‘TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK’ MEANS COLLABORATING WITH EVIL.
Instead, Forget Abraham, Resist, Crush Infamy, and Save the Little Children.
Jesus is an imperial Roman fabrication. Not only his mythology was cut and pasted from pre-existing religions, but even His birthday was displaced from one side of the Sun to the other. This 6 months translation made it coincide with the Winter Solstice and the Saturnials, the feast and celebration of the Greco-Roman empire which lasted weeks.
No philosopher of note has considered Jesus since Nietzsche noticed that the crucifix was a sex symbol for frustrated Christians. So why do I bother? Well, the USA is pervaded by God, and Jesus is his son. That would be OK, except that the GDP of the USA is growing at an annual rate of 5%, whereas Europe, and even Germany, has been stagnating with zero percent growth since 2008.
Both facts are related, but I will not get into that for this essay. Another point is that a version of the remarks on Jesus’ morality was censored on a philosophy website, because the moderator, a professional philosopher, and self-declared atheist, viewed it as “unduly offensive”.
Real philosophers offend the baffled and uncomprehending masses with true ideas they cannot swallow yet.
In the West, for more than a millennium, “Jesus” was viewed as the paragon of morality. Instead I will propose the exact opposite, by analyzing carefully what may be Jesus’ most famous saying. It made “Jesus” into the whetstone on which Nazism, among other evils, was sharpened.
I already pointed out that Jesus had homicidal tendencies: not only did this rabbi make explicit threats, but he said he came to impose the “Law” the Old Testament.
Said Old Testament depicts a God drunk on power, mass homicides, and a passion for torturing to death little children, so as to humiliate or punish their parents. It is hard to find a more despicable character in the history of ideas. The Biblical god can do whatever He pleases and call that divine.
The local plutocrat, our local lord, made in God’s image, was then morally justified to behave just as he wished all along. Hence the dealing and pushing of Christianism onto the mystified masses by plutocrats, from Constantine to Putin.
Jesus said: [those who] serve other gods … thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” [Bible New Testament; Dt.13:6-10]
A Christian, Elizabeth Carter, was not thrilled with the unconventional picture of Jesus I gave. She commented (Dec 5, 2014):
“Christ taught us not to resist evil but to turn the other cheek.
He said that if you choose to live by the law of Moses you will be judged by the law of Moses…
Jesus was crucified and did not resist the evil that was being done to him at all. Christians were told to follow Him.”
The statement “Christ taught us not to resist evil but to turn the other cheek,” is the epitome of immorality.
Jesus, even if he existed, was a savage of 2,000 years ago who repeated like a parrot what rabbi Hillel The Elder said a century before. Even the conservative Edmund Burke, 250 years ago, came to realize that Jesus was morally evil. Said Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Ironically this idea is central to the French Revolution, which Burke hated. In the French revolution, good men decided to do something about plutocracy… And the struggle is not over. Voltaire’s “IL FAUT ECRASER L’INFAME” got it right, and got the whole world rolling in the correct direction.
What did Chris thought he was achieving with turning the other cheek? Looking somewhere else? Indicating that punishment, cheek slapping, should be pursued, until morale improve, or one passes out?
Or was Christ, by turning the other cheek to evil, teaching us to collaborate with evil? Or, to put it more crudely, and to the point, to collaborate with Auschwitz? Let Him get to the oven first. With my most sincere contempt.
The hundreds of extermination camps the Nazis set-up all over Germany could function only because, like Jesus, the average Christian German decided to turn the other cheek and look somewhere else. Some extermination hells, such as Dachau, were in full view, a few kilometers from Munich. An outraged American general forced the whole local population of good Christian Germans to visit this place of extermination. The honorable German citizens put their finest clothes, and grimly contemplated what their hellish culture of cheek turning allowed to happen.
Jesus is distinctly less popular in Germany now. He had told the Germans to avert their eyes, and not fight evil. Jesus was wrong as wrong could be. All over Europe, he does not cut the saintly figure he used to.
Christians were told to follow their love boy, Jesus, and his dad. Germans were told to follow their “Guide” (Fuhrer).
Evil’s face could be that of a hungry lion, or that of a thug, or a rampaging dictator. Turning the other cheek only encourages it. The mythical Jesus Himself, when confronted with a few merchants in the Temple, not really an outrage in my opinion, got very angry, and physically violent, as he threw them out.
Thus the alleged acts of the mythical Jesus make no emotional sense: if some fast buck artists soil the Temple with their wares, He attacks them, but if some dictator puts a child in the oven, He turns the other cheek? Insignificant is outrageous, and outrageous, is insignificant?
Is it this perverse logic which allowed hungry Crusaders to roast and eat little Muslim Children?
(This evil culinary fact is well documented through direct eyewitnesses and participants; one would assume that, as good Christians, the Crusaders just turned the other cheek, so they could munch better…)
Essential to Jesus’ “teaching” is that one should not resist infamy. The very fact lover boy Jesus did not resist his own crucifixion, as Christians say, is the very proof that, either he deserved it, or he was of the lowest moral sort.
Or maybe he was a masochist who wanted to be crucified, because that gave him a sexual kick, to rub his buns on rough wood.
And his followers are even worse. I mean what are these creeps going to do when some monsters come to torture a child? Turn the other cheek? Not resist? Celebrate Abraham, who bound his own son, to slit his throat, because he was in love with his boss? That’s clearly worse than gay marriage, it’s gay murder.
How much more despicable can one be?
Those “Christian” ideas ought to be buried in the mental rot to which they belong. They are precious only in the sense that they laud the exact sort of systems of thought and moods we should avoid like the mental plague they are: lethal and contagious.
To have made a religion out of collaboration with infamy, is not just inhuman, absurd, demented, and an insult to our true creator, biological evolution. It should outright be made unlawful to teach it as non-fiction. And frowned upon, submitted to the severe punishment, as non-assistance to children in danger. Some demons will laugh: ‘No wonder Christians love the cross so much: deep down inside they know they all deserve it, being the lowest of the low’.
Amen.
Happy Birthday, Christ. Should you have truly existed, as the Good Lord, no doubt you taught the exact opposite of many of the words plutocrats such as emperor Constantine put in your mouth.
Patrice Ayme’
Tags: Christ, Immoral, Infamy, Jesus, Morality, Nazism, Resisting Evil, Turn Cheek, Voltaire
Patrice Ayme's Thoughts 
December 25, 2014 at 9:44 pm |
Patrice, despite the fact that you recognise what we read about Jesus is the heavily edited version approved by Constantine, you tend to accept what it says. Particularly about the crucifixion, which, in my opinion, the accounts simply do not make sense. The first thing to note is that this was a seriously bizarre crucifixion. The usual crucifixion involved the victim being left there until the crows picked off all the flesh, and mercy involved the breaking of the legs with a mallet after about ten hours.
In my novel, “Athene’s Prophecy”, I offered another interpretation of what happened. The first point to note is that Pilate was not the man to submit to the rabble. Previously a rabble had assembled, and Pilate had inserted the best part of a cohort dressed up in the clothes of the rabble, and they simply laid into the crowd, which quickly dispersed, leaving a lot of injured with severely broken limbs. However, we also have to recall that a messiah had been predicted, the messiah had to rise from the dead, and there had been something approaching a hundred attempts at claiming to be the messiah. The orthodox Jews hated these messiahs, yet the scripture demanded one. So my proposition is, Pilate gave the Jews exactly what they wanted the least: the fulfilment of the prophesy by the very person the Jews had ordered to be killed. The crucifixion was thus carried out in a survivable way, the body taken down and buried in a cave, protected by a rock. From Pilate’s point of view, if Jesus survived, the Jews could eat that; if he died, well, a Roman procurator was hardly going to lose any sleep over that.
LikeLike
December 26, 2014 at 12:06 am |
Dear Ian:
First remark: I feel pretty confident that Jesus the person never existed (no independent sources). However, Jesus the myth did certainly exists, and the labors of the self declared “13th Apostle” are thoroughly detailed (although we still don’t know why he killed his son Crispus and steamed his wife).
So Jesus-person and Jesus-myth are often mixed up.
Crucifixion was indeed usually very different. Some would last many days (especially if the patient was given water and the humiliating self punishment of a sedille). A healthy male croaking after three hours makes no sense (although some died of shock when nails got in). One could suspect that a short crucifixion would be arranged to save the condemned.
It’s true that the Jesus myth already existed, well before Jesus, and messiahs resurrecting from the dead, were thick on the ground. The history of a few of them is known, and the trials have left traces. Not so with Jesus.
In any case, in the essay, I tried the concept of “turning the other cheek“, found it guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and crucified it cruelly.
PA
LikeLike
December 26, 2014 at 1:22 am |
Dear Patrice,
I am more of the opinion he did exist. As for independent evidence, Cristus is clearly mentioned in Tacitus’ Annals, and Tacitus usually mentioned when a fact was questionable. The execution should also have been recorded, although whether the records remain is another matter.
Also, I find “crucifying it cruelly” a interesting way of turning the other cheek 🙂
LikeLike
December 26, 2014 at 8:54 pm |
Yes, there was a whole problem of cheeks on very rough wood, in the case of a real crucifixion… I find the whole Cristus story improbable. Some of the Greco-Roman historians made up some of their characters.
The dates thing on Cristus is ludicrous: supposing he existed, his birthdate may be off by 9 years… Also why would (leading rebel Jewish general, emperor Vespasianus adopted) Flavius Josephus not have mentioned him? Josephus mentioned plenty of embarrassingly crazed, Jesus-like maniacs in his history, and it does not feel like Josephus made ANYTHING up.
At the end of my essay, I gave Jesus real, and even divine status. So He is a concept we can have fun and instruction with. Hey, he is even an Indian deity (an avatar of Vishnu…)
LikeLike
December 27, 2014 at 2:39 am
I have no idea about Josephus, but I do know he was rather sparing with facts that he did not find interesting as far as his current involvement took him. His summary of the second Gaius Julius Caesar is of interest because, from recollection, he does not even bother to note he was a Julian. On the other hand, as far as I can tell Tacitus did make an effort to verify facts, although of course facts always came nth hand.
As it happens I don’t care. Christianity has certainly made some mark on history, although as you say, often a not particularly useful mark.
LikeLike
December 27, 2014 at 2:48 am
In the end, Christianism was a big fly buzzing around. The government by bishops, starting under Theodosius (around 400 CE) was a complete disaster. (That’s when the Franks were put in charge, and the invasions got completely out of control.)
Christianism, as-reconditioned-by-the Franks was very important, but it originated with the Franks, not Christianism. Its apex was outlawing the slave trade inside the Frankish empire, forcing all and any religious establishment to teach children secularly, and using the Church as a piggy bank for… the army.
After all this was set-up, what happened later was just repeating the pattern. Be the creation of universities, or the major crack-down, under Philippe Le Bel and his English vassal, and later Henry VIII, etc.
LikeLike
December 25, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
Thanks for the daily post and all of your posts patrice, i dont seem to be able to post this in your comments column because of some computer glitch. Thanks also for your detailed reply to my last comment the detail of which I do not deserve. This is a trully well thought out and informative piece, which i will read more than once to try to absorb the detail. However i wish to go back to my former comment. Putin (russia) has not invaded the Ukraine. Where’s the evidence? This is about empire building and supporting the dollar fiat ponsi scheme and is part of their scheme to turn the world into modern day surfs. Thus recreating a modern age fuedel society with an endless war against fantoms. cu bono. A happy belated saturnal and the very best for the new year. R. Sinclair
LikeLike
December 25, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
Dear Robert:
Saturnalia could last three weeks, although it started only with December 17… Later it came to include the Dies Natalis of Sol Invictus, the “Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun”, exactly December 25th.
Thanks for thanking me for the daily essay, and “putting out well thought and informative pieces“. Always very motivating to read… 😉
The invasion of the Ukrainian Republic by a dictator is not a detail. It’s also a grating inversion of history. It’s a bit as if the USA was invading England because it’s where their language came from. And then why not Paris, as the soul of the American Revolution?
Vladimir I of Kiev did conquer Crimea in the Tenth Century… But that was from a Khan who himself had invaded the Greco-Roman world there, which was more than 1,000 year old.
Ukraine has more to do with the Euro than the Dollar, and those two are not really friends. They are both Fiat, imperial currencies, but that’s fine: the Tang Fiat currency, or the Roman one, worked well, as long as the state worked well.
The Euro empire is in competition with the worldwide dollar empire. Washington-Wall Street has just one government, whereas Europe has Franco-Germania on one side, and London on the other, thus is divided… Moreover, Europe has metaphysical doubt, and scathing self-critique, and little energy, whereas the USA, trusting in god, has little doubt, and plenty of energy.
LikeLike
December 26, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
As a matter of fact the only religion whose founder incrontrovertibly existed is Islam. That certainly does not make it the best, or the true, one.
Jesus has (or has acquired) many characteristics of that ubiquitous myth, the solar myth, including the twelve sub-deities known as Apostles. But it has been pointed out that Napoleon was even closer to the myth, being born in the sea (an island) and dead ditto (another island), in addition to his own sub-deities known as marshals. His existence however is in little doubt.
Frankly I find the issue of Jesus’ actual existence of relevance only to students of historical anecdote. As you point out, the fact remains that the original story and the embellishments accreted around it spawned a hugely influential moral and political structure, almost a civilization in itself, with the usual grandeur and atrocities associated with that kind of structure. When you assess a pearl, you hardly investigate the sand grain which originated it.
LikeLike
December 26, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
The Sikh religion founder, Confucius, or Lao Tseu also incontrovertibly existed. In the case of Christianism, Constantine, as he himself pointed out, could be viewed as a founder. The impression left by Gregory of Tours is that Clovis was a founder of Christianism. (Much of the arsenal of Christianism originated in Francia.)
The Franks had a 3 weeks course to turn an illiterate war chief into a bishop; Rome was not amused, and hated those bishops, but had to submit. They also had a whole machinery to create saints they found convenient and educative.
It’s not too clear who wrote many of the Evangels, except that many of these guys were Roman citizens, or even from the commanding crust of the Roman empire (! A significant details Christians are not keen to wallop in…)
Let me notice in passing a bloody difference with the Anglosphere. When the Angles, Saxons and other savages invaded Britannia, they eradicated all in their way, and especially the written law. Instead they switched to making law as they spoke (just observe David Cameron for a modern case).
And here is the crucial difference with the Franks: the LEX SALICA was written in excellent Latin. It soon had no less than 65 chapters. We are still waiting for a British Constitution. (The famous Magna Carta was a Franco-Normand product, hey… :-)!)
It keeps on baffling me how much the Franks are ignored, and first of all by the French (although Foucault made an attempt to cover them, much of what he says is trite). In truth, the WILL TO CIVILIZATION of the Franks is what is behind the best in the world to this day.
LikeLike
December 26, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
So, if Jesus is immoral, does that makes Jesus crazies, the followers of Jesus, immoral? Yes it does!
LikeLike
December 26, 2014 at 8:46 pm |
Commenter Elizabeth Carter (probably never to be heard of again, unfortunately!) clearly said it: no fighting of evil for the Christians, Jesus taught us. Christianism, as Islam would then be all about pleasing “THE LORD”… Whoever “THE local LORD” happens to be, adds the Qur’an (S4; v 59)…
LikeLike
December 28, 2014 at 8:03 pm |
https://www.barna.org/barna-update/faith-spirituality/611-christians-more-like-jesus-or-pharisees
LikeLike
December 28, 2014 at 8:32 pm |
Wow! Absolutely excellent: “April 30, 2013 – One of the common critiques leveled at present-day Christianity is that it’s a religion full of hypocritical people.”
My point is that American philosophy profs who claim stridently to be Jewish, or Christian, let alone Muslim, are just plain LIARS: they don’t even believe, they just claim to, because it helps their careers. At least in the USA.
LikeLike
December 28, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
Absolutely, liars all of them Christians
LikeLike
December 29, 2014 at 8:03 pm |
It keeps on baffling me how much the Franks are ignored, and first of all by the French
LikeLike
December 29, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
Sigh… trying again…
“It keeps on baffling me how much the Franks are ignored, and first of all by the French”
Idle thought/uneducated guess – might this have something to do with the Franco-Prussian war, and its shaping effect on the 3rd Republic? IIUC and IIRC (do not quote me on any of this), this marked the birth of the “our ancestors the Gauls” notion, up to this point, the emphasis was on the Germanic traits of the French character (IE the Franks). I’d even believe that a subset of the French right still holds to that notion, basing myself on one lesser Radio-Courtoisie hosts who once professed his view that the French nobility, to which he very, very tangentially belonged, was of Germanic roots, and that France started going to the dogs once the Revolution put its destiny in the less capable hands of the non-noble Gauls – an idea I have seen occasionally mirrored by nameless online commenters.
I kind of wonder if this possible memorial construction is not paralleled in the 19th Century creation (still IIUC/IIRC) of the “Anglo-Saxon” character of a then triumphant GB/UK in need of some mystical imperialism? And, from there, that (annoying to me, as I just cannot “get” on what it should be based) supposed “intrinsic superiority” of Northern Europe, an hype that the Germans maybe got a tad too high on. I don’t know, maybe this is just a lingering racial memory cum Stockholm syndrome of the British Isles, an echo of all that viking looting and raping? Well.
The French wouldn’t care about the Franks because they do not want to be Germanic, and the British and Germans wouldn’t care, because they desperately want to?
LikeLike
December 29, 2014 at 8:28 pm |
Thanks Kevin, your comment looks very interesting. Right now I have to run, so I will address it later.
The anti-Merovingian drift started under the 1789 Revolution which was anxious to demonstrate all the past was bad. That’s when the Dagobert song was invented. Dagobert was actually a very progressive leader (and elected as all the Frankish kings).Ironically, the 1789 Revolutionaries got much of their spirit from there.
Yes always save before trying to post! ;-)!
LikeLike
December 30, 2014 at 1:46 am |
Yes, indeed!
Britannia suffered trauma when it went from civilization (Greco-Romans) to savagery (Saxons, Angles, etc.). In particular, the written law disappeared.
Germans suffered trauma because they never had a written law, until the Franks imposed it on them.
It’s true that France, as her name indicates, owe everything to the Greco-Romanized Franks, first. Even the Greco-Romans are arguably not as important. The Gauls/Celto-Germans have left nothing special. The Franks did, enormously, as I have explained quite a bit.
LikeLike
December 29, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
Btw, two related trivially interesting “identity” tidbits noted from longtime observation of the random online Anglos (not going into the larger picture) :
– the French have no “Celtic” roots, but “Gallic” ones; and,
– “NORMANS!!!”, “CRECY!!!”, “AGINCOURT!!!”, WATERLOO!!!” as rock solid “nodes” of self-assertion against France and the French. And the Magna Carta was written in “Middle English” (oh, well), don’t you know…
Seems like the British National Myth machine still is working, notably in entertainement, unlike France’s. (FWIW, I read a quip/comment a couple weeks ago, from an UK/US? guy, who not only included WWI in the obligatory tally of lost French wars, this one is a pure classic, but also the 100 years war, that one was new to me.)
LikeLike
December 30, 2014 at 3:00 am |
“Gallic” was initially an insult the Romans found for the Celts. Compared them to cocks: loud, self-obsessed, bright colored plumage.
I agree with all your observations. Several of these famous battles were of French against the French. Moreover, some were reverted right away. The famous battle where the Welsh archers decimated the French cavalry, much talked about in connection with the armored knights being obsolete was followed by a battle in the middle of France (I mentioned it in past essays). There the knights surprised the same archers… and annihilated them.
So her, in the first battle, the knights suffer heavy losses (in part because of mud their horses got in), and retreat: “English” victory. The archers won, with their “long bows” (range 400 meters). Second battle: knights, thirsty for vengeance surprise the same archers, and kill them to the last. One always talk about the first defeat, but never the subsequent annihilation.
Also Johanna d’Arc was a detail: the crux was the development by the Southern French of mobile field artillery (range: kilometers). Exit knights and archers. This was around 1430 CE.
I live myself in the Anglosphere, and it makes me sick with its constant obsession at putting down the French with invented notions.
It has real impact: the F#%, I mean: F35, Lightning II is the most expensive military project ever, and a total. complete disaster. Instead the USA ought to scramble to build, under license, a modernized version of the Eurofighter (“Typhoon”) or, better, the Rafale. Those planes defeat hand down all the USA planes: F15, F16, F18, F22, F35…
However, they are either totally, or partly French. Rafale is made by Dassault, it’s the number one fighter in the world. Eurofighter is made by Airbus…
So the USA is ready to lose WWIII, just because it does not go begging to the French…
PA
LikeLike
December 30, 2014 at 5:25 am |
I agree with what you implicitly point at: the anti-French sentiment in the USA is so misrepresentative as to often be borderline hatred. Americans often scream about “anti-Americanism”, but the day they get their just desserts, with real, fully deserved anti-Americanism, their screaming will get so loud, they will lose their voice… ;-)!
LikeLike
December 30, 2014 at 5:33 am |
The Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Liberties) was written in what was then the French language, Latin… (The switch to a sort of French, would happen in France more than 3 centuries later.) It was not written in Saxonic, Anglic, or whatever…
LikeLike