Feral they are and feral they must remain. Nothing may be done to counter or challenge their sweet lovable natural criminality, bestiality and psychosis. Since they are perfect, it is inconceivable they can be lying and therefore there is no need to establish the facts which are as stated by lying vermin. Presumably this stems from their being ‘devout’. An animal only has to say ‘sure, I’m a good Catholic’ to be assumed due for canonization. As so tediously often stated, the mores of the orthodox religious are those essentially of the slum, violence rules, argue and you get belted, especially if you are a person of the female persuasion. What we are for is to be knocked around to sate male inadequacy. Facts and reason are dismissed in favour of the ravings of a bigger monkey. It’s all that matters to the animal, the power to hit and hurt and silence, so naturally government has given them that power. They’re ‘threatened’ by negative opinion, whether of them or of their ravings. It is inconceivable to them others have a right to our own views.
Foully damaged and abused as children in those wonderful faith schools we fund. It can’t be any other way. The next generation of devout and sincere and brain-dead unquestioning believers cannot be produced without terrorizing infant minds into paralysis, beating it into them that they may not question. No-one mentally normal can believe it all in the C21st.
It's not complicated. Explanations of the world people might much more reasonably have accepted thousands of years ago in the absence of any other, explanations of, and guidance for, indeed, their small societies (and liberal doses of psychosis and sexual sickness) cannot be today accepted without question by anyone not totally ignorant, totally damaged, totally insane.
Yes, at the tax-payer’s expense children are actively taught that independent thought is evil, to be punished, taught that preferring the findings of fact and reason is evil.
Embodied in it of course is their total contempt for individual humans, who are simply empty vessels to be filled with their Troof or keep our fucking marfs shut, property to do and be and think and say and write and read what is permitted us. We do not have independent status. I’m not an individual human being with rights and feelings of my own to any of these creatures. I am not what my masters and mistresses permit me to be, therefore I must suffer and die.
Far from the holders of ‘sacred and sincere’ beliefs being approached ‘respectfully’, ‘deferentially’ they should be cross-examined to see how removed from sanity and reality they are, what willingness they show to attribute normal events to God or Devil, whether they are capable of accepting fact and reason. Are they capable of independent thought, of objectivity?
Do they assume the claims of religion automatically over-ride everything, including democracy? In which case of course they are completely unfit for authority anywhere in the free world
Do they accept others are not required to pay five seconds’ attention to what are merely their beliefs, that the rest of humanity is indifferent to their regarding these beliefs as Ultimate Truth. Probably everyone on the planet regards as incontrovertible truth something which is either demonstrably false or cannot be demonstrated, starting with the poor guy who thinks his girl is nuts about him when she doesn’t give a damn.
Is the evident difference between something being a fact and their believing something is a fact clear to them?
Or of course we are on Planet Newspeak. That doesn’t matter. It’s their reality. Fine, it doesn’t have to be anyone else’s, and there are a great many persons who need to absorb that of the Trot persuasion, expecting others to instantly accept their delusional notions of their abilities and their probity, who are equally brought up to be feral psychotic hysterics, emotionally and intellectually helpless faced with any criticism, running to Authority to silence the evil one, to whom it does not for a moment occur that others are independent, separate, running on different tracks and equal in rights, with an equal right to our own views, who are equally brought up to be unfit for membership of a free and civilized society.
Of course education had to be destroyed, the concept of a degree divorced from any intellectual capacity. The last thing required is the ability to analyse ideas, to reason, to think independently. Nothing is more prized than blind belief in Authority, than ignorant cunt-for-brains illiterate mongs. But how are we to get the chosen into positions of power where they inflict their filth on society as a whole? Why, we shall give them joke degrees. Has Medicine not led the field, with products of a technical training such as Whelan and Ardeshna, devoid of the smallest intellectual virtues, respect for fact, the capacity to construct an argument.
Presumably they are not examined in medical ethics – or just give what they understand are the ‘right’ answers, not stating the additions – provided the person is male, provided the person has not offended against my religion or merely offended me, since I am a psychopath who regards any criticism as an intolerable slur to be brutally punished, after all I am a DOCTOR and all must look up to me and hang on my every drivelling word and obey me as their lawful superior
So now a fat stupid slobbering waddling old know-all, purely criminal, never met anyone who can read and write, thinks it knows everything, can dictate my destruction. How would it know if anyone was illiterate?
And of course if an individual believer does not believe this bit or that as God’s Holy Word, then why should anyone else hold it sacred and beyond derision.
Indeed, we can play this with those who have arrived at a religious position. Here are some good bits, Blair.
'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.' (Exodus 22:18)
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Genesis 2: 21
Chapter 22 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Deuteronomy
You believe this monkey-puke, Blair. Because if you do you are clearly on the far side of sane and if you don’t how do you fucking dare expect others to behave as if it is anything to be taken seriously. Hint: the corrupt offal such as Murphy O’Connor and Sacranie and their various Anglican, Hindu etc hangers-on with whom you surrounded yourself intimating that it was good for society for people to be respectful of dribbling monkey-shit is not a valid answer, good that people are frightened to think independently and frightened to state their independent thoughts. Do any of these fuck-ups actually believe England gives a fart about them.
Is it not hateful to teach children to unquestioningly believe such shit?
God the Father, kinda cutesy, huh, if you're an infant, at least, but we shy off God the Mother and of course sex can't possibly have anything to do with anything 'holy', thus the Immaculate Conception "Jesus, my boy, they don't seem to be getting it right down there. Look, you become a man and go and sort them out for me, there's a good lad. I'll fix it for you. There's some dame called Mary. Just there of course, don't want to bother about the rest of the planet..." You believe this stuff? "They're still not getting it right, so I'll explain everything to this Mohammed guy. The fact that he's miles from any centre of civilization doesn't matter. Unbelievers are crap, you don't want to have anything to do with people like that.." You believe this stuff? Do you, Mr Blair? Because one of the talents of the human race is to divide its mind, function rationally in certain circumstances and be a raving loony in others, isn't it, Mrs Blair. Being a judge doesn't actually stop you being a superstitious savage, does it, Mrs Blair. Do you gurgle and simper in front of the supposed esoteric knowledge of the voodoo man, the snake oil merchant, Mrs Blair? Is it not hilarious to believe such shit? As indeed the ABC has just found, having promptly made himself a laughing-stock, doubtless to the bemusement of the freak minorities.
Almost 3,000 people, including nearly 800 members of the clergy, have signed an open letter to the archbishops of Canterbury and York, saying guidance issued by bishops last week saying sex is only for married heterosexuals has made the Church of England a “laughing stock”. The signatories express “anger and disappointment” at the bishops’ “pastoral statement”, which says a same sex or opposite sex civil partnership should be celibate. The letter says the statement is “anything but ‘pastoral’ – it is cold, defensive, and uncaring of its impact on the millions of people it affect “The Church of England has … become a laughing stock to a nation that believes it is obsessed with sex.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/27/laughing-stock-letter-from-clergy-attacks-c-of-es-guidance-on-sex
Though quite who are the ‘millions’ who are supposed to give a flying fuck what the CoE thinks about their sex lives is obscure, presumably the wider Anglican Communion – the Third World Anglican Communion.
I see Welby read History and Law at Cambridge. The Tab, founded by three Cambridge students, seems a fitting antidote.
The thing is, guys, almost always guys, dribbling away in your various sex-obsessed primitive cults, you are talking to people who know vastly more about sex, especially if you are celibate, than you know exists, and since the Sexual Revolution which so gloriously passed you by is now over 50 years ago, a lot of us are just as old as you are, if not older.
St Rosa on the origin of the Church and the wealth of the Church Part Four In the beginning, when the number of Christians was small, the clergy did not exist in the proper sense of the word. The faithful, who formed an independent religious community, united together in each city. They elected a member responsible for conducting the service of God and carrying out the religious rites. Every Christian could become the bishop or prelate. These functions were elective, subject to recall, honorary and carried no power other than that which the community gave of its own free will.[9] In proportion as the number of the faithful increased and the communities became more numerous and richer, to run the business of the community and to hold office became an occupation which demanded a great deal of time and full concentration. As the office-bearers could not carry out these tasks at the same time as following their private employment, the custom grew up of electing from among the members of the community, an ecclesiastic who was exclusively entrusted with these functions. Therefore, these employees of the community had to be paid for their exclusive devotion to its affairs. Thus there formed within the Church a new order of employees of the Church, which separated itself from the main body of the faithful, the clergy. Parallel with the inequality between rich and poor, there arose another inequality, that between the clergy and the people. The ecclesiastics, at first elected among equals with a view to performing a temporary function raised themselves to form a caste which ruled over the people. The more numerous the Christian communities became in the cities of the enormous Roman Empire, the more the Christians, persecuted by the government, felt the need to unite to gain strength. The communities, scattered over all the territory of the Empire, therefore organized themselves into one single Church. This unification was already a unification of the clergy and not of the people. From the 4th Century, the ecclesiastics of the communities met together in Councils. The first council took place at Nicaea in 325. In this way there was formed the clergy, an order apart and separated from the people. The bishops of the stronger and richer communities took the lead at the Councils. That is why the Bishop of Rome soon placed himself at the head of the whole of Christianity and became the Pope. Thus an abyss separated the clergy, divided up in the hierarchy, from the people. At the same time, the economic relations between the people and the clergy underwent a great change. Before the formation of this order, all that the rich members of the Church offered to the common property belonged to the poor people. Afterwards, a great part of the funds was spent on paying the clergy and running the Church. When, in the 4th Century, Christianity was protected by the government and was recognized at Rome as being the dominant religion, the persecutions of the Christians ended, and the services were no longer carried on in catacombs, or in modest halls, but in Churches which began to be more and more magnificently built. These expenses thus reduced the funds intended for the poor. Already, in the 5th Century, the revenues of the Church were divided into four parts; the first for the bishop, the second for the minor clergy, the third for the upkeep of the Church, and it was only the fourth part which was distributed among the needy. The poor Christian population received therefore a sum equal to what the Bishop received for himself alone. In course of time the habit was lost of giving to the poor a sum determined in advance. Moreover, as the higher clergy gained in importance, the faithful no longer had contol over the property of the Church. The Bishops gave to the poor according to their good pleasure. The people received alms from their own clergy. But that is not all. At the beginning of Christianity, the faithful made goodwill offerings to the common stock. As soon as the Christian religion became a State religion, the clergy demanded that gifts must be brought by the poor as well as by the rich. From the 6th century, the clergy imposed a special tax, the tithe (tenth part of the crops), which had to be paid to the Church. This tax crushed the people like a heavy burden; in the course of the Middle Ages it became a real scourge to the peasants oppressed by serfdom. The tithe was levied on every piece of land, on every property. But it was always the serf who paid it by his labour. Thus the poor people not only lost the help and support of the Church, but they saw the priests ally themselves with their other exploiters: princes, nobles, moneylenders. In the Middle Ages, while the working people sank into poverty through serfdom, the Church grew richer and richer. Beside the tithe and other taxes, the Church benefited at this period from great donations, legacies made by rich debauchees of both sexes who wished to make up, at the last moment, for their life of sin. They gave and made over to the Church, money, houses, entire villages with their serfs, and often ground-rents or customary labour dues (corvées). In this way the Church acquired enormous wealth. At the same time, the clergy ceased to be the “administrator” of the wealth which the Church had entrusted it. It openly declared in the 12th Century, by formulating a law which it said came from Holy Scripture, that the wealth of the Church belongs not to the faithful but is the individual property of the clergy and of its chief the Pope, above all. Ecclesiastical positions therefore offered the best opportunities to obtain large revenue. Each ecclesiastic disposed of the property of the Church as if it were his own and largely endowed from it his relatives, sons and grandsons. By this means the goods of the Church were pillaged and disappeared into the hands of the families of the clergy. For that reason, the Popes declared themselves to be the sovereign proprietors of the fortunes of the Church and ordained the celibacy of the clergy, in order to keep it intact and to prevent their patrimony from being dispersed. Celibacy was decreed in the 11th Century, but it was not put into practice until the 13th Century, in view of the opposition of the clergy. Further to prevent the dispersal of the Church’s wealth, in 1297 Pope Boniface VIII forbade ecclesiastics to make a present of their incomes to laymen, without permission of the Pope. Thus the Church accumulated enormous wealth, especially in arable lands, and the clergy of all Christian countries became the most important landed proprietor. It often possessed a third, or more than a third of all the lands of the country! The peasant people paid not only the labour dues (corvée) but the tithe as well and that not only on the lands of the princes and the nobles but on enormous tracts where they worked directly for the bishops, archbishops, parsons and convents. Among all the mighty lords of feudal times the Church appeared as the greatest exploiter of all. In France for example at the end of the 18th century before the Great Revolution the clergy possessed the fifth part of all the territory of the country with an annual income of about 100 million francs. The tithes paid by the proprietors amounted to 23 million. This sum went to fatten 2,800 prelates and bishops, 5,600 superiors and priors, 60,000 parsons and curates, and 24,000 monks and 26,000 nuns who filled the cloisters. This army of priests was freed from taxation and from the requirement to perform military service. In times of “calamity” – war, bad harvest, epidemics – the Church paid to the State Treasury a “voluntary” tax which never exceeded 16 million francs. The clergy, thus privileged, formed, with the nobility, a class living on the blood and sweat of the serfs. The high posts in the Church, and those which paid best, were distributed only to the nobles and remained within the hands of the nobility. Consequently, in the period of serfdom, the clergy was the faithful ally of the nobility, giving it support and helping it to oppress the people, to whom it offered nothing but sermons, according to which they should remain humble and resign themselves to their lot. When the country and town proletariat rose up against oppression and serfdom, it found in the clergy a ferocious opponent. It is also true even within the Church itself there existed two classes: the higher clergy who engulfed all the wealth and the great mass of the country parsons whose modest livings brought in no more than 500 francs to 2,000 francs a year. Therefore this unprivileged class revolted against the superior clergy and in 1789, during the Great Revolution, it joined up with the people to fight against the power of the lay and ecclesiastical nobility. Part Five Thus were the relations between the Church and the people modified with the passage of time. Christianity began as a message of consolation to the disinherited and the wretched. It brought a doctrine which combated social inequality and the antagonism between rich and poor; it taught the community of riches. Soon this temple of equality and fraternity became a new source of social antagonisms. Having given up the struggle against individual property which was formerly carried on by the early Apostles, the clergy itself gathered riches together, it allied itself with the possessing classes who lived by exploiting the labour of the toiling class. In feudal times the Church belonged to the nobility, the ruling class, and fiercely defended the power of the latter against revolution. At the end of the 18th Century and the beginning of the 19th Century, the people of Central Europe swept away serfdom and the privileges of the nobility. At that time, the Church allied itself afresh with the dominant classes – with the industrial and commercial bourgeoisie. Today, the situation has changed and the clergy no longer possess great estates, but they own capital which they try to make productive by the exploitation of the people through commerce and industry, as do the capitalists. The Catholic Church in Austria possessed, according to its own statistics, a capital of more than 813 million crowns,[10] of which 300 million were in arable lands and in property, 387 million of debentures, and, further, it lent at interest the sum of 70 million to factory owners and businessmen. And that is how the Church, adapting itself to modern times, changed itself into an industrial and commercial capitalist from being a feudal overlord. As formerly, it continues to collaborate with the class which enriches itself at the expense of the rural proletariat. This change is even more striking in the organisation of convents. In certain countries, such as Germany and Russia, the Catholic cloisters have been suppressed for a long time. But where they still exist, in France, Italy and Spain, all evidence points how enormous is the part played by the Church in the capitalist regime. In the Middle Ages the convents were the refuge of the people. It was there that they sought shelter from the severity of lords and princes; it was there that they found food and protection in case of extreme poverty. The cloisters did not refuse bread and nourishment to the hungry. Let us not forget, especially, that the Middle Ages knew nothing of the commerce such as is usual in our days. Every farm, every convent produced in abundance for itself, thanks to the labour of the serfs and the craftsmen. Often the provisions in reserve found no outlet. When they had produced more corn, more vegetables, more wood than was needed for the consumption of the monks, the excess had no value. There was no buyer for it and not all products could be preserved. In these conditions, the convents freely looked after their poor, in any case offering them only a small part of what has been extracted from their serfs. (This was the usual custom in this period and nearly every farm belonging to the nobility acted similarly.) In fact the cloisters profited considerably from this benevolence; having the reputation of opening their doors to the poor, they received large gifts and legacies from the rich and powerful. With the appearance of capitalism and production for exchange, every object acquired a price and became exchangeable. At this moment the convents, the houses of the lords, and the ecclesiastics ceased their benefactions. The people found no refuge anywhere. Here is one reason, among others, why at the beginning of capitalism, in the 18th Century, when the workers were not yet organised to defend their interests, there appeared poverty so appalling that humanity seemed to have gone back to the days of the decades of the Roman Empire. But while the Catholic Church in former times undertook to bring help to the Roman proletariat by the preaching of communism, equality and fraternity, in the capitalist period it acted in a wholly different fashion. It sought above all to profit from the poverty of the people; to put cheap labour to work. The convents became literally hells of capitalist exploitation, all the worse because they took in the labour of women and children. The law case against the Convent of the Good Shepherd in France in 1903 gave a resounding example of these abuses. Little girls, 12, 10 and 9 years old were compelled to work in abominable conditions, without rest, ruining their eyes and their health, and were badly nourished and subjected to prison discipline. At present the convents are almost entirely suppressed in France and the Church loses the opportunity of direct capitalist exploitation. The tithe, the scourge of the serfs, has likewise long since been abolished. This does not stop the clergy from extorting money from the working class by other methods and particularly through masses, marriages, burials and baptisms. And the governments which support the clergy compel the people to pay their tribute. Further, in all countries, except the USA and Switzerland, where religion is a personal matter, the Church draws from the State enormous sums which obviously come from the hard labour of the people. For instance, in France the expenditure of the clergy amounts to 40 million francs a year.[11] To sum up, it is the labour of millions of exploited people, which assures the existence of the Church, the government, and the capitalist class. The statistics concerning the revenue of the Church in Austria give an idea of the considerable wealth of the Church, which was formerly the refuge of the poor. Five years ago (that is, in 1900) its annual revenues amounted to 60 million crowns, and its expenditure did not exceed 35 million. Thus, in the course of a single year, it “put aside” 25 million – at the cost of the sweat and blood shed by the workers. Here are a few details about that sum: The Archbishopric of Vienna, with an annual revenue of 300,000 crowns and the expenses of which were not more than half of that sum, made 150,000 crowns of “savings” a year; the fixed capital of the Archbishopric amounts to about 7 million crowns. The Archbishopric of Prague enjoys an income of over half a million and has about 300,000 in expenses; its capital reaches nearly 11 million crowns. The Archbishopric of Olomouc (Olmutz) has over half a million in revenue and about 400,000 in expenses; its fortune exceeds 14 million. The subordinate clergy which so often pleads poverty exploits the population no less. The annual incomes of the parish priests of Austria reach more than 35 million crowns, the expenses 21 million only, with the result that the “savings” of the parsons yearly reach 14 million. The parish properties make up over 450 million. Finally, the convents of five years ago possessed, with all expenses deducted, a “net revenue” of 5 million a year. These riches grew every year, while the poverty of the toilers exploited by capitalism and by the state grew from year to year. In our country and everywhere else, the state of things is exactly as in Austria. Part Six After having briefly reviewed the history of the Church, we cannot be surprised that the clergy supports the Czarist government and the capitalists against the revolutionary workers who fight for a better future. The class-conscious workers organised in the Social-Democratic Party, fight to bring into reality the idea of social equality and of fraternity among men, the object which was formerly that of the Christian Church. Nonetheless, equality cannot be realised either in a society based on slavery nor in a society based on serfdom; it becomes capable of being realised in our present period, that is, the regime of industrial capitalism. What the Christian Apostles could not accomplish by their ardent discourses against the egoism of the rich, the modern proletarians, workers conscious of their class-position, can start working in the near future, by the conquest of political power in all countries by tearing the factories, the land, and all the means of production from the capitalists to make them the communal property of the workers. The communism which the Social-Democrats have in view does not consist of the dividing up, between beggars and rich and lazy, of the wealth produced by slaves and serfs, but in honest, common, united work and the honest enjoyment of the common fruits of that work. Socialism does not consist of generous gifts made by the rich to the poor, but in the total abolition of the very difference between rich and poor, by compelling all alike to work according to their capacity by the suppression of the exploitation of man by man. For the purpose of establishing the Socialist order, the workers organise themselves in the workers’ Social-Democratic Party which pursues this aim. And that is why the Social-Democracy and the workers’ movement meets with the ferocious hatred of the possessing classes which live at the expense of the workers. The enormous riches piled up by the Church without any effort on its part, come from the exploitation and the poverty of the labouring people. The wealth of the archbishops and bishops, the convents and the parishes, the wealth of the factory-owners and the traders and the landed proprietors are bought at the price of the inhuman exertions of the workers of town and country. For what can be the only origin of the gifts and legacies which the very rich lords make to the Church? Obviously not the labour of their hands and the sweat of their brows, but the exploitation of the workers who toil for them; serfs yesterday and wage-workers today. Further, the allowance which the governments today make to the clergy come from the State Treasury, made up in the greater part from the taxes wrung from the popular masses. The clergy, no less than the capitalist class, lives on the backs of the people, profits from the degradation, the ignorance and the oppression of the people. The clergy and the parasitic capitalists hate the organised working-class, conscious of its rights, which fights for the conquest of its liberties. For the abolition of capitalist mix-rule and the establishment of equality between men would strike a mortal blow especially at the clergy which exists only thanks to exploitation and poverty. But above all, Socialism aims at assuring to humanity an honest and solid happiness here below, to give to the people the greatest possible education and the first place in Society. It is precisely this happiness here on earth which the servants of the Church fear like the plague. The capitalists have shaped with hammer blows the bodies of the people in chains of poverty and slavery. Parallel to this the clergy, helping the capitalists and serving their own needs enchain the mind of the people, hold it down in crass ignorance, for they well understand that education would put an end to their power. Well, the clergy falsifying the early teaching of Christianity, which had as its object the earthly happiness of the lowly, tries today to persuade the toilers that the suffering and the degradation which they endure come not from a defective social structure, but from heaven, from the will of “Providence”. Thus the Church kills in the workers the strength, the hope, and the will for a better future, kills their faith in themselves and their self-respect. The priests of today, with their false and poisonous teachings, continually maintain the ignorance and degradation of the people. Here are some irrefutable proofs. In the countries where the Catholic clergy enjoys great power over the minds of the people, in Spain and in Italy for instance, the people are held down in complete ignorance. Drunkenness and crime flourish there. For example, let us compare two provinces of Germany, Bavaria and Saxony. Bavaria is an agricultural state where the population is preponderantly under the influence of the Catholic clergy. Saxony is an industrialised state where the Social-Democrats play a large part in the life of the workers. They win the Parliamentary elections in nearly all the constituencies, a reason why the bourgeoisie shows its hatred for this “Red” Social-Democrat Province. And what do we see? The official statistics show that the number of crimes committed in ultra-Catholic Bavaria is relatively much higher than that in “Red Saxony”. We see that in 1898, out of every 100,000 inhabitants there were: Bavaria Saxony Robbery with Violence 204 185 Assault and Battery 296 72 Perjury 4 1 A wholly similar situation is found when we compare the record of crime in priest-dominated Possen with that in Berlin, where the influence of Social-Democracy is greater. In the course of the year, we see for every 100,000 inhabitants in Possen, 232 cases of assault and battery, and in Berlin 172 only. In the Papal City, in Rome during one single month of the year 1869 (the last year but one of the temporal power of the Popes), there were condemned: 279 for murder, 728 for assault and battery, 297 for robbery and 21 for arson. These are the results of clerical domination over the poverty-stricken people. This does not mean to say that the clergy directly incite people to crime. Quite the contrary, in their sermons the priests often condemn theft, robbery, and drunkenness. But men do not steal, rob, or get drunk at all because they like to do so or insist upon it. It is poverty and ignorance that are the causes of it. Therefore, he who keeps alive the ignorance and poverty of the people, he who kills their will and energy to act out of this situation, he who puts all sorts of obstacles in the way of those who try to educate the proletariat, he is responsible for these crimes just as if he were an accomplice. The situation in the mining areas of Catholic Belgium was similar until recently. The Social-Democrats went there. Their vigorous appeal to the unhappy and degraded workers sounded through the country: “Worker, lift yourself up! Do not rob, do not get drunk, do not lower your head in despair! Read, teach yourself! Join up with your class brothers in the organisation, fight against the exploiters who maltreat you! You will emerge from poverty, you will become a man!” Thus the Social-Democrats everywhere lift up the people and strengthen those who lose hope, rally the weak into a powerful organisation. They open the eyes of the ignorant and show them the way of equality, of liberty and of love for our neighbours. On the other hand, the servants of the Church bring to the people only words of humiliation and discouragement. And, if Christ were to appear on earth today, he would surely attack the priests, the bishops and archbishops who defend the rich and live by exploiting the unfortunate, as formerly he attacked the merchants whom he drove from the temple so that their ignoble presence should not defile the House of God. That is why there has broken out a desperate struggle between the clergy, the supporters of oppression and the Social-Democrats, the spokesmen of liberation. Is this fight not to be compared with that of the dark night and the rising sun? Because the priests are not capable of combating socialism by means of intelligence or truth, they have recourse to violence and wickedness. Their Judas-talk calumniates those who rouse class-consciousness. By means of lies and slander, they try to besmirch all those who give up their lives for the workers’ cause. These servants and worshippers of the Golden Calf support and applaud the crimes of the Czarist Government and defend the throne of this latest despot who oppresses the people like Nero. But it is in vain that you put yourselves about, you degenerate servants of Christianity who have become the servants of Nero. It is in vain that you help our murderers and our killers, in vain that you protect the exploiters of the proletariat under the sign of the cross. Your cruelties and your calumnies in former times could not prevent the victory of the Christian idea, the idea which you have sacrificed to the Golden Calf; today your efforts will raise no obstacle to the coming of Socialism. Today it is you, in your lies and your teachings, who are pagans, and it is we who bring to the poor, to the exploited the tidings of fraternity and equality. It is we who are marching to the conquest of the world as he did formerly who proclaimed that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Part Seven A few final words. The clergy has at its disposal two means to fight Social Democracy. Where the working class movement is beginning to win recognition, as is the case in our country (Poland), where the possessing classes still hope to crush it, the clergy fights the socialists by threatening sermons, slandering them and condemning the “covetousness” of the workers. But in the countries where political liberties are established and the workers’ party is powerful, as for example in Germany, France and Holland, there the clergy seeks other means. It hides its real purpose and does not face the workers any more as an open enemy, but as a false friend. Thus you will see the priests organising the workers and launching “Christian” Trade Unions. In this way they try to catch the fish in their net, to attract the workers into the trap of these false trade unions, where they teach humility, unlike the organisations of the Social-Democracy which have in view struggle and defence against maltreatment. When the Czarist Government finally falls under the blows of the revolutionary proletariat of Poland and Russia, and when political liberty exists in our country, then we shall see the same Archbishop Popiel and the same ecclesiastics who today thunder against the militants, suddenly beginning to organise the workers into “Christian” and “National” associations in order to mislead them. Already we are at the beginning of this underground activity of the “National Democracy” which assures the future collaboration with the priests and today helps them to slander the Social-Democrats. The workers must, therefore, be warned of the danger so that they will not let themselves be taken in, on the morrow of the victory of the revolution, by the honeyed words of those who today from the heights of the pulpit, dare to defend the Czarist Government, which kills the workers, and the repressive apparatus of capital, which is the principal cause of the poverty of the proletariat. In order to defend themselves against the antagonism of the clergy at the present time, during the revolution, and against their false friendship tomorrow, after the revolution, it is necessary for the workers to organise themselves in the Social-Democratic Party. And here is the answer to all the attacks of the clergy: the Social-Democracy in no way fights against religious beliefs. On the contrary, it demands complete freedom of conscience for every individual and the widest possible toleration for every faith and every opinion. But, from the moment when the priests use the pulpit as a means of political struggle against the working classes, the workers must fight against the enemies of their rights and their liberation. For he who defends the exploiters and who helps to prolong this present regime of misery, he is the mortal enemy of the proletariat, whether he be in a cassock or in the uniform of the police.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes [1] Orthodox Christians who recognize the supremacy of the Pope. [2] Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25; Matthew 19:25. [3] Matthew 25:40. [4] Otherwise known as “Raskilniki” (Splitters), a Russian religious sect which regarded as contrary to the true faith the revision of the texts of the Bible and the reform of the liturgy by Patriarch Nikon in 1654. [5] See Exodus 32:1-8. [6] “Proles is the Latin for children, for offspring. Proletarians, therefore, constituted that class of citizens who owned nothing but the arms of their body and the children of their loins.” Communist Journal, No.1, September 1847 (London). “The Roman proletariat lived at the expense of society whereas modern society lives at the expense of the proletariat.” Sismondi quoted by Karl Marx in The Eighteenth Brumaire. See also: Engels: Principles or Communism (question 2) [7] But see Tertullian (c. 160–230): “We are brethren in our property, which with you mostly dissolves brotherhood. We therefore, who are united in mind and soul, doubt not about having possessions in common. With us all things are shared promiscuously, except the wives. In that alone do we part fellowship, in which alone others (Greeks and Roman pagans) exercise it.” Acts 1:39. [8] Abbé Barcille: Jean Chrycostome, Paris 1869, Vol.7, pages 599–603. [9] Assuredly however the local ministries, as they appear in St. Paul’s Epistles and the Acts, appear as being under authority (I am inclined to use a vulgarism and say) “with a vengeance”. However they were elected, and this was often probably by the nomination of local prophets, the Apostles, Paul and Barnabas appointed them. In view of the evidence of Acts 6 and the pastoral Epistles, I think, with Harnock, that we cannot reasonably doubt that the appointment was by prayer with the laying-on of hands, and ranked as “Sacramental”. And when they were appointed during St. Paul’s life, they were certainly controlled from above.” Gore: Dr. Streeter and the Primitive Church, pages 12 and 13. [10] In 1900, a crown was worth about the same as a franc or 10d (pence). [11] It must not be forgotten that this was written in 1905. Since then France has shaken off the yoke of the Church, and the State no longer appoints the clergy, except in the departments of Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin and Moselle, where Republican France perpetuates, for some unknown reason, the traditions of Imperial Germany and the French Second Empire. http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1905/misc/socialism-churches.htm
OK, OK, you got his book, from thousands of years ago, from societies in which books were rare. Books are now not rare. Try Emmanuelle or Fear of Flying.
Thousands, millions of books on just about everything, including life, the universe and everything, thousands of perspectives and vermin expect special respect for one particular book cos it’s Troof. And other vermin, scum, sickos back them.
And you expect me to give a flying fuck about the mad ravings of the visibly insane because you’re sick and evil vermin. If you’re foreign, get back where you came from, why doncha, you want to live in a society governed by ape-puke, fine, fuck off there. If you’re English, get back in your fucking holes – or fuck off to somewhere else, of course. Just keep monkey-puke away from civilized people. Of course in both cases there are other reasons why you’re in the wrong country, for instance expecting to strut around lording it over everyone else, decreeing from on high, being regarded as the superior life-forms you clearly think yourselves, unaccountable, not to be challenged, not to be treated like an ordinary person and asked what the fuck you think you're playing at and who the fuck do you think you are.
Drivelling dribbling sexually perverted old savages, freaks, slobbering old monkeys destroying me, Linch, Goldstone, Blair, Milburn, Nicholls and doubtless many others, dirty senile old freaks who think bags of poison, child-monster-animal women with golden curls, doubtlessly whining and weeping and wheedling, Daddy, Daddy, destroy her for me, dirty filthy bitches like McGuckin and Plucinski, smelly suppurating cunts of mong criminal offal, are what adult women are and should be. Can do no wrong can they, the little blonde angels.
No longer politicians from an earlier generation as in my youth, but those my age or younger, who know perfectly well what modern England is like and deliberately with cold calculated evil demand respect for dribbling shit.
It’s over, for fuck’s sake, over, long over, rule by unaccountable animals, but no, very powerful vermin will not let it be over, and with the full blessing of government destroy me. There is not one bloody book in the world determining what everyone on the planet may think and say and write.
So absolutely obscene that filthy ignorant stupid illiterate irrational psychopaths are given power to dictate what others may say because of a figment of their deranged imaginations they call God. It is of course palpably absurd to expect anyone normally educated to give their shit the time of day. The answer of course of the fake fascist Left is the cultivation of ignorance and illiteracy. As it is the answer of the religious scum: must we all not become as little children, ignorant, hanging on the tit for all wisdom and knowledge. Above all, we should not be capable of independent reading, let alone independent thought but run at the level of the most stupid and ignorant. I absolutely refuse to empty my mind, forget everything I know, from the gerund to Greece, become a creature of another's will and choosing, only thinking what fuck-faced sicko cunt freaks who consider themselves my owners permit me, and so I am scheduled for destruction. I must not say a capering cunt animal of a nursey-wursey is illiterate. Master does not permit that. Of course the scum filth vermin coward cockroach obscenities haven't got the balls to say that in public, say it to my face in public that I may not counter them with education, reason, fact.
There is not only one book in the world defining reality. A belief-system is simply a collection of ideas that seem to make more sense to someone than other collections of ideas. The ceiling on thought placed by fascists, whether clerical or Maoists, Stalinists, Nazis is arbitrary and ludicrous, claiming all that it is sane to think is enshrined in their One Book. There is the repeated claim everything was fixed in one time and one place. The historical Moses is thought to have lived in around 1400 BC. In the 1500 years or so between him and Paul, a multiplicity of world-shaping events and perspectives on being human occurred elsewhere on the planet, the whole of Ancient Greece and with it the birth of democracy, most of Classical Rome, the Upanishads, Confucius, Zoroastrianism, Lao-Tzu, none of which is significant to the orthodox Christian, other than as error or sin or at best feeble gropings for troof. This is first order lunacy: discuss. It worked when there was no mass communication, when the nearest city was an alien land many leagues distant. It doesn’t work now.
It is worth being precise about what hardly anyone believes, because actually it is possible to be entirely precise about what people do not believe, whether they be hard-line materialist atheists or flutterby flower-children. We do not believe there is only one book in the world. We are not a largely illiterate society of desert tribesmen thousands of years ago to whom one book was an all-encompassing explanation. We live in a society with access to millions of books and other sources of information; if we do not read much, we may surf or watch Life on Earth. We form our views based on what we read together with our experience of other human beings. We do not believe one book dictates what we must think; clearly millions of books, the content of which is contradictory, cannot dictate what anyone thinks. Where the content of books conflicts with reality, we do not believe reality is necessarily over-ruled. Where the content of books contains ideas conflicting with ideas in a 'holy book', we do not believe the 'holy book' necessarily true and other books false. Indeed, we live in a society shaped by a Trinity, that Trinity being broadly symbolized by the combined content of the Philosophy, Religion and Science sections of a major bookshop. We may prefer to believe that which is demonstrably false or distinctly less likely but on the whole I think have an awareness of the thing called fact; one of the things that distinguishes the religious nutter from the religious non-nutter is whether he or she accords the Virgin Birth or Mohammed's Night Journey the status of fact, on par with water boiling when heated sufficiently. Clearly also people who are not illiterate, who read books the content of which is contradictory, come across views that repel or otherwise offend them and do not run around screaming and shouting about it. It being the case that some views on life the universe and everything directly oppose others, unless you live in a hole in the ground you are going to meet people who think what you think is crap and if you then cavort and scream a) you are mad and b) your ignorance, your self-obsession and your total intellectual and emotional inadequacy are your problem. You seek to annul the external source of your distress because you are an animal with neither self-control (ability to contain your feelings) nor self-command (ability to change your feelings). Go talk to a priest. Or just try thinking of others as equals and individuals, independent, separate, not an extension of your bloody sick self, not your bloody property.
It's really not difficult, the penis slots into the vagina. It's not a perfect fit - see Elaine Morgan's Descent of Woman for an analysis of why it is not a perfect fit - but with a little adjustment, a little give and take, it's fine, it works - and when it works it is supremely, emotionally, physically and for want of a better word spiritually (two becoming one, each lost in the other) satisfying. Indeed, there is nothing quite like it. Naturally people do it. A lot. The fixation with virginity is of course that of primitive man, the obscene notion of a woman as his property, part of his worldly goods, who must not therefore be second-hand, and the equally obscene notion that she is not autonomous, with a right to choose to whom she gives her body, that she is not capable of that choice, that she has no value other than as a receptacle for his semen, no personality, no individuality.
