Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exploring (mostly Cultural) Marxism in today's Left
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 136 of 381 (813236)
06-24-2017 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
06-24-2017 8:07 PM


Satanism among Marx's friends
Pages 16-18 from Marx and Satan:
Marx did not often speak publicly about metaphysics, but we can gather his views from the men with whom he associated. One of his partners in the First International was Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian anarchist, who wrote:
The Evil One is the satanic revolt against divine authority, revolt in which we see the fecund germ of all human emancipations, the revolution. Socialists recognise each other by the words "In the name of the one to whom a great wrong has been done." Satan [is] the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.
Bakunin does more than praise Lucifer. He has a concrete program of revolution, but not one that would free the poor from exploitation. He writes:
In this revolution we will have to awaken the Devil in the people, to stir up the basest passions. Our mission is to destroy, not to edify. The passion of destruction is a creative passion.
Marx, along with Bakunin, formed the First International and endorsed this strange program. Marx and Engels said in The Communist Manifesto that the proletarian sees law, morality, and religion as "so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests."
Bakunin reveals that Proudhon, another major Socialist thinker and at that time a friend of Karl Marx, also "worshiped Satan." Hess had introduced Marx to Proudhon, who wore the same hair style typical of the nineteenth-century Satanist sect of Joanna Southcott.
Proudhon, in The Philosophy of Misery, declared that God was the prototype for injustice.
We reach knowledge in spite of him, we reach society in spite of him. Every step forward is a victory in which we overcome the Divine.
He exclaims,
Come, Satan, slandered by the small and by kings. God is stupidity and cowardice; God is hypocrisy and falsehood; God is tyranny and poverty; God is evil. Where humanity bows before an altar, humanity, the slave of kings and priests, will be condemned.... I swear, God, with my hand stretched out towards the heavens, that you are nothing more than the executioner of my reason, the sceptre of my conscience.... God is essentially anticivilized, antiliberal, antihuman.
Proudhon declares God to be evil because man, His creation, is evil. Such thoughts are not original; they are the usual content of sermons delivered in Satanist worship.
Marx later quarreled with Proudhon and wrote a book to refute his Philosophy of Misery. But Marx contradicted only minor economic doctrines. He had no objection to Proudhon's demonic anti-God rebellion.
17
Heinrich Heine, the renowned German poet, was a third intimate friend of Marx. He too was a Satan fancier. He wrote:
I called the devil and he came, His face with wonder I must scan; He is not ugly, he is not lame. He is a delightful, charming man.
"Marx was a great admirer of Heinrich Heine... . Their relationship was warm, hearty."
Why did he admire Heine? Perhaps for Satanist thoughts like the following:
I have a desire ... for a few beautiful trees before my door, and if dear God wishes to make me totally happy, he will give me the joy of seeing six or seven of my enemies hanged on these trees. With a compassionate heart I will forgive them after death all the wrong they have done to me during their life. Yes, we must forgive our enemies, but not before they are hanged. I am not revengeful. I would like to love my enemies. But I cannot love them before taking revenge upon them. Only then my heart opens for them. As long as one has not avenged himself, bitterness remains in the heart.
Would any decent man be an intimate friend of one who thinks like this?
But Marx and his entourage thought alike. Lunatcharski, a leading philosopher who was once minister of education of the U.S.S.R., wrote in Socialism aid Religion that Marx set aside all contact with God and instead put Satan in front of marching proletarian columns.
It is essential at this point to state emphatically that Marx and his comrades, while anti-God, were not atheists, as present-day Marxists claim to be. That is, while they openly denounced and reviled God, they hated a God in whom they believed. They challenged not His existence, but His supremacy.
When the revolution broke out in Paris in 1871, the Communard Flourens declared, "Our enemy is God. Hatred of God is the beginning of wisdom."
Marx greatly praised the Communards who openly proclaimed this aim. But what has this to do with a more equitable distribution of goods or with better social institutions? Such are only the outward trappings for concealing the real aim - the total eradication of God and His worship. We saw the evidence of this in such countries as Albania, and today in North Korea, where all churches, mosques, and pagodas have been closed. [My emphasis. Also want to note that Wurmbrand is nave about Islam as well as the RCC]
18
Marx's Devilish Poetry
We see this clearly in Marx's poetry. In "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. Marx's ballad "The Player" records the singer's complaints against a God who neither knows nor respects his art. This emerges from the dark abyss of hell, bedeviling the mind and bewitching the heart, and his dance is the dance of death." The minstrel draws his sword and throws it into the poet's soul.
Art emerging from the dark abyss of hell, bedeviling the mind ... This reminds us of the words of the American revolutionary Jerry Rubin in Do It:
We've combined youth, music, sex, drugs, and rebellion with treason-and that's a combination hard to beat.
In his poem "Human Pride," Marx admits that his aim is not to improve the world or to reform or revolutionize it, but simply to ruin it and to enjoy its 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 ardour. 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.
Marx adopted Satanism after intense inner struggle. He ceased writing poems during a period of severe illness, a result of the tempest within his heart. He wrote at that time about his vexation at having to make an idol of a view he detested. He felt sick.
The overriding reason for Marx's conversion to communism appears clearly in a letter of his friend Georg Jung to Ruge: it was not the emancipation of the proletariat, nor even the establishing of a better social order. 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....
Were these poems the only expressly Satanist writings of Karl Marx? We do not know, because the bulk of his works is kept secret by those who guard his manuscripts.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 06-24-2017 8:07 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Riggamortis, posted 06-24-2017 9:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2017 12:46 AM Faith has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2389 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 137 of 381 (813239)
06-24-2017 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
06-24-2017 8:29 PM


Re: the Tenets of Satanism
So what do Karl's views on theology really have to do with the idea that the majority of people should be organised enough to leverage their power over the wealthy few?
quote:
He exclaims,
Come, Satan, slandered by the small and by kings. God is stupidity and cowardice; God is hypocrisy and falsehood; God is tyranny and poverty; God is evil. Where humanity bows before an altar, humanity, the slave of kings and priests, will be condemned.... I swear, God, with my hand stretched out towards the heavens, that you are nothing more than the executioner of my reason, the sceptre of my conscience.... God is essentially anticivilized, antiliberal, antihuman.
Sounds about right to me, ignorance is holding us back as a species. Money is what money does and should be created with the good of all in mind, as opposed to the current system of money creation by credit. Allowing banks to create the vast majority of our money from thin air and lend it to us at interest is essentially a private tax for access to our supposedly sovereign currency.
Sustainablilty should be a priority for sustainabilities sake. Unsustainable = can't last.
Necessary industry like energy, currency, water, food and housing should all be run on a cost recovery model as opposed to for profit. One mans profit is another mans loss so we have a society that fundamentally screws some people over so that other may have more than enough.
These three things require at least 'capitalism light' which is the name I have given to a model that runs essential goods and services at cost price and allows the profit motive to drive non-essential industry. Are you actually able to argue against any of this or is it just 'I don't like commies cos I've been indoctrinated to hate them with a passion?'
Edited by Riggamortis, : Typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 06-24-2017 8:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 06-24-2017 9:54 PM Riggamortis has not replied
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 06-24-2017 10:01 PM Riggamortis has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 138 of 381 (813240)
06-24-2017 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Riggamortis
06-24-2017 9:35 PM


Marx an anti-Semite?? Racist?? Hater??
As I said, I expect a lot of the anti-religion to be popular at EvC. You confirm that. I'm sure there are many here who agree with you. No, I'm not going to try to talk you out of it, I'm just documenting some ideas at this point.
Here's another: I didn't know Marx had written anything anti-Semitic so this came as a surprise:
Though a Jew, he wrote a pernicious anti-Jewish book called The Jewish Question. In 1856, he wrote in The New York Tribune an article entitled "The Russian Loan," in which we read:
We know that behind every tyrant stands a Jew, as a Jesuit stands behind every Pope. As the army of the Jesuits kills every free thought, so the desire of the oppressed would have chances of success, the usefulness of wars incited by capitalists would cease, if it were not for the Jews who steal the treasures of mankind. It is no wonder that 1856 years ago Jesus chased the usurers from the Jerusalem temple. They were like the contemporary usurers who stand behind tyrants and tyrannies. The majority of them are Jewish. The fact that the Jews have become so strong as to endanger the life of the world causes us to disclose their organization, their purpose, that its stench might awaken the workers of the world to fight and eliminate such a canker.
Did Hitler say anything worse than this?
26
(Strangely, Marx also wrote to the contrary, in The Capital, Volume I, under the heading "The Capitalist Character of Manufacture": "In the front of the chosen people it was written that they are the property of Jehovah.")
Many other Jewish Communists imitated Marx in their hatred of Jews. Ruth Fisher, renowned German Jewish Communist leader and a member of Parliament, said: "Squash the Jewish capitalists, hang them from the lamp posts; tread them under your feet." Why just the Jewish capitalists and not the others remains an unanswered question.
Marx hated not only the Jews, but also the Germans: "Beating is the only means of resurrecting the Germans." He spoke about "the stupid German people ... the disgusting national narrowness of the Germans" and said that "Germans, Chinese, and Jews have to be compared with peddlers and small merchants." He called the Russians "cabbage-eaters." The Slavic peoples were "ethnic trash." He expressed his hatred of many nations, but never his love.
Marx wrote in his new year's roundup of 1848 about "the Slavic riffraff," which included Russians, Czechs, and Croats.
These "retrograde" races had nothing left for them by fate except "the immediate task of perishing in the revolutionary world storm." "The coming world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but entire reactionary peoples, to disappear from the face of the earth. And that will be progress." "Their very name will vanish."
Neither Marx nor Engels were concerned about the destruction of millions of people. The former wrote,
A silent, unavoidable revolution is taking place in society, a revolution that cares as little about the human lives it destroys as an earthquake cares about the houses it ravages. Classes and races that are too weak to dominate the new conditions of existence will be defeated.
In contrast, Hitler, who desired only the enslavement and not the destruction of these nations, was much more humane than Marx.
Engels wrote in the same vein:
The next world war will make whole reactionary peoples disappear from the face of the earth. This, too, is progress. Obviously this cannot be fulfilled without crushing some delicate national flower. But without violence and without pitilessness nothing can be obtained in history
Marx, the man who posed as a fighter for the proletariat, called this class of people "stupid boys, rogues, asses.
Engels well knew what to expect from them. He wrote, "The democratic, red, yes, even the Communist mob, will never love us."
Marx identified black people with "idiots" and constantly used the offensive term "nigger" in private correspondence.
He called his rival Lassalle "the Jewish nigger" and made it very clear that this was not intended as an epithet of disdain for just one person.
It is now absolutely clear to me that, as both the shape of his head and his hair texture shows, he is descended from the Negroes who joined Moses' flight from Egypt (unless his mother or grandmother on the paternal side hybridized with a nigger).... The pushiness of the fellow is also nigger-like.
Marx even championed slavery in North America. For this, he quarreled with his friend Proudhon, who had advocated the emancipation of slaves in the U.S. Marx wrote in response,
Without slavery, North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe North America from the map of the world and you will have anarchy-the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Abolish slavery and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.
Marx also wrote, "The Devil take the British! - In spite of such denunciations, there are plenty of British, as well as American, Marxists.
A page or two before this, Engels is quoted from his earlier life expressing strong Christian doctrine and feeling. It made me cry to think anyone could be that dedicated a Christian and end up so given over to the opposite.
I would think that it should be clear by now that some of the brightest lights in Marxism had no humane intentions whatever. Some of what is said above could have been the main inspiration for Hitler's "final solution" not just against the Jews but the Slavs and in fact the Communists too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Riggamortis, posted 06-24-2017 9:35 PM Riggamortis has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 139 of 381 (813241)
06-24-2017 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Riggamortis
06-24-2017 9:35 PM


Marxism is no solution to human problems
So what do Karl's views on theology really have to do with the idea that the majority of people should be organised enough to leverage their power over the wealthy few?
Well, for starters that's a false and destructive analysis of the problems that can only make things worse.
It's interesting how people think Marxism offers any real solutions to social problems, especially to me after reading as far as I have in the book about Marx and Satan. Unfortunately Marxism has become the popular framework for thinking about these problems and prying people loose from it would be a monumental project.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Riggamortis, posted 06-24-2017 9:35 PM Riggamortis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Riggamortis, posted 06-24-2017 10:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2389 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 140 of 381 (813242)
06-24-2017 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Faith
06-24-2017 10:01 PM


Re: Marxism is no solution to human problems
quote:
Well, for starters that's a false and destructive analysis of the problems that can only make things worse.
It supposes that the wealthy few are leveraging their wealth against the interests of the many and therefore calls for the many to leverage their number against the few.
The wealthy are so blatantly manipulating our democracies that I cannot fathom how you think it's a 'false and destructive analysis'. It would help if you'd argue it, rather than just assert it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 06-24-2017 10:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 06-24-2017 10:36 PM Riggamortis has not replied
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 06-24-2017 11:04 PM Riggamortis has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 141 of 381 (813243)
06-24-2017 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Riggamortis
06-24-2017 10:28 PM


Re: Marxism is no solution to human problems
It supposes that the wealthy few are leveraging their wealth against the interests of the many and therefore calls for the many to leverage their number against the few.
The wealthy are so blatantly manipulating our democracies that I cannot fathom how you think it's a 'false and destructive analysis'. It would help if you'd argue it, rather than just assert it.
I'm not educated enough in that area to argue it, I'm for laws that restrict any kind of exploitation where it can be identified, but otherwise it seems to me that private wealth is a good thing for society. The complaint that it's evil in itself is fairly called Envy and has nothing to do with societal ills. Where there are clearly societal ills due to private wealth, however, I would say they are in the hands of people like Soros who fund violent protests and manipulate politics to a destructive end.
There's some really silly idea that the wealth possessed by the wealthy deprives others of wealth, as if there's some finite amount to go around. But wealth is created by enterprise, it grows, it isn't static. Until you start taking it away from people and giving it to others. THEN you produce poverty.
As I said I don't feel I know enough to argue this, but those are the thoughts I have for what it's worth.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Riggamortis, posted 06-24-2017 10:28 PM Riggamortis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by JonF, posted 06-25-2017 9:02 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 142 of 381 (813244)
06-24-2017 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Riggamortis
06-24-2017 10:28 PM


Re: Marxism is no solution to human problems
It supposes that the wealthy few are leveraging their wealth against the interests of the many and therefore calls for the many to leverage their number against the few.
The wealthy are so blatantly manipulating our democracies that I cannot fathom how you think it's a 'false and destructive analysis'. It would help if you'd argue it, rather than just assert it.
How about explaining what YOU mean? HOW are the wealthy few "leveraging their wealth against the interests of the many?"
What would it entail for "the many to leverage their number against the few?" Exactly what does that mean in practical reality?
And exactly how are the wealthy few "blatantly manipulating our democracies?"
Since I suppose your analysis is Marxist in principle you should educate us about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Riggamortis, posted 06-24-2017 10:28 PM Riggamortis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Riggamortis, posted 06-25-2017 8:53 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 143 of 381 (813246)
06-25-2017 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
06-24-2017 8:29 PM


Re: the Tenets of Satanism
Joanna Southcott was not a Satanist. And if Wurmbrand makes obviously false claims about that, how can we trust him on anything else ?
And I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that Wurmbrand was quoting an "official biographer" when the material you quote from Wurmbrand seems to be clearly talking about Payne.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 06-24-2017 8:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 06-25-2017 4:56 AM PaulK has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 144 of 381 (813247)
06-25-2017 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Phat
06-23-2017 1:35 PM


Re: Health Care and Retirement
So far the Republicans have given me little comfort that they have my interests at heart.
A little context: I grew up and live in that little red dot of Orange County, Calif. My ex-wife and I were the only Democrats in our families and my once expressed her relief in meeting me and that I was a rarity, because almost every other guy she's met here was either a Republican or a Fundamentalist or both.
Similarly, my one sister's husband grew up and remains a staunch Republican (and now they're fundamentalists as well). He has also been retired for about a decade. One day about six years ago, he suddenly declared out of the blue: "I've come to realize that the Republicans are not my friends."
And yet a few years later, he was flabbergasted to hear that I had voted for Obama. Despite his awakening, he still could not imagine anybody not voting the Republicans in so that they could continue to work against retirees. And against the workers and the poor as well.
It is an obvious fact that, if left unchecked, pure capitalism leads to horrific exploitation of the workers. The bottom line is all that counts when people are reduced to anonymous resources. And the pressure is really on for upper management from shareholders to show growth and profits for every single quarter. In that kind of environment, all that there is room for is extremely short-term planning and action at the expense of long-term planning and investment that could otherwise lead to far more beneficial growth and profit.
There are basically two ways to increase profit: increase revenues or decrease expenses. The factor that you have direct control over is expenses. And the easiest ways to reduce expenses is to pay your employees less, provide them with fewer benefits including medical care, reduce or eliminate pension programs, eliminate their positions replacing them with much cheaper options (eg, out-sourcing overseas, automation).
Of course, some would object that even management are human and possess compassion. Individually, yes, when faced with the realization that those other people are also humans. But not so much when those others are abstractions and it's your own management position, your own job, that depends on eliminating those positions or those benefits. I have worked for several companies with very nice people in management, but even they have to lay people off and it's never easy for them -- but then the more impersonal it becomes the easier it becomes.
And what happens with those former workers is no longer the company's concern. That applies to the now-unemployed, the disabled, the retired. So whose concern should it be?
caffeine pointed out in Message 23 that we need to keep Marx' writings within his historical context as skilled craftsmen earning decent livings were being replaced by unskilled factory workers operating machines the provided the skill. I voice agreement in Message 31 with the examples of the Luddites and Walmart.
Consider this summary of an economic model. People make money and they spend money. When they spend money, stores make money and their management and employees make money, both of which results in more money being spent with the associated benefits to the stores. When stores make money, they order more product and manufacturers make more money. So manufacturers can expand production, hire more workers, and more people make money which they then spend to enable the growth of the entire economy allowing almost everybody to prosper.
Now, consider the Republican wet dream. Reduce the amount of money that poor people can make and remove social safety nets from the workers including denying them medical care so that a single medical incident will remove them and everybody in their family from the working pool, while at the same time giving more and more money to the most wealthy. It's been tried, such as in Kansas, which is now raising taxes on the rich in order to climb out of the economic disaster they had placed themselves into.
Give money to a poor person (or a retiree) and he will spend that money, which will in turn fuel growth in the economy. But a rich person is already spending all the money that he can. If you give him more money, he can't think of anything else to spend it on. Giving more money to a rich person keeps that money from getting spent and helping to grow the economy. Instead, he either hoards that extra money or else gambles it away in stock market speculation (not to be confused with actual capitalism, which at least produces something unlike speculation).
And to reiterate, yes, we have tried the Republican economic model. Such as in Kansas. It fails miserably. Do not try it on the country!
So then, either we give money to the people who need it to survive or we give it to the wealthy who have absolutely no need for it. If we give it to the people who need it, then they will spend it and help grow the economy. If we give it to the people who do not need it, then they will not spend it and the economy continues to go to shit.
The choice should be obvious. Why do Republicans still have no clue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Phat, posted 06-23-2017 1:35 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 06-25-2017 6:02 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 145 of 381 (813250)
06-25-2017 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by PaulK
06-25-2017 12:46 AM


Re: the Tenets of Satanism
I misspoke about the biographer, merely intending to say Payne was an actual biographer to contrast him with Wurmbrand who is merely doing a study of the Satanic themes in Marx's life.
Joanna Southcott's "prophecies" make her an occultist at least, which connects her with the powers of darkness. I'll see if I can find more reason in the book to connect her with Satanism itself as Wurmbrand did.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2017 12:46 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2017 5:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 146 of 381 (813251)
06-25-2017 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Faith
06-25-2017 4:56 AM


Re: the Tenets of Satanism
quote:
I misspoke about the biographer, merely intending to say Payne was an actual biographer to contrast him with Wurmbrand who is merely doing a study of the Satanic themes in Marx's life
I don't think that an interpretation of one biographer's interpretation is much of an argument. Do you ?
quote:
Joanna Southcott's "prophecies" make her an occultist at least, which connects her with the powers of darkness
Or more likely a deluded Christian. At least to those informed of the basics of her life.
quote:
I'll see if I can find more reason in the book to connect her with Satanism itself as Wurmbrand did.
I doubt it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 06-25-2017 4:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 381 (813252)
06-25-2017 5:31 AM


Son in Law into Satanism
Wurmbrand says he found out that the keepers of Marx's manuscripts have a hundred of them, out of which only thirteen have been made public. So he wonders if there is more overt Satanism in those not made public. The evidence from the public documents is his early writings that make use of satanic themes, and the fact that his friends do show more overt involvement in Satanism.
On p.25 (Marx and Satan)he quotes the overt Satanism of the husband of Marx's favorite daughter Eleanor:
Satan is in the Family
Marx's favorite daughter, Eleanor, with her father’s approval, married Edward Eveling. He lectured on such subjects as "The Wickedness of God." (Just as Satanists do. Unlike atheists, they do not deny the existence of God, except to deceive others; they know of His existence, but describe Him as wicked.) In his lectures he tried to prove that God is "an encourager of polygamy and an instigator to theft." He advocated the right to blaspheme. The following poem describes the attitudes of his movement toward Satanism:
To thee my verses, unbridled and daring,
Shall mount, O Satan, king of the banquet.
Away with thy sprinkling, O priest, and thy droning.
For never shall Satan, O priest, stand behind thee.
Thy breath, O Satan, my verses inspires,
When from my bosom the gods I defy.
Of kings pontifical, of kings inhuman:
Throe is the lightning that sets minds to shaking.
O soul that wanderest far from the straight way,
Satan is merciful. See Heloisa!
Like the whirlwind spreading its wings,
He passes, O people, Satan the great!
Hail, of reason the great Vindicator!
Sacred to thee shall rise incense and vows!
Thou hast the god of the priest disenthroned
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2017 6:11 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 148 of 381 (813253)
06-25-2017 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by dwise1
06-25-2017 3:27 AM


Re: Health Care and Retirement
The Bible forbids giving to the rich.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by dwise1, posted 06-25-2017 3:27 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by dwise1, posted 06-25-2017 2:25 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 149 of 381 (813254)
06-25-2017 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
06-25-2017 5:31 AM


Re: Son in Law into Satanism
If Marx's son in law was a Satanist that would only be weak circumstantial evidence that Marx himself was a Satanist - very weak when the relationship only began after Marx's death.
However, Edward Aveling was an atheist according to the main evidence available and Wurmbrand only offers weak circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
You know, if you want to convince us that Wurmbrand has a case you really shouldn't be telling about this desperate scrambling for anything that might count as evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 06-25-2017 5:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 06-25-2017 6:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 150 of 381 (813255)
06-25-2017 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by PaulK
06-25-2017 6:11 AM


Re: Son in Law into Satanism
I note that you give no evidence yourself, just make assertions. Wurmbrand says Eleanor's marriage had Marx's approval, and the poem attributed to her husband is certainly Satan worship. Even if you were right that the marriage came after Marx's death it must say something about Marx that his favorite daughter would marry a Satan worshiper. And there's a lot more evidence of such Satanic themes among Marx's friends, so the evidence is hardly confined to Eleanor's husband.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2017 6:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 06-25-2017 6:22 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 152 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2017 6:34 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024