Abstract: The Eucharist (Eating Christ) is central to the Christ system of mind promoted by the most tyrannical Roman emperors. Eating Christ ceremoniously transgressed and transpierced the fundaments of civilization with the semiotics of cannibalistic societies. "Christ-as-cannibal" constituted a system of mind full of "base and contemptible things of this world, and things which do not even exist" (as Saint Paul elegantly puts it). It interfered perversely in various ways to induce one to lose a correct perception of reality and to love carnage. As desired, the effect was "to destroy the wisdom of this world" (St. Paul).


Cannibalism was natural to prehistoric man: it replaced birth control. It remained a fact of neolithic life, but, less necessary then, it came with religious justifications: the spirit was passed that way. Traditionally, to make such fare more palatable, and cooperative, it was observed that the main dish was a God, who would facilitate one's transit to heavens if consumed. These are exactly the ideas Jesus Christ brings forth.

In spite of these reasons, when civilization arose, in the fulcrum of the Middle Earth, cannibalism was phased out. It was not needed: there was plenty of food, and, increasingly, birth control. Cannibalism contradicted the cement of civilization, respect for the human person. So it disappeared from Western Eurasia and North Africa and Arabia, several millennia before Christ. No religion dared to evoke eating people anymore. The concept became taboo. Thus, Christ's advocacy of anthropophagy was put forward for a new class of motivations.

Religious human sacrifices, albeit without cannibalism, persisted in places. The Roman republic, when nearly terminated by the Gauls, sacrificed two prisoners (~ 400 BCE); and similarly after the immense disaster of the battle of Cannae. The Romans were ashamed of it, though, and tried to draw the fine distinction that these were not sacrifices to the Gods, but to the "manes" (i.e., a patriotic warning to enemies). The main perpetrators of human sacrifice were the Carthaginian and Celtic religions. The Celts showed a propensity to burn Roman prisoners, and Carthage burned the son of men. Rome wiped them out both, allegedly because of their human sacrifices. CIVILIZATION IS DEFINED BY EXCLUSION: Rome outlawed human sacrifices absolutely. For millennia, the Middle Earth had excluded any cannibalistic context absolutely. Christ, that great (counter) revolutionary, was going to question all this, to induce civilization to flow backwards.

As the following passage of the Bible shows, Jews were horrified when Jesus came up with speeches resuscitating human sacrifice (even if somewhat mystically). After all, the lesson drawn from God stopping Abraham's murder of his son, was that human sacrifices were to be no more. That was 1,300 years before Christ. It was difficult for the Jews to swallow Jesus' tasteless reintroduction of human meat consumption into religion. Before he talked about eating human flesh, Jesus had 5,000 people listening to him, says the Gospel of "John" (the most detailed of Gospels, and the one of only two independent sources). When Christ had finished with his anthropophagic considerations, only 12 were left (one of them a "devil").


Here is Jesus gloating about eating human "meat", as depicted in the Bible (John, VI; 42-66):

(48) I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and are dead. I am the bread which came down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is MY FLESH, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: 'How can this man give us his FLESH to EAT?' Then Jesus said unto them: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, EXCEPT IF YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN, AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU. WHO EATS MY FLESH, AND DRINKS MY BLOOD HAS ETERNAL LIFE, I will raise him up at the last day. FOR MY FLESH IS MEAT indeed, and my BLOOD IS DRINK indeed. HE WHO HAS EATEN MY FLESH AND DRUNK MY BLOOD IS IN ME, AND ME IN HIM. As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so HE HAS EATEN ME, and I live in him'...

(59) These things said He in the synagogue, as He taught in (the city of) Capernaum. Therefore MANY OF HIS DISCIPLES, when they heard this, said: "This is a hard thing to say: WHO CAN HEAR IT?" When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them: 'DOES THIS OFFEND YOU?'... (66) From that time many of his disciples left, and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said unto the twelve: 'Will you also go away?' Then Simon Peter answered him: 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."


Modern Christians excuse Christ by saying that Christ's discourse on EATING THE SON OF MAN is allegorical: Christ's words don't say what He means. But He never told us what He meant, beside being more edible than "manna". Modern Christians heard about the Aztecs, and they have to insist that the object of their veneration is not an Aztec priest. According to modern Christians, when Christ obsesses about HUMAN FLESH AS MEAT, He does not sit at a table to eat the flesh and drink the blood.

Except, of course, He did, during the Last Supper. And except that at each "send" (mass), the Christians have been sharing what they claim to be flesh and blood. So is it a metaphor, or is it not a metaphor? Is it flesh and blood, or is it not, (not so) dear Christians? Do Christians believe they can have their bread (Christ) and eat it too? Still another Christian miracle? This is no light hearted matter: millions were executed for NOT believing in Christ as 'meat'.

The Bible reveals its hero's dietary elucubration was viewed as sheer madness by most of his contemporaries, rather than as a lousy metaphor. The 'fathers' died, not because the seed ('manna') was not nutritious enough (as the Bible reveals), but because they were not eating the 'flesh of the son of man'. Unbalanced diet, that's where it's at. Where is the metaphor? Christ is talking like an Aztec bishop (who used cannibalism symbolically too, often substituting turkey; but, for racist reasons, they are judged more severely than Christ). Nearly all of Christ's disciples "can't hear it", and flee by the thousands. Eleven apostles remain, because they will be rewarded with 'eternal life'. Promise the world to an Apostle, and he may share supper with you.

Advocating loudly, to an audience of 5,000, the eating of Himself, and of the mysterious "son of man", Christ lamely wonders, in His incomparable blindness: 'Does this offend you?' No wonder 99.8% of his disciples then left Him precipitously. They heard Jesus, and took cannibalistic innuendoes for what they were.


Yes, really. A hilarious connection: the word 'really" was introduced circa 1430, originally in reference to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist (= 'Transubstantiation'). The Aztecs' came to be known a century later (making Christ's anthropophagy embarrassingly common). Really.

Whatever Christ truly meant is somewhat irrelevant. What is important is that the followers of Christ, the 'little ones', fanaticized by emperor Theodosius, came to believe in anthropophagy. After all, when 'little ones' following emperor Hitler were pushing millions of people in the ovens, what Hitler meant was irrelevant. What mattered is that the Hitlerian system of mind induced his followers to do very distasteful things. How distasteful was Christ's system of mind?

The followers of Christ were characterized by not minding his cannibalistic tendencies, the 'beloved' John, implicitly recognizes. Cannibalism, symbolic or not, became a Christian's definition. Saint Cyril, Anasthasius, and company, accepted cannibalism. No doubt it encouraged them to spill the blood, and tear the flesh, of those thousands who denied them. When you follow a cannibal, you tear and share human flesh. CANNIBALS AND CHRIST ALIKE CALL FLESH MEAT. How metaphorical is that?

After the establishment of the Universal Christian dictatorship (~ 383 CE), total unanimity of the reality of cannibalism is found across the Universal Christian church for eight centuries. Berengarius of Tours (France, 11 C) was one of the first to doubt the real presence of Christ, as everyone took a bite. But the Council of Rome proclaimed that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ and not just a symbol (1079 CE: Berengarius recanted).

Soon afterwards, the one and only crusade called on European soil against Europeans was fought against those who thought that Christ's cannibalism was, on the face of it, an atrocity and a proof that the Devil reigned in the "Universal Church", rather than a just and good God. Half of Southern France or so, was massacred, and thereafter lived under terror of the Inquisition for a century (see below). Metaphors can be powerful… Especially when extolling flesh as meat, and blood as drink.


Shortly before dying in 1384 CE, Wyclif, a theologian from Oxford, attacked the doctrine of Transubstantiation. His bones were excavated by the Universal Church 14 years later, and burned in a great ceremony. His student Hus was not so lucky: thanks to a lot of green wood, carefully gathered, it took more than 30 minutes for top priests and bishops of the Universal Church to burn him sufficiently so that he would stop begging for mercy.

Luther agreed with (a specious tweak on) Transubstantiation, while praying for the torture of all Jews. Calvin was similar. So the founders of the Reformed Church did not differ substantially from the Universal Church in the matter of Transubstantiation. Interestingly, a power tango between the daughters of Henry VIII brought progress.

First, "Bloody" Mary I of England, a determined Catholic, had about 283 people tortured to death for rejecting Transubstantiation, during her reign, mercifully shortened by ovarian cancer.

Finally, her half sister Elizabeth I of England, having become absolute queen and ruler of her dad's own Christian sect, outlawed ritual cannibalism. Said she: transubstantiation "is repugnant ... and hath given occasion to many superstitions". She made assistance of mass illegal (16C). So it's a female autocrat which made the difference, probably delighted, as the determined feminist she was, to humiliate the sexist Universal Church.

By the time of Elizabeth I, the British governmental system of thought did not need the crutch of Christianism in its full primitivism.

But the Oriental and Orthodox and Catholic Churches, with more than two thirds of the world's Christians, still have Transubstantiation as dogma. In it, the "real presence" of Christ is alleged in lieu of bread and winTe.

To this day, the Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics of the Bible (the science of its translation and interpretation) is the 'LITERAL' MEANING OF THE TEXT. Spiritus Paraclitus Benedict XV, Sept. 15, 1920: "AS (Saint) JEROME INSISTED (4C), ALL biblical interpretation rests upon the LITERAL sense ... Divino Afflante Spiritus, Pius XII, Sept. 30, 1943... "the mind of the author may be made clear... the exegete must be principally concerned with the LITERAL sense of the Scriptures."


In the bloody discourse of Christ, above, an idea is clearly not metaphorical, the psychobiology of ultimate violence. Jesus gives his flesh "for the life of this world". This is exactly the principle of the ultimate sacrifice, of one's flesh, the ultimate weapon of baboons confronting lions to save their species, the very principle of the fight to death, which made the lives of ground dwelling primates so expensive to predators, that the later could not eat all the former, and the savannah got invaded by insolent primates.

This theme could only please emperor Theodosius I: do like Christ, give up your flesh for the life of this world (incarnated by me, Theodosius). With the ultimate sacrifice of their flesh, little Christian soldiers go to heavens, like Christ, to be resuscitated, like Him. Theodosius' army was made of primitive Christian Goths. It was important to remind them that it was religious to give up their flesh for the ultimate sacrifice to the "Lord" (a craftily ambiguous language covering Christ someday, and Theodosius, or any of his fanatical successors, meanwhile).

What's more sacrificial than being eaten? As Saint Paul said: "Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed for us." (Corinthians I; 5). "Passover" is the sacrificial lamb whose blood is shed in the old Jewish religion in lieu of a human (the later form Leviticus condemned). The Christians came full circle, over the Old Bible, back to human sacrifice. In Theodosius' Gothic army, sacrificing humans ruled. St. Paul lived 300 years before Theodosius. That allowed Theodosius to be inspired by Paul. Christ/Paul is the cause, Theodosius the effect. Imperial fascists of the demonic kind saw in Christ/St Paul a kindred spirit. Who was going to argue with them? A few philosophers dared, and they were tortured and killed, as preached by Christ, our Savior.


Any human sacrifice contextuality was a death sentence in Rome. A cannibalistic contextuality was unimaginable. Why did Christ insist on such criminal transgressions? Is it because he wanted to destroy wisdom and civilization themselves, as Saint Paul claimed?

Anthropologists, who, per their education, know of more than one culture, recognize the pattern. Cannibalistic civilizations, to swallow the pill, insist that their human dish is a GOD who wants to be eaten. The self sacrifice of Gods is taught in all religions which sacrifice humans. In Aztec mythology, Gods kill themselves (somewhat reluctantly), to form the sun, the moon, and the stars. Even the Nazis celebrated the sacrifice of their own, God like sons, to better induce the killing of others.

Moreover, it is not clear that Christ, the King of transgressions, is just talking about himself. After all, in a crucial sentence, he proposes to eat the "SON OF MAN".

Religious scholars have been unable to figure out what Christ really meant by "son of man". Too embarrassing for Christians to understand words, sometimes? Only Christ uses that combination of words. It allowed the Roman monarchs to implicitly slip from Christ, the individual, to the 'son of man' a generality found anywhere, anytime, to be killed (and presumably, eaten) at will.

We should apply Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is the correct one, absent any other fitting the facts better. Applied to linguistics, this says that a sentence means what it says, absent a contradicting context. Hence "son of man" means just "son of man". Christ, by "son of man" meant exactly what the Carthaginians meant by "son of man", as they dropped the son of man in the fire. Nearly two centuries before, Carthage had been annihilated by the Romans, in no small measure because it threw the "son of man" in the fire. The destruction of Carthage had been viewed by the Romans themselves, including the commanding general, as a major moral dilemma: was it correct to fight immense moral evil with immense military evil?

The Greco-Roman empire was so hostile to human sacrifices that all the surrounding barbarians had given them up. Barbarians did not want provoke Rome, as Carthage did. Jesus then comes around, and reestablishes human sacrifice as the ultimate metaprinciple. Pedagogically: he volunteers. The savages, the soldiers of Theodosius, were enthralled. Back to very old times!

Christ says, whether he intended to or not, that eating "son of men" is the way to life. Maybe he was suggesting that eating children is the way to get life in you (as Carthage and witches interpreted it). He does not bother to deny. He takes the subject lightly: just eating the son of man, now pass the bread. Christ does not mind people believing he is a cannibal. Nowhere does he try to explain, or a fortiori excuse Himself. Remember, He is coherent with Himself: this same guy threatened murder for the most futile reasons. He wanted dead those who "offend the little ones who believe in him".

When Hitler speaks in metaphors, and his 'little ones' later act accordingly, transgressing and transpiercing civilization, should he be made a God? Millions of Nazis believed so.


The Christians, since they were preaching cannibalism, and the sacrifice of the "son of man" came to suspect the Jews were doing the same, and held that against them (which, with typical Christian logic, made no sense whatsoever: 'John' said the Jews would not stand for Jesus' tasteless metaphor).

John Chrysostom, i.e., John 'Golden-mouthed', a major Christian saint and a 'Doctor of the Church', archbishop of Constantinople, claimed that Jews slew children. For example in Homily VI, Adversus Judaeos: "Did you NOT SACRIFICE your sons and daughters to demons?" Golden mouth, indeed: his' writings were frequently recycled. Fifteen centuries later, the Nazis used them to encourage millions of Jew-hating Catholics to exterminate the Jews. Apparently it was bad to sacrifice to "Moloch" (sic), but then it was a major fault of the Jews, insists Chrysostomos, to NOT 'SACRIFICE to Christ'. All this is repetitive in Chrysostomos' writings, and no momentary slip.

Christians killed millions about what Christ meant by "the son of man", and its related invention, the Trinity (imposed by the "Thirteenth Apostle", emperor Constantine, at Nicaea (325 CE)). Monophysism, which disagreed, stayed influential over the Middle East, allowing Constantinople's persistent hostilities unto the region. Muhammad, crucially enlightened by a cousin, a Christian monk, repudiated the whole insanity: He downgraded Jesus to a common prophet, with neither writhing on the cross nor anthropophagic "eat-me, eat-the-son-of-man" elucubration.

Inspired, the FRANKS PRACTICED CANNIBALISM DURING THE CRUSADES (~1100 CE). Albert of Aix wrote: "... our troops did not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens..."..." Radulph of Caen, was explicit: "In Ma'aarra our troops boiled pagan adults ALIVE in cooking pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled." Crusaders killed 20,000 in Ma'aara, after promising to spare the town. Commanders kept the Pope informed, and the Pope was satisfied. Popes took Christ's dietary recommendations literally. For centuries afterwards, the image of the Crusaders as fanatical cannibals lived on in the Middle East. Arabs observed that the behavior of the Crusaders was born out of their religion.

Indeed, cannibalism had not been heard of in Europe prior. Let alone on an industrial scale. The only explanation was that the Crusaders read CHRIST carefully, and observed that HE condoned eating the "flesh of the son of man", otherwise they would have no life. Not eating the flesh of the son of man, would be like eating some seed in the desert. See where 'metaphors' lead, (not so dear) flesh eating, blood drinking Christians?

During the Middle Ages, many sects and individuals, having read Christ with the same care, answered His call to eat the 'son of man', and proceeded to sacrifice children, spilling or drinking their blood during "Black Masses", with real blood. Thousands of children died. Cannibalistic witchcraft inspired by Christ was a real problem, and brought a counter reaction, further brutalizing society.

La Voisin, just one 40 year old woman, confessed to have 'sacrificed more than 2,000 children' in 17C Paris, alone. The general mood of La Voisin and her hundreds of accomplices is attributable to Jesus Christ, and His proselytizing of anthropophagy, as police records clearly show. Baptizing children before doing them in, was the greatest happiness, she wrote in letters. (She and 35 of her accomplices were executed circa 1680 CE. Louis XIV, one of the fascist successors of emperor Theodosius, halted further inquiry: his dearest mistress was involved.)

Centuries before Christ, when the Carthaginians sacrificed "sons of men" to Moloch, they did not eat them. Christ was a rebel and an innovator, Christians love to say: he broke new conceptual ground by renewing with ways that civilization had never known. Ways which brutalized civilization itself, exactly what Saint Paul had called for. BY TALKING ABOUT HUMANS AS MEAT, CHRIST WAS DISRESPECTING, VIOLATING AND BRUTALIZING HUMAN WISDOM AND CIVILIZATION. This was the main consequence of Christ's advocacy of cannibalism, metaphorical or not.


Modern Christians brush off Christ's cannibalistic exhibitionism, claiming metaphors don't hurt. Well, pedophiles approaching little children also do into metaphors, and for the same metareason: disguising one's true intent, making it palatable to what Christ called His 'little ones'. Ultimately pedophilia, in spite of its call to love, is not a good thing: it destroys children. And Christianity, in spite of its call to love, was not a good thing either: it destroyed civilization, a greater crime (which killed millions of children). OK, Christianity also gave rise to grand creations, such as the hatred of Jews, killing of millions of people because they had different theories about the exact nature of the 'son of man', and learning to hate all those who 'chose differently' (= 'heretics'), namely the rest of the world. More than 70 million people were directly killed using the Christ system of mind, and the terror lasted up to 16 centuries.

There is more than meat and blood in Christ's call to consume people. The house of Christ is full of threatening representations of hellacious tortures, it's centered on symbolic cannibalism: only fools would believe this is accidental. Buddhist symbols, by comparison are all pacific: the wheel of the Eightfold Way, the Lotus Flower... There were few Buddhist empires, and none lasted long.

It's not like there were no flowers in Palestine. Brandishing the cross, or more exactly the torturing to death on a cross, is another metaphor: SEE WHAT YOU DID, AND EXPECT THE SAME, WE BELIEVE IN PEOPLE BEING TORTURED TO DEATH FOR THE BETTERMENT OF MANKIND. Christ believed torture was good, and would be inflicted it on all those who doubted him.

Emperor Theodosius I put Christ's call to cannibalism front and center, as he set Christian ideas and rituals into stone. Christ's cannibalistic masochism furthered fascism. Theodosius' key to greatness. CHRIST'S IMPUDENT SADOMASOCHISM OPENED A WHOLE NEW WORLD MAKING THE WORST TERROR HONORABLE. Even divine.

Christ's cannibalistic role playing made, on the face of it, Christians adulators of cannibalism. A subtle thing. Although it's REALLY (remember!) what it looked like, they said, they would not admit what it was, either. Christ, our leader, is not a cannibal, still we eat him everyday. Thus, "THINGS WHICH DO NOT EVEN EXIST BRING TO NOTHING THINGS WHICH ARE" (St. Paul). Saint Paul's old master idea: reality does NOT exist, ONLY OUR LORD IS TRUTH. Today Theodosius is absolute truth, tomorrow Louis XIV, later Hitler will be. Meanwhile each day we go to mass, where human flesh turns into meat, and we swallow it. Because we despise flesh: "no flesh shall glory in the sight of God" (St. Paul). Why? Well reality starts with respecting the flesh.


The strength of mankind is its mental variety. It allows for immense universes of culture to be created, ready to exploit and explain anything. Thus armed, mankind was able to eat most enemies, starting with countless hominids. Quite a bit of cruelty, to inflict pain, and of masochism, to embrace pain, was necessary (be it only to look forward towards the pain of training for war). Sadomasochism is thus a characteristic so central to man, it's coming with the general human psychobiological package. Most civilized brains find other things to occupy themselves with, though, most of the time, but not always.

People have actually advertised over the Internet to find victims to eat (before authorities cracked down). Although Jesus is around no more, willing victims were readily found. Some even partook in the degustation of themselves (there was such case in Germany, on the public record). Thus Jesus' obsession with cannibalism and sadomasochism is not exceptional. The final episode which led Christ to the cross was, at best, ASSISTED SUICIDE. Attacking the merchants of the temple with physical violence, as Jesus planned to do, and did, was egregious, and even his few remaining disciples refused to follow him there. Discipline was fierce in antiquity, Christ knew what was coming to Him. He may have looked forward to the pleasure of ridiculing Himself on a cross, enjoying the pain, squirming, all naked. In this light, it is not surprising he longed for the devouring of his body, and could not resist talking about it in glowing terms.


What interest did emperor Theodosius I have to impose Christ's cannibalistic obsessions? Well, they implied EMOTIONALLY that in Universal Christianism, the Roman imperial rule, NO HOLD WOULD BE BARRED. However grotesque and atrocious.

What's to burn a philosopher alive, when you feel that eating the "son of man" is an expression of adoring faith to be preached all over the world? By the Fourth Century, the Christian Universal imperial dictatorship was burning philosophers alive, and Jews and everybody they did not like, and Christian churches and their associated criminal organizations, kept doing so well into the Eighteenth Century (and beyond!).

The Christian Roman emperors wanted people to believe that ROMAN CATHOLICISM DEVOURED ALL: Christians eat the flesh, and drink the blood. If your founder and inspiration, Jesus, preaches eating the 'flesh of the son', and can't figure out why people find this offensive, CIVILIZATION WILL BE NO MORE. The uneducated, resentful emperors of barbarian origin who led Rome in the Fourth Century (and beyond) hated culture and wisdom, and needed immense violence against genuine Romans to destroy them.

Christ, by calling to eat the "son of man", frontally assaulted the most basic dignity and decency of civilization, Pagan morality and millennia of wisdom. Once you celebrate the eating of human flesh symbolically, why not to burn libraries too, and close schools (as the Christo-Islamists did in Afghanistan)? In the beginning, of course, it had to be symbolic, or the reaction of common sense would have been so terrible, that the Christian sect would have been wiped out right away.

Another interest Theodosius had: by accentuating cannibalism, JESUS MADE A RELIGION OF ULTIMATE MASOCHISM. "Does this offend you?" Then Christ proceeded to be tortured to death, and Christians made a religion of that too. From the bloody emperors' point of view, it was most excellent if the sheep made a religion of being slaughtered, and celebrated the pain. Christianity was indeed a pain in the fundament of civilization.

The symbols of Christianity are all about absolute terror: the cross is brandished, a symbol of death by torture, and inside churches human flesh and blood are symbolically consumed. One can view this as whatever the Catholic fanatics want us to believe it is. But the threat is unmistakable: see the cross, expect death and torture, should you not behave, after all you did that to us. And the fact is that, for centuries, Christians (in spite of the occasional interdiction by respect for Christ), put to the cross many thousands of their opponents. Brandishing the cross was no idle threat, in the first millennium of Christian fascism. Entire races were executed that way in the name of Christ.

The only full civilizations which practiced cannibalism were in Meso America, where populations were huge, protein scarce, and wars not as deadly as in the Middle Earth (since there was a culture of sacrificing prisoners after marching them far away to their fate, one had to make healthy prisoners). Christ's ideas would have been more welcome among the Aztecs, they made the more civilized Jews flee him in droves. The bloodiest Roman emperors resuscitated Christ's cannibalistic ideal because it fit their moral depravity very well: Christians are fanatical followers of Constantine and Theodosius.


Once it has been established that: "You have no life in you, except if you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood," GOD EXISTS AND EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED.

Emperors were now granted divine encouragement to kill philosophy and its philosophers. Their Pagan predecessors had been awed by intellectuals (barring the rare brute such as Marc Anthony; Pompei and Caesar loved philosophers, even Nero long revered Seneca).

Christian emperors killed philosophers, being generous not to eat them outright, one gathers. For insufficient Christianism, the philosopher Sopatros, cofounder of Constantinople, was executed (335 CE). Under Valens the philosopher Simonides was burned alive and the philosopher Maximus was decapitated (370 CE). Saint Cyril, one of the pillar of Christianity, ordered, among countless capital crimes of his, the torture to death of the philosopher Hypatia. She was dragged about, raped, and slowly cut with oyster shells, before being dismembered (412 CE). Pieces of her were paraded through Alexandria by elated Christians. We have to guess that, since the "flesh is meat", according to Christ, the meat may as well be displayed in pieces. Catholics and Orthodoxes should be asked how come is Saint Cyril (who killed thousands in a reign of terror enforced by his private army of 5,000) still one of their major saints? The answer, of course, is that Cyril took Jesus to his exact words (torture, kill, burn all those who offend believers).

The Cathars noticed this unsavory mess, and rejected it. It sounded to the Cathars as if the Devil had created the world. The Cathars dared to observe that eating people seemed gravely mistaken, thus they did not believe that Christ was present to be eaten at mass. The Christian Mob was infuriated by such acumen, and decreed that the lands belonging to such Heretics were the property of whoever killed them (hey, this is the Church of Christ and Early Days Cannibals, what do you expect?)

Crusaders thus marched into still all too Greco-Roman South Western France (1209 CE). At most 10% of the population was "heretical", and lived in good intelligence with the Catholics, but the bottom line was that Languedoc was too tolerant, too democratic and too republican. Republicanism is not compatible with Christo-fascism (the church and its secret organizations like Opus Dei aligned themselves against the Spanish republic in 1936: adversus Judeaos, adversus respublica).

The first town encountered by the Crusaders was Bˇziers, which was caught by surprise. The city had some Heretics, and many Catholics. The papal legate, Arnaud Amaury, was asked how to distinguish the ones, from the others. He is said to have ordered: "KILL THEM ALL, GOD WILL RECOGNIZE HIS OWN." What is sure is that he wrote to the Pope: "Our men, sparing neither blood, nor gender or age, killed by the sword around 20,000 people, and, after an enormous massacre, the entire city was pillaged and burned. Divine vengeance was marvelous." Estimates of the number of people killed in Bˇziers go as high as 70,000. Ultimately, half of the population of southern France died (with its remaining Roman republican institutions). This is the Catholic Church, very much in the spirit of Jesus Christ ("kill whoever offends the little ones who believe in me", "destroy the wisdom of the world").

Christianity was even more "marvelous" when dealing with alien cultures and races, as Europeans spread all over, in Christian loving guise. As under Constantine and Theodosius, Christianism was a fascist empire's best friend.


The Greco-Romans had dominated from cultural superiority, but run away plutocratic fascism ruined it. Christ's call that FLESH IS MEAT was indeed a 'metaphor': it 'carried over beyond' the respect for human flesh, and put it down the intestinal track. It was an emotional transgression born of, and friendly to, the worst fascism. Christ seduced the Barbarians by out-barbarizing them: "EAT THE SON OF MAN IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A LIFE!" The Barbarians were wonderfully surprised by such lively barbarity out of Rome, and enthusiastically recognized Constantine and Theodosius as Barbarians-in-Chief. On the vaguely positive, Christ's cannibalistic metaphor carried across the gulf of superstition and primitivism some traits of Greco-Roman ethics.

But, as the Goths became unruly again, fanatical emperors had to keep on cranking up their religious fascism, even burning all non Christian books (448 CE; mimicking St. Paul's acts at Ephesus). CHRIST'S SELF DEVOURING WAS THE PERFECTLY FITTING METAPHOR OF A GRECO-ROMAN FASCISM WHICH ENDED UP DEVOURING ITSELF. Maybe somebody had to do it.

Patrice Ayme'
Aug. 07