A sort of testimony to horror, to absolute horror, being at the mercy of creatures that aren't human, just dismiss everything I say, out of hand, just mindless murderous automatons intent on my destruction and the absolute horror and obscenity of everyone letting them destroy me, not lifting a fucking finger to help or support me, of the sheer sickness and disease of all you creatures, lovers of filth and madness and most of all of lies, oh you obscene filth love lies. Fact hasn't got the chance in comparison to the warm fuzzy glow lies and evil give you.  You're happy with your lies, aren't you.  The absolute knowledge that nothing I say ever has or ever will make any difference, that you dismiss all fact and reason out of hand, that you're not human beings, that it's not enough for cunt animal vermin like you that you've crippled me, you want me in a wheelchair in the gutter, you want me dead, and no-one will stand in your way and that those no-ones are even viler and madder and sicker and more evil than you, aren't you, Blair, aren't you, Parker, aren't you, Johnson, just insolent evil, that creatures who strut and swan around like Linch and Goldstone and kid the world they're great academics are mad diseased animals.  I'd get a better response in the Reptile House.  After all I do speak Parseltongue.  There is no excuse for any of you, you are vermin.  

How many times have I said I need help?  I might as well be talking to that fine crab-apple tree opposite.  I need help, you dirty, vile stinking murderers, you evil dirty cunthead animal traitors, you lovers of everything, dirty and foul and corrupt and vicious and fascist and psychotic like you are, everything sly and squalid and cowardly and animal, wordless, mindless, everything evil, everything fascist and twisted and rotten and dirty, liars, butchers, murderers, thugs, apes, criminals, oh you fall on your dirty ape faces in front of them, don't you, you'll do anything for them.   Just a dirty murderer, aren't you, Linch, dirty sly squalid murderer, Goldstone, filthy sly dirty murderer, aren't you, Naylor.  Oh how you hate anything clean, anything rational, open, honest, oh how frantically you wallow in squalor and dirt and hate anything clean. Hate love, hate mind.  Still got your dirty paws up the suppurating stinking cunts of the skivvies, have you.  And they all go along with it and nothing moves them. You enjoy it don't you pervert scum, filthy little piece of twisted vermin, Blair, you enjoy watching me scream helplessly, you love the power to destroy a woman.  Well, they all do that, love it, sit jerking themselves off on it.  Fact, reason, morality, none of these things mean anything whatever to any of you.  

Even if I do end in a wheelchair in the gutter I swear I will somehow get it out that that dirty stinking cunthead fascist traitor catlick monkey Blair threw my body, my medically vulnerable body, my already damaged body to apes to tear at, threw them my life, made sure no-one would ever help or support me, destroyed me, tried to kill me, tried to destroy me emotionally by making sure I was isolated, that cunt filth ape who lied his way to leadership of the Labour Party and the dirty stinking filthy sicko pervert grovellers all go along with it.  They don't have to.  At any point in 20 fucking years someone could have helped me, but oh no, they couldn't do that.  I do not care about the stinking fucking ape pervert woman-hating sex freak catlick fucking church.  This is England.  But that fucking filthy traitor and his fucking chimpo cunt, dirty catlick cunts, demand I crawl to fucking Rome.  Why has no-one hanged them?  And you all just go on sitting there watching me being destroyed, absolutely refusing to help me, throwing me on the scrapheap, a grossly disabled bent old cripple.  Not enough for your filthy sexually diseased obscene freak masters in Rome, is it Blair.  Not that enough that you have broken my body, deliberately broken my body by throwing it to apes to tear at, to have a bit of fun, bit of a laugh.  Nothing like a good joke to filthy senile old perverts, ripping apart the body of a medically vulnerable woman.  After all I'm only a whore.  Who cares what happens to a woman like me.  I have to suffer as much as possible.   I have fucking screamed I need help.  There are no words bad enough for vermin like you.  
So why has no-one fucking paid me?  You hate me so much, don't you, Porter, Yong, Linch, Khwaja, oh how you hate me for being democratic and trying to upset your filthy traitor ape-hole, your sickening cowardly cockroach shit-hole where you swan around decreeing from on high behind closed doors, safe from question, safe from challenge, unaccountable, criminal, you're far too important to be questioned, aren't you, far too important to have ordinary people asking you who the fucking Christ you think you are.  

I am facing destruction.  I am a grossly disabled bent old cripple, a situation brought about by your cold ruthless deliberate evil, your rejection of democracy, your filthy corruption.  I do not think I have to be nice about it.  Nothing may be said.  Nothing may be done.  No-one ever had to pay any attention to it.  You chose and choose evil because you are evil.  Anything decent, rational, civilized is abhorrent to you.  
​
Essential to Marxism is the development of consciousness. The average Marxist knows diddly-squat about consciousness, which is probably the primary reason the revolution hasn't happened and isn't going to happen and attempts to make it happen have ended in tears.

Socialism has proved a lethal disease. Much of the Left is in denial about this. PANTHER is not in denial.

The State is not abolished. It withers away.
 
When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out.
Engels: Socialism Utopian and Scientific
That is the theory.
 
1. The State cannot wither anywhere unless and until a majority of citizens are self-determining adults not dependent children
2. It is frightfully unnecessary and unkind to massacre tens of millions of people in order to fail to bring about the withered State and infinitely more constructive to start from a non-statist perspective.
 
It is not possible to have a new way of doing things when people have the mind-set of the old one. It is a logical impossibility that the State shrink while people are taught to regard it as mother, father, sister, brother, the source of all sustenance. This is not a new way of doing things but simply the substitution of the State for God the divine multi-vitamin in the sky, the external source of one's being and doing
 
While undoubtedly sundry of its adherents treat Marxism as a religion - undoubtedly there are as many flat-earth Marxists as there are flat-earth Muslims, those to whom the Book has been given unto the world, and deviation from its teachings heresy - it is not a religion but a humanist, rationalist view of the world, or in other words Marx, Lenin and Engels could on occasion have been talking out of their rears.
 
As with any world-view, Marxist-Leninism is rooted in its time and place and it is as ridiculous to claim that every proposition arising from consideration of Europe in 1840 is true for all time as it is to claim that every proposition arising from consideration of Arabia in 600 is true for all time.
 
Many of the things people consider as necessities didn’t exist at the time of the Communist Manifesto, however rich you or your business were.  The humble paperclip didn’t appear until 1899; the ballpoint pen was born in 1938  It is necessary to differentiate between false needs such as designer-label fetishes, and actual needs, that which is required to function, unless one has chosen to be like Diogenes in his barrel, or possibly living off the land in a tent. Broadly the paradigm was the well-off had nice clothes, houses and food and no need to work and the rest had nasty clothes, houses and food and a need to work; thus one might speak of ‘middle-class dress’ or ‘a working-class home’.  I do not think one can speak so readily of ‘a working-class mobile’ or ‘a middle-class hoover’. The range of products generated by capitalism meet real individual need.   I for instance am mobility impaired in a three-floor house.  No matter how big and beautiful the vacuum given me by the Central Praesidium, it would be largely useless to me because I couldn’t lift it.
 
Certainly there is poverty in England today, sometimes acute poverty, people living rough, but it is not what Marx, Engels and Lenin, writing in a society without either free education or free healthcare understood by poverty. Dire need may lie in the lack of a large and  expensive item such as a fridge.  If you live on the 15th floor of a tower-block, the lifts of which are frequently broken, unless you are young and fit and able to skip up and down 15 floors, a fridge is an essential; in 1840, if you had enough pennies to buy any food at all, you could do it daily.  If you had a grate, you could gather wood from the nearest open space to try to keep warm; the electricity or gas bill did not count among your essential costs.  The terms of modern life have both created poverty among those whose adjusted incomes would have made them affluent and provided free at the point of receipt that of which the working-person in 1840 could only dream.
 
It is entertaining to muse upon Marx’s reaction to being told that every member of the proletariat above the age of 12 requires a smartphone.  I think he would have agreed.  Since he was intelligent, he would have thought about it. I am sure he would appreciated he was in a new continuum.
 
People are free and one of the things they are free to do is make money. Capital is a form of power. The purpose of democracy is to contain power. It must therefore contain the power of capital.
 
The enemy is not capitalism or Marxism. The enemy is power.

Licit authority upholds equal rights or punishes those who transgress against them. Illicit authority suppresses equal rights.

There isn't going to be any 'Muslim take-over', there being a ready-made army in waiting of approximately 30 milllion women and gays, only 10% or so of whom would have to stir our stumps to actually do anything.
A MIND OF ONE’S OWN
 
The root of the free world is that individuals have minds of their own and the right to use them, that we are not empty vessels with nothing within to be filled with whatever our overlords regard as Truth.
 
Biology came along and denied the existence of mind, the more ridiculous elements calling mind a Christian superstition.  How that which intellectually attacked the Church culminating in the French Revolution, how that which demolishes all fascism, religious or not, comes to be superstition is not explained, but then biologists are rarely educated people.
 
Mind sits anterior to data. Mind sits anterior to data, questioning, synthesizing, comparing, creating and of course checking on the reality quotient.  The upper level of mentation, the capacity to select, order, analyse, question  and synthesize information and that faculty called imagination which breaks down what is into its constituent parts and remakes it as something new in the world,  is denied, such that people do and are deemed to exist in mental cages, the bars of which may be as flimsy as tissue-paper when subject to fact and reason, but which the caged regard as fixed, immutable truth.  The slaves function intellectually, so far as they can be said to function intellectually at all, only within a given frame of reference. They are incapable of handling questioning of the frame of reference. 
 
Mind is evident in the world.  Religious freaks call it the work of the devil and Stalinist freaks call it insanity. 
 
Historically, equally evident, the consequence of its denial is the stake and the gulag.
 
If mind does not exist, democracy is unnecessary.  You cannot choose if you have nothing to choose with, if you are a merely an empty vessel filled with external influences and biochemistry.
 
We have today an unholy alliance between Stalinists who deny the existence of mind and religious fascists who regard its exercise as evil.  Freedom of conscience does not exist in their world, either because there is no conscience to be free or because the workings of that conscience are the spawn of Satan.  People’s evil and satanic views are simply what they have been filled with and they must be reprogrammed with Truth.  People are of course in this world simply property, whether that of the State or that of God, to think and do and be and say only what their masters permit. 
 
The world's ideologies divide into cultures of the outside and cultures of the inside. A culture of the outside holds that the individual is moulded by the external world and so is both victim and slave - to environment, to fellow-humans, to self - is a hollow gourd or empty shell to be filled with the Beloved Leader's version of reality. Where no determined State attempts at brain-washing occur, the hollow gourd is merely a passive recipient of fate, a creature of instinct, to whom responsibility is meaningless. A culture of the inside holds that the individual has a central processing unit (CPU) otherwise known as mind that analyses the external world and forms himself or herself and so his or her own views from the results of this analysis, is capable of choice. Where there is no CPU, nothing inside to form oneself with, the opinions and reactions of others are defining and must therefore be controlled or censored. This underpins Orwell's 'Freedom is Slavery' and Marcuse's 'repressive tolerance'. You have no means of handling words that displease you. They therefore oppress you.
 
As a result of this, a line has been breached with potentially devastating consequences, merely the complete destruction of the free world.   Words are regarded as the same as deeds.  To hear words one does not like is regarded as the equivalent of a physical blow, to be responded to by a physical blow or by the force of corrupt law.   To be frankly feral is now acceptable and in some quarters held as the norm, to be self-obsessed, self-centred to the point of psychosis, consider that the rest of the species revolves around one and one's delusional beliefs, to have no concept of the equality and separateness of others, to regard them as under one's control to be silenced if they offend, to be incapable of either self-control (containing one's feelings) or self-command (changing one's feelings), and so being impotent, incapable of changing the inner world and hitting out at the external source of one’s pain. to have as one's true god only power, wherein reality is whatever those with power say it is, The Good is whatever those with power say it is, questioning, argument alien and condemned, in short fascism.
 
In the unlovely symbiosis of fascism, the reward for surrender of autonomy, for accepting the mind-set of another, is supposed rights over others, whether the right to punish the more difficult or rights over some sub-section of the species such as the female.
 
Since nothing can be the responsibility of those with nothing within, they are the simply the product of socio-economic forces, it may be held wrong to deride, criticize, censure, abuse them if they behave like pieces of vomit. 
 
Lenin had this to say:
 
We are not utopians, and do not in the least deny the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the need to stop such excesses. In the first place, however, no special machine, no special apparatus of suppression, is needed for this: this will be done by the armed people themselves, as simply and as readily as any crowd of civilized people, even in modern society, interferes to put a stop to a scuffle or to prevent a woman from being assaulted. And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses, which consist in the violation of the rules of social intercourse, is the exploitation of the people, their want and their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to "wither away". We do not know how quickly and in what succession, but we do know they will wither away. With their withering away the state will also wither away.
 
VI Lenin: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State
 
The words ‘sweetly naive’ are not readily associated with Vladimir Ilyich but there is here a statement of the natural goodness of humanity which has set and does set elements on the Left apart from the rest of society when considering violations of the rules of the social intercourse.
 
The problem with ‘bourgeois liberty’ is that its exercise may include telling the innately good they are behaving like and possibly are turd, imposing ‘bourgeois morality’ upon them.  How the workers come to be a separate species who like having their property stolen, their daughters raped, their housing-estates vandalized and covered in graffiti is not explained, though of course in this model the workers have no property.  The chief victims of violations of the those norms of social intercourse by members of the working-class are other members of the working-class and the problem in inner-cities is not bourgeois liberty but its absence.  At what point working-class adults became frightened of their young, too frightened to intervene and make clear which end is up, is a question for historians. It is hard to imagine old-style trade union leaders such as Joe Gormley being scared of kids.
  
Similarly, what some see as intellectual corruption and social engineering is not understood as wrong – it’s only the socio-economic circumstances into which you were born that prevented you excelling academically, everyone is just as bright as everyone else, and having failed five CSEs in no way indicates that you are not just as good as someone who achieved an Honours degree.
 
A world without ‘bourgeois’ morality and ‘bourgeois’ liberty upholding the right to criticize the mad, bad and sad, is not wonderful, it is a sewer such as Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany, governed by the psychotic, the cowardly, the thuggish, the criminal
 
Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
Marx and Engels:  The Manifesto of the Communist Party
 
Naturally there is an element of truth in this or it wouldn’t have caught on - a starving man hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, while the rich and propertied get away with anything. 
 
Reality is not a bourgeois prejudice.  Reality is the person next to you has an equal right to his or her views. Certainly your views may be more significant than his or hers but your position as say Newtonian Emeritus Professor of Physics does not give you ownership of the mind of someone convinced the earth is flat.
 
‘Bourgeois’ democracy does not favour the bourgeoisie.  On the contrary, it says those with some formal status are wholly accountable.  It says the people underneath have the right to say exactly what they think.  It says the people with power can have that power summarily removed from them.  It says people do not have to be afraid of power.  By making power accountable it makes power vulnerable.  There are no overlords beyond question.
 
It is understandable that looking at the world in 1850 Marx and Engels concluded democracy was a bourgeois plot; Engels said as much in 1877:
The great men, who in France prepared men’s minds for the coming revolution, were themselves extreme revolutionists. They recognised no external authority of any kind whatever. Religion, natural science, society, political institutions — everything was subjected to the most unsparing criticism; everything must justify its existence before the judgment-seat of reason or give up existence. Reason became the sole measure of everything. It was the time when, as Hegel says, the world stood upon its head; first in the sense that the human head, and the principles arrived at by its thought, claimed to be the basis of all human action and association; but by and by, also, in the wider sense that the reality which was in contradiction to these principles had, in fact, to be turned upside down. Every form of society and government then existing, every old traditional notion was flung into the lumber room as irrational; the world had hitherto allowed itself to be led solely by prejudices; everything in the past deserved only pity and contempt. Now, for the first time, appeared the light of day, henceforth superstition, injustice, privilege, oppression, were to be superseded by eternal truth, eternal Right, equality based on nature and the inalienable rights of man.
We know today that this kingdom of reason was nothing more than the idealised kingdom of the bourgeoisie; that this eternal Right found its realisation in bourgeois justice; that this equality reduced itself to bourgeois equality before the law; that bourgeois property was proclaimed as one of the essential rights of man; and that the government of reason, the Contrat Social of Rousseau, [21] came into being, and only could come into being, as a democratic bourgeois republic. The great thinkers of the eighteenth century could, no more than their predecessors, go beyond the limits imposed upon them by their epoch.
Engels: Anti-Duhring, Introduction
 
They were, however, wrong.  The tragedy of Marxism is that true democracy is the most revolutionary concept going and by eliminating it supposed Marxists merely re-created an essentially feudal society.
 
The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submissiveness and humbleness, in short, all the qualities of the rabble, and the proletariat, which will not permit itself to be treated as rabble, needs its courage, its self-confidence, its pride and its sense of independence even more than its bread.
Marx: The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter, 1847
 
‘The social principles of Christianity’ are thus those needed to survive under Stalin.
 
We are all born squawly little hairless chimps.  We are also all born with a mind and a capacity for love.  We are all born with the capacity to over-ride the hard-wiring. 
 
Equal rights derive from our common humanity. I walk down the street unimpeded. You walk down the street unimpeded. I wear what I like. You wear what you like. I say what I like. You say what you like. Human history is a footnote to difficulty with these simple notions.       
 
For some the order of the day is I shall say what I want to say, what I think, what I feel. You will say only what I permit you, what does not offend me, or worse, cause me to think or question. You will speak and write within my frame of reference and in terms acceptable to me. My discomfiture – my self – is of greater importance than another's right to speak. ‘I’ is the centre of the universe, the measure of all things. If ‘I’ finds something offensive, it may not exist. If you think the Bible is a sacred text, I must express myself in terms you consider suitable to discussing a sacred text. Why on earth should I? is a question ill-understood by the hierarchical mind. Why might you not express yourself in the frame of reference set by me? The Thought-Policeman’s ego, the vapid assumption of superiority, the right to tell others how to be, the ‘psychology of the individual’ as Jeeves would have put it, are too little debated, on the grounds they constitute personal attack and that is not intellectually valid. Argument ad hominem attacks the person in order to discredit what he says: if he is shown to have lied in the past, that is supposed to discredit his word on this occasion. It is distinct from attacking the person because what he says shows he is a creep, and an irrational creep at that .
 
Liberty is a human concept and most of our problems with it stem from the primate elements in the brain. The most elementary of these evolutionary hang-ups is the primate pecking order. A larger more powerful ape beats his chest and otherwise suggests his displeasure and the unconscious thinker toes the line. Only might is right. The mental development of individual humans starts where physical evolution ends. Obsession with form, external appearance, is another evolutionary hang-up. As a chimp recoils at the shape of a snake, so racists and sexists respond to colour or gender. Elements on the Left are equally hypnotised by biology. Where individual characteristics such as honesty, integrity, intellect, application - qualities of mind - have been abandoned as 'elitist' or  'relative values', all that remains is the nonsense that the most insignificant of human attributes, gender and race, are defining.
 
Mind is supposed not to exist and recourse to fact and reason is rejected as elitist. The West is therefore supposed to lie defenceless in what is essentially a mind-game: the trick is persuade (by force or otherwise) the majority of people to a mind-set from which mind, fact and reason are absent. In particular they should not allude to the facts of democracy and civil liberties; since mind does not exist, the ability to make up one’s mind cannot exist, let alone the right to do so and, Homo sapiens sapiens being in its raw state a self-centred little beast, cf. any toddler, people cannot be expected to consider another’s point of view and so accept another’s equal right to speak.
 
As Roosevelt said, there is nothing to fear but fear itself.  In too many influential quarters today, having a mind of one’s own is regarded as suspect and probably evil, making people frightened to speak, whether in the political sphere, or against simple violations of the rules of social intercourse witnessed in the streets. 
 
RELIGION
 
5. But mortals suppose that the gods are born (as they themselves are), and that they wear man's clothing and have human voice and body. [Zeller, 524, n. 2. Cf Arist. Rhet. ii. 23; 1399 b 6.]
6. But if cattle or lions had hands, so as to paint with their hands and produce works of art as men do, they would paint their gods and give them bodies in form like their own-horses like horses, cattle like cattle. [Zeller, 525, n. 2. Diog Laer. iii. 16; Cic. de nat. Deor. i. 27.]
Xenophanes c C570-475 BC
The following are evident:
Religion is a potent force for evil
Religion is a potent force for good
Christians argued vigorously for and killed in defence of
slavery and the slave trade
Christians argued vigorously for killed to achieve the abolition of slavery and the slave trade
Christians upheld the  obscenities of the Industrial Revolution (and so killed by hunger and disease)
Christians fought for humane working conditions and decent  wages
Christians built, bolstered and killed for apartheid
Christians worked to tear down apartheid.
Christians supported Hitler.
Some  particularly heroic Christians, including priests, pastors and nuns, actively opposed Hitler.
The majority of good respectable Christians ‘walked by on  the other side’ throughout the whole of Occupied Europe while their  fellow-citizens  (Jewish, gay, gipsy subdivisions thereof) were rounded up and  taken off  to the camps.
Conventional religion teaches mindless obedience and mindless obedience is not a virtue; fear is not a virtue.
Conventionally  religious people are thus prone to have fur between the ears. They will believe  something as intellectually ridiculous as ‘a group of Jews  wanted the death of  Jesus therefore all Jews are responsible for the  death of Jesus’.
Vicious  people have a vicious god, the god of fear. Nice people have a nice god, the god of love.

Both Bible and Qur’an contain flatly contradictory statements,  particularly  on the matter of smiting one’s enemies and putting them to fire  and the  sword. It is impossible, therefore, for anyone to believe every word of either literally. Claim to mindless obedience is therefore fake. Religion does not make people evil. It does not make them good. It  does, however, as routinely justify and motivate evil as it does good. Humans make god in their own image and likeness and religious people cover the same gamut  of human behaviour as  non-religious people.

To say ‘religion’ must be protected is therefore to say that people who may be intellectually and morally on the level of the average concentration-camp guard merit legal protection. It is  also  to say that particular kinds of irrationality and general derangement  must be treated as sanity.
Marx on religion (from'Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right by Karl Marx,  Deutsch- Französische Jahrbücher, February, 1844):
 
The foundation of irreligious criticism is this:Man makes religion, religion does not make man.
 
If your natural propensity is to be thoroughly unpleasant, you will ascribe to a thoroughly unpleasant version of  religion and have a god who is repulsive, yes.
 
Religion is indeed man's self-consciousness and self-awareness so long as he has not found himself or has already lost himself again. But, man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man -- state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, it enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality.
 
A total but delusional construct of life, the universe and everything, yup.
 
The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.
 
Indeed
The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
 
Yup
 
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.
 
 
Good grief!
 
The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
 
So long as he keeps out of other people’s airspace.
 
It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.
 
One is a little hard-pressed to find a justification here for the drivelling of the fascist Left that whatever garbage is in someone's head, wholly divorced from reality, especially if it is religious garbage, is sacrosanct and must not be disturbed by reality.