# Marx and Satan (Wurmbrand)



## RamistThomist (Apr 13, 2019)

Wurmbrand, Richard. _Marx and Satan_.

One only has to read Marx’s analysis of Hegel to see that Marx is clearly demon-possessed. But Wurmbrand suspects there might be more to it. Wurmbrand is not saying Marx made a pact with the Devil. He is saying he used Luciferian categories, language, etc. And later Marxists were openly Satanic.

Richard Wurmbrand was imprisoned and tortured by the Communists. (That sentence was redundant. If you are captured by Communists, you will be tortured. The essence or redoctrination demands it). I also urge one to read Gary North's _Regeneration through Revolution _and his talks on Marxism.





_Satanic Evidence_

Marx speaks of “building his throne against God” in language reminiscent of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.

Background:

One of the rituals of the Satanist church is the back mass, which Satanist priests recite at midnight. Black candles are put in the candlesticks upside down. The priest is dressed in his ornate robes, but with the lining outside. He says all things prescribed in the prayer book, but reads from the end toward the beginning. The holy names of God, Jesus, and Mary are read inversely. A crucifix is fastened upside down or trampled upon. The body of a naked woman serves as an altar. A consecrated wafer stolen from a church is inscribed with the name Satan and is used for a mock communion. During the black mass a Bible is burned. All those present promise to commit the seven deadly sins, as enumerated in Catholic catechisms, and never to do any good. An orgy follows (Wurmbrand 8).

We will now consider Marx’s drama “Oulanem” (which is an inversion of the name Emanuel, a specifically Satanic move) Marx writes,

"The hellish vapours rise and fill the brain, Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed. See this sword? The prince of darkness Sold it to me. For me he beats the time and gives the signs. Ever more boldly I play the dance of death."

Wurmbrand comments: These lines take on special significance when we learn that in the rites of higher initiation in the Satanist cult an "enchanted" sword which ensures success is sold to the candidate. He pays for it by signing a covenant, with blood taken from his wrists, agreeing that his soul will belong to Satan after death (9).

Marx writes in a letter to his father, “A curtain had fallen. My holy of holies was rent asunder and new gods had to be installed” (10 November 1837).

Instead of telling his kids fairy tales at bed times, he told them stories of men who sold their souls to the devil. Seriously. Who does this? Wurmbrand quotes Robert Payne, “There can be very little doubt that those interminable stories were autobiographical. He had the Devil's view of the world, and the Devil's malignity. Sometimes he seemed to know that he was accomplishing works of evil.”

Speaking of the anarchist Bakunin, Wurmbrand has a very interesting paragraph: “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” (Wurmbrand 16).

Marx’s favorite daughter Eleanor married an avowed Satanist, Edward Eveling.

Marx’s behavior on his deathbed was rather strange. His housemaid and whore, Helen Demuth, said he prayed before candles the week before his death. Marx never practiced Judaism and he openly rejected Christianity. So what was happening? More interesting is that he had a statue of Zeus. Zeus, as those who aren’t enamored of a Bowdlerized Greek classicism know, is Satan. Plain and simple.

Wurmbrand: “Britain’s center of Satanism is Highgate Cemetery in London, where Karl Marx is buried. Mysterious rites of black magic are celebrated at this tomb. It was the place of inspiration for the Highgate Vampire, who attacked several girls in 1970” (35).

Wurmbrand then has some observations on Lenin’s Satanism. The rest of the book (from about page 40 onward) is a litany of Marxist crimes, especially in connection with Satanic themes. It is a supplement to Solzhenitsyn’s never-sufficiently-praised Gulag. It’s not easy reading. It’s necessary, though. If anyone is tempted by Wokism or Cultural Marxism, then he/she/xir/xim needs to read it. And own it. Because that’s exactly what is going to happen.

The last chapter is a snapshot from a Satanic mass by a person who later escaped. I won’t mention it here for obvious reasons.

Some criticisms

This is one of those issues where it is “document or die.” Wurmbrand will refer to the titles of Marx’s works, but often not any more specific than that. I guess that can’t be helped, since most of these were pamphlets which wouldn’t have any consistent pagination.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 13, 2019)

This guy from Wales has a similar analysis. He was brought up Greek Orthodox but was an atheist for a long time before more recently coming out as a Christian. I heard him say that he wishes there were more evangelical churches in Wales like what you find in the United States.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 13, 2019)

Joanna Southcott was not a Satanist. She claimed to be a Christian who was a prophetesses of God and received messages from God. At times she questioned if Satan was deceiving her and at her death she concluded she had been deceived by Satan and commanded that all monetary items be given back to the donors. Basically she was nuts.


Edward Bibbins Aveling was an atheist not a Satanist.

Karl Marx claimed Western philosophy as his religion not Satanism.

I have to question the validity of your information. So many well meaning people latch on to the “he’s a Satanist” when they see destructive behaviors in others. That’s not to say that they are not enemies of God and thus slaves of Satan, but to say they were involved in the occult when there’s no evidence is to falsify information.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 15, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> Joanna Southcott was not a Satanist.


I'm not an expert on her.


OPC'n said:


> Karl Marx claimed Western philosophy as his religion not Satanism.



I am an expert on Western Philosophy, though, and this statement as it stands is false. Marx might have said this, but what he meant was Democritus, not Western Philosophy. 


OPC'n said:


> I have to question the validity of your information.



You're free to do that, but that doesn't negate (to use a Marxist terms) the fact that Marx wrote Satanic plays (listed above) using Satanic techniques such as inversion.


OPC'n said:


> but to say they were involved in the occult when there’s no evidence is to falsify information.



That's not what falsify means. Falsify means to introduce an explicit contradiction. At worst I am guilty of insufficient evidence. Big difference. In any case, the evidence is there. I didn't list it all because I didn't want this to turn in a 15 page leftist litany.

And the occult documentation is well-known. James Billington, former librarian of Congress, wrote a book called _Fire in the Minds of Men_. He documents all of it there.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 15, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm not an expert on her.
> 
> 
> I am an expert on Western Philosophy, though, and this statement as it stands is false. Marx might have said this, but what he meant was Democritus, not Western Philosophy.
> ...



Your own link admitted to not having the information about Karl to make this judgment. I'm not defending Karl. I think his ideas were evil. But there is no evidence of him being a Satanic worshiper by his own confession. Poems written by him when he was a young man doesn't equal Satanist. Having a statue of Zeus doesn't equal Satanist. I know people who have a statue of Buddha in their garden but they are not Buddhist. Karl claimed Western Philosophy to be his religion which is basically atheism. Atheists do not believe in God or Satan they are strictly humanists. 

I used the term falsify appropriately. You were calling all three of these people Satanist and yet they were not. That's falsifying information to make your own narrative more sensational. 

My point is is that if the basic information in your post is incorrect (claiming these three people as satanist when there's clear information that they were not), then how can any of it be trusted? Your own link states "there are missing manuscripts" (1:30) Richard Wurmbrand was told that there is suppressed info in Russia that the public has not seen. He goes on to say "when we make these speculations on what Marx wrote what he really thought I have a suspicion that the hardcore stuff has been suppressed from the beginning and until all that info is opened up I don't think we're going to be able to document much about what we say about the man." Then he turns around and says, but we do have enough primary sources to give an understanding about him. He says two different things. You either don't have enough information (the hardcore stuff I'm assuming being that of him being a Satanist) to be able to document what you're saying about him or you do have enough information to document what you're saying about him and that proof can be shown to the public. 

I detest Karl Marx and his ideology, but I would never use this information to formulate an argument against him and his ideology. It's unsubstantiated info and no one would take it seriously. 

I'm not trying to be mean and I hope I don't sound that way. But I think we should use info that has been substantiated to discredit Karl.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 15, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> Your own link admitted to not having the information about Karl to make this judgment.



The problem is that much of Marx's writing is still classified in Russia. Wurmbrand tried to access it and the Soviet commissar ignored him and said it was too much of a hassle. Writers like Camus were also aware of it.


OPC'n said:


> My point is is that if the basic information in your post is incorrect (claiming these three people as satanist when there's clear information that they were not), then how can any of it be trusted?



That's a logical fallacy. In any case, Wurmbrand documents from Marx's own writings where it is obvious.


OPC'n said:


> I used the term falsify appropriately. You were calling all three of these people Satanist and yet they were not. That's falsifying information to make your own narrative more sensational.



Sure. In that sense, the evidence was falsified--at least on that woman. That doesn't mean the rest is false.


OPC'n said:


> ou either don't have enough information (the hardcore stuff I'm assuming being that of him being a Satanist) to be able to document what you're saying about him or you do have enough information to document what you're saying about him and that proof can be shown to the public.



Not really. His inverted Emmanuel play is clearly Satanic with all the tells of Satanism. It would be nice (well, maybe not) if we had the suppressed info, but we can still make a picture.


OPC'n said:


> But I think we should use info that has been substantiated to discredit Karl.



Which is what Wurmbrand did. See again the Emanuel play and the numerous letters between father and son dealing with the demonic.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 15, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The problem is that much of Marx's writing is still classified in Russia. Wurmbrand tried to access it and the Soviet commissar ignored him and said it was too much of a hassle. Writers like Camus were also aware of it.
> 
> 
> That's a logical fallacy. In any case, Wurmbrand documents from Marx's own writings where it is obvious.
> ...



You just said that Wurmbrand could not get the documents from Russia. You can't just read someone's poems or plays and decide they are a Satanist especially when they claim atheism. There are some people who are convinced that Edgar Allan Poe was a Satanist because of some of the poems he wrote like "Alone" and "The Raven" but he wasn't. 

The false info isn't just on the woman it's all three of these people. Edward Bibbins Aveling was an atheist too not a Satanist. At one point, part of the evidence of Karl being a Satanist is that he wore his hair in the same manner as those who belonged to Joanna Southcott's Satanic sect. That's part of his evidence and yet she was not a Satanist. If a person gathering info cannot get correct who's a Satanist and who isn't, then I'm going to have a hard time believing the rest of their info. Anyway, I believe I've made my point so I'll let this be. Have a good night.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 16, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> You just said that Wurmbrand could not get the documents from Russia. You can't just read someone's poems or plays and decide they are a Satanist especially when they claim atheism.



You can when it goes with everything he wrote to his father.


----------

