“CRETIN” Comes From “CHRISTIAN”. A Deep & Revealing Truth From The European Middle Ages


Créstin From Chréstien. Calling Cretins Cretins, Starting With Christians, Made Europe Smart, Thus Strong

European supremacy (now quickly vanishing) rested on mental supremacy, and that, in turn demanded, and demands, a colossal contempt for superstitious religion [1].

Colossal contempt for superstition is why the word Chréstien became a pejorative, Créstin, now simplified as cretin (just as the Latin hospitale became modern French hopital).

Europe has been vastly misunderstood. It is usually viewed as “Christian”. Nietzsche correctly thought that the naive vision of Christianism ruling Europe, was just propaganda by the true masters of Europe (the “Lords” who were in plain sight, but, thanks to Christianism succeeded to make the Commons believe in the virtue of enslavement).

Christianism was just the superstition the slaves were supposed to be guided by, to “believe” in. Jesus urged his followers to act like slaves, implementing a slave morality… Meanwhile, in truth the nobles followed a morality more akin to that of the “blonde beast” (the lion), as Nietzsche put it. Indeed nothing stopped the aristocracy. Aristocrats, if hungry, would roast children (this happened during some Crusades, for nourishment of the hungry Frankish warriors… No, this is not a piece of Islamist propaganda: the Crusaders themselves related the facts, read Jean de Joinville and his friends…) 

Here I will present a further datapoint supporting the perspective that the literary class of the Middle Ages was perfectly aware of, despised and rejected Christianism, which they perceived as hypocrisy, exploitation and mental retardation combined. We owe those critics of Christianism a convenient concept and word, cretin. Amusingly Nietzsche, a French speaking philologist (i.e., linguist) did not think of this argument.

Incontrovertible! Thank You, Professor! Paris University Professor Bernard Cerquiglini, a top linguist, former director of the National Institute for the French language, confirms my long held interpretation.

In the early Middle Ages (500 CE to 1,000 CE), Europe was devastated. Population had collapsed, or was collapsing, well in excess of 50%. Say from perhaps 80 millions to just 18 millions (here is a link with some data and erroneous albeit interesting logic).    

I am aware of the explanation of crétin as a depiction of hypothyroidism and enthusiastic prolonged interbreeding… but medical science does not explain where the word came from.  

The usual, and true, and yet fake, story is that cretin comes from 1779, from French crétin (18c.), from Alpine dialect crestin, “a dwarfed and deformed idiot” of a type formerly often found in families in the Alpine lands, a condition caused by a congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones, and lack of iodine. After brandishing that medical description from the Nineteenth Century, the Christian apologists pretend that the word is of uncertain origin. They are trying to hide the auditory evidence: in Old French, “créstin” and Chréstien (christian) have the exact same pronunciation.

Indeed defining “cretin” as a mental condition, does not explain where the word  comes from. I am a native French speaker (learned in Black Africa as a child, indeed). I also studied the question in depth, because, well, that’s what I do. “Cretin” comes from chréstien… “Christian” in English. In Vulgar Latin *christianus “a Christian” had generally the sense of poor fellow… or, in context, poor idiotic fellow. Throughout the Middle Ages, “Christianus” had a connotation of simpleton or mental retard. Here is a French specialists’ abstract confirming that observation:

Plusieurs spécialistes contemporains de l’étymologie du français, tels Alain Reya ou Walther von Wartburg, estiment que l’explication la plus vraisemblable est de faire dériver crétin de chrétien, par euphémisation, un crétin étant considéré comme un innocent, un bienheureux 3,4,5,6, ou parce que les arriérés étaient recueillis dans les monastères au Moyen Age.

(Several specialists of French etymology, such as Ar or WvW, ascertain that the most likely explanation is to make cretin derive from christian, by euphemization, a cretin being considered an innocent, a happy person, or because mental retards were welcome in the monasteries of the Middle Ages.)

Well, and if it was not just an euphemization? A look at the factual history and historiography of the middle Middle Ages shows that it is not just those in command who despised and did not obey Christianism. Those who wrote also loudly shared in the rejection and contempt of the religion which supposedly ruled the souls.

***

Below the Word Cretin, What Saved Europe; Hateful Contempt For the Fanatics:

So the origin of the word “Cretin” adds a new dimension to… the understanding of Europe. Indeed, here is another explanation, this one with full semantic dimensionality: the hatred and utter contempt with which priests and their ilk were viewed in the middle Middle Ages by most of the population, and, in particular, by the intellectuals who depicted the situation then.

Remember: late Middle Aged Christianism was a killing machine (just go ask Middle Easterners). The priests and their military allies ended up killing many millions, as the Middle Ages progressed. Burning at the stake for heresy reappeared in 1026 CE, after a Frankish imposed hiatus of more than five centuries. The full Christian insanity got unleashed with the First Crusade: as the Crusade started, so did the mass killing of European Jews (who were probably, at least in part, European by ancestry, and Jewish by conversion of said ancestor… so the conventional terminology of “anti-Semitism”, to qualify anti-Judaism, is misleading).

How do I know this of this hatred against the theocrats? It was a sane reaction to Christianism as war and genocide, the vision promoted by Saint Bernard (personal enemy of the great philosopher cum songwriter Abelard). The hatred against Christianism a la Saint Bernard was more than justified. Just an example: the (Fourth) Crusade against the Cathars killed as much if not more, in percentage terms, as the Nazis did… But the Christian leaders were themselves unhinged. To look at the Cathars again, Catharism was thoroughly annihilated, over several generations of relentless persecution. From Turkey to Spain. Not one book survived. Five millions Cathars died (at least).

I have next to my bed all the oldest French literature surviving, including the famed “Fabliaux”, in the original 9 centuries old French.

In these books, priests, chaplains and author church authorities are central. They are depicted engaging in relentless sexual adventures and fornication, murders, tortures, rape and castration, in the most comical way… It’s all roaring comical. A priest, surprised by the incoming husband, disguises himself in a statue. The enraged husband sees the statue, which reminds him of the priest, so he cuts its appendages. The fake statue says nothing to save his life, while losing wiener and jewels.

And so on. Most devious wives have a lecherous priest in their beds. Priests are depicted as terminally cretinous. This approach to religion was not new. Although (bishop) Gregory of Tours’ book on the history of the Franks, written six centuries earlier, is full of martyrs and saints, a robust reading shows many of the admirable characters, even saints, engaged in depredation… And some priests are represented in the worst light imaginable, killing for greed in extensive conspiracies. 

What is the conclusion? We The People of the Middle Ages had a robustly correct view of the theocrats. One has to realize that those writing horrors about people of the church belong to the most intellectual part of the population. Also we know that church summities as Beranger, an abbot basically said that the entire Christian religion worked only if one realized that reason should be divine. Beranger had a powerful ally: the conquering Duke of Normandy. Beranger fought the Pope… and was not defeated. 

The literal roasting of nobles during the “jacqueries’ of the Fourteenth Century (which extended to England) proves the point that there was tremendous opposition to the establishment throughout the Middle Ages (the existence of the Cathars, and the strike of the University of Paris for a full year around 1200 CE to be taught Aristotle, demonstrates the same point). After the jacqueries, which extended to England, the nobles lived in fear of a popular revolt until the final retribution of 1789… 

It took that long, because, just as in the Late Roman empire, cretinism was a method of governance. The more cretinous the people, the easier it is to rule over them.

So we see that the middle Middle Age society was such that intellectual positioning highly critical of Christianism was, de facto, tolerated, and pervasive. Calling cretins cretins and Christians, cretins, was missing in the Fourth and Fifth Century Rome: doing so after 380 CE, under the Roman emperors Theodosius I, Gratian and Valentinian was a capital crime. 

In France, the core of Western Europe, in the middle Middle Ages, a healthy contempt for superstitious religion flourished. This was a return to an old spirit. 

The Romans of the Republic often exhibited a critical distanciation for their own original Roman religion. The examples abound: an admiral, furious that the sacred chicken will not eat, a bad auguri, threw them in the sea, observing they would be forced to drink now. Caesar, invading Africa, stumbles and falls during disembarkment, a bad omen. So he grabs the sand, and says: now I hold you, Africa. Or Cicero, having become a supreme augur, in charge of interpreting the signs, observes that this is the most powerful position of the Roman Republic… As, for example, it enables the augur to validate, or not, the elections.  

When the Roman dictatorship became a Roman Catholic Orthodoxy, all distanciation from religion was gone: only Catholicism was the state religion (and the status of Judaism was unclear).  Everybody was supposed to subscribe to that superstition and its absurd orders (such as you shall not execute murderous highway robbers). The prompt result (it took only months, starting in 395 CE) was the collapse of the Roman state and civilization, led by the collapse of secularism. 

A mind freed of superstition is freer to observe the world. China and its satellites, the only center of civilization rivalling the Indo-European ensemble, was also never too subjected to terroristic superstition. So, whereas cannibalism ruled the Americas, under a superstitious umbrella, Eastern Asians did not eat their fellow man. Foot binding was enough to satisfy the sadistic instincts. 

So what happened, starting in 1026 CE, when burning people for heresy was re-engaged? The feudal order, a plutocratic system, was fundamentally resting on inequality. It needed a fascist god to justify itself. The more fascist the god, the more fascist the plutocracy could get. Hence the Cathar insurrection… and that was broken by plutocracy, for example, the king of France who had interest in breaking the super powerful county of Toulouse, a de facto parliamentary power… And Catharism was an excellent reason to do so, once its annihilation became the object of an official crusade.

However, there is something called CULTURAL INERTIA. Once contempt had been heaped on religion, for centuries, it could not be dispelled with the magic of terror. Resistance to Catholicism, obvious by the Eleventh Century, soon became frantic, and millions were killed. After four centuries of Protestantism, potentates in Western Europe (following some in North-Eastern Europe, see the Hus affair and consequences) promoted Calvin and Luther… This time reform worked enough, to cause centuries of religious wars… instead of the simple extermination by Catholic terror of its opponents.

Resistance to superstition and authority made Europe culturally smarter. It also probably made Europe EPIGENETICALLY smarter. Because there is no doubt that stupidity can be epigenetically imposed.

Oh, by the way, Christianism, as practiced by Roman tyrants, was theocratic fascism. A particular case of intellectual fascism. Now social network monopolies are imposing their own intellectual fascism… a particular case of which being what a growing group of contemporary French intellectuals call “Pensée unique… The single thought, supported by the single emotion, hatred against The Malicious One… a characteristic of the Middle Ages. 

Calling cretins cretins is at the core of making the advancement of civilization possible. Yes, it’s not Politically Correct, or, more exactly, plutocratically correct, of calling cretins cretin, but it is philosophically correct. If one cannot call idiocy idiotic, there is no wisdom.

Idiocy is not just to be avoided, it is a teacher. Thinkers, in particular mathematicians, learn that error is a friend, a teacher. Only those who want to protect idiocy, cover it up.

Ah, and why is European supremacy vanishing? Because, precisely, Europe had increasingly learned to tolerate, or even revere cretinism. But the US President got blocked on “social media”, when all sorts of monstrosities and threats are not, and, suddenly struck by an epiphany, many leaders of European  cultural descent, worldwide, condemned the censorship. This is an encouraging sign, as censorship is the first step towards cretinism.

Our species is defined by wisdom. Cretinism is not just the religion of error embraced, it is as inhuman as one gets. This point of view carries real humanistic power. Take for example Nazism. Not too many whined that it looked cruel. But of course the Nazis got elected by pretending that they were good people, keen to resurrect Germany (defending minorities, of all things). So to counteract the nazis by claiming they were bad, when they claimed to be good, was not a powerful argument. Instead the very powerful argument was to point out that Nazism was a form of cretinism. Why? Because it did not have a snowball chance in hell to defeat the entente cordiale of France and Great Britain… all the more as their progeny, the USA, could not be really too far behind helping its parents. To this the Nazis replied with the cretinous argument that France and England, the two most aggressive, and deeply entangled nations of the last millennium, were actually degenerate, unwilling and unable, all of a sudden, to make war… although they had the largest empires the world had ever seen, and France spent 15 centuries at war, and counting… And this was just one aspect of Nazi cretinism, there were many others, like killing off intellectuals (in particular Jews), or depending upon US plutocracy to have an economy…

Fighting cretinism is most humanitarian, and most useful, in to achieve a more human civilization. One has to realize that Christianism was a slave religion, and taught this, not just by teaching to be slapped all day long, which was already cretinous, but by an entire arsenal of stupidities which were already denounced 18 centuries ago by Celsus… If one is dumb like an ass, one can be used like an ass. In these end of times times, it is high time to give cretins their marching orders towards a more meaningful future.

Cretinism is not just a secondary effect of Christianism. It is its principal raison d’être.

Demolishing cretinism has to start by not being afraid to search for, identify, and denounce stupid ideas. That’s where much of the learning is.

Patrice Ayme

***

[1] Some Americans knowing vaguely the history of English America, will object that it was founded by Pilgrims…. Who were full of respect for Christianism. That’s only SC, Superficially Correct. In truth the Pilgrims were integrated in military-plutocratic investment venture. Once the first Pilgrims landed (not to well, and not where the army had sent them), they wrote back to their fellows in Europe to boast of the immense riches of the continent. Simultaneously, the Pilgrims discovered some English heathens who had intermarried with Native women. Revolted by these sins, they massacred them all. The same reasoning was then extended to the entire continent. Thus Christianism was used to give the good conscience necessary to massacre enthusiastically anybody who was in the way of greater riches. This was what the Late Roman and Feudal systems had done, by using the Inquisition, but on a much greater scale.

Where is the contempt for Christianism in the behavior of the English colonizers? Well, by using Christianism mostly as a sword. If one extracts the best of Christianism, all the talk about love, pardoning, mercifulness, etc… One obtains positive Christianism, so to speak, and one can do the same with other religions. However, the weaponization of Christianism, by using its Dark Side, is what the Pilgrims and their descendants human, or institutional, did. That shows contempt for the positive side of Christ.

Considering what the European colonizers did with Christianism demonstrates the point that Christianism was an instrument of subjugation. Lethal, if need be, as symbolized by the cult object of the Christians, torture to death by crucifixion. If one is greedy enough, that’s not cretinous.

Tags: , , ,

11 Responses to ““CRETIN” Comes From “CHRISTIAN”. A Deep & Revealing Truth From The European Middle Ages”

  1. De Brunet d'Ambiallet Says:

    Nice historical perspective on the middle ages. So are you saying that cretin christ caused a lowering of the IQ of civilization?
    Then the whole thing collapsed?

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Indeed. But the Xtian fascism did not get the ball rolling. Intellectual fascism was fully rolling by the time of Domitian, and his government of self-conscious plutocrats who cracked down on all and any intellectual activity … aside from stoicism, which has nothing to say about everything, something the emperor appreciated… Around 80 CE

      Like

  2. Paula Nelson Says:

    I suppose I could be called a secular Christian.. Christianity is the path of my Spirituality, I have never had a need to disavow it, but my understanding of Spirit has grown beyond that which can be contained in any religious dogma.

    In my studies of the history of the Judeo-Christian religion one thing that stands out to me is the difference between the Ha-Satan of Job and the Satan of Christianity. Do we have a false god of Babylonian origin that has inserted itself post-exile into the monotheistic tradition? Is the Catholic church the protector and promoter of that god? ….. any thoughts?

    Like

  3. Paula Nelson Says:

    I sold Spiritually symbolic jewelry at wholesale until I became ill and I worked with and fellowshipped with people from all paths. The only symbols I would not sell were an inverted cross or pentacle because by my understanding (and that of my customers) they represented perversion of a path.

    What I’m talking about can be understood by reading the book of Job aloud, as it was meant to be experienced. It was a morality play, meant to be performed and not read. When you have a sense of what the author of Job was trying to say then you look at the darkness of Christian beliefs about hell, the difference is striking.

    G-d or Spirit is a loving, connecting force. Satan of post exilic Judaism and early Christianity emphasizes punishment and power, not Love. It has been over a decade since I’ve studied this intensely but this is the gist of it…… https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/309/zorojud.htm

    Like

  4. Paula Nelson Says:

    Roman Christians killed more Christians than the pagan Romans did in the process of suppressing the original oral history and teachings of Yeshua and replacing that tradition with the “Bible” which emphasized a post-exilic belief in the power of the false god Satan. Given this clear literary distinction it is not difficult for me to believe that the Roman Church protects a cult of a Satanic god based on Zoroastrian tradition.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, it is correct and very little known that “Catholic Orthodox” Christians (as they called themselves, killed orders of magnitude more Christians than the “Pagan” Roman government did. There were few and not very strong repressions of Christianism, before the one organized by emperor Galerius in the 300s. Even then that one may have executed, for SEDITION, 3,000…

      Because it was all a matter of sedition. SOME Christians would refuse to take the OATH to the State (protecting it against all enemies foreign and domestic… like plutocrat Nancy Pelosi does… She says…) This had security consequences… AS HAPPENED, since the Christians refused to defend the State later.

      Like

  5. De Brunet d'Ambiallet Says:

    Interesting you got only feedback from a Christian. What happened to those who accuse you to be for Trump? They don’t notice when you attack the Trump voters? Too intellectuel for them?

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      They are more interested perhaps by tribal gathering and communal hatred? Scapegoating? Virtue demonstration?
      Intellectuals are interested by ideas, the commons, by naked basic instincts…

      Like

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: