Friday, January 31, 2014

‘Religion’ is pure fraud; it does not have an existence!

'Religion' is no more than a mental abstraction from ‘culture’. Cooked up by European-Christian colonialists, the concept of 'religion' has never had any real existence – across the world and through history. India's diverse cultures have never had anything to do with ‘religion’, which is the longest-running hoax in human history, a Ponzi scheme of sorts, being perpetuated now principally by 'Christian' and 'Muslim' fraudsters.

‘Religion’ is a fraudulent concept. In that it has no real existence, it is perhaps the biggest and longest-running hoax in human history.

‘Religion’ was cunningly abstracted as a concept from 'culture' - (‘culture’, that is the wholeness of human-social life) - and then imposed through imperialist expansion as a false identity on the people brought to submission through force or fraud.

Please note that ‘abstraction’ is purely a mental process. What it means here is that one takes, quite arbitrarily, just a few imagined features of a ‘culture’, give that set of features a new label – i.e. ‘religion’ – and then begin to treat it as a separate category and as a weapon to subjugate people and undermine their cultures.

Even though ‘religion’ is a mere mental abstraction from ‘culture’ and has no real existence other than its supposed inherence within 'culture', there are three species – Judaism, Christianity and Islam, each of them a fraud in itself and an enemy of all human cultures – which have included themselves (so to speak) in this category.

The fact that Judaism, Christianity and Islam place themselves in this fraudulent category does nothing to give actual existence to ‘religion’ which remains a mere mental abstraction from ‘culture’ – i.e. something that has no existence of its own, but is purely assumed to inhere in certain aspects of ‘culture’.

This inclusion, however, does give totalitarian ideologies - which is what Christianity and Islam are - the smokescreen of ‘religion’ to wage a war against all human cultures and expand their hegemony.

In so far as it serves to isolate those three dangerous, ethnocidal viruses from all human cultures, the inclusion of those species in the category of 'religion' — or two if we conflate the first two into ‘Judeo-Christianity’— could be regarded as helpful. 

'Cultures' mislabelled as 'religions'

The assumed equivalence between Judaism, Christianity or Islam on the one hand and the so called ‘Hinduism’ on the other is a fraud -- (and so is the whole construct of ‘majority’ and ‘minority’) -- based as it is on juxtaposing of two unlike, incommensurable things.

None of the wide variety of peoples herded together under the label ‘Hindu’ represent anything that remotely resembles a ‘religion’ in the sense that Judaism, Christianity and Islam regard themselves as ‘religions’. The peoples labelled as 'Hindu' belong to a wide variety of 'cultures' that have historically had deep interconnections and mutual give and take.

So there is no such thing as a ‘religion’ called ‘Hinduism’. It simply doesn't exist anywhere in the world in any part or form remotely resembling Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Likewise there is no such thing as a ‘religion’ called ‘Buddhism’ or ‘Jainism’ or ‘Sikhism’ or ‘Confucianism’, etc., in any part or form remotely resembling Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

It's also true the other way round: almost all the ‘authorized’ varieties of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the fundamental elements of ‘religion’, so that they remain unlike ‘cultures’ found outside 'Christian' and 'Islamic' worlds. 

Readers can find a lot of scholarly literature on the Web on how European-Christian colonialists prepared the 'competitive' (and conflict-prone) ground for evangelization by mischaracterizing and misbranding diverse 'cultures' of the world as 'religions'.

So diverse and syncretistic 'cultures' found across the world were given the cast of 'religion' - or were constructed - by the European-Christian colonialists in order to be evaluated on the standards of what they branded as the 'True Religion' (Christianity) for slicing, dicing and eventual destruction.

India's great synretistic cultures came to be constructed as 'Hinduism' - the 'religion' - in the same colonial milieu.

An article titled, 'From Manusmriti to Madhusmriti', by Madhu Kishwar (Indian academic, activist and founder-editor of Manushi), on the link below gives a flavour of how 'Hinduism', the 'religion', came to be 'constructed' by the British colonialists, even though the writer hasn't repudiated 'religion' - like I have done - as a concept that is alien to all human cultures across the world; she continues to use the word 'religion' for Indian 'cultures' that were subsumed by the British colonialists into the so called 'Hinduism'.

The following is an excerpt from the article; it is a para from a part with subheading, 'The Search for Non-Existent ‘Hindu Fundamentals'.

(Quote) In the late 18th century, the British began to study the ancient shastras to develop a set of legal principles that would assist them in adjudicating disputes within Indian civil society. In fact, they found there was no single body of canonical law, no Hindu Pope to legitimise a uniform legal code for all the diverse communities of India, no Shankaracharya whose writ reigned all over the country. 

Even religious interpretations of popular epics like the Ramayana failed to fit the bill because every community and every age exercised the freedom to recite and write its own version. We have inherited hundreds of recognised and respected versions of this text, and many are still being created. The flourishing of such variation and diversity, however, did not prevent the British from searching for a definitive canon of Hindu law. (Unquote)

How can 'religion' not exist?

At first glance, a belief or a set of beliefs (also known as 'creed') -- which, in the case of Christianity, may also undergo amendments over time -- would appear to be at the centre of 'religion'. Creed is based on certain 'historical' claims to 'truth'. It's easy to see why this 'belief' system never works. How can anyone control belief? How can anyone measure belief or the degree of belief of a supposed believer?

Again it's easy to see that despite pretending to be bodies of believers and raising hell in the name of their creed, Christianity and Islam are chiefly not about enforcing belief, which is actually an impossible task, but only about (mis-)labelling people and enlisting them in its ranks.

That is, expansionism and empire building is the name of the game, by fraud or coercion.
It's like building an army on the basis of 'us' and 'them', pulling more of 'them' into 'us' and then training the freshly labelled 'us' to treat their own as 'them'.

This impossibility of enforcing, or even ascertaining, belief in its core creed -- despite all the fuss (and blood-letting) over 'faith' and 'Imaan' and 'conversion' to that 'faith' and 'Imaan' -- is the most important reason why the whole concept of 'religion' is a fraud.

In other words, it's impossible for anyone to even ascertain whether or not a person is actually 'Christian' or 'Muslim' in the creedal sense of being a 'Christian' or 'Muslim'. A person's beliefs are mental states that can never be ascertained or measured; they, in fact, keep changing.

So 'religion' can at best be professed - i.e. one must claim or declare that one believes in or has an allegiance to a religion or set of beliefs; it's merely a labelling system.

A person belonging to a culture, on the other hand, doesn't have to claim or declare that he believes in or has an allegiance to their culture; their culture speaks through the way they live their lives. And so people are readily acknowledged as belonging to a certain culture; no initiations, professions or declarations are needed.

'Religion' thus has only a superficial character; it exists either only as a imposed/fraudulent label or is manifested through certain visible and concrete practices like flaunting a Bible or Quran or going to a church or mosque or performing certain rituals. But who cares, as long as the headcount keeps rising!

And that, by the way, also explains the philosophically and morally bankrupt nature of both Christianity and Islam. (Given the cognate nature of Judaism and Christianity, Judaism should be assumed to be included in this whole argument, even if it's not mentioned here.)

That ought to explain further what I mean when I say that 'religion' - (i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam) - has no real existence; it's only assumed to occur as a set of visible signs and practices, such as crosses, crescents, books, going to churches and mosques, rituals, festivals, etc.

So what's the whole point of spreading 'religion - i.e. conversion, proselytization, Tableegh, etc.- even at the cost of the amazing diversity of cultures that ensure human survival and provide meaning to human life?

Answer to that question ought to be obvious to anyone who is familiar with the character and conduct of 'Christianity' and 'Islam' in past and present times.

As to the existence of 'religion', the following is a telling quote from Jonathan Z. Smith, a prominent American historian of ‘religions’. (, taken from his introduction to his book, 'Imagining Religion'.

“...while there is a staggering amount of data, phenomena, of human experiences and expressions that might be characterized in one culture or another, by one criterion or another, as religion — there is no data for religion. Religion is solely the creation of the scholar’s study. It is created for the scholar’s analytic purposes by his imaginative acts of comparison and generalization. Religion has no existence apart from the academy.”

To get a sense of how this fraudulent and abusive concept called ‘True Religion’ was fabricated by European-Christian colonialists and then used as a 'standard' to mischaracterize and straitjacket the wide variety of 'cultures' across the world as 'religions', such as 'Hinduism' and 'Buddhism', check Smith's paper, 'Religion, Religions, Religious', on the following link.

‘Religion’ destroys ‘culture’

‘Religion’ is predatory, colonial and imperial in character; it builds and expands itself by subverting or cannibalizing 'culture' and trying madly to sever the historical connection the subdued peoples have with their 'cultures' and heritage, often attempting to 'erase' history in the process.

‘Religion’ is alien not just to Indic cultures and civilization, but to all human cultures and civilization throughout history relative to which it's quite a recent affliction.

It goes without saying that human species do not need this affliction, but need to get rid of it.

There is absolutely nothing —nothing worthwhile in terms of culture and philosophy —that ‘religion’ has given to the world. It has, on the contrary, attempted to destroy what has been worthwhile in terms of culture and philosophy. Whatever little a "religion" flaunts as its own 'property' in terms of culture and philosophy has been appropriated/plagiarized from the larger culture or developed in spite of it, not because of it.

Human civilization needs as much diversity and enrichment of ‘culture’ and ‘philosophy’ – of both of which ‘religion’ is the mortal enemy – as possible.

‘Religion’ anathematizes ‘syncretism’

All human cultures everywhere have naturally been ‘syncretistic’ whereas ‘religion’ execrates and attempts madly to destroy ‘syncretism’ – quite impossibly – in order to implant its own absolutist ideology. ‘Syncretism’ is the active principle in the smooth functioning of all human societies, including those that have been colonized by ‘religions’.  

‘Religion’ attempts to supplant cultural diversity with a ‘monoculture’ of sorts or an enforced uniformity, thus endangering the very prospects of human survival.

Taking into account the destructive effects of colonialism – of which ‘religion’ is the essential part and parcel – on the cultural and philosophical makeup of human societies, it should not be difficult for anyone to see how and why people across the world have been fooled or coerced into describing their own 'cultures' as ‘religion’ and assuming false identities for themselves.

It's pathetic to see even 'educated' people holding forth on ‘religion’ and using this fraudulent and abusive concept to characterize 'cultures' that have somehow survived the imperialist assault of the religionists.
‘Religion’ is pure fraud — which is to say that the so called 'prophetic-monotheistic' cults of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are a fraud on humanity.

It's easy to see why the so called 'prophetic-monotheism' is the most dangerously absolutist and totalitarian ideology ever devised by human mind; it's the original prototype of all colonialism, imperialism and Fascism. Nothing like it has ever existed in human cultures and civilization, outside of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

'Son-of-the-God/prophetic-monotheism' – with all its claptrap of ‘revelation and ‘book’ – is such non-sense that once one understands it - which doesn't take long for any critical thinker - one laughs like one does on a bad joke. 

They are fraud because they claim monopoly over absolute truth and base that claim on ‘histories’ that are little more than mythologies, forgeries or plain nonsense.

‘Christianity’ is, of course, the biggest fraud in human history — the biggest hoax, the biggest fabrication, the most evil and bloodiest in its intentions and actions. Islam comes a not-very-distant second.

These two cults are the two fundamental models of falsehood, fraud, violence, imperialism, ethnocide, hypocrisy, irrationality and a lot of other evil that afflicts human societies since they were cursed with these two lethal diseases.  

Being a crucial concept, ‘syncretism’ needs some elaboration.

‘Syncretism’ is the co-existence of diverse or opposite beliefs or practices within a society or culture. 

As opposed to an insistence on adherence to a prescribed creed in an exclusive manner, a syncretic tradition allows for individual freedom in matters of beliefs and practices, making for a more inclusive approach.
'Syncretism' has been anathema to both Christianity and Islam.

The so called ‘Roman Catholic Church’ (or ‘Vatican’), for instance, decries ‘syncretism’ openly. There may be some puny attempts within the Christendom to valorise syncretism, such as in 'Unitarian Universalism', which, however, is an outlier within the ‘Christian’ belief system.

Islam execrates 'syncretism' as "shirk" and treats it as apostasy. Attempts at celebrating 'syncretism' in Islam, such as in some Sufi traditions, have historically been treated with an iron hand by Islamists.

Here is a quote on 'syncretism', excerpted from a statement made by Vatican's representative in Moscow in Nov.-Dec 2011.

(Quote) The Catholic Church proposes interreligious dialogue as one of the ways to overcome intolerance and discrimination. On 19 November, during his Apostolic Visit to Benin, the Pope acknowledged that “interreligious dialogue is not easy” and warned that “interreligious dialogue when badly understood leads to muddled thinking or to syncretism. This is not the dialogue which is sought”. (Unquote)

Read on the following links about the falsehood and fraud on which Christianity is based.


("Jesus Never Existed" by Kenneth Humphreys.)

Jesus – The Imaginary Friend

Christianity was the ultimate product of religious syncretism in the ancient world. Its emergence owed nothing to a holy carpenter. There were many Jesuses but the fable was a cultural construct.

The nativity yarn is a concatenation of nonsense. The genealogies of Jesus, both Matthew's version and Luke's, are pious fiction. Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs.

With multiple authors behind the original gospel story it is no surprise that the figure of "Jesus" is a mess of contradictions. Yet the story is so thinly drawn that being a "good Christian" might mean almost anything.

The 12 disciples are as fictitious as their master, invented to legitimise the claims of the early churches. The original Mary was not a virgin, that idea was borrowed from pagan goddesses. The pagan world knew all about virgins getting pregnant by randy gods: The Mythical "Virgin Mother".

Scholars have known all this for more than 200 years but priestcraft is a highly profitable business and finances an industry of deceit to keep the show on the road.


The Jesus Seminar was a group of about 150 critical scholars and laymen founded in 1985 by Robert Funk under the auspices of the Westar Institute.The seminar was active in the 1980s and 1990s.


Interview with Bible scholar Bart Ehrman on forged and apocryphal gospels.

Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ehrman is a leading New Testament scholar, having written and edited over 25 books, including three college textbooks. 

He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring four New York Times bestsellers. Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the Historical Jesus, and the evolution of early Christianity.

One must also read about the work of French ethnologist Robert Jaulin on 'ethnocide' (which, etymologically, means killing a culture); he explains how 'religion' is deeply implicated in ethnocide and colonization.

Robert Jaulin (1928-1996) was a French ethnologist. After several journeys to Chad, between 1954 and 1959, among the Sara people, he published in 1967 La Mort Sara (The Sara Death) in which he exposed the various initiation rites through which he had passed himself, and closely analyzed Sara geomancy. 

In La Paix blanche (The White peace, 1970), he redefined the notion of ethnocide in relation to the extermination by the Western world of the Bari culture, located between Venezuela and Colombia. If a genocide designs the physical extermination of a people, an ethnocide refers to the extermination of a culture.

The concept of ethnocide
Robert Jaulin redefined the concept of ethnocide in 1970 with his ground-breaking La paix blanche : introduction à l’ethnocide ("White Peace: Introduction to Ethnocide"). 

This capital work, which remains to be translated into English, gives a detailed account of the ethnocide-in-motion suffered by the Bari, an Indian people living on the border between Venezuela and Colombia, in the second half of the sixties, as witnessed by Robert Jaulin himself.

Whether conflicting or collaborating among themselves, multiple vectors of ethnocide in place (the Catholic Church and other Christian confessions, the Venezuelan and the Colombian armies, the American oil company Colpet, and all the “little colonists” as Jaulin calls them) converged to the relentless disavowal and destruction of Bari’s culture and society.

In Jaulin’s understanding of the notion, it is not the means but the ends that define ethnocide. Accordingly, the ethnocide would be the systematic destruction of the thought and the way of life of people different from those who carry out this enterprise of destruction.

Whereas the genocide assassinates the people in their body, the ethnocide kills them in their spirit.


No comments:

PHFI fails to respond to govt notice on my complaint; instead sends me "legal notice for defamation"!

Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) has failed to respond to a health ministry letter dated 09 April 2018 which asks it to "give a...