The rise of savage terrorist creeds

This is from Arnold Lunn’s 1939 Communism and Socialism: A Study in the Technique of Revolution. It comes at the start of Chapter XIV, “The Fruits of a False Philosophy”. The waning of the Christian ethic across the world will have and is already having moral consequences.

“Cruelty and the abuse of power,” wrote Charles Dickens, “are the two bad passions of human nature,” passions which have not been eradicated, but have certainly been tamed by Christianity, for though no Christian can read without shame the history of the Inquisition or the story of the Catholic martyrs racked and tortured in Elizabethan England, Europe, even in its darkest moments, paid homage to Christian ideals, ideals whose influence was cumulative and progressive. The rack and the stake vanished from Europe under pressure of the strongest of all arguments, the appeal from Christians to Christ. The contrast between the ideals and the practice of Christian men is impressive, but the value of of the Christian ideals has been proved by the consequences which follow when these ideals are repudiated. Russia is the first European country officially to accept atheistic materialism as the State creed, and only those who are wilfully blind can continue to ignore the fruits of that philosophy.

Soviet Russia provides indirect evidence of the immense importance of high standards even in a society in which only a minority seriously attempt to live up to those standards. Even lip-service to an ideal has some value. The contrast between Soviet Russia and the Christian Europe which even in the darkest period recognized Christian ideals, is a powerful if indirect argument for the influence of Christianity. Soviet Russia with a few short years has sacrificed the hard-won gains of the Christian spirit, and has re-established the ruthless standards of the pagan world into which Christ was born. The uneasy conscience of Christendom which still condoned and exploited pre-Christian methods of persecution is apparent from the apologetics with which Christians attempted to justify the rack and the stake. These tragic derelictions, which Christians defended with halting casuistry, are proudly accepted by Communists as an integral element of their new civilization. Modern states accused of war atrocities have implicitly recognized the Christian standards, and have either indignantly denied the charges, or have disclaimed responsibility for regrettable excesses. The worst crimes charged against States still influenced by Christianity are venial compared with the horrors officially enjoined by the rulers of Soviet Russia. The secretive use of terrorism as an emergency weapon to be disowned and denied when challenged has been displaced by the defiant glorification of terrorism and of violence. Lenin, indeed, argues that the dictatorship of the Proletariat is impossible without the “violence which is not limited by any laws or restricted by any absolute rules.” Lenin glorifies terrorism in the famous letter published in The Bolshevik for October 31st 1920. “The legal trial,” he wrote, “is not intended to replace terrorism; to make such a profession would be a deception of others or oneself; but to base terrorism firmly on a fundamental principle and give it legal form, unambiguously, without dishonesty or embellishment.” (Lunn 1939: 128-129)

Our present catastrophe is being met with indifference as discussed here: Annihilation of Christian Life and People: Where is the Outrage in the West? We seem to think we are being racist in defending ourselves and our way of life from predators of every kind.

The full bibliographic reference is: Arnold Lunn. 1939. Communism and Socialism: A Study in the Technique of Revolution. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. It is a book well worth the read if you can get your hands on one.

This entry was posted in Books and writing, Cultural Issues, Philosophy, Terrorism. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to The rise of savage terrorist creeds

  1. Hugh

    I think one of the major false dogmas of our time is “There should be separation of church and state!”

    Separation is simply impossible. The fact is that “church”, in the sense of ultimate beliefs, can never be separated from a state, any more than they can be from an individual human being. When Christianity has been abolished as the state religion, then the religion of atheism, or agnosticism, or Islam, or whatever, moves in to fill the vacuum. What atheist says his or her worldview shouldn’t influence their nation’s constitution or political life? If they did so, they’re an exception to the rule, and it’s perfectly understandable that this is the case. Accordingly, the most prominent atheists I read of are constantly insisting that their ideas should be the guiding lights for our polity.

    My beef with the frightening Islamic doctrine of a world-wide Caliphate is not that it’s so universal. Heck, everyone thinks their fundamental ideas would be good for the world! Why wouldn’t they? To put it another way: does anyone say to themselves “I think reality is fundamentally constructed this way … but it would be really bad if everyone thought that.”? Screwed up, there. No: my beef with Islam’s universal designs it that it is a fundamentally cr#phouse idea to foist on even one person, let alone the whole of mankind. As is (IMO) atheism. And Marxism and Socialism. And as opposed to, say, Christianity, which at its heart tolerates other beliefs, up to the point that they threaten public order. Yes, public order as defined by Christianity. But how could it not be, given that, except for the doctrine of the “natural law”, which is supported by Christianity and Judaism, but certainly rejected by other beliefs, there’s no uber definition of “public order”, or “toleration” or “freedom of speech” or “right to life”, etc, etc, as recent events have borne out?

    Alisdair MacIntyre’s “After Virtue” grows more prescient by the day.

    The only relevant question is: “Which church should be united to the state?” There’s no such thing as separation of church and state. Let the honest debate resume, without this distraction.

  2. Rabid Koala

    If you want to understand the Communist mindset you need to Solzhenitsyn

  3. Rafe Champion

    Available from Abe Books, one copy in Australia.

    I have got my slightly worm eaten copy of Dear Mr Wells. I got the last copy in Australia after Steve got the second last. Actually his came from an op shop and it would not have been listed on Abe that advertises books in second hand shops. Incidentally about half my books from Abe in recent years are ex university library books.

  4. CameronH

    You only have to see the reaction to Senator Anning’s attempts to highlight this issue to understand why many people avoid it.

  5. Milton David Fisher

    The Soviet Communists and other Marxist regimes were cruel. However, Hitler signed a Concordat with the Vatican, Christian chaplains served the armed forces and Christianity, by and large, served the Nazis. Although individual Christians such as Bonhoeffer and Jägerstätter opposed the Nazis the ameliorating actions of Christianity were largely absent. The Gestapo was much smaller than the Soviet secret police as lass force was required to keep the population in line in Christian Nazi Germany.

  6. Milton David Fisher

    Hitler signed a Concordat with the Vatican, Christian chaplains served the armed forces and Christianity, by and large, served the Nazis. Although individual Christians such as Bonhoeffer and Jägerstätter opposed the Nazis the ameliorating actions of Christianity were largely absent. The Gestapo was much smaller than the Soviet secret police as lass force was required to keep the population in line in Christian Nazi Germany.

  7. Chris M

    You only have to see the reaction to Senator Anning…

    Indeed; they more the mob hates on someone and the less they back down the more I like them. Like bully children left are always outraged and demanding apologies – kneel you knaves. Now they are hating on Israels wife with not even a basic grasp of the basics of Christianity where your past doesn’t matter.

    Thanks Steve, we need reminding of the horrors of Communism which is essentially Atheism realised.

  8. Mater

    If you want to understand the Communist mindset you need to Solzhenitsyn

    I dare you to read Solzhenitsyn’s controversial address to the 1978 Harvard Graduates and then tell me he wasn’t prophetic about the direction of the West.

    https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/alexandersolzhenitsynharvard.htm

    Just an example:

    Western society has given itself the organization best suited to its purposes based, I would say, one the letter of the law. The limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in interpreting and manipulating law. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required. Nobody will mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk. It would sound simply absurd. One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames.

    I have spent all my life under a Communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale than the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses. And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.

  9. Michael Lewis

    The “Christian Ideals” are very malleable when historically applied, right up to now, with a massive application from 1930 to 1945, fused with perverted nationalisms. As someone whose forebears have been suffering from “Christian Ideals” for over 2000 years, the application of those “Ideals” has been even more “pointy” and systematic than the “Socialist Ideals”, which have tended to be hit or miss in their effect. The “Christian Ideals” are also favourably compared with another religion’s, which I don’t dispute, but 80 years ago or today, as we saw with the garb of Judas in a spin off religious activity in Poland, “Christian Ideals” can contain some fatal features if you are not Christian or the wrong variety at the wrong time.

  10. George Gell

    Chris M You say :-
    “Thanks Steve, we need reminding of the horrors of Communism which is essentially Atheism realised.”
    I quote to you from “The Revised Standard Version” of the Bible- what you would call Gospel ( a word often used by Christians to designate truth)

    Exodus 20;18 “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live”. (The 1484 edict of Pope Innocent V111 – wonderful name) to enforce Exodus 20:18 led to hundreds of thousands of deaths across Europe , Britain and even its colony of New York, predominant victims , little old ladies)
    Leviticus “Man who lieth with man shall be stoned.”
    Psalms137: 8 and 9 “ O daughter of Babylon , you devastator!
    Happy shall be he who requites you with what you have done to us. Happy shall be he who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks. “
    Luke 13:47 page 858 of revised bible quotes Jesus as saying :-.
    “and that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating”.( Wilberforce thought he was motivated by Christianity in his fight against slavery. Actually the motivation was humanism- the naked ability of humans to judge right from wrong un fettered by the scribblings and ravings of ignorant ancients who thought the world was flat.the word servant was used original by William Tindale as a translation from the original Greek and other bible translations have followed suit but the more accepted translation is “slave”.

  11. Chris M

    Sure George I don’t have a problem with any of those passages as I’ve studied the entire book so I understand where it’s coming from. There are some killing passages in the OT such as the Amalekites which sound quite rough until you get the part that these people were more deparved than ISIS is today. Under God’s law we are all worthy of death. The wages of sin is death, it’s a payment that’s due.

    You prefer amoralistic atheism and its enforced application communism, fine. That’s your choice. In the west each and every person benefits daily from the teachings and influence of Christianity. But I do feel sad that Michael’s forebears have been struggling under Christianity longer than it has existed, that must be tough.

  12. Tim Neilson

    fettered by the scribblings and ravings of ignorant ancients who thought the world was flat

    Did they?

    What makes you think that?

    How were the Hebrews censored from ancient Greek culture which knew centuries before Christ that the earth was a sphere with a circumference of about 24,000 miles?

    What model of the cosmos was behind the passage in the Book of Job which says that the Lord has caused the earth to hang from nothing in the heavens? Sure seems to me like they knew that the earth was surrounded by empty space.

  13. Iampeter

    This is just boilerplate, cargo cultism from modern enemies of Western Civilization.
    The West is the worlds first rational and individualist culture and so obviously isn’t influenced by the mystical and collectivist teachings of Christianity.
    Christianity is the oldest enemy of Western civilization, derailed it for over a millenia by causing the Dark Ages and has caused far more damage than any other ideology, also making things like Nazism and Communism possible.
    It killed way more people in the West than multiple Islamic invasions and invented anti-semitism and murderous progroms, of which the most successful was carried out by the crusades. As a bit of a side project they very nearly killed every J person in Europe. Hitlers later attempts, largely inspired by this, were a poor immitation.
    The body count of more general Christian slaughters are also apocalyptic.
    The thirty year war, for example, wiped out half the inhabitants of Europe at the time and took two hundred years for population levels to restore. Per capita, that makes it the single worst conflict in European history, including WW1, WW2 and the Cold War put together. And that’s just ONE Christian conflict. I’m not even counting the 1500 years of slaughters preceding it.
    As for communism, that’s what you get when you take the altruistic teachings of Christianity to it’s logical conclusion. If you think an innocent man suffering and being murdered for the sins of others is moral, than death camps and gulags is what you’re aching for.
    Communism is not atheism personified, atheism isn’t even an essential and keeps coming up due to peoples misintegrations.
    Communism is Christianity personified.

    People confused enough to think the West is Christian, while communism is athiest, understand neither Christianity, nor the West, nor communism, nor anything really. They certainly shouldn’t be writing any books on the subject.

    People who support Christianity are sure as hell not going to be opposing communism. These people just don’t understand any of the fundamentals.

  14. Iampeter

    Under God’s law we are all worthy of death. The wages of sin is death, it’s a payment that’s due.

    Then you can’t have any issues with ISIS either, since that’s basically what they’re saying too.
    Good thing that unlike them, you don’t take it seriously, or you’d be an actual threat to people.

    You prefer amoralistic atheism and its enforced application communism, fine.

    There’s no such thing as “amoralistic atheism” since atheism is the first step towards discovering an actual morality. Atheism is also not an alternative to religion. Reason is the alternative and it’s the tool that we use to practice an actually moral life. Morality being a code of values for life on earth, not mindless obedience to men claiming to speak on behalf of a supernatural dictator, that you know doesn’t exist, but wouldn’t ever be moral even if it did.

    As for communism, that’s what enforced Christianity looks like when taken to it’s logical conclusion.
    If you think crucifying an innocent man for the sins of others is moral, then you must love communism.

  15. As for communism, that’s what enforced Christianity looks like when taken to it’s logical conclusion.
    If you think crucifying an innocent man for the sins of others is moral, then you must love communism.

    Get the fuck outta here, Randbot.

  16. Iampeter

    Get the fuck outta here, Randbot.

    Why? This website is advertised as a Libertarian and Centre-Right blog.
    It has lines from Rand pop up routinely in the liberty quotes on the side of the page.
    It’s you clueless death cultists and politically illiterate leftists that should fuck off, as you say.
    Especially since none of you are capable of having a rational discussion and are just unhinged imbeciles.

    Can’t imagine what any of you are doing here anyway. Or on any blog about politics or history for that matter.

  17. Especially since none of you are capable of having a rational discussion and are just unhinged imbeciles.

    No, that’s you Peter. That’s why literally no one agrees with you.

  18. Mark A

    Iampeter
    #3000923, posted on April 30, 2019 at 12:04 pm

    I don’t like your condescending attitude and disagree with most of what you post, but in this instance you are spot on.

    I’m beginning to waver in my, never strong, faith myself.

  19. notafan

    The Romans crucified Christ, not Christians

    and He wasn’t just a man.

  20. notafan

    I’m beginning to waver in my, never strong, faith myself.

    You keep saying that

    what is the cause of your wavering

    Some sins you like perhaps?

    Please don’t blame externalities
    , it’s a cope out

    Tolkien wrote an excellent letter to his son about excuses, I recommend you read it.

    If you truly believe that the Eucharist that you have received is the Body of Christ then nothing should be able to sway your faith

  21. Tim Neilson

    Under God’s law we are all worthy of death. The wages of sin is death, it’s a payment that’s due.

    Then you can’t have any issues with ISIS either, since that’s basically what they’re saying too.
    Good thing that unlike them, you don’t take it seriously, or you’d be an actual threat to people.

    Poor old Iamashiteater, once again winning the Dunning-Kruger award effortlessly.

    You can’t even tell the difference between a philosophy of mass murder and the Christian philosophy of the natural [i.e. NOT human enforced] consequences of deliberate disobedience to God’s laws.

    Deliberate ignorance or sub-cretinous stupidity? Or both?

    There’s no such thing as “amoralistic atheism” since atheism is the first step towards discovering an actual morality. Atheism is also not an alternative to religion. Reason is the alternative and it’s the tool that we use to practice an actually moral life.

    Poor old Iamashiteater, displaying his utter lack of understanding of logic yet again. Reason can be applied only to ultimate phenomena that are accepted a priori. Atheism can’t be proved true by “reason”. [And FFS don’t humiliate yourself with that “existence exists” shiteating yet again.]

    Morality being a code of values for life on earth, not mindless obedience to men claiming to speak on behalf of a supernatural dictator, that you know doesn’t exist, but wouldn’t ever be moral even if it did.

    Poor old Iamashiteater, yet again claiming to know everything not only existing but in any way possible.

    As for communism, that’s what enforced Christianity looks like when taken to it’s logical conclusion.
    If you think crucifying an innocent man for the sins of others is moral, then you must love communism.

    Poor old Iamashiteater, unable to understand the difference between someone voluntarily undergoing something and someone having it forced on them. And note the peculiar question-begging reference to “enforced” Christianity.

  22. Iampeter

    I don’t like your condescending attitude and disagree with most of what you post, but in this instance you are spot on.

    The thing is, people who focus on “attitude” or “tone” are generally evading that they’re wrong but wish reality would change to suit their feelings.
    In other words they’re going with their emotions instead of reason.
    Or, in other words, it’s the triggering of a leftist.
    Don’t be those guys.

    Also, it rings kind of hollow on a blog where people are far worse than “condescending.” In a thread on said blog, where I’m already the least condescending poster, no less.
    Basically, people at the cat can spout the most insane shit, from proudly declaring their racism to the death cultist crap being served up by Chris M and no one will say anything. Heck, I think many even agree.

    But a pro-capitalism, pro-individualism and pro-reason poster? Ehr Meh Gerd! The tone! Stop being condescending!
    Sorry, but it’s just such a glaring double standard and since it’s only directed at me over the most trivial stuff, I can’t take it seriously.

    Still, I think it’s pretty interesting that you would agree on the far more abstract question of morality but then disagree on other things. It’s usually the other way around.

  23. Iampeter

    No, that’s you Peter. That’s why literally no one agrees with you.

    Whether anyone agrees with me or not doesn’t change a single fact about what I’ve said.
    You really are stupid. So stupid you could give Dover and Tim N a run for their money.
    Looks like you’re another raving cat imbecile that I will be ignoring going forward since there’s very clearly something very wrong with you and words will have no affect.

  24. pbw

    GG,

    Wilberforce thought he was motivated by Christianity in his fight against slavery. Actually the motivation was humanism- the naked ability of humans to judge right from wrong un fettered by the scribblings and ravings of ignorant ancients who thought the world was flat.

    So, George, you’ve had extensive conversations with William, which have given you insight into his motivation. It’s sounds like another sad example of false consciousness, like women who don’t embrace feminism, or proletarians who don’t embrace communism.

    How many other dead people have you been spending time with? If one of the voices tells you to jump off a building, talk to us about it first.

  25. David Tanner

    Most of us had Christianity forced on us in our youth but when we acquired the ability to reason we discovered that it was all a crock. Jesus should have realised that there actually was no loving God to save him as he hung on the cross.

  26. Chris M

    David that was the one and only time that the Father turned his face from Jesus, because at that point he took on the sins of the human race. He was forsaken by all on the cross (Psalm 22v1, Matthew 27v46)). So you and I can be thankful that the Father did not save Jesus then or we would all be doomed. But three days later he was raised from the dead by the power of the Father (Romans 6v4), one of the most widely witnessed major event in all human history. You can choose not to believe but to discredit you must disprove the resurrection which has not yet been successfully done due to the mass proof of this event.

  27. Tim Neilson

    Jesus should have realised that there actually was no loving God to save him as he hung on the cross.

    There obviously wasn’t very much Christianity forced on you if you think that Jesus didn’t know that he was going to die.

  28. Looks like you’re another raving cat imbecile that I will be ignoring going forward since there’s very clearly something very wrong with you and words will have no affect.

    Please. You tried to say that communism was just theocratic Christianity.

    This is a stupid sleight of hand and you know it. All totalitarian regimes are very similar. Any dangerous idiot forcing religion or irreligiosity down anyone’s throat is going to turn out like Pol Pot, Franco, Hitler or Stalin.

    Christianity is not a death cult. It is a resurrection cult. Please reconcile your slur with the objection to abortion and euthanasia.

    Before the churches got cucked they used to tell people murder was a mortal sin, you went to hell for it and they grudgingly approved of orderly & legal executions to protect the communities they lived in.

  29. pbw

    Mark A,

    What things make you waver.

    (Wouldn’t it be handy to have posting threads, with notification of new posts to the thread?)

  30. Iampeter

    Please. You tried to say that communism was just theocratic Christianity.

    I didn’t say communism was theocratic Christianity. I said it’s the proper and consistent application of Christian altruism.
    This of course requires a little more understanding than “Christianity say murder BAD,” which seems to be your level.

    Any dangerous idiot forcing religion or irreligiosity down anyone’s throat is going to turn out like Pol Pot, Franco, Hitler or Stalin.

    Yes they are very similar. They are all based on the ethics of altruism, which was mainstreamed in Western Civilization by Christianity. It’s the idea of an innocent man dying on the cross for the sins of others being moral.
    If you don’t oppose that, then you have no way of opposing any of these dictators you mention.
    You’ve already agreed with them on the level of morality.

    Before the churches got cucked they used to tell people murder was a mortal sin

    ALL human societies have said something like this. Murder is illegal in communist countries FYI.
    This is not an essential teaching of Christianity, it doesn’t tell you anything. It’s just boilerplate/baby-level discourse.

    The fundamentals of Christianity are altruism and collectivism, which makes it the basis for communism and fascism NOT Western Civilization.

    You’re level of “Christianity says murder bad” is a baby level of discussion and demonstrates no understanding of fundamentals.
    This is why your initial response to me in this thread was an emotional triggering.
    You know, you don’t know what you’re saying.

  31. So know you’re using the no true scotsman fallacy to argue?

    This is piss poor Peter.

    This is not an essential teaching of Christianity

    Please stop, this is really idiotic. The ten commandments, proverbs, the beatitudes, the parables, the pater noster and the golden rule (more or less). Really important stuff. How to live. Comparable to philosophical secularism. The rest is mostly spiritual, eschatological or prophetic window dressing. That is not in mortal hands. All of it condemns coercion and urges resisting retaliation if possible.

    It’s the idea of an innocent man dying on the cross for the sins of others being moral.

    So if an innocent solider dies, to protect his homeland…anyway where are Christians expected to die? This is just an ignorant homily you’re banging on with now.

    The fundamentals of Christianity are altruism and collectivism

    By choice.

    You’re level of “Christianity says murder bad” is a baby level of discussion and demonstrates no understanding of fundamentals.

    It’s the truth pal. You’re lying.

    The West was built on some good things and some bad things. What Aquinas wrote is not far off what Ayn Rand wanted.

    Both Objectivitsts and conservative Christians insisting we’re all going to die in a degenerate quagmire of utter misery if we don’t all fall in line is nonsense. There is plenty of good and common ground between the practicalities these philosophies suggest as optimal.

    If government was organised as laid out by Aquinas and Rand, we’d be in a libertarian paradise.

  32. Old Lefty

    And, George Gell, Christians do not regard those passages form the OT as ‘Gospel’ but as a provisional step along the way which is now superseded. You’ve been reading too much Dawkins who, while I gather his dissertation on the beak of a bird was a good piece of work, has the mentality of an a pig-ignorant early adolescent on anything else. He unconsciously uses metaphors all the time in his own writing, but snorts and sneers like a semi-literate thirteen-year-old when anyone challenges his own ‘cat sat on the mat’ approach to reading.

  33. Iampeter

    So know you’re using the no true scotsman fallacy to argue?

    What I’m doing is pointing out the fundamentals and then correctly linking the ideologies in question in a way that is completely opposite to the what’s been suggested in the original post by misintegrated thinkers.

    The ten commandments, proverbs, the beatitudes, the parables, the pater noster and the golden rule (more or less). Really important stuff. How to live.

    Commandments and lessons about human sacrifice being moral, are antithetical to life. Actually engaging in human sacrifice and praising it, to save sinners is pure evil.
    This thinking leads to murderous dictatorships. If you want to know how to live you need to embrace reason, which necessitates rejecting religion.

    All of it condemns coercion and urges resisting retaliation if possible.

    Nothing in the bible condemns coercion. You are given COMMANDMENTS not laws or something.
    Commanding people to do what they’re told on pain of hell IS coercion.
    When Christians had political power they also spent their entire time coercing people.
    All of European history under Christianity is endless slaughter from pogroms and religious wars.

    What Aquinas wrote is not far off what Ayn Rand wanted.

    Aquinas is a hero because he mainstreamed Greek reason (actual Western ideas) into Christian Europe once again. This led to a breakdown of the Church’s control and then the Enlightenment, the industrial revolution and all the prosperity we have today. Aquinas was not a hero because he was a Christian.

    If government was organised as laid out by Aquinas and Rand, we’d be in a libertarian paradise.

    Yes, but Christians oppose this. Christianity is not on the side of Western Civilization, it is it’s oldest enemy.

    If you don’t oppose Christianity and religion in general, you can’t oppose movements like communism, which is just a more logically consistent version of religion, stripped of supernatural nonsense.

  34. Iampeter

    On second thought, I don’t think communism is even stripping the supernatural from Christianity. It just uses different words for the same thing.
    Instead of God as the supernatural entity individuals are sacrificed to, you have the proletariat.
    Instead of Church you have The Party.
    Instead of Pope you have the Party Leader.
    Etc.
    Ideologically communism and Christianity are indistinguishable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.