Posts Tagged ‘System Of Mood’

Brexit’s Engine Of Lies Enlightens Us

June 25, 2016

Abstract: The mood that led to Brexit is silly, racist, xenophobic, infuriated and infuriating, irrational and hopeless. However, that mood blossomed from perfectly understandable reasons. So it has an emotional logic that the logic of simple statistics do not carry. One perfectly understandable reason is that British leaders (Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown) were firmly hell-bent to make Britain into Europe’s superpower (not bad for a country which started with a GDP smaller than Italy). So these UK Prime Ministers got people and money wherever, by whatever means, possible: the most primitive manual workers, and the worst tyrants’ stolen wealth were equally welcome, no questions asked.

That flood of people and money worked well, until it became intolerable to the original English population, which was priced-out, and told centuries of civilization should go to the trashcan, to leave space to savages and plutocrats. PM Cameron promised to stop this satanic immigration machine (of people, plutocrats, tax havens, and capital), but he could not (in great part because he confused legal European immigration and immigration of illegal savages).

One mean for plutocrats to control the world is rule and divide, and the instrument of that has been to accept so-called “multiculturalism”, which says that Western democracy is not superior to the savagery of the past. According to multiculturalism, Pashtun ethics, and local Sharia, local Muslim law, is just as good as 27 centuries of refined Roman Republican law. You can see below Obama blatantly imposing the mood that multiculturalism is good, by advertising for Islam and…tax avoidance.

The present US administration enabled and promoted a crafty, entangled empire of spying, tax-avoidance, deep US state, which is starting to enrage much of the West. Indeed, the English have had enough of this circus of exploitation they are submitted to. One can’t blame them. Too bad the European Union’s plutophile leadership has been all too much of a pseudo-innocent bystander. And by “innocent” I do not mean just morally clueless, but also mentally retarded. In that sense, Brexit spearheads a fully justified rebellion which is not just good, but desperately needed. What is now needed is to divert that energy towards the correct targets, and that means to foster the noble and necessary Union Of Europe, while keeping multiculturalism withing strict Republican guidelines.

***

THE PSEUDO-DIVERSITY MACHINE AND HOW IT EXPLOITS PEOPLE:

So much to talk about, in connection with Brexit! A notion of democracy, identifying it with nationalism was brandished, as if self-obvious. Actually, identifying democracy and nationalism is as wrong as wrong can be. This is one of the most interesting lies which have fed Brexit. But there has been more, lies which have actually brought Britain to the sorry state of hateful division it now festers in. One lie has been that Britain is the second power in Europe, soon to be the first. It’s the attempt to turn that lie into a truth, which disintegrated Britain, as I will show below.

That England outside of London, and some large cities, voted to leave the European Union, was not surprising: Britain got in the EEC (predecessor of the EU), 43 years ago. However, it soon got cold feet. Thus Britain conducted a referendum, 40 years ago, to check whether it wanted to be in Europe, or not (yes, I know, the whole idea is ludicrous: anybody looking at a map can see that Britain is in Europe).

Here is a telling detail: the present leader of the official Labor campaign to “Remain”, in 2016, was, in 1976, AGAINST Europe (when his party was for Europe)! And he did not change. Indeed Jeremy Corbyn said, ten days before the vote, that Britain could not control its immigration problem if it stayed inside the EU. That’s hogwash (France and Germany could control their immigration, and still can; see below Martin Wolff of the Financial Times agreeing with that point of view I long-held). But that hogwash is also the UK Independence Party’s number one argument.

What infuriates, and should infuriate, those who voted for Brexit is exemplified by the following picture. One can see the president of the USA sitting, just after Brexit, with a number of picturesque characters. There is the Muslim woman, advertising her submissive religion, with her giant scarf. Imagine a Christian woman, sitting with a cross a foot long hanging from her neck, next to the US president: people would feel that’s ridiculous. So are submissively dressed women the future? The future of England, Mr. President? That’s what that Muslim woman flaunts. Don’t worry for this oppressed minority: she sits next to Obama because she is a founder, CEO, and probably the latest master spy produced by the NSA-Silicon Valley Entrepreneurship bandwagon. Other people in the panel are the symbolic black, the symbolic woman, and the 50 billion dollar billionaire who could not get a degree, and became hyper rich by ruining England (because Zuck extracted wealth from England, by the billions, selling their information, among other things).

Go On With This Diversity Circus Of Tax Evading Manipulative Spies, and Don't Be Surprised If A White Fascist Backlash Develops, Brexit Style, and Worse, All Over The West

Go On With This Diversity Circus Of Tax Evading Manipulative Spies, and Don’t Be Surprised If A White Fascist Backlash Develops, Brexit Style, and Worse, All Over The West

The preceding is just a panel of lies, just like the Inquisition would put on first stage giant crosses, and innocent children, to proclaim its purity. (Notice that, in the panel above, Trump is on the record protesting the advertising for Islam, and the mass tax evasion of the tech monopolies the US deep state, and Obama, have come to depend upon; Trump has explicitly declared they will have to pay taxes under his reign. Those monopolies have contributed to ruin deep England.)

This is a well-known tactic used by Inquisition, Wahhabis, Stalinists, and others mad with absolute power that:”I want to save you, so I will kill you out of compassion.” It makes them feel good about themselves, while disarming their opposition by claiming to act out of love, not hatred.

The main actors of the EU vote in Britain all hated the European UNION, but some of them hid it by making non-sensical statements: it was just a “club”. Or just a “block”. Or voting “Leave”  would adversely affect the price of housing… When, precisely, the extravagant price of housing was one of the main griefs of those who wanted to vote against the EU.

The main engine of the anti-EU vote was racism (some of it, well justified! Oopss!). Suppose that, in France, to appease the French National Front, the president decided to hold a referendum on “French Independence” and then argued obsessively about it with the head of the National Front. That’s what just happened in Britain, and worse, because no national French political figure ever had as a fanatical anti-Europe position as Nigel Farage, or Jeremy Corbyn did.  

Strikingly, in his victory speech, UKIP’s Farage imitated Hitler’s oratory style, complete with yelling in a syncopated fashion with a gaping mouth, as Adolf used to. This is getting better all the time.

Karen Eilbeck, a British national, and university biology professor in the USA, told me:”I think you mean worse. Gets worse all the time.”

No, I was trying to affect an ironical, cool, British like sense of humor. Sorry if I failed. Farage’s discourse, in content and manner, was strikingly Hitler-like. He even used Hitler’s big lie technique that:”We achieved this without firing a bullet”… exactly a week after MP Jo Cox got three bullets drilled into her, by an anti-European fanatic owner of a cherished Hitler manuscript.

***

BRITAIN, OR THE FROG WHO WANTED TO BE BIGGER THAN THE OX:

Martin Wolff, the respected (in financial, economic and plutocratic circles) columnist of the Financial Times opined that:

“Cameron the prime minister, took a huge gamble and lost. The fearmongering of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Nigel Farage, The Sun and the Daily Mail has won. The UK, Europe, the west and the world are, this morning, damaged. The UK is diminished and will, quite possibly, end up divided. Europe has lost its second-biggest and most outward-looking power.”

The last few words are sheer propaganda: in which sense is Britain “second-biggest”? In BS? Because it’s not in population (France is larger: up to 70 million belong to families who can partake in French elections, by contrast with less than 65 million in Britain).

OK, the UK is second biggest in military might: France has more nukes, and more vectors for said nukes, all made in France, not bought in the USA, and France has nuclear armed supersonic stand-off missiles that even the US does not have, and the world’s most silent submarines (said even the US military). This means that France has hundreds of nuclear vectors, some strategic nuclear subs, some attack nuclear subs, Barracuda class, some supersonic stealth bombers. Whereas the UK has just four nuclear strategic submarines with US rockets on board.

And France uses her military might by conducting wars in many more countries than Britain. If Britain had joined France against Assad, the US would not have chickened out, Assad would have been eliminated, and there would be no Syrian refugee crisis.

“Second-biggest”? A lie has been circulating in pluto media circles that British GDP is much higher than France. But it’s just a lie contradicted by IMF, World Bank and CIA data. France’s GDP is actually higher. France has also a much more diversified, modern and efficient economy.

Of countless such lies was the mood that Britain was superior yet tortured by the European Union arose. So here we see Wolff decrying something with logic, which he contradicts by building a mood adverse to it.

Only the UK scientific sector, which gets 16% of EU science subsidies when Britain pays only 11% of the EU budget, is world class. British science is clearly the best in Europe, on a par, or better, than French or German science.

Having made a offrand to British bigotry, and delirious self-satisfaction, Martin Wolff proceeds to say a few true, and relevant truths:

“The hinge between the EU and the English-speaking powers has been snapped. This is quite probably the most significant event in British history since the second world war. It could mark an important moment in the west’s retreat from globalisation. It is, above all, a victory of the disappointed and fearful over those confident in the UK’s ability to adapt to change and lead in Europe.

The geography of the outcome reveals that this has also been a revolt of the provinces against a prosperous and globalised London. It is also a revolt against the establishment — political, economic and commercial. Meanwhile, those who consider themselves losers and those who resent the changes in their country, notably the mass immigration, have won.”

Something that made England so much feeling like the “second-biggest” power in Europe, has been, precisely, this sudden and irresponsible mass immigration: London is one of the largest French cities has claimed, rather inaccurately, Boris Johnson (ex-mayor of London and next British PM) .

Wolff again:“Yet the UK might not be the last country to suffer such an earthquake. Similar movements of the enraged exist elsewhere, notably in the US, with the rise of Donald Trump, France, with the rise of Marine Le Pen, and even Germany, with the rise of Alternative for Germany. Others might follow. But, in an act of terrible self-mutilation, the UK has led.”

As I said, the French right-wingers are not dumb enough to give Le Pen a referendum. Moreover, she is a lawyer, not a professional money changer like Farage. Farage, per his employment and his family background, believes in plutocratic finance as an ultimate good.

In Italy, last Sunday, the “Five Star Movement” got two young women elected. One, 37, is now mayor of Rome, the other, 31, mayor of Turin. Italy has its own change of Constitution referendum coming, and it does not look good for Mateo Renzi, its young PM (although older than the chicks above).  What is nice in the passage below is that Wolff lays the blame at the feet of Tony Blair, as I said long ago, and that’s entirely accurate. The European Union had nothing to do with it. And it’s that Blair policy which inflated Britain… And made it nearly the “second-biggest power” in the EU:

“It is one of the great ironies that Tony Blair’s Labour government, with its decision to open the UK at once to migration from the new members of the EU, paved the way to an outcome that will horrify him and his erstwhile colleagues. It is now clear that the failure to introduce safeguards on migration when opening the EU to newer and far poorer members was a mistake. But that is ancient history. Its impact cannot be reversed.”

The French government has been struggling mightily to mitigate such immigration, while Britain did the exact opposite, in its single-minded effort to become the biggest European power. Blair “New Labor” was just new plutocracy. Now it can be seen, even by those long blind.

Instead of becoming the biggest power in Europe, Great Britain will now burn and explode.

Except, of course, if Great Britain is asked to vote again. Don’t underestimate Boris Johnson. Not only does he speak perfect French (learned in Brussels as his dad worked in the EU!), but he wrote, a few months ago, an editorial supporting :Remain” before realizing that supporting “Leave” would make him British PM.

Lies can catch up. Sometimes, thirteen hundred years pass by and the lies are still strong, and suck all the air out of democracy, as in the case of Islam. Sometimes the lies rule for only thirteen years, as they did in the case of Nazism. It all depends. In part upon the fortunes of arms. One thing is sure, though: history, propelled by technology, is going ever faster.

So there Obama was, talking next to a woman with a blatant Muslim religious symbol all over her head and shoulders, religiously listening to the spymaster Zuckerberg, a college dropout worth little more than 50 billion dollars. Zuck went on and on, speaking of power and money, and was thunderously applauded for his trite comments on how conspiracies bring people together. All lies. And lies not understood very well yet.

But those who voted Brexit, seeing this scene, would seethe with anger, and rightly so: Facebook is a lie, the woman with the Muslim scarf is a lie, the wealth of Zuck rests on lies and crimes (not paying taxes), etc. And why is all of this imposed by the leader of the so-called free world? Zuckenberg pointed out that Obama would soon wear a T-shirt, a not so subtle allusion that, within a few months, Obama is nothing, and his creature, Zuck, stronger than ever. Why all this multiculturalism and all this plutocracy to break the English’s honest to goodness civilization? Precisely to break it. And replace it by oligarchy, and that supreme form thereof, plutocracy. What else? And the Brexiteer English are not wrong. This is exactly what is going on. And those who feel like voting for Trump no doubt feel the same…  

Patrice Ayme’

 

Trump A Demagogue? So What?

March 27, 2016

“We empowered a demagogue” laments the New York Times ostensibly bleeding heart liberal, the kind Mr. Kristof, in his false “Mea Culpa” editorial, “My Shared Shame: How The Media Made Trump”. By this, Mr. Kristof means that Mr. Trump is a bad person. However, Mr. Kristof’s choice of the word “demagogue” is revealing. (Actually it’s not really his choice: “demagogue” is not Mr. Kristof’s invention: he just repeats like a parrot the most prominent slogan of the worldwide campaign of insults against Trump).

Trump a demagogue? Is Mr. Sanders a “demagogue”, too? (As much of the financial and right-wing press has it: for The Economist and the Financial Times, Trump and Sanders are both “demagogues” and that’s their main flaw.)

To understand fully the word “demagogue” one has to understand a bit of Greek, and a bigger bit of Greek history.

The Hellenistic Kingdom Mood, And Aristotle, Had A Devastating Influence On Rome, Thus On Western Civilization, Thus Us, Ever Since

The Hellenistic Kingdom Mood, And Aristotle, Had A Devastating Influence On Rome, Thus On Western Civilization, Thus Us, Ever Since

What does demos mean? And what does agogos mean? Both words are Greek. Agogos means “leader”, Demos means “people”. In ancient Greek “demagogos” meant “leader of the People”. A demagogue was viewed as bad in the Hellenistic Kingdoms period, because kinship was good, and We The People was bad. We inherited 2,000 years of dictatorship from the Hellenistic Kingdoms’ mood.

The latter point is the key: thanks to Aristotle’s devastating influence, monarchies and tyrannies became the ideal political regimes (for the next 2,000 years). I explained the whole thing in “Aristotle Destroyed Democracy”. Aristotle was the senior, most respected figure, of an impressive number of mass criminals who were his personal friends, students and followers: Alexander the Great, Antipater, Craterus, etc.

The practical result was that the entire Greek world became subjected to monarchies and tyrannies. With the sole exception of Massilia (modern Marseilles) whose small empire stayed democratic and independent (in spite of being at war with no less than Carthage based in Barcelona!) Marseilles would fall only after Julius Caesar besieged it (in one of Julius’ particularly ridiculous exploits). But the fact only Massilia stayed democratic tells volumes (OK, when Greece, attempted to go back to democracy, plutocratizing Rome crushed it, culminating with the devastation of Corinth in 146 BCE).

So the deeper question is this: since when has “leader of the People” become a crime in the US? Was president FDR a “demagogue”? What is the president of the USA supposed to be? What is the problem? Is the president supposed NOT to be a “leader”? Or to NOT be a leader of the “People”?

Is the President of the US supposed to be a follower? Of whom? The plutocrats? Is the president of the USA supposed to take Air Force One every few weeks, to get money from the Silicon Valley plutocrats, and ask them for instructions?

The ascent of Trump is precisely tied to the opinion that the office of the President of the USA is not anymore that of the leader of the people. Instead the president has become the leader of the 1%, exclusively. Thus, the more one complains that Trump is a “demagogue”, the more one presents him as precisely what the country, and maybe even the world, needs: somebody who wants to lead We The People, not just the 1%.

[Mr. Kristof allowed a shortened version of this comment to be published… After sitting on it for 12 hours. Delayed publication is akin to censorship, as the comment was published in 777th position instead of being among the first. So Mr. Kristof is not as kind and open as he wants to depict himself.]

A hard day may be coming for global plutocrats ruling as they do thanks to their globalization tricks. And I am not exactly naive. Andy Grove, founder of Intel, shared the general opinion that much of globalization was just theft & destitution fostering an ominous future (the Hungarian immigrant to the USA who was one of the founders of Intel). He pointed out, an essay he wrote in 2010 that Silicon Valley was squandering its competitive edge in innovation by neglecting strong job growth in the United States.

Mr. Grove observed that: …”it was cheaper and thus more profitable for companies to hire workers and build factories in Asia than in the United States. But… lower Asian costs masked the high price of offshoring as measured by lost jobs and lost expertise. Silicon Valley misjudged the severity of those losses, he wrote, because of a “misplaced faith in the power of start-ups to create U.S. jobs.”

Silicon Valley makes its money from start-ups. However, that phase of a business is different from the scale-up phase, when technology goes from prototypes to mass production. Both phases are important. Only scale-up is an engine for mass job growth — and scale-up is vanishing in the United States (especially with jobs connected to Silicon Valley). “Without scaling,” Mr. Grove wrote, “we don’t just lose jobs — we lose our hold on new technologies” and “ultimately damage our capacity to innovate…

The underlying problem isn’t simply lower Asian costs. It’s our own misplaced faith in the power of startups to create U.S. jobs. Americans love the idea of the guys in the garage inventing something that changes the world. New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman recently encapsulated this view in a piece called “Start-Ups, Not Bailouts.” His argument: Let tired old companies that do commodity manufacturing die if they have to. If Washington really wants to create jobs, he wrote, it should back startups.

Friedman is wrong. Startups are a wonderful thing, but they cannot by themselves increase tech employment.”

However, American-based manufacturing is not on the agenda of Silicon Valley or the political agenda of the United States. Venture capitalists actually told me it was obsolete (before stepping in their private jets). That omission, according to Mr. Grove, is a result of anotherunquestioned truism”: “that the free market is the best of all economic systems — the freer the better.” To Mr. Grove, or Mr. Trump, or yours truly, that belief is flawed.

Andy Grove: “Scaling used to work well in Silicon Valley. Entrepreneurs came up with an invention. Investors gave them money to build their business. If the founders and their investors were lucky, the company grew and had an initial public offering, which brought in money that financed further growth.” 

The triumph of free-market principles over planned economies in the 20th century, Mr. Grove said, did not make those principles infallible or immutable. There was room for improvement, he argued, for what he called “job-centric” economics and politics. In a job-centric system, job creation would be the nation’s No. 1 objective, with the government setting priorities and arraying the forces necessary to achieve the goal, and with businesses operating not only in their immediate profit interest but also in the interests of “employees, and employees yet to be hired.”

As even the New York Times now admits, the situation has degenerated since 2010. Although the employment rate halved, in a slave state, everybody is employed. But neither the economy, nor the society, let alone progress and civilization are doing better.

“Insecure, low-paying, part-time and dead-end jobs are prevalent. On the campaign trail, large groups of Americans are motivated and manipulated on the basis of real and perceived social and economic inequities.

Conditions have worsened in other ways. In 2010, one of the arguments against Mr. Grove’s critique was that exporting jobs did not matter as long as much of the corporate profits stayed in the United States. But just as American companies have bolstered their profits by exporting jobs, many now do so by shifting profits overseas through tax-avoidance maneuvers.

The result is a high-profit, low-prosperity nation. “All of us in business,” Mr. Grove wrote, “have a responsibility to maintain the industrial base on which we depend and the society whose adaptability — and stability — we may have taken for granted.” Silicon Valley and much of corporate America have yet to live up to that principle.”

So the argument counter-Grove was that plutocracy was OK, as long as it was all American (an argument Trump long disagreed with, BTW). But, clearly, it’s not the case anymore. Instead the US government has become the back-up to global plutocratic corporations (watch Obama flying to Argentina to encourage the new US pawn there, just elected… after making economic war against left leaning Argentinian governments ever since Argentina refused to take orders: the first beneficiary are New York vulture funds).

Sanders, the other “demagogue” just defeated Clinton (the establishment insider plutocrat) in three states out of the US mainstream: Washington State, Hawai’i and Alaska (with 3/4 of the votes). Interestingly, and differently from all the other past or present primary contenders, Clinton is implicated in several inquiries from the FBI, Department of Justice, etc. At least she is not terrorized like Maria Carey, who cancelled her concerts in Belgium (other singers did not).

Mr. Grove: “… the imperative for change is real and the choice is simple. If we want to remain a leading economy, we change on our own, or change will continue to be forced upon us.” Trump and Sanders say nothing else.

Yesterday, a dove penetrated inside my house, flew around, collided a bit with something, and then exited the window with precision, before perching on a eucalyptus branch, looking at me dazzlingly. I have seen it many times before, but generally it stays outside. Last night, I dreamed of seeing a pigeon fly at an angle into a wall. I asked it why it did that, so deliberately. It replied: “Did you see the state of the biosphere?” I suggested a more constructive actions. And it’s how it is going to happen: at some point, all the biosphere we depend upon will revolt (and after Zika, we have now Lassa fever, which is very close to Ebola).

Our corruption is not just an economic and social problem, a political problem, and a civilizational problem, as it was under Aristotle.  It is a problem for the entire planet.

We empowered a demagogue“, laments Mr. Kristof. His true calling, and that of the Main Stream Media, was to empower plutocrats, and their obsequious servants. How sad they are.

Patrice Ayme’

Torture To Death: Christ’s Crux

January 24, 2016

Patrice Ayme’: The angry, cruel, somewhat demented, child murdering, jealous, holocaust-prone god of Judaism-Christianism-Islamism justifies bloody despots. (So does Literal Islam, and even much more so, but that’s besides the point here. What is interrogated here is the origin of Christianism’s, and thus Islamism’s, hyper-violence)

Chris Snuggs: “Christianism does not belong in the same basket as Islam. Disregard how men have perverted both; just compare what they ARE, what their fundamental message is.”

PA: Agreed… If one forget that they are not at the same stage of development, and if one uses a stochastic filter. Stochastic comes from the word for “aim” in Greek. It’s used to mean “probability theory”. So the idea is to look at the New Testament, and take, so to speak, the average statement, ignoring those where (the mythical) “Christ” speaks about swords and all that… Sword, as an instrument to foster faith. Force, the Sword, is what made Christianism seductive to Constantine. He was a forceful man. He steamed his wife, alive, killed his nephew, and had his meritorious, accomplished, most famous general and admiral of a son, executed.

Force & the Sword, Justified & Practiced by God, Is The Christian Mood Which Seduced Constantine, Because So Was His Calling

Force & the Sword, Justified & Practiced by God, Is The Christian Mood Which Seduced Constantine, Because So Was His Calling

[Roman Emperor Constantine’s statue at York Minster, Britannia, his birth place.]

Here is a sample I have often used:

Luke 19:27: But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.

Some will play it down: ‘Oh, it’s just one sentence!’ Others turn this around, and sneer, when one criticizes Islam’s violence:’Oh, there are also violent statements in Christianism!’. Both COUNTER-IDEAS miss the point: just as one horrible scream can create a terrible mood, so can a horrible statement. PPP Torture Is Intrinsic To Christ’s Business Model [Final Judgment.]

And, by the way, there are actually multiple statements of the greatest of horror, and an insistence that horror was prescribed, ordered, glorified, organized, instituted by god himself. It’s not by accident that the very symbol of Christianism is the worse torture known to man. Even Christ could not figure it out. Well, my child, lonely nailed on your cross, I did: “VIOLENCE IS THE PRICE OF LOVE’. And it was fun to figure it out.

Judaism, its child, Christianism, and its grandchild, Islamism were all war religions. Judaism appears shortly before King David, the enlightened founder of the Greater Israel. (At least so says the Bible written by captives in Babylon, more than half a millennium later.) Christianism, or more exactly what he called “Orthodox Catholicism” (= “Orthodox Universalism”) was imposed by Roman emperor Constantine, who was one of the greatest warriors in history, second to none. As a teenager, the special force like, privileged youth Constantine already terrified the imperial court. Emperor Galerius, the “animalistic, semi-barbarian” persecutor of Christians, tried to get rid of Constantine with a number of dangerous challenges, including suicidal cavalry charge, and fighting a lion in single combat.

Constantine became the single emperor of the entire empire, after many decades of multiple emperors governing in a more or less collegial manner (there were up to 6 emperors at a time, mostly because of the problem of distance in the far-flung empire!).

Christianism is a system of thoughts. But it’s also a system of moods. Systems of thought can be subtle: Islam, for example comes equipped with two meta-principles: Taquiyah (lying to unbelievers as religious principle) and the Abrogation Principle.

Christianism did not have Taquiyah: early Christians obstinately refused to lie, and diminish their god, or their faith, in any way, to the bafflement and anger of other Romans. But Christianism definitively has the Abrogation Principle; when god feels it is good medicine to torture to death his own son, who did nothing wrong, definitively the message that it is good to torture to death people who have done nothing much.

Systems of moods are even more subtle than systems of ideas, because they do not say things directly and explicitly. The mood in Christianism is, basically, that it’s OK to kill, horribly, for no good reason: after all, man is created in the image of god.

Now is there anything more significant to torture to death the innocent? Should we call torturing to death the innocent the most prominent, the most significant, the most particular, the most peculiar, and marking art of the Christian god?

As I insisted, most human beings have known and practiced love. Human beings don’t need lessons on love, as if it were an alien planet never seen before.

But human beings have not known, and, or, practiced, nor justified, excused and become familiar with, torture to death. Christianism not only justified torture to death of the innocent, but made it the crux of its entire system of mood. Torture to death is the clé de voûte, the keystone, the part without which the entire edifice of Christianism collapses.

Judgment And Torture Constitute Christ's Business Model

Judgment And Torture Constitute Christ’s Business Model

And indeed, the last executions and torture to death of Christianism in Western Europe happened during the Nineteenth Century. In the preceding century, Voltaire had railed against the execution by “slow fire” of quite a few people, from a senile Jesuit to an eighteen year old a Jewish girl. The People was upset because of the Lisbon quake cum tsunami, which caused massive, irreparable damage. The girl was burned slowly just because she was Jewish.

Literal Christianism set up the mood which Literal Islamism inherited. Both originated with the guy who steamed his wife (and is a saint of the Orthodox branch of Christianism. Yes, this had deep consequences, including economic.

In the preceding, torture to death was vilified as Christianism’s ugliest mood. However, it does not stop there. The mythical Jesus, a rabbi, approved of the entire Old Testament. And that includes the mood of being willing to kill one’s own child to please one’s boss (“god”).

Yet, it does not stop there. Just as the cross is an add-on not found in old Judaism, Christianism is full of would-be cannibalism (“drink, because this is my blood”, “eat, because this is my flesh”). Would be cannibalism? Well, no wonder the Crusaders roasted children when they got hungry. History is not just an exacting teacher. Like the Christian god, history has no qualms, it just is.

And history is not just about facts and ideas. It is also about moods. Christianism went hand in hand with plutocracy, because it was all the excuse plutocracy needed to reign by the sword. And love was the screen behind which it hid its vicious rule.

How and why Christianism became supreme, as Constantine’s Catholicism, goes a long way to explain, and excuse, Literal Islam. This is the main reason to consider this agonizing corpse.

Patrice Ayme’