Charles Bradlaugh was a strong critic of Socialism and would write to Karl Marx who had come to live in Great Britain outlining its dangers.
He wrote a pamphlet detailing its flaws which have sadly proven to be accurate.
In the pamphlet Charles Bradlaugh chides Marx for not adapting to life in Britain.
“A difficulty arising from the repressive measures resorted to in Germany has been that German emigrants to the United States and to Great Britain, speak and write as if precisely the same wrongs had to be assailed in the lands of their adoption as in the land of their birth.”
Charles Bradlaugh correctly identifies in the pamphlet that the real motivation of Socialists for advocating revolution is hatred.
“These Scientific Socialists–mostly middle-class men–declare their intense hatred of the _bourgeoisie_, and affirm that the Social State they desire to create can only be established on the ruins of the present society, by a revolution which they say must come in any event, but which they strive to accelerate.”
Charles Bradlaugh then makes multiple remarks relating to how Socialists wish to bring about chaos by refusing to make any proposals on what a planned socialist state will look like or how it will operate.
“These Scientific Socialists deny that they ought to be required to propound any social scheme, and they contemptuously refuse to discuss any of the details connected with the future of the new Social State, to make way for which the present is to be cleared away.”
“Their reason is, probably, that they have not even made the slightest effort to frame any plan, but would be content to try first to destroy all existing government. I suggest that this want and avoidance of foresight is, in the honest, folly, and in the wise, criminality.”
“When organisation can be spoken of as possible without any scheme or detailed plan, it shows that words are used without regard to serious meaning.”
There are several statements that at the time would have been speculative since no socialistic state was in existence. We now have the benefit of hindsight and can apply the empirical evidence to Charles Bradlaugh’s warnings and see they have sadly come true.
“We object that the organisation of all industry under State control must paralyse industrial energy and discourage and neutralise individual effort.”
“The realisation of a Socialistic State in this country would, as I then urged, require (1) a physical force revolution, in which all the present property owners unwilling to surrender their private properties to the common fund would be forcibly dispossessed. This revolution would be in the highest degree difficult, if not impossible, for property holders are the enormous majority.”
“If the physical force revolution were possible, because of the desperate energy of those owning nothing, its success would be achieved with serious immediate crime, and would be attended with consequent social mischief and terrible demoralisation extending over a long period.”
“I object that a Socialistic State to be realised by force can only be so realised after a period of civil war shocking to contemplate, and one in which the wisest would go near madness.”
The violence, terror and mass deaths of which we are now aware having occurred in socialist countries could hardly have been imagined by Charles Bradlaugh to the degree that was inflicted yet he clearly had some idea that an outcome of that ilk would be the consequence.
The following demonstrates just how perceptive and insightful Charles Bradlaugh was as he is predicting the creation of ‘Cultural Marxism’.
“But a Socialistic State, even if achieved, could not be maintained without a second (mental) revolution, in which the present ideas and forms of expression concerning property would have to be effaced, and the habit of life (resulting from long-continued teachings and long-enduring traditions) would have to be broken. The words “my house,” “my coat,” “my horse,” “my watch,” “my book,” are all affirmations of private property which would have to be unlearned. The whole current of human thought would have to be changed.”
Culminating in the eradication of free speech with this dangerous ideology.
“Nor, if such a Socialistic State be established, is it easy to conceive how free expression of individual opinion, either by press or platform, can be preserved and maintained. All means of publicity will belong to, and be controlled by, the State. But what will this mean? Will a Socialistic government furnish halls to its adversaries, print books for its opponents, organise costly journals for those who are hostile to it?
If not, there must come utter stagnation of opinion.”
In more recent times others who have suffered under Socialism have documented the sinister subtext to Marxism and one, Pastor Marx and Satan’.a book ‘
This is a review of Wurmbrand’s book on Amazon.
“A half of a century later, no Marxist can boast of really having understood Karl Marx” (Lenin). Pastor Wurmbrand having long known the rigueurs of the red “paradise” set himself to explore the hidden face of marxism. He reveals, here, his discoveries, analyses the entourage of Marx, his family who experienced many suicides, and quotes his earlier works. Karl was barely twenty when he wrote, “I want to take revenge on Him who reigns over us…” His mentor Moses Hess wrote of him, “It is Marx who will be the one to finish off religion”.
It would appear that behind a facade of supposed atheism, Marx and his peers believed in God and wanted to bring the whole world to hate him. Their purpose was to draw humanity into hell. The method? “If for the work of communism we must exterminate nine tenths of the population, we must not not baulk before such a sacrifice” Lenin coldly wrote; and he added, “Lying is not only a means which one is permitted to use, it is THE most proven means in the bolchevic struggle.
Sometimes the mask slides: “If we were to put you to death, you would go to heaven, says one of the jailors to some christians imprisoned for their faith behind the Iron Curtain. But we don’t want that. What we want, is for you to curse God and go to hell!”
Not so “a-theist” after all? or, could we say today, a science-enabled religion?
A former KGB agent, Yuri Bezmenov wrote in Love Letter to America‘ about the Marxism he had helped before defecting in 1970.
Communism and Marxist-Leninist dogma, according to some thinkers (Dr George Steiner for one), is another distorted form of faith, able to inspire martyrdom in millions. Substituting the traditional values of the Judeo-Christian heritage with this Marxist-Satanic faith is one of the basic principles of subversion at the stage of demoralization- the highest and most effective level of ideas.
This interview by Edward G Griffin of Yuri Bezmenov succinctly explains how Marx-Satanism attempts to subvert democracy.
For more on Satanism then visit Mark Passio ‘What on Earth is Happening’.