Open Letter to Michael Jones and Israel Adam Shamir
The Poisoning of the Earth by Ahriman’s Inspired Fairy Tales of Redemption and Natural Selection
A commentary to A. McCarthy versus Ch. Hitchens polemics on the “Greatness of God”
I. “The one who gives has the right to take back”?
At the end of May I had the possibility of reading, thanks to “shamireaders” website, a long article by Anthony McCarthy, published initially at www.culturewars.com[1], containing a critique of a currently ‘best selling’ book titled “God is not Great”, written by Christopher Hitchens. McCarthy attacks this atheism-praising work from the point of view of dogmatic Catholicism. Thus it was no wonder that my ‘mind&body’ (taken as a whole) reaction, that of an “apostate Christian” who for 26 years has been at odds with the neo-Judaist “subdue the earth” ideology of pope John Paul II, was of course to favor Hitchens’ arguments against the god of the Old Testament. Especially upsetting to me was McCarthy’s easily written statement: “When describing the story of Abraham and Isaac he (Hitchens) can only see attempted murder. He fails to realise that the Giver of life has every right to end life”, etc. We in Poland, even as children, learn a popular proverb “kto daje i odbiera, ten się w piekle poniewiera” (The one who gives, and than takes back, shall find his fate in hell). This dictum, so well known to children, suggests that biblical Abraham, the “Father of Nations”, was an odious person who deserves to stay in Hell[2]. From this popular proverb’s perspective, the same should be said about the “God the Father” of all Christians. Indeed, McCarthy interprets the sacral murder theme, reported in OT, in concordance with the logically “hellish”, most important dogma of the New Testament: “Of course, the story of Abraham and Isaac prefigures the ultimate sacrifice of Christ at Calvary”.
At the beginning I wanted to keep my acid remarks about the hidden nature of the Catholic religion to myself, especially considering that both Michael Jones (owner of the www.culturewars.com website) and Israel Shamir (www.israelshamir.net), thanks to whom I had the possibility to read the McCarthy’s “Christian apologist” pamphlet, are my friends who visited me in Zakopane two years ago[3]. But my scholar’s habit, exercised through decades of my university career, to pinpoint and to denounce an evidently evil reasoning, has imposed on me its own behavioral imperative. As the “pagan Christian” Aristotle used to egoistically say, “Amicus Plato [Plato is my friend], but the truth is more important to me”.
At the end of June, I finished my duties as senior lecturer of philosophy at Pomeranian Academy, so I had the time to reread McCarthy's pamphlet titled “And Neither is (Great) Christopher Hitchens”. On this second reading I realized that Hitchens, like his adversary McCarthy, reasons in an equally superficial, “imposed-from-the-outside” manner in matters concerning the life sciences. So I got additional incentives to try to shed more light on religio-scientific dogmas born out of spiritual Darkness and Evil, initially among Christian, then post-Christian, populaces; dogmas which poison the life – and the life of not only humans – on our ever more polluted and ugly planet. (A full week after completing the above sentence, I discovered that the subtitle of Hitchens’ book expresses the same idea: “How Religion Poisons Everything”).
II. Try to kill and incinerate your adolescent son, father ... and your Tribe will be blessed among Nations
In order to grasp where the cognitive error is hidden, the error that transforms pious Catholics into men of evil, it is necessary to denounce St. Paul’s fraudulent assertion that the evil done to Jesus – a noble truth teller – has become salutary “for many”. McCarthy summarizes this ecclesiastical dogma as follows: “According to Christian doctrine, Christ the God-man chose to suffer and to die in order to atone for our sins. ... His sacrifice possesses an infinite value because he is Logos, and it is made out of love for me because there is nothing I would be capable of doing “naturally” (i.e. according to my fallen nature) that could adequately atone for my sins.” As these “sins” are considered, they are “inexorably bound up with the Original Sin of Adam’s faithlessness”. According to the Bible, the Original Sin consisted of human curiosity to learn what is Good and what is Evil; to consume the fruits of the Forbidden Tree of Knowledge of Ethics. And indeed, the pre-Christian “sinful” pagan Greeks, in a net difference from the Law obeying Hebrews, knew very well how to distinguish the good from the evil. To these “pagans” the Knowledge (represented by goddesses Sophia and Athena) was the Good, whereas Evil was the Ignorance, for which sorry state of an “empty mind” the Greeks had no god to make a visual representation.
Such Old Greek “sinful” understanding of Ethics suggests that the “God” of ancient Bible writers was Misologos, the Devil. During first centuries of Christianity the so called “Marcionist heresy” flourished, denouncing the God of Old Testament as an evil demon or demiurg. This “heresy” has not been completely eradicated, and several friends of mine (and of Michael Jones) competent in matters of religion, among them writer Israel Adam Shamir and philosopher Robert Hickson, call me a “Marcionist”. But once we denounce – as an evil demon – the “God” of the OT, we automatically denounce his creations, in particular this “Zoological Garden of Eden” which God had created in order to imprison in it the pair of his beloved “happy imbecile” proto-humans. And of course, the atonement made by Christ – as the Logos Crucified – for the “sin” of natural human curiosity, has led to attempts to re-install on earth a New Regime of Happy Imbeciles, commonly known as Christianity. No wonder, then, that apostate Frenchmen, observing the behavior of piouschrétiens, coined the term cretins. To persevere in such a spiritual state is nothing to be proud of, so Marcion, like Muhammad five hundred years later, assured his followers that Jesus, as a “Son of a Kind Stranger,” didn’t suffer at all, not even in appearance. According to this Marcionist (and later Moslem) interpretation, all the scenes of Calvary are fake; Jesus – The Messenger (Logos carrier) of God – has therefore not atoned for our sins[4].
In the event that this alternative version of Jesus' last hours on earth is valid, the proverbial Emperor’s Clothes of Pastors of the Church (they dress themselves in black chasubles commemorating the ever repeated scenes of Christ’s Passion), suddenly vanish. These “naked” Men of Prestige reveal themselves to be a bunch of mentally lazy but greedy for power imbeciles and buffoons, which indeed “poison everything around them” as observed it, with accuracy, Hitchens. (By the way, the same holds in the case of the so-called “Holocaust Religion” priesthood. Once we dare to observe that the object of their admiration – the mass sacrifice of 6 million Jewish souls during WWII – is a largely imaginary event, the Supernatural Strength of their “groupies” disappears; they reveal themselves as a bunch of greedy-for-power idiots, who “decided to know nothing among us but Jews, and them in the fire of Auschwitz furnaces” – to paraphrase the famous exclamation of St. Paul in his “First Letter to the Corinthians”.)
I wrote a few years ago that the Polish philosopher, painter and dramatist S.I. Witkiewicz already a century ago was making a stupidity from the principal assertion of St. Paul, who had managed to convince the criminally imbecile Christians that “out of an evil (the crucification of Christ – 'The anointed of God') the good (the salvation of Christians) had resulted”. This assertion, repeated mechanically by “our” priesthood for nearly two thousand years as the “good news”, brought Witkacy to comment it in a logically scrupulous way that “FROM AN (UNPUNISHED) EVIL ONLY AN EVEN GREATER EVIL CAN ORIGINATE”. And this indeed happened once the Church, during the Councils of Nice and than Ephesus in early 4th and 5th centuries, accepted the so-called pastoral letters of Pharisee Saul/Paul, as having been “illuminated by God”. To demonstrate the evil hidden in these letters it is sufficient to point to the barbarity of Western “Christian” colonizers worldwide. As the Western Hemisphere is considered, it is worth quoting the opinion of Burton L. Mack, professor of the New Testament at the School of Theology at Claremont, in southern California, who “blames Christianity for contributing to centuries of U.S. wrongdoing, from wars against Native Americans to interventionism abroad[5].” And there is no doubt, as pointed out already four decades ago the historian of technical development Lynn White in “Science”[6], that the Torah commandment “Subdue the earth” has become the First Motor of industrial development – and thus automatically also of the earth's devastation, which is particularly visible in once- beautiful Northern America.
In the case of American Indians we are used to thinking of their sad fate as linked with their technical backwardness, but in the case of India itself its backwardness was imposed by “Christian” colonisers. To quote Lord Macaulay’s historic speech in the British Parliament of 1832, commonly referred to as The Minutes: “I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation”.(In this form the Macauly’s speech is known in India.) And nothing new has happened since the early 19th century: In Poland, on the 1st of January 1990, “the holy cross” was reintroduced to the chamber of our Parliament. Precisely from that moment the incredible corruption of our elites began, we witnessed the forced impoverishment and the necessity of emigration of millions of our young people combined with the accumulation of tremendous wealth by others, and we accepted the incredible ugliness of our cities ravaged “as in India” by billboards and other imbecilic advertisements popping up everywhere. And of course, our churches advertise on their billboards that this year we celebrate “THE YEAR OF ST. PAUL”.
III. God Loves the Greedy and the Corrupt
How do we can get out of this “Impasse of Moses”[7]? Once we consider the OT to be the Book of Evil People, the Judeo-Christian Decalogue should also be regarded as an evil product, this despite Catholic pretensions to be the contrary. We shall thus feel no inhibition overstepping its First Commandment “You shall have no other gods before Me”. Once we dare to do this, we can ask: Do in other cultures gods exist, which behave like the “Lord” who is praised both by the Old and New Testaments? And here the answer is indeed easy, once we recall the ancient cultural setting in which the Bible was completed. It was in Babylon in the 5th century BC, where Persian influences were very strong, as confirmed by the particularly ugly Book of Esther which glorifies a mass homicide of Iranians organized by Jews. And in Persian Zoroastrian religion does not exist only one God, as in Judeo-Christianity, but two Gods: One of them, called Ahuramazda, is the God of Truthtellers, while his Enemy, Ahriman is the god of “the evil thought”, “the personification of the Lie, creator of Death, creator of evil animals and of poisonous plants, the god which acts during the night, fearing the sunlight, the Demon of War, of Quarrel and of Murder, the Arch Devil of Lie, Revolt, and Weakness”[8].
All these Ahrimanian characteristics fit very well the doings of the “Lord” of Old Testament. This “God” is “the creator” of Egyptian plagues, he is responsible for the death of first born sons, and for the bloody Wars so much praised by prophet Isaiah; in the Bible he animates the vicious behaviour of His Chosen People, loves the lies of Abraham and of Jacob, and highly appreciates the murder, by Moses' clan of Levites, of three thousand of their “brothers and sons” under Mount Sinai. (By the way, the number of three thousand curiously coincides with the number of victims of 9-11 events, during which the modern “Temple of Golden Calf”, known as the WTC, was destroyed!) It is not without reason that the “righteous” prophet Malachi curses ordinary Jews for their honest observation that “Every one who does evil is good in the eyes of the LORD, and he delights in them” (2, 17).
The same “god” stands behind pages of the New Testament, as Pope John Paul II insisted in late 20th century. In particular, Ahriman has inspired parts of several epistles written by apostle Paul. This self-appointed apostle initially was “breathing threats and murder” towards Christians (Acts, 9, 1), and later on wrote the famous Hymn of Love (I Cor. 9), which Hymn at the glory of Eros we should read together with Paul's renewed threats of “flaming fire (and vengeance) inflicted upon those who do not know God” (II Thes. 1, 8). St. Paul, who all life remained a faithful student of rabbi Gamaliel, prior to his conversion participated in the lapidation (stoning) of St. Stephen, and probably also participated in “the democratic referendum” held in Jerusalem AD 33, as a member of the crowd voting for the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth instead of Barabas.
This OT God “loves the Greedy and the Corrupt”, as I observed in 1996 in a booklet entitled “The War of Gods”[9], pointing to the behaviour of Industrious and Prolific Jacob. This microcephalian, so praised by the Bible, “was so dumb that not only, during his nuptial night, did he fail to recognize with whom he was in bed, but also, working for fourteen years to earn his beloved Rachel, he apparently didn’t notice that the object of his desire had become an old virgin. (Or, taking into the consideration the sexual habits of Jewish females, Rachel had become the “false virgin” from the comedy of Aristophanes: she fornicated with all around, while her dumb intended was toiling to earn her charms for the future.)”
The cognitive corruption of God’s Chosen People made inroads into the milieu of the extraordinarily dumb, but greedy-for-redemption (and for god’s other favours) pastors of the Christian flock. It is this congregation of Fathers of the Church which in AD 431 accepted Paul’s doctrine, according to which “Christ the God-man chose to suffer and to die in order to atone for our sins”. What remains beyond the possibility of cognition of “true Catholics” is the sordid fact that St. Paul formulated his theory of “salvation of Christians, by a punishment of Christ-Logos” using the model of the philo-criminal Hebrew practice of “atonement of sins” by a deliberate ‘punishment’ of innocent domestic animals (see the explanation of the prosaic origin, of this most important Christian dogma, in “Letter to Hebrews”, chapt. 9-12 to 10-18).
The corruption of the Christian spirit, by an acceptance of the “logos of Paul” (which logos, according to Keller[10], was refused by Marcion, despite the introduction into his canon of “castrated” fragments of Paul’s epistles), has led to a centuries-long plague of incredibly cruel crimes committed in the name of “Christ crucified”. The pathology of Christian “missionary” wars, and of burning heretics at the stake, began to die out in Europe only after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Nevertheless, without a thoroughgoing criticism of the fundamentals of “our” religion, we cannot expect its renovation along ideas (the “Logos”) outlined by Jesus as reported by the Gospels. At present, senior researchers in “borderline problems of Christianity” are beginning to reject “our” religion as a whole, like 56-years-old Professor Tomasz Wieclawski from the University of Poznan. Until last year he was a member of the International Theological Commission in Rome, and a member of the Presidium of Guardini Fundation in Berlin. Nevertheless, in 2007 he not only abandoned his vocation as a Catholic priest, but, in the presence of two witnesses in his parish church, he officially confirmed his apostasy from Christianity.
The reason for his painful apostasy (Weclawski had to change his name in order to avoid harassment in Poland) was his realization that the Catholic Church has become an institution completely different from the one Jesus of Nazareth wanted to set up. In a short communiqué published by the Polish media we read that according to Weclawski “Jesus was defeated in his battle for the reconstruction of the existing (in Israel at his time) socio-religious hierarchy. He become a victim of messianic expectations, which led to his rejection by the elite, and to his condemnation to death. But Jesus’ most painful defeat happened after his crucification – it was the interpretation of his defeat as a sacrifice.”
Indeed, these Three Great Defeats, which Jesus of Nazareth suffered in Israelo-Palestine two thousands years ago, bear enormous consequences on the fate of the planet, taken as a whole:
1st. The New Testament of Arhiman’s Evil People suggests that no revolt is possible against the clique of “robbers and thieves” atop the Chosen People flock.
2nd. The NT warns that everyone who attempts to fight for more just social relations – and for a clear vision of how society works – will be condemned as a criminal, and mercilessly punished.
3rd. It informs us that precisely those enterprising individuals, like St. Paul and his hidden masters, who have organized the Calvary of the truth-telling Galilean, by turning it into a sacrifice, have managed to impose themselves as the Pastors of naive Christians.
Weclawski, in the course of his career, has collaborated with the present pope Benedict XVI. This new Pope delivered a very significant lecture at the University of Regensburg in September 2006 (to which lecture McCarthy refers in his polemics with Hitchens), and through this lecture we may sense that atop the Catholic hierarchy exist alert people who are conscious of the cretino-criminal “Impasse of Paul”, into which the Church was maneuvered centuries ago. Maneuvered in by bishops greedy for power and wealth like Cyril of Alexandria and his Carthaginian contemporary Aurelius Augustin in the early 5th century.
IV. The Modern Science of Ignorance of Principles of Life, and its OT Origin
In polytheistic religions divinities symbolizing the Creation were different from those symbolizing Destruction: the Greeks had Eros, which binds people (and animals) together, in opposition to Eris-Discordia, which destroys friendships and mutual trust. In the Hindu pantheon of gods, hundred-handed Vishnu was the Creator, while Shiva was the god of Death. In Persian Zoroastrianism, Ahuramazda directed hosts of robust, suntanned truthtellers, while his enemy Ahriman directed swarms of pale, underground conspirators, deceivers, robbers and murders, by their manner of life resembling fearing the light, blind termites. In Judeo-Christian monotheism these mutually opposite characteristics are intermixed. The contemporary pious Catholic writer McCarthy argues facilely that “the Giver of life has every right to end life”, and so on. The Unique God of such “Christians” must thus be a Double-Faced Being, commonly known as a Hypocrite. And it is precisely this double faced “God-Father”, which is the object of a sincere hate of Jesus of Nazareth, who in the Gospels cursed 77 times the “Scribes and the Pharisees”: “Man cannot serve Two Masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other,... You cannot serve both God and Mammon”.
One of these, largely forgotten curses states “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves and you hindered those who were entering”. This curse we find in Luke 11, 52; in the Gospel of Matthew, destined for people of Jewish cultural background, the word ‘knowledge’ became substituted by the vague notion of the ‘kingdom of heaven’. This substitution we can explain by the cultural background of ancient Israelites for whom the term ‘knowledge’ meant “fruit of a sinful curiosity”. This “godless” curiosity was so much despised by this lover of Ignorance, the Pharisee Paul, that he “decided to know nothing among us except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (I Cor. 2,2). Christopher Hitchens' book “God is not Great” provides testimony that the Old Testamental Holy Spirit of Ignorance is finally starting to vanish among English-speaking people. But the mindset of men, grown for centuries in the poisonous vapors of the Bible, is not so easy to bring back to Logic and Reason.
In particular the Judeo-Christian “Book of Ahriman” leads an unobservant reader to believe that: a. The creation of novel forms of life, of novel sub-species, novel cultural habits, and of new civilization programs happens always “from outside”, decided by an exogenous, impossible-to-understand Being; b. The biblical Creator is in fact the Creator of Destruction; the establishment of novel forms of social life is obtained by an eradication of preceding civilizations; and c. Human cognitive inactivity is highly prized by the Lord: “the one who does no [mental] work, but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his [mindless] faith is reckoned as righteousness.” (Rom. 4, 3). In short, all creativity, both this visible in external Living Nature, and in our own personal behavior, is absolutely not linked with our own – and other living species' – activity.
It is easy to observe that all these features of “Creator of Destruction” have reappeared in modern theories of evolution, which were constructed in countries in which the teaching of the Bible had become obligatory. Thus it is no wonder that in countries “under God” – like England and the USA today – no honest description of creative, biological forces is permitted. Just the contrary: forces of Death and Destruction, like those worshipped by Darwinians' Natural Selection, are considered to be the First Motor of Evolution, in particular of the evolution of our human “super” species. As this famous “evolution” is considered, both Hitchens and McCarthy represent the same Anglo-Saxon “culture of blinders”, in which the precise demonstration of how New Information is created remains forbidden. Hitchens (the “newly discovered Jew”) is ascribing the Creation of species to the destructive forces of Natural Selection, while McCarthy (the outdated Catholic apologist) clings to biblical fairy tales of an instant creation, in particular of a creation “ex nihilo” of God’s Chosen People.
Does there exist an alternative to the “blind alley” of noxious (both for humans and their environment) Western scientifico-religious concepts of development of life forms “ex nihilo”, solely with the help of destructive Natural Selection? We have to remark here that both Hitchens and McCarthey, due to their “liberal” upbringing, entirely ignore the Eternal Bio-Principe of Creation, which the French biologist Paul Wintrebert put as the title of his book “LE VIVANT CRÉATEUR DE SON ÉVOLUTION” published in 1962.[11]. Already in antiquity Aristotle, so despised by the early Fathers of the Church, observed that all higher concepts of reality are created in human minds thanks to their capacity for association of facts, which alert individuals are able to observe during their active life. “The one who does no mental work, and is accustomed to passively believe, will soon have an important part of his brain dead”, as Aristotle would note ironically, and later would repeat it the French naturalist Lamarck. In modern times these old psychological observations took the form of Pavlov’s Law of Learning, which is valid in case of all higher sensate animals. Ultimately they led to the formulation by Jean Piaget of the genetic theory of personality maturation. According to the School of Genetic Epistemology in Geneva, children – as well as all other higher animals – during active exploration of their environment encounter various obstacles, including those which are harmful to them, like germs, UV irradiations, cold weather, difficult-to-climb trees, and so on. And by a biologically automatic (over)recovery from micro-lesions, which these “perturbations” induce in organisms of young animals, a person (or other animal) fully adapted to a particular environment is grown.
This biological realm remains effectively beyond the cognitive capacity of people like Noam Chomsky, whose childhood environment consisted of reading and rereading the pages of the Old Testament – in that “Book of Ahriman” nothing resembling an effort to understand and improve the world is reported. No wonder that numerous scientists of orthodox Jewish, Protestant, or Anglo-Saxon origin, are completely unable to imagine that New Information is created only thanks to intensive, manifold repetition during youth of psycho-motorical efforts, as in the case of learning of a language or learning to swim. In this matter, the supposedly well educated professor Chomsky is positively sure that “We have substantial, really overwhelming proofs that essential aspects of our mental and social life, among them also the language, are determined as a part of our biological endowment, and that they are not acquired by the process of learning, in particular by a training”[12]. According to Chomsky, ACTIVITY DOES NOT LEAD TO CREATIVITY, which “scientific discovery” remains in a complete disagreement with the results of more than 50 years of research by Jean Piaget, who summed up his life experience in biology and then in psychology in the title of his last book before his death “LE COMPORTEMENT, MOTEUR D’ÉVOLUTION” (Behavior, the Motor of Evolution).
Due to Chomsky-like, ‘genetically established’ ignorance of the Eternal Law of Biology, all Judeo-Christian elucubrations on the theme of the “Greatness of God” are necessarily lame, for the “God” which writers like McCarthy, Hitchens or Dawkins[13] imagine, is sterilized (“circumcised”) from the divine faculty of creation of new, more precise ideas, permitting us to better understand both ourselves and the world surrounding us. Somehow St. Paul’s proud exclamation “Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” has become the “flesh” of neo-Darwinism-dominated Western Science. And adepts of such “circumcised” science will no doubt bring the Planet Earth to a bitter end.
Dr. Marek Glogoczowski, Chair of Philosophy, Pomeranian Academy, PL
(Below is a table illustrating the extent to which Darwinian theory was modeled on the primitive mis-information we find in the first verses of the Bible, which “Logos” is so much venerated by the Anglo-Saxon Supermen of thought.)
An outline of the Biblical sources of Darwinism
A wider acceptation of any scientific idea is obtained, when its receivers have their individual associative apparatus appropriately tuned-up for its reception. In the Anglo-Saxon culture men are (were) exposed from childhood to the teaching of the Bible, and thus the reality they perceive is to a large extent modeled by the “directing truths” of Holy Scripture. This fact, known from developmental psychology and neurology, is sufficient to explain both the genesis and the subsequent success of Darwinian, and then neo-Darwinian, concepts of evolution.
1. The logical conclusion of God’s order to multiply and fill the earth, which has been inserted into the first page of the book of Genesis, is the predictable overgrowth of the number of living organisms beyond their ability to feed. Such a “divine order” must lead to the struggle for existence imagined by Anglican clergyman Thomas Malthus. (The Old Testamental archetype, of such a struggle for the means of subsistence and proliferation, is provided by the attitude of the patriarch Jacob towards Esau, and in general by the attitude of Jews towards other nations.) This inter-specific struggle for life has became the essence of the theory of evolution elaborated by another theology graduate, Charles Darwin.
2. The neo-Darwinian theory of August Weisman, added to original Darwinism at the beginning of the twentieth century, postulates the existence of qualitatively different biological substances: soma andgermen. It also has its ancient precedent in the naturalist thought of Hebrew theologian Saul/Paul from Tarsus. In his First Letter to the Corinthians St. Paul observes: What you are sowing is not the body (or soma) which will arise, but the naked grain (germen)... God gives to every seed the body he intends, for each seed a body appropriate to it (15, 36-38). The seed (germen) of the concept of such division we may find at the first page of Genesis, 1, 11-12. For the molecular biologists of today the cultic objects are genes, and in a similar way, for the ancient Hebrews, their own semen had sacral meaning. (To recall the story of Onan or rites of purgation: Priests, 15,14.)
3. According to concepts attached to neo-Darwinism in the middle of the twentieth century, new variants appear thanks to random mutations of genes hidden in germinal cells. Such an idea of hazardous creation of novel forms of life, converges with an idea frequently repeated in the Bible, that God acts (creates and selects his victims, and/or his favored people) through a fully stochastic process. (See the “Jahveh oracle” urim-tummim of hazardous choices, Exodus, 28, 30.)
4. At no point of its teaching does the Hebrew Torah admit the idea that a collective, critical cognitive effort (similar to the one we know from Plato’s Dialogues), may lead to a better understanding of the world, and thus to a better life in it. The interdiction of questioning of “revealed” dogmas leads to the functional atrophy of a whole range of brain activities of populations immured in the artificial realm born of reading Holy Scripture. Such past and present societies have a tendency not-to-see particularly those absurdities, which in their structure resemble fake orientational truths, which have been inoculated into the Bible in the form of “mind viruses”.
5. The archetype of the neo-Darwinian idea that from harmful heritable infirmities, called “mutations”, appear novel variants better adapted to the environment, we may find in the theologico-naturalist thought of St. Paul, contained in the same Letter to the Corinthians we quoted above: is sown in disgrace (the seed of an evidently lame theory) – is grown-up in glory (the body of a new, world-encompassing religion or science). We have here an analogy to the cognitive inventions of the Cabbala: there is no better good than the one which arises from an evil.
The whole neo- (and ultra-) Darwinian theory we may reduce to the natural selection (see pt 1) of bodies grown from hazardously created variants of seeds (pt 3). It means that the totality of contemporary concepts of evolution we may deduce logically from few simplistic sentences incorporated into both the Old and New Testaments! These concepts are cognitively “empty”, but nevertheless they impress laymen today in a way similar to that by which ordinary Jews were impressed by the empty interior of Jerusalem’s Temple. And we are invited to hate all those who denounce the cognitive emptiness of Darwinian sciences, in the very same way as Pompeius was hated for his act of tearing-down the cover hiding the emptiness of this famous Jerusalem Temple of Misologos.
[2]I remember that while discussing with my students of religious science the behavior of “faithful Abraham”, I suggested that in case “God” asked me to kill (and to roast) my adolescent child, I would answer Him “Dear Lord kiss my ass with your proposal, my duty is to protect my children, and not to satisfy Your Almighty criminal whims.”. My students were enthusiastic about such a “godless” idea of a dialogue with the Master of World (hebr. Adon Olan). The Indo-European writer Salman Rushdie in “More’s Last Sigh”, published in 1985, suggests that Judeo-Christian Abraham was “the most evil man who ever existed”. (Please notice that Mohammed’s Abraham behaves in a substantially different manner than “ours”. It is his adolescent son Isaac, who demands that his father sacrifice him in order to fulfill God’s whim. Such a cruel “order from God” Abraham supposedly heard while asleep!)
[3] During my mid-July 2008 visit in Israel Shamir’s “summer hermitage” in Central Sweden, I had an opportunity to look through the pages of the book by Michael Jones entitled “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on world History”, which book Shamir had just received during my visit there. Jones (who is a Catholic) considers the Torah and Moses to be okay., and all the dissent through the history he links with the “Synagogue of Satan”; the Torah-inspired misdeeds of the Vatican seem to be carefully omitted in this mammoth-sized, hard-covered book.
[4] Muslims imagine the last hours of earthly life of prophet Jesus/Issa using as their “canonical” text The Gospel of Jesus according to Barnabas and Matthew:
"Chapter 215
When the soldiers with Judas drew near to the place where Jesus was, Jesus heard the approach of many people, wherefore in fear he withdrew into the house. And the eleven were sleeping. Then God, seeing the danger of his servant, commanded Gabriel;, Michael;, Rafael;, and Uriel;, his ministers, to take Jesus out of the world. The holy angels came and took Jesus out by the window that looks toward the South;. They bore him and placed him in the third heaven in the company of angels blessing God for evermore.
Chapter 216
Judas entered impetuously before all into the chamber whence Jesus had been taken up. And the disciples were sleeping. Whereupon the wonderful God acted wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus. And he, having awakened us, was seeking where the Master was. Whereupon we marvelled, and answered: 'You, Lord, are our master; have you now forgotten us?'
And he, smiling, said: 'Now are you foolish, that know not me to be Judas Iscariot!' And as he was saying this the soldiery entered, and laid their hands upon Judas, because he was in every way like to Jesus. We having heard Judas' saying, and seeing the multitude of soldiers, fled as beside ourselves. And John, who was wrapped in a linen cloth, awoke and fled, and when a soldier seized him by the linen cloth he left the linen cloth and fled naked. For God heard the prayer of Jesus, and saved the eleven from evil.
Chapter 217
The soldiers took Judas ;and bound him, not without derision. For he truthfully denied that he was Jesus; and the soldiers, mocking him, said: 'Sir, fear not, for we are come to make you king of Israel, and we have bound you because we know that you do refuse the kingdom.' Judas answered: 'Now have you lost your senses! You are come to take Jesus of Nazareth;, with arms and lanterns as [against] a robber; and you have bound me that have guided you, to make me king!' Then the soldiers lost their patience, and with blows and kicks they began to flout Judas, and they led him with fury into Jerusalem...
And the Holy Qur'an confirms this story by saying the following:
"004.156 That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;
004.157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
004.158 Nay, God raised him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise..."
Last winter, during a seminar on religious sciences, after reading the above fragment of Muslim imagination of Jesus’ last hours translated into Polish, I asked my students which version they preferred, the Christian one, in which Jesus prior to his rapture has to suffer a cruel Calvary, or the Marcionist/Mohammedan one, in which God’s Messenger is raptured, not suffering at all, by his heavenly Master. No wonder that my, students, not yet corrupted by “our” religion, preferred the story of “the salvation of the Savior” told by the Mohammedan myth. The same question I address to my friends Mike Jones and Israel Adam Shamir: Do they agree with the moral judgement of my students? Here two answers are possible:
1. In case they agree with them, the proverbial Emperor’s Clothes of Fathers of the Church vanish, for there is no Christ’s Passion to legitimize their high social status. These Catholic Men of Prestige automatically reveal themselves to be ordinary buffoons, like this famous Polish subito santo pope JPII.
2. In case MJ & IAS, as subordinate members of, respectively, Catholic and Orthodox Churches, accept the Dogma of Redemption of Christians by Christ’s Calvary, they will, logically, demonstrate no compassion to the cruel fate of the truth-telling young Gallilean (if they do, they would prefer answer 1). On the contrary, they will demonstrate their compassion for the truth-hiding activity of “our” priesthood. This priesthood is supposed to imitate the behavior of “dressing himself in Christ’s skin” (see I Cor. 11, 1 or Ph. 3, 17-21), self-appointed apostle Paul, the Sworn Murderer of the Cognitive Soul of Christians. It is thanks to the efforts of this ‘vicar of Ahriman’, that our culture has become built on an Orwellian principle: “Ignorance is Strength” (literally “Your faith may not rest in wisdom of men, but in the power of God ... Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” – I Cor. 1, 5 and 1, 20)
[5] From the text of Charlotte Allen “Jesus as a countercultural guru - The Search for a No-Frills Jesus”, Atlantic Monthly, December 1996, http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96dec/jesus/jesus.htm
[6] In 1967, a brief but influential article by Lynn White, Jr. appeared in the magazine Science (vol. 155, no. 3767, pp. 1203-12, March 10, 1967). Entitled "The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis," the essay would prove to be a watershed in religious thought regarding the environment. White argued that in order to successfully address the emerging environmental crises, humans must first examine and critique their attitudes toward nature. Ultimately, the essay concluded, our attitudes toward nature are rooted in our religious beliefs. As White expressed his conviction, "What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny – that is, by religion."(...) White focuses his analysis on Western Christianity, understood as both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism together. He asserts that this Western Christianity is "the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen". This overemphasis on anthropocentrism gives humans permission to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the integrity of natural objects. White argued that within Christian theology, "nature has no reason for existence save to serve [humans]." Thus, for White, Christian arrogance towards nature "bears a huge burden of guilt" for the contemporary environmental crisis.(from http://www.counterbalance.net/enviro/intro-frame.html)
[7] The notion „Impasse of Moses” I modeled on the title of a book „Impasse Adam Smith” published by the contemporary French philosopher Jean-Claude Michéa, the author of a concise book “L’enseignement de l’ignorance et ses conditions modernes” (“Teaching of Ignorance and Its Modern Conditions”, ed. Climats, 1999, 2006). This prophetic book about our sinister future, remains completely unknown in the Anglo-Saxon world of fake expectations.
[8] Definitions of Ahriman given by Józef Keller in a book “Zarys dziejów Religii”, KAW Warszawa, 1988.
[9] Marek Glogoczowski „Wojna bogów – Helios-Swiatowid kontra Jahve-Hefajstos”, ed. Nowy Celsus, Kraków, 1996; edition in Slovakian „Vojna bohov”, Tlacaren Slovakov v Pol’sku, Krakov, 2003.
[10] Józef Keller „Original Christianity” in „Zarys dziejów Religii”, KAW Warszawa, 1988.
[11] This Principe of Bio-Creation, known as Lamarck’s Law, states that a repetitive activity of an organ, the mind included, makes it stronger and better performing, thus permitting a more adequate “grip” of the outside (or inside) reality.
[12] Noam Chomsky et al “Théories de langage, théories de l’apprentissage. Colloque d’octobre 1975 dans l’Abbaye de Royaaumont ; débat entre Jean Piaget et Noam Chomsky”. Paris 1976. ; in Polish edition ”Noama Chomsky’ego próba rewolucji naukowej”, tome I & II, IFIS PAN, Warszawa, 1996. In the article „Looking into the future: perspectives of the research on human mind” written in 1988, which was added to the tome II of the Polish version of „Noam Chmsky’s attempt at scientific revolution”, this internationally known Revolutionary Scientific Jew shows himself to be an adversary of all decent observations, from Aristotle to Jean Piaget. In particular Chomsky denies the existence of Pavlov Law, according to which „Constructions which are made by the brain are considered to be the result of few simple associative operations. ... Why do intellectuals cling so much to the faith that the man is shaped by his life experience and not by his personal nature?”
[13] The author wrote a decade ago an unpublished dialogue in English consisting of 13 acts and titled “Syndrome of the Blind Watchmaker”, which focuses on the topic of Richard Dawkins’ ocular troubles. In particular, Dawkins in his book “Blind Watchmaker” demonstrated his incapacity to keenly observe the maturation process of mammals’ eyes, which requires a repetitive irritation (stimuli) of the eyes by light during early youth. (Otherwise mammals reared in darkness, humans included, remain functionally blind for the rest of their lives.) The above-copied table of Darwin’s borrowings from the OT forms a part of the “Introduction” to this significant Dialogue (the full text of this piece of literary art one may find at www.marek.glogoczowski.zaprasza.net .
