The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Laurent Guyénot Archive
Enshrining God in the Constitution: Robespierre's Great Idea
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

I’ve heard that, as part of new amendments to the Russian Constitution, President Putin proposes to include the Russian people’s “faith in God,” and a definition of marriage as a “union of a man and a woman.” I’m a bit skeptical about the news, but if true, I think it’s a great idea. If voted in the upcoming referendum, it would consecrate the civilizational schism that is likely to define the history of our civilization in the coming century: in the West, the post-modernist project of liberating man from his human nature, to produce an uprooted, transgendered, upgraded man, Homo Deus. In the East, the choice of honoring and protecting our spiritual and anthropological roots, to produce the genuine thing: Mars and Venus, virile men and feminine women grateful to their Creator for each other, reveling in their fertile complementarity.

Needless to say, the proposal has the support of Moscow Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, but also of Muslim leader Talgat Tadzhuddin. The idea is to transcend particular creeds and churches. More surprisingly, Communist Party boss Gennady Zyuganov raises no objection.

As a country that was still officially Marxist-Leninist thirty years ago, Russia has come a long way. America too, for that matter. Interestingly, God is not mentioned in the American Constitution, although he is ubiquitous on dollar bills (think of Jesus being handed a dollar bill instead of a Roman denarius in Matthew 22!).

Other proposed amendments, such as banning foreign citizenships and bank accounts for state officials, have obvious practical advantages, and are so sensible that they raise little discussion. By contrast, adding God into the constitution is highly and purely symbolic. Some will argue that it will have no real consequence. It all depends on the power we attribute to symbols. I would think that such a collective proclamation by the Russian people would have a strong impact, both on Russian self-consciousness, and as a message to the West. It could also lead to real changes, in academia, for example: I can’t wait for the day when Intelligent Design research will be funded in Russian universities, rather than censored as it is in the U.S. (watch Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled: No Intelligent Allowed).

What are the arguments for enshrining God in the Constitution? That is one of the most important questions in political science that you can think of. This will come as a surprise to many, but the man who has thought the deepest on this question is perhaps Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794). On May 7, 1794, he had the Convention decreed, with a view to inscribing it in the French Constitution, that, “the French people recognize the existence of the Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul.” On June 8, he presided over a national holiday dedicated to the Divine Creator. It was a great success, both in Paris and in the provinces. Robespierre was then immensely popular, but his career would end fifty days later when he was arrested, silenced by a gunshot through his jaw, and executed the next day without trial, together with his brother Augustin and twenty-one of his friends, followed the next two days by eighty-three of his supporters, their bodies and heads thrown into a mass grave, with lime spread on them so as to leave no trace. In the aftermath of their coup, Robespierre’s assassins crushed demonstrations of mourning for the Incorruptible, and launched a press campaign against him that basically continues to this day.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about Robespierre and his “religious policy.” For that reason, I thought that the Russian constitutional debate would be a good opportunity—or a pretext—for some reappraisal of a great man unfairly vilified, and thereby a case study in the transformation of a vanquished hero into a monster by state propaganda. But the main purpose of this article is to present Robespierre’s ideas on the relationship between religion and politics, which I find stimulating and pertinent for our time—and, I expect, unfamiliar to most.

Robespierre was the heir and probably the most articulate advocate of a long tradition of thinkers who equally disliked religious dogmatism and atheism, not only as too narrow for their own minds, but as harmful to society. In his view, both were symmetrical forms of fanaticism. He would not be the last to think along this line. Thomas Jefferson once wrote to John Adams: “Indeed I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a god.” There is much truth in this statement. But the principle of authoritative revelation is not the main factor involved in the development of Western atheism, I think. The content of the revelation is critical. I believe that modern atheism is, to a great extent, a reaction to the disgusting character presented as “God” in the Old Testament. Yahweh’s obscenity has ultimately ruined God’s reputation. Voltaire, that old anti-Semite, ridiculed Christianity by quoting almost exclusively the Old Testament. Still today, Darwinian high priest Richard Dawkins can only make his atheism sound plausible by first professing, correctly:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”[1]Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, 2006, p. 51.

In his speech on “the relations of religious and moral ideas with republican principles,” read at the Convention six weeks before his death, Robespierre said:

“I know of nothing so close to atheism as the religion that [the priests] have made: by disfiguring the Supreme Being, they have destroyed him as much as it was in them; […] the priests created a god in their image; they made him jealous, temperamental, greedy, cruel, relentless.”

(That judgment is partially inexact: the cruel God of the Old Testament may have been used by priests as a means of social control, but he had been created by the Levites long before. Robespierre had no clue about the Jewish Question.)

ORDER IT NOW

Let’s start with a clarification: Today’s French traditionalist Catholics insist that Robespierre’s “Être Suprême” has nothing to do with their God, and they pretend that it has Freemasonic overtones. They even confuse it with the deification of Reason, a cult that Robespierre execrated and combatted. So let’s set the record straight: There is no evidence that Robespierre was ever a Freemason. He borrowed the expression “Supreme Being” from Rousseau, who never was a Freemason either. It had been used since the Renaissance and was of common usage. Even the very royalist, Catholic and counter-revolutionary Joseph de Maître begins his Considerations on France (1797) with the sentence: “We are all attached to the throne of the Supreme Being by a flexible chain, which retains us without enslaving us.” François René de Chateaubriand, who also hated Robespierre, used repeatedly the phrase “Supreme Being” in his apology of Catholicism, Le Génie du christianisme (1799). Therefore, there is no reason to consider that, in Robespierre’s speeches, “Supreme Being” meant anything else than God. His suggestion to engrave in the Constitution that the French people have “faith in the Supreme Being” is equivalent to Putin’s proposal.

Putin has the support of the Patriarch whereas Robespierre was anathemized by the Pope, you may object. But here is the heart of the matter: Russian orthodoxy is, fundamentally, a national religion, and today more than ever, with the canonization of the martyred Romanovs. The main reason why Roman Catholicism was unacceptable for Robespierre was that it meant loyalty to a foreign power. Yet contrary to the common image, Robespierre did not seek to ban Catholicism, he only required that French bishops and priests swear loyalty to the French State, rather than to the Roman Pope. That was pretty much what every French monarch had tried and failed to do since Philipp the Fair. As we shall see, Robespierre actually opposed the “dechristianization” campaign of the Enragés, and denounced them as the useful idiots or willing accomplices of the counter-revolutionaries.

There are two other differences between Robespierre’s and Putin’s proposals. Robespierre saw the traditional family as the basic cell of a healthy society, but almost everyone did, then. Stipulating that marriage can only join a man and a woman would have been as superfluous as affirming that 1 plus 1 make 2.

The second difference is that Robespierre wanted to mention the immortality of the soul next to the existence of God. “Immortality of the soul” may have sounded to most of Robespierre’s contemporaries a straightforward concept. But today, the formulation would beg too many metaphysical questions: What’s a soul? Do animals have one? Is it individual or collective, or both? Where does it go? Does immortal means eternal? etc. And that other question: if every human being has an immortal soul, at what stage of its development does the fetus get one? I’m not saying it would be a bad thing, but bringing up the issue in the constitutional referendum could be very divisive.

The making of a monster

In the standard textbook history of the French Revolution, Robespierre is portrayed as a fanatic and megalomaniac dictator, and he is blamed for the Great Terror that sent approximately 17,000 people to the guillotine in the six weeks preceding his demise. Ever since Jules Michelet, who fashioned our roman national, the figure of Robespierre has served to embody all the evils of the French Revolution, exactly like Philippe Pétain for World War II. While Danton has boulevards in his name and is celebrated by Hollywood, Robespierre is the usual bad guy.

However, there have always been a minority of historians (informed by the Société des Études Robespierristes founded by Robert Mathiez in 1907) to challenge the black legend, and there are still politicians occasionally honoring him (Jean-Luc Mélenchon). The most recent positive reappraisal of Robespierre is appropriately subtitled: La Fabrication d’un Monstre.[2]Jean-Clément Martin, Robespierre, la fabrication d’un monstre, Perrin, 2016. Other recent French historians who have drawn a rather positive image of Robespierre include Jean-Philippe Domecq, Robespierre, dernier temps, Folio/Histoire, 2011 and Cécile Obligi, Robespierre. La probité révoltante, Belin, 2012. In English language, that revisionist trend is represented by David P. Jordan’s The Revolutionary Career of Maximilien Robespierre (Free Press, 2013). Chapter 1 begins like this:

“As Robespierre lay on a table in the antechamber of the Committee of Public Safety, drifting in and out of consciousness, his ball-shattered jaw bound up with a bandage, his triumphant enemies, in another room of the Tuileries palace, were creating the monster who would soon pass into historical legend. This Robespierre, created by using materials scavenged from old calumny, damaging anecdote, and sometimes sheer malicious invention, was one of the founding acts of a new revolutionary government. The Thermidorians—thus have Robespierre’s conquerors and successors been dubbed—sought not only to justify their coup d’état of July 1794 (the month of Thermidor in the revolutionary calendar) but to evade the opprobrium they shared with Robespierre and his comrades for deeds done during the agonizing crisis the previous year, during the Terror. The vengeful malice of the Thermidorians was partly successful: their caricature of Robespierre has proved durable.”

Robespierre was primarily a man of words, in a time when eloquence was a political act, when speeches could change the opinion of deputies, and sometimes even win a whole assembly. He was a great writer and a great orator. Not even his ennemies doubted the sincerity of his passionate defense of the poor and downtrodden: “That man will go far—he believes everything he says,” Mirabeau once remarked. His speeches, delivered at the Jacobin Club or at the Convention, were printed and widely distributed, and had a huge echo all over France.

In the spring of 1793, he reluctantly joined the Comité de salut public (Committee of Public Safety), a revolutionary tribunal responsible for sending conspirators against the new Republic to their death, at a time when the Republic was at war against Austria, Prussia, Spain and England. Robespierre’s responsibility in the Great Terror that marked the last two months of the Committee is a debated subject, but it is admitted that he was absent from Committee meetings, probably sick, during its last six weeks of work.

In his final speech to the Convention, just before being arrested, Robespierre denounced a plot to lose him by spilling blood on his behalf. He claimed that his enemies, in order to rally enough deputies against him, had circulated fake lists of suspects allegedly written by himself, and spread the rumor that he was preparing a major purge, when in fact he wanted to end the Terror. Napoleon Bonaparte later confirmed this accusation, and believed that “Robespierre was the real scapegoat for the Revolution.” Alphonse de Lamartine, who wrote a Histoire des Girondins in eight volumes, also came to the realization that Robespierre’s enemies “covered him, for forty days, with the blood they shed to disgrace him.”[3]Jean-Philippe Domecq, Robespierre, dernier temps, Folio/Histoire, 2011, p. 27-30 Simultaneously, they created the golden legend of Danton, in reality a disgusting money-grubber.

Danton (1759-1794)
Danton (1759-1794)

I will not delve deeper into Robespierre’s biography; I just wanted to point out that his standard portrayal is the product of an elaborate and massive propaganda operation by those who overthrew him. I will now focus of his religious views, which are generally underrated, although, from his own testimony, they determined his political views.[4]My presentation owes a lot to Henri Guillemin, Robespierre, Politique et mystique, Seuil, 1987.

Robespierre did not view religion as a purely private matter. He believed that the idea of God is an indispensable foundation for public morality, and should be taught in schools and celebrated publicly. “The idea of the Supreme Being and of the immortality of the soul is a constant reminder of justice; therefore, it is social and republican.”

Robespierre’s ideas were elaborated from those of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whom he held as the greatest “tutor of the human race.” Rousseau’s “natural religion” was itself not a new idea. Let me sketch a brief history of that tradition, before coming back to Robespierre.

Natural religion

ORDER IT NOW

If we define “natural religion” as the claim that belief in God and in the afterlife is sufficiently founded on reason and experience, then it is as old as Plato, and probably much older. If we define it additionally as a rebellion against the authority of Christian scriptures and dogmas, then it seems to have been around as long as Christianity. Proofs are hard to find for the Middle Ages, when monks had a quasi monopoly on writing. But from the end of the twelfth century, there is enough evidence of forms of religious beliefs independent and sometimes incompatible with Christian doctrine. I have analyzed some of this evidence in my book La Mort féerique: Anthropologie du merveilleux (XIIe-XVe siècles), a rewriting of my doctoral thesis. We know for example that the court of the famous Frederick II Hohenstaufen (1194-1250) was replete with scholars and noblemen whose religious views were inspired by classical philosophy, and who resented Catholic intolerance. Pope Gregory IX, founder of the Inquisition, made the following accusation against Frederick: “Openly, this king of pestilence notably affirmed—to use his own words—that the whole world was duped by three impostors: Jesus Christ, Moses and Muhammad.”[5]Quoted in Ernst Kantorowicz, L’empereur Frédéric II, Gallimard, 1987 (1st German ed. 1927), pp. 451-452. The accusation is plausible. Having been raised in multicultural Sicily in the company of Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars, he had reflected on the problems caused by the very notion of revelation.

Frederick was a polymath scientist, a polyglot, an outstanding diplomat (he conquered Jerusalem without shedding a drop of blood), and an enlightened lawmaker. He was “the Wonder of the World” (Stupor Mundi), the most prestigious and powerful prince of his age. Yet the pope prevailed over him, and pursued his descendants with insatiable hatred, until his lineage was eradicated, and his name covered with calumny. Nevertheless, his memory would be cherished by some of the best minds throughout the thirteenth centuries. Dante’s treaty De Monarchia (1313) is believed to be a defense of Frederick’s project (on Dante and the Fedeli d’Amore, you may want to read the relevant section of my article “The Crucifixion of the Goddess”).

Frederick’s amazing Castel del Monte, in Southern Italy
Frederick’s amazing Castel del Monte, in Southern Italy

With the growing power of the Inquisition, overt advocacy of natural religion became impossible. That is when we start hearing of secret circles of intellectuals. The rediscovery of the ancient Greeks and Romans also provided a relatively safe cover for expressing unchristian views on God and the afterlife, and I believe that apocryphal forgeries are more numerous than generally acknowledged. The great Petrarch (1304-1374) may have forged rather than discovered the letters of Cicero that became the blueprint for his own humanism.[6]Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo, Oxford UP, 2010, pp. 66-67.

In the next century, the printing press and the Reformation provided an unprecedented window of tolerance, especially in the Netherlands. Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469–1536) approached natural religion as the common denominator of all faiths, and the means of overcoming religious wars. His friend Thomas More imagined in his Utopia, or the best form of government (1516), an ideal world where people hold a variety of opinions on religious questions, but “all agree in this: that they think there is one Supreme Being that made and governs the world.” The public cult is for this Supreme Being alone, while “every sect performs those rites that are peculiar to it in their private houses.”

Then came John Locke, with his Letter Concerning Toleration, first published in Latin in 1689. Locke went further than Erasmus in declaring immoral any doctrine professing that good people are damned if they do not believe in this or that dogma. Churches who require loyalty to a foreign power should also be banished, for by tolerating them, the magistrate “would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government.” That concerns Roman Catholicism, of course, but also Islam:

“It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure.”

Locke deemed atheism as immoral and socially corrosive as papism: “those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.” For Anthony Collins (1676-1729), a friend of Locke,

“Ignorance is the foundation of Atheism, and Free-Thinking the Cure of it. And thus tho it should be allow’d, that some Men by Free-Thinking may become Atheists yet they will ever be fewer in number if Free-Thinking were permitted, than if it were restrain’d.” (A Discourse of Freethinking, 1713)

In the eighteenth century, it was still risky to profess openly such ideas. Locke had to print his book anonymously in Amsterdam. David Hume published his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion anonymously and posthumously in 1779. Secret societies were still necessary for intellectuals to discuss safely on these matters. Irish philosopher John Toland (1670-1722) wrote in his Pantheisticon:

“The Philosophers therefore, and other well-wishers to mankind in most nations, were constrain’d by this holy tyranny to make use of a twofold doctrine; the one Popular, accommodated to the Prejudices of the vulgar, and to the receiv’d Customs or Religions: the other Philosophical, conformable to the nature of things, and consequently to Truth; which, with doors fast shut and under all other precautions, they communicated only to friends of known probity, prudence, and capacity. These they generally call’d the Exoteric and Esoteric, or the External and Internal Doctrines.[7]Quoted in Jan Assmann, Religio Duplex: How the Enlightenment Reinvented Egyptian Religion, Polity Press, 2014, p. 59.

Toland’s Pantheisticon describes the rules and rites of a society of enlightened thinkers who meet secretly to discuss philosophy and search for metaphysical truths. Such clubs provided the first basis of Freemasonry.[8]Albert Lantoine, Un précurseur de la franc-maçonnerie. John Toland (1670–1722), suivi de la traduction française du Pantheisticon de John Toland, Éditions E. Nourry, 1927. Because they also attracted Marrano crypto-Jews, and because of the strong Judeophilia among British aristocrats at that time, Jewish lore and kabbalistic mumbo-jumbo were transplanted into the rituals of the Grand Lodge of England from 1723. But that is another story.

Rousseau

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) gave the notion of “natural religion” a wide audience by his literary genius. His religious conception is exposed in the “Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar”, a section of Book IV of the Émile, which caused the book to be banned in Paris and Geneva, and publicly burned in 1762. Rousseau gives there an exposé of “theism or natural religion, which Christians pretend to confound with atheism or irreligion, its exact opposite.” Rousseau declares having no need for religious books, since Nature is a more useful book for discovering God;

“if I use my reason, if I cultivate it, if I employ rightly the innate faculties which God bestows upon me, I shall learn by myself to know and love him, to love his works, to will what he wills, and to fulfill all my duties upon earth, that I may please him. What more can all human learning teach me?”

Catholic dogmas are a useless and even poisonous jumble, Rousseau writes in his Letters Written from the Mountain (1764):

“For how can the mystery of the Trinity, for example, contribute to the good constitution of the State? In what way will its members be better Citizens when they have rejected the merit of good works? And what does the dogma of original sin have to do with the good of civil society? Although true Christianity is an institution of peace, who does not see that dogmatic or theological Christianity, by the multitude and obscurity of its dogmas and above all by the obligation to accept them, is a permanent battlefield between men.”

Rousseau devotes the last chapter of The Social Contract (1762) to “civil religion”. Like Locke, he condemns as contrary to public peace churches professing intolerance, because: “It is impossible to live at peace with those we regard as damned.” Therefore, “whoever dares to say ‘Outside the Church is no salvation’, ought to be driven from the State.”

ORDER IT NOW

Rousseau first proceeded to show that “the law of Christianity at bottom does more harm than good by weakening instead of strengthening the constitution of the State.” Christianity, even at its best, is too focused on individual salvation. Rousseau sees God as more fully manifested in human societies than in holy hermits. Here is a sample of Rousseau’s proposal:

“it matters very much to the community that each citizen should have a religion that will make him love his duty; but the dogmas of that religion concern the State and its members only so far as they have reference to morality and to the duties which he who professes them is bound to do to others. Each man may have, over and above, what opinions he pleases, without it being the Sovereign’s business to take cognisance of them; for, as the Sovereign has no authority in the other world, whatever the lot of its subjects may be in the life to come, that is not its business, provided they are good citizens in this life.

There is therefore a purely civil profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject. […]

The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary. The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws: these are its positive dogmas. Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the cults we have rejected.”

Rousseau uses here the word “dogmas”, but for him, neither the existence of God or the immortality of the soul are based on revelation; they are proven by observation and introspection. His argument for God’s existence in Émile sounds surprisingly similar to the modern argument for Intelligent Design:

“Those who deny the unity of intention which manifests itself in the reports of all the parts of this great whole, however much they cover their gibberish with abstractions, coordinations, general principles, emblematic terms; whatever they do, it is impossible for me to conceive of a system of beings so constantly ordered, that I do not conceive of an intelligence which orders it. It does not depend on me to believe that passive and dead matter could have produced living and feeling beings, […], that what does not think could have produced thinking beings.”

Robespierre

In a speech he had printed in April 1791, Robespierre thanked the “eternal Providence” who called on the French, “alone since the origin of the world, to restore on earth the empire of Justice and Liberty.” In March 1792, the president of the Legislative Assembly Élie Guadet opposed the sending to the patriotic societies of an address of Robespierre, on the pretext that he had used the word “Providence” too many times:

“I admit that, seeing no sense in this idea, I would never have thought that a man who worked with so much courage, for three years, to pull the people out of the slavery of despotism, could contribute to put them back under the slavery of superstition.”

Robespierre responded:

“Superstition, it is true, is one of the supports of despotism, but it is not inducing citizens in superstition to pronounce the name of the Divinity. […] I, myself, support these eternal principles on which human weakness leans to rise up toward virtue. It is not a vain language in my mouth, any more than in that of all the illustrious men who had no less moral, to believe in the existence of God. / Yes, invoking the Providence and expressing the idea of the Eternal Being who influences essentially the destinies of nations, and who seems to me to watch over the French revolution in a very special way, is not an idea too haphazard, but a feeling of my heart, a feeling which […] has always sustained me. Alone with my soul, how could I have sufficed for struggles which are beyond human strength, if I had not raised my soul to God?”[9]Auguste Valmorel, Œuvres de Robespierre, 1867 (sur fr.wikisource.org), p. 71.

Robespierre castigated the irreligion that prevailed in the aristocracy and the high clergy, with bishops like Talleyrand openly boasting of lying every Sunday. A gap had widened between the clerical hierarchy and the country priests. Among the latter, many were responsible for drafting the peasants’ cahiers de doléances. The counter-revolutionary bishop Charles de Coucy, of La Rochelle, said in 1797 that the Revolution was “started by the bad priests.”[10]Henri Guillemin, Robespierre, Politique et mystique, Seuil, 1987, p. 351. For Robespierre, they were the “good priests” whom the people of the countryside needed.

Robespierre was inflexible against the priests who submitted to the pope by refusing to take an oath on the Civil Constitution (voted July 12, 1790). But he also opposed, until his last breath, any plan to abolish the funds allocated to Catholic worship under the same Civil Constitution. He also opposed, but in vain, the new Republican calendar, with its ten-day week aimed at “suppressing Sunday,” by the admission of its inventor Charles-Gilbert Romme.

Robespierre’s worst enemies were the militant atheists, the Enragés like Pierre-Gaspard Chaumette or Jacques-René Hébert, who unleashed the movement for dechristianization in November 1793, and started closing the churches in Paris or transforming them into “Temples of Reason”, with the slogan “death is an eternal sleep” posted on the gates of cemeteries. Robespierre condemned “those men who have no other merit than that of adorning themselves with an anti-religious zeal,” and who “throw trouble and discord among us” (Club des Jacobins, November 21 1793). In his speech to the National Convention of December 5, 1793, he accused the dechristianizers of acting secretly for the counter-revolution. Indeed, “hostile foreign powers support the dechristianization of France as a policy pushing rural France into conflict with the Republic for religious reasons and thus recruiting armies against the Republic in Vendée and in Belgium.” By exploiting the violence of militant atheist extremists, these foreign powers have two aims: “the first to recruit the Vendée, to alienate the peoples of the French nation and to use philosophy for the destruction of freedom; the second, to disturb public tranquility in the interior, and to distract all minds, when it is necessary to collect them to lay the unshakable foundations of the Revolution.”

Again in his “Report against Philosophism and for the Freedom of Worship” (November 21, 1793), Robespierre again castigated the grotesque cults of Reason instituted in churches by atheist fanatics:

“By what right do they come to disturb the freedom of worship, in the name of freedom, and attack fanaticism with a new fanaticism? By what right do they degenerate the solemn tributes paid to pure truth, in eternal and ridiculous pranks? Why should they be allowed to play with the dignity of the people in this way, and to tie the bells of madness to the very scepter of philosophy?”

The Convention, he says, intends “to maintain freedom of cult, which it has proclaimed, while repressing all those who abuse it to disturb public order.” He declares that those who “persecute the peaceful ministers of cult” will be punished severely.

“There are men who, […] on the pretext of destroying superstition, want to make a kind of religion of atheism itself. Any philosopher, any individual can adopt whatever religious opinion he likes. Anyone who wants to make it a crime is a fool; but the public figure, but the legislator would be a hundred times more foolish who would adopt such a system. The National Convention abhors it. The Convention is not a book writer, an author of metaphysical systems, it is a political and popular body, responsible for ensuring respect, not only for the rights, but for the character of the French people. It was not in vain that it proclaimed the Declaration of Human Rights [August 26, 1789] in the presence of the Supreme Being [mentioned in the preamble]!

It may be said that I am a narrow mind, a man of prejudice; what do I know, a fanatic. I have already said that I speak neither as an individual nor as a systematic philosopher, but as a representative of the people. Atheism is aristocratic; the idea of a Great Being who watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant crime, is popular. […] This feeling is engraved in all sensitive and pure hearts; it always animates the most magnanimous defenders of freedom. […] I repeat: we have no other fanaticism to fear than that of immoral men, bribed by foreign courts to awaken fanaticism, and to give our revolution the veneer of immorality, which is the character of our cowardly and fierce enemies.”

The Robespierrists overcame the Hebertists. After having failed in a project of insurrection against the Convention, Chaumette was arrested, tried and executed for “conspiracy against the Republic” and for “having sought to annihilate any kind of morality, erase any idea of divinity and found the French government on atheism.” In May 1794, Robespierre ordered to erase the mention “Temple of Reason” (or any similar denomination) from the portico of the churches and to engrave instead: “the French people recognize the existence of the Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul.”

Robespierre justified his opposition to dechristianization and his religion policy in his last great speech, “on the relations of religious and moral ideas with republican principles” (May 7, 1794), the most important text of Robespierre on that question.[11]A translation of this speech can be found in P. H. Beik (eds), The French Revolution: The Documentary History of Western Civilization. Palgrave Macmillan, 1970, but I have translated directly from the French.

“Any institution, any doctrine which consoles and lifts souls must be welcomed; reject all that tend to degrade and corrupt them. Revive, exalt all generous feelings and all the great moral ideas that others wanted to extinguish; bring together by the charm of friendship and by the bond of virtue the men whom others wanted to divide. Who then gave you the mission to announce to the people that the Divinity does not exist, O you who are passionate about this arid doctrine, and who are never passionate about the homeland? What advantage do you find in persuading man that a blind force presides over his destinies and strikes crime and virtue at random; that his soul is only a light breath that dies out at the gates of the tomb?

Will the idea of ​​his nothingness inspire him with purer and higher feelings than that of his immortality? Will it inspire him more respect for his fellow men and for himself, more devotion to the fatherland, more courage to brave tyranny, more contempt for death or for voluptuousness? You who regret a virtuous friend, you like to think that the most beautiful part of himself has escaped death! You who weep over the coffin of a son or a wife, are you comforted by him who tells you that there is nothing left of them but a vile dust? […] Miserable sophist! by what right do you come to snatch from innocence the scepter of reason to put it back in the hands of crime, throw a funeral veil over nature, add despair to misfortune, make vice rejoice, and virtue saddened, degrade humanity? […]

Let us attach morality to eternal and sacred bases; let us inspire in man this religious respect for man, this deep feeling of his duties, which is the only guarantee of social happiness; let us nourish it with all our institutions; let public education be mainly directed towards this goal.”

ORDER IT NOW

On June 8, the resounding success of the Fête de l’Être Suprême consecrated Robespierre’s victory. In a show staged by the painter David, a gigantic statue representing Atheism was burnt, and the effigy of Wisdom revealed. Hymns to the deity were sung. But priests and references to Catholicism were absent. On this day, Robespierre declared, the Supreme Being, “sees an entire nation that is combating all the oppressors of humankind, suspend the course of its heroic labors in order to raise its thoughts and its vows towards the Great Being who gave it the mission to undertake it and the strength to execute it.”

“He created men to mutually assist and love each other, and to arrive at happiness by the path of virtue. It is He who placed remorse and fear in the breast of the triumphant oppressor, and calm and pride in the heart of the innocent oppressed. It is He who forces the just man to hate the wicked, and the wicked to respect the just man. It is He who adorned the face of beauty with modesty, so as to make it even more beautiful. It is He who makes maternal entrails palpitate with tenderness and joy. It is He who bathes with delicious tears the eyes of a son pressed against his mother’s breast. It is He who silences the most imperious and tender passions before the sublime love of the fatherland. It is He who covered nature with charms, riches and majesty. All that is good is His work, or is Him. Evil belongs to the depraved man who oppresses or allows his like to be oppressed. The author of nature ties together all mortals in an immense chain of love and felicity.”

Generally speaking, the cult of the Supreme Being was enthusiastically received in most regions of France. The French people were tired of the civil war and eager to be reconciled under the auspices of God. Unfortunately, two days later, the Law of the “22 Prairial” (June 10, 1794) accelerated the trials of the suspects of conspiracy against the Republic, and opened the brief period of what will be called the Great Terror.

Robespierre’s religious policy weighed heavily on the motivations of the Thermidorians’ plot against him. They accused him of aspiring to the office of Grand Pontiff.

On the day before his death (July 28, 1794), at age 36, Robespierre declared:

“O Frenchmen! O my countrymen! Let not your enemies, with their desolating doctrines, degrade your souls, and enervate your virtues! No, Chaumette, no! Death is not ‘an eternal sleep!’ Citizens! Erase from the tomb that motto, engraved by sacrilegious hands, which spreads over all nature a funereal crape, takes from oppressed innocence its support, and affronts the beneficent dispensation of death! Inscribe rather thereon these words: ‘Death is the commencement of immortality!’”

Laurent Guyénot, Ph.D., has recently edited some of his Unz Review articles in book form, under the title Our God is Your God Too, But He Has Chosen Us: Essays on Jewish Power. He is also the author of From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018, and JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State, Progressive Press, 2014.

Notes

[1] Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, 2006, p. 51.

[2] Jean-Clément Martin, Robespierre, la fabrication d’un monstre, Perrin, 2016. Other recent French historians who have drawn a rather positive image of Robespierre include Jean-Philippe Domecq, Robespierre, dernier temps, Folio/Histoire, 2011 and Cécile Obligi, Robespierre. La probité révoltante, Belin, 2012.

[3] Jean-Philippe Domecq, Robespierre, dernier temps, Folio/Histoire, 2011, p. 27-30

[4] My presentation owes a lot to Henri Guillemin, Robespierre, Politique et mystique, Seuil, 1987.

[5] Quoted in Ernst Kantorowicz, L’empereur Frédéric II, Gallimard, 1987 (1st German ed. 1927), pp. 451-452.

[6] Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo, Oxford UP, 2010, pp. 66-67.

[7] Quoted in Jan Assmann, Religio Duplex: How the Enlightenment Reinvented Egyptian Religion, Polity Press, 2014, p. 59.

[8] Albert Lantoine, Un précurseur de la franc-maçonnerie. John Toland (1670–1722), suivi de la traduction française du Pantheisticon de John Toland, Éditions E. Nourry, 1927.

[9] Auguste Valmorel, Œuvres de Robespierre, 1867 (sur fr.wikisource.org), p. 71.

[10] Henri Guillemin, Robespierre, Politique et mystique, Seuil, 1987, p. 351.

[11] A translation of this speech can be found in P. H. Beik (eds), The French Revolution: The Documentary History of Western Civilization. Palgrave Macmillan, 1970, but I have translated directly from the French.

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: French Revolution, Religion, Robespierre 
Hide 155 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. gsjackson says:

    Rurik, call your office. The other day when you got schooled (along with me) by a Frenchman on the French Revolution, you tried to grasp on to a last punitive straw — well, maybe Robespierre at least deserved the blade. As if on cue, LG here with more schooling.

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Rurik
  2. Guillotines and our owners go together like a horse and carriage.

  3. Thank you for providing further insight into the religious sentiment of Robespierre.

    While the American Constitution itself does not include explicit mention of God, every U.S. State Constitution certainly does.

    “It is impossible to live at peace with those we regard as damned.”

    In any event, better not to pretend to know.

    There is much to be said for religious tradition in which humility before God prevents one from assuming his salvation is assured. Such a disposition facilitates dealing humanely and equitably with others, even those outside his own faith community.

  4. Rousseau

    One of the (many) surprising revelations in Pamela Druckerman’s Bringing Up Bébé is that of French parents and educators drawing quite conservative views and practices from Rousseau. To us Anglo-Saxons, our disagreements about the man are over whether his radicalism is good or bad, not whether it exists at all.

    And what does the dogma of original sin have to do with the good of civil society?

    Just about everything. It’s probably the most useful of the Christian doctrines to outsiders.

    I knew a Midwestern Lutheran woman who spent decades teaching in the scruffier public schools of Los Angeles County, which suffered from high turnover in staff. Though of Scandinavian background and quite progressive on most things, this lady insisted that the single most reliable indicator that a teacher would survive in the blackboard jungle was a strong belief in original sin. One is prepared for the worst.

  5. anon[359] • Disclaimer says:

    Another excellent essay by M. Guyenot. I recommend his From Yahweh to Zionism to all.

    ” I believe that modern atheism is, to a great extent, a reaction to the disgusting character presented as “God” in the Old Testament.”

    Indeed. George Bernard Shaw observed this in the Preface to his Back to Methuselah. Darwinism conquered the popular mind, not just biologists, because the people sought relief from the constant surveillance of the Calvinist God. It was only later — too late — when they discovered what else they had thrown away. Hence Shaw and Bergson’s “Vitalism” and later “Intelligent Design.”

    The attempt to navigate between Biblical religion and atheistic Science reminds me of the suggestion by religious scholar Arthur Versluis and others that there is a third path — Hermeticism — that crops up periodically in the Western tradition — basing belief in God, immortality and higher dimensions not in Hebrew fairy tales, nor limiting experience to the level of everyday materialism.

  6. I enjoyed this very much. Thank you.

  7. Ghali says:

    There is something unique about the French. They love to exaggerate (always in a positive way) their bloody and criminal history. Robespierre was a terrorist.

    • Replies: @Jake
  8. Hello Laurent,
    Very much appreciated your article and your other articles . And thank you for mentioning my movie: Expelled. I was one of the Producers. We certainly appreciated Ben’s contribution…

  9. Some nice historical work from Dr Laurent Guyénot above

    Quite right too to denounce the Abrahamic ‘God’ as un ugly, terrorising, in fact demonic figure … ‘eternal torture hell’ is one of the most evil notions ever invented

    And tho we all need spirituality – having a ‘god-shaped hole’ otherwise in our lives

    What needs to be understood is that Deism-type views are not sustainable, not genuinely transmissable to succeeding generations

    Note that all these deists, essentially exist in a one-generation-only space of rejecting their childhood religion, intellectualising a less brutal form of it … but then it fades away, there are few adherents which continue … only a stream of similar people, rejecting their childhood religion and staying in the deist or unitarian half-way house for only their own lives

    Faith cannot thrive without ritual, ceremony, practice … in fact more important than ideas

    E.g., Japan is full of shinto – buddhist rituals, lovingly maintained … it is not an issue whether one truly ‘believes’ in the goddesses and gods etc … the practices yet sustain for thousands of years

    Deism fades and becomes dusty books on the shelf

    Jewish writer Marcus Eli Ravage said the biggest crime of Jews was wiping out local indigenous pagan religions, replacing them with Christian and Islamic i.e. judaic fabrications, and supplanting paganism with Jewish lore in its place, shoving Jewish tales into our brains

    But paganism in the west is also a sorry-ass affair, as far as we know, with disgusting animal sacrifices etc, and big deficiencies in thought and practice

    The unique thing from ancient India, is the truly unique wonderful yoga meditation etc traditions … offering direct experience of the divine, spiritual ecstasies accessible at almost any time for those of us who enter into these realms

    In the West, the south and east asian traditions have slight echoes in stoicism, but in general we are missing something precious, however deep we dig into what is left of paganism that was not burned by the abrahamic fanatics

    Ancient India’s most beloved story, the Bhagavad-Gita, in 10 minutes – God stops time itself, to explain to a troubled warrior what life is all about … ‘Whoever thinks he can truly kill, or be killed, is under an illusion – no one truly dies … the divine is already within you … there are many paths to more fully re-join with that divinity … the question now is just what is the right course, what is your duty … So be brave, and Fight! … Have no fear …’

  10. Anonymous[661] • Disclaimer says:

    I found this article quite interesting. The book never seems to be closed on Robespierre and Rousseau, and for good reason, as the clash of ideas presented here continues to this day.

  11. mcohen says:

    Is that so….did he say that.you mean like human sacrifice to the corn god.atzec relegion was bad for the heart.on the other hand a little african vodoo is a danger to the health of chickens in general.

    More squat than squawk

    “Jewish writer Marcus Eli Ravage said the biggest crime of Jews was wiping out local indigenous pagan religions, replacing them with Christian and Islamic i.e. judaic fabrications, and supplanting paganism with Jewish lore in its place, shoving Jewish tales into our brains”

    It was a good article otherwise.

    • LOL: iffen
  12. gotmituns says:

    I have nothing against god. I just think my ancestors in those dark forests of northern Europe shouldn’t have been burdened with Christianity.

    • Replies: @Franz
  13. Jake says:
    @gsjackson

    LG is just another old Revolutionary whose ideas always lead to some form of The Terror. He is no better than those Russians who felt that if only they removed the Tsar, and rejected a Constitutional monarch, that fairness would reign.

    Robespierre may not have been quite as monstrous as those who took him down, but he was nonetheless a monster whose works served Satan.

    It is either Christ and Christendom or some form of revolutionary chaos. If Russia is moving toward reviving Christendom, then Russia will save the civilization. If Russia is moving to promote more gnosticism, more hermeticism, more freemason tolerance of anything that claims some nebulous faith in some type creator, then Russia promotes what is necessary for the Hell hole that devours us today.

    • Replies: @Alden
  14. The Confederate States constitution includes God in the preamble

  15. Jake says:
    @Ghali

    French revolutionaries who wish to pretend that they their favorite revolutionary butchers were actually good guys love to praise French revolution.

    Either France begins to recreate Christendom and become once again Eldest Daughter of the Church, or France will die a suicide.

    The universalist unitarians that Guyenot lauds who then rule what once was France will be Mohammedan, and their bankers will be Jewish.

    • Replies: @Moi
  16. Seraphim says:

    Robespierre ‘reluctantly’ joining the ‘Comité de salut public’? He was the first to propose the establishment of a ‘Revolutionary Tribunal that had to deal with the “traitors” and “enemies of the people” in August 1792. The Tribunal was re-established by Danton and Robespierre in October 1793 and Robespierre was its principal purveyor. He was the father of ‘La Terreur’. The imposition of his ridiculous ‘Cult of the Supreme Being’ coincides with the peak of Terror (when he was personally responsible for nearly 800 executions a month) and the reason of his demise. People did not appreciate it and Robespierre’s answer was to draft a new list of public enemies who would be sent before the tribunal and executed and passing the infamous Law of 22 Prairial. That was too much even for the other revolutionary criminals.
    In essence he was as anti-Christian as his mentors Rousseau, Voltaire, as all the sacred monsters of the ‘Enlightnment’ and his enemies the atheists. He was really the ‘Executioner of the Vendee’. You won’t expect (I hope) anyone to take someone like Melenchon seriously.
    Was he a mason? Maybe not, with a ‘party card’, so to speak, but he wallowed in the Masonic cesspool that engulfed France in the 18th century. His grand father was a mason (“his father, who died in Germany, was of English origin; this may explain the shade of Puritanism in his character”, if you believe Lamartine). There is little doubt that he met Adam Weishaupt, therefore an ‘Illuminatus’ and a fanatical one at that.
    Maybe he was a tragic figure, “overwhelmed by a political blindness that bordered on the pathetic or madness, he refused to understand that he lived in a time other than that of the Roman Republic”, but no less sinister (‘There was softness, but of a sinister character’, again if you believe Lamartine). An “autistic” that drifted slowly but surely towards the “crime against humanity” that he would have surely committed if the technical resources of the 18th century had allowed mass exterminations”(Joël Schmidt, Robespierre, 2011, p. 229-230).

    • Replies: @Ship Track
    , @Ivan
    , @Alden
  17. anon[358] • Disclaimer says:

    Therefore, there is no reason to consider that, in Robespierre’s speeches, “Supreme Being” meant anything else than God.

    The fact remains he did not simply use the word “God”. The French language does have a word for ‘it’. From a theological point of view, he is also asserting a ‘continum’ of “being” with a “supreme” being on the tippy top of the (“not masonic!!!!”) pyramid.

  18. What’s a soul? Do animals have one?

    That which is created by God and is the animating principle of
    Men
    Animals
    Vegetables

    No, Robespierre did not have the same idea of God as did the Faithful but this incessant attempt to rewrite history is not surprising but it should be noted that what it really is is projection by an atheist author who is always searching for “proof” that will justify his refusal to accept God as He revealed Himself to us.

    Said otherwise, he has an endless series of authorities which he has replaced God with

    Now he certainly is not fooling those have the Faith once delivered and I doubt he has fooled himself, which is why he is always rabbiting on about this bll shite

    • Replies: @anon
  19. Saggy says: • Website

    While the article’s criticisms of dogmatic religion are valid, the notion of a non-dogmatic ‘supreme being’ and the rest is pure malarkey, to wit ….

    The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary. The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws:

    Here is the reality, if there is a ‘God’ or ‘supreme being’ he is murderous and wicked beyond belief, as he/she/it has created a world populated by creatures that survive by eating each other, literally. We live in a sort of hell, and the fact that we have tried to create a world based on kindness and justice is a tribute to the human race, and certainly not to any supreme being.

    • Agree: Alden, Kratoklastes
  20. RVBlake says:

    Fascinating article, Monsieur.

  21. He shared the primary trait of atheism (as does the author of this piece seemingly), which is a revulsion towards the concept of personal moral duties and judgment. They want an all-powerful being to relieve them of their existential angst (for hardcore atheists, “reason” and “progress” fill this role), but one that also doesn’t particularly care for how his creation operates and isn’t judgmental, therefore all things which the atheist can rationalize as ‘harmless’ are permitted (sexual perversion, homosexuality, usury, occassionally murdering political opponents, and of course perverting worship of the almighty toward the whims of the state). It’s not disgust with God in the old testament which leads to criticism, it’s the atheist’s own bad character which leads them to soothe their conscience with a bad-faith criticism of scripture (this libel is of course both faulty of content and circular, in that Christian morals are the basis of the criticism which flow from the same God they supposedly criticize).

    The eternally pathetic Dawkins says that from his misreading of scripture he finds Yahweh a racist, misogynistic homophobe. What else need be said in support of Yahweh’s good character? In the western world, these are the words that professional mediocrities like Dawkins use to describe anyone of any moral worth at all.

    • Replies: @John Howard
  22. @Saggy

    So sayeth the eternal mediocrity. Just because you’re a loser, that doesn’t make the world hell, there’s still time to reform.

    And I would take some small effort to address your idiot logic, but bad faith arguments aren’t worthy of serious response.

    • Troll: Saggy
  23. Moi says:
    @Jake

    No such person as a Mohammedan.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  24. @Clyde Wilson

    Dear Mr. Wilson. “Hilary is a museum quality Yankee?”

    Are you the author of that great quote and numerous books and articles?

    If you are, God Bless you Sir. I have read your work for a LONG time at Chronicles, in books, at The Abbeyville Institute etc.

    You are national treasure and it is a crime against culture that you are not prompted as are the cultural cranks and commie creeps most American get their ideas from.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  25. anon[358] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mick Jagger gathers no mosque

    this incessant attempt to rewrite history

    We disagree on this. IMHO the author is ‘writing‘ history. Here is trying to whitewash the fact that “Orthodox Christian” Putin is pushing the “Supreme Being” line (even though all major recognized religions in Russia in fact call ‘it’ God), lest the captive humanity analysing the entrails of the ruling classes’ maneuvers catch a hint of the unity of ideological purpose of the ruling classes worldwide.

  26. Another ringer from Laurent!

    A fascinating take on Robespierre. I, too, was always taught that he was some kind of Mason whose ‘Supreme Being’ was just some kind of personification of Cartesian reason. But if your account of his beliefs here is accurate, then I would have to say he was a much more substantial figure than I initially suspected.

    One thing that really shines through in your essay is how very patriotic Robespierre was. I daresay, had the Papacy been French, he might well have remained a traditional Catholic!

    “The Thermidorians—thus have Robespierre’s conquerors and successors been dubbed—sought not only to justify their coup d’état of July 1794 (the month of Thermidor in the revolutionary calendar) but to evade the opprobrium they shared with Robespierre and his comrades for deeds done during the agonizing crisis the previous year, during the Terror. The vengeful malice of the Thermidorians was partly successful: their caricature of Robespierre has proved durable.”

    Very much like what Krushchev and, in their own way, the Trotskyites did to Stalin after his death as well. And of course, virtually everyone’s still doing it to Hitler.

  27. Agent76 says:

    Feb 2, 2020 Head Of The Russian Orthodox Church Proposes To Mention GOD in New Constitution!

    He thinks the mention would be appreciated by all faiths alike.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  28. @brabantian

    ‘eternal torture hell’ is one of the most evil notions ever invented

    It was invented by the Catholic church. Fortunately, thanks to Reformation’s products of literacy for us rabble, bibles in the vernacular languages, and individual free will, we can see the lies of the Great Whore for ourselves.

    “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Ezekiel 18:20

    As for God in the constitution, it’s the thin end of the wedge towards theocracy- a goal that the Vatican has been sharpening its knives for for a long time. The papacy abhors separation of church and state.

  29. Alden says:
    @Jake

    Having had easy access to 3 of the greatest university libraries in the USA and being able to read French pretty well, I’m an amateur historian very familiar with the despicable land and property grab known as the French Revolution.

    I’m not going to bother to refute this author’s outright lies. Too much trouble and can’t be bothered to cite the books, except for Abbe Burrel’s , Simon Schema’s somebody last name Batz, and Renee Boudereau’s memoirs.

    If you live in Los Angeles and can read French, you can go to the rare book section of Loyola university library in Westchester near the airport and read Renee Boudereau’s memoirs. It’s easy to read, short simple factual sentences like Camus.

    BTW, it was a death penalty offense just to be a catholic priest or nun in France during the worst of the French Revolution. Not spying for England, not active in the counter revolution, not even saying mass, marrying and baptizing, just being a catholic priest or nun.

    Little known fact. The Devil’s Island penal colony was created by the French revolutionaries for catholic priests. The sight of gray haired parish priests and nuns who ran the local hospital before the revolutionaries closed it lined up to be guillotined caused counter revolutionary sentiment.

    So the less radical revolutionaries created the penal colonies of Devil’s Island as a way to get rid of the priests without the public spectacle of beheading the headmaster of the local high schools , and hospital administrators.

    Confiscation of church property meant closing every hospital, orphanage, mental health asylum and most of the schools in France for years. Storming of the Bastille to “ free” the prisoners. 7 prisoners , everyone a severely sick dangerous mental patient sent there because all the insane asylums, all of which were run by the church were closed.

    Closing the high schools really pissed off the upper bourgeoisie because that’s where their sons and daughters learned the skills needed to remain in the upper bourgeoisie

    What a crock of lies and propaganda.

    Who gives a rat’s ass about some homocidal maniac’s constitution that was only in effect for a few months anyway before his government was overthrown with another round of executions?

    I once counted the number of governments France had between 1789 and 1816. I think maybe 8 different forms of government.

    If the rest of this writer’s articles are as false wrong and just plain ignorant as this one, nothing he writes is to be believed.

    At least it’s not some kind of quadruple exponent new math about the Chinese Plague killing off half the population of the earth.

    • Thanks: hhsiii
  30. Anon[804] • Disclaimer says:

    So Robespierre was fighting against the atheists. Good. And his “Etre Supreme” wasn’t another Freemason humanism. Fine.
    But unlike Putin who only wants to enshrine the Russians “faith in god” in the constitution, Robespierre wanted “the priests who submitted to the pope” to take an oath on the Civil Constitution. That was a very bad idea, even if the pope was a foreigner. Putin doesn’t try to officially mix in the church’s business, he just want to make sure the atheists/masonics zionists/communists from the West won’t be allowed to take power again in Russia. States shouldn’t officially pretend to mix in church’s organization.
    And while Robespierre didn’t try to repel the official masonic “Droits de l’homme” religion which teaches that human beings are God, Putin is just doing it by officially putting God above men, and he is damn right.

    • Replies: @Alden
  31. The West and its metaphysically impoverished societies would do well to consider Zen (Chán) , an atheistic philosophy that is transcendent and moral without concepts of eternal reward or punishment, without scriptures, without a priestly caste, without “worship”. It simply states that the simultaneity between mind and Mind is all that IS. Once this is internalized, one continues daily life as before, but with a deeper understanding of it without anxiety, without unbalanced desires but with with a sense of wonder at all that unfolds in the course of time, including one’s own death, the time of transition.

    Living in the West, as I do, I see no need to criticize the dominant religious beliefs however incomprehensible I might find them. I live in what once was Christendom, honoring and respecting the moral and ethical beliefs and customs of these societies, now sickeningly secularized to the degree that natural law is openly and approvingly flouted. The metaphysics of Zen is quite simple in theory, but requires self-discipline to put into practice. Self-discipline seems to be something the consumerist societies of the West have forgotten.

  32. @Seraphim

    “There is little doubt that he met Adam Weishaupt, therefore an ‘Illuminatus’ and a fanatical one at that.”

    All this blather about “supreme being” does sound awfully Masonic, but I believe far more in judging people by their actions than by their words, likely because of numerous painful experiences dealing with lawyers and especially jewish lawyers who will say anything they think can get away with.

  33. romar says:

    Thanks for this very interesting discussion.
    As for this comment “More surprisingly, Communist Party boss Gennady Zyuganov raises no objection”, the late Yvan Blot offered a fascinating tableau of Zyuganov the communist and man of faith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-mcp3WF-Cg&list=PL8nCjSDFd70kS8t1W5pNRoiIgPal-lyc0&index=2&t=0s – from 51:30.

  34. @Lockean Proviso

    As for God in the constitution, it’s the thin end of the wedge towards theocracy- a goal that the Vatican has been sharpening its knives for for a long time. The papacy abhors separation of church and state.

    Imagine unironically believing “seperation of church and state” is a real thing. An official religion is a prerequisite for the existence of governmnt.

    Fortunately, thanks to Reformation’s products of literacy for us rabble, bibles in the vernacular languages, and individual free will, we can see the lies of the Great Whore for ourselves.

    Do you know literally anything about theology? Orthodox and Catholic christians believe in the concept free will, it is Protestants (not all sects but some) that reject it. Get a clue.

  35. Saggy says: • Website

    There is no question that Putin has a very cozy relationship with Chabad,For a different perspective of Putin’s changes to the Russian Constitution see
    PUTIN TO ADD NOAHIDE LAW TO RUSSIAN CONSTITUTION
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/B8MQ4lHsxwg/

    • Replies: @Robjil
  36. My terribly simplistic understanding of Laurent’s rather long and certainly scholarly exposition, is that he feels that for the sake of science and the adults we can declare Santa dead, but please not make any attempt upon His life for the sake of the children and Christmas.

  37. Robjil says:
    @Lockean Proviso

    In ancient Egypt, people who did bad deeds were punished in the afterlife. A deceased person, goes before a scale of justice. His/her heart is weighed against a feather. He/she is asked 42 divine principles. If the deceased heart weights too much with too many bad deeds, it is devoured by Ammit.

    The idea of punishment for bad deeds is a very old concept for humanity. It needs to come back for the warmongering neocons and regime changers of our day.

    Here is how the deceased goes to the scale of justice. The 42 divine principles, good deeds, decides the deceased’s fate.

    http://maatlaws.blogspot.com/

    In Spellbook/Chapter 30B of The Papyrus of Ani titled “Chapter for Not Letting Ani’s Heart Create Opposition Against Him, in the Gods’ Domain,” we find a petitioner of ma’at (justice/truth) before the scales of justice (iconography ma’at/goddess maat). Anubis, the setter of the scales, has placed the petitioner’s heart-soul (Ka) on one side of the scale, its counter-weight is the feather of truth (Shu). The Spellbook/Chapter for Not Letting Ani’s Heart Create Opposition Against Him in the Gods’ Domain is where the petitioner must pronounce, and his/her weighted heart/soul (Ka) will reveal the truth or non-truth of each affirmative of the 42 pronouncements.

    Here is Ammit who devours the doers of bad deeds.

    http://www.kemet.org/taxonomy/term/128

    (Am-mut) – “Dead-Swallower” Stationed just to the side of the scales in the Hall of Double Truth [see Ma’at], Ammit’s function is to await the postmortem judgment of a soul (envisioned as the deceased’s heart being weighed on a scale against the feather of Ma’at) and then, if the soul fails the test, Ammit snatches up the heart and devours it, causing the soul to cease to exist. As the ultimate punishment of the wicked, Ammit is depicted as a hideous composite of the animals Kemet’s people feared most: crocodile snout and head, feline claws and front, and a hippopotamus body and back legs. Ammit is also sometimes referred to as “Great of Death,” and papyri depict Her patiently watching Yinepu weighing a man’s heart against the feather of Ma’at.

  38. Ram says:

    Good for Russia.

  39. This has been a very refreshing article for several reasons that should be obvious. I look forward to reading more of this kind in the future.

    “If voted in the upcoming referendum, it would consecrate the civilizational schism that is likely to define the history of our civilization in the coming century: in the West, the post-modernist project of liberating man from his human nature, to produce an uprooted, transgendered, upgraded man, Homo Deus. In the East, the choice of honoring and protecting our spiritual and anthropological roots, to produce the genuine thing: Mars and Venus, virile men and feminine women grateful to their Creator for each other, reveling in their fertile complementarity.”

    I’m not sure I’ve read a more succinct summary of what is happening to our civilization.

  40. DM says:
    @Lockean Proviso

    Rev 20:11-15

    Hell is hardly an invention of the Catholic Church – it is found in King James, Douay and Orthodox Bibles:

    “And I saw a great white throne and one sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away: and there was no place found for them And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne. And the books were opened: and another book was opened, which was the book of life. And the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it: and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them. And they were judged, every one according to their works. And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the pool of fire.

    • Replies: @Lockean Proviso
  41. Robjil says:
    @Saggy

    It is not as “cozy” as in the US congress and in the ZUS empire. Chabbad does not have as much “fun” in Russia as in the ZUS empire.

    https://www.jta.org/2018/02/01/global/u-s-born-rabbi-called-extremist-kicked-out-of-russia

    For the eighth time over the past decade, Russian authorities told a foreign Chabad rabbi living in Russia to leave the country.

    Josef Marozof, a New York native who began working 12 years ago for Chabad in the city of Ulyanovsk, 400 miles east of Moscow, was ordered earlier this week to leave because the FSB security service said he had been involved in unspecified “extremist behavior.”

  42. Alden says:

    Two old French proverbs are applicable here.

    First, there are 3 sides to every story, his, hers and the truth.

    Second, don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does.

    Castro, Lyndon Johnson, Hildabeast, the Civil Rights For all but Whites laws, , Mao, Lenin Stalin Trotsky, Pelosi, every liberal do gooder idealist like Robespierre and the rest talk do gooderism while we watch them looting, confiscating and slaughtering.

    Author reminds me of all the dumb naive liberal American and European soi disant idiot intellectual visionary do gooders who visited Russia during the 1939s and came back with glowing reports of the wonderful society of the future.

    • Replies: @S
  43. @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    Athletic and Whitesplosive wrote the following falsehood:

    “… atheism …, which is a revulsion towards the concept of personal moral duties and judgment.”

    That is exactly the opposite of the truth. For openers, atheisim is merely the lack of a particular superstition. Secondly, most atheists believe that morality and truth are so important that they deserve a better foundation than a bunch of ancient Jewish superstitions taken on faith.

    Those old superstitions were designed to promote faith (believe what you are told to believe) and self-sacrifice (don’t defend yourself) because they make people easier to rob and rule.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  44. Anon[237] • Disclaimer says:

    The only thing that enshrining a vague-God in the constitution would accomplish is the Tribe eventually twisting the meaning to meet the definition and needs of whatever demon they worship.

    Propose to enshrine the specific Indo-European God in Constitutions and then we have something to talk about.

  45. Alden says:
    @Anon

    The civil constitution Robespierre demanded priests take an oath to with the death penalty if they didn’t lasted less than a year. The author is writing about a constitution that lasted less than a year.

    I think it was 6 governments between 1789 and 1800 and more after 1800 each with its own written or implied constitution.

    Why not just write an article that it’s good the new Russian constitution will mention God?

    Instead of bringing in this ridiculous conventional version of the French Revolution? I assume he’s trying to impress us with his scholarly knowledge, but he sure hasn’t impressed me with his fantasies about Robespierre.

  46. @Moi

    No such person as a Mohammedan.

    That’s like saying there is no such person as a Lutheran, or a Calvinist, or a Maoist. A Mohammedan has much in common with all three. If anything, his prophet was a blend of all three founders, with a fair bit of Joseph Smith, Napoleon, and Hitler to boot.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @ploni almoni
  47. @Mick Jagger gathers no mosque

    “Hilary is a museum quality Yankee?”

    If you mean Hillary, she has no more Yankee blood than does Donald Trump, and less than Obama’s 1%. She also supports income taxation and the New Deal. (As does much of the so-called “alt-right.”) No Yankee, she.

    Eating pie for breakfast isn’t enough.

  48. Bring back the old pagan gods.

  49. Dennis Dale says: • Website

    I can’t wait for the day when Intelligent Design research will be funded in Russian universities, rather than censored as it is in the U.S. (watch Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled: No Intelligent Allowed).

    I was enjoying the walk you were leading me on until I stepped in this dog shit. I’m sure the rest of the journey was fascinating. But I avoid crazy as a rule.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  50. S says:
    @Alden

    The one’s who managed to make their way back were the lucky ones. Thousands didn’t, either being executed, or Gulaged, where they indeed ‘found work’, but, not of the type they were counting on.

    The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin’s Russia by Tim Tzouliadis is a 2008 book published by Penguin Books. It tells the story of thousands of Americans who immigrated to the Soviet Union in the 1930s. The vast majority of these Americans were executed or sent to the Gulag by Joseph Stalin’s government.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forsaken:_An_American_Tragedy_in_Stalin’s_Russia

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3171446-the-forsaken

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  51. @Dennis Dale

    I agree. If people want to dabble in Intelligent Design, fine. But it has no place in real science.

  52. What does it matter what Robespierre thought or whether he was good or bad?

    Why should our values be a matter of revering certain individuals? That’s cult of personality, or idolatry.

  53. In a related revisionist hangout, Robert Sepehr has long been exposing ancient masonic secrets, his videos just keep getting better. here is his channel.

    A recent video is Who created the Bible

  54. Hibernian says:
    @John Howard

    Those superstitions sustained many generations through many trials and tribulations. Science, industry, and affluence tempt people to believe they don’t need God, then in time of trouble they rediscover Him.

  55. Iris says:

    for some reappraisal of a great man unfairly vilified, and thereby a case study in the transformation of a vanquished hero into a monster by state propaganda.

    Thank you, Mr Guyenot, for yet another exceptional article.
    It is a manifestation of the immanent Divine and Good that exist within human beings that, despite the lies piled over two centuries, the selfless idealism of Maximillien Robespierre gets recognised through the darkness by equally transcendant souls. Yours was a beautiful tribute.

    The great Robespierre inspired poets too:

    “The only torment of the Righteous in his last hour
    And the only one which will be tearing me
    Is to see by dying the dark and pale Envy
    Distill on my forehead the opprobrium and infamy
    To die for You People and abhorred by Ye”

    “Le seul tourment du juste en son heure derniere
    Et le seul dont alors je serai dechire
    C’est de voir en mourant la sombre et pale envie
    Distiller sur mon front l’opprobre et l’infamie
    De mourir pour le peuple et d’en etre abhorre.”

  56. Franz says:
    @gotmituns

    I have nothing against god. I just think my ancestors in those dark forests of northern Europe shouldn’t have been burdened with Christianity.

    Too true.

    The “one size fits all” god might be fine for Mideasterners, but the very different worlds the seasons display in the North literally portray a pantheon. Northern gods are nature’s signature to Northern peoples.

    Guyenot’s thoughts are excellent. They also add meat to the old saying “The god that atheists don’t believe in don’t exist.”

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  57. For 2000 years western religion has spread a mental virus and resulted in endless violence. Now religious people are spreading Covid-19. There is no place for your god in our life.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  58. Agent76 says:

    06.04.2020 Gorbachev: Time to Revise the Entire Global Agenda

    Q: How did you take the news of the pandemic?

    A: I think I took it the way most people did. Initially, there was hope that it could be controlled, localized. But things took a very different turn and the epidemic spread far and wide. Unprecedented measures and decisions became necessary. Leaders, citizens and international organizations found themselves in an extremely difficult situation. All of this will have to be thoroughly analyzed, but the priority now is to take things in hand and defeat this new, vicious enemy.

    https://www.pressenza.com/2020/04/gorbachev-time-to-revise-the-entire-global-agenda/

  59. If God needs Putin’s protection the Russians will need even more vodka. This is a load of dangerous nonsense. The Australian Constitution has it just right. People are free to worship their gods. They are equally free to think religion is a load of superstitious folly and their government has no interest in the subject. The government just wants citizens to eat their fruit and veg, take care when crossing the road, go easy on the booze and pay their taxes.

  60. Tusk says:

    Laurent, what do you think of René Guénon?

  61. @DM

    It was regarding the claim of everlasting hell, not of hell itself.

  62. @Lockean Proviso

    Hell cannot be “an invention” of the Church. It is the logical consequence of contradiction, maintaining that 2 and 2 are 5, and if you look around, you will see many people in hell. Marlowe put it nicely: “Mephistopheles:`Why, this is hell, nor am I out of it. Think’st thou that I, who saw the face of God. And tasted the eternal joys of heaven, Am not tormented with ten thousand hells.’”

    It cannot be “eternal” but it can sure be indefinite, without boundary, until the contradictions are burned out.

    For the rest, how is Robespierre’s “Supreme Being” different from Free Masonry’s “Great Architect of the Universe” or, indeed, from Satan?

    Tsk Tsk Laurent, tsk tsk.

  63. Hibernian says:
    @Franz

    The God that many atheists, agnostics, etc., don’t believe in is often the God who promulgated alleged doctrines of the Catholics, the Calvinists, whoever, taught by poorly catechized priests, nuns, Sunday School teachers, etc., which aren’t in accord with the real doctrines of the Church the teacher belongs to, and which aren’t tempered by mercy. Much damage has been done by Catholics who are more Catholic than the Pope.

    • Replies: @Franz
  64. Hibernian says:
    @Ostap Bender

    Now religious people are spreading Covid-19.

    This is based on a handful of pastors conducting services as usual.

  65. Seraphim says:
    @Lockean Proviso

    Reformation might have offered the ‘Bible’ in vernacular to the rabble, but to what advantage if they don’t read it. So much for literacy!
    “It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire…
    “Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

  66. tried to read this sacrilege holding my nose but the stench is still too strong …
    like it or not, take it or leave it,
    SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS!
    instead of accepting reality or searching for the truth, you try to confirm reality to your own reasoning or unbelief. the sin of pride is what caused downfall of both satan and Adam. your intellectual pride leads you down a path of ultimate perdition.
    please, fall on your knees and humble yourself before the Almighty. God is near to those who have lowly heart. good luck!

  67. Seraphim says:
    @Tusk

    Not much, I suppose. Guenon is the most acerbic critic of the destructiveness of the worldview that Mr. Guyenot’s embraces with so much passion.

  68. Seraphim says:
    @S

    Who were the Americans who emigrated to the Workers Paradise? The Trotskist mostly ‘Polish’ born (aka Jews).

  69. Ivan says:
    @Seraphim

    Excellent. Nice sleight of hand by Guyneot the authour to turn a butcher of pious Catholics to on the contrary a proponent of their highest religious ideals. It does not seem to have occurred to him that to place any being however concueved – Reason, Race, State – or any other looming collosus over the God of the Bible is a violation if the First Commandment. As Jake and Ghali point out above the French Revolutionary is one hell of a shape shifter.

  70. @Tusk

    Laurent will tell you.

    But, what is important to know, is that Guenon was an occultist charlatan. Classically Gnostic and very Dualist. Philosophically he was mainstream Monism, like the Church of “Christian Science.” Guenon’s “Traditionalism” was a reaction to modernism, a tendency prominent in France after the revolution of 1848. Its main tenets are that all “authentic” religions (Guénon’s term) have a common origin or are the same in their essence. This is standard Manicheanism. The authenticity of a religion for René Guénon, whose mentality was the product of French central bureaucracy and the mumbo-jumbo of Free Masonry, was a consequence of “legal” patents, and “regular certification” on the authority of hidden esoteric hierarchs. For him, the visit of the Magi to Jesus was an “accreditation” on the part of authorized representatives of the Primordial Tradition delivered in due form.

    [MORE]

    Guénon, thought it was possible, for the qualified adept, to “splice” initiations in order to restore a defunct line. He saw Christianity as having lost its initiation in the woods, and, most stupid of all, through the destruction, of the Knights Templar by the French King Philippe le Bel in 1312. Guenon saw this as the turning point of civilization. And show him up to be a terrible phony. The expression “Friday the 13th” originates with the arrest of the Templars, who had actually become a Neo-Manichean organization because of their close ties with the Ism`ailis during the Crusades. The Templars were the fore-runners of the Illuminati.

    According to Guénon, who, unbeknownst to himself was the heir of French anti-clericalism, the “initiation” of Christianity was originally carried—not by the Church—but by semi-secret ancillary entities, such as the Free Masons, craft initiations, and hermetic organizations, which have disappeared or become corrupt. One such craft initiation was called the compagnonnage, a traditional system of transmission of knowledge and techniques through communities of compagnons, which the Germans might call Kultur träger.

    The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times is one of Guénon’s principal books. It says that: The spiritual reality is occulted and only dimly perceived. That which was a steep decline has now become an abyss. It has been said that where “Traditionalism succeeds is in pointing out many important faults in modernity: the loss of the sacred with the rise of secularism, the loss of intrinsic value with the rise of instrumental rationality, the loss of art and vocation with the industrialization and automation, and the loss of a coherent world view with the emergence of pluralism, diversification and specialization. However, others have observed these faults, too.”

    Geunon’s “counter initiation,” while indefinable, is nevertheless quite real, since lies are an inversion of the truth. Traditionalism cannot offer any solutions because its own theory predicts the destruction of the modern world. The individual can hold on, perhaps, but there is no alternative for society except to succumb, by definition. Collective salvation is impossible, and to reproach the Traditionalist for the lack of a program in this respect is absurd. However, this does not prevent Traditionalists from attempting to recruit followers, like any cult.

    But the roots of the Traditional School come from the great charlatans of the 18th century like Cagliostro, and the Comte de Sainte Germain. Goethe identified Cagliostro as Guiseppe Balsamo (1743-1795), a Jew. The name “Balsamo” he said came from “Baal Shem” which is Kabbalist “Master of the Name.” Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881) pronounced Cagliostro the “Quack of Quacks” in 1833. On the other hand, Prince Charles of Hesse-Kassel considered the Comte de Sainte Germain (1712-1784), “one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived.” These were self-styled adventurers, magicians, glamorous figures associated with the royal European courts, where they pursued various occult arts, including psychic healing, alchemy, hypnosis, which Mesmer called “magnetism,” “scrying,” or clairvoyance and oneiromancy, the interpretation of dreams. But above all, the fathers and mothers of the Traditional school are the occultists of the 19th century, and chief among them was Helene Blavatsky, although everyone pretended otherwise. They denounced Theosophy but nevertheless for them that was the holy grail which they were seeking. Even the Bolsheviks did not escape her influence.

    The immediate predecessors of the Traditionalists are Antoine Fabre d’Olivet (1767– 1825) a French author, poet and composer and Franz Friedrich Anton Mesmer (1734-1815) a German doctor with an interest in astronomy who theorized that there was a natural energy transference that occurred between all animated and even inanimate objects that he called animal magnetism, later called “Mesmerism.”

    Fabre d’Olivet’s Biblical and philosophical hermeneutics influenced many followers, and created the 19th century French school of occultism which was enormously influential. Other founding fathers were Éliphas Lévi Zahed, (1810–1875), Alexandre Saint-Yves d’Alveydre (1842-1909), Gérard Encausse (known as Papus, the ceremonial magician) and Édouard Schuré (1841-1929). All of these figures also had political philosophies and were influenced by the Revolution of 1848 and the Second Empire.

    Éliphas Lévi was actually a Catholic, born Alphonse Louis Constant, the son of a shoemaker in Paris who in 1830 entered the seminary of Saint Sulpice to become a priest but was distracted by love and became “a ceremonial magician,” a category which was has almost disappeared, but which flourished at the time.

    Joseph Alexandre Saint-Yves claimed to have received the title Marquis d’Alveydre in the micro-state of San Marino in 1880 (where today you can buy nationality and with it a passport). This prefigured the transformation in 1956, of Pierre Plantard of the “Prieuré de Sion” imposture, into Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair, Comte de Rhédae (Rennes-le-chateau). Saint-Yves inherited the teachings and papers of Antoine Fabre d’Olivet and pursued the study of Sanskrit with “Eastern Masters.” He was acquainted with both René Guénon and Encausse-Papus. He created the term Synarchy—“the association of everyone with everyone else”—as a political philosophy in a book called La France vraie. His ideal government was run by secret or esoteric societies which guided it and gave it legitimacy. He wrote Mission des Juifs in 1884 which was followed by Mission des Indes in 1886. He supposedly destroyed all copies of the latter immediately upon its publication, but some copies survived and it was republished by Papus in 1910. Mission des Indes revealed the underground realm of the Agarttha. The “hollow earth” was a very common idea, and appears in Jules Verne’s 1864 science fiction novel Journey to the Center of the Earth. But Saint-Yves’ book made a hidden kingdom underground the supreme spiritual center of the universe and merged it with the hierarchical authority principle. This hierarchy obsessed Guénon. Guénon himself described in the Reign of Quantity, in its Catholic and Scholastic form. And at the same it was, and is, a multi-level marketing pyramid scheme.

    • Thanks: ivan
  71. An interesting read. However, belief in a Supreme Being tempered by a sovereign who himself has not elevated his soul above base desires is a recipe for disaster …

    The problems of the Christian West emanate from centuries of doctored texts presented as the word of God. As a result the safest path for an atheist is to question the anomalies and point out the inconsistencies found in the Bible. A third approach for thinking people in the West is to go for an unbiased reading of the Quran in order to understand true Christianity and Judaism. There is more reference in the Quran to Moses and Jesus and Mary than to the Prophet of Islam Muhammad (s) and his holy progeny. If on this thread we can have honest debate without biases that should be a starting point…

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  72. For example, the Holy Quran speaks of Mary in glowing terms and having chosen her over the women of the world:

    ‘And when the Angels said, ‘O Mary! Allah has chosen you and purified you, and He has chosen you above the world’s women. O Mary! be obedient to your Lord and prostrate and bow down with those who bow (in worship). When the angels said, ‘O Mary! Allah gives you the good news of a Word from Him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, distinguished in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (to Allah).’ (Quran: chapter 3: verses 42-45)

  73. Seraphim says:
    @An Easterner

    A honest debate between Christians and Mahomedans is impossible as long as the Mahomedans do not renounce their absurd charge that the Christian Scriptures are fakes and arrogantly telling Christians that they know better than them what ‘true Christianity’ is.

    • Agree: ivan
  74. @Seraphim

    That’s telling `em. Add that to the sanctions on Iran. And while you are at it, what about the status of women. And what about eunuchs? You are not forgetting about eunuchs, are you?

  75. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    the priests created a god in their image

    The pathetic stories of pagan godless peoples over millennia… the Hindoos, Greeks, Romans, Christians, Judens, Buddhists…

    Say, “He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, nor is there to Him any equivalent. : Surah 112

    Will the godless heed the call to reason?!

  76. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @brabantian

    replacing them with Christian and Islamic i.e. judaic fabrications

    Pagan “in-his-image-mangod” Judenism did not “fabricate” true monotheist Islam. True Monotheism has always been the core faith of mankind, since prophet Adam(pbuh).

    The Almighty One firmly established Islam on earth, through the Seal of all Prophets (SAW), as a Divinely willed correction to mankind’s rampant paganism, and thus as a mercy upon mankind.

    The unique thing from ancient India, is the truly unique wonderful yoga meditation etc traditions … offering direct experience of the divine, spiritual ecstasies accessible at almost any time for those of us who enter into these realms

    Lol! India is an extremist pagan godless cesspool.

    Ancient India’s most beloved story, the Bhagavad-Gita, in 10 minutes …

    The initial picture in that video of a cannibalistic pagan kook tells us all the real story of the “Bhagavad-Gita.”

  77. Please, could you and Seraphim and similar others take your irreconcilable infallible sources outside and play. The adults are trying to have a conversation on whether people like you should be banned, tolerated, or allowed to rule.

  78. If God is going into the Constitution Putin should also include the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas. We should remember that the 21st century God is transsexual and can see both sides of the story.

    • Replies: @Dumb4asterisks
  79. @Tusk

    I cannot claim to know Guénon enough to have an informed opinion. For, for whatever it is worth, here is what I would say: I had been, in the past, influenced positively by Guénon’s criticism of (Blavatsky’s) theosophy and reincarnation. And he contributed to my interest for India’s religious traditions (my grandfather had the full collection of the “Editions Traditionnelle”, and I spent a few years reading them. But today, I tend to consider that Guénon’s hostility to the academic method (historical research and anthropology) undermined the value of his work: it just doesn’t correspond to what I’m trying to do, and I see no evidence for his postulate of a “Great Primordial Tradition” from which humankind fell. Moreover, Guénon’s idea of an “esoteric catholicism” is also highly speculative. Guénon ending up converting to Islam is, in my view, the symbol of the general failure of this approach. My general impression is that Guénon’s traditionalist approach has now lost its value. At least, I feel no personnal connection to it. Did Guénon ever express any awareness of the Jewish Question? Not that I know of, and for me, this is a major blind spot. Also, I doubt that Guénon would find much value in the concept of “natural religion”, which I much prefer to “Primordial tradition”, although there is a gread deal of overlap between them. But again, this is a general impression, based on limited knowledge. Now, what do you think of Guénon?

    • Replies: @Tusk
  80. @Agent76

    Is Russia planning to implement those most evil of all laws, NOAHIDE LAWS as America has?
    No doubt!

  81. idealogus says: • Website

    Exactly.
    Until it is very clear said who is the “supreme being” the first option is Satan- aka – The great arhitect.
    For me the fight between the Danton faction and the Robespiere faction is actually between the moderate and radical factions of the masons.
    Atheism was never an option. It is only an intermediate step towards proclaiming the cult of “Supreme Being – wanabe”

  82. How I ended up being a deist…

    When one sets out on the path to find truth (or at least something as close to it as possible) the way is not always clear. The road is often obscured and the terrain treacherous. When I became disenthralled from Christianity as a young man in my teens I began my search by experimenting with various “spiritual paths” and “alternative” religions but, although I was sincere and participated of my own free will, there was still so much that seemed disingenuous to me about such spirituality even within the depths of my own mind. Being a spiritual person by nature it was hard for me to come to terms with the fact that I had to lie to myself to get anything out of the “spiritual” experiences I was having and, after a while, it became obvious that most “alternative” religions and spiritualities are much the same as the monolithic Abrahamic religions; just on a smaller scale: 1) Most all of them have a strict hierarchy (whether it is institutionalized or implied it is almost always there). 2) Most all of them have at their head some charismatic leader who is often supposed to have attained some sort of special divine knowledge or favor. 3) Most all of them require that you “tow the line” doctrinally or face some form of social ostracism or threat of otherworldly punishment. 4) Most all of them claim to be possessed of some special quality that makes their way more right than all others. And, as with some revealed religious congregations, doctrinal squabbles and petty politics often destroy any good that anyone had intended to do before it even had the chance to manifest.
    Brutus C. Tipton

    https://www.deism.com/deismbeginning.htm

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  83. @Jerry Roberts

    Your view of God is so old fashioned, and even there you err. Of course God includes the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas! God is just (about) everything, as His dynamic Protean nature throughout history proves. That’s the beauty of it: One size fits all. All that matters is that He is our “God”, so He can bless us a little bit more. (“Chosen” is so yesterday.)

    “Mom, the goose shat in the drinking water!”
    “Don’t worry my child. It’s our goose.”

  84. In referring to the ‘Supreme Being’ Robespierre was almost certainly referring to its Masonic representation. Arguably this is Lucifer.

  85. I most respectfully dis-agree. I find Deism and the principals of natural law to be the best fit for a purposeful, self fulfilled life. Everything else is poppy-cock. Personally, it took an ex Satanist priest to help me make sense of it all.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  86. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Lol! Pathetic!

    See, if it was simply a matter of “Mohammedans” being the followers of the Prophet Mohammad, then your argument just might have some weight, even though I reject the analogy with pagan Lutherans/Calvinists, or the godless Maoists.

    But, if it implied in a manner akin to Christianity, that is, they who ascribe divinity to the one they follow, that somehow muslims are mangod-worshippers at some level, then that is patently false. Muslims are not pagan mangods-worshippers, like the Christians or the Hindoos or… That is the simple indisputable fact, or will you, the pagan/godless, tell us what we truly believe?

    This is the reason why we true monotheists dislike the term, but if you think you can win some argument, or succeed in highlighting our “pagan-ness,” by labelling us with that perceived pejorative, then knock yourself out. 😀

    For us… he was the blessed man who succeeded in guiding mankind, entirely by the will of the Almighty One, to never stray from;

    God is One, and the only One worthy of worship.

    And, InshaAllah, we never will!

    It must be so galling for racist/supremacist pagan/godless westerners, that we “muzzies” truly believe, in a true monotheism which is so beyond theistic dispute… while your kind needs to constantly remind themselves, that they are supposed to believe (“on faith”), even when they don’t truly believe.

    When your kind needs to feebly resort to mendacious metaphors (ice/water/vapour, 3d-geometry, “godhood” as a 3-headed organisation) to explain your most core of faiths, the Trinity, do you think your kind truly believes?

    Can the Trinity ever conquer the Tawheed? If you had half a brain, you would understand, that is impossible!

    • Troll: Seraphim
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  87. Nodwink says:

    If you are going to have a fictional character in your constitution, it may as well be a cool one, like Number Six from The Prisoner.

  88. @Johnny Walker Read

    In Rabelais’ Abbey of Thélème the rule is “Do what you like.” That must be for spiritual people. Only the good-looking are permitted to enter. Was that what you were looking for?

    Actually, Robespierre’s belief in a Supreme Being and the Immortal Soul are also the conditions to enter a Masonic Lodge. Can’t be a coincidence.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  89. @Reg Cæsar

    Isn’t Hitler the opponent of Yahweh? And isn’t Yahweh the Axis of Evil?

  90. @Reg Cæsar

    By Yankee I do not mean everybody from north of the Potomac and Ohio. Lots of them have always been good folks. The firemen who died in the World Trade Center on September 11 were Americans. The politicians and TV personalities who stood around telling us what we are to think about it are Yankees. I am using the term historically to designate that peculiar ethnic group descended from New Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around. Puritans long ago abandoned anything that might be good in their religion but have never given up the notion that they are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection of their own image.
    Hillary Rodham Clinton, raised a Northern Methodist in Chicago, is a museum-quality specimen of the Yankee — self-righteous, ruthless, and self-aggrandizing
    . Northern Methodism and Chicago were both, in their formative periods, hotbeds of abolitionist, high tariff Black Republicanism. The Yankee temperament, it should be noted, makes a neat fit with the Stalinism that was brought into the Deep North by later immigrants.

    https://www.davidrreynolds.org/_articles/TheYankeeProbleminAmerica.pdf

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  91. Your articles are always edifying and a great pleasure to read them … thank you, Laurent!

  92. Franz says:
    @Hibernian

    Much damage has been done by Catholics who are more Catholic than the Pope.

    I had a relative, I high-ranking nun in the years before Vatican II. In her old age she regaled me with stories of how terrific old Church Militant really was.

    But it didn’t surprise me: What with their patron saints, martyrs, holy madmen like Peter the Hermit, Catholics had a perfect pantheon. It was Nordic ex-Catholics who most hated Vatican II for daring to say their patron had been nothing more than “folklore”.

    Rome had it all till 1962. Then they threw it all away.

  93. @ploni almoni

    In Rabelais’ Abbey of Thélème the rule is “Do what you like.”

    Actually I think it’s “‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”. Satanism is still the worship of a deity which supposedly has power over us all. Deism, or the principles of natural law are we had a creator of some type, BUT, he or she gave us a brain to be able to create our own life story.
    1)Satanism says if it feels good do it, if you can profit from it, it matters not who you hurt. Fcked up shit!!
    2)Natural law and Deism are based on the principles of freedom and bowing a knee to no ruler, BUT, both of these principals believe freedom cannot exist without morality. Anything that upsets the “natural order” will be detrimental to all mankind(homosexuality, transgenderism, rape, murder, theft,etc.)
    Again no one describes natural law better than Mark Passio.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  94. Seraphim says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Isn’t more ‘fulfilling’ when you fill it with a Johnny Walker Red (although I prefer the Black Label and Chivas Regal and of course single malts)?

  95. Hi Dumb4asterisks. I suppose there is a place for all this rhubarb in a Blog but not in a Constitution. What Putin is up to is anybody’s guess but it will be something to do with social control, of that we can be sure. The founding fathers of the Australian federation when they inserted Section 116 into the Constitution were looking to America’s first amendment and article 6 in the body of the American Constitution. They served us well. In Australia nobody is stopping people attending religious services. I don’t know any ministers, priests or pastors who are complaining about over-crowding. Never trust a Bible-bashing politician.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Dumb4asterisks
  96. @Mick Jagger gathers no mosque

    By Yankee I do not mean everybody from north of the Potomac and Ohio.

    Nor do we. A Yankee is defined by Yankee blood, Yankee upbringing, and Yankee residence. We don’t throw the term around loosely. I’d never call my father a Yankee, even though that’s around 75% of his ancestry, because he was from Michigan.

    …and penchant for ordering other people around.

    Every foreign war we’ve been in has gotten far more support south of the Potomac and Ohio, to the extent of young men signing up. What is foreign war, if not ordering other people around?

    Be honest. It’s not ordering other people around you object to, it’s ordering you around. You folks seem fine with ordering people around yourselves.

    Remember the “fugitive slave” laws? Attempts by the hated “Yankees” to make America whiter were stymied by “catchers” with no respect for state sovereignty. Yes, those laws were constitutional, but that just goes to show that New Yorkers John Lansing and Robert Yates were right about the Constitution being a blueprint for tyranny.

    hotbeds of abolitionist, high tariff Black Republicanism

    Tariffs kept income taxation at bay. Dixie won that war, though, in 1913. Abolitionists thought Africans belonged where God had put them.

    The Yankee temperament, it should be noted, makes a neat fit with the Stalinism that was brought into the Deep North by later immigrants.

    The South loved FDR, and FDR loved Stalin. One is prone to wonder if the South loved FDR because FDR loved Stalin.

    (The French as well. Why is this imperialist monster honored on a Parisian boulevard?)

    • Replies: @Alden
  97. Tusk says:
    @Laurent Guyenot

    Thanks for the reply, interesting to hear about your grandfather’s collection. Primarily wanted to ask your thoughts considering you’re one of the few ‘religious’ writers on here and of course Guénon is one of the main sources of reactionary and traditional religious perspectives currently.

    As for my thoughts on Guénon I think some of his ideas are useful to the purely material perspectives of the current West but I think he can be harmful from oversaturating people with Eastern ideas. I can’t remember the quote exactly but someone, upon meeting Evola, remarked that it was funny he would look so far across the world to understand Tradition but ignore the Catholic culture down the street. I think this provides a good criticism about Guénon to a degree.

    As to his hostility to the academic record I have to agree. Too much of his work relies on authority instead of verifiable fact, which weakens his arguments. Your article ‘The Arabian Cradle of Zion’ demonstrates the effeciency of the academic record and looking at the world. You can see the negative effect that a less empirical method has as people no longer trust their own two eyes because they’re only initiates and not masters. But at the same time I think an overall focus on some aspects of Tradition are important. Too much Protestant culture has ruined Christianity in my opinion, the ability to interpret the Bible as one pleases leads to many of the problems of today. Having people quote some verse about letting your neighbour in, and using it to justify open borders, is a good example of providing too much power to the people. I think that Guénon’s appeal to authority provides a benefit as long as people don’t take it too seriously.

    Did Guénon ever express any awareness of the Jewish Question?

    I don’t think so, but he has an even greater problem with his theories in that all Abrahamic faiths are revolts against the previous order. I’m unsure how he can express that there is a Jewish, Christian or Muslim Tradition, in that they have their own authority and truth to them, when Muslim tradition is just heretical Christian tradition, and Christian tradition is heretical Jewish tradition. If I was to try and usurp the Muslim tradition he presumably would be against it, yet he follows something that is against the Christian tradition which seems hyopcritcal.

    It also seems untenable to be a Christian and try to reconcile the Old and the New Testament due to the Jewish Question, which creates my main disapproval for his ideas. Instead of being a ‘crypto-Muslim’ ideology it seems more ‘Crypto-Jewish’ in providing broad authority to all sorts of quacks.

    the concept of “natural religion”, which I much prefer to “Primordial tradition”

    I agree with you on this. To me morality leads to God, and we can understand this through reason instead of revelation. The only issue that natural religion has is I find it is less communal than a Traditional approach, which can be a downside as the community aspects of religion are extremely important too. Guénon says something about the value of inherent laws and language within a Tradition that help make it authentic and complete, so to this end it is important to analyse what effect a tradition or religion has upon a culture to understand its validity.

    I think this is the main benefit of Guénon’s thought, providing structure and authority to the idea of religion in this traditionalist sense, but on the inverse his more cosmopolitan metaphysics can be negative if pushed to the extreme. I see him as a useful guide for some new ideas and to measure ideas against, but shouldn’t be the ultimate end of religious thought. As you say, his approach seems to be a general failure when put into perspective.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  98. Seraphim says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Rabelais was not a Kantian, but an Epicurean. “Sleep, gluttony, wine, women, jest, and jibe: these were my gods, my only god, when I was alive.” was his motto. ‘Fais ce que vouldras’ is the only categorical imperative of the atheist humanists. ‘Si mortui non resurgent edamus et bibamus cras enim moriemur’. And mock the Church, the priests, monks, nuns, until the time would come to ‘hang the last king with the entrails of the last priest’.
    The ‘Oracle de la dive bouteille’ gives you the order: TRINCH, drink (wine, but Johnny Walker would do as well).

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  99. hhsiii says:

    I’d always read Robespierre was ridiculed for his ostentatious presentation at the Festival of the Supreme Being. He may be a scapegoat but I don’t think he can escape some responsibility for the Terror, and for getting a little full of himself, even if he may have had a point about the radical Cult of Reason just aiding counter-revolution. Me think thou dost protest too little, about Robespierre, brilliant as he was and undoubtedly sincere, but also extremely self-righteous and full of himself. And murderous, as often goes hand in hand with self-righteousness.

    Of course he was very prescient in opposing wars of missionary conquest.

    • Replies: @Alden
  100. Dube says:

    Doesn’t M. Laurent have The Declaration of Independence up on his wall?

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    The Founders had read both the non-theist Hobbes (Laws of Nature) and the theist Locke (Nature’s God).

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

    What’s this talk? Hasn’t Parmenides demonstrated that something cannot come from nothing?

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Alden
  101. Seraphim says:
    @anonymous

    Christians only tell the Mahomedans (among the rest of the ‘pagans’) what they should believe, not what they actually believe (really, Christians take at face value their declarations). They do not go on a rampage around the world to force (under pain of death) people to declare that they must believe only what Mahomed said. Why should people believe what Mahomed said if he was not a god?

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  102. @Seraphim

    In the King James version of the Bible I have at home there are passages in red to denote the speeches of Jesus Christ. Apart from that there are passages in black to denote everything otherwise. In the Quran Muslims say everything is the word of God. It is not even the speech of Muhammad (s). So based on the claims of the adherents of the two faiths an unbiased individual would reach the conclusion that most of the Bible cannot be the word of God…Only some passages are the word of Jesus and others are attributed to the various saints and holy men with a history spreading some 1000 years when one considers the Old Testament… This is considering the best-case scenario if all the claims the adherents of Christianity make are taken at face-value.

    Instead of trying to prove the other wrong lets see if we can solve our common problems in a shared manner. I was just born a Muslim that does not make me better than someone in the West. We are first human beings trying to solve our shared problems.

  103. Seraphim says:
    @Tusk

    A little known fact is that Guenon started his career of supreme guru of ‘esoterisme’ and ‘initiation’ and ‘Traditionalism’ as a ‘bishop’ of the ‘Eglise Gnostique de France’ of Jules-Benoît Stanislas Doinel du Val-Michel (1842-1903), a real charlatan, spiritist, mason, who decided (inspired by the medieval ‘Orleans heresy’ and after receiving visions of the ‘Eon Jesus’, and visits of spirits of ‘disincarnated’ Cathars and under the influence of a certain Lady Caithness, a ‘reincarnation’ of Mary Stuart’, actually a member of the French branch of the Theosophical Society of Madam Blavatsky!) to revive the Eglise Albigeoise (Catharism). He was ‘consecrated’ Patriarche of the Gnostic Church by a “Très Haut Synode des Evèques du Paraclet”, 40 spirits of dead Cathar Bishops, evoked in a spiritist meeting. The new ‘church’ was anti-Catholic, denying resurrection, virgin birth, etc. Eventually Doinel deserted the church, but the church survived.
    Guenon remained fundamentally anti-Christian and that explains his apostasy. All his works are a subtle attack against the Church. His relations with Masonry are well known. It is hard to say whether his role was only that of a ‘spiritual guide’. Did he have any contact with Hassan al Banna? The near coincidence of his sudden move to Egypt and surprising conversion to Islam with that of Leopold Weiss (aka Muhamad Asad) the former Zionist and Bolshevik agent, the ‘father of ‘political Islam’ gives us pause. One of his disciples, Michel Valsan (a Romanian Orthodox apostate) aka Shaykh Mustafa ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, the Mufti of the great Mosque of Paris, was instrumental in the spread of Islam in France.

    • Thanks: Tusk
    • Replies: @Anon
  104. @Seraphim

    Personally, I could give a damn about this Rabelais clown. I am only trying to point out why the only way for ALL MEN to be free is too follow the principles of Natural Law. Of course with an over-abundance of order follower’s and sheeple who worship at the feet of government, I see no chance of this happening.
    So pour yourself a good single malt and enjoy the slide into tyranny we are all witnessing now.

    • LOL: Seraphim
  105. @Seraphim

    Lets have a look at an example of Christianity and how it is not that different from Marxism shall we?

    [MORE]

    In the 1920s, Soviet ideologues held up the “communist state” founded
    by Johannes Bockelson in Munster in 1534 as an example. A group of
    fanatical Anabaptists led by Johannes Bockelson seized power in Minister,
    Westphalia on the 23rd of February 1534, where they proclaimed the
    Miinster commune, also called “New Jerusalem”. This commune became
    the abode of extreme ruthlessness.
    Three days after the seizure of power, the first leader of the commune,
    Jan Matthijs, expelled all those who were not ready to accept their beliefs.
    Later, the leadership passed over to the baptised Jew, Johann Leiden, who
    proclaimed himself king of New Zion (Miinster), and the town council was
    replaced by a council of twelve apostles. They confiscated the property of
    the church and the wealth of those who had fled. They banned trade,
    enforced work duty and abolished money. Everything was to be owned
    collectively – the people were only allowed to keep their tools – all the
    produce was confiscated by the commune and polygamy was introduced.
    This community was intended to become the “thousand year reign of
    peace” (the Millennium).
    Evil reigned in Miinster for sixteen months before the Bishop’s troops
    arrived on the 25th of June 1535 and executed all the leaders of the
    commune. Later, the Baptists and the Mennonites arose from the ideology
    Jüri Lina – Under The Sign Of The Scorpion

  106. Seraphim says:

    I am sure that you know that Anabaptists and Mennonites moved to America.
    They don’t have much to do with Christianity, but yes, they are the inspirers of Marx.

  107. THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

  108. Alden says:
    @hhsiii

    It was during Robespierre’s time in power that France began invading the German states on the northern border. Cause of war was that royalist refugees lived in those states and were plotting against the heaven on earth Robespierre and other visionaries planned.

    Those invasions led to 20 years of war all over Europe from Sicily and Spain to Russia.

    Robespierre was no Stalin or Mao. He was just one of the revolutionaries in power for a year or 2. They even had political commissars in the French army. Just as the Soviets did. Their job was to stay in the back and shot anyone who retreated.

    Empress Josephine’s first husband, General Beauharnais was imprisoned and be headed early on. His crime was losing a battle with a small German state France invaded.

    He was actually the first president of the Republic. His presidency was overthrown after a couple months and a new government was installed. Then a few months after that, another government. Then the saviors of mankind began beheading the men in the government’s they overthrew every year.

    There’s not much in the internet about the French counter revolution.

    If you’re interested, google Renee Boudereau Vender, Vendeen counter revolution Vendee 17901815. lyonnaise counter revolution. Plenty of time now we’re locked up for our own good by another totalitarian government.

    There might be something about the financial looting going on during the Revolution.

    • Replies: @S
  109. Alden says:
    @Dube

    “ I believe in God, the father almighty, CREATOR of heaven and earth.”

    The founders and all Americans except a small number of Jews grew up with that prayer. Creater is just another word for God in a lot of Christian prayers and religious texts. Sometimes it’s God the creator, or God, or the creator.

    Who cares? The constitution is just a document the supreme satinists on the Supreme Court can use to overthrow or make up any laws they want. The Judiciary achieved supreme powers over the executive and legislative powers in 1804, Marbury vs Madison.

  110. Alden says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    The south loved FDR because:

    1 after the civil war the south was reduced to a poverty stricken malnourished economic colony of the north.

    2 FDR’s welfare and back to work programs greatly helped the south. That’s really why they loved him. Saint Franklin the welfare worker delivering food to the starving. I know, I know, every economist and business school curriculum is against FDR’s programs. But when food commodities are delivered every week to your 5 kids the recipients will vote for the person who created the program.

    3 Despite urging by his wife the communists and jews, he didn’t interfere with segregation and the criminal justice system in the south.

    Every reason to love and vote for FDR.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  111. Anon[232] • Disclaimer says:
    @Seraphim

    Do you have a link? Book?

  112. Alden says:
    @Seraphim

    This author really needs to learn about Robespierre’s government in The Vendee. Mass invasion, setting forest fires and arson to destroy villages, and the mass murder barges in Nantes harbor and the rivers. Holes were drilled in barged and ships. The holes were Plugged. Prisoners were chained together and crowded into the barges. Sailors unplugged the holes got in rowboats and left. The prisoners all drowned.

    The glorious French Revolution is the greatest propaganda feat in the last 2,000 years. That Alexis de Tocqueville grew up in a family orphanage. So many of the adults in the family were executed the survivor gathered all the children and raised them together Speaking of children, the early revolutionaries lowered the death sentence age for boys to 10 and girls to 12 or 13.

    Marquise de Lafayette, wife of American hero General Lafayette was sentenced to death because she was his wife. The Americans intervened and she wasn’t executed.

    The famous short Reign of Terror in Paris was the least of it. It went on all over the country. The visionaries targeted cities like Lyon, Toulouse, Dijon, all the important commercial industrial cities. Because the revolutionaries wanted to destroy local government and put all
    power in the hands of whoever was running Paris that month.

    The author thinks it’s a good idea to mention some sort of God in a constitution. But why bring in the French revolutionary tribunals in to it. If there is a God and heaven and hell, Danton, Robespierre and the rest are in hell for the murders they committed to further their vision of heaven on earth.

  113. @Alden

    after the civil war the south was reduced to a poverty stricken malnourished economic colony of the north.

    Because free Negroes are worthless, right? Then why are they even here? Even the poorest famine Micks paid their own way over.

    Despite urging by his wife the communists and jews, he didn’t interfere with segregation and the criminal justice system in the south.

    No, he just threw money their way. As he did with the blacks, whose votes he simply bought outright.

    What “segregation”? If they share the same county with you, it’s not segregated. If they outnumber you, as in FDR’s best counties, well, I don’t know what to call that.

    By the way, FDR’s best counties happened to be Barry Goldwater’s, too, a mere 20 years later. So much for the holy New Deal!

  114. @Alden

    The author thinks it’s a good idea to mention some sort of God in a constitution. But why bring in the French revolutionary tribunals in to it.

    I wanted to do two things (and it was perhaps acrobatic to do both at the same time):
    1) I wanted to document the tradition of “religion naturelle” of which Robespierre is a representative.
    2) I wanted to document a revisionnist trend about Robespierre. The authors on whom I base my article (Guillemin, for instance, see endnotes) explain that Robespierre, who certainly did not control the government then (if there was such a thing as a government) bears little responsibility in the Vendée crimes. That is the whole point: now, you are speaking from the consensual historical perspective, and so you are missing the point of the article: blaming Robespierre for all the blood of the Revolution is Thermidorian propaganda.

  115. @Alden

    In other words, you are speaking about one Robespierre, and I am speaking about another. Which one is the true, historical Robespierre? That can be debated. I am not a specialist. Again, I wanted to present this historical school, because I found it convincing and because it is largely unknown outside France.

  116. S says:
    @Alden

    There’s not much in the internet about the French counter revolution.

    If you’re interested, google Renee Boudereau Vender, Vendeen counter revolution Vendee 17901815. lyonnaise counter revolution.

    Here’s something found on the net. It’s from the March 6, 1794 edition of the Courier of New Hampshire. As you’ve indicated, the French Revolution with it’s political commisars, counter-revolution, Commune, ‘whites’, and ‘great terror’, is where Soviet Communism evolved from.

    French historians don’t like to emphasise the connection, just as US historians don’t like to emphasise that aspect of Capitalist America’s ‘sister republic’ either.

    Geez, I wonder why not? 😉

    ‘The defection of Marseilles soon produced that of Lyons. This important city became the central point of the counter revolution in the South…’

  117. Seraphim says:
    @Alden

    It is because the author worships the same God as Robespierre, Danton, etc. A god who wouldn’t interfere with our affairs, benevolently letting us to do as we please, never admonishing or chastising us for our bad actions, not as the God of the Christians a “disgusting character, the obscene Yahve: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”. Voila.

  118. It is because the author worships the same God as Robespierre, Danton, etc.

    If you think Danton and Robespierre had anything in common in their worldview, and especially in their religious view, you know little about the French Revolution. You probably also think that Rousseau and Voltaire were friends.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  119. Rurik says:
    @gsjackson

    call your office

    Yes gsjackson, when I saw the title of this article, considering the ‘schooling’ I’d just gotten, I was intrigued.

    I put schooling in those marks because I’d consider it more an education, than a schooling, per se. And the reason I’d characterize it thus, is because while I learned a great deal from some very knowledgeable and intelligent participants here (Joe Levantine, for instance), it didn’t necessarily change my perspective on the suitability of a device like the guillotine in some circumstances. Or, another way of putting it, it simply to substitute ‘the guillotine’ with ‘the rope’.

    ‘The rope’ is more the ‘American way’ of dealing with treason and treachery most foul, (and, of which we have enough perfidy to stretch vast acres of hemp to their tolerance ; )

    So guillotine or rope, it makes little difference. The point, for me is that all too often such things become necessary in the affairs of men. And today, more than ever. 😉

    As for the excellent article, it seems just as much about religion as it does the French and Russian revolutions, and perhaps, that’s the point. (I haven’t read the comments yet, seeing you mentioned me, I’m just going to blaze away, and find out later if my comments are redundant).

    In general, I like the idea of a Russian Orthodox church whose foundations are nationalistic. It really goes to the heart of what I’ve been saying for a long time now.

    A spiritual understanding of our lives and our world, that demands we get on our knees, and roll over for our enemies, and open our gates and lay down our swords and hand over our children ~ is counter-productive for our progeny, and the world’s greatest blessing imaginable for our enemies.

    ‘Such a deal!’

    Just as the article suggests, when you have large swaths of your elites and citizenry- with their spiritual (and all other things follow) loyalties to a man in a foreign land; the Vatican – in the case of Catholics, or Mecca (Islam) in the case of Muslims, (or, not mentioned in the article, Jerusalem, in the case of Jews or evangelical and other [especially American] Christians), this can and does cause problems. >>hoo-boy<<

    But, humans need spirituality. I agree with Rousseau, (and Robespierre) it is hardwired into our nature. It is self-evident, as he so eloquently espouses. But as we all know, organized religion is wrought with corruption, and manifested by men who're all too mortal in their base lusts for earthy power. This was an amazing article, especially just as this issue was being wrestled with here on Unz.

    Robespierre had no clue about the Jewish Question.)

    Apparently so, but curious, no? Especially with so many people pointing out the connection to the revolution and ((their)) eternal nefarious scheming.

    Joseph de Maître – Considerations on France: “We are all attached to the throne of the Supreme Being by a flexible chain, which retains us without enslaving us.”

    Some might call this our nature. Atheists (nor agnostics for that matter) do not run around raping and killing. It’s not in human nature to do so, in most circumstances. Not that some men, no matter how garbed, aren’t capable of being monsters of nature. I reject the idea that religion is necessary for a man to behave properly. But I do recognize, (like Robespierre) that it is a necessary glue and balm for a societies’ well-being.

    Putin has the support of the Patriarch whereas Robespierre was anathemized by the Pope, you may object. But here is the heart of the matter: Russian orthodoxy is, fundamentally, a national religion, and today more than ever, with the canonization of the martyred Romanovs.

    This is the ticket.

    In Ireland, the Irish people are understandably sickened by the pedophile cover-up, with the rot going straight into the Vatican. Today the Vatican tells the Irish that they must open their gates to Africa and Islam and everyone else who wants to come feed on the carcass of Ireland and its children.

    So they’ve understandably repudiated the Catholic church as a den of snakes. Imagine how the Irish people would respond to an unapologetic pro-Irish Catholic leader who called for the execution of every priest convicted of raping an Irish boy. And a repudiation of homosexual “marriage”, and closing Irelands gates to all wannabe invaders of every stripe.

    Ireland for the Irish, marriage between a man and woman a sacrament, rapists get the rope.

    I wonder if such a man would be so popular that the English wouldn’t be begging him to be Prime Minister of England too, (just as so many Americans and others wish we had a guy like Putin in the White House.

    {Hey Vlad, are you listening? If we can get enough Americans to write your name on the ballot, would you agree to spilt your time between Russia and the ZUS?}

    The main reason why Roman Catholicism was unacceptable for Robespierre was that it meant loyalty to a foreign power. Yet contrary to the common image, Robespierre did not seek to ban Catholicism, he only required that French bishops and priests swear loyalty to the French State, rather than to the Roman Pope.

    Sounds reasonable enough to me.

    Imagine if before becoming a member of the While House cabinet, or State Dept. official, we insisted that all dual citizen Israelis swore a loyalty oath to the American people, rather than the Jewish supremacist state. There’d be screeching enough that Putin would hear it in Moscow. (Literally ; )

    Robespierre is portrayed as a fanatic and megalomaniac dictator, and he is blamed for the Great Terror that sent approximately 17,000 people to the guillotine in the six weeks preceding his demise. Ever since Jules Michelet, who fashioned our roman national, the figure of Robespierre has served to embody all the evils of the French Revolution,

    This was only touched on in the article. I suppose there’s more to it.

    Then came John Locke, with his Letter Concerning Toleration,… … Churches who require loyalty to a foreign power should also be banished, for by tolerating them, the magistrate “would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government.” That concerns Roman Catholicism, of course, but also Islam:

    And Zionism !

    Locke deemed atheism as immoral and socially corrosive as papism: “those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. [I agree] Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.” [I disagree] For Anthony Collins (1676-1729), a friend of Locke,

    Atheists insist they know the infinite truths, as in the existence of a God or Gods. They don’t.

    But just the mere fact of being an atheist, (presumptive of divine knowledge as it is), does not follow that such people are any more moral or immoral than the pious.

    Rousseau writes in his Letters Written from the Mountain (1764):
    “For how can the mystery of the Trinity, for example, contribute to the good constitution of the State? In what way will its members be better Citizens when they have rejected the merit of good works? And what does the dogma of original sin have to do with the good of civil society? Although true Christianity is an institution of peace, who does not see that dogmatic or theological Christianity, by the multitude and obscurity of its dogmas and above all by the obligation to accept them, is a permanent battlefield between men.”

    It strikes me reading Rousseau and Robespierre, that these men were men of their time. And that if they could see what France has descended into, they’d have far different things to say about ‘the good of a civil society’, and the dogmas that lead to a permanent battlefield between men’.

    At least they were concerned with the battles between Frenchmen and women, in a time when the idea of French men and women being a minority in sections of Paris, (and eventually, inevitably France itself) would have been incomprehensible. The lesson in that, is that whatever these learned French philosophers and bold revolutionaries tried to accomplish, their efforts in the end were to no ultimate point.

    Who cares what religion the Senegalese or Chinese or Malians squatting in France purport to? They’re not French, they never were, and they never will be.

    Rousseau devotes the last chapter of The Social Contract (1762) to “civil religion”. Like Locke, he condemns as contrary to public peace churches professing intolerance, because: “It is impossible to live at peace with those we regard as damned.” Therefore, “whoever dares to say ‘Outside the Church is no salvation’, ought to be driven from the State.”

    And what, if not damned, are all ethnic French when it comes to the issue of race?

    Are not every last French man, woman and child, directly responsible for the slavery in their former colonies?

    Are not every last French man, woman and child directly to blame, and guilty for the colonization of Algeria and Syria and Lebanon and Haiti and so many others?

    Do not the Algerian and Haitian and Vietnamese immigrants have every right and obligation to make the (damned / racist) French people pay for what they’ve done?!

    If I had a choice between being damned as a heretic by my ethnic French Catholic neighbor, and perhaps sneered while eating his crepe, vs. a Frenchman paying for his guilt and racism on the streets of Paris..

    I rather imagine that all those Frenchmen and women, fighting over the best state religion to impose, would have said they’d believe in Voodoo, if it means they get to keep France for the French.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  120. Seraphim says:
    @Rurik

    “Atheists (nor agnostics for that matter) do not run around raping and killing”?
    What did they do in Russia? Spain? Mexico? Tovarishch Rurik…?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  121. Rurik says:
    @Seraphim

    I should have said ‘any more than anyone else’.

    if we’re to catalogue the wholesale slaughter visited upon people starting at say, the Year of our Lord, 1

    and only measure those slaughtered (and raped and enslaved and genocided) by atheists and agnostics, vs. the religious..

    Perhaps we could query Mr. Unz.

    He’s certainly one of, (if not the best) scholar here, and as unbiased as I think we could find.

    Has a calculation ever been made?

    We could even look at collectively and individually. (I’d really like to know ; )

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  122. mcohen says:

    Concerning the Christian Question one has to wonder why there has been a split into many fragments the teachings of JC to the point where wars have been fought over centuries between say the catholics and prots and whole societies have been devastated by these wars.The very nature of JC is called into question regarding the belief of “turning the other cheek”.
    Very rarely has judaism led to genocide between different branches of judaism.In regards the Jewish Question in this instance an answer can be found in robespears shaka like stance of the Genocidical Trinity of pax titus

    • Replies: @explorer
  123. Seraphim says:
    @Laurent Guyenot

    It looks that you too know very little about your revolution.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyenot
  124. explorer says:
    @mcohen

    i could be wrong but i don’t remember full-scale wars between catholics and protestants. they did persecute each other…… But didn’t judea and israel war against each other for a couple of centuries…..i think they’re reported in the Bible. never heard of the “Christian Question”??????

    • Replies: @mcohen
  125. Seraphim says:
    @Rurik

    Oh yes, the Christians slaughtered and genocided the Romans, Muslims and of course, Jews. Because their ‘obscene’ God (the ‘disgusting character’ called the Lord) was, as Mr. Guyenot pointed out to us (and not only here): “jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  126. Malla says:
    @Alden

    Have you read these books on the French Revolution?

    The French Revolution – A study in democracy by Nesta H. Webster
    https://archive.org/download/NestaHWebsterTheFrenchRevolution/Nesta_H_Webster_-_The_French_Revolution.pdf

    From the Epilogue:
    “I am convinced that the day will come when the world, enlightened by the principles of true democracy, will recognise that the French Revolution was not an advance towards democracy but a directly anti-democratic and reactionary movement, that it was not a struggle for liberty but an attempt to strangle liberty at its birth; the leaders will then be seen in their true colours as the cruellest enemies of the people, and the people, no longer condemned for their ferocity, will be pitied as the victims of a gigantic conspiracy . It was this conspiracy, or rather this combination of conspiracies, that alone triumphed in the Revolution; it was the same great intrigues at work amongst the people in 1789 that survived all the storms that followed after and that now once again threaten the peace of the world.”

    And the chapter on the French Revolution in the book “The Nameless War” by Captain Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay, MP from Scotland . His book contains chapters on all famous “Revolutions” from the English to the Russian.

    https://ia800500.us.archive.org/9/items/TheNamelessWar_105/TheNamelessWar.pdf

    “The Nameless War by Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay is a short book on revolutions in Europe caused by Jews and Jewish international bankers. It also explains the hidden events and causes of World War 2 and international hositility to Hitler. “A side of history not seen in history books”. Because of attempting to tell people the truth and stop World War 2 from happening, Ramsay (who was a member of the British Parliament) was arrested and imprisoned unjustly by an extension of Regulation 18B.”

  127. mcohen says:
    @explorer

    Yes i agree with you on the first point.Indeed it was a minor skirmish.

    On judea and israel there were minor disagreements and it was all so long ago so not worth debating.

    As to the Christian Question or CQ as it is called in some circles the very nature of “love thy neighbour as one would thyself”,is questioned.The Christian Question is this.Why is there such a divide,a gape,if you may, between the the “Word” and the “Walk”.
    Will christianity need to be totally reformed.That is the “Christian Question”.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  128. …the principle of authoritative revelation is not the main factor involved in the development of Western atheism, I think. The content of the revelation is critical. I believe that modern atheism is, to a great extent, a reaction to the disgusting character presented as “God” in the Old Testament. Yahweh’s obscenity has ultimately ruined God’s reputation… Richard Dawkins can only make his atheism sound plausible by first professing, correctly:

    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”[1]

    In his speech on “the relations of religious and moral ideas with republican principles,” read at the Convention six weeks before his death, Robespierre said:

    “I know of nothing so close to atheism as the religion that [the priests] have made: by disfiguring the Supreme Being, they have destroyed him as much as it was in them; […] the priests created a god in their image; they made him jealous, temperamental, greedy, cruel, relentless.”

    Is modern atheism a reaction to the ‘disgusting’ character of God in the Old Testament? But atheists have no interest in the New Testament God either. Also, has religion gained in strength by becoming more tolerant, forgiving, and flaky? The very nature of religion is to be judgmental, and that’s why all ‘tolerant’ and flaky churches don’t last long or they adopt New forms of intolerance, such as globo-homo dogma or ‘muh Holocaust’ or ‘muh Israel’. Religion is intrinsically judgmental and damning because it is the rejection of the body and the material world as fallen, cruel, horrific, and vile. If one were content and satisfied with the body and the world, what need for God, spirit, and heaven? It is because the material world is so imperfect that people conceived of souls as separate from flesh. And this soul could enter Heaven if it were good and obedient to God. Or it could enter Nirvana if it rejected desire and attachment to the material world and the way of the flesh. A non-judgmental religion is ridiculous. Religion is essentially the judgmental condemnation of the body by what we imagine to be the ‘soul’. It is rejection of the world in favor of Heaven and Nirvana. It is spiritual utopianism as utopia is impossible in the actual-material world.

    Also, I find it unlikely that modern atheists were really put off by the ruthlessness of God in the Old Testament. Secular Social Darwinists were pretty heartless about the poor. Eugenics, another secular movement, believed the undesirables should be removed from the genetic pool. It had no use for the concept of the soul. Also, the great ‘historical crimes’ of the Christian West weren’t based on the Bible but on pure greed, vanity, and adventurism. Even though the Church played a missionary role in imperialism, the real drivers were the profiteers and power-lusters. And consider ancient history. Alexander the Great was a ruthless conqueror-adventurer, and he wasn’t inspired by the Jewish God. If anything, whatever one may find in the Torah, Jews were among the least militaristic peoples in ancient times. Not because they were nicer but because they sucked at fighting. Jews figured, Other Peoples may whup our ass physically, but we will whup their ass spiritually. Others will grab more land, but we will conceive of a God greater than all their gods combined. It’s true that the Torah speaks of God ordering Jews to carry out mass-killings and the like. But in ancient times, pagans were just as ruthless, if not more so. Assyrians were terrifying. Spartans were bung-donging killing machines. (It goes to show acceptance of homosexuality does NOTHING to ensure a more humanitarian point of view. Some historians surmise Frederick the Great was a closet-homo, but he was among the most aggressive German rulers. Also, homos today are all over CIA, NSA, & Deep State, and they are among the most enthusiastic pushers of globo-imperialism. They love to play the world like a sex toy and cackle with glee at the horrors in Syria. Besides, though homos started out pleading for tolerance, once they gained dominant power in alliance with Jews, they’ve pushed globo-homo Queertianity as the new dogma that must be obeyed. Once a secular force in society, globo-homos are now festooning churches and even mosques with ‘gay’ colors.) National Socialists, Japanese imperialists, Soviet imperialists, and etc. proved time and time again that people can be just as crazy in service to secular ideology or pagan mythology. I don’t think the Chinese in Nanking were fleeing in horror because Japanese were running around with Bibles and sermonizing.

    As for Richard Dawkins, a fine biological scientist but moronic social scientist, he acts like the god of the Current Year. Whatever happens to be most PC in the present must be true and just for all times. His litany of complaints about God is truly hilarious. He’s such a vain dolt that he is utterly unaware of how his brand of atheism is just as judgmental as old-time religion. He’s so arrogant, contemptuous, sneering, sniveling, smug, and full of hot air. His personality is more despicable than that of any deity. Oh, he knows best, he knows everything, he is so very rational, he is all about facts and truth while those who disagree are all morons and monsters. What a prick.

    I’ve always been an atheist but can’t stand people like Dawkins who are really into self-worship and auto-cult-of-personality.

    Let’s consider some of his complaints.

    1. God is jealous and proud of it. By ‘jealous’, it is meant that He is possessive. But then, why shouldn’t He be? If He is the supreme Lord and the Creator of all, of course He would be jealously possessive of what He created. It means God is a great environmentalist. He created the cosmic and worldly environment, and He is jealous and possessive of the creation. He doesn’t want it to be ruined, polluted, or befouled by sin and degeneracy. God created mankind and imbued humans with souls. Naturally, He sees mankind as His property because He created it. So, He wants mankind to be appreciative and not pollute their souls with sin.
    If you had magical powers and created an oasis, a beautiful garden, out of the thin air, wouldn’t you be ‘jealous’ and possessive of it? And if you created creatures to inhabit the garden, wouldn’t you want them to take good care of it and heed your laws? What is the point of being the Great Creator and Owner of the universe if you’re not possessive of what you’ve made?

    2. God is a petty, unjust, and unforgiving control-freak. Now, some of this criticism is valid because, after all, what is God or any bunch of gods but a projection of human nature and human personality? So, naturally what we find objectionable in God is a mythic reflection of our failings and our problems. Every pagan god is far from perfect. Zeus is often petty and nasty. Also, many pagan gods were far more frightening than the Jewish God. After all, Yahweh said no more to human sacrifice and that sort of thing. In contrast, certain pagan gods demanded human sacrifice, especially in the New World among the Aztecs and Mayans. I dunno, but I’ll take the Jewish God over such pagan gods. Does Dawkins really believe the God of the Torah is worse than pagan gods who demanded human sacrifices of virgins or kids or thousands of captives?

    Now, one problem with the Jewish God is the assertion of perfection. With pagan gods, as nasty-vicious-vile-petty-demented-sadistic-cruel they may be, they never claimed to be perfect. So, with a figure like Zeus, we can see his good sides and his bad sides. As for dark gloomy gods who demand tons of human sacrifice, they may be amoral or even immoral, but at least we know they aren’t about justice. They are about POWER. They got it and flaunt it, and they demand we obey. In contrast, the problem with the Jewish God is the cult of perfection that, however, is undermined by Biblical evidence. If indeed God is so perfect and all-knowing, why does He contradict Himself so often in the Torah? Why does He say one thing here, another thing there? Why is He about love and forgiveness at certain times but about death and destruction in another? In a way, the history of Judaism(and even Christianity) has been the dialectics between (1) God’s Word and God’s Character (2) God’s Promise and God’s Deliverance. Of course, there is contradiction even within God’s words as He says one thing through one prophet and another thing through another. Jews and others have tied themselves in mental knots to rationalize these contradictions: (1) The Scriptures are not infallible but flawed interpretations of God’s way and will by prophets who could see further than most men but nevertheless fell short (2) Though God’s ways manifest themselves in various and seemingly contradictory ways on the surface, they are all consistent and part of the plan at the deeper core (3) God really isn’t perfect but fooling Himself and us (4) God speaks to us in ways that we understand, but His ultimate plan is too mysterious for us to understand rationally or through human faculty… much like mankind cannot really understand the mystery in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. (Some people wonder how God could be perfect but His Creation is so imperfect. If He is perfect, why did He fail to create perfection? But maybe one could argue that it is perfect as whole, and paradoxically the ‘imperfections’ of the parts are integral to the perfection of the whole. It’s like a painting. When we look closely at any part of the painting, it looks blurry and crude, even ugly and messy. Yet, when we move back and see the painting as a whole, we realize how each ‘crude’ brushstroke played a role in creating the great painting. Same goes for music. The final score is the coming together of all the ‘imperfect’ elements of music. So, for the cosmos to be perfect, it has to be made up of ‘imperfect’ parts. Not everything can be perfect because most things are part of something bigger. Perfection connotes wholeness, and no part on its own can be perfect alone. It is imperfect and works with other imperfect parts in the creation of the larger perfection.)

    [MORE]

    Now clearly, if we were to characterize God or gods as nothing more than projection of human nature/personality onto the universe, the deity/deities would merely be a bundle of magnifications of all that is noble and ignoble about us. Our good sides would be magnified but so would our bad sides. And on that level, there is a pettiness in all conceptions of God. On the one hand, they are so grand and awesome, the kings of mountains, skies, and stars. We want gods to be glorious and impressive. But to the extent that even such magnificent beings are slaves of all-too-human vices and vanities, there will be a massive contradiction between their august construction and all-too-human behavior. Zeus is a great god but is often animated by Beavis-and-Buttheadian ‘boing’-mania. He is the god of gods but acts like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein.

    What is fascinating about the Old Testament is the dialectics among the various prophets, poets, and writers as to the true and ultimate nature of God. In a way, such dialectics were possible only because of the contradiction between the concept of God’s perfection and evidence to the otherwise. Did God fail Jews and humanity? Or did Jews and humanity fail God? Did God betray the promise or did Jews/humanity violate the promise? Was the vision of God by every prophet merely a piece in the larger puzzle? Like the US Constitution, the Torah is a record of amendment. Just like there was talk of making the US a ‘more perfect union’, the Jewish project was about making their God a ‘more perfect God’. While the notion of the Jewish God as perfect could be said to be delusional and arrogant, it also made Jews more sensitive to the failures of God(or of themselves, which were maybe the reason why God failed to deliver His promise). If Jews were okay with a flawed god(as the pagans were), they would have been less worked up about the contradiction between their spiritual conception and their political condition in the world. Jews came to believe their God is the only God who, furthermore, chose Jews as His favorite. If God is just and perfect, why is the world, His Creation, so flawed? If Jews are the Chosen, why do they suffer so much? Why can’t Jews be masters of the world over goyim and eat like effendi? (Today, Jews are masters over goyim and eat like effendi, but this came about through Jewish adherence to secular satanism.) These questions made Jews a deep and profound people who raised among the most important spiritual questions. It also made them a difficult and neurotic people, rather like Dustin Hoffman in RAIN MAN trying to crack the mystery of “Who’s On First?”

    Anyway, the fact that most pagan religions turned into empty rituals, boring customs, or the butt of jokes(like what became of Greek Mythology via Ovid) whereas Jewish religion kept raising questions and even spawned Christianity and Islam goes to show that the Jewish conception of God was more powerful, provocative, inspiring, and meaningful. And despite all the dogmatism, it was adaptable in the sense that God went increasingly from an anthropomorphic super-being to a conceptual spirit, an abstract Deity.
    In a way, Dawkins’ real beef with Judaism-Christianity-Islam is that its God was conceived of as a meme that cannot be dis-proven and has appealed to humanity for eons. With modern science/education, it’s impossible for any rational person to believe in Zeus, Thor, or Osiris. As gods with specified dimensions, they now seem like characters in a superhero comic book. But God has been conceived of as a Being that is, at once so accessible and so mysterious. He can listen to our prayers and cares for us; but He is so great and mysterious that we cannot imagine what He looks or sounds like. Dawkins came up with the concept of memes, and as a radical rationalist, he can’t stand the fact that an irrational meme still has such power over the world. But then, even as he spouts off about evolution, he seems blind to how spirituality may have been an evolutionary advantage for mankind. Religion gave people hope and meaning, and surely those with hope and meaning are more likely to believe in the future. Even today, why is it that religious people tend to have more kids than secularists who believe there is no meaning to anything? Secular science is superior at identifying issues and solving problems. It sent men to the Moon. But it tells us nothing about the meaning of the universe and why we are here. In all likelihood, there is no meaning to the cosmos, but such fatalism hardly makes for hope and survival.

    Dawkins says God is unforgiving, but is He? Adam and Eve disobeyed Him, but He let them live. Cain murdered his brother, but God protected him. When Ham saw his pa Noah naked, God didn’t kill him but turned him into a Negro. Given white folks now worship Negroes, that wasn’t such a bad deal. When God was about to smite Sodom and Gomorrah, He listened to Abraham and was willing to compromise. Even though so many people were acting like proto-globo-homo tooters, God promised to spare the city IF Abraham could find just a few decent folks. God even sent angel-inspectors to look for evidence, but they were greeted by a bunch of degenerates yelling, ‘squeal like a pig’. That’s when God had just about enough and decided to blow the city up. Throughout the Old Testament, God is forgiving of Moses, David, and many others… as long as they face up to their own failings. He punishes Jews but forgives them over and over. God is often ruthless but also forgiving.
    At any rate, He could change His mind because He was the only God. There is actually less forgiveness among the gods in pagan myths. Whereas the Jewish God might hate you but then forgive you, pagan gods generally hate someone forever. So, if that someone is to survive, he needs the protection of other gods who favor him. If Hera hates you, it is likely permanent. If you survive, it’s because some other gods grant you protection. Thus, pagan mythology is more political than moral. It’s about balancing of powers. In contrast, the Jewish God is capable of changing His mind. He can go from judge to reformer. He can be executioner but change His mind and let you live. Some say what He did with Abraham and Isaac was pretty frightening, but a pagan god might have demanded the sacrifice of lots of young boys. God let Isaac live because, when push came to shove, He wanted to be worshiped as a good God than just a powerful God.
    Also, the fact that Judaism spawned Christianity goes to show there was an element in the former that was about love and forgiveness. If such an element hadn’t been inherent in Judaism, there could have been no Christianity.

    By the way, is Dawkins aware of his own contradiction? He has often condemned ‘antisemitism’ but then argues that the Jewish Spiritual Worldview(that also led to Christianity and Islam) has been the biggest curse upon mankind. If the main cultural, moral, and spiritual contribution of Jews has been so rotten, vile, and disgusting, shouldn’t Dawkins agree with ‘anti-Semites’ that Jewish People have been the worst in all of human history? Also, if mythology is the collective representation of the spirit of a people and if Jewish mythology is the vilest in the world, doesn’t it follow that Jews must have the worst human character since it led to the creation of the worst credo and belief system? Now, Dawkins may argue that he is opposed to biological antisemitism and okay with Jews as secular people. If so, why not demand that Jews give up on Jewishness, an identity that simply cannot be divorced from the religious history of Jews? Even secular Jews have an identity rooted in the Covenant with God. Also, if Jews suffered through the ages, it was because they insisted on their difference and even superiority based on the Covenant. So, the very notion of Jewishness should be condemned if Dawkins wants to be morally consistent.

    Furthermore, what if the vileness of Jewish religion isn’t merely the reflection of Jewish Imagination gone wrong but of Jewish personality itself? Maybe the problem wasn’t in the spiritual vision but in the roots of personality, in attitude and mindset. Could it be God is especially arrogant, all-knowing, ruthless, judgmental, and vain because Jewish personality tends to be that way? As an evolutionist, Dawkins might ponder the relation between secular Jewish personality and the ideologies/agendas that sprung from it. Couldn’t one argue that modern secular Jews, even without belief in God, tended to have personalities of the monomaniacal and megalomaniacal variety(that one encounters in the Torah)? Personality and attitude go a long way. A person with bland personality is likely to be less fiery and fanatical even with religion; in contrast, a person with strong personality is likely to have a god-complex even if he is irreligious — Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong were non-religious but loved playing gods, even at the cost of destroying millions of lives. And look at Neocons. Most of these Jews are irreligious. Their sense of Jewishness is political and historical than spiritual. But they have strong personalities and are willing to smite 100,000s and even millions of goy lives to fulfill their dream of Jewish Supremacism. So, maybe Dawkins should look more into the problem of personality and attitude than faith.

    As for God being a control-freak, I find this hilarious coming from an Anglo, member of a tribe known for its hoity-toity compulsiveness. Also, I see some projection here. Dawkins is a mental control-freak who laments that there are still religious people around the world who refuse to grovel before him as the all-knowing secular genius. And look at current Britain. It has the worst of what Sam Francis called anarcho-tyranny. The culture(which is mostly pop culture) encourages young Britons to emulate savage jungle behavior of blacks. And yet, there are also increased social pressures about how you can’t buy knives, you can’t tweet certain comments, you can’t crack certain jokes, you can’t use certain words, you must bend over to globo-homo, you must celebrate Diversity, you must agree that not one less than 6 million died in the Shoah, and etc. Current UK encourages increased levels of savagery that leads to social problems but then exerts more control-freakish state power over everyone in the name of dealing with the problems. Brits are now hoity-toity ho’s. How about being sensible and NOT importing lots of blacks and discouraging whites from emulating the most savage race? But no, UK encourages whites to be like blacks and then exerts more state power to suppress the problems resulting from globalism.

    3. A vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser. It is true that God watches over Jews as they leave Egypt and clash with pagan tribes to found their own homeland. The most frightening parts of the Old Testament is when God orders the Jews to wipe out entire enemy populations. But here’s the thing. Why pretend this is a feature only or mainly of the Jewish God? Those who worshiped pagan gods conquered more and killed more. Romans invaded and killed tons of primitive Britons before they converted to Christianity. Huns, Mongols, Persians, Greeks, Assyrians, and etc. were great conquerors and mass-killers. Alexander the Great has been much romanticized, but he could be as ruthless as any tyrant. All mythologies have gods aiding one people to totally smash another people. The gods defend a people; the gods help a people to invade and take from another people. The Jewish God was no different in this. Still, there are also sides to Him in the Bible that call for mercy, peace, and reflection. The most blood-curdling parts of the Bible is when Hebrews, out of Egypt and in the wilderness, are looking to found their own homeland. It was going to be a bloody process. Now, some historians say that it’s all fiction. Others contend Jews did fight and take lands from Canaanites and the like and committed mass blood-baths. But such were common among all peoples at the time, and they all worshiped gods who urged ruthless actions to whup the other side. Still, the blood-curdling God is only one aspect of the Bible, not the main thing.
    Besides, modern history shows one doesn’t need God and religion to conquer, ethnically cleanse, and wipe out entire populations. While white Christians conquered America & Australia and wiped out native populations, they were mainly motivated by political, material, and economic interests, not religious ones. Sure, they invoked God to justify whatever they did, but they could just as easily have invoked ‘progress’, ‘history’, or ‘justice’. To most people then, it was justice and progress for advanced white folks to take land from useless savages. Ayn Rand, a fierce atheist, said Jews should rule Zion because Palestinians are useless Arab barbarians incapable of building modern societies. Hitler and Stalin didn’t need to invoke God to conquer and destroy entire peoples. Zionism wasn’t a religious movement as its pioneers were non-believing Jews, and many were secular socialists. Still, they managed to manipulate the great empires to aid Zionists in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

    4. A misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully

    Too many terms here are subjective and un-scientific. What is meant by ‘misogynistic’? From a religious-spiritual point of view, secular pop culture could be said to be ‘misogynistic’ because it encourages women to dress and act like whores. If by ‘misogynistic’, Dawkins means women being subordinate to men, that is nearly all of human history and human culture(and nature as well as most females are weaker than males across the species). Pagan Athens required women to wear veils, and women there were less free than in authoritarian Sparta. Black savage culture has been more expressive in female sexuality, so does that mean stuff like ‘twerking’ is the path to female ’empowerment’ and dignity? By the way, despite open sexual expression among savage black women, male-on-female violence has been a bigger problem among blacks. Greek mythology’s view of womenfolk is actually more damning than in the Torah. Though Eve causes great harm, Adam also shares the blame. At any rate, God gave Eve to Adam as a gift and blessing. In contrast, Greek mythology says women were presented to mankind as a curse from the very beginning.

    As for ‘homophobic’, what is more intolerant and judgmental than current globo-homo Queertianity? BAKE THE CAKE, BIGOT. Or, if you say you find sodomy to be gross(which it certainly is), forget about working in any elite capacity. Also, even if religious intolerance and judgmentalism toward homos were excessive in the past, it was still intolerance in the name of normality, decency, and health. In contrast, current globo-homo intolerance of so-called ‘homophobes’ is a denunciation and negation of normality, nature, and decency in the name of consecrating degeneracy and decadence. Some things are worth honoring, and some things are only worth tolerating. Family and natural norms are worth encouraging and defending. Homosexuality is, at best, worth tolerating. NOTHING good can come of homo fecal penetration, guys sucking penises, and tranny-penis-cutting-and-balls-lopping. So, while one could argue that the Old Testament is too excessive in its anti-homo-ness, intolerance of homosexuality still makes more sense than intolerance of normo-sexuality and its natural attitudes toward homosexuality. I mean, why shouldn’t a sane, decent, and normal person find homosexuality to be deviant and gross? Also, Ancient Jews lived in tough times when people had to focus on core values and core essentials to survive. They had no time for decadence. Is there any evidence that celebration of homosexuality led to civilizational strength? While Ancient Greeks were smart to harness homo talent, it was never good for any civilization to be overly celebratory of homos as it invariably led to decadence and degeneracy as homos are naturally vain and froopy-doop. They act like those trivialist freaks in Fellini films. Keep them on the side, not at the center.

    As the Jewish God was a moral force focused on essentials, it’s understandable why He was hostile to homosexuality. His laws were about reminding Jews over and over what really matters, what are essential and what are trivial. Naturally, sticking dongs up bungs was not only non-essential but gross and a good way to spread disease. Imagine you have special powers and you create a garden. And then you mold creatures and tell them, “This orifice you use for eating, this orifice you use for shi**ing’, and that orifice you use for sex”, but a bunch of freaks decide to stick sexual organs into poop-chutes. Of course, you-as-creator would be upset. Suppose you create a toilet bowl that is meant for pissing and pooping but a bunch of people use it for washing their faces and drinking water. Suppose you build a museum for appreciation for art, but idiots fill up the place with junk and have orgies inside.Of course, you will be upset. Naturally, God wasn’t into ‘gay’ crap because He didn’t design the bung for the dong.

    Dawkins says God is ‘racist’. Well, all gods tended to favor one group over others. But then, what’s the point of worshiping a god who doesn’t favor your side? Also, non-‘racist’ gods are not necessarily better. In the Trojan War, it’s obvious that the gods whom the Greeks worship are not necessarily with the Greeks. Indeed, half of them favor the Trojans, and this prolongs the war. Would you want to worship a god that sides with your enemy? Greeks did, and it caused them all sorts of problems. Because there was no covenant between Greek gods and Greeks, it wasn’t long before Romans took them and made them serve Rome. (Later, Romans took the Jewish God as their own, but Christianity was the doing of Jewish heretics who, Prometheus-like, smuggled the Jewish fire to the pagans, something Jews could never forget or forgive. Jews see it as a bigger failure than Rosenbergs sending nuclear secrets to Stalin who became the enemy of Zion.) But generally, most gods rooted for one people over another. Oftentimes, gods needed to be appeased to stay on your side. Gods also needed to be appeased for good weather. Or appeased so that they won’t torment your people too much. Popular Chinese religion imagined heavens filled with corrupt bureaucratic gods who had to be bribed so as not to torture one’s ancestors too badly. No wonder Chinese are morally screwy.

    So, it seems the ‘racism’ of the Jewish God wasn’t such a bad thing or a bad thing at all. What’s wrong with your god favoring your kind? The elites should favor their own people, and gods should favor those who worship them. It’s how spiritual contract works: A people worship a certain set of gods, and the gods favor them. British elites used to be grand and excellent as race-ist elites. They favored and cared for their own people. But ever since British elites became ‘anti-racist’, they’ve neglected and abused their own folks while sucking up to rich Jews, pandering to angry Muslims, cucking to savage blacks, and welcoming the Great Replacement. Race-ism is infinitely preferable to evil ‘anti-racism’.

    Granted, there was a contradiction in the Jewish conception of God because Jews increasingly claimed He is the only God and the God of all and everything. If so, why should God favor Jews over others when He is lord of all? So, the problem of the Jewish God has been less about ‘racism’ than conceptual contradiction, even hypocrisy. If God is the only God and if He is just and moral Being to all living creatures, why should He favor Jews over others when, in fact, Jews can act unjustly while non-Jews could act justly? But this contradiction led to the rise of Christianity and Islam.

    At any rate, if Dawkins finds the Jewish God to be most ‘racist’, he is effectively condemning Jews as historically the most ‘racist’ people since their cultural character led to the creation of the most ‘racist’ Deity. As such, one could argue Dawkins’ view is rabidly and virulently ‘antisemitic’, but then, the hypocritical fool makes a lot of noise about how he loathes ‘antisemitism’. Following Dawkins’ logic, Jews can be good ONLY IF they are culturally and spiritually de-Jewified. Jews must undergo spiritual holocaust to be good folks. They must be castrated of their ethno-spiritual roots. He loves Jews only as un-Jews.

    Now, why should an evolutionist be opposed to race-ism? Evolution is about genetic divergences and emergence of differences among groups. Indeed, not only is evolution race-ist but it has been the generator of different species and different races. And these racial divergences can lead to different species. After all, there was a time when the ape-ancestors of humans were of the same species as the ape-ancestors of chimpanzees. But over time, one race of those early apes became chimps while another branch became the apelike proto-humans. So, if Dawkins has a problem with racial differences, he should blame evolution.

    Dawkins says God is infanticidal, and it’s true that God ordered the killing of kibblers when Jews were battling other tribes to found their land of milk and honey. And in Egypt, prior to the Exodus, He killed the first borns among the Egyptians. But His actions against Egyptians were punishment for Egyptian tyranny over the Jews. And when Jews were battling Canaanites and the like, it was kill or be killed. In other words, infanticide(as extension of genocide) was common practice in the ancient world. Your people, upon defeat and capture, were lucky if spared and kept alive as slaves. Quite often, the conquering folks raped, pillaged, and wiped out entire enemies. So, it’s hardly surprising that the Jews, like other tribes, committed bloody acts and justified them as the decrees of their God.
    But before we judge the past too harshly, let’s look at the modern world. During World War I, British blockades against Germany were a form of Total War. It wasn’t just military vs military but targeted the entire population, driving many Germans to the brink of starvation. In the aftermath of the Gulf War, the secular ‘liberal democratic’ West enforced sanctions on Iraq that, by some estimates, killed 100,000s of Iraqi children. To create a new social order, Stalin and Mao were willing to sacrifice millions of lives in the name of History. To his dying day, the much celebrated secular intellectual Eric Hobsbawn remained a proud communist and said Stalin’s actions were necessary.
    Also, many people see abortion as infanticide, especially as it is now allowed even up to the moment of birth when the baby is virtually fully formed. Also, the Modern West and Modern East are cursed with ‘conceptocide’ or ‘fertilocide’. Never mind killing babies. These societies are not even conceiving and creating life necessary to sustain their civilizations. They live for elitism, individualism, hedonism, and vanity. They are essentially death cults and won’t survive the way they’re going. Is this what Dawkins so proud of?

    Dawkins accusing God of ‘megalomania’ is rather silly. Megalomania is about having a self-image that is bigger than the actual self. If a nobody considers himself a big man, he is a megalomaniac. If a king regards himself an emperor, he is a megalomaniac. If an emperor considers himself an immortal god, he is a megalomaniac. But God has been conceived of as the supreme creator and ruler of all of universe. Naturally, He would have a grand view of Himself. Should the Creator of All be timid as a mouse? Indeed, the striking feature of God is that, despite His grandeur and awesomeness, He expresses an incredible amount of sympathy for a weakling tribe(in the Old Testament) and losers around the world(in the New Testament). The reason why so many people have clung to God through the ages via Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is because He is, at once super-powerful & almighty AND concerned with the little guy. In contrast, Dawkins worships his own infallible intellect.

    Dawkins says God is pestilential. Now, we see what Dawkins’ real shtick is about. He is trying to blame God for all the problems of life created by evolution. Since the beginning of life, organisms big and small have been slaughtering, devouring, murdering, tormenting, torturing, trashing, smashing, slashing, gnawing, goring, gouging, pummeling, cracking, smacking, and etc. each other. The theory of evolution may be elegant as a model in a textbook, but its practice in reality has been most brutal and horrific. We may wonder at the beauty of nature, but what we consider to be ‘beauty’ is really a range of survival mechanisms that were developed over eons via natural selection that weeded out so many ‘innocent’ organisms in brutal ways. Just watch any nature program, and these non-believing animals are murdering and slaughtering each other to no end. Animals evolved to survive because the natural environment was so unforgiving. In other words, evolution has been utterly genocidal toward all those that failed to survive. Evolution led to rise of all kinds of germs that wiped out entire species. It has been pestilential. Also, the uncaring godless universe sent asteroids to smash into planets and wipe out entire species that had evolved over eons in a single day. That is the godless world of the laws of nature and evolution. Look at chimp behavior. They bite off each other’s penises and balls. Look at how big cats kill wild pigs. Look at how polar bears butcher seals and their cubs. Look at how sharks maim turtles. Look at how volcanoes and forest fires burn millions of animals to death. And mankind, with or without God, has been pretty miserable. Look at US policy toward Iran and Palestinians. Has Jewish behavior gotten better without God? Secular Jews gave us communist mass-killings and Neocon wars. Were Japanese less cruel because they didn’t believe in the Jewish God? Look at their behavior in World War II. Is secular globalism and open borders the way of peace and justice? They are filling the West with savage jungle-jivers from Africa who are bound to turn Europe into New Africa.

    Also, when most people lose religion, do they become rational and sane, or do they adopt a quasi-religion because it’s human nature to seek spirituality? Look at the ‘climate change’ faith. Global Warming may be real, and something needs to be done, but for many people it’s the new faith. When Western folks lost God, many more of them took up neo-idolatry of celebrity-worship, drugs, and debauchery than commitment to reason and science, the domain of those with high IQ.
    Steven Pinker says the world is getting better and better, but what will happen when tons of black Africans turn Europe into jungle-land? The effect will be worse than WWI and WWII combined. As long as Europe was still inhabited by Europeans, it recovered from both WWI and WWII in no time. But with blacks taking over Europe, it will turn into one big Detroit forever. This should be so obvious to any secular and rational person who cares about facts(that are race-ist), but Dawkins has a quasi-religious blindspot of his own: Political Correctness and ‘anti-racism’ as new catechism. Not unlike extreme religious bigots with their holier-than-thou sanctimony, the PC people are so theatrical and rapturous with their holy-shmoly ‘anti-racism’ when, in fact, the reality of race is so obvious and the black threat is so dire to the West.

    Dawkins says God is sadomasochistic, but this goes for Dawkins and his ilk too. They’re oh-so masochistic with ‘white guilt’ BS. Oh boo hoo, they must atone for their history of ‘antisemitism’ and ‘racism’. But as GOOD WHITE PEOPLE SAVED BY PC, they sadistically love to bully other whites who refuse to kneel at the altar of White Guilt and debase themselves like a bunch of worthless cucks. In this, Dawkins is very much like the religious people he abuses. Just like certain insufferable Christians yammer about their sinfulness but feel morally superior precisely because they churn out such noises, Dawkins bleats about ‘racism’ but that very bleating fills him with the moral pride and arrogance to stick it to others.

    Dawkins is a real pile of shit. As for Jews, they could be promoting Dawkins to dissuade goyim from worshiping God so that Jews can reclaim and own Him all for themselves. If someone owns gold and you want it, it makes sense for you to make him believe that his gold is worthless pile of crap. When he lets it go, you run off with it. So, Jewish support of Dawkins could really be a gambit.

    God and gods never existed. They didn’t give us life. Life emerged by process of evolution and survives by destroying other life. Evolution created life, and that is the curse. God or gods are the imaginary creations of life, and why did intelligent beings imagine gods? Because nature is so horrible. Because life is so full of agony. And this life was created by evolution, the beloved process of Dawkins. Evolution is a pack of hyenas eating a wildebeest alive. It’s lions slowly tormenting and killing a hippo mother and its calf. Without life, there would be no terror. If Earth had no life, who’d care if volcanoes or earthquakes happened? So what if a giant asteroid crashed on Earth? The Moon was hit by tons of asteroids, but it was never tragic because there was no life to kill.
    Dawkins got it backwards. He blames the Jewish God for cruelty and horrors, but all those resulted from life. Evolution created life, and life is about pain. Why pain? Because pain ensures better survival. An organism that feels pain is more likely to avoid danger. But the pain is often horrid and unendurable. Before mankind came up with the first spiritual idea, tons of life forms were destroyed by eating and devouring, volcanoes, earthquakes, asteroids, germs(that are also just more life), and etc. Life was so terrible and cruel that mankind came up with gods to explain why the world is so messed up. And by ascribing disasters to gods or God, they hoped to ease the horror by prayer and appeasement. It’s true that the Old Testament God sends all sorts of disasters on life and mankind. But even before Jews conceived of their God, such disasters had been happening forever. There were floods, pestilence, violence, fires, and destruction. As people sought answers to such problems, they believed some higher force was behind them. And if gods controlled the universe, there were three possibilities.

    1. God or gods are powerful but bad. God or gods are cruel and love to use their power for power’s sake. They love to stomp on the weak, and that is the reason for the horrors. Therefore, the ONLY way to ease their sadism and cruelty was to make sacrifices and offerings.

    2. God or gods are good but powerless. God or gods are good & loving but helpless to stop the disasters to protect or save mankind. They watch and weep but can’t help us.

    3. God or gods are powerful and good. God or gods are good & loving but use disasters to punish mankind when it does wrong.

    Many pagans opted for #1. Aztecs believed in cruel gods that had to be appeased endlessly. Chinese popular religion believed in more civilized gods but they were utterly corrupt and had to be bribed regularly by burning money.

    #2 is problematic even if it lets God or gods off the hook because it implies God or gods are rather weak and helpless to do anything. If they are good but lack the power to save mankind from the horrors, what good are they? Indeed, are they really gods when they are so lacking in power?

    #3 is the one the Jews settled on. God is powerful and good, and so, He uses Power to protect the good and punish the evil. Jews believed that disasters weren’t arbitrary muscle flexing of God but divine moral acts to punish the wicked. But this caused problems of its own as Jews couldn’t help but notice that so many good folks suffered and perished while so many bad monsters got rich and powerful. And so, there was the Book of Job and the rise of Christianity that promised Heaven for the good and meek. For all its problems, #3 is still more assuring than #1 and #2.

    As for science and evolution, it just says Things Happen, and if an asteroid hits Earth and kills all of us, that means we just ran out of luck, and that’s that. I agree with this, but is it any more heartening than religion?

  129. Hibernian says:
    @mcohen

    The Protestants, or at least some of them, speak of a Church “reformed and ever reforming.”

    • Replies: @mcohen
  130. Seraphim says:
    @Priss Factor

    Isn’t the ‘dissatisfaction’ with the body provoked rather by the ‘call of Nature’ which follows the moments of fulfillment of eating and drinking? The more when it comes at the most inappropriate moments, like e.g. in the middle of elevating conversations about the Epicurus’ Trilemma, or when one is about to engage in the liberating act of love (making) and he/she can’t make it in time to the toilet, privy, dunny, outhouse, bog, you name it, responding to the call in your pants (or bed sheets)? Wouldn’t one feel dissatisfied with the anti-natural rules imposed by the bigoted ‘judgemental’ society that you must not answer this call in public?

  131. explorer says:

    Thank you for introducing me to the “Christian Question”. I don’t see the gap, yes maybe people here and there are totally messing up. But for the most part I don’t see it. I don’t believe what you’re saying is at epidemic proportion and now Christianity needs reforming. Christianity is based on the fact that people can’t keep the law and are sinners. No one can keep the law. That’s why Christ came, he came to save sinners.

    • Replies: @Robjil
  132. @Seraphim

    As I said, this is not my field, but this article is not about the French Revolution. It is about Robespierre, and I felt I knew enough about Robespierre to write an article about him. I am open to rational debate and happy to learn more for comments when they are informative.

  133. @Jerry Roberts

    I agree. (Button not available to me.)

  134. mcohen says:
    @Hibernian

    Well for me personally,being a jew,i can only say that judaism has totally failed jews.By not adding to the 613 laws,the laws of destruction of the earth,a divine gift to us,we will surely be punished

    For the sin of murder of animals to extinction
    For the sin of polluting the oceans with plastic
    For the sin of poisoning the drinking water.
    For the sin of poisoning the food chain
    For the sin of stealing our childrens future

    I find it ironic that relegious jews drive cars that produce gases that will kill a person.

    This is the reform i had in mind.We are all guilty.And no relegion has stepped up yet.

  135. Rurik says:
    @Seraphim

    Oh yes, the Christians slaughtered and genocided the Romans, Muslims and of course, Jews

    You’re being hyperbolic Seraphim, (you’re raving ; )

    What I said was.. ‘

    “Atheists (nor agnostics for that matter) do not run around raping and killing ‘any more than anyone else’.

    Then I asked a serious question as to the actual historical facts vis-a-vis that claim.

    Whereupon you froth ‘Oh yes, the Christians slaughtered and genocided the Romans…”

    You’re attempting to divert from the question and from the point;

    ‘Do non-believers in official religions perpetrate more atrocities and crimes than the pious?

    I’m an agnostic. I don’t think I have the wherewithal to comprehend the infinite. I’m not sufficiently outfitted intellectually, to understand the workings or purpose of a gnat, let alone presume to understand the purpose, (divine or otherwise), of the universe.

    For me to insist that there is or is not a God or Gods, would be the ultimate arrogance for someone as utterly unequipped as I am to do so. And so therefor I readily admit that I don’t know.

    I’ll find out when I get to the other side, and if I simply die and that’s it, then guess what? I’m good with that. I’ve lived my life in a way I’m happy with, (mostly ; ).

    As for putting my trust in such questions to my fellow man, and especially the elites (religious or otherwise), it can pretty much be summed up by repeating my thoughts on the Cornhole Virus, when a buddy of mine asked me what I thought yesterday.

    ‘I don’t know how it got here. I don’t know how bad it is, or if I should take more precautions, or if I’m being had by a hoax. I don’t know. But what I do know, is that just about everybody who’s talking about it, all the experts and officials and politicians and CDC and WHO and media personalities and Bill Gates, et al… are lying.

    Even if they’re inadvertently saying something that happens to be true, they’re not saying it because it’s true, but rather because by saying it, they believe they’re bolstering their respective agendas.

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/elliebufkin/2020/04/09/pope-says-wuhan-coronavirus-pandemic-is-natures-response-to-climate-change-n2566632

    And since this seems obvious to me across the board, from every religious leader to politician to ‘expert’ and ‘official’… why – pray Seraphim, should I give any more credence to my fellow man, including (especially) the religious leaders – when it comes to the questions of the infinite and immortal, (and therefor unknowable ; ), when I don’t believe a lousy word their rotten, lying mouths say about *anything*?

    Nevertheless, like Robespierre, I agree that humans are congenitally spiritual, and (like Rousseau) it is ‘hardwired’ into us, and that for humans in general, to be happy they need a spiritual compass and a narrative to give their lives meaning. And a father-like figure to give them comfort in times of great suffering.

    I would never deprive them of their comforts, but (again like Robespierre), I wish there was a better solution to their needs than a religion that has and is leading them into dissolution and desolation. As the (especially Christian) religious elites count their shekels.

    All we need to do is find out a way to emulate the Russian Orthodox Church. But it’s going to have to come from the grass-roots up. The Christian (and especially) Catholic Church today is corrupt, and nothing more than a tool of Zion and Globohomo to lead the West to its depraved enslavement and death.

    Am I wrong for not wanting to see that happen?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  136. @Priss Factor

    Thanks for an extensive analysis. A few points:

    I think you are too harsh on Dawkins, notwithstanding him being human. He was appointed at Oxford to the Professor for Public Understanding of Science and has done that commendably, something a rationalist should approve of. You can hardly popularize something if you antagonize your audience too much without compromise. That he chose to confront the prevailing Biblical religions of the West can hardly be the act of a coward. I am unaware of Dawkins making a comparative ethical evaluation of Biblical vs. the various other prevailing or historical religions. Much of your tome consists of doing such comparison and then faulting Dawkins’ evaluation. I can say that chocolate tastes great without going into a comparative disquisition about it relative to other sweets. Does the fact that others taste as good or better destroy my valuation?

    Incidentally, the same throwing the baby out with the bathwater approach is taken by some regarding Chomsky, that for not being perfect regarding the 9/11 hoax, therefore his courageous speaking truth to power on its crimes diminishes the latter’s value. You seem to agree that we live in a broken world. Perhaps Dawkins and Chomsky failed to reach perfection in public discourse because they themselves raised the bar?

    Which raises the second more substantive issue: Your reasoned analysis speaks of ethical subjective relativism: that what is good for one can be bad for another: good common sense. And then you go and spoil it all by defending a preferred absolute objective (fictitious) entity as touchstone of universal morality – after vehemently arguing for ethical subjective relativism! It is the old problem of whether and when a good goal justifies bad means. You clearly regard the content of religious dogmas as false, but then as a rationalist claims that some(times) falsity is good – which is true, but it conflicts with the rationalist’s idealistic dogma that what is truth, is Go(o)d, in contrast with religious and political ideologies’ evolutionist view that what is Go(o)d, is truth. So, which is it? Must we abandon truth for a good goal and blame others for doing the same, which most ideological discourse is about, or should we be painfully honest even when it is harmful to our “genuine” interests? Your argument seems to boil down to that because there might be good justification for evil, therefore evil is good: God’s “negative” attributes can be justified, thus neutralizing them. Anything can be justified by that line of reasoning – once you set the goal in stone, in this case the preservation of a fiction as truth for political/moral expediency, as did Pompeo below. Your further explanation in this regard will be appreciated, since you love to argue – pretty well albeit a bit Dawkinish. (grin)

    “We lied, we cheated, we stole.” Pompeo
    “”Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” – Lucius Annaeus Seneca
    “The world wants to be deceived. So, let it be deceived.” Various attributions.
    “There are no answers, only cross references.” Norbert Wiener

    Tricky, this thing called life.

    Waving at all perplexed fellow travelers. Don’t forget to wash your screens after reading!

  137. Rurik says:
    @Priss Factor

    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”[1]

    Am I the only one who’s struck by that characterization? Seeing how exactly it parallels the charactor of Israel today?

    The only words that don’t describe Zionism to the letter, (as it’s practiced today in Israel), are perhaps ‘homophobic’, being as Israel (outside a few Orthodox sectors), is very pro-homo.

    Infanticidal – true if you consider 500,000 Gentile children and infants

    filicidal – not really

    sadomasochistic – just take off the masochist part

    Otherwise, that description of the Old Testament God is a perfect, par excellence, spot on characterization of Israel today.

    Isn’t that amazing? Or perhaps not. To what degree does a society begin to resemble the gods they worship?

    As you point out, the Aztecs worshiped a cruel god that demanded human sacrifice, and spread terror accordingly.

    Christians in the West today (unlike Russia, Poland, etc..) worship a craven god of self-abasement.

    (I’ve said it before, but every time I look at that second picture, I feel a compelling urge to relieve myself on the man with the beard. I wonder.. if I had lived in Roman times, and I saw that such was what amounted to a Christian, and what he advocated for my children, [self-abasement] I’d surely take pleasure in tossing him to the lions in the coliseum. It would, after all, be doing him a great favor. Of that, who can doubt?!)

    Perhaps we should give some consideration to the kind of God we as a society worship, because it seems to have a remarkable direct relationship with the kind of people we are.

    The Old Testament god is an asshole. The New Testament God loves peace, but His modern day adherents have bastardized His message into either ‘Go kill for Zion!! – or – worship diversity and Globohomo and celebrate your replacement on this earth.

    I can’t get behind either one of those messages. We need something new, or like Russia, Christianity reinvigorated. But I do not see that happening in this mewling culture of consumerism and endemic moral cowardice.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @Robjil
  138. Interesting article. I am all for the re-evaluation of the role played by the Robespierre faction in the success of the French Revolution and in assuring the integrity of the French Republic. However, the attempt by the Robespierre faction to merge the revolution with religion (through his speech of May 7, the celebration of the Festival to the Supreme Being on 8 June and the passing of the June 10 law enhancing the powers of the Revolutionary Tribunals) were expediencies to the demands of the moment. For the “Montagnard” Republic to survive, French culture had to be rejuvenated, and this rejuvenation required the continued support and consent of the people. Having experienced the reaction underpinning the Lyons & La Vendée rebellions and the progressive, threats to existing property relations coalescing in the Hébert and the Danton movements, Robespierre and his supporters clearly understood the hold religion continued to have on the population. In reading Le Moniteur for the period, it becomes clear that the entire Robespierre faction had an interest in ensuring the adoption of the Laws proposed on May 7 and June 10 and orchestrated events around the respective sessions of the National Convention to assure their success.

    What is most striking (both in the Guyénot article and in the first 30+ comments following the article) is the perception that the French Revolution during the period of the Terror (June 1793 – August 1794), under siege on all fronts since Spring 1793 by Coalition Forces bankrolled by the British government, having gone through a coup d’état in May/June ’93, having instituted a novel currency in January ’93 which immediately dropped in value and eventually stabilized in November ’93 at 50% of its original value, having been forced to institute a new organization in the Army and to centralize the countries entire economic activities in support of the war effort, having experienced a separatist uprising from June ’93 – December ’93 in Lyons and from November ’93 – March ‘94 in La Vendée, as well as the emergence of two popular progressive movements within the capital between September ‘93 – February ‘ 94, etc… is to be understood as the history of a Robespierre or of a Danton….

    Any serious re-evaluation of the events and intentions of the actors during that period, first needs to roll over that huge block of moraine.

    AH

  139. @Rurik

    Am I the only one who’s struck by that characterization? Seeing how exactly it parallels the charactor of Israel today?

    But here’s the thing. While God is a projection of Jewish personality and has a Covenant with the Jews, He is also bigger than the Jews. If God were merely a tool of the Jews, then He would be lesser than the Jews. He’d be just a henchman and bouncer of the Tribe. But as creator and judge, He is bigger than the Jews, and Jews must bow down to Him. And even though He favors Jews, He is very tough on the Jews. Sometimes, He is tougher on the Jews because of the Covenant. When Jews betray Him, He takes it especially badly, ‘personally’. It’s like a father especially feels betrayed by his own children.

    Even though He can be ruthless and brutal in favor of Jews, He can also be ruthless and brutal against Jews. Also, it’s not enough that Jews do well and gain power in His eyes. Jews must gain power and wealth as GOOD people of virtue, piety, and conscience. God is not okay with power for power’s sake. His message to Jews is NOT ‘by any means necessary’. If Jews are to be blessed, they must be a good people who obey God and act moral. Through a prophet, King David was admonished of the wrongness of His ways. And even though God allowed ruthless and even genocidal tactics on the part of Jews during the land wars following Exodus, most of the Torah is a story of God warning and reminding Jews not to lose the way and often punishing the Jews for their perfidy and disobedience.

    So, current Zionism and Jewish Supremacism are similar to the way of God only superficially. Yes, there is the ruthlessness and brutality but no morality. King David atoned, but has any Israeli leader said sorry about anything? Ancient Jews were a moral people who feared God, but today’s Jews turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah with massive globo-homo debauchery. In our time, Jews feel as gods and answer to no one and nothing. Current Jewish covenant is with Satan. True, Satan doesn’t exist, but Jews are totally amoral and nihilistic in their lust for power and more power.

    Indeed, one reason why Jews remained limited in might and reach in the Ancient World was because of their moralism. Now, one could argue chicken-or-the-egg as to whether Jews chose moralism because they kept losing or they lost because they chose moralism. But if Jews ONLY CARED for power and might, their agenda would have been served better with them acting like Assyrians and Romans who were less concerned with morality and more with sheer might and endless conquest.
    Though modern people will wince at the punishments in Deuteronomy, the laws are still morally based. God put down such-and-such laws, and you get punished or killed for violating them. In contrast, Roman and general pagan brutalities were far more arbitrary without moral basis. Romans even staged massive gladiator bloodbaths where countless humans and animals were sacrificed for the fun of it.

    In the modern world, Jews came to world power because they dropped God and morality. Jews no longer believe there is a higher force above them judging them. They now believe THEY are the new gods. Ancient Jews had a combo of big fat ego and mega-personality, and it was projected onto the Heavens. So, even though God came to possess many of the unpleasant qualities of Jews — but then, gods of any people embody the unpleasant as well as pleasant qualities of such people, as among Hindus and Mayans — , He was MORE than the Jews. Also, no single Jew or Jewish sect/tribe could claim Him as his/its own. God was bigger than anything, and His message to Jews was they had to be a good people in order to deserve great power. In modern times, Jews figured that morality(or true morality) is an impediment to their global dominance. Jews figured it’s better to make a pact with the Satanic side of their nature. So, Jews became masters of vanity and vice industries. Also, Jews don’t practice morality but rather exploit moralism in devious ways so that goyim must be ultra-conscientious toward Jews but Jews need not reciprocate. The ‘muh Holocaust’ thing that gives Jews passover rights over other people.

    Zion today is about power without morality. It’s about Jewish covenant with Satan. It’s about there being no higher good or truth above Jewish egotism and supremacism. Today, Jews act as if they are gods. It’s really closer to Golden-Calfism.

    • Replies: @mcohen
    , @Rurik
  140. mcohen says:
    @Priss Factor

    Keep it up and you might be renamed piss factor.

  141. Seraphim says:
    @Rurik

    I was a bit sarcastic, but that was because you asked the leading question that ‘agnostics’ usually ask when turning the tables on the ‘religious elites’ they massacred. They made us do it! They bother us with their arrogance insisting there is a God who might trouble the sleep of our blissful ignorance and tell us not to do as we please, terrorizing us with the idea of hell.
    Sleep well.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  142. Rurik says:
    @Priss Factor

    most of the Torah is a story of God warning and reminding Jews not to lose the way and often punishing the Jews for their perfidy and disobedience.

    well Priss, considering that the very existence of Israel itself, is an abomination and a direct affront to their god, (who ordained that the messiah must come before the advent of Israel), it seems to me that the Jewish people (if you’re correct) are setting themselves up for some very serious, heavy duty Old Testament wrath.

    And while I do personally enjoy your screeds, I don’t want to belabor the Jewish question here too much, as I suspect it’s bit off topic, (and the JQ does get a fair amount of attention here at the UR ; )

  143. Rurik says:
    @Seraphim

    because you asked the leading question that ‘agnostics’ usually ask when turning the tables on the ‘religious elites’ they massacred

    irony alert

    I’m not even aware of any group of self-described agnostics doing anything anywhere, historically or otherwise. Let alone massacring ‘religious elites’.

    Can you provide a link?

    insisting there is a God who might trouble the sleep of our blissful ignorance and tell us not to do as we please, terrorizing us with the idea of hell.
    Sleep well.

    I’m pleased to inform you Seraphim, that I sleep like a baby, and always have.

    But somehow, I wonder if you’d rather it was otherwise.

    “Sleep well”

    Because I shouldn’t, huh Seraphim? By rights I should be tormented and agonize with every breath of my Godless life, ‘doing as I please, un-terrified by nightmares of hell.

    I remember once a nanny-type of seatbelt-fascist telling me I must wear my seatbelt. (I was driving) It was non-negotiable, ‘put it on’. But I refused. It was a safe road in good conditions, and I didn’t feel like it. So I defied her do-goodism, and she simmered in her fascist bile. Eventually, after some other passenger said ‘what’s the problem if he doesn’t want to wear it’, she blew, and blurted out something to the effect ‘I hope you get in an accident and get crippled for life!’

    I sense the same kind of thing from you, Seraphim. ‘If you refuse to fear the loving god as I do, then I hope you burn in hell for eternity! Sleep well!

    Ahh the love and kindness and merciful heart of a good Christian, eh?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  144. Seraphim says:
    @Rurik

    You want links. Everybody want links. How about reading some history books? But that makes you yawn. So get back to sleep.
    I just wonder whether you’d be so flippant if a ‘fascist’ policeman would tell you to put your seat belt on, because that’s the law. But I am sure that the ‘nanny-type seatbelt- fascist’ told you something to the effect ‘You may get into an accident and remain crippled for life’ (and involve the other passengers in it, but I think you wouldn’t care for them). I sense that you are the type who would flaunt the quarantine imposed by the ‘fascists’ also, Tovarishch Riurik.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  145. Robjil says:
    @explorer

    The Christian Question ended with Zion Question rule on 12.23.1913.

    The Christian Question existed for many centuries because of its connection to the Tanakh/Torah.

    Marcion ‘s idea of getting rid of the Old Testament would have solved the CQ in the 2nd century.

  146. Robjil says:
    @Rurik

    These “so sorry” Euro Americans should look at this other bit of history. How did the word “slave” come from? Slavs were targeted for “slavery” in the Muslim world. The Tartars in Crimea had a huge trade in Slavs. That is how the word “slave” came about.

    https://www.medievalists.net/2014/03/crimean-tatars-russian-captive-slaves/

    What do these facts mean? They indicate, first of all, that in spite of political independence from the Kipchak Khanate’s rule in the second half of the 15th century, Muscovite Russia for a long time after that, and even till the mid-17th century, was not yet freed from the constant attacks by the people of a successor-state of the Kipchak Khanate: the Crimean Khanate, which was created in the mid-fifteen century in the Crimean Peninsula and on the northern shore of the Black Sea. The Russian population on the southern border with the Crimean Tatars was continuously exposed to the dangers of Crimean raider bands, which were usually formed to attack Russian permanent settlements, capture people and sell them to slave-traders, or to give them back to Russia for ransom monies.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
    , @Rurik
  147. Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte III: Illuminist Puppet, Corrupto and War Monger

    “Louis-Napoleon was a creature of the cosmopolitan international elite. Though he had been born in Paris, he had lived very little in the city. From the age of 7, he had lived in exile in Switzerland, England, Germany and the United States. He spent six years in prison in France for attempting to overthrow King Louis-Philippe. He spoke French with a pronounced German accent.

    He received some of his education in Germany at the gymnasium school at Augsburg, Bavaria. His tutor at home was Philippe Le Bas, an ardent Illuminist republican and the son of a revolutionary and close friend of Robespierre. Le Bas taught him French history and radical politics.”

  148. @Robjil

    The question should be, why were they so easy to enslave in the first place? Other peoples were also targeted for slavery. Especially blond Germanics. But they did not allow it to happen to the degree their whole people became synonymous with enslavement.

  149. Rurik says:
    @Seraphim

    because that’s the law.

    I read recently where the governor of Michigan told its citizens that they’re not allowed to play golf or go to their second homes or cottages. They are, (for now) permitted to go outside their homes.

    One wonders.. when you become the kind of person who willfully sacrifices your dignity, your mind, your sovereignty, your agency and your free will, over to the Police State, to submit to and obey, because ‘it’s the law’…

    What is left of such a person? Sure, physically you can see them, but the real question is.. ‘do they still have a soul?

    Here’s an exercise for you. If you ask someone who knows another person, ‘what that person is like?’ And they tell you, ‘well, I’d say that person is very obedient’. What would you think about such a person?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  150. Rurik says:
    @Robjil

    The Tartars in Crimea had a huge trade in Slavs

    be careful. You mustn’t upset ((the narrative)), of ‘it’s always been whitey who enslaves all other people, at all times past, present and future.

    trivia

    Charles Bronson is of Tatar heritage (not his wife)

  151. Seraphim says:
    @Rurik

    That you are a narcissistic nincompoop.

  152. The Carmelite community was transported to Paris, where they were condemned as a group as traitors and sentenced to death. They were sent to the guillotine on 17 July 1794. They were notable in the manner of their deaths, as, at the foot of the scaffold, the community jointly renewed their religious vows and sang the Veni Creator Spiritus, proper to this occasion.They continued their singing as, one by one, they mounted the scaffold to meet their death. The novice of the community, Sister Constance, was the first to die, then the lay Sisters and externs, and so on, ending with the prioress, Mother Teresa of St. Augustine, O.C.D.

    When the Reign of Terror ended only days after their martyrdom, the English nuns credited the Carmelites with stopping the Revolution’s bloodbath and with saving the Benedictines from annihilation.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  153. @Christopher Marlowe

    Interestingly, the martyr of the 16 Carmelites supports the thesis that, in Lamartine’s words, Robespierre’s ennemies, “covered him, for forty days, with the blood they shed to disgrace him.” I read in the French Wikipedia article : “In May 1794, the city of Compiègne was plagued by accusations of “moderism”. In order to divert suspicion, the local authorities have invented a “fanatic plot” perpetrated by the Carmelite nuns. According to historian Jacques Bernet, this affair, which should have remained local, became national when the General Safety Committee decided to instrumentalize it in its fight against Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety” (endnote: Jacques Bernet, « Terreur et religion en l’an II. L’affaire des carmélites de Compiègne », Les politiques de la Terreur, 1793-1794, Presses universitaires de Rennes,‎ 2008, p. 444). By the way, my article is not a defense of the French Revolution, but of Robespierre’s religious ideas.

  154. Nuncle says:

    What were the motives of those who killed Robespierre?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Laurent Guyénot Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
How America was neoconned into World War IV