justify it, and would have included the historic Catholic, Reformed and Lutheran state-sanctioned faiths of the contemporary German states. That this was his principle target is confirmed by other friends he knew such as Georg Jung who, in 1841, claimed "that Marx will surely chase God from his heaven.... Marx calls Christianity one of the most immoral religions...".
Was the primary motivating force causing Marx to take this position because he considered that these state-sanctioned Christian denominations were "oppressing the masses" or was it because of the thirst to "avenge [him]self against the One who rules above" and do so by "clench[ing] and crush[ing] [personified humanity] with tempestuous force" so as to hurt the One he was waging his inner war against? Does this not explain how one of Marx's partners in the First International, Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian anarchist, wrote: "...here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds...[urges] him to disobey and eat the fruit of knowledge." and "In this revolution we will have to awaken the devil in the people, to stir up the basest passions." Such a contention is by no means unreasonable. The ballot box is not what these early socialists had in mind in the formulation of their ideology - their methods would deliberately be the opposite of all Christian ethics - they rather would imitate the Christian antithesis, hell and its devil.
Of course, it is possible to argue that the first socialists were not advocating following a personal devil but rather the personification of one. Either way, the driving force contained within it every seed of murderous totalitarian abuse that broke to the surface in the 20th century and claimed the lives of at least 300 million innocent people. So whether Marx or his friends, in the final analysis, worshipped a personal devil or simply personified what the biblical devil represented is besides the point, since the goal was, unapologetically, evil toward mankind. Personally I think it was the former, for the reasons I have already given and for other reasons that are to follow.
Bakunin reveals that Proudhon, another major Socialist thinker and at that time a friend of Karl Marx, also "worshipped Satan." Indeed, Proudhon declared that God was the prototype for injustice: "Every step forward is a victory in which we overcome the Divine." And yet the religious language continues throughout - you would have thought that if a purely humanistic and atheistic doctrine was being formulated for propagation amongst the masses, a new verbalism would have been the best starting point. There are those who argue that this was simply propaganda or using the lingua franca of a religious world to communicate humanistic ideals to a people steeped in superstition, and yet the underlying drive behind this nascent socialism is undoubtly against a Being whose existence (and claimed unrighteousness) is hardly denied.
In Marx’s poems, Invocation of One in Despair and Human Pride, man's supreme supplication is for his own greatness. If man is doomed to perish through his own greatness, this will be a cosmic catastrophe, but he will die as a godlike being, mourned by demons. Hardly humanist sentiments. Marx' ballad The Player records the singer’s complaints against a God who neither knows nor respects his art. It emerges from the dark abyss of hell, "bedeviling the mind and bewitching the heart, and his dance is the dance of death...". Are these words not reminiscent of the American revolutionary, Jerry Rubin, in Do It, when he said:
"We’ve combined youth, music, sex, drugs, and rebellion with treason — and that’s a combination hard to beat."
Not that communist or marxist states are at all sympathetic with "rebellion" and "treason" when they are in power. Indeed, they usually invent it as an excuse for acts of genocide as they cull the population and remove "undesirable elements". There is no rhyme or reason in Marxist states because there never was one except it be the abolition of Christianity and the extermination of all those who might contend the power-base of the ruling socialist class. This classic piece of Soviet humour illustrates the intellectial, ethical and moral anarchy that is the mindset of socialism and does so better than I could in any academic exposition:
"Three Soviet labour-camp inmates sat chatting one evening:
"What are you in for?" asked the first.
"Me, I spoke badly about Comrade Popov in 1939."
"I spoke well of Comrade Popov in 1940. And what about you?" he asked turning to the third man.
"I am Comrade Popov."
We can, of course, laugh at this but it belies the very real nightmare that is Marxist anarchy. It is no different in modern Sweden. Domenic Johansson's parents committed no crime but the Marxist state took their child anyway and fabricated some. It doesn't matter how law-abiding you are but if you believe in something that jars the Marxist mindset, then the modern-equivalent of extermination takes place. You are destroyed by the state apparatus by the means currently permitted, namely, Social Services, psychiatry and foster care. And if it is so easy to criminalise someone today, imagine what it could be like tomorrow when the current restraints are removed. Then Stockholm becomes as fully-fledged Soviet Moscow.
In his poem Human Pride, Marx admits that his aim is not to improve the world, reform or revolutionize it, but simply to ruin it and enjoy it being ruined:
With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the face of the world,
And see the collapse of this pygmy giant whose fall will not stifle my ardor.
Then will I wander godlike and victorious through the ruins of the world
And, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator.
Don't these words sound like those of a psychopath? If psychiatry ever needed a classic case of someone with a "mental illness", surely Marx fits the bill...unless, of course, you are a Marxist psychiatrist then you can define "mental illness" in what ever way you want...like not believing in the religion of Marxism...which is how they did things in the Soviet Union These are the writings of a very disturbed mind!
The overriding reason for Marx’s conversion to Communism appears clearly in a letter of his friend Georg Jung to Ruge. It is not the emancipation of the proletariat, nor the establishing of a better social order, that drives him. Jung writes:
"If Marx, Bruno Bauer and Feuerbach associate to found a theological-political review, God would do well to surround himself with all his angels and indulge in self-pity, for these three will certainly drive Him out of heaven..."
The man who convinced Engels to become a Communist was the same Moses Hess who had convinced Marx before. Hess writes after he met Engels in Cologne:
"He parted from me as an over-zealous Communist. This is how I produce ravages."
Are we to assume that Hess' supreme purpose in life was to "produce ravages"? This is not the language of philanthropy but the language of anti-Christian and anti-people hatred.
There are many paradoxes in communist attitudes until you realise what is actually going on. For example. Richard Wurmbrand, a Romanian pastor of Jewish origin (like Marx and Hess) who was imprisoned and tortured for 14 years years in communist prisons for preaching the Gospel, testified at a Congressional Committe in the United States in 1966:
"In Rumania you are allowed to say as much as you like that God is good. You are not allowed to say that the Devil is bad...In Rumania you can say God is good but you can't say 'communism is cruel, they commit atrocities, it is a crime to poison children with atheism.' If you do this you go to prison"
Why? If religion is the people's opiate, why be allowed to preach about the goodness of God even? And if the devil does not exist, why was it illegal to criticise him? What conclusion are we supposed to draw? Of all the Eastern Block countries prior to the fall of the Iron Curtain, Romania was the most Stalinist long after the death of Stalin - a bit like today's North Korea. For reasons which these communists alone can explain, they for some reason associate their own ideology with the devil. Why? Because the biblical model of the devil's attributes was the foundation upon which Marx himself built his political doctrine, by his own admission. Again, as far as what Marx believed is concerned, it does not matter whether you believe in a God or the Devil - what is important is that the architect of communism sought to emulate the character of the devil, whether real or not. And that is the issue I am addressing here. Communism, like its founder, admires and emulates the character traits of the Devil as described in the Christian Bible. What label you pin on that disposition is up to you, the reader.
Those like Wurmbrand who witnessed the ascent of communist power in Eastern Europe know only too well that honesty and transparency are never hallmarks of this religion. Wurmbrand describes communists who do not have power and who are in a minority as being like "lion cubs". You can play with them like a harmless puppy. Describing communism in Romania immediately after the war, he said:
"When he (communist power) becomes great, only then he is a lion. Yugoslavian communism is this little communism. And American communism a very little one and English communism is a very little one. When they grow, when they can do whatever they will to do, then only we can see them. With us, in the beginning, we also had a very nice communism. I have seen in Rumanian Communist demonstrations signs with the slogan, "God save the King." I have seen the communist Secretaries of State making great crosses, showing themselves as being on the side of religion and making compliments to religion and bowing to religion and saying they are Democrats. In the beginning, they have put in prison party members who said that the agriculture must be collectivized. And they have gone together with the bourgeois party, with the Liberal Party of Tatorescu and with other Democrats. I have seen in the West Social Democrats collaborate with them. In Rumania, I have seen dying Social Democrats in the same cell with me; they died. Communists in Rumania, too, were nice until they had the whole power in hand. When they had the whole power in hand, they have done things exactly as in Russia, and so they will do everywhere. There is no difference." (Op.cit.)
If we are to find evidence of covert Marxism in Western countries where its adherents are small in number, then you can expect the "lion cub" treatment. It is only when they gain power that they start behaving in the way the Bolsheviks of Russia did, as ravenous lions. Riding initially on the back of democracy, they soon show their true totalitarian colours. Like the nazis before them, communists have understood that violent revolution creates a climate that leads eventually to the people rising up against them. They rose up against the communist régime in Romania, the one Eastern European nation that did not transition to democracy peacefully. Not that they needed to worry because unlike Nazi Germany which was (mostly) denazified and war criminals prosecuted, imprisoned and even executed, no corresponding "de-communisation" ever took place in the former USSR or East Europe. The only justice that was ever meted out was in Romania, and then by the mob. Today, former communist officials enjoy leading (unelected) positions in the European Union (EU). And I doubt justice will ever be done in the former communist lands until communism is acknowleded as being as evil as nazism. (See Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?) Will that ever happen? That will depend on the true libertarian democrats in Sweden and elsewhere because if they don't speak out, Marxism will continue to grow like a weed until it swamps everything and all our freedoms have disappeared.
I had a threatening phone-call here in Sweden last year. I was told, crypticaly and anonymously, "You are being watched". Citizens in Marxist and fascist states are "watched" - spied upon - all the time. Nothing happens for a while, notes are kept, and then, waves of terror are unleashed. Read your Soviet history under Stalin. If you can get a copy of the movie, Within the Whirlwind (2009) that tells the story of Evgenia Ginzburg (a Jewish atheist), a professor of literature in the Soviet Union who was sent to a Siberian Gulag or concentration camp for 10 years during Stalin's reign of terror. It will give you a good idea of the Marxist mentality and what I have been trying to convey in this essay.
Karl Marx stated in The Communist Manifesto, that he wished to abolish all religion. But is that true? His wife refers to him as a "high priest and bishop". But of what religion? Communism? There is no such political office in any communist state. So of what religion was he a "high priest and bishop"? We can if we wish, accept the Marxist apologetic and say his wife was merely being metaphorical. Or we can draw other conclusions based on the available evidence. It is, in my opinion, more than a matter of passing curiosity that Britain’s center of Satanism is Highgate Cemetery in London, where Karl Marx is buried. Mysterious rites of black magic continue to be celebrated at this tomb. Why?
This is a topic of study that obviously needs a great deal more research but I think it will be agreed by those who refuse to cherry-pick the data on the history of Karl Marx and Communism that the sanitised, non-religious version of Marxism that is presented to us is far from the truth of what Marx's ideology actually was and is. It never crossed my mind to view Marx as anything more than an atheist until I started probing deeper. I did know that the Communists were not renowned for telling the truth - that much I learned as a student when I first read Dr. Fred Schwarz's book, You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists). I believe that Karl Marx, and his inner circle, were highly religious individuals who belonged to a death cult, call it what you will - that communism's atheism was just an anti-Christian front and that the proletariat revolution was just a pretext for robbery and murder on a grand scale.
I invite my readers to watch the following documentary which casts communism in a very interesting light. Then research the matter out further and you will be surprised by what you learn. Whatever Marxism is, whether you are religious or non-religious (it doesn't matter for the purposes of this investigation), it is very, very bad for democracy and freedom. It is bad for conservatives, liberals and social democrats alike. It is bad for Sweden, it has infected Swedish society on a massive scale, and is the ugly face of the Swedish 'Utopia'. Ask Domenic Johansson and his family, and the tens of thousands of others abused by the Swedish régime, and they will tell you why I am right when I say that Marxism is a religion of hate.!
Those who ignore the 300 million victims of communism share the moral responsibility.
2. Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto with an introduction by A.J.P.Taylor (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: 1967)
3. Communist Exploitation of Religion, Congressional Testimony of Richard Wurmbrand, Hearing Before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., United States Senate, 89th Congress, Second Session, Friday May 6, 1966.
4. Richard Wurmbrand, Marx and Satan, (1986)
5. Fred Schwarz, You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists), Prentice-Hall, Inc (1960)
"Just finished your excellent essay on Marx published by ADH [American Daily Herald]. No single work that I can remember has turned on as many proverbial 'light bulbs' as your piece. Thank you very much for writing it" (Alex Newman, Journalist, USA/Sweden, 11 Junr 2012)
"Thought you would like to know that we received an email with the comment 'that essay by Christopher Warren on Marx was nothing short of incredible!' Great article..." (Denise Behreandt, Managing Editor, American Daily Herald, 13 June 2012)