I read an article earlier this week and then another today that address the same issue that is Jews and Communism {the Marxists (read false) variety}.

One is by Michael A. Hoffman, who terms himself a revisionist in referring to the holocaust of WWII in which a reported/estimated 11 million people died in German concentration/extermination camps. These were Gypsies, Communists, Slavs, the disabled, homosexuals, and dissenters. Notably, a reported/estimated 6 million of the 11 million were people classified under Nazi law as Jews. Michael is termed a holocaust denier by some and an anti-Semite by a number. I don't believe he denies there were concentration camps in which people were exterminated. I believe he wants to know how the 11 and 6 million figures were derived.

The "medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006." That study has been criticized to some degree by the neocons. So, if that study is subjected to criticism, why can't the figures concerning the German concentration camps of WWII be subjected to academic evaluation? Are there anti-Semites who dispute the figures? Yes. Is everyone who is open to evaluating the figures an anti-Semite? Well, is everyone who evaluates The Lancet study concerning Iraqi deaths a neocon? People ask about how numbers (estimates) have been derived. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. There is though something inherently wrong with denying such questions.

Michael can speak for himself on this however. His article is, "The Prop-Masters: Perpetrators of the holocaust against Christian Russia transform themselves into 'survivors' of "the Holocaust."

The other author is Stanislaw Krajewski. His article is, "Jews, Communists and Jewish Communists, in Poland, Europe and Beyond." It states, "Stanislaw Krajewski is a professor in the Institute of Philosophy of the University of Warsaw, the Jewish co-chair of the Polish Council of Christians and Jews (continuously since its inception after the changes of 1989), and the Polish consultant to the American Jewish Committee."

It is thought provoking to read these two articles back-to-back. Both have merit. They are not arguing against each other's positions. Hoffman is making the case that Germans and Europeans are being held to a higher standard than are the Jews. Stan or Stanislaw (I don't know which he prefers) is pointing out that it is improper to lump all Jews together whether by DNA or culture or religion when looking at the atrocities of the Communist Party(s), the Bolsheviks. Each has valid points.

Stanislaw points out that Communism has greater similarities with Christianity than with Judaism. I can see how he would come to that conclusion based upon a very limited knowledge of Christianity that is presented to the world in general. Of course, the Communist Party is actually further from the teachings of Jesus than from the teachings of Moses. The Communist Party was highly coercive. Jesus was not. Moses was though.

Here's a paragraph from Stanislaw's article:

To understand the phenomenon of communism we must see it as a quasi-religious movement. Abraham Kaplan noticed that the Communist Party became "in effect, a priesthood."[33] One can be even more specific. According to Kaplan, "the communist myth of human history begins with the Eden of what they call primitive communism; man is then cursed with class differences and the class struggle, moves through the trials of a feudal and bourgeois period, enters the purgatory of Socialism, and is redeemed at last in the heaven of communism. Production takes the place of Providence, ownership is sin, revolution is redemption."[34] What is apparent in this elegant parallel is not so much similarity with Judaism but rather a structural affinity to Christianity. The result of the analysis is completely different from the intent of those who maintain that the nature of communism is Jewish. There is no objective reason to stress its Jewish elements rather than the Christian ones. This reminds me of an elderly Jew from the Warsaw synagogue who said he was communist in the sense Jesus was a communist!

Actually, it's also Judaism for those who interpret scripture as Jesus did. Eden is in the Old Testament. There is a Messiah. There are ages. There is sin. There is salvation. That's what the Messiah brings the descendants of Israel and humanity in the end. Real Christians believe Jesus fits that. Non-Christians calling themselves Jews, don't. They're still waiting for the first. Christians are waiting for the return.

Anyway, Jesus is a communist.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.