Hidden Truths: The Real Roots of Communism

The roots of communism don't start with Karl Marx. They go back to Moses Hess (1812–1875), a German philosopher and socialist whose ideas played a critical role in the early development of communist thought.

Born in 1812 into a Jewish family in Bonn, he came of age during the upheaval of industrialization, when traditional social hierarchies were collapsing and new forms of inequality were emerging.

He saw before him a society increasingly defined by money, competition, and the reduction of human beings into economic instruments. In his early writings, particularly The Holy History of Mankind (1837), Hess argued that human history was moving toward a final stage of unity, where private property would be abolished and humanity would be reconciled with itself through communal ownership.

He did not initially present communism as a purely economic inevitability, but rather as a moral necessity—a restoration of human wholeness lost through the rise of individualism and property.

Hess believed that private property had fractured the natural unity of mankind. In his view, property introduced artificial divisions, creating classes whose interests were fundamentally opposed. He saw modern man as alienated not only from other people but from his own essence, forced to measure his worth in economic terms.

Communism, for Hess, was not merely a political system but the culmination of human moral development, a return to a form of collective existence in which human relationships would no longer be mediated by money.

Critique and Historical Misuse: The tragedy of Hess’s moral communism lies in its transformation from philosophical ideal into political machinery. His vision was rooted in an assumption about human nature—that humans, once freed from property relations, would naturally cooperate in harmony.

Later communist regimes institutionalized his abstract ideals into rigid state structures that attempted to force unity through coercion rather than cultivate it organically. Instead of restoring human wholeness, these systems often deepened alienation, replacing economic competition with bureaucratic domination.

The assumption that the abolition of property would eliminate human ambition, conflict, and hierarchy proved deeply flawed. Rather than transcending human nature, communist regimes frequently concentrated power in the hands of a new ruling elite, demonstrating that the problem lay not solely in property, but in power itself.

Zionist Seeds + Talmudic Roots = Early Communism

Having spent decades focused on universalist socialism and the future unity of mankind, he turned his attention back to his Jewish identity and the condition of the Jewish people in Europe. This shift culminated in his most influential later work, Rome and Jerusalem (1862), which became one of the foundational texts of modern Zionism.

Hess argued that the Jewish question could not be solved solely through political emancipation or social integration. Despite the promises of liberal society, Jews continued to face exclusion and hostility. He concluded that Jews were not merely a religious group but a historical nation, bound together by shared ancestry, memory, and destiny.

His Zionist thought rested on several key principles:

• The Jews constituted a distinct national people, not only a religious community

• Assimilation would not eliminate anti-Jewish prejudice

• True security required national self-determination

• The Jewish people needed to re-establish themselves in their ancestral homeland

Where the hypocrisy lies? Hess seems to have drawn an invisible boundary within his own ideology. When speaking about humanity in general, he stood firmly in the camp of communism—arguing for the abolition of property, the end of class divisions, and the unification of mankind into a single cooperative whole.

But when he turned to the Jewish people, his conclusions shifted. Instead of dissolving national identity into universal communism, he reasserted it, arguing that Jews required their own homeland, their own national revival, and their own separate social framework.

It creates the impression that communism was the prescription for the world at large, while Zionism was the exception he carved out for his own people. In doing so, he stepped away from the universal logic of communist theory and moved toward a dual position—international socialism in principle, but national particularism in practice.

Influence of Talmudic Ethical Tradition

Hess’s thought was deeply shaped by the ethical and philosophical traditions of Judaism, particularly those preserved in the Talmud. While he was not religious in an orthodox sense, he viewed Jewish intellectual tradition as a powerful historical force that had preserved a distinct moral outlook.

Several Talmudic principles resonated strongly with his worldview:

1. Primacy of Ethical Obligation: The Talmud places strong emphasis on justice, responsibility, and moral conduct within society. Hess saw this ethical framework as evidence that Jewish history was oriented toward collective responsibility rather than individual domination.

2. Collective Identity and Mutual Responsibility: A central concept in Jewish tradition is that the community shares responsibility for its members. This idea reinforced Hess’s belief that human beings exist within social bonds rather than as isolated individuals.

3. Historical Continuity: Jewish tradition places exceptional importance on memory and historical continuity. Hess adopted this perspective in viewing the Jewish people as a living historical organism rather than simply a religious population.

4. Law as a Structure of Social Order: The Talmud represents a comprehensive system governing social life, ethics, and communal organization. Hess saw in this an example of how a society could be structured around shared principles rather than purely economic competition.

Hess became one of the first thinkers to merge socialism with Jewish nationalism. He argued that national identity and social equality were not contradictory but complementary.

His vision included:

• A Jewish national homeland

• A cooperative economic system

• A society based on collective labor

• The revival of Jewish historical consciousness

This synthesis would later influence early Zionist settlers, particularly those involved in the creation of agricultural communes known as kibbutzim.

Although Hess’s Zionist writings were initially overlooked, they gained recognition decades later as Zionism developed into a political movement.

He is a unique figure in modern intellectual history—one who helped shape both revolutionary socialism (Communism) and Jewish nationalism (Zionism), two movements that would profoundly influence the course of the modern world.

Excerpt from the Documentary, Europa: The Last Battle:

Hess, in his book 'Rome and Jerusalem,' laid the foundation for a Jewish nationalist movement called Zionism. He called on the Jews to become separatists and to prepare for a future homogeneous Jewish ethno-state.

Palestine would be occupied by the Jewish people. But the big problem was, the nation was around 95% Arab. Hess argued that international Jewish bankers - like the Rothschilds - would help in the realization of annexing the land from the Palestinians.

Hess suggested in his book that one last race and class struggle was developing between the Europeans and the Jews (which would later culminate in the 'Aryan vs Zionists' struggle during World War II).

In this fight, Hess predicted that the Jews would stand as winners, and the Europeans as losers. The Jews would stand superior over all other peoples. And because Jews had preserved their "racial purity" over the centuries, it would give them a leading role in the world Hess promoted. He wanted Jews not to mix with other races, as they were the "chosen."

He also referred to Christianity as the religion of death. Surprisingly, he predicted a future war in Europe with Germany, Italy, and Austria involved as a part of the race struggle. It is notable that both Zionism and Communism has the same father.

---

Read Now

---

Hess’s Influence on Marx and the Materialist Turn

Moses Hess played a decisive role in Karl Marx’s transition from abstract philosophy to concrete social analysis. Hess met Marx in the early 1840s in Germany, when Marx was still primarily a philosopher influenced by Hegel.

Hess was sometimes called “the communist rabbi” by contemporaries—because of his Jewish background and passionate advocacy of communism.

Think of it like this:

• Hess → influenced → Engels

• Hess → influenced → Marx

• Marx + Engels → developed → modern communism

Hess was an early catalyst, but Marx and Engels became the central theorists.

When Marx first encountered Hess, he was still operating largely within the framework of German idealism, which treated ideas and consciousness as the primary drivers of history.

Hess challenged this orientation by directing attention toward the material organization of society itself. Rather than viewing political and cultural life as autonomous, Hess argued that they were rooted in the structure of economic relationships.

This shift encouraged Marx to move away from purely philosophical critique and toward an examination of production, labor, and social organization.

Hess’s influence helped establish several foundations that Marx would later formalize:

• The need to analyze society through its economic structure

• The recognition that social institutions emerge from material conditions

• The understanding that historical change is connected to transformations in production

• The importance of studying labor as a central element of human life

These insights contributed directly to Marx’s later formulation of historical materialism, which framed economic organization as the underlying force shaping social development.

Intellectual Influences on Marx and Engels

The German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) had proposed that history develops through a process of conflict between opposing forces.

This is called dialectics.

In simple terms:

• One system exists (thesis)

• It produces opposition (antithesis)

• The conflict produces a new system (synthesis)

Hegel believed this process was driven by ideas. Marx adopted this structure but changed its foundation. Instead of ideas driving history, Marx argued: Material economic conditions drive history. This became known as: Dialectical materialism.

Marx was also influenced by:

• The French Revolution (1789)

• Early socialist thinkers like Saint-Simon and Fourier

These thinkers criticized inequality and proposed communal societies. But Marx rejected what he called their “utopian socialism.” He believed their ideas lacked scientific analysis.

Marx wanted to create what he called: Scientific socialism

Marx studied economists like:

• Adam Smith

• David Ricardo

These economists had developed the labor theory of value, which argued that labor creates economic value. Marx extended this idea into his theory of exploitation.

Envisioned Society of Marx and Engels

Inspired by the ideas of Hess, Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848), where they laid out their core argument that all human history was defined by class struggle, and that industrial capitalism had divided society into two primary antagonistic classes: the bourgeoisie, who owned the means of production, and the proletariat, who sold their labor.

They argued that capitalism, while enormously productive, was inherently exploitative and unstable, and would eventually collapse under its own contradictions, leading to a proletarian revolution.

This revolution, they believed, would abolish private ownership of the means of production and establish a classless, communist society.

Marx later expanded the economic foundation of this argument in Das Kapital (1867), a dense analysis of how capitalism functioned. In it, he explained concepts such as surplus value—the idea that profit comes from paying workers less than the value they produce—and argued that capitalism systematically alienated workers from their labor and concentrated wealth and power in the hands of a few.

Together, these works formed both the political manifesto and the economic blueprint of communist ideology, outlining not only why capitalism would fall, but how a new form of society could emerge from its collapse.

Marx and Engel: What Drove Them?

Karl Marx’s relationship to Jewish identity was deeply personal yet philosophically conflicted. He was born in 1818 into a family of Jewish ancestry in Trier, but his father converted to Lutheranism before his birth to avoid professional restrictions in Prussia.

As a result, Marx grew up culturally within Christian society while remaining aware of his Jewish origins. This position—both inside and outside—shaped his early engagement with the question of Jewish emancipation.

However, Marx did not interpret the Jewish question as a national or ethnic problem, but as part of a broader critique of religion, civil society, and economic life itself.

In his 1844 essay On the Jewish Question, Marx argued that political emancipation alone—granting Jews equal legal rights—did not resolve what he saw as the deeper problem: the structure of bourgeois society.

He treated Judaism primarily as a religious and social expression shaped by material conditions, rather than as a nation requiring territorial restoration. His argument was not a call for Jewish national revival, but for a transformation of society as a whole, in which religious and economic distinctions would lose their significance.

In this sense, Marx rejected the idea that Jews required a separate homeland. He believed that true emancipation would occur only when the economic system that produced alienation and division was overcome universally.

Friedrich Engels, unlike Marx, did not come from a Jewish background, but he shared Marx’s broader perspective on nationalism and identity. Engels viewed nationalism largely as a historical phenomenon connected to specific stages of economic development.

He supported certain national movements in his time, particularly those he believed would accelerate the breakdown of older feudal systems, but he did not view national separation as the ultimate goal. Like Marx, he believed that national divisions would eventually diminish as class divisions were abolished.

The society Marx and Engels envisioned was fundamentally international. They imagined a world in which economic classes had been abolished and the means of production were held in common.

In this society:

• Social divisions based on class would disappear

• National antagonisms would gradually lose their importance

• Individuals would no longer be defined primarily by religion or ethnicity

• Human cooperation would replace economic competition

Their famous phrase, “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all,” reflected this universal outlook.

In this envisioned future, Jews would not exist as a separate political nation, but neither would any other nation in the modern sense. Marx and Engels expected that as material conditions changed, identities rooted in economic and historical divisions would transform as well.

Their goal was not the elevation of one group over others, nor the separation of peoples into distinct national units, but the creation of a unified human society structured around shared ownership and collective participation.

This placed their vision in clear contrast to later nationalist movements, including Zionism, which sought liberation through national restoration rather than through the dissolution of national boundaries altogether.

However, though Marx positioned himself as a liberal, his family tree cast great suspicion on what actually drove him.

Excerpt from the Documentary, Europa: The Last Battle:

Karl Marx, real name Moses Mordechai Levy, was descended from long line famous Rabbis who were so-called "Talmudic scholars." Along with German philosophy, it is likely that he was also influenced by the Talmud. Marx's own grandfather was a Rabbi.

Most noteworthy Zionist connection is that his grandparents were related to the infamous Rothschild family through marriage. Rothschild would also partially fund Karl Marx, allegedly.

Le Droit de Vivre, a French newspaper launched by the International League Against Antisemitism (LICA), published the sentence “Jewry is the mother of Communism” on May 12, 1936, which further fed into the claims that Zionism was inherently linked to "Communism."

The Communist Manifesto laid out the ideology of Communism. Its key points include a central bank with monopoly on credit, abolition of countries and nationalities, abolition of the traditional family consisting of a man, woman, and children, abolition of private property, which means no rights for the people.

It would make it impossible for the people to earn a livelihood by introducing heavy taxation, confiscation of property, abolition of the right to inheritance, and a communist state, which would, surprising or unsurprisingly, end up with Jewish monopoly on credit and banking.

The media, in total control of the communists, would not focus on women and children anymore. Communism wanted to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production, while also abolishing Christianity and morality in Europe. Marx referred to this as the "Dictatorship of the proletariat."

The cult followers of communism would promote violence, class envy, and hostility toward free markets, family, business, tradition, and religion (except one, often). These are elements we can see in the current destabilization of Europe.

It is also alleged that Marx openly encouraged genocide against Slavs, referring to them as "racial trash" and that they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust.

How Zionist Movements Hijack Communism and Socialism

One of the most striking developments in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was how certain Zionist movements adopted socialist language and structures while pursuing a fundamentally national project.

Labor Zionist groups, in particular, organized collective farms, trade unions, and workers’ institutions that closely resembled socialist models emerging in Europe.

Yet unlike classical Marxism, which sought to unite workers across national and ethnic lines, these efforts were directed toward building a specifically Jewish national society. This created a paradox in which socialist methods were used not to dissolve national boundaries, but to reinforce a new national identity and territorial foundation.

This overlap raises deeper questions about the flexibility of socialist ideology itself. In practice, socialism proved capable of serving different and sometimes conflicting goals.

For international communists, it was a tool for global class revolution; for Labor Zionists, it became a framework for national revival and state-building.

This suggests that socialism was not always a fixed universal doctrine, but could also function as a political vehicle shaped by the historical needs and aspirations of particular movements.

The result was a complex relationship in which cooperation, divergence, and ideological tension existed side by side, rather than a single unified agenda.

Development of the Concept of Alienation

Hess also helped deepen Marx’s understanding of the psychological consequences of modern economic systems. He emphasized that changes in economic organization did not only affect wealth and power but also altered the individual’s relationship to his own activity.

Under industrial conditions, labor increasingly became detached from personal identity and meaning. Work was no longer experienced as an extension of the self, but as an external obligation performed under compulsion.

This condition involved several dimensions:

• Separation from the results of one’s own labor

• Loss of personal connection to productive activity

• Reduction of human effort to mechanical function

• Weakening of the individual’s sense of autonomy and self-expression

Marx later incorporated and expanded this analysis, making alienation a central element of his early economic and philosophical writings.

Critique and Historical Misuse

While materialist analysis provided a powerful framework for understanding structural inequality, its later political application often narrowed the complexity of human society.

In the twentieth century, governments that claimed Marxist inspiration frequently treated material conditions as the primary factor in shaping human behavior, while giving insufficient attention to other dimensions of human life.

This approach produced several consequences:

• Social transformation was pursued primarily through economic restructuring

• Individual variation and personal motivation were often subordinated to collective goals

• Political authority justified its actions through claims of historical necessity

• Opposition was sometimes interpreted as resistance to inevitable progress

In practice, this led to systems in which theoretical models were enforced through centralized power. Rather than functioning solely as a method of analysis, materialist theory became intertwined with political authority.

Intellectual Significance

Hess’s influence on Marx marked an important turning point in modern intellectual history. His role was not to construct a complete system, but to redirect attention toward dimensions of social life that earlier philosophy had treated as secondary.

Through Marx’s later work, this shift reshaped discussions of:

• Economic organization

• Social inequality

• Labor and human activity

• The relationship between individuals and social systems

Hess’s contribution therefore lies less in the final form of Marxist theory and more in helping initiate the transition toward a materialist interpretation of society.

Excerpt from the Documentary, Europa: The Last Battle:

Not many people know that communists in the 19th and 20th century openly advocated genocide. Although this is often not covered in the modern education system that seems to skim over the atrocities of the communist revolutions.

In January 1849, in Marx’s journal Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Engels wrote about the implications of class war within the Marxist theory of historical development. He argued that when the socialist revolution occurred, there would still exist certain primitive societies in Europe that were two stages behind, because they had not even reached capitalism.

Since Marxist theory held that socialism emerges only from advanced capitalist conditions, Engels believed such societies stood outside the revolutionary process and were fit for extermination.

He specifically had in mind groups such as the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, and the Serbs, and he referred to them using the German term Völkerabfälle, often translated as “racial refuse” or “ethnic remnants.”

He argued that, being historically behind in the progression of class struggle, they could not be brought forward into revolutionary consciousness. As a result, he suggested they would inevitably be swept away or destroyed in the course of revolutionary transformation, because their existence did not align with the historical path Marxism considered necessary for "socialist development."

Marx and Engels often spoke about the dirtiness of the Slavic people, and they thought that Poland had no reason to exist.

It is said that, in fact, it was Marx who first used the term "Holocaust." He supposedly wrote, "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way and perish in the revolutionary holocaust."

Many non-conformist academics/historians believe that Marx was the ancestor of modern political genocide (in communist revolutions).

In his 1920 article, Zionism vs Bolshevism: A struggle for the soul of Jews, Winston Churchill stated his belief that international Jews were seeking a worldwide communist state under Jewish domination. The international Jews would use Communism and Zionism to accomplish this.

As a first step toward establishing Israel, Hezekiah Niles, a newspaper publisher in America, described that the Rothschilds had purchased Jerusalem in 1829.

It is said that the Rothschilds founded Israel, and the family has always backed the state. It is believed that they are the richest family in the world, and most adhere to that belief.

In 1897, the first Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland, and was chaired by Theodore Hertzl. Jewish delegates from across Europe, agreed that Palestine should be given to them. Prior to his death in 1904.

Hertzl predicted that a world body will one day give Palestine to the Jews, and that he will go down in history as the father of the Jewish state.

However, for his dream to come true, European military powers would have to be manipulated and used into taking Palestine away from the Ottomans by force. In the German newspaper, Deutsche Zeitung, Hertzl wrote, "The wealthy Jews rule the world; the fate of the governments lie in their hands. They start wars between countries, and when they wish, governments make peace. When the wealthy Jews sing, the nations and their leaders dance along, and meanwhile the Jews get richer!"

Dr. Wolffsohn said in New York Times article in August 22, 1907, that, "Jewish people must conquer the world."

The Failed Promise of "Communal Equality"

At the heart of Hess’s philosophy was the belief that inequality was not an inevitable feature of human existence but the result of specific economic arrangements. By abolishing private property, he believed society could remove the structural foundation of exploitation.

This vision held immense appeal in the nineteenth century, when industrial workers lived in extreme poverty while industrialists accumulated vast fortunes.

Communism promised not merely reform but redemption—a complete reordering of society in which justice would replace domination .

Historical Misuse: The attempt to impose equality through centralized control produced results opposite to those intended. Instead of eliminating hierarchy, communist systems created new forms of inequality based on political power rather than wealth.

Party officials, bureaucrats, and security apparatuses became privileged classes with access to resources denied to ordinary citizens. Moreover, the abolition of private property removed incentives for innovation and productivity, leading to economic stagnation.

The deeper flaw lay in the assumption that inequality was purely structural. In reality, differences in ambition, talent, and desire inevitably produce unequal outcomes.

Efforts to suppress these differences often required coercion, undermining the very human dignity communism sought to restore.

Excerpt from the Documentary, Europa: The Last Battle:

The critics say, communism was devoted to abolishing private property in order to concentrate all wealth and power in the hands of the global central banking cabal.

In 1760, Mayer Amschel Rothschild created the House of Rothschild, which paved the way for international banking and control of the world's resources.

A clip from a movie shows him saying, "Money is power. Money is the only weapon the Jew has to defend himself with."

Born in Frankfurt, Germany, Amschel Bauer, was a money lender and goldsmith on Jew street, whose shop had a sign out front with a red hexagram on it. Eventually, he would change his name to Rothschild, which is German for 'red sign.'

Rothschild soon learned that loaning money to governments and kings was more profitable than loaning money to private individuals. Not only were the loans bigger, they were secured by the nation's taxes.

Amschel had five sons, whom he trained in money creation and sent out to other major capitals in Europe. They opened new branches of the family banking business.

In the movie, he says, "You are five brothers. I want you each to start a banking business across the capitals."

Amschel Mayer Rothschild in Frankfurt. Calmann Mayer Rothschild in Naples. Salomon Mayer Rothschild in Vienna. Jakob Mayer Rothschild in Paris. Nathan Mayer Rothschild in London.

"So, if money is to be sent from Frankfurt to London, let us say, you won't have risk life and gold. Amschel, here in Frankfurt, will just send a letter to Nathan in London, saying, pay so-and-so, and that will be offset by loans from London to Frankfurt."

"In your day, there will be many wars in Europe, and nations that have money to transport will come to the Rothschilds, because it will be safe. Our five banking houses may cover Europe, but you will be one firm. One family, who always works together. That will be your power."

The Unresolved Link Between Zionism and Communism

It cannot be denied that the early communist ideology moved through Zionist circles, who sought to use the "promise of equality" for their own ends.

The ideological trajectory from Hess to later revolutionary movements reveals a deep and unresolved tension between universal communism and Jewish nationalism.

Hess himself embodied this contradiction: he helped lay the intellectual foundations of communism, only to later abandon its internationalism in favor of Zionism, arguing that Jews required their own separate national revival.

This pattern highlights a broader fragmentation within 19th- and early 20th-century radical thought, where questions of class unity often collided with questions of national identity.

While figures like Marx rejected nationalism entirely, others influenced by similar intellectual currents moved toward nationalist solutions. The result was not a single unified ideological movement, but a complex and often contradictory landscape in which universalist and nationalist visions competed, overlapped, and diverged.

To me, this raises serious questions about whether the promise of universal human unity was ever truly compatible with the persistence of exclusive national projects.

Excerpt from the Documentary, Europa: The Last Battle:

Within the city of London, there is a one mile square referred to as 'The City.' It is the headquarters of the Rothschild banking dynasty, which owns the money supply through the central banks of almost every nation on earth.

Historically, the Rothschild family wealth was hidden in underground vaults. Their financial records were never audited and never accounted for. Their family commissioned biographies give the illusion that their family fortune has dwindled, but researchers estimate their wealth at close to 500 trillion dollars, more than half the wealth of the world (allegedly).

The media: The Rothschilds bought Reuters in 1800s. Reuters bought the Associated Press, which selects and delivers the same news stories to entire world, day after day. They have controlling interest in three major television networks, and easily avoid media attention since they own it.

The finances: Until recently, they owned and operated England's Royal Mint, and continue to be the gold agent for the Bank of England, which they also direct. They control the LBMA (London Bullion Market Association), where 30 to 42 million ounces of gold worth 11 billion dollars are traded daily.

They earn millions, weekly, just on transactions fees alone. The also fix the world price of gold on a daily basis and profit from its ups and downs. Over the centuries, they have amassed trillions of dollars worth of gold bullion in their subterranean vaults, and have cornered the world's gold supply.

The oil: They own controlling interest in the world's largest oil company, Royal Dutch Shell.

They also operate 'phony' charities and offshore banking services, where the wealth of Rome's 'Black Nobility' is (allegedly) hidden in secret accounts at Rothschild Swiss banks, trusts, and holding companies.

Who are the Black Nobility? The Black Nobility originally referred to a group of Roman aristocratic families who remained loyal to the Holy See (the Papacy) after the Kingdom of Italy captured Rome and unified in the 19th century. Modern conspiracy theories often put these families in the modern 'Illuminati.'

• House of Colonna

• House of Orsini

• House of Borghese

• House of Barberini

• House of Pallavicini

It is said that Evelyn Rothschild (of the London branch), along with others from the family, has allegedly handpicked presidents (current ones even), crashed stock markets, bankrupted nations, orchestrated wars, and even sponsored worse things.

The wealth hoarded by this one family alone could feed, clothe, and shelter every human being on earth.

Modern Conspiracies: Is Zionism a 'Parasite' Using Socialism/Communism as a 'Host'?

The conspiracies accusing Zionism of using Socialist/Communist ideology as Trojan horse emerged mainly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially in Europe.

According to the conspiracy narrative, Zionist elites allegedly:

• Used political ideologies like communism as tools

• Sought to weaken traditional societies

• Attempted to erase national, religious, and cultural identities

• Planned to replace nation-states with a single global authority

• Intended to place Jews at the top of this system

Core elements these conspiracy theories usually include:

1. Communism as a “vehicle”: The conspiracy claims that communism was promoted intentionally to:

• Destroy capitalism

• Eliminate religion

• Break down national identities

• Create social chaos that could later be controlled

They point to the fact that some early communist figures were of Jewish origin (like Marx, Trotsky, etc.) The conspiracy then interprets this as coordinated ethnic action rather than individual political belief.

Historians reject this interpretation because these individuals had very different views. Many were supposedly anti-religious and anti-nationalist.

2. Abolition of religion: Conspiracy narratives emphasize that communism opposed religion. They claim this was done to:

• Remove competing loyalties

• Replace religion with political authority

Some say they did so as part of their ideological commitment to atheism, not Zionism. But others point to inconsistent way religion was treated in communist states—especially the Soviet Union—to argue that Jews were treated differently.

They often claim that while communism was officially "atheist" and broadly suppressed religion, Jewish communities were occasionally allowed limited cultural or institutional spaces, and that some synagogues remained open longer than churches or mosques in certain periods or locations.

These examples are interpreted as evidence of favoritism or hidden protection, reinforcing the belief that communist anti-religious campaigns were selectively applied.

Note: Although Stalin initially favored Jewry, even voting in favor of Israel's creation, there came a point when he turned on Zionists for unknown reasons, leading to many synagogues being closed and rabbis being arrested.

3. One-world government claim: This is connected to broader “New World Order” conspiracy theories. The narrative claims that:

• National borders would be dissolved

• Sovereign states would disappear

• Power would be centralized globally

• Jews would be placed in positions of power in this new "World Government"

These claims often merge with fears of globalization, international institutions, and modern political integration.

4. The “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”: This is the most famous document associated with these conspiracies. It appeared in Russia around 1903. It claimed to be secret meeting notes of Jewish leaders planning world domination.

Excerpt from the Documentary, Europa: The Last Battle:

In November 1910, seven of the world's richest Jews held a secret meeting on Jekyll island, just off the coast of Georgia to establish a Central Bank, which they called the Federal Reserve Bank.

These men were Nelson Aldrich and Frank Vanderlip, both representing the Rockefeller financial empire. Hendry Davidson, Charles Norton, and Benjamin Strong representing JP Morgan. Paul Warburg representing the Rothschild banking dynasty in Europe.

There were some powerful men who made abundantly clear that they were not in favor of the Federal Reserve Bank. Their total wealth today would be nearly 11 billion dollars. These were Benjamin Guggenheim, Isador Strauss, and Jacob Astor. Unfortunately, all of them were onboard the Titanic when it sank.

All three died that night on April 1912. All opposition to the Federal Reserve perished with them.

On December 23rd, 1913, after many senators and congressmen hand left town Christmas, President Wilson signed a bill, and the privately owned Federal Reserve system came into being in the United States.

Woodrow Wilson's act gave private interests control of the economic power in 1913. He famously said, "I'm a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of Credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, and therefore, all its activities, are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled, and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Jewish bankers and their rabbis actually celebrated the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. After the Federal Reserve was up and running, Charles August Lindbergh, said, "The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money."

The Federal Reserve System was neither Federal nor does it contain reserves, nor is it the part of a decentralized system.

The adoption of the debt-based financial system preached by Marx and the communist manifesto, had been accomplished.

The current banking system, fractional reserve banking, enables privately owned banks to create money out of thin air. Money today is simply numbers in a computer system with only 3% existing as physical currency.

Through control and monopoly of our money, the elite who own the Federal Reserve, now have total control over other banks, corporations, and politicians. This system has allowed the government to borrow endless money from the Fed, which is now controlled by the Jewish elite, Rothschild, Warburg, and Schiff.

Every Fed chairman since 1980 has been Jewish, namely Burns, Volcker, Greenspan, Bernanke, and Yellen. The Rothschild family owns 57% of the stock of the privately held Fed.

When asked about the relationship between the Fed chairman and the U.S. president, Greenspan said, "Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means basically, there is no other agency of the government that can overrule the actions that we take."

Another Jew, Harold Wallace Rosenthal, said, "Our power has been created through the manipulation of the national monetary system. The Fed system fitted our plan nicely since it is owned by us, but the name implies it is a government institution. From the very outset, our purpose was to confiscate all gold and silver, replacing them with worthless, non redeemable paper notes. We Jews have put issue upon issue to the Americans. Then we promote both sides of the issue as confusion reigns. With their eyes fixed on the issue, they failed to see who is behind every scene. We Jews glory in the fact that the stupid goy have never realized that we are the parasites, consuming an increasing portion of production while the producers are continually receiving less and less." (This is often contested as fabricated as per the ADL)

Nevertheless, the Fed system is designed to enslave Americans to never-ending debt and to fool them to believe that their money has any real value, when it is in fact, worthless, based on debt and backed by nothing.

It must enslave humanity to protect its monopoly over credit, which is only possible through 'communism.' That is, continually weakening individual control over property, and paving the way for a world where everything is controlled by the chosen few.

The Failure of Philosophical Idealism in Political Reality

Moses Hess represents the moral and philosophical origins of communism, a system born not from cruelty but from a profound dissatisfaction with injustice. His critique of capitalism was rooted in genuine concern for human dignity (especially for Jews in Europe) and social harmony.

Yet his ideas, like those of Marx, rested on assumptions about human nature and historical development that proved untenable when translated into political systems.

Communism promised to end exploitation but often replaced it with new forms of domination. It promised equality but produced new hierarchies. It promised liberation but frequently required repression to sustain itself.

The core error lay in attempting to impose philosophical abstractions onto the complexity of human society. Human beings are not purely economic entities, nor do they naturally conform to idealized visions of collective harmony.

The attempt to perfect society through structural transformation alone overlooked the enduring realities of power, ambition, and individuality.

The result was not the reconciliation of humanity, but a demonstration of the dangers inherent in trying to force history to conform to theory.

Excerpt from the Documentary, Europa: The Last Battle:

We have to understand, one of the most powerful tools that Zionist globalists have for control is war. The most lucrative thing that can happen for the international bankers is war. It forces the country to borrow even more from the Federal Reserve and the global banking cabal at interest.

The global bankers thrive on instability, whether its between two religions, the left and right, the men and women, the citizens and the cops, the conflict between the races, one group pitted against the other; perpetual instability, without which, they would go bankrupt.

---

Read Now

---