- Christogenea Saturdays
The Protocols of Satan, Part 35: Inciting Class Warfare
In the last segment of these Protocols of Satan, which was subtitled Above the Law, we concluded our explanation of corporate legal history and our description of how those who control international corporations exploit the concept of corporate personhood. With that, they promote endless legal arguments regarding corporate responsibility and culpability for crimes so that they can rather consistently escape the consequences of their actions in their pursuit for profit. This explanation had actually begun in part 33 of this series, which was subtitled Corporations are People Too? Of course, the real answer should be no, because corporations certainly are not people. However it is obvious to us, after studying these issues at length, that the modern concept of the corporation is the primary vehicle by which the international Jew had chosen so that he can fulfill the plan outlined in the Protocols. That is also why today, in practice, corporations have a more significant part in guiding national policies than do governments.
All of this was presented in response to the assertions found in Protocol No. 3, the where the authors of the Protocols insist that there should be a class of men which is above the law. So they boasted that: “It is necessary that all should know that equality cannot exist, owing to the different nature of various kinds of work; that there cannot be the same responsibility before the law in the case of an individual who by his actions compromises an entire caste and another who does not affect anything but his own honor.” Here the Protocols propose that a class of businessmen should be above the law, which would in essence appoint that class as a new nobility, and that is indeed the first objective of the Protocols: that the international Jews, who controlled the power of gold in the late Middle Ages, would indeed transform themselves into a new nobility. Rather hypocritically, where Christians were in control in Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution, it was this same class that they hated and persecuted the most. So the Protocols express a desire to have a controlling class not accountable to the law only where the Jews are in control. Earlier in the Protocols, they had proclaimed that once the traditional nobility was destroyed, that gold would become king, and they accomplished that endeavor in the 19th century. Today we continue to live with the results of that accomplishment, even if their rulership is not yet quite as obvious to the general public as the Protocols themselves suggest that it will be.
But once those who had the power of gold became the new nobility, they had to develop a new method of education for the masses so that there would be no formidable challenge to their position. So we read in the next portion of Protocol No. 3 where that system was proposed, and it says:
The correct science of the social structure, to the secrets of which we do not admit the GOYS, would demonstrate to all that occupation and labor must be differentiated so as not to cause human suffering by the discrepancy between education and work. The study of this science will lead the masses to a voluntary submission to the authorities and to the governmental system organized by them. [By the GOYS themselves.]
The system proposed by the GOYS themselves is democracy, or at least, it now seems that way in the general perception of the masses. Therefore, shortly after the democratic systems of government became prevalent throughout the nations of the West, the modern educational system has not only placed the relatively new academic discipline called Sociology, or social science, at the forefront of importance in the humanities, but has also developed a program within the social sciences that is engineered to lead students to conclude that democracy is inevitably the most fair and most just system of government, the only legitimate system of government, and therefore the slaves themselves have indeed become the most ardent defenders of their own institutionalized slavery.
To prove this, we exhibited the contents of the curriculum of Auburn University’s General Social Science Education/History program, the most popular program at the university for prospective elementary and high school teachers. We may have chosen any university, and we could have arrived at the same conclusion, but we chose Auburn for particular reasons, because that school is quite representative of Bible Belt Christian culture. So by that we endeavored to demonstrate that this plan for Jewish re-education of the masses reached far beyond the Yankee Ivy League schools where traditionally, Judaism has a more significant presence. We also exhibited statements from the both the Social Science Education department at Auburn and from the National Council for the Social Studies proving that these institutions do indeed advance and uphold this particular agenda as it is expressed here in the Protocols.
We also asserted that the so-called History curriculum at Auburn has upheld yet another boast by the authors of the Protocols that “We shall change history”, and we concluded by saying that “This is how the authors of the Protocols changed history. This is how, as they said, ‘We shall change history… We shall abolish every kind of freedom of instruction… The system of bridling thought is already at work in the so-called system of teaching by object lessons… to turn the GOYIM into unthinking submissive brutes….’” The people who teach history to our children have not really studied history at all. Rather, they are teaching conclusions which others want them to teach, conclusions which are engineered to obtain a particular outcome: which is the maintenance of the system of global capitalism where we think that we live in a free and democratic society, but we the people, those who vote in the democracy, actually make none of the decisions in the important areas which most affect our lives, our futures, and our children’s futures. The proof of this is obvious, as Americans have recently voted for a president who has done the exact opposite of nearly every campaign promise, and as Europe is being overrun by aliens but no European actually had the opportunity to cast a vote in regard to that policy.
Now we shall discuss the next portion of Protocol No. 3, where the authors boast of their intent to foment strife and divisions between the classes. Here is the very next portion of Protocol No. 3, from the text of Boris Brasol’s publication of The Protocols and World Revolution:
Whereas, under the present state of science, and due to the direction of our guidance therein, the people, in their ignorance, blindly believing the printed word, and owing to the misconceptions which have been fostered by us, feel a hatred towards all classes whom they consider superior to themselves, since they do not understand the importance of each caste.
This hatred will be still more accentuated by the economic crisis, which will stop financial transactions and all industrial life. Having organized a general economic crisis by all possible underhand means, and with the help of gold which is all in our hands, we will throw great crowds of workmen into the street, simultaneously, in all countries of Europe. These crowds will gladly shed the blood of those of whom they, in the simplicity of their ignorance, have been jealous since childhood and whose property they will then be able to loot.
They will not harm our people because we will know of the time of the attack and we will take measures to protect them. We have persuaded others that progress will lead the GOYS into a realm of reason. Our despotism will be of such a nature that it will be in a position to pacify all revolts by wise restrictions and to eliminate liberalism from all institutions.
Of course, only a few years after the Protocols were first published, a massive economic depression did throw great crowds of workmen out into the streets. Here it seems that the Jews expected them to rise up in revolt and establish world communism, but that never happened. We shall not discuss this aspect of the Protocols this evening, but hope to in the near future.
In Part 31 of this series, subtitled Jewish Revolutions, French and Bolshevik, we explained that the nobility and the class of the bourgeoisie were the objects of scorn and destruction in both the French and Bolshevik revolutions. In an Appendix to the Russia No. 1 report, which is the official British diplomatic report on the Bolshevik Revolution, we read a couple of examples of the fomenting of class divisions in the Jewish-Russian press:
Extract from the Krasnaya Gazeta (Organ of Red Army), September 1, 1918.
[An] article, entitled “blood for blood,” begins in the following way :― “we will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands ; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritski, Zinovief, and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois―more blood, as much as possible.”
Extracts from Official Journal. ("Izvestiya"), September 1918.
There are only two possibilities―the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat. . . . . The proletariat will reply to the attempt on Lenin in a manner that will make the whole bourgeoisie shudder with horror.
Assassination at Petrograd of Kommissar Uritsky by Kannegisser Jew Dvoryanin, twenty-two years of age, student, formerly Junker of Artillery School.
Krasnaya Gazeta writes: “Whole bourgeoisie must answer for this act of terror…. Thousands of our enemies must pay for Uritsky's death…. We must teach bourgeoisie a bloody lesson…. Death to the bourgeoisie.”
There should be no doubt by now that the Bolshevik Revolution was entirely Jewish in its nature. For years, this was denied, mostly on the basis of the false claim that its leader, Vladimir Lenin, was not Jewish. Recently it has been demonstrated that Lenin was indeed a Jew. Even Time Magazine, in an article titled Vladimir Lenin Was Part Jewish (screenshot), says declassified KGB Files had published the admission that Lenin’s own sister admitted his family had Jewish blood, but that “Stalin… ordered Ulyanova to keep Lenin's Jewish roots under wraps.”
The following is a paragraph from Russia. No. 1 report No. 6., made by British diplomat Sir Mansfeldt Findlay to Foreign Secretary Balfour on September 17th, 1918. This is from a copy of a report given to Findlay by a Netherlands Minister at Petrograd, on 6th September of that year, and it is from his conclusion after he had described what he witnessed at Petrograd, summarizing his opinion of Bolshevism in general:
The foregoing report will indicate the extremely critical nature of the present situation. The danger is now so great that [I] feel it my duty to call the attention of the British and all other Governments to the fact that if an end is not put to Bolshevism in Russia at once the civilisation of the whole world will be threatened. This is not an exaggeration, but a sober matter of fact ; and the most unusual action of German and Austrian consuls-general, before referred to, in joining in protest of neutral legations appears to indicate that the danger is also being realised in German and Austrian quarters. I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organised and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things. The only manner in which this danger could be averted would be collective action on the part of all Powers.
But Bolshevism was not “nipped in the bud”, and the West had only given token military support to the White armies which resisted Bolshevism in Russia. Only once it is realized that the international Jewish community supported Bolshevism can one imagine why the West did not appropriately oppose it. As for events within Russia, the Jews, it seems, are experts on false flag operations from time immemorial. A Jew and reported Sodomite named Kannegisser assassinated the Bolshevik party official Uritsky, and at nearly the same time a Jewess named Fanny Kaplan made an attempt on Lenin, shooting but failing to kill him. However in spite of the fact that both assassins were Jews, the White Russian middle class, the real object of Jewish scorn, was blamed in the press, and they were made to pay for it. So we have it in Russia. No. 1 report No. 4., a message sent from Copenhagen from Sir Richard Paget to Mr. Balfour on September 9th, 1918, which states:
I HAVE received telegram from Petrograd as follows :―
“Wholesale arrest and decapitations have resulted from attempt on Lenin and murder of Uritsky. Bolsheviks are arresting bourgeoisie, men, women, and children, having no connection with the authors of these attempts, on the plea that they are faced with conspirators.
“According to official reports, more than 500 persons have been shot during the last three days without enquiry or sentence. Fresh executions are being prepared, and the press is full of blood-thirsty articles.
“Lockhart was arrested and condemned to death, but at the last moment we succeeded in saving him ; 28 British, including British consul, and 11 French have been arrested at Petrograd. In the prisons conditions defy description. In fortress of Peter and Paul, where all the British are confined, prisoners have absolutely no food. In order to remedy this, we have now succeeded in forming an organisation. Every night executions take place without trial. Terrorism continues. Protest against these proceedings has been made verbally and in writing by foreign representatives, including Germans. List of more than 1,000 hostages has been published by the Government, amongst whom are four Serbian officers, who will be shot if attempt on life of a commissary should be made.”
Many more references to the torture and humiliation of the bourgeoisie appear in Russia No. 1. But as the Bolshevik Revolution succeeded, even the definition of bourgeoisie was extended to include practically every Russian of what we may call the “middle class”. This is evident in Russia. No. 1 report No. 37., which consists of interviews with two men who managed to escape Petrograd in January of 1919 and be interviewed by British diplomats on February 13th of that year. The names of the men were withheld, certainly for their protection. So the opening of this report reads:
Notes on Interviews with Mr. C. and Mr. D., February 13, 1919.
MR. C. and Mr. D. were interviewed this morning in the Foreign Office. They both left Petrograd on the 17th January. Mr. C. was manager of a big firm in Petrograd, and was in prison three and a half months.
In the cities the cry of the Bolsheviks has been "the proletariat against the bourgeoisie," though as most of the big capitalists got away, it has really been the oppression of the de-bourgeoisie and the intelligent workmen by the dregs of the population.
So we see that as the Bolsheviks began to oppress the Russian middle class, the so-called “big capitalists” seemed to get away. Other reports describe this same thing, and it is evidently the plan of the Protocols that, as it says here in Protocol No. 3, “They will not harm our people because we will know of the time of the attack and we will take measures to protect them.” So these two gentlemen, after describing the conditions in the villages around Petrograd, in the Red Army stationed there, and among the workmen of the city, give a description of the state of the bourgeoisie which reads, in part:
The position of the bourgeoisie defies all description. All who employ labour down to a servant girl, or an errand boy, or anyone whose wants are provided for ahead, that is, all who do not live from hand to mouth, are considered under Bolshevism as bourgeoisie.
This would include practically anyone with an estate or with a salary sufficient enough to have an employee under hire, or any other means of income above a weekly paycheck, as being bourgeoisie. So anyone at a level of department manager or higher, or anyone who owned even the smallest of businesses, was a target for the enmity of the Bolsheviks. They continue their description and say:
All newspapers except the Bolshevik ones have been closed, and their plant and property confiscated. New decrees by the dozen are printed daily in the press, no other notification being given. Non-observance of any decree means confiscation of all property. All Government securities have been annulled and all others confiscated. Safe deposits have been opened, and all gold and silver articles confiscated. All plants and factories have been nationalised, as also the cinemas and theatres. This nationalisation or municipalisation means to the unhappy owner confiscation, since no payment is ever made. Payments by the banks from current or deposit accounts have been stopped. It is forbidden to sell furniture or to move it from one house to another without permission. Persons living in houses containing more rooms than they have members of their families have poor families billeted in the other rooms, the furniture in these rooms remaining for the use of the families billeted there. Hundreds of houses have been requisitioned for official or semi-official use, and thousands of unhappy residents have been turned out on the streets at an hour's notice with permission to take with them only the clothes they stood in, together with one change of linen. Houses are controlled by a poverty committee, composed of the poorest residents of the house. These committees have the right to take and distribute amongst themselves from the occupiers of the flats all furniture they consider in excess. They also act as Bolshevik agents, giving information as to movements.
Like every other tyranny, the success of Bolshevism relied on citizen informants. We see a similar policy is being executed in Germany today, where German citizens and property owners are being encouraged to volunteer housing for non-German and mostly alien muslim immigrants, or to help identify possibilities for housing, and where there are not enough volunteers, housing is being confiscated. The German city of Hamburg is currently confiscating vacant buildings from private owners for use as refugee housing, as reported by The Gatestone Institute (screenshot), and as the housing crisis worsens the program will inevitably be expanded, as signs of that are already occurring. Citizens in Hamburg are already concerned that they may be forced to share their apartments with strangers. As early as September, 2015, the British Telegraph (screenshot) reported that private German citizens who rented flats owned by certain municipalities were being evicted to make space for refugees.
Returning to our Russia No. 1 report on the condition of the bourgeoisie in Petrograd, in January of 1919:
A special tax was levied on all house property amounting practically to the full value of the same. Failure to pay in fourteen days resulted in municipalisation of property. All owners and managers of works, offices, and shops, as well as members of the leisured classes, have been called up for compulsory labour, first for the burial of cholera and typhus victims, and later for cleaning the streets, &c. All goods lying at the custom house warehouses have been seized and first mortgaged to the Government Bank for 100,000,000 roubles. Any fortunate owner of these goods, which were not finally confiscated, had the possibility of obtaining them on payment of the mortgage. All furniture and furs stored away have been confiscated. All hotels, restaurants, provision shops, and most other shops, are now closed after having had their stocks and inventories confiscated. Just before we left a new tax was brought out, the extraordinary Revolutionary Tax. In the Government newspapers there were printed daily lists of people, street by street, district by district, with the amount they must pay into the Government bank within fourteen days on pain of confiscation of all property. The amounts, I noticed, ranged from 2,000 roubles to 15,000,000. It is impossible to imagine how these sums can be paid.
These are only a small fraction of the crimes which the Jews committed against the largely Christian Russian middle class during and after the October Revolution. But the Bolsheviks were only expressing a hatred of the bourgeoisie which was made evident much earlier in The Communist Manifesto, published by the Jew Karl Marx and his bed-partner Friedrich Engels in 1848. Now many people mistakenly believe that The Communist Manifesto was the exclusive work of Marx and Engels, but more accurately the work was commissioned by an already-existing Communist League, and it reflected the opinions and the objectives of the entire League. Marx’s signal work, Das Kapital, was not published until much later, in 1867. The League itself was an organization reformed in 1847 from an older secret society which consisted of a great many so-called “workers” in France who had emigrated from Germany, and initially went by the name “League of the Just”. Of course, that must name have been a purposeful misnomer.
Before we present some of the passages from The Communist Manifesto which encourage a hatred for the bourgeoisie and reveal the Jewish intention on inciting class warfare in Europe, we must briefly repeat our explanation of what is meant by bourgeoisie in the Marxist writings. We had initially explained this in Part 23 of this series, subtitled Jewish Lies and Motivations, where we were compelled to give a lengthy description defining the term bourgeoisie, what the term had originally meant, and how it was used later on by communist Jews. Then after describing how the substance of the bourgeoisie had changed in the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism, we said the following in conclusion:
So, speaking in very general terms, originally the term bourgeoisie refers to the class of those who originally took the greatest risks and toiled the hardest for the establishment and subsequent maintenance of their nation, and therefore they and their posterity enjoyed the benefits of owning the land. It was this class who then developed the culture of the nation, through the transmission of learning and the accumulation of knowledge, and if they did not do that themselves, [then] they patronized those who did. It is this bourgeoisie which we as Christians should want to defend.
But to Jewish comics like Karl Marx, the term bourgeoisie represents only the new capitalist property-holding class, not the old order which had been overthrown, which [new class] exploits the lower classes while taking no risks of its own outside of superficial financial risks or doing any actual work of its own. This is a bourgeoisie that we should all despise, and the dichotomy of Marxism takes advantage of that so that they can destroy and demean the original bourgeoisie and the original Christian values that it once represented. But the original bourgeoisie itself having been Judaized and embracing materialism, even if it continued to marginally represent Christian values, hurried along its own demise. Wherever the Jews have not destroyed it, it is only because they intermarried with it and eventually, they became it, which is certainly the case in England.
So here we shall present some passages from The Communist Manifesto, along with some of our own commentary in order to exhibit the Marxist hatred of the bourgeoisie.
The first section of the Manifesto is subtitled Bourgeois and Proletarians, it it opens by saying:
The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
So immediately, the Manifesto opens with a false view of history based solely on materialism, which is actually the only world-view which the Jew can possibly understand anyway. Then it continues the false dichotomy into late medieval times where it says:
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms: Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.
Then after a short, simplistic and biased summary of European expansion and industrialization, it says:
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
And while this is very true, it is evident in the resulting publication of the Protocols as well as the history of the implementation of Marxism in Russia as well as unbridled Jewish capitalism and social agitation in the West, the real hatred of the bourgeoisie was incited in this manner so that the Jews themselves could become the new nobility. The proof of this is plain in the West today, as the 1% is 90% Jewish, and in Russia in the aftermath of the Soviet Union, where a small handful of Jewish so-called oligarchs came to own most of Russia’s industries.
And while much of the bourgeoisie of the industrial period was Jewish, and it is apparent that Marx did not exclude them in his use of the term, Marx was careful never to describe them along any other lines than their apparent economic class. In fact, where he went on to say the following, it is fully evident that he had a class in mind, whatever race it happened to belong to:
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations.
This is the deceit of Marxism, that in theory it did not distinguish between races. But when it was employed in practice, Jews were always in control and non-Jews, and especially Christians, were always the object of their scorn. If Marx had been honest about race, Marxism would not have recruited so many willing Gentile dupes. The authors of the Protocols were, however, entirely honest about race.
However it does seem that Marx is criticizing a Jewish bourgeoisie, while at the same time he is attributing its crimes to the entire bourgeoisie. This is apparent where the Manifesto says:
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
Of course, this is the inevitable outcome of Jewish materialism under any system, and this is suffered today under the capitalist system of the West. So many of the criticisms of Marx are valid, but he is blaming the propertied class in general, rather than the capitalist system popularized and imposed upon it by Jewry after the fall of Feudalism and the division of noble estates left Jewish bankers and merchants with an economic advantage.
As the Manifesto’s assault on the bourgeoisie continues, it becomes evident that it can only be understood once the Jewish mind, a mind which only operates in materialistic values, is also understood. So where it judges the labor of men, women, and children, it only makes its determinations under the assumption that women and children should even be in the workforce. So from that aspect it attacks the bourgeoisie again and says:
The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.
Later in the Manifesto, it distinguished between the lower middle class, which it determines as “the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants”, and explains that these people are also victims of the bourgeoisie. Then of these it said “The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class.” However in the Bolshevik Revolution, we saw these same people of the lower middle class were also counted as bourgeoisie and persecuted and stripped of their property.
Many of the attacks of Marxism on the post-Feudal economy of the West was based on false premises. This is fully evident where private property is regarded. The Manifesto states:
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?
Now in practice, since the Bolsheviks accounted all property as bourgeoisie property, since it evidently took for granted that there was no fairly-acquired property, they confiscated all property. The writers of the Manifesto would evidently approve, since they took it for granted that all other property was already confiscated by the bourgeoisie. Of course, this is also a lie.
Another significant and false premise of the Manifesto concerned the family. In this regard it says:
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
Only the Jew could think of the family in these terms, but Christians never thought of their families in these terms. The attack on the bourgeoisie family in the Manifesto was really an attack on the Christian family, which is also evident in the Jewish attitude dominating the materialistic capitalist system in the West today.
Further, the Manifesto’s criticisms of home education is also based on those same false premises:
But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
Of course, this may have been true in some poor families, and in some of the Jewish bourgeoisie families, but it is not true of most Christian families. Nevertheless, the Jewish assault on the Christian family has never relented, it is ongoing to this day, and the Jewish attitude towards the Christian family has not changed. Even where the capitalist governments show favor to families, such as in the area of income tax reductions, that favor is always based solely on materialistic terms, because just like Jews, the governments they dominate are also purely materialistic.
Another attack on the bourgeoisie clearly advances the cause of feminism, by completely mischaracterizing the role of women in the traditional family:
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
In reality, the Jew wanted to liberate women from their husbands and fathers, so that they could have them for themselves. A modern manifestation of these claims concerning women as an accusation against the modern society of 20th century America is found in movies such as The Stepford Wives, which was released in 1975.
So the bourgeoisie was also accused of being grossly immoral, where the Manifesto says:
Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives.
Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
The Jew relishes in projecting his own immorality upon others, and here Marx has accused the entire upper class of Europe with charges of wife-swapping, as well as with taking secret advantage of the wives of the lower classes, and he characterizes all of this, as well as the institution of marriage itself, as a form of prostitution. In practice, the Jew demanded that the “community of women” open itself to sexual relations with any man of any race or class on demand, and that was also instituted by the Bolsheviks. For that reason did the Jew need to destroy the traditional Christian family.
The novel Peyton Place, which would have remained in obscurity if it were not incessantly promoted by the Jews at the New York Times, is an example of a similar cultural assault in the West, where the Jews would portray every good Christian family or community as hypocrites and sinners in secret. So that novel was also made into a popular film attacking Christian culture in America, in 1957. Many other similar movies were made for similar reasons, as the Jews consistently assaulted the underpinnings of Western culture in their press, media and arts.
Perhaps one day we will be able to offer a much deeper and more complete analysis of The Communist Manifesto. Here we only seek to illustrate the fact that the intentions outlined in the Protocols are also the intentions of the Communist Jews who wrote the Manifesto, as well as the Bolshevik Jews who implemented it in Russia. The implementation of Communism by the Bolsheviks reveals the true intentions of the Jews in attacking the institutions of family and marriage in the West. The following is from the Russia. No. 1 report No. 21., which was made by telegraph on January 11th, 1919, a report from British General Frederick Poole to the British War Office. Poole was the Commanding General Officer of Britain’s North Russia Expeditionary Force in 1918 and 1919, so he is a very credible witness to what he reported. It must be noted that the World War was still being fought by the Russians on the Eastern Front with Germany:
From intercepted radios and leaflets it is clear that, to allay hostility abroad, Bolsheviks are conducting double campaign. Leaflets are distributed among German troops, while decrees which are not intended to be put into force, and appeals are radioed to Berlin, which show Bolsheviks in sufficiently liberal light to bring them into line with German Socialists. Appeals to unite and force world-wide revolution are made at the same time to proletariats. It is manifest from numerous deserters and refugees from Central Russia efforts to destroy social and economic life of country have not abated. There is evidence to show that commissariats of free love have been established in several towns, and respectable women flogged for refusing to yield. Decree for nationalisation of women has been put into force, and several experiments made to nationalise children. I trust His Majesty's Government will not allow Peace Conference to be influenced by Bolshevik presentation of their case abroad, as their action at home is diametrically opposed to this.
The actions of the Bolsheviks are certainly in accord with the plan of The Communist Manifesto in many ways, although apologists for Marx may deny that. Their treachery against Christian society went far beyond even what The Communist Manifesto had called for. With the call for class warfare in the Protocols we see also the destruction of marriage and the family in the West, and the Jews themselves forming a new nobility, replacing the Christian nobility, and ultimately, making themselves the only legitimate bourgeoisie in their own eyes. Class divisions were only used as a vehicle to exploit so that the Jews could attack the entire structure of Christian society. To this day, Jews now even push the idea that Christianity is Marxist, and promote Marxism within Christianity.
But strife and contention between the classes is absolutely not Christian, and neither is the denial of property rights. In Deuteronomy chapter 10, Yahweh informs the children of Israel that He gives wealth to certain of them in order to maintain the promises which He made to their fathers. So we see that if certain of us are wealthy, it is a blessing from God. Christ never asked the poor to despise the rich. Rather, he asked the rich not to oppress the poor, which is also a message found frequently in the prophetic writings. He then informed His disciples that they would always have poor among them, so He certainly did not promote forced income redistribution. Likewise, the apostle James demanded only that the wealthy pay their employees a fair wage, which is what a good Christian employer should do out of concern for his own people.
Now we must have a lengthy digression, to set the record straight concerning National Socialism in Germany, which is actually an antithesis to the so-called socialism of Marx and the Bolsheviks, and also to attest to this Jewish struggle to infiltrate and corrupt the Christian society by alienating social and economic groups. Understanding this is integral to a true understanding of the history of our race these past hundred years, or perhaps, three hundred years.
Unlike Bolshevism and Marxism, National Socialism did not advocate any enmity between the classes, and had instead encouraged cooperation. Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf recognized not only that classes should exist, but even described the need for their maintenance in a healthy society. In Volume 2, Chapter 12: The Problem of the Trade Unions, Hitler said that “The National Socialist State recognizes no 'classes'”, but that does not mean that it did not recognize that classes existed, as they certainly did. The Declaration of Independence in the United States also attested that government should not recognize classes, yet classes certainly continued to exist in America. The ideal was the same in both cases, that government should not judge or regulate its citizens differently on the basis of class, so in that case it must be blind as to class. So speaking further of the trade unions in the proposed state, Hitler said:
The National Socialist Trades Union is not an instrument for class warfare, but a representative organ of the various occupations and callings. The National Socialist State recognizes no 'classes'. But, under the political aspect, it recognizes only citizens with absolutely equal rights and equal obligations corresponding thereto. And, side by side with these, it recognizes subjects of the State who have no political rights whatsoever.
In National Socialist Germany, Jews and other aliens could reside and work in Germany, but they had no civic rights. Continuing with Hitler:
According to the National Socialist concept, it is not the task of the trades union to band together certain men within the national community and thus gradually transform these men into a class, so as to use them in a conflict against other groups similarly organized within the national community. We certainly cannot assign this task to the trades union as such. This was the task assigned to it the moment it became a fighting weapon in the hands of the Marxists. The trades union is not naturally an instrument of class warfare; but the Marxists transformed it into an instrument for use in their own class struggle. They created the economic weapon which the international Jew uses for the purpose of destroying the economic foundations of free and independent national States, for ruining their national industry and trade and thereby enslaving free nations to serve Jewish world-finance, which transcends all State boundaries.
Then a little further on, writing on the relationship between worker and employer, he said:
The National Socialist employee will have to recognize the fact that the economic prosperity of the nation brings with it his own material happiness.
The National Socialist employer must recognize that the happiness and contentment of his employees are necessary prerequisites for the existence and development of his own economic prosperity.
National Socialist workers and employers are both together the delegates and mandatories of the whole national community. The large measure of personal freedom which is accorded to them for their activities must be explained by the fact that experience has shown that the productive powers of the individual are more enhanced by being accorded a generous measure of freedom than by coercion from above. Moreover, by according this freedom we give free play to the natural process of selection which brings forward the ablest and most capable and most industrious.
So we see that National Socialism encouraged class cooperation, rather than class warfare, and this message is consistent throughout Mein Kampf. Hitler extended cooperation between the classes to the idea that Germans from any class who demonstrated intelligence and ability should be able to obtain an education allowing them to be promoted to a higher class. This is evident in Mein Kampf, Volume 2, Chapter 2, The State: where he wrote:
Here is another educative work that is waiting for the People's State to do. It will not be its task to assure a dominant influence to a certain social class already existing, but it will be its duty to attract the most competent brains in the total mass of the nation and promote them to place and honour. It is not merely the duty of the State to give to the average child a certain definite education in the primary school, but it is also its duty to open the road to talent in the proper direction. And above all, it must open the doors of the higher schools under the State to talent of every sort, no matter in what social class it may appear. This is an imperative necessity; for thus alone will it be possible to develop a talented body of public leaders from the class which represents learning that in itself is only a dead mass.
This concept of the State providing free education to promising and talented students of the lower classes may be criticized in some circles, however throughout European history men with remarkable ability who employed that ability in the service of their people were promoted into the nobility as a matter of custom. So Hitler’s profession is basically consistent with the same concept of the nobility of merit which has always existed among our people. In the Middle Ages, intelligent children from even the lowest classes could attract a sponsor who would provide the child an education when the child’s own family or class status could not afford one for him. In stark contrast, today in the West the dregs of society, even those of the lowest intelligence, receive university educations. That is closer to the ideals of Bolshevism than National Socialist Germany ever dared approach.
We have seen here in the Protocols that the Jews would not allow their own people to be touched by the class warfare that they would incite. We have seen evidence that the Bolsheviks followed that program when they confiscated the property of middle-class Russians. In the following lengthy passage from Mein Kampf, from Volume 1, Chapter 11: Race and People, Adolf Hitler explained the operation of the Jews in Germany in this same regard, in the 19th century. In it we see this boasts of the Protocols come to life in history:
The reason why, at the stage I am dealing with, the Jew so suddenly decided to transform himself into a German is not difficult to discover. He felt the power of the princes slowly crumbling and therefore looked about to find a new social plank on which he might stand. Furthermore, his financial domination over all the spheres of economic life had become so powerful that he felt he could no longer sustain that enormous structure or add to it unless he were admitted to the full enjoyment of the 'rights of citizenship.' He aimed at both, preservation and expansion; for the higher he could climb the more alluring became the prospect of reaching the old goal, which was promised to him in ancient times, namely world-rulership, and which he now looked forward to with feverish eyes, as he thought he saw it visibly approaching. Therefore all his efforts were now directed to becoming a fully-fledged citizen, endowed with all civil and political rights.
Of course, we would disagree that any of the promises of success or supremacy in the Bible applied to the Jew, but Hitler could not have known that. So he continues:
That was the reason for his emancipation from the Ghetto.
(i) And thus the Court Jew slowly developed into the national Jew. But naturally he still remained associated with persons in higher quarters and he even attempted to push his way further into the inner circles of the ruling set. But at the same time some other representatives of his race were currying favour with the people. If we remember the crimes the Jew had committed against the masses of the people in the course of so many centuries, how repeatedly and ruthlessly he exploited them and how he sucked out even the very marrow of their substance, and when we further remember how they gradually came to hate him and finally considered him as a public scourge – then we may well understand how difficult the Jew must have found this final transformation. Yes, indeed, it must tax all their powers to be able to present themselves as 'friends of humanity' to the poor victims whom they have skinned raw.
Therefore the Jew began by making public amends for the crimes which he had committed against the people in the past. He started his metamorphosis by first appearing as the 'benefactor' of humanity. Since his new philanthropic policy had a very concrete aim in view, he could not very well apply to himself the biblical counsel, not to allow the left hand to know what the right hand is giving. [Which is a Christian counsel that the Jew cannot understand. - WRF] He felt obliged to let as many people as possible know how deeply the sufferings of the masses grieved him and to what excesses of personal sacrifice he was ready to go in order to help them. With this manifestation of innate modesty, so typical of the Jew, he trumpeted his virtues before the world until finally the world actually began to believe him. Those who refused to share this belief were considered to be doing him an injustice. Thus after a little while he began to twist things around, so as to make it appear that it was he who had always been wronged, and vice versa. There were really some particularly foolish people who could not help pitying this poor unfortunate creature of a Jew.
Attention may be called to the fact that, in spite of his proclaimed readiness to make personal sacrifices, the Jew never becomes poor thereby. He has a happy knack of always making both ends meet. Occasionally his benevolence might be compared to the manure which is not spread over the field merely for the purpose of getting rid of it, but rather with a view to future produce. Anyhow, after a comparatively short period of time, the world was given to know that the Jew had become a general benefactor and philanthropist. What a transformation!
What is looked upon as more or less natural when done by other people here became an object of astonishment, and even sometimes of admiration, because it was considered so unusual in a Jew. That is why he has received more credit for his acts of benevolence than ordinary mortals.
And something more: The Jew became liberal all of a sudden and began to talk enthusiastically of how human progress must be encouraged. Gradually he assumed the air of being the herald of a new age.
Everything which Hitler had said here in his description of the Jew, and everything he is about to say, is absolutely manifest in recent American history as well. So he continues:
Yet at the same time he continued to undermine the ground-work of that part of the economic system in which the people have the most practical interest. He bought up stock in the various national undertakings and thus pushed his influence into the circuit of national production, making this latter an object of buying and selling on the stock exchange, or rather what might be called the pawn in a financial game of chess, and thus ruining the basis on which personal proprietorship alone is possible. Only with the entrance of the Jew did that feeling of estrangement, between employers and employees begin which led at a later date to the political class-struggle.
Hitler described elsewhere in Mein Kampf the evils of stock-exchange capital, how it destroys proprietorship and robs a nation of its wealth and resources for the benefit of stock-holders. Continuing here:
Finally the Jew gained an increasing influence in all economic undertakings by means of his predominance in the stock-exchange. If not the ownership, at least he secured control of the working power of the nation.
In order to strengthen his political position, he directed his efforts towards removing the barrier of racial and civic discrimination which had hitherto hindered his advance at every turn. With characteristic tenacity he championed the cause of religious tolerance for this purpose; and in the freemason organization, which had fallen completely into his hands, he found a magnificent weapon which helped him to achieve his ends. Government circles, as well as the higher sections of the political and commercial bourgeoisie, fell a prey to his plans through his manipulation of the masonic net, though they themselves did not even suspect what was happening.
Only the people as such, or rather the masses which were just becoming conscious of their own power and were beginning to use it in the fight for their rights and liberties, had hitherto escaped the grip of the Jew. At least his influence had not yet penetrated to the deeper and wider sections of the people. This was unsatisfactory to him. The most important phase of his policy was therefore to secure control over the people. The Jew realized that in his efforts to reach the position of public despot he would need a 'peace-maker.' And he thought he could find a peace-maker if he could whip-in sufficient extensive sections of the bourgeois. But the freemasons failed to catch the glove-manufacturers and the linen-weavers in the frail meshes of their net. And so it became necessary to find a grosser and withal a more effective means. Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began gradually to control public life in its entirety. He began to drive it along the road which he had chosen to reach his own ends; for he was now in a position to create and direct that force which, under the name of 'public opinion' is better known to-day than it was some decades ago.
We have asserted many times in these presentations of the Protocols, that the media does not measure public opinion, it creates public opinion. So public opinion polls are really reports on the success of fake news. Returning to Hitler:
Simultaneously the Jew gave himself the air of thirsting after knowledge. He lauded every phase of progress, particularly those phases which led to the ruin of others; for he judges all progress and development from the standpoint of the advantages which these bring to his own people. When it brings him no such advantages he is the deadly enemy of enlightenment and hates all culture which is real culture as such. All the knowledge which he acquires in the schools of others is exploited by him exclusively in the service of his own race.
Even more watchfully than ever before, he now stood guard over his Jewish nationality. Though bubbling over with 'enlightenment', 'progress', 'liberty', 'humanity', etc., his first care was to preserve the racial integrity of his own people. He occasionally bestowed one of his female members on an influential Christian; but the racial stock of his male descendants was always preserved unmixed fundamentally. He poisons the blood of others but preserves his own blood unadulterated. The Jew scarcely ever marries a Christian girl, but the Christian takes a Jewess to wife. The mongrels that are a result of this latter union always declare themselves on the Jewish side. Thus a part of the higher nobility in particular became completely degenerate. The Jew was well aware of this fact and systematically used this means of disarming the intellectual leaders of the opposite race. To mask his tactics and fool his victims, he talks of the equality of all men, no matter what their race or colour may be. And the simpletons begin to believe him.
Of course, the social patterns of the Jew may have changed now that the Jew has indeed become the new nobility. Approaching the end of our citation:
Since his whole nature still retains too foreign an odour for the broad masses of the people to allow themselves to be caught in his snare, he uses the Press to put before the public a picture of himself which is entirely untrue to life but well designed to serve his purpose. In the comic papers special efforts are made to represent the Jews as an inoffensive little race which, like all others, has its peculiarities. In spite of their manners, which may seem a bit strange, the comic papers present the Jews as fundamentally good-hearted and honourable. Attempts are generally made to make them appear insignificant rather than dangerous.
During this phase of his progress the chief goal of the Jew was the victory of democracy, or rather the supreme hegemony of the parliamentary system, which embodies his concept of democracy. This institution harmonises best with his purposes; for thus the personal element is eliminated and in its place we have the dunder-headed majority, inefficiency and, last but by no means least, knavery.
The final result must necessarily have been the overthrow of the monarchy, which had to happen sooner or later.
That ends our citation from Mein Kampf. According to Adolf Hitler, the Jewish desire for class warfare expressed in the Protocols was underway long before the Bolshevik Revolution, or even the writing of The Communist Manifesto.