Tag Archives: Bolshevik Revolution. Karl Marx

John L. Kachelman, Jr.: The slavery of a “Free Election” 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by John Kachelman, Jr.

A reminder…the first “free election” in Russia was held in 1917. Lenin promised a “free” election where all votes would be equal and each citizen would be heard. The election was scheduled and a number of political parties provided the voters a choice. The Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (Lenin’s Bolsheviks) campaigned with appeals to win the majority’s vote with the promise of “Peace, Land  and Bread.” The energy of the Bolsheviks and the promises of Lenin were insufficient to win the election (they only garnered 23%) of the vote.

But Lenin’s cunning campaign continued after the sunset on the election day. There was corruption in the balloting. There were “extensions” to allow more ballots. There was a long and strong public propaganda messaging to the public that the Bolsheviks had won when they had lost. The agenda to “transform” Russia into the first Marxist governed nation did not cease after the polls closed on the “election day.”

Violence, manipulation of the news, vociferous protests, armed vandals, and an attack upon the Russian governing structure increased. Eventually the Russian Provisional Government was absolved and the tyranny of 70 years’ slavery to Marxist dogmas resulted.

The Russian population was well armed (probably more weapons were in Russia than any other nation at that time) and many of the Russians had military experience having faced the Kaiser’s army on the eastern front. So, the presence of weaponry and veterans was not a factor in opposing the Bolsheviks. The civil war that was inevitable between Red and White Russians attest to the fact that weaponry was accessible. No, contrary to many opinions today, Lenin’s success was not because “guns were outlawed.”

The success of Lenin’s transformation of Russia can be laid at the feet of the Russian population. The nation assented to and conformed complacently with the dictates of a vocal and violent minority. The nation resigned its “free election” and surrendered to the prevailing propaganda! The actual facts did not influence the population. They accepted what they were told and complied without any question. An unanswered question haunts the history of this event: “What would have happened IF the general population had not surrendered to the violence and vocal minority?”

However, history shows that often the vocal minority becomes the governing especially if violence is threatened. It does not matter how many guns there are and how many millions of rounds of ammunition are bought, the population generally complies with and coalesces around the presented politicians who promise “peace, land and bread.”

Following the Bolsheviks’ takeover, a number of events unfolded:

•The Tsar was arrested and eventually executed.

•The nation entered into a bloody civil war.

•The political opposition forces were systematically eliminated if they did not capitulate to the Bolsheviks.

•The leaders of the transformed nation devolved into greater savagery and left a legacy of evil.

And now we turn history forward to 2020…

The election day of November 2020 is past but the election continues. Shuddering similarities to Russia 1917 are noted. There is a magnitude of never-before-seen voting fraud. Ballot harvesting, corrupt ballot counting, and destruction of select ballots. Intimidation and fear are used to violate the “free election” upon which our Republic is maintained. Suitcases full of ballots were stealthily taken into the counting rooms; boxes of ballots suddenly appeared and the rightful observers to validate counting were forbidden to see the ballots.

There is even an echo of the Bolsheviks’ call for the Romanov’s removal, imprisonment, and eventually death. In a shocking TWEET, Keith Olbermann announced, “TRUMP MUST BE REMOVED AND ARRESTED, TONIGHT. Gripped by a paranoid delusion, threatening the nation’s safety, this can’t wait any longer. It won’t happen; in fact he’ll probably concede and instantly announce he’s running in ’24. Full video: https://youtu.be/q_7f-DfmNNQ.” Observed in this tweet is the intimidating propaganda ploy to silence any opposition to this criminal suggestion by claiming all opposing are “morons.” Unless you support and shout for President Trump’s removal and incarceration you are a “moron”!

The “transformation” of our Republic is now being announced as a funeral dirge. In the city of Minneapolis, protesters vandalized several local businesses and wreaked chaos in the city. But examine this event as a backdrop heralding the end of free elections in the USA—protesters marched to the city’s Uptown neighborhood, setting off fireworks as they carried the banner which read “America is Over.”  During the protest, demonstrators attempted to block traffic throwing debris into the streets. Some went on to vandalize store-front windows.

The corruption of the ballot counting continues as the population is being groomed to accept the contorted fact that a violent, vocal minority has engineered the greatest coup in civilization’s history. The process will drag on causing the public to be desensitized, and eventually political figures will urge capitulation. Then the announcement will be made. And…it will be accomplished without a shot being fired!

A quote commonly attributed to Joseph Stalin highlights the election of November 2020 (or basically any election). There are several versions of the statement and the Progressives/ DEMS/ BLM/ ANTIFA/ RINOS are quick to castigate it as unfounded. However, one possible source for a version of the quote comes from Boris Bazhanov’s “Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary,” published in 1980 in Paris and 2002 in Moscow and appearing to be available only in French and in Russian. While a search of the Stalin Internet Library yields nothing resembling the quote in the Soviet leader’s published writings, the possibility remains that it could have been excerpted from an unpublished speech or private conversation. There is a sobering book translated from the French called “Bazhanov and the Damnation of Stalin,” published by the Ohio University Press in 1990. In it, Bazhanov details how Stalin’s governmental machine was built through vote-rigging, tapping into opponents’ communications, and extinguishing those who had a moral center.

Regardless of the historicity of the quote the truth it expresses is frightfully accurate:

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

Welcome to 1917 in 2020!

John Kachelman, Jr. is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.

Socialism in the Churches 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Socialism in the Churches

by Bill Lockwood

One would have supposed that of all groups of people holding the line against ungodly socialism which enshrines government theft and redistribution, the churches of America would lead the way. Following Christ does not call for empowerment of government confiscation and re-label it “giving.” But apparently such is not the case.

The National Council of Churches (NCC) website boasts that it has never stopped waging LBJ’s “historic war on poverty” and that this marks “an unprecedented commitment by government to claim justice for the poor.”
William H. Young, in a National Association of Scholars (NAS) article explains social justice: “Its core concept … is the redistribution of resources and advantages to the disadvantaged to achieve social and economic equality.” Rather than emphasizing individual opportunity and responsibility, socialists stress “equality” and the achievement of “social outcomes” “by expanding the scope of government.”

That followers of Karl Marx would be gratified to have these concepts grafted into government goes without saying. That would-be disciples of Jesus Christ would mimic this is appalling. But that is exactly the position of the NCC which supposedly represents most mainline Protestant denominations in America and claims leadership of over 45 million American Christians and over 100,000 local congregations. The NCC, however, has really been, since its inception, a front group for socialistic and communistic change. This in turns helps to explain why it is so difficult to enlist many churches for real American causes today.

Historical Roots of NCC

Everyone needs a cause.  Even those without God become ardent evangelists in behalf of their message.  As the leadership in the churches of America, therefore, became doctrinally flabby throughout the past century, they proportionally became ripe for propagation of another gospel. Socialism. Thus was founded the Federal Council of Churches in 1908—later to become the National Council of Churches. Collectivist propaganda had penetrated Protestant Churches in America prior to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. The Communist Party in America was not officially organized until 1919.  However, a cursory examination of the National Council of Churches reveals that it has always sided with Marxist and Communist causes, and its leaders have consistently consorted with policy-makers of the Communist Party, prior to its official birthday in 1908.

One of the early leading lights of the Federal Council, Dr. Harry Ward, strikingly demonstrates the above.  Dr. Ward worked in Chicago before becoming a teacher in the Boston University School of Theology and later Union Theological Seminary.  Introductory material, signed by Dr. Ward in 1917 included the call to churches concerning “the social service movement in the churches.”  One of Dr. Ward’s theses insists that the religion of the Bible mandates an “equal distribution of land” between Israelite tribes but this was corrupted by “individualism.”  The Kingdom of God, says Ward, is a “collective conception involving the whole life of man.”  “Jesus was not a mere social reformer. He has been called the first Socialist.”  Jesus was not, per Ward, interested in “theology” but in the “social needs of mankind.”  Ward was later identified under oath by many witnesses before United States Congressional committees as a member of the Communist Party.

Dr. Walter Rauschenbusch, who graduated the University of Rochester in 1885, had initially planned to go to India as a missionary for the American Baptist Mission Society, but was rejected because of his liberal views.  Among those views was a solid commitment to the philosophy of socialism.  Rauschenbusch, knowing that American Christians would revolt at his teaching of straightforward socialism in the pulpits, gave his theories window dressing.  He became the primary promoter of “The Social Gospel,” by which social change in the order of Karl Marx’s materialism and economic redistribution was the primary goal. The emphasis becomes reworking the material conditions of the world.   Biblical terminology, words, and phrases now are “converted” to this service.  The National and World Council of Churches today reflect these commitments.

The Social Gospel?

What is wrong with “The Social Gospel?”  Besides the fact that promoters of the social gospel traditionally reject the fundamentals of Christianity, why oppose their scheme?

First, The Social Gospel  begins with deception.  Charitable giving per biblical injunction always involves individual free-will choices.  Idealistic theories, on the other hand, that preach a “redistribution of wealth,” demand a power that actually takes from some and gives to others.  This powerful machinery—read “government”—therefore engages in theft.

To “Christianize” theft requires no little deceptive manipulation of historical fact as well as the English language.   Biblical principles always influenced mankind’s condition from the bottom up. Slavery, for example, was eliminated as the principles of Jesus permeated society throughout.   However, the social gospel requires power from the top to control those below.  Force becomes the method.  The current NCC website is marinated in statements such as “sustainable” development (socialistic redistribution) of the resources of the earth; “abatement of hunger” by the “enactment of policies benefiting the most vulnerable;” “affordable and accessible healthcare” on the backs of taxpayers. To achieve these ends “binding covenants” are recommended.

Second, individual salvation is rejected by The Social Gospel in favor of salvation of the “collective.”  The function of the church, which was authorized to preach salvation from personal sin, is recast as an enforcement of “civic or social justice” and the gospel merely becomes a channel that exists for the service of man—not God.  Individual rights are seldom heard.  Instead, church workers become firebrands for “group rights” and collective change.  Political activism, after a communistic fashion, is encouraged.

The crying sin of society becomes the “unequal redistribution” of wealth; evangelism is more about “saving the environment” than saving man from sin; the mission of the churches is just as much about restructuring society along Marxist lines than offering the gospel to souls.  Achieving Socialism in America is the goal. Transforming “Christianity” into an instrument to accomplish this end is the means.   As one advocate of The Social Gospel put it, we seek “an overthrow of the present capitalistic system.”  This was penned by Ivan Lee Holt, one-time president of the Federal Council of Churches.  He went on to denounce the “profit motive” insisting that there was no happiness for mankind until the “present economic system gives way to some cooperative scheme…it might mean revolution.”

Third, enforcement of the social gospel program requires the uniting of church and state. This explains why the NCC calls for not only the growth and strengthening of the United States government, but also for World “governance” operated via the United Nations.  Only in this manner might trade become more “equitable” on a “global scale,” and “peacemaking through multilateral diplomacy” by “strengthening” the “United Nations” and the “rule of international law.”

So, while the disingenuous claim is made by the NCC that they do not favor “unilateral force” to gain their goals, the program laid out calls for nothing but the usage of governmental force to redistribute wealth. Tax policies are recommended to “reduce” the “disparities between rich and poor” and “provide” for greater opportunity for “everyone within the common good.”

If we are to stop the socialistic onslaught now facing America, patriots must appeal to the common sense of average Americans in the “Christian community,” by-passing the leadership of large denominational churches which have become purveyors of soft-shell pabulum at best, and aggressive socialistic change at worst.  We would to God that the pulpits of America would aflame once more with righteousness, rejecting the gospel of Karl Marx.

Back to Homepage