|05-24-2007, 03:01 AM||#8|
Out fart the hottie!
Location: I have super gonorrhoea
a2 + b2 = 32 + 42 = 25 = c2
مثلوث ثلاثة أعداد صحيحة تمثل أطوال أضلاع مثلث قائم الزاوية، مثل (5 ،4 ،3)، يسمى مثلوث فيثاغورس.
[تحرير] مبرهنة فيثاغورس العكسية
نص مبرهنة فيثاغورس العكسية (العبارة 47 من الجزء الأول من كتاب العناصر لإقليدس):
« في مثلث، إذا كان مربع طول أطول ضلع يساوي مجموع مربعي طولي الضلعين الآخرين، فإن هذا المثلث قائم الزاوية. الزاوية القائمة هي الزاوية المقابلة لأطول ضلع، و الضلع الأطول هو الوتر. »
مبرهنة فيثاغورس هي خاصية مميزة للمثلث القائم الزاوية.
« في مثلث ABC، إذا كان AC²+BC²=AB² فإن هذا المثلث قائم الزاوية في C. »
[تحرير] تاريخ المبرهنة
عرفت خاصية فيثاغورس في العصور القديمة، والدلائل على ذلك ما زالت موجودة إلى الآن. يكفي مثلا أن نلاحظ الحبل ذا ثلاث عشرة عقدة الذي كان المسّاحون المصريون يستعملونه والذي نجد له صورا في عدة تصاوير للأعمال الزراعية. يسمح هذا الحبل، علاوة على قياس المسافات، بإنشاء زوايا قائمة دون الحاجة إلى الكوس، إذ تسمح العقد الثلاث عشرة (والمسافات الاثنتي عشرة الفاصلة بين العقد) من إنشاء مثلث أبعاده (5 ،4 ،3)، مثلث يتضح أنه قائم الزاوية. ظل هذا الحبل أداة هندسية طيلة العصور الوسطى.
أقدم تمثيل لمثلوثات فيثاغورس (مثلث قائم الزاوية وأطوال أضلاعه أعداد صحيحة طبيعية) نجده في الميغاليثات (2500 سنة قبل الميلاد). كما أظهرت آثار البابليين (لوحة Plimpton، حوالي سنة 1800 قبل الميلاد) أنه قبل ظهور فيثاغورس بأكثر من 1000 سنة، عرف المهندسون وجود مثلوثات فيتاغورس.
لكن بين اكتشاف الخاصية «نلاحظ أن بعض المثلثات القائمة الزاوية تحقق هذه الخاصية»، تعميمها «يبدو أن كل المثلثات القائمة الزاوية تحقق هذه الخاصية» وإثباتها «كل المثلثات القائمة الزاوية (فقط) في المستوى الإقليدي تحقق هذه الخاصية» عدة أجيال.
برهان بصري لمثلث أطوال أضلاعه (3، 4، 5) في كتاب Chou Pei Suan Ching (القرن الثاني-القرن الخامس قبل الميلاد)
برهان بصري لمثلث أطوال أضلاعه (3، 4، 5) في كتاب Chou Pei Suan Ching (القرن الثاني-القرن الخامس قبل الميلاد)
ندرة الدلائل التاريخية تجعلنا غير قادرين على نسب المبرهنة إلى فيثاغورس بشكل قاطع، مع أننا على يقين بأنه صاحبها. أول برهان مكتوب نجده في كتاب العناصر لإقليدس بالصيغة التالية:
« في المثلثات القائمة الزاوية، مربع طول الضلع المقابل للزاوية القائمة يساوي مجموع مربعي طولي الضلعين الآخرين. »
مع صيغتها العكسية: « إذا كان مربع طول ضلع في مثلث يساوي مجموع مربعي طولي الضلعين الآخرين، فإن الزاوية المحصورة بين هذين الضلعين قائمة. »
و مع ذلك، فتعليقات Proclus على كتاب العناصر لإقليدس (حوالي 400 سنة بعد الميلاد) تشير إلى أن إقليدس لم يقم سوى بإعادة تدوين برهان قديم نسبه Proclus إلى فيثاغورس.
إذن، يمكننا أن نؤرخ البرهان على هذه الخاصية ما بين القرن الثالث والقرن السادس قبل الميلاد. يحكى أنه في تلك الفترة اكتشفت الأعداد اللاجذرية. بالفعل، يمكن بسهولة إنشاء مثلث قائم الزاوية و متساوي الساقين طول أحدهما 1، فيكون مربع طول الوتر هو 2. برهان بسيط أيام فيثاغورس يثبت أن العدد 2 ليس مربعا لعدد جذري. يقال أن هذا الإكتشاف تم إبقاؤه سرا من طرف المدرسة الفيثاغورسية تحت تهديد بالقتل.
إلى جانب هذه الإكتشافات، يبدو أن هذه المبرهنة عرفت في الصين أيضا. نجد إشارة إلى وجود هذه المبرهنة في واحد من أقدم المؤلفات الصينية في الرياضيات، كتاب Zhoubi suanjing. هذا المؤلف، كتب على الأغلب في Han Dynasty (أعظم الفترات في تاريخ الصين)، (206 قبل الميلاد، 220 سنة بعد الميلاد) يضم التقنيات المستعملة في فترة Zhou Dynasty. (القرن العاشر قبل الميلاد، 256 قبل الميلاد). نجد برهان هذه الخاصية، التي تحمل في الصين اسم مبرهنة جوجو Gougu (القاعدة والإرتفاع)، في كتاب Jiuzhang suanshu (الفصول التسعة في فن الرياضيات، 100 سنة قبل الميلاد، 50 سنة بعده)، برهان مختلف كليا عن برهان إقليدس.
كما نجد في الهند برهانا عدديا للخاصية يعود إلى القرن الثالث قبل الميلاد (برهان بإستعمال أعداد خاصة، لكن يمكن تعميمه بسهولة).
رغم أنها خاصية هندسية، إلا أنها أخذت منحى حسابيا عند البحث عن جميع مثلوثات أعداد صحيحة طبيعية تمثل أطوال أضلاع مثلث قائم الزاوية: أي مثلوثات فيثاغورس. هذا البحث فتح الباب لبحث آخر: البحث عن المثلوثات التي تحقق an + bn = cn، بحث قاد إلى مظنونة فيرما التي تم حلها سنة 1994 على يد الرياضي Andrew Wiles.
توجد في الحقيقة العديد من البراهين على هذه الخاصية، مثل برهان إقليدس، و برهان الصينيين، مرورا ببرهان الهنود، و برهان دافينشي و حتى برهان الرئيس الأمريكي James Abram Garfield. كما لا يفوتنا ذكر الكاشي الذي عمم هذه المبرهنة على كل المثلثات: مبرهنة الكاشي.
بلا شك، هذه المبرهنة لديها أكبر عدد معروف من الإثباتات (كما هو الحال بالنسبة لخاصية Quadratic reciprocity). ها هي بعض منها:
[تحرير] برهان إقليدس
قبل البرهنة على خاصية ف
|05-24-2007, 03:06 AM||#11|
Out fart the hottie!
Location: I have super gonorrhoea
* ライブパフォーマンスでは、ダンスを重視する傾向が強い。そのため、*********きの激しい曲では口パクをしていると 指摘される*********がある。
* プライベートでは2004*********に結婚したケビン・フェダーラインと2006*********に離婚申し立てを起こして*********来離 婚協議をし続けて、親権は******************保*********しブリトニー側からケヴィンに慰謝料を支払うことで******************して離婚成立とな った。復縁はないとされている。
* 8歳の時*********格*********に芸*********界入りし、ディズニー・チャンネルの『ミッキー・マウス・クラブ』の公開オーディショ ンに参加するが「番組には幼すぎる」という*********由で落選になる。その後テレビCMなどで経験を積み11歳の時 に『ミッキー・マウス・クラブ』のオーディションに再挑戦して***************************格。14歳でジャイヴ・レコードと契約 する。
* 16歳でシングル『...Baby One More Time(ベイビー・ワン・モア・タイム)』でデビュー。*********シングルはアメリカで100万枚の売り*********げを********* 録し、*********界19ヶ*********でプラチナム・ディスクを受賞。*********名デビュー・アルバムはバックストリート・ボーイズで *********名なマックス・マーティンや、ホイットニー・ヒューストンを手掛けたエリック・フォスター・ホワイトらに よってプロデュースされ、アメリカだけで1400万枚、全*********界で3000万枚のセールスを*********録し、35ヶ********* でプラチナム・ディスクを獲得。発売から1***************************にわたりチャートに登場するロングセールスを *********録した。
* 5*********、2枚*********のアルバム『Oops...I Did It Again(ウップス…アイ・ディド・イット・アゲイン)』は全米で1000万枚、全*********界で1600万枚の 売り*********げを*********録。******************でも35万枚の売*********。先駆けて発売された*********名シングルのラジオオンエアは、1週間で1 55局のプレイ・リストにエントリー。アメリカの最高*********録を塗り替えた。
* はじめのころは清純路線で「結婚するまで処女」と宣言していたが、2003*********にイン・シンクのジャスティン ・ティンバーレイクとの交際を告白（のちに破局）。全米400万枚の******************を受けた3枚*********のアルバム『Bri tney(ブリトニー)』の頃から徐々にセクシー路線に切り替わり、アルバム『In The Zone(イン・ザ・ゾーン)』では、完全にイノセントなアイドル性を払拭、セクシーなダンス・ビートをベ ースにしたサウンドで聞き手を圧倒した。*********アルバムに収録されている曲『Everytime(エヴリタイム )』のビデオ・クリップでは自殺未遂、ドラッグといった描写が問題となり、カットされた。
* 1*********には酔った勢いでラスベガスで幼なじみと結婚するも、すぐに婚姻無効を申請するという騒*********を起こしたが 、9*********には妊娠*********のガールフレンドを捨てたダンサー、ケビン・フェダーラインと結婚。******************11*********ベストアル バム『Greatest Hits: My Prerogative(マイ・プリロガティヴ)』を発売(アルバムのタイトルにもなっているヒット曲My Prerogativeはボビー・ブラウンのカバー曲)、「休業宣言」をし、新婚******************を満喫(とはいっても 早くシーン復帰しなければならないと思っているようだ)。また、前々から噂に*********っていた妊娠を 公*********発*********。
* *********親になっても、ニューアルバムの製作は続いている。******************の公*********サイトにて、アルバム曲*********の「someda y」のPVを披露。*********きくなった腹をさするシーンもある。その後もすぐに*********二*********を妊娠。
* 11*********7*********、約2*********間の結婚******************に終止符を打とうと、ロサンゼルスの裁判所に離婚を申し立てた。*********由は夫で ダンサーのケビン・フェダーラインとの「妥協しがたい*********一致」。
* *********神*********安*********の*********か突然自らバリカンを持って坊*********頭にしたりパパラッチを傘で叩いたりなど迷走していた。****************** や関係*********の説得もあって3*********下旬までリハビリのため******************施設に入所。
* 5*********1*********、2004*********6*********のアイルランド公演*********来の約2*********10ヶ*********ぶりにサンディエゴのライヴハウスで観客 の前でライヴパフォーマンスを披露した。
|05-24-2007, 03:06 AM||#12|
Out fart the hottie!
Location: I have super gonorrhoea
The Golden Age
By the mid 1890s, the Golden Dawn was well established in Great Britain, with membership rising to over a hundred from every class of Victorian society. In its heyday, many cultural celebrities belonged to the Golden Dawn, such as actress Florence Farr and Irish revolutionary Maud Gonne (Gonne left after she converted to Roman Catholicism). Some well known members *******d Arthur Machen, William Butler Yeats, Evelyn Underhill, and Aleister Crowley. Many men and women of the 19th century Fin de siècle social culture were members of the Golden Dawn. Around 1897, Westcott broke all ties to the Golden Dawn, leaving Mathers in complete control. It is speculated that this was due to some occult papers having been found in a hansom cab, in which his connection to the Golden Dawn came to the attention of his superiors. He was told to either resign from the Order or to give up his occupation as coroner. While there is no proof of Mathers having planted the papers, it appears that the relationship between Mathers and Westcott all but ended after this point. After Westcott's departure, Mathers appointed Florence Farr to be Chief Adept in Anglica. (Although Westcott publicly resigned, he must have continued in some capacity since there are Lodge documents bearing his signature dated years after his "resignation".) This left Mathers as the only active founding member and in charge of the Order. Due to personality clashes with other members, and being absent from the center of Lodge activity in Great Britain, challenges to Mathers' authority as leader began to develop amongst the members of the Second Order.
 The revolt
Towards the end of 1899, the Adepts of the Isis-Urania and Amen-Ra temples had become extremely dissatisfied with Mathers' leadership, as well as his growing friendship with Crowley. They were also anxious to make contact with the Secret Chiefs, instead of dealing with them through Mathers. Among the personal disagreements within the Isis-Urania temple, disputes were arising from Florence Farr's The Sphere, a secret society within the Isis-Urania, and the rest of the Adept Minors. Crowley was refused initiation into the Adeptus Minor grade by the London officials. Yet Mathers overrode this and quickly initiated him at the Ahathoor temple in Paris on January 16th, 1900. Upon his return to the London temple, he requested the grade papers to which he was now entitled from Miss Cracknell, the acting secretary. To the London Adepts, this was the last straw. Farr, already of the opinion that the London temple should be closed, wrote to Mathers expressing her wish to resign as his representative, though she was willing to carry on until a successor was found. Mathers replied to this on February 16th, believing Westcott was behind this turn of events. Once the other Adepts in London were notified, they elected a committee of seven on March 3rd and requested a full investigation of the matter. Mathers sent an immediate reply, declining to provide proof, refusing to acknowledge the London temple, and dismissing Farr as his representative on March 23rd. In response, a general meeting was called on March 29th in London to remove Mathers as chief and expel him from the Order.
After the Isis-Urania temple claimed its independence, there were even more disputes, leading to Yeats resigning. A committee of three was to temporarily govern, which *******d P.W. Bullock, M.W. Blackden and J. W. Brodie-Innes. After a short time, Bullock resigned, and Dr. Robert Felkin took his place. In 1903, Waite and Blackden joined forces to retain the name Isis-Urania, while Felkin and other London members formed the Stella Matutina, and Brodie-Innes continued his Amen-Ra temple in Edinburgh.
Once Mathers realised that there was to be no reconciliation, he began to make efforts to reestablish himself in London. The Bradford and Weston-super-Mare temples remained loyal to him, but their numbers were few. He then appointed Edward Berridge as his representative, who proceeded to begin working the ceremonies and rites of the Golden Dawn in West London as early as 1903. According to Francis King, historical evidence shows that there were "twenty three members of a flourishing Second Order under Berridge-Mathers in 1913." J.W. Brodie-Innes continued the direction of the Amen-Ra temple, and had reached a conclusion that the revolt was unjustified. By 1908, Mathers and Brodie-Innes were in complete accord, and at about the time of the conclusion of the alliance, the Outer Order was changed from the Golden Dawn to the Alpha et Omega. Brodie-Innes assumed command of the English and Scottish temples, while Mathers concentrated on building up his Ahathoor temple and extending his American connection. According to Israel Regardie, the Golden Dawn had spread to the United States of America before 1900, and a Thoth-Hermes temple had been founded in Chicago. By the commencement of the First World War, Mathers had established two to three American temples.
|05-24-2007, 03:13 AM||#15|
Out fart the hottie!
Location: I have super gonorrhoea
When Hank Fry of Columbus, Ohio, entered his 40s, he took stock of his health and decided to make a few changes. "One of my goals is to play golf on my 100th birthday," says the business consultant. So he began exercising more and studying spirituality.
So far so good, most doctors would say. Then this year, Fry, now 50, a new practice for rejuvenation that has yet to gain the endorsement of any mainstream medical organization: colon hydrotherapy (also known as colonics or high colonic) -- a deep-cleaning water treatment for the colon. Fry bought a home colonic kit off the Internet and gives himself a treatment every six weeks.
Fry is one among many. Due in part to vigorous Internet promotion, colonics are growing increasingly popular. And that has some doctors concerned. Not only is there scant evidence of any health benefits, but the practice could be dangerous.
Colon hydrotherapy dates back to biblical times. No one is certain how many people employ this practice today -- either via home treatments or via outside clinics -- but many in the field say the numbers are increasing, along with overall interest in alternative health practices.
"It's exploding around the world," says Dick Hownninger, executive director of the International Association for Colon Hydrotherapy, based in San Antonio, Texas. The association has 800 members, up from just 100 members only four years ago. Most are colon therapists, who administer treatments.
Colon hydrotherapy methods differ, but most follow the same basic procedure. The colon is filled with cool or warm water through a tube inserted into the rectum. After several seconds to a few minutes, the water and any fecal matter are drained through a second tube. This process is repeated several times in one treatment. Sometimes minerals are added to the water.
Most people administering colonics today use disposable, sterile tubing, and machines regulate the temperature and pressure of the water. Colon hydrotherapy itself is not regulated, although the association of colon hydrotherapists runs a voluntary certification program, as do several machine manufacturers.
Even among colon hydrotherapists there are different opinions on what benefits can be derived from the procedure. Some say that simply flushing out old fecal matter promotes energy and wellness. Others are more specific.
"We use colon hydrotherapy to tonify the bowel to help produce a better elimination practice for the body," says Mark Groven, a naturopathic physician and medical supervisor at the Bastyr University natural health clinic in Seattle, Wash.
Groven prescribes colonics for asthma, arthritis, sinus problems, chronic fatigue and constipation, usually in conjunction with other treatments such as nutritional remedies. "It's part of a total general wellness program," he says.
But neither Groven nor any other colonics advocates can cite any research showing benefits. They base their support largely on anecdotal reports from people who have had the treatment and from naturopathic literature that discusses its theoretical merits. A search for articles in a variety of standard medical indexes yielded no mention of colon hydrotherapy.
Spokespersons for the American Medical Association and American College of Gastroenterology said their organizations could not comment on colon hydrotherapy because too little is known about it.
Other conventional doctors are less reticent. "I'm not opposed to alternative therapies when they're used judiciously and have no significant risks," says Ross Black, a family physician in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. "The high colonic has some significant risks."
The dangers, Black says, ******* spreading infection from contaminated equipment and harmfully altering the chemical balance of the colon. A major function of the colon is to absorb minerals such as potassium and send them through the bloodstream. Colonics could wipe out these minerals and thereby cause deficiencies, Black says.
Even advocates such as Groven stress that the treatment is not appropriate for people with medical problems such as appendicitis, hepatitis and ulcerative colitis and should be used only under the supervision of a naturopathic or traditional doctor.
Black simply doesn't advise it. "At best, it would warrant further study," he says. "At present there's no evidence it's of use."
|05-24-2007, 03:15 AM||#16|
Location: intellectual hobo
Billy Corgan buys a piece of the Gold Coast
Ten months after selling his Victorian painted lady mansion in Lake View for $1 million, former Smashing Pumpkins lead singer and chief songwriter Billy Corgan has paid $2.95 million for a recently renovated, historic six-room condominium on the Gold Coast.
After disbanding the Smashing Pumpkins, Corgan formed a new group, Zwan, which is playing three sold-out shows at the Double Door this weekend.
Through his tour manager, Corgan declined to comment on the purchase of the two-bedroom condo. His tour manager confirmed that the singer-songwriter recently has been staying at the condo while rehearsing for Zwan's current tour, but said the Chicago-area native ultimately intends to lease the condo in a 110-year-old building to someone else. The unit has an oak-paneled living room, reception room, balcony framed by granite columns, four fireplaces, walnut parquet floors and a large terrace.
Corgan has shown an affinity for vintage properties. After moving out of the more than 100-year-old Lake View home at 3448 N. Greenview Ave., which he owned from 1993 to 2001, Corgan temporarily stayed in a penthouse in the Haberdasher Square loft development, 728 W. Jackson Blvd., a former manufacturing building that dates to 1926. And in 2000, the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois awarded Corgan its President's Award for his commitment to historic preservation.
Since Corgan sold his Lake View home, one Smashing Pumpkins Web site reported that he has been living in Italy, but in interviews he has declined any comment on his permanent residence.
Singer Courtney Love, whom Corgan dated many years ago, just sold her loft in downtown Manhattan for $3 million after buying it for $2.6 million in January 2001, according to the New York Post. The loft is in the same building where rocker Lenny Kravitz just listed his own, five-bedroom, 7,000-square-foot, multilevel loft for $16 million, after buying the space unfinished in October 2000 for $8 million, the Post reported.
Love also recently listed her almost 3,700-square-foot Spanish-style house on Los Angeles' Westside -- which she bought last June for $3 million -- for about the same price, according to the Los Angeles Times. Love reportedly is looking for another house in the area because her five-bedroom house, which was built in the 1920s, is too small.
Ironically, Love told the Times last year that she sold a four-bedroom, 4,700-square-foot French country-style house on almost 2 acres in the Hollywood Hills -- which she had purchased from Ellen DeGeneres in 1997 for about $3 million -- because she was planning to spend more time in New York and actually wanted something smaller in L.A. She sold the Hollywood Hills home for $3.995 million in March 2001 to British businessman Mike Walley. Love's former Hollywood Hills house made the news in November 2001, after Paul McCartney's fellow Beatle George Harrison died. After Harrison's representatives gave a bogus L.A. address on his death certificate, the county's district attorney revealed in February that Harrison actually had died at Walley's house.
Rocker Tom Petty has paid close to $2.5 million for a three-bedroom oceanfront home in Malibu, Calif., according to the Los Angeles Times. Built in 1974, the house has three fireplaces, Malibu tiles and a courtyard with a fountain, the paper reported ... Fred Durst, frontman for the rock group Limp Bizkit, has sold a house he never moved into in Bel Air, Calif., for $3.7 million because it had "vibes that were not quite correct for him," according to the Los Angeles Times. Last fall, Durst bought the four-bedroom, 6,600-square-foot house, which was once owned by the Doors' Robbie Krieger and has a carving of the Doors playing on one wall, for just under $4 million, the paper reported. Durst recently bought a house with a sound studio in L.A.'s Hollywood Hills, and has listed that home for $1.4 million, the Times reported.
|05-24-2007, 03:17 AM||#17|
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.
II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
I — BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS 
The history of all hitherto existing society  is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master  and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — bourgeoisie and proletariat.
From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer suffices for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed aside by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop.
Meantime, the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturers no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, MODERN INDUSTRY; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance in that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association of medieval commune : here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France); afterward, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general — the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigor in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff.
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization or rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past, the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? One the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.
Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. What is more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labor increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by increased speed of machinery, etc.
Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army, they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, in the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.
The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labor, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labor of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labor, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.
No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first, the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the work of people of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois condition of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.
At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.
But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by Modern Industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.
This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently, into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the Ten-Hours Bill in England was carried.
Altogether, collisions between the classes of the old society further in many ways the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.
Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.
Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.
Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a genuinely revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay, more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If, by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests; they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.
Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.
The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
 By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor.
By proletariat, the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live. [Note by Engels - 1888 English edition]
 That is, all _written_ history. In 1847, the pre-history of society, the social organization existing previous to recorded history, all but unknown. Since then, August von Haxthausen (1792-1866) discovered common ownership of land in Russia, Georg Ludwig von Maurer proved it to be the social foundation from which all Teutonic races started in history, and, by and by, village communities were found to be, or to have been, the primitive form of society everywhere from India to Ireland. The inner organization of this primitive communistic society was laid bare, in its typical form, by Lewis Henry Morgan's (1818-1861) crowning discovery of the true nature of the gens and its relation to the tribe. With the dissolution of the primeaval communities, society begins to be differentiated into separate and finally antagonistic classes. I have attempted to retrace this dissolution in _Der Ursprung der
Familie, des Privateigenthumus und des Staats_, second edition, Stuttgart, 1886. [Engels, 1888 English edition]
 Guild-master, that is, a full member of a guild, a master within, not a head of a guild. [Engels: 1888 English edition]
 This was the name given their urban communities by the townsmen of Italy and France, after they had purchased or conquered their initial rights of self-government from their feudal lords. [Engels: 1890 German edition]
"Commune" was the name taken in France by the nascent towns even before they had conquered from their feudal lords and masters local self-government and political rights as the "Third Estate". Generally speaking, for the economical development of the bourgeoisie, England is here taken as the typical country, for its political development, France. [Engels: 1888 English edition]
II — PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS
In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:
(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.
(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?
But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.
To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social STATUS in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.
Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.
When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.
Let us now take wage labor.
The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. What, therefore, the wage laborer appropriates by means of his labor merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.
In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.
In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.
But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the communist abolition of buying and selling, or the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.
From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.
It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: There can no longer be any wage labor when there is no longer any capital.
All objections urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.
That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.
But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.
The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason the social forms stringing from your present mode of production and form of property — historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production — this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. (Ah, those were the days!)
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.
The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action of the leading civilized countries at least is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.
The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.
The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism.
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
III — SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST LITERATURE
1. REACTIONARY SOCIALISM
a. Feudal Socialism
Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French Revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation, these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political struggle was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature, the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible. 
In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate its indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus, the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new masters and whispering in his ears sinister prophesies of coming catastrophe.
In this way arose feudal socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart's core, but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.
The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.
One section of the French Legitimists and "Young England" exhibited this spectacle:
In pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they exploited under circumstances and conditions that were quite different and that are now antiquated. In showing that, under their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget that the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring of their own form of society.
For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeois amounts to this: that under the bourgeois regime a class is being developed which is destined to cut up, root and branch, the old order of society.
What they upbraid the bourgeoisie with is not so much that it creates a proletariat as that it creates a _revolutionary_ proletariat.
In political practice, therefore, they join in all corrective measures against the working class; and in ordinary life, despite their high falutin' phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and honor, for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits. 
As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has clerical socialism with feudal socialism.
Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the state? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.
b. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism
The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of existence pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society. The medieval burgesses and the small peasant proprietors were the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are but little developed, industrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side by side with the rising bourgeoisie.
In countries where modern civilization has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, as being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as Modern Industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.
In countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois regime, the standard of the peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes, should take up the cudgels for the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois socialism. Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in France but also in England.
This school of socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labor; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.
In it positive aims, however, this form of socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.
Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture; patriarchal relations in agriculture.
Ultimately, when stubborn historical facts had dispersed all intoxicating effects of self-deception, this form of socialism ended in a miserable hangover.
c. German or "True" Socialism
The socialist and communist literature of France, a literature that originated under the pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and that was the expressions of the struggle against this power, was introduced into Germany at a time when the bourgeoisie in that country had just begun its contest with feudal absolutism.
German philosophers, would-be philosophers, and beaux esprits (men of letters), eagerly seized on this literature, only forgetting that when these writings immigrated from France into Germany, French social conditions had not immigrated along with them. In contact with German social conditions, this French literature lost all its immediate practical significance and assumed a purely literary aspect. Thus, to the German philosophers of the eighteenth century, the demands of the first French Revolution were nothing more than the demands of "Practical Reason" in general, and the utterance of the will of the revolutionary French bourgeoisie signified, in their eyes, the laws of pure will, of will as it was bound to be, of true human will generally.
The work of the German literati consisted solely in bringing the new French ideas into harmony with their ancient philosophical conscience, or rather, in annexing the French ideas without deserting their own philosophic point of view.
This annexation took place in the same way in which a foreign language is appropriated, namely, by translation.
It is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic saints _over_ the manuscripts on which the classical works of ancient heathendom had been written. The German literati reversed this process with the profane French literature. They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For instance, beneath the French criticism of the economic functions of money, they wrote "alienation of humanity", and beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois state they wrote "dethronement of the category of the general", and so forth.
The introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of the French historical criticisms, they dubbed "Philosophy of Action", "True Socialism", "German Science of Socialism", "Philosophical Foundation of Socialism", and so on.
The French socialist and communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased, in the hands of the German, to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome "French one-sidedness" and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of human nature, of man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy.
This German socialism, which took its schoolboy task so seriously and solemnly, and extolled its poor stock-in-trade in such a mountebank fashion, meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic innocence.
The fight of the Germans, and especially of the Prussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy, in other words, the liberal movement, became more earnest.
By this, the long-wished for opportunity was offered to "True" Socialism of confronting the political movement with the socialistic demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement. German socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things those attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.
To the absolute governments, with their following of parsons, professors, country squires, and officials, it served as a welcome scarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie.
It was a sweet finish, after the bitter pills of flogging and bullets, with which these same governments, just at that time, dosed the German working-class risings.
While this "True" Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things.
To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction — on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. "True" Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.
The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry "eternal truths", all skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public. And on its part German socialism recognized, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois philistine.
It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, higher, socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the "brutally destructive" tendency of communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called socialist and communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature. 
2. CONSERVATIVE OR BOURGEOIS SOCIALISM
A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.
To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organizers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.
We may cite Proudhon's Philosophy of Poverty as an example of this form.
The socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightaway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.
A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labor, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work of bourgeois government.
Bourgeois socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.
Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.
It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the working class.
3. CRITICAL-UTOPIAN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM
We do not here refer to that literature which, in every great modern revolution, has always given voice to the demands of the proletariat, such as the writings of Babeuf  and others.
The first direct attempts of the proletariat to attain its own ends, made in times of universal excitement, when feudal society was being overthrown, necessarily failed, owing to the then undeveloped state of the proletariat, as well as to the absence of the economic conditions for its emancipation, conditions that had yet to be produced, and could be produced by the impending bourgeois epoch alone. The revolutionary literature that accompanied these first movements of the proletariat had necessarily a reactionary character. It inculcated universal asceticism and social levelling in its crudest form.
The socialist and communist systems, properly so called, those of Saint-Simon , Fourier , Owen , and others, spring into existence in the early undeveloped period, described above, of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie (see Section 1. Bourgeois and Proletarians).
The founders of these systems see, indeed, the class antagonisms, as well as the action of the decomposing elements in the prevailing form of society. But the proletariat, as yet in its infancy, offers to them the spectacle of a class without any historical initiative or any independent political movement.
Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of industry, the economic situation, as they find it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. They therefore search after a new social science, after new social laws, that are to create these conditions.
Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action; historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones; and the gradual, spontaneous class organization of the proletariat to an organization of society especially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans.
In the formation of their plans, they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them.
The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without the distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can people when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of society?
Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social gospel.
Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position, correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society.
But these socialist and communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence, they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures proposed in them — such as the abolition of the distinction between town and country, of the family, of the carrying on of industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage system, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the function of the state into a more superintendence of production — all these proposals point solely to the disappearance of class antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which, in these publications, are recognized in their earliest indistinct and undefined forms only. These proposals, therefore, are of a purely utopian character.
The significance of critical-utopian socialism and communism bears an inverse relation to historical development. In proportion as the modern class struggle develops and takes definite shape, this fantastic standing apart from the contest, these fantastic attacks on it, lose all practical value and all theoretical justifications. Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavor, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realization of their social utopias, of founding isolated phalansteres, of establishing "Home Colonies", or setting up a "Little Icaria"  — pocket editions of the New Jerusalem — and to realize all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees, they sink into the category of the reactionary conservative socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.
They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new gospel.
The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France, respectively, oppose the Chartists and the Reformistes.
 NOTE by Engels to 1888 English edition: Not the English Restoration (1660-1689), but the French Restoration (1814-1830).
 NOTE by Engels to 1888 English edition: This applies chiefly to Germany, where the landed aristocracy and squirearchy have large portions of their estates cultivated for their own account by stewards, and are, moreover, extensive beetroot-sugar manufacturers and distillers of potato spirits. The wealthier british aristocracy are, as yet, rather above that; but they, too, know how to make up for declining rents by lending their names to floaters or more or less shady joint-stock companies.
 NOTE by Engels to 1888 German edition: The revolutionary storm of 1848 swept away this whole shabby tendency and cured its protagonists of the desire to dabble in socialism. The chief representative and classical type of this tendency is Mr Karl Gruen.
 Francois Noel Babeuf (1760-1797): French political agitator; plotted unsuccessfully to destroy the Directory in revolutionary France and established a communistic system.
 Comte de Saint-Simon, Claude Henri de Rouvroy (1760-1825): French social philosopher; generally regarded as founder of French socialism. He thought society should be reorganized along industrial lines and that scientists should be the new spiritual leaders. His most important work is _Nouveau_Christianisme_ (1825).
 Charles Fourier (1772-1837): French social reformer; propounded a system of self-sufficient cooperatives known as Fourierism, especially in his work _Le_Nouveau_Monde_industriel_ (1829-30)
 Richard Owen (1771-1858): Welsh industrialist and social reformer. He formed a model industrial community at New Lanark, Scotland, and pioneered cooperative societies. His books ******* _New_View_Of_Society_ (1813).
 NOTE by Engels to 1888 English edition: "Home Colonies" were what Owen called his communist model societies. _Phalansteres_ were socialist colonies on the plan of Charles Fourier; Icaria was the name given by Caber to his utopia and, later on, to his American communist colony.
IV — POSITION OF THE COMMUNISTS IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS EXISTING OPPOSITION PARTIES
Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.
The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France, the Communists ally with the Social Democrats* against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the Great Revolution.
In Switzerland, they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.
In Poland, they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Krakow in 1846.
In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty-bourgeoisie.
But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.
The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilization and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.
Finally, they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Proletarians of all countries, unite!
* NOTE by Engels to 1888 English edition: The party then represented in Parliament by Ledru-Rollin, in literature by Louis Blanc (1811-82), in the daily press by the Reforme. The name of Social-Democracy signifies, with these its inventors, a section of the Democratic or Republican Party more or less tinged with socialism.
PREFACE TO 1872 GERMAN EDITION
The Communist League, an international association of workers, which could of course be only a secret one, under conditions obtaining at the time, commissioned us, the undersigned, at the Congress held in London in November 1847, to write for publication a detailed theoretical and practical programme for the Party. Such was the origin of the following Manifesto, the manuscript of which travelled to London to be printed a few weeks before the February Revolution. First published in German, it has been republished in that language in at least twelve different editions in Germany, England, and America. It was published in English for the first time in 1850 in the _Red Republican_, London, translated by Miss Helen Macfarlane, and in 1871 in at least three different translations in America. The french version first appeared in Paris shortly before the June insurrection of 1848, and recently in _Le Socialiste_ of New York. A new translation is in the course of preparation. A Polish version appeared in London shortly after it was first published in Germany. A Russian translation was published in Geneva in the 'sixties. Into Danish, too, it was translated shortly after its appearance.
However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Assocation, 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.
But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter. A subsequent edition may perhaps appear with an introduction bridging the gap from 1847 to the present day; but this reprint was too unexpected to leave us time for that.
June 24, 1872
PREFACE TO 1882 RUSSIAN EDITION
The first Russian edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, translated by Bakunin, was published early in the 'sixties by the printing office of the Kolokol. Then the West could see in it (the Russian edition of the Manifesto) only a literary curiosity. Such a view would be impossible today.
What a limited field the proletarian movement occupied at that time (December 1847) is most clearly shown by the last section: the position of the Communists in relation to the various opposition parties in various countries. Precisely Russia and the United States are missing here. It was the time when Russia constituted the last great reserve of all European reaction, when the United States absorbed the surplus proletarian forces of Europe through immigration. Both countries provided Europe with raw materials and were at the same time markets for the sale of its industrial products. Bother were, therefore, in one way of another, pillars of the existing European system.
How very different today. Precisely European immigration fitted North American for a gigantic agricultural production, whose competition is shaking the very foundations of European landed property — large and small. At the same time, it enabled the United States to exploit its tremendous industrial resources with an energy and on a scale that must shortly break the industrial monopoly of Western Europe, and especially of England, existing up to now. Both circumstances react in a revolutionary manner upon America itself. Step by step, the small and middle land ownership of the farmers, the basis of the whole political constitution, is succumbing to the competition of giant farms; at the same time, a mass industrial proletariat and a fabulous concentration of capital funds are developing for the first time in the industrial regions.
And now Russia! During the Revolution of 1848-9, not only the European princes, but the European bourgeois as well, found their only salvation from the proletariat just beginning to awaken in Russian intervention. The Tsar was proclaimed the chief of European reaction. Today, he is a prisoner of war of the revolution in Gatchina, and Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe.
The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeaval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?
The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.
FREDERICK ENGELS January 21, 1882
PREFACE TO 1883 GERMAN EDITION
The preface to the present edition I must, alas, sign alone. Marx, the man to whom the whole working class class of Europe and America owes more than to any one else — rests at Highgate Cemetary and over his grave the first first grass is already growing. Since his death [March 13, 1883], there can be even less thought of revising or supplementing the Manifesto. But I consider it all the more necessary again to state the following expressly:
The basic thought running through the Manifesto — that economic production, and the structure of society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom, constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently (ever since the dissolution of the primaeval communal ownership of land) all history has been a history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting, between dominated and dominating classes at various stages of social evolution; that this struggle, however, has now reached a stage where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no longer emancipate itself from the class which exploits and oppresses it (the bourgeoisie), without at the same time forever freeing the whole of society from exploitation, oppression, class struggles — this basic thought belongs soley and exclusively to Marx.
[ENGELS FOOTNOTE TO PARAGRAPH: "This proposition", I wrote in the preface to the English translation, "which, in my opinion, is destined to do for history what Darwin's theory has done for biology, we both of us, had been gradually approaching for some years before 1845. How far I had independently progressed towards it is best shown by my _Conditions of the Working Class in England_. But when I again met Marx at Brussels, in spring 1845, he had it already worked out and put it before me in terms almost as clear as those in which I have stated it here."]
I have already stated this many times; but precisely now is it necessary that it also stand in front of the Manifesto itself.
June 28, 1883
PREFACE TO 1888 ENGLISH EDITION
The Manifesto was published as the platform of the Communist League, a working men's association, first exclusively German, later on international, and under the political conditions of the Continent before 1848, unavoidably a secret society. At a Congress of the League, held in November 1847, Marx and Engels were commissioned to prepare a complete theoretical and practical party programme. Drawn up in German, in January 1848, the manuscript was sent to the printer in London a few weeks before the French Revolution of February 24. A French translation was brought out in Paris shortly before the insurrection of June 1848. The first English translation, by Miss Helen Macfarlane, appeared in George Julian Harney's _Red Republican_, London, 1850. A Danish and a Polish edition had also been published.
The defeat of the Parisian insurrection of June 1848 — the first great battle between proletariat and bourgeoisie — drove again into the background, for a time, the social and political aspirations of the European working class. Thenceforth, the struggle for supremacy was, again, as it had been before the Revolution of February, solely between different sections of the propertied class; the working class was reduced to a fight for political elbow-room, and to the position of extreme wing of the middle-class Radicals. Wherever independent proletarian movements continued to show signs of life, they were ruthlessly hunted down. Thus the Prussian police hunted out the Central Board of the Communist League, then located in Cologne. The members were arrested and, after eighteen months' imprisonment, they were tried in October 1852. This selebrated "Cologne Communist Trial" lasted from October 4 till November 12; seven of the prisoners were sentenced to terms of imprisonment in a fortress, varying from three to six years. Immediately after the sentence, the League was formlly dissolved by the remaining members. As to the Manifesto, it seemed henceforth doomed to oblivion.
When the European workers had recovered sufficient strength for another attack on the ruling classes, the International Working Men's Association sprang up. But this association, formed with the express aim of welding into one body the whole militant proletariat of Europe and America, could not at once proclaim the principles laid down in the Manifesto. The International was bound to have a programme broad enough to be acceptable to the English trade unions, to the followers of Proudhon in France, Belgium, Italy, and Spain, and to the Lassalleans in Germany.
[ENGEL'S FOOTNOTE: Lassalle personally, to us, always acknowledged himself to be a disciple of Marx, and, as such, stood on the ground of the Manifesto. But in his first public agitation, 1862-1864, he did not go beyond demanding co-operative worhsops supported by state credit.]
Marx, who drew up this programme to the satisfaction of all parties, entirely trusted to the intellectual development of the working class, which was sure to result from combined action and mutual discussion. The very events and vicissitudes in the struggle against capital, the defeats even more than the victories, could not help bringing home to men's minds the insufficiency of their various favorite nostrums, and preparing the way for a more complete insight into the true conditions for working-class emancipation. And Marx was right. The International, on its breaking in 1874, left the workers quite different men from what it found them in 1864. Proudhonism in France, Lassalleanism in Germany, were dying out, and even the conservative English trade unions, though most of them had long since severed their connection with the International, were gradually advancing towards that point at which, last year at Swansea, their president could say in their name: "Continental socialism has lost its terror for us." In fact, the principles of the Manifesto had made considerable headway among the working men of all countries.
The Manifesto itself came thus to the front again. Since 1850, the German text had been reprinted several times in Switzerland, England, and America. In 1872, it was translated into English in New York, where the translation was published in _Woorhull and Claflin's Weekly_. From this English version, a French one was made in _Le Socialiste_ of New York. Since then, at least two more English translations, moer or less mutilated, have been brought out in America, and one of them has been reprinted in England. The first Russian translation, made by Bakunin, was published at Herzen's Kolokol office in Geneva, about 1863; a second one, by the heroic Vera Zasulich, also in Geneva, in 1882. A new Danish edition is to be found in _Socialdemokratisk Bibliothek_, Copenhagen, 1885; a fresh French translation in _Le Socialiste_, Paris, 1886. From this latter, a Spanish version was prepared and published in Madrid, 1886. The German reprints are not to be counted; there have been twelve altogether at the least. An Armenian translation, which was to be published in Constantinople some months ago, did not see the light, I am told, because the publisher was afraid of bringing out a book with the name of Marx on it, while the translator declined to call it his own production. Of further translations into other languages I have heard but had not seen. Thus the history of the Manifesto reflects the history of the modern working-class movement; at present, it is doubtless the most wide spread, the most international production of all socialist literature, the common platform acknowledged by millions of working men from Siberia to California.
Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a _socialist_ manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the "educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.
The Manifesto being our joint production, I consider myself bound to state that the fundamental proposition which forms the nucleus belongs to Marx. That proposition is: That in every historical epoch, th prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which it is built up, and from that which alone can be explained the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; That the history of these class struggles forms a series of evolutions in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class — the proletariat — cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class — the bourgeoisie — without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinction, and class struggles.
This proposition, which, in my opinion, is destined to do for history what Darwin's theory has done for biology, we both of us, had been gradually approaching for some years before 1845. How far I had independently progressed towards it is best shown by my _Conditions of the Working Class in England_. But when I again met Marx at Brussels, in spring 1845, he had it already worked out and put it before me in terms almost as clear as those in which I have stated it here.
From our joint preface to the German edition of 1872, I quote the following:
"However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (See _The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Assocation_ 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the Earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.
"But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter."
The present translation is by Mr Samuel Moore, the translator of the greater portion of Marx's _Capital_. We have revised it in common, and I have added a few notes explanatory of historical allusions.
January 30, 1888
PREFACE TO 1890 GERMAN EDITION
Since [the 1883 German edition preface] was written, a new German edition of the Manifesto has again become necessary, and much has also happened to the Manifesto which should be recorded here.
A second Russian translation — by Vera Zasulich — appeared in Geneva in 1882; the preface to that edition was written by Marx and myself. Unfortunately, the original German manuscript has gone astray; I must therefore retranslate from the Russian which will in no way improve the text. It reads:
"The first Russian edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, translated by Bakunin, was published early in the 'sixties by the printing office of the Kolokol. Then the West could see in it (the Russian edition of the Manifesto) only a literary curiosity. Such a view would be impossible today.
"What a limited field the proletarian movement occupied at that time (December 1847) is most clearly shown by the last section: the position of the Communists in relation to the various opposition parties in various countries. Precisely Russia and the United States are missing here. It was the time when Russia constituted the last great reserve of all European reaction, when the United States absorbed the surplus proletarian forces of Europe through immigration. Both countries provided Europe with raw materials and were at the same time markets for the sale of its industrial products. Both were, therefore, in one way of another, pillars of the existing European system.
"How very different today. Precisely European immigration fitted North American for a gigantic agricultural production, whose competition is shaking the very foundations of European landed property — large and small. At the same time, it enabled the United States to exploit its tremendous industrial resources with an energy and on a scale that must shortly break the industrial monopoly of Western Europe, and especially of England, existing up to now. Both circumstances react in a revolutionary manner upon America itself. Step by step, the small and middle land ownership of the farmers, the basis of the whole political constitution, is succumbing to the competition of giant farms; at the same time, a mass industrial proletariat and a fabulous concentration of capital funds are developing for the first time in the industrial regions.
"And now Russia! During the Revolution of 1848-9, not only the European princes, but the European bourgeois as well, found their only salvation from the proletariat just beginning to awaken in Russian intervention. The Tsar was proclaimed the chief of European reaction. Today, he is a prisoner of war of the revolution in Gatchina, and Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe.
"The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeaval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?
"The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.
"January 21, 1882 London"
At about the same date, a new Polish version appeared in Geneva: _Manifest Kommunistyczny_.
Furthermore, a new Danish translation has appeared in the _Socialdemokratisk Bibliothek_, Copenhagen, 1885. Unfortunately, it is not quite complete; certain essential passages, which seem to have presented difficulties to the translator, have been omitted, and, in addition, there are saigns of carelessness here and there, which are all the more unpleasantly conspicuous since the translation indicates that had the translator taken a little more pains, he would have done an excellent piece of work.
A new French version appeared in 1886, in _Le Socialiste_ of Paris; it is the best published to date.
From this latter, a Spanish version was published the same year in _El Socialista_ of Madrid, and then reissued in pamphlet form: _Manifesto del Partido Communista_ por Carlos Marx y F. Engels, Madrid, Administracion de El Socialista, Hernan Cortes 8.
As a matter of curiosity, I may mention that in 1887 the manuscript of an Armenian translation was offered to a publisher in Constantinople. But the good man did not have the courage to publish something bearing the name of Marx and suggested that the translator set down his own name as author, which the latter however declined.
After one, and then another, of the more or less inaccurate American translations had been repeatedly reprinted in England, an authentic version at last appeared in 1888. This was my friend Samuel Moore, and we went through it together once more before it went to press. It is entitled: _Manifesto of the Communist_Party_, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Authorized English translation, edited and annotated by Frederick Engels, 1888, London, William Reeves, 185 Fleet Street, E.C. I have added some of the notes of that edition to the present one.
The Manifesto has had a history of its own. Greeted with enthusiasm, at the time of its appearance, by the not at all numerous vanguard of scientific socialism (as is proved by the translations mentioned in the first place), it was soon forced into the background by the reaction that began with the defeat of the Paris workers in June 1848, and was finally excommunicated "by law" in the conviction of the Cologne Communists in November 1852. With the disappearance from the public scene of the workers' movement that had begun with the February Revolution, the Manifesto too passed into the background.
When the European workers had again gathered sufficient strength for a new onslaught upon the power of the ruling classes, the International Working Men's Association came into being. Its aim was to weld together into _one_ huge army the whole militant working class of Europe and America. Therefore it could not _set out_ from the principles laid down in the Manifesto. It was bound to have a programme which would not shut the door on the English trade unions, the French, Belgian, Italian, and Spanish Proudhonists, and the German Lassalleans. This programme — the considerations underlying the Statutes of the International — was drawn up by Marx with a master hand acknowledged even by the Bakunin and the anarchists. For the ultimate final triumph of the ideas set forth in the Manifesto, Marx relied solely upon the intellectual development of the working class, as it necessarily has to ensue from united action and discussion. The events and vicissitudes in the struggle against capital, the defeats even more than the successes, could not but demonstrate to the fighters the inadequacy of their former universal panaceas, and make their minds more receptive to a thorough understanding of the true conditions for working-class emancipation. And Marx was right. The working class of 1874, at the dissolution of the International, was altogether different from that of 1864, at its foundation. Proudhonism in the Latin countries, and the specific Lassalleanism in Germany, were dying out; and even the ten arch-conservative English trade unions were gradually approaching the point where, in 1887, the chairman of their Swansea Congress could say in their name: "Continental socialism has lost its terror for us." Yet by 1887 continental socialism was almost exclusively the theory heralded in the Manifesto. Thus, to a certain extent, the history of the Manifesto reflects the history of the modern working-class movement since 1848. At present, it is doubtless the most widely circulated, the most international product of all socialist literature, the common programme of many millions of workers of all countries from Siberia to California.
Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a _socialist_ manifesto. In 1847, two kinds of people were considered socialists. On the one hand were the adherents of the various utopian systems, notably the Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France, both of whom, at that date, had already dwindled to mere sects gradually dying out. On the other, the manifold types of social quacks who wanted to eliminate social abuses through their various universal panaceas and all kinds of patch-work, without hurting capital and profit in the least. In both cases, people who stood outside the labor movement and who looked for support rather to the "educated" classes. The section of the working class, however, which demanded a radical reconstruction of society, convinced that mere political revolutions were not enough, then called itself _Communist_. It was still a rough-hewn, only instinctive and frequently somewhat crude communism. Yet, it was powerful enough to bring into being two systems of utopian communism — in France, the "Icarian" communists of Cabet, and in Germany that of Weitling. Socialism in 1847 signified a bourgeois movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, quite respectable, whereas communism was the very opposite. And since we were very decidely of the opinion as early as then that "the emancipation of the workers must be the task of the working class itself," we could have no hesitation as to which of the two names we should choose. Nor has it ever occured to us to repudiate it.
"Working men of all countries, unite!" But few voices responded when we proclaimed these words to the world 42 years ago, on the eve of the first Paris Revolution in which the proletariat came out with the demands of its own. On September 28, 1864, however, the proletarians of most of the Western European countries joined hands in the International Working Men's Association of glorious memory. True, the International itself lived only nine years. But that the eternal union of the proletarians of all countries created by it is still alive and lives stronger than ever, there is no better witness than this day. Because today, as I write these lines, the European and American proletariat is reviewing its fighting forces, mobilized for the first time, mobilized as _one_ army, under _one_ flag, for _one_ immediate aim: the standard eight-hour working day to be established by legal enactment, as proclaimed by the Geneva Congress of the International in 1866, and again by the Paris Workers' Congress of 1889. And today's spectacle will open the eyes of the capitalists and landlords of all countries to the fact that today the proletarians of all countries are united indeed.
If only Marx were still by my side to see this with his own eyes!
May 1, 1890
|05-24-2007, 03:38 AM||#22|
Out fart the hottie!
Location: I have super gonorrhoea
Fecal (stool) incontinence
There is early research regarding the use of regular irrigation of the lower part of the colon in people with fecal incontinence. Further study is necessary to determine if benefits are likely to occur in most patients.
Special types of colonic irrigation may be used in patients with ostomies (surgically created connections between the intestine and the side of the body). This area has been studied scientifically, and use of colonic irrigation in this setting should be conducted only under the strict supervision of a qualified ostomy health care provider.
Colonic spasm (during colonoscopy)
Evidence from some studies has shown that irrigation with warm water during colonoscopy may help reduce the incidence of colonic spasm. Further research is needed.
Surgeons or other health care practitioners may use colon irrigation before or during some bowel surgeries (for example, colon cancer resection) for purposes such as cleansing or toward improved healing.
|05-24-2007, 03:39 AM||#23|
Out fart the hottie!
Location: I have super gonorrhoea
Another week, another "shocking" elimination. The hosts were all about hyping the "jam-packed" results show, bragging that there was more music and dancing "than ever before." What else would there be on a dancing show? An ad for a workout DVD? Oh, wait, I'm getting ahead of myself.
The behind-the-scenes interviews were combined with recap footage from last night's performances. A big deal was made of the unprecedented four-way tie. Joey Fatone was offended by Len's butt comment, and stuck out his rear (and his visible panty line) in protest during his interview. Heather wanted to advance even farther than Jonathan's previous two-legged partners. I'm still hoping that Heather's dancing talents will start to overshadow her disability. It was a valid topic in the first few episodes, but enough is enough.
Ian's footwork malfunction was revisited, for those who missed it due to last night's camera problem. After seeing the misstep zeroed in on so closely, I think the judges were way too hard on the couple. Maksim disapproved of the wigs and props used in the other performances, and claimed that a horse was sure to follow. Don't give the producers any ideas, Maksim.
I was surprised when the judges picked Joey and Kym's Star Wars Tango as their favorite performance. It would have been nice if Ian and Cheryl were given another chance to perform their "almost a 9" Jive. Perhaps Len just wanted to see Kym in her Princess Leia getup again. The couple did a great job, and I didn't even notice Joey's butt.
Ciara was the first of three musical acts planned for the evening. She performed "Like a Boy," in the standard oversized man's shirt outfit that is supposed to be sexy (now it's just overdone). Both Ciara and her background dancers showed some considerable flexibility, and the crowd loved it.
The audience weighed in, as usual, and there were some clear favorites. Heather, Joey, and Ian already have a following, and Leeza, Billy Ray, and Clyde need to win some more people over. Deborah "don't call me Debbie" Gibson made some vague comments about contestants "stepping it up," which made me think she should work for ESPN. Three of the former members of Boyz II Men (the tall baritone guy was missing) showed their support for Joey as well. The first two couples to be taken out of harm's way were Joey & Kym and Apolo & Julianne.
This week's movie theme carried over into the musical performances, with Survivor singing "Eye of the Tiger." I don't know if Survivor's lead singer had a wig or a bad dye job or what, but it was seriously distracting. Eight of the professional dancers demonstrated the Paso Doble, one of the dances for next week. The professional performances are my favorite part of the Results Show, and the pros were very entertaining.
The show's creators jumped on the fitness bandwagon and are releasing a Dancing With The Stars workout DVD. I'm mildly curious, if only because Maksim appears in it. Jimmy Kimmel and Guillermo were back, and demonstrated the 27-step Paso Doble. I cannot wait to see Billy Ray counting during this dance. Josh Groban performed "So She Dances," while Julianne and Tony did a beautiful dance. I love that when Josh Groban sang "ooo," my television's closed captioning used about fifteen o's.
The segment with the clairvoyant and "The Numbers Lady" was entertaining enough. They have to fill the time somehow. The Numbers Lady predicted that Laila will win, as her numbers match those of the previous winners. Clairvoyant Guy chose Ian, for his "purple energy." I predicted that at least one of these people will be wrong. Billy Ray and Karina were placed in the safe group, along with Laila and Maksim. Shandi and Brian were placed "in peril" as one of the bottom two couples.
After a brief segment about elimination anxiety (news flash: eliminations are stressful), more couples were given the good (and bad) news. In the safe group: Ian and Cheryl, John and Edyta, Heather and Jonathan, and Clyde and Elena. The second couple in the bottom two: Leeza and Tony. This was surprising, given Leeza's ridiculously high score.
Shandi and Brian were sent back to the Malibu beach house, much to Shandi's disappointment. Ever the poised beauty queen, Shandi thanked her partner and raved about being a part of the show. I know that Brett will be upset that one of his favorites left so early. Check back to hear his thoughts on next week's episodes. Our celebrities will be dancing either the Waltz or the Paso Doble.
Be sure to vote for your favorite celebrity dancer in AOL's poll!
|05-24-2007, 03:41 AM||#24|
Out fart the hottie!
Location: I have super gonorrhoea
:: Edits the Config.Sys File
:: Prompts to Reboot or Not
EDIT C:\CONFIG.SYS Loads CS into DOS' "EDIT"
ECHO Reboot Computer? Press: `R'.
ECHO. Places choices on to
ECHO To Cancel, Press: `Escape' the screen with spacing.
CHOICE /C:R<- /N < NUL DOS 6's "Choice" command.
IF ERRORLEVEL 2 GOTO END Determines which key has
IF ERRORLEVEL 1 GOTO REBOOT been pressed and decides
GOTO END the course of action.
C:\UTIL\WARMBOOT.COM See below.
|05-24-2007, 05:08 AM||#27|
The Boston Red Sox are a professional Major League Baseball team based in Boston, Massachusetts. They are also known as the Olde Towne Team, and The BoSox (a portmanteau of Boston and Sox). They are often familiarly referred to by newspapers and fans as simply The Sox.
A member of the American League East Division, their home field is Fenway Park, which opened on April 20, 1912, and is the oldest major league ballpark still in operation. The Red Sox won the first World Series as the Boston Americans in 1903 against the Pittsburgh Pirates. They won their most recent World Series championship in 2004, after an 86-year interval.
The Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry is one of the longest standing and most storied rivalries in North American sports.
1.1 The Golden Era 1900-1919
1.1.1 Sale of Babe Ruth
1.2 Ted Williams 1939-1960
1.3 The 60s: Yaz and the Impossible Dream
1.4 70s: Red Hat Era
1.4.1 1978 American League Playoff
1.5 1980-1987: Game Six
1.6 1988-1992 Morgan's Magic
1.7 1993-2001 mixed results
1.8 2002-present a new era
1.8.1 2002: Henry comes to Boston
1.8.2 2003: Cowboy Up
1.8.3 2004: World Champions
1.8.4 2005 - 2006 the "Idiots" disband
1.8.5 2007 Season
2 Postseason series
4 Retired numbers
5 Baseball Hall of Famers
6 Notable seasons and team records
7 Current Roster
8 Radio and television
9 Minor league affiliations
10 See also
13 External links
13.1 Official Sites
13.2 Blogs and Messageboards
13.3 Sabermetrics and Statistics
Main article: History of the Boston Red Sox
The Golden Era 1900-1919
Crowd outside Huntington Avenue Grounds during the 1903 World Series.
The iconic photo of the Huntington Avenue Grounds before the first modern World Series game in 1903.In 1900, the minor Western League, led by Ban Johnson, declared its equality with the National League, then the only major league. Johnson changed the name of the league to the American League. Competing in the streets, the upstart placed franchises in two of the largest and most important National League cities, Philadelphia and Boston. Playing their home games at Huntington Avenue Grounds, one of these two franchises often called the Boston Americans finished second and third before capturing their first pennant in 1903 and repeating the next year. Those teams were led by manager and star third baseman Jimmy Collins and by pitcher Cy Young, whose 1901 to 1904 seasons rank among the best four-year runs ever. In addition, the Americans received significant contributions from outfielders Chick Stahl, Buck Freeman and Patsy Dougherty. In 1903, the Americans participated in the first modern World Series, beating the favored Pittsburgh Pirates, winners of the NL pennant by six and a half games, winning five games to three. The Americans, aided by the modified chants of "Tessie" by the Royal Rooters fan club and by its stronger pitching staff, managed to overcome the odds, winning the first ever World Series.
The Red Sox logo used in 1908, when they were known as the "Boston Americans".The 1904 club was almost as good as the previous team, but due to the surprise emergence of the New York Highlanders, the Americans found themselves in a tight pennant race through the last games of the season. A predecessor to what would become a storied rivalry, this race featured such controversial moves as the trade of Patsy Dougherty to the Highlanders for Bob Unglaub. However, perhaps the climax of the season occurred on the last, dramatic doubleheader at the Highlanders’ home stadium, Hilltop Park. In order to win the pennant, the Highlanders needed to win both games. With Jack Chesbro, the Highlanders' 41-game winner, on the mound, the Highlanders seemed to have a good chance of winning the first game. However, with the score tied 2-2 with a man on third in the top of the ninth, a spitball got away from Chesbro and Lou Criger scored the go-ahead run on one of the most famous wild pitches in history. Unfortunately, the NL champion New York Giants declined to play any postseason series, fearing it would give their New York rivals (they had expected the Highlanders to win) credibility, but a sharp public reaction led the two leagues immediately to make the World Series a permanent championship.
The Huntington Avenue Grounds during a game. Note building from which the famous 1903 "bird's-eye" photo was taken (see box above for the picture).These successful times soon ended, however, as the Americans lost 100 games in the 1906 season. But several new star players helped the newly renamed Red Sox improve almost immediately. By 1909, the legendary center fielder Tris Speaker had become a fixture in the Boston outfield, and the Red Sox worked their way to third place. However, the Red Sox would not win the pennant again until their 105-win 1912 season, finishing with a club record .691 winning percentage. Anchored by an outfield considered to be among the finest in the game — Tris Speaker, Harry Hooper and Duffy Lewis — and superstar pitcher Smokey Joe Wood, the Red Sox beat the New York Giants 4-3-1 in a classic World Series best known for Snodgrass’s Muff. From 1913 to 1916 the Red Sox were owned by Joseph Lannin, who signed Babe Ruth, soon the best-known and one of the best players ever. Another 101 wins in 1915 propelled the Red Sox to the World Series again, where they beat the Philadelphia Phillies four games to one. The 1916 team repeated the pennant, though Tris Speaker, a fixture for six years, was traded to the Cleveland Indians in the off-season. His departure was more than compensated for, however, by the emergence of star pitcher Babe Ruth. Once again, the Red Sox won the World Series, this time defeating the Brooklyn Robins. By 1918, the team found itself at the top of the heap again, led by Babe Ruth to a World Series championship over the Chicago Cubs.
Sale of Babe Ruth
After three seasons in Boston, Harry Frazee sold Babe Ruth to the rival New York Yankees on January 2, 1920. Ruth had just broken the single-season home run record, hitting 29 in 1919. Legend has it that Frazee did so in order to finance the Broadway play No, No, Nanette, starring "a friend", but the play did not open on Broadway until 1925.
During that period, the Red Sox, White Sox and Yankees had a detente; they were called "Insurrectos" because their actions antagonized league president Johnson. Although Frazee owned the Boston Red Sox franchise, he did not own Fenway Park (it was owned by the Fenway Park Trust), making his ownership a precarious one; Johnson could move another team into the ballpark. His club was in debt, but Frazee felt the need to purchase its playing site (which he did in 1920). Further, providing the Yankees with a box office attraction would help that mediocre club, which had sided with him against Johnson and "the Loyal Five" clubs. Finally, Ruth was considered a serious disciplinary problem, a reputation to be replicated in New York. Frazee moved to stabilize finances and cut distractions. It was a straight sale, no players in return.
After New York achieved great success and Boston did not win for a few decades, the sale of Babe Ruth came to be viewed as the beginning of the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry, described as the "Greatest Rivalry on Earth" by some journalists. . Plus, years later, many thought the sale was the cause of the "Curse of the Bambino".
After the sale of Ruth to the Yankees, Frazee continued to sell many of his star players. In the winter of 1920, Wally Schang, future star pitcher Waite Hoyt, Harry Harper, and Mike McNally were traded to the Yankees for Del Pratt, Muddy Ruel, John Costello, Hank Thormahlen, Sammy Vick and cash. The following winter, iron man shortstop Everett Scott, and pitchers Bullet Joe Bush and Sad Sam Jones were traded to the Yankees for Roger Peckinpaugh (who would be immediately shipped to the Washington Senators), Jack Quinn, Rip Collins, Bill Piercy and $50,000. One particularly controversial deal was that of Joe Dugan and Elmer Smith, who were traded to the Yankees on July 23, 1922, for Elmer Miller, Chick Fewster, John Mitchell, and future superstar Lefty O'Doul, who was at the time a mediocre pitching prospect. The trade of Dugan helped the Yankees edge the St. Louis Browns in a tight pennant race, and the resulting uproar helped create a June 15 trading deadline that went into effect the next year. Perhaps an even more outrageous deal was the trade of Herb Pennock, occurring in early 1923. Pennock was traded by the Red Sox to the Yankees for Camp Skinner, Norm McMillan, George Murray and $50,000.
Ted Williams 1939-1960
Ted Williams & Tom YawkeyIn 1939, the Red Sox purchased the contract of outfielder Ted Williams from the San Diego Padres Pacific Coast League, ushering in an era of the team sometimes called the "Ted Sox." Williams is generally considered one of the greatest hitters of all time, because he consistently hit for both high power and high average. Stories of his ability to hold a bat in his hand and correctly estimate its weight down to the ounce have floated around baseball circles for decades. His book The Science of Hitting is widely read by students of baseball. He is also the last player to hit over .400 for a full season, hitting .406 in 1941. Williams feuded with sports writers his whole career, calling them "The Knights of the Keyboard", and his relationship with the fans was often rocky as he was seen spitting towards the stands on more than one occasion.
With Williams, the Red Sox reached the World Series in 1946, but lost to the St. Louis Cardinals in seven games, in part because of the use of the "Williams Shift," in which the shortstop would move to the right side of the infield to make it harder for the left-handed-hitting Williams to hit to that side of the field. Some have claimed that Williams was too proud to hit to the other side of the field, not wanting to let the Cardinals take away his game. Williams did not fare well in the series, gathering only five singles in 25 at-bats, for a .200 average. However, his performance may have been affected by an elbow injury he had received a few days before when he was hit by a pitch in an exhibition game. Williams would never play in a World Series again. Williams served two stints in the United States Marine Corps as a pilot and saw active duty in both World War II and Korea and missed at least five full seasons of baseball . One can only wonder what his stats would have been had he played the whole time.
The loss to the Cardinals in game 7 of 1946 World Series is not without controversy as the Cardinals' Enos Slaughter scored the go ahead run all the way from first base on a base hit to left field. The throw from Leon Culberson was cut off by shortstop Johnny Pesky who relayed the ball to the plate just a hair too late. Some say Pesky hesitated or "held the ball" before he turned to throw the ball, but this has been disputed.
The right-field bullpens in Fenway Park were built in part for Williams' left-handed swing, and are sometimes called "Williamsburg". Before this addition to right field, Fenway park was over 400 feet deep to right field.
The Red Sox featured several other players during the 1940s, including SS Johnny Pesky (for whom the right field foul pole in Fenway — "Pesky's Pole" — is affectionately named by fans, and in 2006 the Red Sox officially named it such), 2B Bobby Doerr, and CF Dom DiMaggio (brother of Joe DiMaggio).
The Red Sox narrowly lost the AL pennant in 1948 and 1949. In 1948, they finished in a tie with Cleveland, and their loss to Cleveland in a 1-game playoff ended hopes of an all-Boston World Series. Curiously, manager Joseph McCarthy chose journeyman Denny Galehouse to start the playoff game when the young lefty phenom Mel Parnell was available to pitch. In 1949, the Sox were 1 game ahead of the New York Yankees, with the only 2 games left for both teams being against each other, and they lost both of those games.
Red Sox logo from 1950-1961The 1950s were viewed as a time of tribulation for the Red Sox. After Williams returned from the Korean War in 1953, many of the best players from the late 1940s had retired or been traded. The stark contrast in the team led critics to call the Red Sox' daily lineup "Ted Williams and the Seven Dwarfs." Also, unlike many other teams, owner Tom Yawkey refused to sign players of African descent, even passing up chances at future Hall-of-Famers Jackie Robinson and Willie Mays, both of whom tried out for Boston and were highly praised by team scouts. Jackie Robinson was even worked out by the team at Fenway Park, however it appeared that owner Tom Yawkey did not want an African American player on his team at that time. Ted Williams hit .388 at the age of 38 in 1957, but there was little else for Boston fans to root for. Williams retired at the end of the 1960 season, famously hitting a home run in his final at-bat as memorialized in the John Updike story "Hub fans bid Kid adieu" The Sox finally became the last Major League team to field an African American player when they promoted infielder Pumpsie Green from their AAA farm team in 1959.
The 60s: Yaz and the Impossible Dream
Main article: The Impossible Dream (1967)
The 1960s also started poorly for the Red Sox, though 1961 saw the debut of Carl "Yaz" Yastrzemski, (uniform #8) who developed into one of the better hitters of a pitching-rich decade.
Red Sox fans refer to 1967 as the year of the "Impossible Dream." The slogan refers to the hit song from the popular musical play "Man of La Mancha." The 1967 season is remembered as one of the great pennant races in baseball history because four teams were in the AL pennant race until almost the last game. The team had finished the 1966 season in ninth place, but they found new life with Yastrzemski as the team went to the World Series. Yastrzemski won the American League Triple Crown (the most recent player to accomplish such a feat) and put forth what is considered one of the best seasons in baseball history. But the Red Sox lost the series — again to the St. Louis Cardinals, in seven games. Legendary pitcher Bob Gibson stymied the Sox winning three games.
Also during the 1960s, a local Boston kid named Tony Conigliaro slugged 24 home runs as a 18 year old rookie in 1964. Tony C became the youngest player in Major League Baseball to hit his 100th home run, a record that stands today. However, Tony C was beaned just above the eye by a fastball thrown by Jack Hamilton in August 1967. Tony C sat out the entire next season with headaches and blurred vision and although he did have a productive season in 1970, he was never the same.
70s: Red Hat Era
The iconic Red Sox hat of the 1970sSoon after the Impossible Dream, the team began to wear a red hat with a navy blue B in contrast to the traditional navy hat with a red B, a symbol of successful teams of the upcoming decade. Although the Red Sox played competitive baseball for much of the late 60s and early 70s, they never finished higher than second place in their division. The closest they came to a divisional title was 1972, when they lost by a half-game to the Detroit Tigers. The start of the season was delayed by a players' strike, and the Red Sox further lost a game to a rainout that was never replayed, which caused the Red Sox to lose the division by a half-game — a game, which the Tigers won, that the Red Sox would never get to play. On October 2, 1972, they also lost the second to last game of the year to the Tigers, 3-1, when Luis Aparicio fell rounding third after Yastremski hit a triple in the third inning, Aparicio tried to scamper back to third but this created an out as Yastremski was already on third.
The Red Sox won the AL pennant in 1975, with Yastrzemski surrounded by other players such as rookie outfielders Jim Rice and Fred Lynn the "Gold Dust Twins", veteran outfielder Dwight Evans "Dewey", catcher Carlton Fisk "Pudge", and pitchers Luis Tiant "Louie" and eccentric junkballer Bill Lee "The Spaceman". With many different personalities in the clubhouse, the 1975 Red Sox were as colorful as they were talented. Fred Lynn won both the American League Rookie of the Year award and the Most Valuable Player award, a feat which had never been accomplished at that time and was not duplicated until Ichiro Suzuki did it in 2001. ,. In the playoffs, the Sox swept the Oakland A's.
In the World Series, they faced the Cincinnati Reds, also known as The Big Red Machine, a team considered a baseball dynasty during the 1970s. Luis Tiant won games 1 and 4 of the World Series but after five games, the Red Sox trailed the series 3 games to 2. Game 6 played at Fenway Park is thought to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, game in postseason history. The Sox were down 6-3 in the bottom of the eighth when pinch hitter Bernie Carbo hit a three run homer into the center field bleachers off Reds fireman Rawly Eastwick to tie the game. In the top of the eleventh inning, right fielder Dwight Evans made a spectacular catch of a Joe Morgan line drive and doubled Ken Griffey Sr. at 1st base to preserve the tie. The Red Sox ultimately prevailed in the bottom of the twelfth inning when Carlton Fisk hit a deep fly ball which sliced towards the left field foul pole above the Green Monster. As the ball sailed into the night, Fisk waved his arms frantically towards fair territory, seemingly pleading with the ball not to go foul. The ball hit probably six inches to the fair side of the foul pole and bedlam ensued at Fenway as Fisk rounded the bases to win the game 7-6. Footage of the Fisk home run is shown again and again on ESPN classic.
The Red Sox lost game 7, 4-3 even though they had an early 3-0 lead. Starting pitcher Bill Lee threw a slow looping curve which he called a "Leephus pitch" or "space ball" to Reds 1st baseman Tony Perez who hit the ball over the Green Monster and across the street. The Reds scored the winning run in the 9th inning. Carlton Fisk said famously about the 1975 World Series, "We won that thing 3 games to 4".
1978 American League Playoff
In 1978, the Red Sox and the Yankees were involved in a tight pennant race. The Yankees were 14½ games behind the Red Sox in July, and on September 10, after completing a 4-game sweep of the Red Sox (known as "The Boston Massacre"), the Yankees tied for the divisional lead.
For the final three weeks of the season, the teams fought closely and the lead changed hands several times. By the final day of the season, the Yankees' magic number to win the division was one — which meant either a win over Cleveland or a Boston loss to Toronto would clinch the division for the Yankees. However, New York lost 9-2 and Boston won 5-1, forcing a one-game playoff to be held at Fenway Park on Monday, October 2.
Although Bucky Dent's three-run home run in the 7th inning off Mike Torrez just over the Green Monster — which gave the Yankees their first lead — is the most remembered moment from the game, it was Reggie Jackson's solo home run in the 8th that proved the difference in the Yankees' 5-4 win, which ended with Yastrzemski popping out to Graig Nettles with Rick Burleson representing the tying run at third.
1980-1987: Game Six
After the 1978 playoff game, the Red Sox didn't reach the postseason for the next seven years, finishing no higher than third place in their division during that period. Carl Yastrzemski retired after the 1983 season, during which the Red Sox finished sixth in the seven-team AL East, posting their worst record since 1966.
However, in 1986, it appeared the slump may have been reversed. The team's offense had remained strong with Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, Don Baylor, and future Hall of Famer Wade Boggs. Roger Clemens led the pitching staff, posting a 24-4 record with a 2.48 ERA to win both the American League Cy Young and Most Valuable Player awards. Clemens became the first starting pitcher to win both awards since Vida Blue in 1971. A starting pitcher has not won the MVP award in either league since.  The Red Sox won the AL East for the first time in eleven seasons, prompting a playoff series against the California Angels in the AL Championship Series.
The Series started poorly for the Red Sox. The teams split the first two games in Boston, but the Angels won the next two games at their home stadium, taking a 3-1 lead in the series. With the Angels poised to win the series, the Red Sox trailed 5-2 heading into the ninth inning of Game 5. A two-run homer by Don Baylor cut the lead to one. With two outs and a runner on, and one strike away from elimination, Dave Henderson homered off Donnie Moore to put Boston up 6-5. Although the Angels tied the game in the bottom of the ninth inning, the Red Sox won in the eleventh on a Henderson sacrifice fly off Moore. The Red Sox then found themselves with six and seven run wins at Fenway Park in Games 6 and 7 to win the American League title for the first time since 1975.
In the 1986 World Series the Red Sox played the New York Mets. The Red Sox won the first two games in Shea Stadium, but lost the next two at Fenway, knotting the series at 2 games apiece. After Bruce Hurst recorded his second victory of the series in game 5; the Red Sox returned to Flushing Meadows looking to garner their first championship in 68 years. However, Game Six would go down as one of the most devastating losses in club history. After pitching seven strong innings, Roger Clemens was curiously lifted from the game with a 3-2 lead. Years later, Manager John McNamara said that Clemens was suffering from a blister and asked to be taken out of the game, a fact that Clemens vehemently denied.  The Mets tied the score 3-3 in the eighth inning by scoring a run off reliever Calvin Schiraldi.
The game went to extra innings, where the Red Sox took a 5-3 lead in the top of the tenth on a solo home run by Dave Henderson, a double by Wade Boggs and an RBI single by Marty Barrett. After recording two easy outs in the bottom of the 10th innning, the Red Sox were one strike away from breaking their championship drought. The champagne was on ice in the Red Sox clubhouse, a graphic appeared on the NBC telecast hailing second baseman Marty Barrett as the World Series MVP, a message even appeared briefly on the Shea Stadium Scoreboard congratulating the Red Sox as World Champions. After so many years of abject frustration, Red Sox fans around the world could taste victory. Alas, just when even the most cautious and pessimistic of Sox fans started to believe, things began to unravel for the Old Town Team. While words can not describe what ensued, the memories of that chilly early fall morning at Shea Stadium live on in the realm of sports infamy.
After three straight singles off Calvin Schiraldi and a wild pitch by Bob Stanley, the Mets tied the game at five. Some people felt that the play should have been scored a passed ball on catcher Rich Gedman as the ball was not that far from the strike zone . It looked as though the Red Sox would record the third out leaving the score tied when Mookie Wilson hit a slow ground ball to first; unfortunately the ball took a strange hop and rolled through Bill Buckner's legs, allowing Ray Knight to score the winning run from second. Much like the Fisk homer in '75, this error is played again and again on TV.
Bill Buckner after his infamous error during Game 6 of the 1986 World SeriesWhile Buckner was singled out as responsible for the loss, many observers — as well as both Wilson and Buckner — have noted that even if Buckner had fielded the ball cleanly, Wilson possibly would still have been safe (Wilson at the time was thought of as one of the faster players in the National League), leaving the game-winning run at third with two out. Many observers questioned why Buckner was in the game at that point in light of the fact that he had very bad knees and Dave Stapleton had come in as a late inning defensive replacement in prior series games. It appeared as though McNamara was trying to reward Buckner for his long and illustrious career by leaving him in the game. After dropping behind 3-0, the New York Mets then won Game 7, concluding the devastating collapse and feeding the myth that the Red Sox were actually "cursed."
1988-1992 Morgan's Magic
The Red Sox returned to the postseason in 1988. With the club in fourth place midway through the 1988 season at the All-Star break, manager John McNamara was fired and replaced by Joe Morgan on July 15. Immediately the club won 12 games in a row, and 19 of 20 overall, to surge to the AL East title in what would be referred to as Morgan's Magic. But the magic was short-lived, as the team was swept by the Oakland Athletics in the ALCS. Ironically, the MVP of that Series was former Red Sox pitcher and Baseball Hall of Fame player Dennis Eckersley, who saved all four wins for Oakland. Two years later, in 1990, the Red Sox would again win the division and face the Athletics in the ALCS. However, the outcome was the same, with the A's sweeping the ALCS in four straight.
1993-2001 mixed results
Jean Yawkey died in 1992, leaving the team to a trust managed by CEO John Harrington. After her death, they had a few tough years, making it back to the playoffs in 1995, getting swept by the Cleveland Indians in three games.
In 1998, the Red Sox dealt pitchers Tony Armas, Jr. and Carl Pavano to the Montreal Expos in exchange for pitcher Pedro Martínez. Martínez became the anchor of the team's pitching staff and turned in several outstanding seasons. In 1998, the team won the American League Wild Card, but again lost the American League Division Series to the Indians.
A year later, the 1999 Red Sox were finally able to overturn their fortunes against the Indians. Cleveland took a 2-0 series lead, but Boston won the next three games behind strong pitching by Derek Lowe, Pedro Martínez and his brother Ramón Martínez. Game 4's 23-7 win by the Red Sox was the highest-scoring playoff game in major league history. Game 5 began with the Indians taking a 5-2 lead after two innings, but Pedro Martínez, nursing a shoulder injury, came on in the fourth inning and pitched six innings without allowing a hit while the team's offense rallied for a 12-8 win behind two home runs from outfielder Troy O'Leary. After the ALDS victory, the Red Sox lost the American League Championship Series to the Yankees, four games to one. The one bright spot was a lopsided win for the Sox in the much-hyped Martinez-Clemens game, although many Red Sox fans remember the series as one in which the umpires made several suspiciously favorable calls in the Yankees' favor.
In 2000 and 2001, the Red Sox failed to take advantage of Nomar Garciaparra's career year and Pedro Martinez's historic season. Despite a few other standouts, they stumbled to an 85-77 clip. In 2001, though the Red Sox got an outstanding performance from new acquisition Manny Ramirez and a good year from Trot Nixon, Garciaparra played only a meager 21 games, and Martinez pitched just 116 innings. To top it off, the Red Sox fired manager Jimy Williams and replaced him with pitching coach Joe Kerrigan, under whom they went 17-26.
2002-present a new era
2002: Henry comes to Boston
In 2002, the Red Sox were sold by Yawkey trustee and president Harrington to a consortium headed by principal owner John Henry. Tom Werner served as executive chairman, Larry Lucchino served as president and CEO, serving as vice chairman was Les Otten. Within twenty-four hours, Dan Duquette was fired as GM of the club on February 28, with former Angels GM Mike Port taking the interim helm for the 2002 season. A week later manager Joe Kerrigan was fired and replaced by Grady Little.
While nearly all offseason moves were made under Dan Duquette, such as signing outfielder Johnny Damon away from the Oakland A's, the new ownership made additions after their purchase of the team, including trading for outfielder Cliff Floyd and relief pitcher Alan Embree. Nomar Garciaparra, Manny Ramirez, and Floyd (in limited time) all hit well, while Pedro Martinez put up his usual outstanding numbers. Derek Lowe, newly converted into a starter, won 20 games -- becoming the first player to save 20 games and win 20 games in back-to-back seasons. The Red Sox won 93 games but they finished 10 1/2 games behind the Yankees for the division and 6 behind the Angels for the wild card.
In the off season, Port was replaced by Yale graduate Theo Epstein after Oakland's Billy Beane turned down the position. At the age of 28, Epstein became the youngest general manager in the history of the Major Leagues up to that point. He was raised in Brookline.
2003: Cowboy Up
Derek Lowe celebrating the ALDS series victory over the Oakland A's.The "Idiots" of 2004 began to arise out of the Cowboy Up team of 2003, a nickname given from first baseman Kevin Millar's challenge to his teammates to "Cowboy Up" midseason or show some determination as he would have said in his native state of Texas.. In addition to Millar the team's offense was so deep that batting champion Bill Mueller was 7th in the lineup behind sluggers like Nomar Garciaparra, Manny Ramirez and new acquisition David Ortiz.
Ortiz started the season as a platoon player with Mueller, Shea Hillenbrand, and Jeremy Giambi at both the corners. When Hillenbrand became upset with his lack of playing time, he told GM Theo Epstein he wanted to be traded. Epstein, aware of Ortiz's potential, traded Hillenbrand instead to the Arizona Diamondbacks for pitcher Byung-Hyun Kim. Though Kim struggled to adjust to Boston, Ortiz settled down and contributed significantly in later seasons (see 2004, 2005, 2006). It worked, as the Red Sox led the league in come from behind wins and won the AL Wild Card.
In the 2003 American League Division Series, the Red Sox rallied from a 2-0 series deficit against the Oakland Athletics to win the best-of-five series. Derek Lowe, who had become a starter after several years as a relief pitcher, returned to his former role to save Game 5, a 4-3 victory, by striking out the A's Terrence Long with the tying run on third base. The team then faced the New York Yankees in the 2003 American League Championship Series. In the deciding seventh game, Boston led 5-2 in the eighth inning, but Pedro Martínez, who was still pitching into the 8th inning, allowed three runs to tie the game, including a two-run bloop double by Jorge Posada. The Red Sox could not score off of Mariano Rivera over the last three innings and eventually lost the game 6-5 when Yankee third baseman Aaron Boone hit a solo home run off Red Sox pitcher Tim Wakefield.
Some placed the blame for the loss on manager Grady Little for failing to remove Martínez after some observers believe he began to show signs of tiring. Others credit Little with the team's dramatic come-from-behind victory in the American League Division Series. Little was fired after the season, and replaced by former Philadelphia Phillies manager Terry Francona.
2004: World Champions
A 2004 Boston Red Sox World Series Ring. Ring courtesy of Red Sox Vice-Chairman Les OttenDuring the 2003-04 off season, the Red Sox acquired another ace pitcher, Curt Schilling, and a closer, Keith Foulke. Many visitors at their Spring Training at Fort Myers, Florida were very enthusiastic about the 2004 Red Sox team. Expectations once again ran high that 2004 would finally be the year that the Red Sox ended their championship drought. The regular season started well in April, but through midseason the team struggled due to injuries, inconsistency and defensive woes, and fell more than eight games behind New York. A bright point came on July 24, when the Red Sox overcame a five-run deficit as Bill Mueller hit a game-winning home run to right-center off Yankees closer Mariano Rivera. The game also featured the infamous brawl between Yankee superstar Alex Rodriguez and Red Sox Jason Varitek.
Management shook up the team at the MLB trading deadline July 31, when they traded the team's wildly popular yet often hurt and disgruntled shortstop, Nomar Garciaparra, to the Chicago Cubs, receiving Orlando Cabrera of the Montreal Expos and Doug Mientkiewicz of the Minnesota Twins in return. In a separate transaction, the Red Sox also traded AAA outfielder Henri Stanley to the Los Angeles Dodgers for center fielder Dave Roberts. Many Sox fans blasted the trades as bringing the team inadequate compensation for a player of Garciaparra's superstar reputation, but others noticed that these players would provide a significant upgrade in two areas (footspeed and infield defense) where improvements were badly needed. The club would turn things around soon after, winning twenty-two out of twenty-five games and going on to finish within three games of the Yankees in the AL East and qualifying for the playoffs as the AL Wild Card. Players and fans affectionately referred to the players as "The Idiots," a term coined by Johnny Damon and Kevin Millar during the playoff push to describe the team's eclectic roster and devil-may-care attitude toward the supposed "Curse of the Bambino."
Boston began the playoffs by sweeping the AL West champion Anaheim Angels. The Red Sox blew out the Angels 9-3 in Game 1, scoring 7 of those runs in the fourth inning. However, the Sox' 2003 off season prize pickup Curt Schilling suffered a torn tendon when he was hit by a line drive. The injury was exacerbated when Schilling fielded a ball rolling down the first base line. The second game, pitched by Pedro Martinez, stayed close until Boston scored four in the ninth to win 8-3. In game three, what looked to be a blowout turned out to be a nail-biter, as Vladimir Guerrero hit a grand slam off Mike Timlin in the seventh to tie it at six. However, David Ortiz, who is famously noted for his clutch hitting, delivered in the 10th inning with a game winning two-run homer over the Green Monster. The Red Sox advanced to a rematch in the 2004 American League Championship Series against their bitter rivals, the New York Yankees.
Despite high hopes that the Red Sox would finally vanquish their nemesis from the Bronx, the series started disastrously for them. Curt Schilling pitched with the torn tendon sheath in his right ankle he had suffered in Game 1 of the Division Series against Anaheim, and was routed for six runs in three innings. Yankee starter Mike Mussina had six perfect innings, and held an 8-0 lead. Despite the Sox' best effort to come back (they scored seven runs to make it 8-7), they ended up losing 10-7. In Game 2, already with his Yankees leading 1-0 for most of the game, John Olerud hit a two-run home run to put the New York team up for good. The Sox were soon down three games to none after a crushing 19-8 loss in Game 3 at home. In that game, the two clubs set the record for most runs scored in a League Championship Series game. At that point in the history of baseball, no team had come back to win from a 3-0 series deficit (in fact, only the 1998 Atlanta Braves and 1999 New York Mets had ever gotten as far as a Game 6).
In Game 4, the Red Sox found themselves facing elimination, trailing 4-3 in the ninth with Yankees superstar closer Mariano Rivera on the mound. After Rivera issued a walk to Kevin Millar, Dave Roberts came on to pinch run and promptly stole second base. He then scored on an RBI single by Bill Mueller which sent the game to extra innings. The Red Sox went on to win the game on a two-run home run by David Ortiz in the 12th inning. In Game 5, the Red Sox were again down late, this time by the score of 4-2, as a result of Derek Jeter's bases-clearing triple. But the Sox struck back in the eighth, as Ortiz hit a homer over the Green Monster to bring the Sox within a run. Then Jason Varitek hit a sacrifice fly to bring home Dave Roberts, scoring the tying run. The game would go for 14 innings, capped off by many squandered Yankee opportunities (they were 1 for 13 with runners in scoring position). In the top of the 12th, the knuckleballing Tim Wakefield came in from the bullpen, without his customary "personal catcher," Doug Mirabelli. Though Jason Varitek, the starting catcher, had little trouble with Wakefield's tricky knuckleballs in the 12th, he allowed 3 passed balls in the 13th. The third and last of those gave the Yankees runners on second and third with two out. Red Sox Nation was spared, however, as Ruben Sierra struck out to end the inning. In the bottom of the 14th, Ortiz would again seal the win with a game-winning RBI single that brought home Damon. The game set the record for longest postseason game in terms of time (5 hours and 49 minutes) and for the longest American League Championship Series game (14 innings), though the former has since been broken.
With the series returning to Yankee Stadium for Game 6, the improbable comeback continued, with Curt Schilling pitching on an ankle that had three sutures wrapped in a bloody (red) sock. Schilling struck out four, walked none, and only allowed one run over seven innings to lead the team to victory. Mark Bellhorn also helped in the effort as he hit a three-run home run in the fourth inning. Originally called a double, the umpires conferred and agreed that the ball had actually gone in to the stands before falling back in to the field of play, which was apparent to the television audience but angered Yankees fans. A key play came in the bottom of the eighth inning with Derek Jeter on first and Alex Rodríguez facing Bronson Arroyo. Rodríguez hit a ground ball down the first base line. Arroyo fielded it and reached out to tag him as he raced down the line. Rodríguez slapped at the ball and it came loose, rolling down the line. Jeter scored and Rodríguez ended up on second. After conferring, however, the umpires called Rodríguez out on interference and returned Jeter to first base, the second time in the game they reversed a call. Yankees fans, upset with the calls, littered the field with debris. The umpires called police clad in riot gear to line the field in the top of the 9th inning. In the bottom of the ninth, the Yankees staged a rally and brought former Red Sox player Tony Clark, who had played well against the Red Sox since leaving the team, to the plate as the potential winning run. Closer Keith Foulke however, struck out Clark to end the game and force a Game 7. In this game, the Red Sox completed their historic comeback on the strength of Derek Lowe's one-hit/one-run pitching and Johnny Damon's two home runs, including a grand slam in the second inning off the first pitch of reliever Javier Vazquez, and defeated the New York Yankees 10-3. Ortiz, who had the game winning RBIs in Games 4 and 5, was named ALCS Most Valuable Player.
Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League are the three professional sports that feature best-of-seven games series in their playoffs. The incredible feat of coming back to win a seven game series when down by three games has only been accomplished by three teams in the history of the MLB, NBA, and NHL. The 1942 Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL) came back from being down by three games to the Detroit Red Wings to win the 1942 Stanley Cup. The 1975 New York Islanders (NHL) did the same when they came back to beat the Pittsburgh Penguins in the 1975 Stanley Cup Quarterfinals. No team in the NBA has ever accomplished such a comeback and the Boston Red Sox are the only team in Major League Baseball history to ever do so. The Red Sox faced the St. Louis Cardinals in the 2004 World Series. The Cardinals had posted the best record in the major leagues that season, and had previously defeated the Red Sox in the 1946 and 1967 Series, with both series going seven games. The third time would be the charm, however, as the momentum and confidence Boston had built up in the ALCS would overwhelm St. Louis. The Red Sox began the Series with an 11-9 win, marked by Mark Bellhorn's game-winning home-run off Pesky's Pole. This was unusual because Bellhorn was known for ground balls or striking out rather than hitting a home run. He later on said that he "just did what he needed to do." It was the highest scoring World Series opening game ever (breaking the previous record set in 1932). The Red Sox would go on to win Game 2 in Boston (thanks to another sensational performance by the bloody-socked Schilling). The Red Sox won both these games despite making 4 errors in each game. In Game 3, Pedro Martinez shut out the Cardinals for seven innings. The Cardinals only made one real threat — in the third inning when they put runners on second and third with no outs. However, the Cardinals' rally was killed by pitcher Jeff Suppan's baserunning gaffe. With no outs, Suppan should have scored easily from third on a Larry Walker ground ball to second baseman Bellhorn, who was playing back, conceding the run. But as Bellhorn threw out Walker at first base, Suppan inexplicably froze after taking several steps toward home and was thrown out by Sox first baseman David Ortiz as he scrambled back to third. The double play was devastating for St. Louis. The Red Sox needed one more game to win their first championship since the 1918. In Game Four the Red Sox did not allow a run, and the game ended as Edgar Renteria (who would become the 2005 Red Sox starting SS) hit the ball back to Keith Foulke. (This was the second time that Renteria had ended a Series, as he had won it for the Marlins seven years prior in the 1997 World Series.) After Foulke lobbed the ball to Doug Mientkiewicz, the Sox had won their first World Championship in 86 years. The Sox held the Cardinals' offense (the best in the NL in 2004) to only three runs in the last three games, never trailing in the Series. Manny Ramírez was named World Series MVP. The Red Sox won Game Four of the series on October 27, eighteen years to the day from when they lost to the New York Mets in the 1986 World Series.
The Red Sox performed well in the 2004 postseason. From the eighth inning of Game 5 of the American League Championship Series against the Yankees (a tie) until the end of the World Series, the Sox played 60 innings, and never trailed at any point.
To add a final, surreal touch to the Red Sox championship title, on the night the Red Sox won, a total lunar eclipse colored the moon over Busch Stadium to a deep red hue. The Red Sox won the title about eleven minutes before totality ended.
The Red Sox held a parade (or as Boston mayor Thomas Menino put it, a "rolling rally") on Saturday, October 30, 2004. A crowd of more than three million people filled the streets of Boston to cheer as the team rode on the city's famous Duck Boats.
Following their 2004 World Series win, the Red Sox replaced the dirt from the field as a "fresh start". They earned many accolades from sports media and throughout the nation for their incredible season.
2005 - 2006 the "Idiots" disband
After winning its first World Series in 86 years, Red Sox management was left with the challenge of dealing with a number of high profile free agents. Pedro Martínez, Derek Lowe, and Orlando Cabrera were replaced with David Wells, a former Yankee, Matt Clement, and Edgar Rentería respectively. The club re-signed its catcher, Jason Varitek, and named him team captain.
On April 11, the Red Sox opened their home season with a ring ceremony and the unveiling of their 2004 World Series Championship banner. Their opponent that day was the New York Yankees- the team the Red Sox had won four straight games against in 2004 to win the ALCS.
Pitchers Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke, key players in the previous year's playoff drive, spent large parts of the season on the disabled list, and were unable to return in good form. More of the team's struggles stemmed from the declining performances of some of its key role players: first baseman Kevin Millar (only 9 home runs), second baseman Mark Bellhorn (struck out once every 2.6 AB), and setup man Alan Embree (7.65 ERA). Without Foulke and Embree anchoring the pen, Theo Epstein took a chance on a number of journeymen who failed to bring stability. Veteran Mike Timlin did an admirable job leading the shaky relief core, at one point assuming the role of closer.
For much of the season Boston held first place in the AL East but down the stretch the team struggled, squandering its lead over the Yankees and allowing the Cleveland Indians to close the gap in the Wild Card race.
The division crown would be decided on the last weekend of the season, with the Yankees coming to Fenway Park with a one-game lead in the standings. The Red Sox won two of the three games to finish the season with the same record as the Yankees, 95-67. However, a playoff was not needed. The Indians had a record of 93-69, thus opening qualifying both the Yankees and Red Sox for the playoffs. The division title was officially a tie under major league rules; however, since the Yankees had won the season series , 10-9, they won the division, whereas the Red Sox settled for the Wild Card.
In the playoffs The Red Sox faced the AL Central champion Chicago White Sox and were swept in three games.
On October 31, 2005, general manager Theo Epstein resigned on the last day of his contract, reportedly turning down a three-year, $4.5 million contract extension.
On Thanksgiving evening, the Red Sox officially announced the acquisition of pitcher Josh Beckett from the Florida Marlins. Boston also added Gold Glove Award winning third baseman Mike Lowell and right-handed reliever Guillermo Mota in the deal, while sending minor league prospects shortstop Hanley Ramírez and right-handed pitchers Aníbal Sánchez, Jesús Delgado and Harvey García to the Marlins. On December 7, the Sox traded backup catcher Doug Mirabelli to the San Diego Padres for second baseman Mark Loretta. On December 8, the Sox gave up on Edgar Renteria, trading him and cash to the Atlanta Braves for third base prospect Andy Marte.
On December 20, Johnny Damon declined arbitration and a few days later signed a four-year, $52 million deal with the New York Yankees. With Mike Lowell now on board, the Sox let Bill Mueller go, via free agency, to the Dodgers. Meanwhile, Kevin Millar was not offered arbitration and signed with the Baltimore Orioles.
On January 19, 2006, the Red Sox announced that Theo Epstein would be rejoining the Red Sox in a "full-time baseball operations capacity" and, five days later, he was renamed General Manager. The Sox signed Bronson Arroyo to a three-year contract, but later traded him to the Reds for outfielder Wily Mo Peña. The team also filled the vacancy in center field left by Johnny Damon's departure by trading Mota, Marte, catching prospect Kelly Shoppach and a player to be named later to the Cleveland Indians for center fielder Coco Crisp, relief pitcher David Riske, and backup catcher Josh Bard. Veteran Venezuelan shortstop Alex González was signed to a one-year contract to replace Edgar Renteria
Cow in Boston decorated to celebrate the Red Sox, 2006One of the brightest spots of the season was the surprising emergence of new closer Jonathan Papelbon. The 25-year old rookie fireballer was given the chance to save the April 5 game against the Texas Rangers. Two months later, he had saved 20 games in a row. On September 1, Papelbon left the game after experiencing shoulder pain. He would eventually be shut down for the rest of the season. Papelbon ended up setting a Red Sox rookie record with 35 saves while recording a minuscule 0.92 ERA, earning an All-Star appearance.
Coco Crisp fractured his left index finger after playing only five games. Crisp would miss over 50 games during the season and did not play up to expectations.
During Spring Training, knuckleballer Tim Wakefield needed to find a new "personal catcher" with Mirabelli now in San Diego. Several catchers were tested, and the job eventually fell to Josh Bard. After a month, the experiment seemed to be a failure, with Bard leading the league in passed balls. On May 1, Theo Epstein traded Bard - along with minor-league pitcher Cla Meredith and $100,000 - to the San Diego Padres to reacquire Doug Mirabelli. The team arranged a private plane and a car ride from the airport with police escort and a re-issued uniform to take Mirabelli to the park for the game. Despite all the fuss, Mirabelli would have an off year, hitting under .200.
Third baseman Mike Lowell rediscovered his offense after a difficult season in Florida, and together with shortstop Alex Gonzalez, second baseman Mark Loretta, and new first baseman Kevin Youkilis, the Red Sox had one of the best-fielding infields in Major League Baseball. On June 30, Boston set a major league record of 17 straight errorless games, breaking the record of 16 games set by the St. Louis Cardinals from July 30 to August 16, 1992. This streak helped the Red Sox commit the fewest errors in the American League. During this span, they also recorded 12 consecutive victories, all in interleague play. The winning streak was the third longest in club history, behind only the 15 wins posted by the 1946 club and 13 victories in 1948.
The Red Sox were well represented in the 2006 All-Star Game. David Ortiz and Mark Loretta started for the American League squad. Manny Ramirez, though elected to a starting role, did not appear due to a knee injury.
The turning point of the season took place during an unusual five game series at Fenway Park beginning on August 18 between the Sox and their key rivals, the New York Yankees. The Sox and Yankees were battling for the AL East with the Sox trailing the Yankees by 1 1/2 games. The Yankees won all 5 games by a combined score of 49-26. A five-game sweep of the Red Sox had not happened since 1954, and the press dubbed it the second "Boston Massacre" (the first happening in 1978). They would compile a 9-21 record in the month of August, with two six-game losing streaks *******d during that stretch.
Down the stretch, the Sox wilted under the pressure of mounting injuries and poor performances. Despite Curt Schilling's resurgence in the starting rotation (15-7, 3.97 ERA), Josh Beckett had an inconsistent season, winning 16 games but allowing 36 homers and posting a 5.01 ERA. Injuries to Tim Wakefield, rookie Jon Lester (diagnosed with lymphoma), and Matt Clement left the rotation with major holes to fill. Injuries to Jason Varitek, Trot Nixon, Wily Mo Pena, and Manny Ramirez severely hurt the offense.
On September 21, 2006, David Ortiz provided a needed late-season highlight when he broke Jimmie Foxx's single season Red Sox home run record by hitting his 51st home run off Johan Santana of the Minnesota Twins. He would finish with 54 homers.
On October 1, the last day of the season, Double-A callup Devern Hansack pitched no-hit ball for five innings, before the game against the Baltimore Orioles was called because of rain, giving Boston a 9-0 win. The rookie did not receive official credit for a no-hitter, due to a rule change in 1991.
The Red Sox finished 2006 with an 86-76 record and third place in the AL East, their lowest placing in nine seasons.
Main article: 2007 Boston Red Sox season
GM Theo Epstein's first major step toward restocking the team for 2007 was to pursue one of the most anticipated acquisitions in recent history. On November 14, Major League Baseball announced that the Red Sox had won the bid for the rights to negotiate a major league contract with Japanese superstar pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka. Boston placed a bid of $51.1M, and had 30 days to complete a deal. On December 13, just before the deadline, Matsuzaka signed a 6-year, $52 million contract.
In the hopes of solidifing the starting rotation, it was announced that closer Jonathan Papelbon would become a starter in 2007, partly to protect his arm from the workload that had sidelined him near the end of his rookie season.  With Papelbon becoming a starter and 2004 World Series hero Keith Foulke declining arbitration and leaving the team, the Red Sox began building up their bullpen in search of a new closer. Japanese lefty reliever Hideki Okajima (formerly of the Yomiuri Giants),and Puerto Rican lefty J.C. Romero were signed. Brendan Donnelly was added in a trade with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Reliever Joel Piñeiro (formerly of the Seattle Mariners) was signed to a 1 year, $4 million contract.
However, no clear closer candidate emerged during Spring Training. Eventually, Papelbon wanted to return to the closer role, and Sox officials believed Papelbon had rehabilitated himself so well in the offseason that his health of this shoulder was no longer a concern. The Red Sox had a star closer once again.
Shortstop Alex González was allowed to leave via free agency for Cincinnati. The Sox replaced him with Julio Lugo, who has historically been a better offensive player. Mark Loretta also was allowed to leave, joining Houston, opening a spot for Dustin Pedroia.
Fan favorite Trot Nixon filed for free agency, and agreed on a deal with the Cleveland Indians. With an opening in right field, the Sox pursued J.D. Drew, who had recently opted out of the remainder of his contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers to become a free agent. However, the Red Sox medical staff had concerns about Drew's previously injured shoulder. On January 25, 2007, the Red Sox and Drew agreed to a 5 year, $70 million contract. Under the terms, the Red Sox have the option to opt out of either of the final two years of the contract if Drew spends a certain amount of time on the disabled list because of the shoulder. Another fan favorite, outfielder Gabe Kapler, announced his retirement at age 31 to fulfill his life long dream of becoming a coach. The Red Sox named him manager of their Single A affiliate, the Greenville Drive.
With the final cuts of the spring, the 2007 Red Sox will carry 13 pitchers and 12 position players. The starting lineup *******s: Jason Varitek (C), Kevin Youkilis (1B), Dustin Pedroia (2B), Julio Lugo (SS), Mike Lowell (3B), Manny Ramírez (LF), Coco Crisp (CF), J.D. Drew (RF), and David Ortiz (DH). The bench will ******* OF/1B Eric Hinske, infielder Alex Cora, outfielder Wily Mo Peña, and catcher Doug Mirabelli. The starting rotation will ******* Curt Schilling, Josh Beckett, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Tim Wakefield, and Julian Tavarez with a bullpen of Jonathan Papelbon, Joel Piñeiro, Brendan Donnelly, Mike Timlin, J.C. Romero, Hideki Okajima, Kyle Snyder, and Javier López. 
1903 World Series Pittsburgh Pirates Won 5-3
1904 World Series Not Played N/A
1912 World Series New York Giants Won 4-3
1915 World Series Philadelphia Phillies Won 4-1
1916 World Series Brooklyn Robins Won 4-1
1918 World Series Chicago Cubs Won 4-2
1946 World Series St. Louis Cardinals Lost 4-3
1967 World Series St. Louis Cardinals Lost 4-3
1975 American League Championship Series Oakland Athletics Won 3-0
1975 World Series Cincinnati Reds Lost 4-3
1986 American League Championship Series California Angels Won 4-3
1986 World Series New York Mets Lost 4-3
1988 American League Championship Series Oakland Athletics Lost 4-0
1990 American League Championship Series Oakland Athletics
1995 American League Division Series Cleveland Indians Lost 3-0
1998 American League Division Series Cleveland Indians
1999 American League Division Series Cleveland Indians Won 3-2
1999 American League Championship Series New York Yankees
2003 American League Division Series Oakland Athletics Won 3-2
2003 American League Championship Series New York Yankees
2004 American League Division Series Anaheim Angels Won 3-0
2004 American League Championship Series New York Yankees
2004 World Series St. Louis Cardinals
2005 American League Division Series Chicago White Sox
The name Red Sox, chosen by owner John I. Taylor after the 1907 season, refers to the red hose in the team uniform beginning 1908. Actually, Sox was adopted by newspapers needing a headline-friendly form of Stockings, as "Stockings Win!" in large type would not fit on a page. The Spanish language media sometimes refers to the team as las Medias Rojas for Red Stockings.
The name originated with the Cincinnati Red Stockings, 1867-1870 member of the pioneering National Association of Base Ball Players. Managed by Harry Wright, Cincinnati adopted a uniform with white knickers and red stockings, and earned the famous nickname, a year or two before hiring the first fully professional team in 1869. When the club folded after the 1870 season, Wright was hired to organize a new team in Boston, and he did, bringing three teammates and the "Red Stockings" nickname along. (Most nicknames were then only nicknames, neither club names nor registered trademarks, so the migration was informal.) The Boston Red Stockings won four championships in the five seasons of the new National Association, the first professional league. The success of the two teams in Cincinnati and Boston gave "Red Stockings" and other "Red" nicknames some historical and profitable grounding there and probably grounded other "Stockings" nicknames in other cities.
Boston and a new Cincinnati club were charter members of the National League in 1876. Perhaps in deference to the Cincinnati history, many people reserved the "Red Stockings" nickname for that city; the Boston team is commonly called "Red Caps" today. Other names were sometimes used before Boston officially adopted the nickname "Braves" in 1912; that club is now based in Atlanta.
In 1901, the American League led by Ban Johnson declared itself equal to the National League and established a competing club in Boston. For seven seasons, the AL team wore dark blue stockings and had no official nickname. They were simply "Boston" or "the Bostons"; or the "Americans" or "Boston Americans" as in "American Leaguers", Boston being a two-team city. Their 1901-1907 jerseys, both home and road, simply read "Boston", except for 1902 when they sported large letters "B" and "A" denoting "Boston" and "American". On December 18, 1907, Taylor announced that the club had officially adopted red as its new team color.
The Red Sox are one of two teams in the American League with Sox in their name, the Chicago White Sox being the other.
For years many sources have called the early Boston AL teams "Pilgrims" or "Puritans" or "Plymouth Rocks", or "Somersets" for owner Charles Somers, but Bill Nowlin has demonstrated that none of those names was used much and that "Pilgrims", the most popular today, was barely used at all.
Called "Bostons" or "Boston Americans" or (in Boston) "Americans" from 1901 to 1907
Called "Boston Red Sox" or "Red Sox" from 1908 to present
Name often shortened to "Bosox" or "BoSox" by headline writers - to distinguish from the Chicago White Sox (or "ChiSox") - and also called simply "The Sox" by the team's fans.
The Boston Red Sox have two official requirements for a player to have his number retired:
Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame
At least 10 years played with the Red Sox
The Red Sox previously had a requirement that the player "must have finished their career with Red Sox." (Carlton Fisk would not have qualified to have his #27 retired with this extra criterion, as he actually retired with the White Sox.) The Red Sox decided to drop this, as they realized that other players (e.g.: Roger Clemens) would also not qualify for this honor under the old rules.
The numbers honored are as follows:
General Manager: 1947-59 (1989)
Major League Baseball
Wade Boggs, who was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2005, has met the criteria to have his #26 retired, but has yet to be honored with a ceremony and no future plans have been announced by the team. However, the Red Sox have not issued #26 to anyone since his election. Boston did enshrine him into the Red Sox Hall of Fame in 2004.
Former outfielder and hitting coach Jim Rice, should he be elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame before his eligibility ends after the 2009 vote, would meet the requirements to have his number 14 retired, having played every season from 1974 until his retirement in 1989 with the Red Sox. In 2006, Rice received 64.8 percent of the vote, falling 53 votes shy of election.
The Red Sox have not issued several numbers since the departure of prominent players who wore them, specifically: Nomar Garciaparra (5), Roger Clemens (21), and Pedro Martinez (45). All of these players have yet to formally retire from baseball; but, only Clemens has met the "10 years with Red Sox" requirement for official retirement.
Retired numbers in Fenway ParkThe number 42 was officially retired by Major League Baseball in 1997, but Mo Vaughn was one of a handful of players to continue wearing #42 through a grandfather clause. He last wore it for the team in 1998.
Until the late 1990s, the numbers originally hung on the right-field facade in the order in which they were retired: 9-4-1-8. It was pointed out that the numbers, when read as a date (9/4/18), marked the eve of the first game of the 1918 World Series, the last championship series that the Red Sox won before 2004. After the facade was repainted, the numbers were rearranged in numerical order.
There is also considerable debate in Boston media circles and among fans about the potential retiring of other numbers:
6 -- Johnny Pesky, for his 50+ years of service to the Red Sox as a player, coach and manager. The number 6 has been sparingly issued to players for the past few decades. The last player to be assigned #6 was Gary Gaetti. Gary, who primarily wore #8 for Minnesota and Kansas City, played 10 games for the Red Sox in April 2000 before retiring from baseball.
25 -- Tony Conigliaro, who set the record for the fastest to reach 100 home runs in a career, had his promising career cut short when he was hit by a pitch to the face. Despite the controversy, the number has been worn consistently by Sox member since Conigliaro's last season in Boston, 1970. It is currently worn by the team's third baseman, Mike Lowell.
Baseball Hall of Famers
Wade Boggs *
Jimmy Collins *
Joe Cronin *
Bobby Doerr *
Rick Ferrell **
Carlton Fisk **
Jimmie Foxx **
Lefty Grove **
Harry Hooper *
Ted Williams *
Carl Yastrzemski *
Affiliation according to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum
* Inducted as Red Sox
** Wears Red Sox cap on Hall Of Fame plaque, but spent more time on other teams
Notable seasons and team records
Cy Young in 1901 won 41.8% of the team's 79 games. He won the pitching Triple Crown with 33 wins, 1.62 ERA and 158 strikeouts. 
Dutch Leonard posted a modern record 0.96 ERA in 1914. 
Earl Webb set the single-season doubles record in 1931 with 67. 
Jimmie Foxx hit 50 home runs in 1938, which would stand as a club record for 68 years. Foxx also drove in a club record 175 runs. 
Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941, the last time a major leaguer has hit above .400 in a full season. Williams also established club records in slugging percentage (.741) and on base percentage (.553). 
In 1967, Carl Yastrzemski became the last major leaguer to win the Triple Crown, hitting .326 with 44 home runs and 121 RBI's. He finished one vote short of a unanimous MVP selection, as, in a famous controversy, a Minnesota sportswriter placed Twins center fielder Cesar Tovar first on his ballot. 
In 1975, twenty-three year old Fred Lynn became the first player in major league history to win the MVP award and the Rookie of the Year award in the same season. 
In 1986, Roger Clemens won the Cy Young and MVP, finished with a 2.48 ERA, and had a 20-strikeout game. 
In 1995, Mo Vaughn won the MVP award. He is the last Red Sox player to do so.
Pedro Martinez in 2000 had one of the greatest pitching seasons of all time — a 1.74 ERA in a hitter's park in a big-hitting era. 
Nomar Garciaparra hit .372 in 2000, the club record for a right-handed hitter. 
David Ortiz in 2005 had 47 home runs and 148 RBI's. He also had many game winning and timely hits and came in second in the MVP voting to the New York Yankees 3B Alex Rodriguez. 
David Ortiz had a franchise record-breaking 2006 season with 54 home runs in the regular season
In 2006, The Boston Red Sox had the highest payroll of any team in Major League history to not make the playoffs. 
On April 22nd, 2007, Manny Ramirez, J. D. Drew, Mike Lowell, and Jason Varitek hit four consecutive home runs in the 3rd inning, the first time in Red Sox history this feat has occurred. All four home runs were off of 10 pitches from Chase Wright of the New York Yankees in his second Major League start and his fourth above Single-A ball. This was the fifth time in Major League history that such an feat had occurred. Additionally notable, J. D. Drew, then with the Dodgers, previously contributed to a four consecutive home run series as had Red Sox manager Terry Francona's father, Tito Francona.
Boston Red Sox roster v • d • e
Active (25-man) roster Inactive (40-man) roster Coaches/Other
18 Daisuke Matsuzaka
38 Curt Schilling
51 Julián Tavárez
49 Tim Wakefield
17 Manny Delcarmen
53 Brendan Donnelly
37 Hideki Okajima
48 Javier López
58 Jonathan Papelbon (CL)
36 Joel Piñeiro
32 J.C. Romero
39 Kyle Snyder
† 15-day disabled list
Roster updated 05/21/07
Transactions • Depth Chart
28 Doug Mirabelli
33 Jason Varitek
13 Alex Cora
12 Eric Hinske
25 Mike Lowell
23 Julio Lugo
15 Dustin Pedroia
20 Kevin Youkilis
10 Coco Crisp
7 J.D. Drew
22 Wily Mo Peña
24 Manny Ramírez
34 David Ortiz
19 Josh Beckett †
54 Craig Breslow
30 Matt Clement †
61 Kason Gabbard
-- Daniel Haigwood
46 Devern Hansack
56 Craig Hansen
83 Kyle Jackson
31 Jon Lester †
74 Edgar Martínez
62 David Pauley
50 Mike Timlin †
72 George Kottaras
75 Brandon Moss
60 David Murphy
47 Terry Francona
16 Luis Alicea (First Base)
52 John Farrell (Pitching)
35 DeMarlo Hale (Third Base)
29 Dave Magadan (Hitting)
2 Brad Mills (Bench)
57 Gary Tuck (Bullpen)
60-day disabled list
Radio and television
Currently, the flagship radio station of the Red Sox is WRKO, 680AM. Joe Castiglione, in his 25th year as the voice of the Red Sox, serves as the lead play-by-play announcer, along with the rotating team of Dave O'Brien and Glenn Geffner. Some of Castiglione's predecessors ******* Curt Gowdy, Ken Coleman, and Dick Stockton. He has also worked with play-by-play veterans Bob Starr and Jerry Trupiano. Many stations throughout New England and beyond pick up the broadcasts. In addition WEEI 850AM, WRKO's sister station and former Sox Flagship Station, broadcast all day games and Wednesday night games. As an all-sports station, WEEI has extensive coverage of the team throughout the day and night, even in the offseason.
All Red Sox telecasts not shown nationally on FOX or ESPN are seen on New England Sports Network (NESN) with Don Orsillo calling play-by-play and Jerry Remy, former Red Sox second baseman, as color analyst. Tina Cervasio holds the duties of field reporter. NESN became exclusive in 2003; before then, games were shown on such local stations as WBZ, WSBK, WLVI, WABU, and WFXT at various points in team history.
Minor league affiliations
Triple-A: Pawtucket Red Sox, International League
Double-A: Portland Sea Dogs, Eastern League
Advanced-A: Lancaster JetHawks, California League
Single-A: Greenville Drive, South Atlantic League
Short-A: Lowell Spinners, New York-Penn League
Rookie: GCL Red Sox, Gulf Coast League
Rookie: *******an Summer League Red Sox, *******an Summer League
|05-24-2007, 05:12 AM||#28|
mental problems angel
Location: i want u 2 caress me like a tropical priest
John 1: 1-3
In the beginning was the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Everything was good with man, and between man and God. God provided all their needs. Continual fellowship with God was their joy. God had given them everything they needed for complete fulfillment. He cared for them as a loving mother would her newborn baby:
God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.
God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Man rebels against God’s authority
Although Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, they were not God, so they were required to live in total dependence on God. Therefore Satan longed to see Adam and Eve rebel against God, seeking independence of Him, just as he had done, so that they would die spiritually. God had told Adam and Eve:
"From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
Satan lied to Eve about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and both she and Adam fell for it. They picked from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in an attempt to live independent of God--in control, on their own--and to seek fulfillment apart from Him:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"
The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
God had warned, "in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Adam and Eve did not die physically the same day that they ate of the tree—they died spiritually. Their spiritual death was immediately evident:
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"
He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself."
And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate."
Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
Therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.
Adam’s and Eve’s spiritual death affected, not only themselves, but all people who have been born since then. All people have inherited spiritual death from Adam. We are all born spiritually dead:
Therefore, just as through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.
For the wages of sin is death.
Thus all human dysfunction can be traced back to the point at which Adam and Eve died spiritually and became separated from God. We were designed to be filled with the Spirit of God and to have continual fellowship with God, our Creator. God was supposed to be at the center of our work and relationships. We were designed to get our contentment and fulfillment from Him. Without the Spirit of God, we are dysfunctional, like a two-legged table. Sin separates us from God:
But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.
God wanted to reestablish fellowship with man, but it is impossible for God, who is perfectly holy, righteous, and just, to have fellowship with sinful humans. God cannot coexist with sin. God’s plan, therefore, was to provide a sacrifice as payment for man’s sin, which would not only bring forgiveness to man, but allow man to again be filled with the Spirit of God. God could then reestablish fellowship with man through the Holy Spirit.
Many years passed before the sacrifice was provided. The delay was necessary in order to bring events that would make people understood that we needed a Savior, and to know for sure who the Savior was.
God chose to carry out His plan primarily through the people of Israel. The Israelites were chosen to foretell the coming of the Messiah, to illustrate our need for a Savior through their wars and other circumstances, and ultimately to give birth to the Messiah Himself.
First, God gave laws to the Israelites so that all people would see that they could not live up to God’s perfect standards. God wanted all people to see that we need a Savior:
Exo 20:1,3,4, 7,8,12-17
The Law was given through Moses. God spoke all these words, saying,…
"You shall have no other gods before Me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, …
"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, …
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
"Honor your father and your mother, …
"You shall not murder.
"You shall not commit adultery.
"You shall not steal.
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Nevertheless, … a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus,
because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight;
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.
"There is none righteous, not even one.
Gal 3:10 (NIV)
[Therefore], all who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."
Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions,
for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
God had the people of Israel sacrifice animals to temporarily cleanse them from their sins. This illustrated that sin is cleansed only through the shedding of blood. Jesus is called the Lamb of God because He was the ultimate and final sacrifice for sin.
Even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU."
And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
[However,] it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
He [Christ] has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
[He] gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.
Having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us.
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
For by grace you [are] saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
1 John 5:11,12
And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
Hundreds of years before Christ came to earth, God announced to the people of Israel through prophets that He would send a Messiah--a Savior. God used several prophets, most of whom lived at different times and never knew one another. God described many details of Christ’s life so that the nation of Israel would not miss the Savior when He came. God did not want an imposter to be mistaken for the Messiah.
"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.
Christ comes to earth
Out of love, God the Son was sent to earth by God the Father. Christ had to come to earth, because forgiveness and life could not be provided without payment for the sin of the human race:
1 John 4:9,10
By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
[Jesus Himself said,] "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
1 John 3:8 The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
Heb 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
1 John 1:1-4
What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life--and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.
1 John 4:14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
Jesus stated plainly why He came to earth-- to give forgiveness and life to those who place their trust in Him:
Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 "For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." 34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, always give us this bread." 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
John 6:47-51 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 "I am the bread of life. 49 "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 "This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever
"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
Mat 18:11 "For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
John 12:46 "I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.
John 10:10 "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
Overview of Jesus' life on earth
Narrative While Jesus was on earth, he lived as a man. Although He was still God, He lived in total dependence on the Father instead of exploiting His supernatural power. Jesus had perfect and constant fellowship with the Father.
Phil 2:6,7 Although He [Jesus] existed in the form of God, [He] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
He became hungry.
Heb 5:7,8 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.
Phil 2:8 He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
The Lord GOD has given Me the tongue of disciples, That I may know how to sustain the weary one with a word. He awakens Me morning by morning, He awakens My ear to listen as a disciple. 5 The Lord GOD has opened My ear; And I was not disobedient Nor did I turn back. 6 I gave My back to those who strike Me, And My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard; I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting. 7 For the Lord GOD helps Me, Therefore, I am not disgraced; Therefore, I have set My face like flint, And I know that I will not be ashamed.
"My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.
John 5:19 "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
John 5:30 "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
John14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
"I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.
Narrative Jesus incurred much suffering for our sake:
He [had] no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
1 Pet 2:22,23
[He] committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously.
He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.
1 Pet 2:24
He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
Narrative Here's what Peter and Martha (Jesus’ friends) said about Him:
Mat 16:16,17 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
John 11:25-27 Jesus said to her [Martha], "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" 27 She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world."
Here's what demons said about Jesus:
Mark 3:11 Whenever the unclean spirits saw Him, they would fall down before Him and shout, "You are the Son of God!"
Luke 4:41 Demons also were coming out of many, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak, because they knew Him to be the Christ.
Narrative Jesus claimed to be the sole source of Life--of joy, contentment, inner peace, and fulfillment. He claimed to be the only way to everlasting life. Here's what Jesus said about Himself:
John 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life"
John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture."
"I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."
"I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep."
"I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
"If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'"
"I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."
"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"
"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing."
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."
Narrative Jesus even claimed to one and equal with God:
"For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me."
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me."
"I and the Father are one."
" He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves."
Narrative The Jews realized that Jesus claimed to be equal with God
John 10:24-33 The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."
Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one."
The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?"
The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
Luke 2:8-16 In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."
And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased."
When the angels had gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds began saying to one another, "Let us go straight to Bethlehem then, and see this thing that has happened which the Lord has made known to us." So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as He lay in the manger.
Luke 2:20 The shepherds went back, glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them.
Luke 2:21 And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.
Luke 2:40 The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.
Luke 8:1 He [Jesus] began going around from one city and village to another, proclaiming and preaching the kingdom of God. The twelve were with Him.
Luke 4:15 And He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all.
Mark 1:22 They were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
Mark 6:56 Wherever He entered villages, or cities, or countryside, they were laying the sick in the market places, and imploring Him that they might just touch the fringe of His cloak; and as many as touched it were being cured.
Mark 1:39 And He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons.
Mark 1:34 And He healed many who were ill with various diseases, and cast out many demons.
Luke 4:41 Demons also were coming out of many, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak, because they knew Him to be the Christ.
John 2:23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing.
Luke 15:1,2 All the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them."
Luke 11:53 The scribes and the Pharisees began to be very hostile and to question Him closely on many subjects
Luke 13:17 All His opponents were being humiliated; and the entire crowd was rejoicing over all the glorious things being done by Him.
Some people, including many rulers of the Jews, believed in Jesus, but would not confess their belief and follow Him because they were afraid that they would be persecuted by the Pharisees, who were the most religious Jews of that day. The Pharisees apparently were not interested in whether or not Jesus was who He claimed to be; they just wanted to protect their position and power. They were afraid that if multitudes of people followed Jesus, they would lose their power over the people.
John 11:45-48 Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done. Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."
John 12:42,43 Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.
Jesus' arrest and crucifixion
Mark 14:1 Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away; and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and kill Him
John 5:18 The Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
Luke 22:2-6 The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people. And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve. And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him to them. They were glad and agreed to give him money. So he consented, and began seeking a good opportunity to betray Him to them apart from the crowd.
Luke 22:7,8 Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it."
Luke 22:14-16 When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."
Luke 22:39-46 [After the Passover dinner with the disciples,] He came out and proceeded as was His custom to the Mount of Olives; and the disciples also followed Him. When He arrived at the place, He said to them, "Pray that you may not enter into temptation." And He withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and He knelt down and began to pray, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done." Now an angel from heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him.
And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground. When He rose from prayer, He came to the disciples and found them sleeping from sorrow, and said to them, "Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not enter into temptation."
Mark 14:43 Immediately while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, came up accompanied by a crowd with swords and clubs, who were from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
Mark 14:46 They laid hands on Him and seized Him.
Mark 14:50 And they all [the disciples] left Him and fled.
Mark 14:53 They led Jesus away to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together.
Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any. For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent. Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'" Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent.
The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, "Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?"
But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? "You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.
Early in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole Council, immediately held a consultation; and binding Jesus, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate.
Pilate then took Jesus and scourged Him. And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and put a purple robe on Him; and they began to come up to Him and say, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and to give Him slaps in the face.
Pilate came out again and said to them, "Behold, I am bringing Him out to you so that you may know that I find no guilt in Him."
Jesus then came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Behold, the Man!"
So when the chief priests and the officers saw Him, they cried out saying, "Crucify, crucify!" Pilate said to them, "Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him."
The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God."
Therefore when Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid; and he entered into the Praetorium again and said to Jesus, "Where are You from?" But Jesus gave him no answer.
John 19:12-18 As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him, but the Jews cried out saying, "If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar."
Therefore when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.
Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!"
So they cried out, "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar."
So he then handed Him over to them to be crucified. They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha. There they crucified Him, and with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between.
When the sixth hour came, darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour. At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"
John 19:28-30 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, "I am thirsty."
A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth. Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.
And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. When the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed His last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"
And all the crowds who came together for this spectacle, when they observed what had happened, began to return, beating their breasts.
Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away. And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the grave.
1 Cor 15:3,4 Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and...He was buried
But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
Luke 24:1-12 On the first day of the week, at early dawn, they [Mary Magdalene and others] came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing; and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."
And they remembered His words, and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles. But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them. But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at what had happened.
Mark 16:12,13 After that, He [Jesus] appeared in a different form to two of them [disciples] while they were walking along on their way to the country. They went away and reported it to the others,
Luke 24:34 saying, "The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon." They began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread--
Mark 16:13 but they did not believe them either.
Luke 24:36-49 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst. But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them.
Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."
1 Cor 15:6,7 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
Luke 24:49 And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them.
Acts 1:7,8 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."
Mark 16:15-18 "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
Acts 1:9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.
Acts 1:10,11 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."
The resurrected Christ
Narrative Christ conquered sin, death, and Satan. He is alive at this very moment.
Rom 6:9 Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.
Heb 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,
Eph 1:21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
Heb 2:14,15 Through death He [rendered] powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and [freed] those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
Col 2:15 When He [God the Father] had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.
Phil 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name
Eph 1:22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church.
Col 2:10 He is the head over all rule and authority;
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Col 2:3 In [Him] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
John's vision of Christ in heaven
Rev 1:12-18 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.
Rev 5:11-13 Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."
Your invitation to trust Christ and receive Life
John 20:30,31 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
1 John 5:12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
John 6:47 [Jesus said,] "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
Rev 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
Rom 10:9-11 If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed."
The blessings received by those who trust Christ
Narrative Christ has paid the death penalty for our past, present, and future sin. We are forgiven. We are free.
Eph 2:4-7 God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Eph 1:7,8 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished on us.
Col 1:13,14 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 2:13,14 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Narrative Christ rescued us from slavery to the Law. In Him we have freedom. Through Him we have received God’s Spirit. In Him we are children of God.
Gal 4:4-7 When the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
1 Cor 15:56,57 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Acts13:38,39 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.
Rom 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
Gal 3:13,14 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"--in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Rom 8:1,2 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
Eph 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will
In Christ we can have joy, peace, contentment, and the security of God's love, no matter what our circumstances
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
"Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. "These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.
John 16:22 "...and no one will take your joy away from you.
John 16:33 "These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."
"Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.
Matt 11:28-30 "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
Rom 8:35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Rom 8:37-39 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Heb 13:5 For He Himself has said, "I WILL NEVER DESERT YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU"
1 Pet 1:8 And though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory
Rom 15:13 Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Narrative In Christ we have victory over sinful behavior. Christ has given us His righteousness in exchange for our unrighteousness. His power can change our bad habits. We are no longer slaves to a destructive lifestyle. We are no longer slaves to dysfunction. We are no longer slaves to the sin patterns of our families. In Christ we have new life--His Life!
Gal 2:20 [Paul said,] "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me
2 Cor 5:17
Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Col 3:5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.
Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.
2 Pet 1:3 His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness
Jude 1:24,25 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
Christ will remove the devil and his agents from the earth, and lock them up forever
Rev 19:11-16 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."
Rev 19:19-21 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.
Rev 20:1-3 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
Rev 20:7-10 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
The New Jerusalem
Rev 21:1-6 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."
And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." Then He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.
Rev 1:7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.
Phil 2:10,11 At the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
Rev 22:7 "And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book."
Rev 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly."
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
|05-24-2007, 09:35 AM||#30|
Quaid Hates You