Crush Infamy!




Abstract:  Secularism is the master religion of civilization. Superstitions can be tolerated, by civilization, as long as they are obedient and house trained. Anything else is not just immoral, it invites disaster.



In an otherwise naturally excellent essay, the esteemed ethologist, Frans De Waal, one of the planet’s breakthrough scientists, deplores the ferocity with which some have recently attacked established religion. Make no mistake: I approve of Frans De Waal. But on this particular subject, he is far removed from his usually iconoclastic self, and his blind embrace of political correctness is erroneous.

Here is an extensive quote of Frans De Waal with the link It exhibits several typical mistakes.

“Over the past few years, we have gotten used to a strident atheism arguing that God is not great (Christopher Hitchens) or a delusion (Richard Dawkins). The new atheists call themselves “brights,” thus hinting that believers are not so bright. They urge trust in science, and want to root ethics in a naturalistic worldview.

While I do consider religious institutions and their representatives — popes, bishops, mega-preachers, ayatollahs, and rabbis — fair game for criticism, what good could come from insulting individuals who find value in religion? And more pertinently, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch.

Even the staunchest atheist growing up in Western society cannot avoid having absorbed the basic tenets of Christian morality. Our societies are steeped in it: everything we have accomplished over the centuries, even science, developed either hand in hand with or in opposition to religion, but never separately. It is impossible to know what morality would look like without religion. It would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause.”



The first mistake De Waal makes is to assume that Western European based morality originated purely through Christianity. Most of the Western European morality is vastly anterior to Christianity. Specifically Christian additions are hard to identify. What is taken for Christian adjunctions is generally nothing of the sort. What is specifically Christian is called the DARK AGES.

The famous "welfare state" that American "neoconservatives" (aka neofascists) love to denigrate, sounds all too Christian. However, the "welfare state" is actually a ROMAN invention, anterior to the deployment of Christianity by a degenerated version of the imperial Roman state. It is anterior by a full three centuries. If anything, Christianity is a Roman invention. Indeed the first Christian known to have existed, Saul, a Jew with Roman citizenship, aka "Saint Paul", was a Roman prosecutor. Condemned to death by the Jewish theocracy, he was whisked away to Rome by the imperial authorities, and it is not known what happened of him. Besides writing about Jesus, who he found in his head, he said, his other passions were a hatred for philosophy, and delighting in book burning.

The outlawing of slavery was not a Christian idea, either. It was an anti-Christian gesture: bishops, and their families were the greatest slave owners. It is the FRANKS, following Frankish tradition, which imposed it. "Frank" means free. The Germans had no slaves (and elected their occasional kings), and were no friends to Roman style fascism.

So Christianity embraced non Christian goodness. Why? Because the Merovingian and Carolingian empires forced Christian potentates to do so. Nothing very "Christian" about any of this. the Carolingian forced by law the Christian establishments, all of them, to teach secularism. That was after having nationalized the entire Christian Church (to rise considerable resources for a giant anti-Islam army, the largest since the heydays of Rome).

Even the cross was widely used, before the Christians consented to use it. This too the Christians carbon copied!



The Celtic cross, a pre-Christian symbol which was later amalgamated with the Christian crucifix. For many centuries, the Christians refused to use the cross, as it was a "Pagan" symbol, said the notorious "Church Fathers". The same holds with the Swastika, a very old, Bronze Age cross, which was known from Norway to India, even before Homer’s Greeks. On the right above: sacred cross from Knossos, 36 centuries old (22 centuries before the Christians adopted the cross for their religion!)



So what is specifically "Christian"? The Apocalypse, and eternal fire. That, the Christians promoted heavily, and it was definitively a regression form the Roman republican morality. OK, the Celts attached a great importance to fire before, as they used to burn, alive, a lot of prisoners together in various containers. (It was definitively a bad idea to burn alive Roman officers.)

Maybe the inventors of the "Evangels" got their obsession with fire from the Celts indeed (so it is a testimony to cultural trade that the idea percolated all the way to Medina and Mecca!). Here is a piece of the so called "New Testament", as a typical example. From Thessalonians 1:7-10 (New American Standard Bible):

7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in FLAMING FIRE,

8 TAKING VENGEANCE on those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

9 These will pay the penalty of ETERNAL DESTRUCTION, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed–for our testimony to you was believed.

The obsession of Jesus with fire is all over: See Matthew 25:41:

41 "Then Jesus will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, INTO THE ETERNAL FIRE which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Jesus, is loud and clear in his desire to burn in "vengeance" those who "know" him not. Don’t ever expect forgiveness from that maniac! Forget all too human forgiveness, Jesus is all about eternal punishment. That is the thing he can do that no human can.

Christian criminal irrational, superstition based insanity caused directly the Dark Ages, by burning all those who did not "know" Jesus, burning all the libraries, all the books, and even destroying public works. Laws themselves were destroyed, by refusing to apply them, since they had been given by man, not jealous god and his maniacal son. Such as the laws against highway bandits, while plutocrats refused to pay any taxes, and sheltered behind their walls, manned by private armies.



… As Voltaire put it. "One must crush infamy!". By "infamy", Voltaire meant Christianity, and Islam.

The ferocity of the attacks against VICIOUS SUPERSTITIONS is justified. A small example is the Afghanistan war. Besides enormous treasure and more than 600 NATO soldiers killed there in 2010, alone, this war, started in the 1970s by Washington’s White House (which often seems to be correctly painted the way a mental asylum should be), deliberately used religion, or more exactly superstition, as a ploy.

Voltaire did not insist on how that infamy arose. As Critias, a plutocratic philosopher, associated to Socrates, uncle of Plato, one of the "Thirty Tyrants" (and one of the most violent), asserted: "religion was a deliberate imposture devised by some cunning man for political ends."[C]

Note that this was written more than 24 centuries ago. That most educated people in the USA behave as if they did not understand this, while their country has soldiers in nearly all countries, and thousands of thermonuclear weapons, while whining louder and louder about China, ought to be worrisome. Question: are the plutocrats of the USA cunning enough?



Religion, from re-ligare, to tie people together again, is not, in general, bad. Religion plays, for the ensemble of society, the sort of "META" arena that any discourse needs. Such meta background are found all over logic, mathematics, or mathematical logic. Even category theory (invented by Aristotle, and now a backbone of contemporary mathematics) has it.

Thus the Romans of the Respublica, as pragmatic and practical a people as there ever was, made a quasi religion of the law:"Dura Lex, Sed Lex". ("Law Hard, But Law".) However above and beyond the cult of the Lex, they had an entire religion and ancestors’ cult. The increasing prominence of the law made the Romans invent SECULARISM. It comes from the concept of "age".

Secularism is a religion. Secularism means: to live in one’s own age. As Rome became a world empire, Romans tolerated all religions equally… With the exception of those allowing human sacrifices, which were outlawed, and disappeared from history. Some of these annihilated religions were enormously powerful, before Rome DESTROYED them.

If practitioners of a religion violated the secular law, though, they would be punished. Under Tiberius, after an enormous sexual scandal involving the top priests of Isis, the Egyptian religion, the perpetrators were made to savor their last days on the cross. However, Caligula legitimized the religion, which then became enormous popular, with temples everywhere and there is evidence some emperors were initiates (Commodus, Caracalla). Thus SECULARISM ACTED IN ROME AS A META RELIGION.

Secularism was very strong in the late 19 C in the USA, or in France. France went further, and nationalized the Churches (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish… but unfortunately, not Islam, a oversight only now being rectified). The USA has been backsliding into superstition ever since 1954, when God was pushed onto the People.



There were more Celts than Romans, and the Celtic world extended from Ireland to Anatolia in "Asia", where the Celts refused to obey Alexander, arguing that the only fear they knew was that "the sky would fall onto their heads". Alexander moved on to tackle the Persians, easier preys. The Celtic world included Northern Italy: Gallia Transalpina.

However, human progress is a strong notion, and by allying themselves to it, by rejecting the more primitive, violent Celtic religion, the Romans were able to replace the Celtic civilization by the more advanced Greco-Roman civilization. There was an educational component to the equation too, as the Celts refused general education, reserving it to their elite.

This Celtic episode, and the equivalent one with the Punic civilization, have an enormous bearing to the difficulties the West is encountering presently with Islam (and, in particular, in Afghanistan). But, of course, to see the connection, one would need to know more than basketball… Thus the present policy there neglects the leverage which superseding Islam would provide with, which proves that either the USA are really stupid, or that they have another agenda.



Superstition is about unjustifications from the past, secularism is about the present, in general more clever. When the Muslim armies fought the Franks in Francia (721 CE to 740 CE, and then again in the 10C), they were confronted to superior determination and superior technology (contrarily to legend: the Franks had evolved better steel and giant percheron, tank like horses covered with heavy armor in the 8C, Grecian Fire in the 10C).

The Franks, when they opposed Islam, opposed it by calling themselves "Europeans". After all, the Franks had united (most of) Europe. The notion was secularist. The Franks were very clever. As they repelled the Muslim invasion, they did not fight a war about superstition, superstition against superstition, Christian against Christian, Islam against Islam, Abraham against Abraham, as Obama is doing in Islam (his Karzai based Islam against the Taliban based Islam).

The Franks fought superstition, from the secularist point of view, as they had for 4 centuries. They fought, as secularists against superstitious hysterics. The Franks viewed the Muslims as out-of control Christians. Reasonably opposing Christianity had made the Franks their fortune, by rescuing humankind from Jesus’ incendiary rage. When confronting Islam, the Franks invented nationalism. European nationalism.



Secularism is to live in one’s own age. Rather than the times of desert primitives who lived from banditry, crime, and various horrors, and could neither write nor read.

What we faced with the Abrahamic, or Aztec religions are religions made to justify, encourage, and force lethal violence, through the teaching of blood thirsty gods.

The god of Abraham asks him to kill his son, just because he says so, thus placing fascist command, and absolute obedience, above the most basic, most fundamental love. I think there is a problem both with the texts that admire this as the ultimate of goodness (Bible, Qur’an) and those who happily goose step behind those texts. At least they could look grim (as Iranian Shiites do).

Goose-stepping behind a god who apparently likes to test his followers by asking them to kill their innocent children, is a moral horror that all free primates would do anything to avoid.

Thus, those religions are made to create deadly homicidal robots out of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. What is there, that is not our duty, to hate? Especially now that they could arm themselves with nuclear bombs.

Hating infamy, hating those who put fascism above love, every day that the sun makes, is not just a moral choice anymore, as it was in the time of Voltaire (in a case Voltaire addressed, Jewish children were burned in Portugal at the time, just because they were Jewish). Now, it is a question of survival. And it is why Pakistan a Muslim Fundamentalist state, a state whose official superstition adulates a pedocidal god (like the god of Carthagenese, who loved to kill male children less than 5 years old) has to be removed access to thermonuclear weapons (it has at least 100, maybe 200, on the ground it needs them to fight India, a secularist democracy, a past time that could well end up with one or two billion dead).

A last point: it is fashionable among American semi primitive a la Glenn Beck to rant for ages against what they call “progress”.

But civilization, for ecological reasons, has never been sustainable without adaptation, also known as progress. This progress can only come from secularism, adapting to the age.

Thus secularism is also where imperial anti-republican Rome failed, because imperial, plutocratic Rome was increasingly conservative and fascist. The plutocrats at the top blocked progress in so many mental areas that even better technology became its enemy. As it has been of Wahhabists,  and for the same reasons. And as it seems to be increasingly the case now in the USA, with its resistance to electric trains, nuclear plants, modern health care, and education, modern democracy, modern unit systems, modern housing, efficient economy, etc.

Those who do not learn from history, maybe incinerated by it pretty soon. It is no coincidence that this is exactly what Jesus wanted.

Patrice Ayme

Tags: ,

6 Responses to “Crush Infamy!”

  1. Dearmother Says:

    “It is the FRANKS, following Frankish tradition, which imposed it. “Frank” means free.”
    The French did everything good, didn’t they?

    Religion, from re-ligare, to tie people together again, is not, in general, bad.

    What? Religion IS bad! philosophical discussions are okay … as long as they don’t get too superstitious.

    “Secularism is a religion. Secularism means: to live in one’s own age.”
    You lost me. Maybe I need the definition of religion clarified …

    The Franks fought superstition, from the secularist point of view, as they had for 4 centuries. They fought, as secularists against superstitious hysterics. “

    yay! I like this part, I think its really good.

    “But civilization, for ecological reasons, has never been sustainable without adaptation, also known as progress. This progress can only come from secularism, adapting to the age.”
    You end with a very different point than you started with. I thought the essay was going to be about morality, and am pleasantly surprised that I get to feel good about secularism.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dearmother:
      As I tried to say, a religion gives the context the social mind needs. Whenever there is any discourse, there is a meta discourse associated to it, which gives the context. I do not know if there is a theorem to this effect, I will have to think about it, but it seems true even in category theory (category of all categories and large cats v small cats)

      So any society needs a metacontext, something which ties it all up together again, and thus has a metaphysics, aka a religion.

      In France, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity played this role well enough. In the past. Corresponding to the old “E Pluribus Unum” of the USA.


  2. Mark Says:

    Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:28 pm

    Maybe you should focus on whether religion makes people go bad, or whether already bad people use religion in a bad way?



    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Although I believe that my essay pretty much punished Jesus with his own instrument, namely roasting, thus a good hint about how I felt about His deranged hallucinatory ilk, I will reply to this in a short, somewhat recapitulating post.
      Ideologies program people. Bad ideologies make people bad. Good ideologies make people good.
      Religion, intrinsically, is the ultimate conceptual background (after events have divided people, re-ligion, re-tie them together, that’s the whole idea). Religions are ideologies, systems of thought. But there can be other ideologies closer at hand. Nazism, Communism, American Exceptionalism, being examples closer at hand.


  3. Mark Says:

    Mark wrote:
    You gave two quotes from the Bible that are homicidal according to you, but I still do not agree that it encourages people to burn others.

    I do disagree that Christianity is about burning anyone, I am however more sceptic against Judaism and Islam, but still, that which can be used in a bad way, is not responsible for humans doing so.

    You say crush infamy, and mean crush religion, because you see it as the source of evil. Do you then agree that everything that can be used in a bad way, is responsible for humans doing so, and do you also believe that all of those things should be “crushed”?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It is not just according to me, but according to what it means to be plain rational. Remember; every single sentence of Jesus, this is God speaking.

      Although I do allow myself the power of poetical thinking, overall, and in the end, my standards of rigor are higher than that of the most rigorous analytic philosophers.

      Matthew 25:41:
      “Then Jesus will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, INTO THE ETERNAL FIRE which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.”

      Which part of the word “fire” you do not understand? The Holocaust authored by Hitler was just a redux of the one started by Catholics in the 4C, and 5C.

      The argument you try to use, is the one of the knife; knives are good, people using the knife badly are bad (recycled by the NRA of the USA with guns).

      But knives do not speak. Jesus does. Jesus is actually a gun, and He speaks hate. Jesus is culprit of HATE SPEECH. He just wants to kill those who do not “believe in Him”.

      Why should, indeed, people “believe” in a would-be homicidal maniac?

      Or how do you want to interpret “eternal fire”? As a metaphor? An allegory? Poetry? What about when Jesus wants to throw people in the ocean, with a stone around their neck?

      Matthew 18:6:

      International Standard Version (©2008)
      “If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned at the bottom of the sea.”

      I love the hypocrisy of that particular threat. So Jesus is not just a would homicidal scum, but, on top of that, an hypocrite. With a God like that, who needs the Devil? Jesus is self sufficient: Son, God, and Satan, plus creepy weasel, all in one. The true sense of the Trinity?

      Church authorities, for 14 centuries interprted it as roasting people alive. Including lots of innocent Jews. Maybe you should review Voltaire’s work on the subject.

      Now, OK, there are lots of crazed maniacs around, and there had been millions, yes, millions of Nazis, re-interpreting Nazism, including the extermination camps. They strongly disagreed that Nazism was about burning anybody. But we know they did, although we do not have any threat from any Nazi, in writing about burning people.

      No need for that: the Nazis had Jesus, who did them threats, prior. That is why the core of Nazism was from Austria and Bavaria, the Catholic core (and the Pope loved Adolf!)

      Man is made to hate, not just love. That hatred gets expressed best by groups, and the Abrahamic religions fulfill that mission by providing the needed superstitious-religious context needed.

      The differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam are tiny. That you make a big deal of them, tells a lot.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: