Deadly peace

When I was a little girl I used to read the bible. One day I said to myself that we were very lucky that christianism changed our life. In ancient times people used to make war to each others, leaders were cruel with the people, neighbours and friends used to stab one another in the back for any reason. But one day Jesus said : "love one another". His message spread in time to humanity. Even if it took 2000 years most people finally understood that living in peace was nicer. Cheer up. In a few more centuries the whole world will be in peace.

I recently read the book Ceasar's Messiah from Joseph Atwill. Though the form is dubious, the content diserves reflection. He concludes by saying : "Though Christianity may have begun as a cruel joke, it has become the basis for much of humankind's moral progress". I fully agreed. A previous quote on the same page expresses the same idea in a different way : "What would Western civilization be like if, instead of emerging from the Christian tradition, it had emerged from a culture that worshiped strength and scorned weakness ?". What ? I disagree.

Wars of conquest, crusades, holy inquisition, slavery, genocides in Australia, in America, in South Africa, colonialism, support to dictatures ... Nowadays the western countries can afford to barge in any other country to murder the leader in charge. Kadhafi is the proof, the migrants crisis in Europe is the bitter consequence.

No one can claim that the western culture fosters peace. Things are on their way but we are far from the goal. Is it actually christianism that convinced little by little a part of humanity to calm down ?

In fact christianism has been a tool to indulge in many atrocities. Some people say that the bible notably justified slavery. Christians answer that it's not true, there is no such thing in the bible. Yet here are a few explicit extracts.

  • 1 Corinthians 7 : 20 Let each abide in that calling in which he has been called. 21 Hast thou been called [being] a bondman, let it not concern thee
  • Ephesians 6 : 5 Bondmen, obey masters according to flesh, with fear and trembling
  • Colossians 3 : 22 Bondmen, obey in all things your masters according to flesh
  • 1 Timothy 6 : 1 Let as many bondmen as are under yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour
  • Titus 2 : 9 bondmen to be subject to their own masters, to make themselves acceptable in everything; not gainsaying
  • 1 Peter 2 : 18 Servants, [be] subject with all fear to your masters, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the ill-tempered. 19 For this [is] acceptable, if one, for conscience sake towards God, endure griefs, suffering unjustly

You are not dreaming. God is happy when a victim rejoices in injustice. I can also quote a few extracts that advice absolute obedience to the leaders.

  • Romans 13 : 1 Let every soul be subject to the authorities that are above [him]. For there is no authority except from God; and those that exist are set up by God. 2 So that he that sets himself in opposition to the authority resists the ordinance of God; and they who [thus] resist shall bring sentence of guilt on themselves
  • Romans 13 : 6 For on this account ye pay tribute also; for they are God's officers, attending continually on this very thing
  • 1 Peter 2 : 13 Be in subjection [therefore] to every human institution for the Lord's sake; whether to [the] king as supreme, 14 or to rulers as sent by him

Such a surprise. Revolutionaries who have overthrown bloodthursty monarchies and dictatures will burn in hell. Complete submission of the woman to the man is thoroughly documented as well.

  • 1 Corinthians 11 : 3 But I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman's head [is] the man, and the Christ's head God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [anything] on his head, puts his head to shame. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her own head to shame; for it is one and the same as a shaved [woman]. 6 For if a woman be not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if [it be] shameful to a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be covered. 7 For man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God's image and glory; but woman is man's glory. 8 For man is not of woman, but woman of man. 9 For also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. 10 Therefore ought the woman to have authority on her head, on account of the angels
  • 1 Corinthians 14 : 34 Let [your] women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not permitted to them to speak; but to be in subjection, as the law also says. 35 But if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in assembly
  • 1 Timothy 2 : 11 Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection; 12 but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness

The new testament is certain, christian women must wear the veil. It is not "modest clothing", it is authority on the head. Note that muslim men are a shame to god because some of them cover their head when they pray. If the kippa covers the head then jewish men are also a shame to god.

The problème is that christians speak a lot about their religion of "peace and love" while barely a few of them has read their sacred book. Appart from the extracts that are lectured on sunday at church, they don't know anything about their founding texts. When such controversial verses are mentioned, christians usually resort to 2 types of explanations :

1) Wait. That was a long time ago. Those who have written this had a different mindset, we have evolved.

  • The bible was supposed to have been dictated by god himself. Has it been finally written by men ? What if they were wrong ? What if they had lied ?
  • How to sort out that which is still relevant from that which is obsolete ? Do we discard what we dislike and select what we like ? Can we each set out own comfortable religion by picking according to our desire ?

2) These are mystical writings. They hold a symbolic meaning. Only the initiate can understand the underlying spiritual wisdom hidden in the sacred text.

  • How to sort out that which is symbolic from that which is concrete ? Why does submission of the slave is symbolic while hatred for the sodomite is concrete ? Is it like a restaurant menu ? Can we choose what we want to be symbols and what we want to be concrete according to our personal wishes ?
  • The non-initiated is likely to do horrible things if he mistakes symbolic things for concrete ones, by arguing that god condones and demands such actions.

That is exactly what happened in the last few centuries : women were inferior, homosexuals were persecuted, humans have been sold as slaves, the other religions have been fought, the heretics have been exterminated ...

Now I have changed my mind. Christianism hasn't brought universal peace and love. Far from it. By the way all sacred texts hold lovey-dovey words and sickening commands. The vultarks often used to wave their sacred book to justify they awful behavior. So where does the current tendency toward peace arise from ?

Not so long ago leaders used to indulge into all kind of horrors and the people had to meekly bow down low because the power was bestowed by god. The king was crowned in a church or a cathedral by a bishop. A little cross on the forhead with holy oil and lo ! He could exploit, tax, invade, imprison, loot, rape, torture, slaught as he wished. Challenging the political power in charge was a blasphemy. Do we have to look for an event that moved religion away to the background of public life ?

I think that it is the secularism imposed by the French Revolution to establish democracy that let slowly the world violence back off. It makes sense. Kings were the agents of god on Earth. Nobility was considered as divine emanation. Nobles only were allowed to join in clergy. The rest of the people had to merely work, obey, pay the countless taxes and even die when the royal whims required them to do so.

Groups of people felt prejudiced in time. Indeed the merchants were becoming richer and richer. But their ambitions would crash on a glass ceiling : "Are you noble ? No ? Then your rising ends here". The king and his divine gang were appointed by god to exercise earthly power. How could the bourgeois steal it ?

They had to break down the influence of religion to establish a new kind of legitimacy. This hasn't been hard to achieve because the abuse of power was causing so much pain to the people, that they agreed with great joy to throw away the unbearable divine burden. The bourgeois leveraged the anger resulting from a starvation to trigger massive bloody popular uprisings that overthrew French monarchy, destroyed the clergy and anihilated the nobility.

The new type of legitimacy set to justify their seizure of power is base on 2 concepts, of which one is public, the other is more confidential.

The bourgeois heralded on every rooftop that the governance method would be democracy. Instead of being granted by god, the legitimacy to exercise power would stem from the people's will. They were required to stick more or less that concept because the popular wrath that had given them power could have deprived them in the same way.

But by rejecting religion, the bourgeois were insidiously injecting a new dogma into the collective subconscious. "We are not looking for god anymore, we are looking for money. We are not aiming at heaven anymore, we are aiming at comfort. We don't want to become saints anymore, we want to become rich. We don't cultivate piety anymore, we cultivate profit. We don't nurture the rigor of asceticism anymore, we nurture the levity of luxury. Spirit doesn't exist, spirituality is a fairy tale, we can only develop material possessions."

The populations are thus engaged in a frantic race to material welfare. For millions to turn into billions in the richest people's pocket, actions need to be carried out on 2 fronts. One the one hand the countries which provide consummers must dwell in peace. On the other hand countries which provide raw material must be in trouble. People buy all they can when they live in abundance and happiness. People hand over their potential when they live in deprivation and distress. Western countries which enjoy relative peace can thus get commodities at low price in order to bountifully produce anything to satisfy their hysterical consumption.

According to me this is the only reason why violence had decreased on a global scale. It's because peace is mandatory to consume a lot. The one who is afraid of tomorrow spares. The one who is confident about the future spends. Peace is necessary for vultarks to get rich.

Revolutionaries have fooled the people. They didn't want the people to have the power. They just wanted to oust the divine agents for their expansion to be boundless. Colonialism which is a politico-economical notion has thus replaced slavery which had religious undertone. The woman remained inferior until the day when the power mongers realized that she would be more profitable if she could live a life on her own. Indeed a women who is chained to her husband doesn't pay taxes, doesn't pay a rent nor repays any loan. A repressed homosexual locks himself up. When he is tolerated, he feels better, he consumes freely. All is set and done to ease the various tensions in order to prompt the people to consume.

The cult of money is THE modern religion. We must earn, we must spend, otherwise life stops. Who can live without money nowadays ? Even those who are sickened by this way of life are required to comply.

Paradoxically, the very money that daily holds us hostages is the garantor of the relative peace that we enjoy. "Relative" because the cult of money has brought a new form of large scale violence. Indeed profit justifies all kinds of abominations. Chemical and electromagnetical pollution are evidences of that. Measures are taken at the political level to authorise the sale of products which harm or even kill consumers. Their production destroys the environment. Allergies, cancers and all kinds of degenerative illnesses are soaring. The number of centenarians is droping. Children are born with frailties that ruin their existence to come. Fertility is sharply declining.

The consumer at peace looks like a cow that is locked into sordid warehouse, plugged on a milking machine that pumps out the milk to death. If the cow was stressed it would deliver less milk. Therefore the farmer works hard to keep a calm and sanitized atmosphere in the warehouse. He doesn't hesitate to feed it with drugs to dispell its anxiety. He doesn't hesitate either to kill his neighbour to get free hay. He whispers to the cow's ears : "don't worry, I'm here to take good care of you".

The violence of the old times has evolved into deadly peace. The so-called democracy based on the holy money is currently showing signs of weakness. Why brainstorming to make political reforms when this system is doomed to disappear? There is one question left. What will our next governance method look like ?

Go back