Wednesday, April 2, 2025

John Adams on Character and Government

What did our felon in the oval call today? Liberation day?  Hah!  It is another wage slavery day, another oligarch's day. 

Below are many, many excerpts from John Adams' work on character and government that I typed up around 25 years ago. I thought I might use them but never did.  I like them and want to share them without commentary. 

Discourses on Davila is a series of essays written by John Adams in 1790-1791, originally published in the Gazette of the United States. The full title is actually: Discourses on Davila: A Series of Papers on Political History. The essays were  inspired by Adams' reading of History of the Civil Wars of France, by Italian historian and diplomat Enrico Caterino Davila (1576–1631). 

Adam's attended to Davila's account of France's 16th century internecine strife while he was serving his first term as America's first vice president, which was taking place while the French Revolution was playing out. He published the papers individually in the Gazette of the United States, which was a Federalist party mouthpiece.  Jefferson's Democratic party paper was called the National Gazette. For context, here are some dates and events: 

March 4th 1789, First US Congress convened

April 30th 1789, Washington and Adams inaugurated 

May 5th 1789, Estates General Convened, Versailles  

June 17th 1789, National Assembly established, Paris

July 14th 1789, Storming of the Bastille, Paris 

October 5th-6th 1789, Women's March to Versailles to demand bread and speech, Louis XVI forced to relocate to Paris

1790-91, Adams pens the Discourses on Davila

March 4th 1791, Vermont becomes 14th state

June 20th 1791, Louis XVI flight to Varennes fails

September 14th 1791, Louis XVI accepts the new Constitution, France becomes a constitutional monarchy 

December 15th 1791, US Bill of Rights ratified and adopted 

1792, Washington and Adams reelected

1793, Louis XVI executed, reign of terror begins

1794, Robespierre executed, reign of terror ends

March 4 1797, Adams becomes president, Thomas Jefferson is vice president

November 9 1799, Napoleon seizes power in the Coup of 18 Brumaire

March 4 1801, Thomas Jefferson becomes president

1804, Napoleon crowned emperor, Jefferson reelected 

Adams brought out updated and edited versions of the Discourses in 1804, which is the edition cited below. The terror and the rise of Napoleon, he thought, validated his warnings about the dangers of populism and factionalism, along with his concern that revolution could lead to authoritarian forms of government.  France had made the bid for liberty, but got a tyrant instead. Why? Because of their unicameral legislature, known as the National Assembly.  It was never able to deliver the kind of stability that a bicameral legislature could.  And this incessant instability eventually gave way to tyranny by a populist. Meanwhile, America held four successful elections between 1788 and 1800. America reelected Jefferson in its 5th election the same year Napoleon crowned himself.  

My interest, when I typed up these notes was mostly moral and psychological, not political. I went light on material about legislatures, factions and political balance.  Read the book for more on those. The selection below represents my harvest of notes on vanity, fear, ambition, emulation, and other psycho-moral mental stuff of the sort Aristotle, La Rochefoucauld, Hume and Nietzsche discuss.  Adams belongs in this line of thought due to his concern with the elements of character and their influence on good government.  He was at heart pessimistic about human nature, and believed that even the best disposition required governance by a constitution. He saw what he calls the passion for distinction, as the central political passion.  


John Adams  Discourses on Davila, 1790. (1804 ed.) New York: Da Capo Press, 1973

Discourse #4

Men, in their primitive conditions, however savage, were undoubtedly gregarious—and they continue to be social, not only in every stage of civilization, but in every possible situation in which they can be placed.  As nature intended them for society, she has furnished them with passions, appetites, and propensities, as well as a variety of faculties, calculated both for their individual enjoyment, and to render them useful to each other in their social connections.  There is none among them more essential or remarkable than the passion for distinction.  A desire to be observed, considered, esteemed, praised, beloved, and admired by his fellows, is one of the earliest, as well as keenest dispositions discovered in the heart of man.    Wherever men, women or children are to be found, whether they be old or young—rich or poor—high or low—wise or foolish—ignorant or learned—every individual is seen to be strongly actuated by a desire to be seen, heard, talked of, approved and respected by the people about him.  (25f)

 A regard to the sentiments of mankind concerning him, and to their dispositions towards him, every man feels within himself; and if he has reflected and tried experiments, he has found, that no exertion of his reason—no effort of his will, can wholly divest him of it.  (26)

In proportion to our affection for the notice of others is our aversion to their neglect; the stronger the desire of the esteem of the public, the more powerful the aversion to their disapprobation—the more exalted the wish for admiration, the more invincible the abhorrence of contempt.  (27)

Every man not only desires the consideration of others, but he frequently compares himself with others, his friends or his enemies, and in proportion as he exults when he perceives he has more of it, than they, he feels a keener affliction when he sees that one or more of them, are more respected than himself.  (27)

This passion, while it is simply a desire to excel another, by fair industry in the search of truth and the practice of virtue, is properly called Emulation.  When it aims at power, as a means of distinction, it is Ambition.  When it is in a situation to suggest the sentiments of fear and apprehension, that another, who is now inferior, will become superior, it is denominated Jealousy.  –When it is in a state of mortification, at the superiority of another, and desires to bring him down to our level, or depress him below us, it is properly called Envy.  When it deceives a man into a belief in false professions of esteem or admiration, or into a false opinion of his importance in the judgment of the world, it is Vanity.  These observations alone would be sufficient to shew, that this propensity, in all its branches, is a principal source of the virtues and vices, the happiness and misery of human life; and that the history of mankind is little more than a simple narration of its operation and effects.  (27)

There is in human nature, it is true, simple Benevolence—or an affection for the good of others—but alone it is not a balance for the selfish affections.  Nature then has kindly added to benevolence, the desire of reputation, in order to make us good members of society.    Nature has sanctioned the law of self-preservation by rewards and punishments.  The rewards of selfish activity are life and health—the punishments of negligence and indolence are want, disease and death.

… nature…has imposed another law, that of respecting the rights of mankind, and has sanctioned it by other rewards and punishments,  The rewards in this case, in this life, are esteem and admiration of others—the punishments are neglect and contempt….   (28)

The desire of the esteem of others is as real a want of nature as hunger—and the neglect and contempt of the world as severe a pain, as the gout or a stone.  (28)

It is a principle end of government to regulate this passion, which in its turn becomes a principal means of government.  It is the only adequate instrument of order and subordination in society, and alone commands effectual obedience to laws, since without it neither human reason, nor standing armies, would ever produce that great effect.  (28f)

Every personal quality, and every blessing of fortune, is cherished in proportion to its capacity of gratifying this universal affection for the esteem, the sympathy, the admiration and congratulations of the public.  Beauty in the face, elegance in figure, grace of attitude and motion, riches, honors, every thing is weighed in the scale, and desired, not so much for the pleasure they afford, as the attention they command.  (29)

Is it for the momentous purpose of dancing and drawing, painting and music, riding and fencing, that men and women are destined in this life or any other?  Yet those who have the best means of education, bestow more attention and expense on those, than on more solid acquisitions.  Why?  Because they attract more forcibly the attention of the world, and procure a better advancement in life.  Notwithstanding all this, as soon as an establishment in life is made, they are found to have answered their ends, and are laid aside neglected.  (30)

[Why does ancestry matter so much in so many cultures and eras?]  The mighty secret lies in this: An illustrious descent attracts the notice of mankind.  A single drop of royal blood, however illegitimately scattered, will make any man or woman proud or vain.  Why?  Because, although it excites the indignation of many, and the envy of more, it still attracts the attention of the world.   Noble blood, whether the nobility be hereditary or elective, and indeed more in republican governments than in monarchies, least of all in despotisms, is held in estimation for the same reason.  It is a name…that a nation has been interested in, and is in the habit of respecting.  Benevolence, sympathy, congratulation, have been so long associated to those names in the minds of the people, that they are become national habits.  (31) 

This desire for the consideration of our fellowmen, and their congratulations in our joys, is not less invincible, than the desire of their sympathy in our sorrows.  It is a determination of our nature that lies at the foundation of our whole moral system in this world, and may be connected essentially with our destination in a future state.  (32)

Discourse #5

Riches force the opinion on a man that he is the object of congratulations of others; and he feels that they attract the complaisance of the public.  His senses all inform him that his neighbors have a natural disposition to harmonize with all those pleasing emotions, and agreeable sensations, which the elegant accommodations around him are supposed to excite.  His imagination expands, and his heart dilates at these charming illusions: and his attachment to his possessions increases, as fast as his desire to accumulate more: not for the purposes of beneficence or utility, but from the desire of illustration.  (33)

 because riches attract the attention, consideration and congratulations of mankind; it is not because the rich have really more of ease or pleasure than the poor.  (33) 

…there is more respectability in the eyes of the greater part of mankind, in the gaudy trappings of wealth, than there is in genius or learning, wisdom or virtue.  (34) 

The poor man’s conscience is clear; yet he is ashamed.  His character is irreproachable, yet he is neglected and despised.  He feels himself out of sight of others, groping in the dark.  Mankind take no notice of him; he rambles and wanders unheeded.  In the midst of a crowd, at church, in the market, at a play, at an execution or a coronation, he is in as much obscurity as he would be in a garret or a cellar.  He is not disapproved, censured or reproached: he is only not seen.  This total inattention is to him mortifying, painful and cruel.  (35)

There must be one indeed who is the last and lowest of the human species.  But there is no risk in asserting that there is no one, who believes and will acknowledge himself to be the man.  To be wholly overlooked and to know it, are intolerable.  (35)

If you follow these persons, however, into their scenes of life, you will find that there is a kind of figure which the meanest of them all endeavors to make; a kind of little grandeur and respect, which the most insignificant study and labour to procure, in the small circle of their acquaintances.  Not only the poorest mechanic, but the man who lives upon charity, nay the common beggars in the streets; and not only those who may be all innocent, but even those who have abandoned themselves to common infamy as pirates, highwaymen and common thieves, court a set of admirers, and plume themselves on that superiority, which they have, or fancy they have, over some others.  (35)

To feel ourselves unheeded, chills the most pleasing hope—damps the most fond desire—checks the most agreeable wish—disappoints the most ardent expectations of human nature.  (36)

Is the pleasure that accompanies the pursuit of knowledge so exquisite?  If Crusoe, on his island, had the library of Alexandria, and a certainty that he should never again see the face of man, would he ever open a volume?  Perhaps he might, but it is very probable that he would read but little.  A sense of duty; a love of truth; a desire to alleviate the anxieties of ignorance may, no doubt, have an influence on some minds.  But the universal idol of men of letters is reputation.  It is the notoriety, the celebration, which constitutes the charm, which is to compensate the loss of appetite and sleep, and sometimes riches and honors.  (36)

The soldier compares himself with his fellows and contends for promotion to be a Corporal: the Corporals vie with each other to become Sergeants: the Sergeants will mount breaches to be Ensigns: and thus every man in an army is constantly aspiring to be something higher, as every citizen in the commonwealth is constantly struggling for a better rank, that he may draw the observation of more eyes.  (37)

Discourse #6 

What is it that bewitches mankind to marks and signs of wealth, status, or authority? ... experience teaches us, in every country of the world, that they attract the attention of mankind more than parts of learning, virtue or religion. (38)  

Fame has been divided into three species: Glory, which attends the great actions of lawgivers and heroes, and the management of the great commands and first offices of state: Reputation, which is cherished by every gentleman: and Credit, which is supported by merchants and tradesmen.  But even this definition is incomplete, because the object of it, though it may be considered in various lights, and under different modifications, is not confined to gentlemen nor merchants, but is common to every human being.  (38)

There are no men, who are not ambitious of distinguishing themselves, and growing considerable among those with whom they converse.  (38f)

This ambition is natural to the human soul: and as when it receives a happy turn, it is the source of private felicity and public prosperity; and when it errs, produces private uneasiness and public calamities.  It is the business and duty of private prudence, of private and public education, and of national policy, to direct it to right objects.  (39)

…to every man who is capable of a worthy conduct, the pleasure from the approbation of worthy men is exquisite and inexpressible.  (39)

The intellectual and moral powers are most within our power, and undoubtedly the most essential to our happiness.  The personal qualities of health, strength, and agility, are next in importance.  Yet, the qualities of fortune, such as birth, riches and honors, though a man has less reason to esteem himself for these, than for those of his mind or body, are, every where acknowledged to glitter with the brightest luster, in the eyes of the world.  (39)

A virtue is the only rational source, and eternal foundation of honor, the wisdom of nations, in the titles they have established as the marks of order and subordination, has generally given an intimation, not of personal qualities [like strength], nor of the qualities of fortune; but of some particular virtues, more especially becoming of men, in the high stations they possess.  (39) 

The wisdom and virtue of all nations have endeavored to regulate the passion for respect and distinction, and to reduce it to some order in society, by titles marking the gradation of magistracy, to prevent, as far as human power and policy can prevent, collisions among the passions of many pursuing the same objects, and the rivalries, animosities, envy, jealousy and vengeance, which always result from them.  (40) 

Has there ever been a nation, who understood the human heart, better than the Romans?  Or made a better use of the passion for consideration, congratulation and distinction?  They considered, that as reason is the guide of life, the senses, the imagination and the affections are the springs of activity.  Reason holds the helm, but passions are the gales: and as the direct road to these is through the senses, the language of signs was employed by Roman wisdom to excite the emulation and active virtue of the citizens.  Distinctions of conditions, as well as of ages, were made by difference of cloathing. (40f)     …everything in religion, government and common life, among Romans, was parade, representation and ceremony.  Everything was addressed to the emulation of the citizens, and every thing was calculated to attract the attention, to allure the consideration, and excite the congratulation of the people; to attach their hearts to individual citizens, according to their merit; and to their lawgivers, magistrates, and judges, according to their ranks, stations and importance in the state.  (41f) 

And this was in the true spirit of republics, in which form of government there is no other consistent method of preserving order, or procuring submission to the laws.  To such means as these, or to force, and a standing army, recourse must be had, for the guardianship of laws, and the protection of people.  (42)

It is universally true, that in all the Republics now remaining in Europe, there is, as there ever has been, a more constant and anxious attention to such forms and marks of distinction, than there is in the Monarchies. (42) 

Discourse #7

…avarice and ambition, vanity and pride, jealousy and envy, hatred and revenge, as well as the love of knowledge and desire of fame are very often nothing more than various modifications of that desire of the attention, consideration and congratulations of our fellow men, which is the great spring of social activity… (42f)

 Nature has ordained it, as a constant incentive to activity and industry, that, to acquire the attention and complacency, the approbation and admiration of their fellows, men might be urged to constant exertions of beneficence.  …men of all sorts, even those who have the least of reason, virtue or benevolence, are chained down to an incessant servitude to their fellow-creatures, labouring without intermission to produce something which shall contribute to the comfort, convenience, pleasure, profit or utility of the species; they are really constituted by their own vanity, slaves to mankind. (44)

The language of nature to man in his constitution is this: I have given you reason, conscience, and benevolence: and thereby you are accountable for your actions, and capable of virtue, in which you will find your highest felicity.  But I have not trusted wholly in your laudable improvement of these divine gifts.  To them I have superadded a passion in your bosoms, for the notice and regard of your fellow mortals, which, if you perversely violate your duty, and wholly neglect the part assigned you in the system of the world, and in the society of mankind, shall torture you, from the cradle to the grave. (45)

She [nature] has wrought the passions into the texture and essence of the soul—and has not left it in the power of art to destroy them.  To regulate and not to eradicate them is the province of policy.  It is of the highest importance to education, to life and to society, not only that they should not be destroyed, but that they should be gratified, encouraged and arranged on the side of virtue.  (45)

Emulation really seems to produce genius, and the desire of superiority to create talents.  Either this, or the reverse of it, must be true; and genius produces emulation, and natural talents, the desire of superiority…. (46)

When the love of glory inkindles in the heart, and influences the whole soul, then, and only then, may we depend on a rapid progression of the intellectual faculties.  (46)

In short, the theory of Education, and the science of government, may be reduced to the same simple principle, and be all comprehended, in the knowledge of the means of activity, conducting, controlling and regulating the emulation and ambition of the citizens.  (48)

 Discourse #8

…the expressions we have hitherto used, attention, consideration and congratulation, comprehend with sufficient accuracy, the general object of the passion for distinction, in the greater part of mankind.  There are not a few, from him who burned a temple, to the multitudes who plunge into low debauchery, who deliberately seek it by crimes and vices.  The greater number, however, search for it, neither by vices nor virtues: but by the means, which common sense and every day’s experiences shows, are most sure to obtain it; by riches, by family records, by play, and other frivolous personal accomplishments.  (48f) 

…there are a few, and God knows but a few, who…aim at approbation as well as attention; at esteem as well as consideration; and at admiration and gratitude, as well as congratulation.    …[this is] the tribe out of which proceeds your patriots and heroes, and most of the great benefactors of mankind.  But for our humiliation, we must still remember, that even in these esteemed, beloved and adored characters, the passion, although refined by the purest moral sentiments, and intended to be governed by the best principles, is a passion still; and therefore, like all other human desires, unlimited and insatiable. No man was ever contented with any given share of this human adoration (49)

No man was ever contented with any given share of this human adoration.  (49) 

Admiration is indeed the complete idea of approbation, congratulation, and wonder united.  (49)

Man constantly craves for more, even when he has no rival: But when he sees another possessed of more, or drawing away from himself a part of what he had, he feels a mortification, arising from the loss of a good he thought his own: --His desire is disappointed: The pain of a want unsatisfied, is increased by a resentment of an injustice, as he thinks it: He accuses his rival of a theft or a robbery, and the public of taking away, what was his property, and giving it to another.  These feelings and resentments, are but other names for jealousy and envy; and altogether, they produce some of the keenest and most tormenting of all sentiments.  (49f)

These fermentations of the passions are so common and so well known, that the people generally presume, that a person in such circumstances, is depraved of his judgment, if not of his veracity and reason.  It is too generally a sufficient answer to any complaint, to any fact alleged, or argument advanced, to say that it comes from a disappointed man.  (50)

As no appetite in human nature is more universal than that for honor, and real merit is confined to a very few, the numbers who thirst for respect, are out of all proportion to those who seek it only by merit.  (51)

The great majority trouble themselves little about merit, but apply themselves to seek for honor, by which means they see will more easily and certainly obtain it, by displaying their taste and address, their wealth and magnificence, their ancestral parchments, pictures, and statues, and the virtues of their ancestors; and if these fail, as they seldom have done, they have recourse to artifice, dissimulation, hypocrisy, flattery, imposture, empiricism, quackery and bribery.  What chance has humble, modest, obscure and poor merit, in such a scramble?  (51)

The  Romans allowed none, but those who had possessed … offices, to have statues or portraits.  He, who had images or pictures of his ancestors, was called noble.  He who had no pictures or statues but his own, was called a new man.  Those who had none at all, were ignoble.  (52)

It is not to flatter the passions of the people, to be sure, nor is it the way to obtain a present enthusiastic popularity, to tell them that in a single assembly, they will act as arbitrarily and tyrannically as any despot, but it is a sacred truth, and as demonstrable as any proposition whatever, that a sovereignty made of a single assembly must necessarily be exercised by a majority, as tyrannically as any sovereignty was ever exercised by Kings or Nobles.  And if a balance of passions and interests is not scientifically concerted, the present struggle in Europe will be little beneficial to mankind, and produce nothing but another thousand years of feudal fanaticism, under new and strange names.  (54) 

Discourse #9

Providence, which has placed one thing over against another, in the moral as well as physical world, has surprisingly accommodated the qualities of men, to answer one another.  There is a remarkable disposition in mankind to congratulate with others in their joys and prosperity, more than to sympathize with them in their sorrows and adversity.    There is less disposition to congratulate with genius, talents, or virtue, than there is with beauty, strength and elegance of person; and less with these than with the gifts of fortune and birth, wealth and fame.  The homage of the world is devoted to these last, in a remarkable manner.  Experience concurs with religion in pronouncing, most decisively, that this world is not a region of virtue or happiness; both are here at school, and their struggles with ambition, avarice, and the desire of fame, appear to be their discipline and exercise.  (55)

In France, for example, the pregnancy of the Queen is announced with great solemnity to the whole nation.  Her majesty is scarcely afflicted with a pain which is not formally communicated to the public.  To this embryo the minds of the whole nation are turned; and they follow him, day by day, in their thoughts, till he is born.  … To thousands who press to see him, he is daily shown  from the nursery.  Of every step in his education; and of every gradation of his youthful growth, in body and mind, the public is informed in Gazettes.  … When he accedes to the throne, the same attention is continued, till he dies.  (58) 

…all civilized nations have found, by experience, the necessity of separating from the body of the people, and even from the legislature, the distribution of honors, and conferring it on the executive authority of government.  When emulation of all citizens look up to one point, like the rays of a circle from all parts of the circumference, meeting and uniting in the center, you may hope for uniformity, consistency and subordination: but when they look up to different individuals, or assemblies, or councils, you may expect all the deformities, eccentricities, and confusion, of the Polemick system.  (59)

Discourse #10

The kings of Europe, in the sight of philosophy, are the greatest slaves on earth, how often so ever we may call them despots, tyrants, and other rude names, in which our pride and vanity takes a wonderful delight: they have the least exercise of their inclinations, the least personal liberty, and the least free indulgence of their passions, of any men alive.  Yet how rare are the instances of resignations, and how universal is the ambition to be noble, and the wish to be royal.  (60)

Experience and philosophy are lost upon mankind.  The attention of the world has a charm in it, which few minds can withstand.  (60) 

Great King, live forever! is the compliment, which, after the manner of Eastern adulation, we should readily make them, if experience did not teach us its absurdity. –Every calamity that befalls them, every injury that is done them, excites in the breast of the spectator, ten times more compassion and resentment, than he would have felt, had the same things happened to other men.  (61)

It is the misfortune of Kings only, which afford the proper subjects for tragedy; they resemble, in this respect, the misfortune of lovers.  These two situations are the chief which interest us on the stage; because, in spite of all that reason and experience can tell us to the contrary, the prejudices of the imagination, attach to these two states a happiness superior to any other.  To disturb or put an end to such perfect enjoyment, seems to be the most atrocious of all injuries.  The traitor, who conspires against the life of his monarch, is thought a greater monster, than any other murderer. (61) 

All the innocent blood that was shed in the civil wars, provoked less indignation than the death of Charles I.  A stranger to human nature, who saw the indifference of men about the misery of their inferiors, and the regret of indignation which they feel for the misfortunes and sufferings of those above them, would be apt to imagine, that pain must be more agonizing, the convulsions of death more terrible to persons of higher rank, than to those of meaner stations.  (62)  

Our obsequiousness to our superiors more frequently arises from our admiration for the advantages of their situation, than from any private expectations of benefit from their good will.  Their benefits can extend but to a few ; but their fortunes interest almost every body.  We are eager to assist them in completing a system of happiness that approaches so near to perfection; and we desire to serve them for their own sake, without any other recompense but the vanity or the honor of obliging them.  (62)

That kings are the servants of people, to be obeyed, resisted, deposed, or punished, as the public conveniency may require, is the doctrine of reason and philosophy; but it is not the doctrine of nature.  Nature would teach us to submit to them, for their own sakes, to tremble and bow down before their exalted station, to regard their smile as a reward sufficient to compensate any services, and to dread their displeasure, though no other evil was to follow from it, as the severest of all mortifications.  To treat them in any respect as men, to reason and dispute with them upon ordinary occasions, requires such resolution, that there are few men whose magnanimity can support them in it, unless they are likewise assisted by familiarity and acquaintance.  The strongest motives, the most furious passions, fear, hatred and resentment, are scarce sufficient to balance this natural disposition to respect them….  (62f) 

Politeness is so much the virtue of the great, that it will do little honor to any body but themselves.  The coxcomb, who imitates their manner, and affects to be eminent by the superior propriety of his ordinary behavior, is rewarded with a double share of contempt for his folly and presumption.  (64f)

With what impatience does the man of spirit and ambition, who is depressed by his situation, look round for some great opportunity to distinguish himself?  No circumstances which can afford this appear to him undesirable; he even looks forward with satisfaction to the prospect of foreign war, or civil dissention; and with secret transport and delight, sees, through all the confusion and bloodshed which attend them, the probability of all those whished-for occasions presenting themselves, in which he may draw upon himself the attention and admiration of mankind.  (65f) 

To those who have been accustomed to the possession, or even to the hope of public admiration, all other pleasures sicken and decay.  (68)

Of such mighty importance does it appear to be in the imaginations of men, to stand in that situation which sets them most in the view of general sympathy, and attention…[that its attainment] is the end of half the labors of human life; and is the cause of all the tumult and bustle, all the rapine and injustice, which avarice and ambition have introduced into this world. 

Discourse #13

Emulation, which is imitation and something more—a desire not only to equal or resemble, but to excel, is so natural a movement of the human heart, that, wherever men are to be found, and in whatever manner associated or connected, we see its effects.  (74)

As long as there is patriotism, there will be national emulation, vanity and pride.  It is national pride which commonly stimulates kings and ministers.  (74) 

We are told that our friends, the National Assembly of France, have abolished all distinctions.  But be not deceived, my dear countrymen.  Impossibilities cannot be performed.  Have they leveled all fortunes and equally divided all property? Have they made all men and women equally wise, elegant and beautiful?  … Have they burned all their pictures, and broken their statues?  Have they blotted out of all memories, the names, places of abode, and illustrious actions of all their ancestors?  … Have they no record, nor memory, who are the men, who compose the present National Assembly? – Do they wish to have that distinction forgotten?  (78f)

Discourse #14

All the miracles enumerated…must be performed in France, before all distinctions can be annihilated, and distinctions in abundance would [still] be found, after all [by the] French…in the history of England, Holland, Spain, Germany, Italy, America, and all other countries on the globe.  (79) 

That there is already a scission, in the National Assembly, like all others, past, present, and to come, is most certain.  There is an aristocratical party, a democratical party, an armed neutrality, and most probably a monarchical party: besides another division, who must finally prevail, or liberty will be lost: I mean a set of members, who are equal friends to monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and wish for an equal independent mixture of all three in their constitution.  Each of these parties has its chief, and these chiefs are or will be rivals.  Religion will be both the object and the pretext of some: liberty, of others: and leveling, downright leveling, of not a few.  But the attention, consideration and congratulations of the public, will be the object of all.  (81) 

Contests and dissentions will arise between these runners in the same race.  The natural and usual progress, is, from debate in the assembly to discussions in print; from the search of truth and public utility in both, to sophistry and the spirit of party: Evils so greatly dreaded by the ingenious “Citizen of New Heaven”…. [Adams’ note: Condorcet called himself a citizen of new heaven, and “recommended a Government in a Single Assembly, which was accordingly adopted and ruined France.”] …  From sophistry and party spirit, the transition is quick and easy to falsehood, imposture, and every species of artificial evolution and criminal intrigue.  As unbalanced parties of every description can never tolerate a free enquiry of any kind when employed against themselves, the license, and even the most temperate freedom of the press, soon excites resentment and revenge.  …cuffs and kicks, boxes and cudgels, are heard of, among plebian statesmen; challenges and single combats among the aristocratic legislators—riots and seditions eventually break men’s bones, or flea off their skins.  Lives are lost: and when blood is once drawn, men, like other animals, become outrageous:  If one party has not a superiority over the other clear enough to decide every thing at its pleasure, a civil war ensues.  (82)

…aristocratical rivalries and democratical rivalries too, when unbalanced against each other, by some third mediating power, naturally and unfailingly produce a feudal system.  (83)

 If this should be the course in France, the poor, deluded, and devoted partisans would soon be fond enough of decorating their leaders, with the old titles…or doing anything else, to increase the power of their commander over themselves, to unite their wills and forces for their own safety and defense, or to give him weight with their enemies. (83) [Adams’ note: ‘This has all been accomplished in the new Emperor Napoleon. 1804.’] 

The men of letters in France, are wisely reforming one feudal system; but may they not unwisely, lay the foundation of another?  A legislature in one assembly, can have no other termination than in civil dissention, feudal anarchy, or simple monarchy.  (83)

Discourse #15

The world grows more enlightened: Knowledge is more equally distributed: Newspapers, Magazines, and circulating libraries have made mankind wiser: Titles and distinctions, ranks and orders, parade and ceremony, are all going out of fashion.    If all decorum, discipline and subordination are to  be destroyed, and universal pyrrhonism, anarchy, and insecurity of property are to be introduced, nations will soon wish their books in ashes, seek for darkness and ignorance, superstition and fanaticism, as blessings, and follow the standard of the first mad despot who, with the enthusiasm of another Mahomet, will endeavor to obtain them. (85)

 Are riches, honors and beauty going out of fashion?  Is not the rage for them, on the contrary, increased faster than improvement in knowledge?  As long as either of these are in vogue, will there not be emulations and rivalries?  Does not the increase of knowledge in any man increase his emulation; and the diffusion of knowledge among men, multiply rivalries?  Has the progress of science, arts and letters, yet discovered that there are no passions in human nature?  No ambition, avarice or a desire of fame?  Are  these passions cooled, diminished or extinguished?  On the contrary, the more knowledge is diffused, the more the passions are extended, and the more furious they grow? (85) 

There is no connection in the mind between science and passion, by which the former can extinguish or diminish the latter: it on the contrary sometimes increases them by giving them exercise.  (86)

Are the passions of Monks, the weaker for all their learning?  Are jealousy, envy, hatred, malice and revenge, as well as emulation and ambition, as rancorous in the cells of Carmelites, as in the courts of Princes?  (86)

The increase and dissemination of knowledge, instead of rendering unnecessary, the checks of emulation and the balances of rivalry, in the orders of society and constitution of government, augment the necessity of both. … Bad men increase in knowledge as fast as good men, and science, arts, taste, sense and letters, are employed for the purposes of injustice and tyranny, as well as those of law and liberty; for corruption as well as for virtue. (86f)

[Adams’ note:] The envy, jealousy, rivalries, factions, cabals, intrigues and animosities among the men of letters in Paris, were as violent at least as they were at Court, and as furious, though not so bloody as they were among the people and their government, under any form of their variable constitutions from 1786 to 1804. 

Frenchmen!  Act and think like yourselves!  Confessing human nature, be magnanimous and wise.  Acknowledging and boasting yourselves to be men, avow the feelings of men!  The affectation of being exempted from passions, is inhuman.  The grave pretension to such singularity is solemn hypocrisy.  Both are unworthy of your frank and generous natures.  Consider that government is intended to set bounds to passions which nature has not limited: and to assist reason, conscience, justice and truth in controlling interests, which, without it, would be as unjust as uncontrollable. (87)

In a well balanced government, reason, conscience, truth and virtue must be respected by all parties, and exerted for the public good.  (87)

The essence of free government consists in an effectual control of rivalries.  (92) 

Discourse #20

In short, every man, and every body of men, is and has a rival.  When the struggle is only between two, whether individuals or bodies, it continues till one is swallowed up, or annihilated, and the other becomes absolute master.  As all this is a necessary consequence and effect of the emulation which nature has implanted in our bosoms, it is wonderful that mankind have so long been ignorant of the remedy, when a third party for an umpire, is one so easy and obvious.  (141)         

Discourse #28

It is not one of the least evils of a civil war, that no man’s character is secure against suspicions and imputations of the most enormous crimes.  It is almost the universal practice for each party to charge the leaders of the other, with every base action, every sinister event, and every high handed wickedness, without much consideration or enquiry, whether there is truth, or evidence, or even color to support the accusation.  (220)

“There is no difference,” according to Aristotle, and history and experience, “between a people governing by a majority in a single assembly, and a Monarch in a tyranny; for their manners are the same, and they both hold a despotic power over better persons than themselves.  Their decrees are like the other’s edicts—their demagogues like the other’s flatterers.”  (Aristotle, Politics IV, iv)

Postscript (1804)

It has been said that it is extremely difficult to preserve a balance.  This is no more than to say that it is extremely difficult to preserve liberty.  To this truth all ages and nations attest.  … How long it will be before she returns to her native skies, and leaves the whole human race in slavery, will depend on the intelligence and virtue of the people.  A balance, with all its difficulty, must be preserved, or liberty is lost forever.  Perhaps, a perfect balance, if it ever existed, has not been long maintained in its perfection; yet such a balance as has been sufficient to liberty, has been supported, in some nations, for many centuries together; and we must come , as near as we can, to a perfect equilibrium, or all is lost.  When it is once widely departed from, the departure increases rapidly, till the whole is lost.  If the people have not understanding and public virtue enough, and will not be persuaded of the necessity of supporting an Independent Executive Authority, an Independent Senate and an Independent Judiciary Power, as well as an Independent House of Representatives all pretensions to a balance are lost and with them all hopes of our security to our dearest interests; all hopes of Liberty. (248)

 

 



*I've never read Ferling's book.  I just like this pic of Adams better than the others I can find online. 




 

 

Tuesday, March 25, 2025

Now Popular on YouTube: Bonhoeffer on Stupidity

There have been a crush of videos uploaded at YouTube about Bonhoeffer theory of stupidity since the inauguration of the dotard.  

Just look at what you can find if you enter Bonhoeffer on Stupidity at YouTube.  Note the dates of the videos.  They keep coming, from lots of accounts.  I'm skipped around when I did these screen shots. There are quite a few more between now and two weeks ago than I am showing, this is not all of them.  

I cannot and do not necessarily recommend any of these because I have not watched them.  I linked to a good one three years ago on this blog.  I can recommend that one.  

YouTube is saturated with AI generated junk and misinformation in every sphere now, possibly including this one.  

On the other hand, the main point with Bonhoeffer is that when you stop thinking for yourself, others will think for you, and then you are stupid.  So, don't be stupid, and then none of these can harm you. 

















Tuesday, March 4, 2025

The Bible is not "well written"

I have in recent months seen a couple of videos in which some naturalist or atheist or etc. agrees that the Bible is well written. I believe one should never concede this point and it is a point that the defenders of delusion like to insist on.  I want to first point out why they insist on it, then I will defend the thesis that the book called book about a god named god and his son named son of god is not a well written book. 

The reason theists, apologists etc. want it to be agreed that it is a well written book is because if it is not well written, it argues against the book's being divinely inspired. The argument they are trying to dodge is this one:

1 If the Bible was divinely inspired, it would be well written. 

2 The Bible is not well written. 

3 Therefore, the Bible is not divinely inspired. 

The apologist/church rhetor hopes no one will ever assert the second premise above.  I urge all enemies of authoritarian irrationality to assert the second premise above often and in front of all persons.  Say it in front of your neighbor's kids.  Give people permission to admit to themselves that the Bible is in fact a poorly written document.  They know this from what little they have read from it, or had read to them.  They know it is bad writing in their hearts, but everyone is trained to call the whole book beautiful and inspiring and deep and wise and so on.  It is actually none of those things.  

There are no beautiful stories in the bible and hardly any beautiful feelings.  Most of the stories are ugly if not outright gross.  The ones that are not exactly ugly or gross are still far from beautiful stories.  Sentences in the bible can be quite difficult to read, and whole passages can be opaque due to this problem. Stilted dialogue, unrealistic action, very little character development, especially in the New Testament. 

As for the cast of characters, well, the bible only discusses believers, church goers, sots of god, dupes of the divine, etc.  All of the characters exhibit the same vice: being religiously worried all the time.  There are no unworried, relaxed, easy-going religious characters. And when you think about it, such a character could not be a religious character at all.  To be a religious character, one must be religiously earnest, religiously bothered, religiously driven. A regular person, who does not take religion more seriously than a ball game simply cannot be a religious character. 

At the ancient Olympics, there were bull sacrifices in which the sacrificial bull was not entirely burned to a cinder, but instead cooked for a feast. When the parts were distributed, the priests got the legs and tails.  The feasters got the best cuts of meat.  That is the proper attitude toward religion. The Greek attitude.  When the priest is overvalued, religion ceases to serve a public purpose and begins to serve ever more exclusively private interests.  The Greeks seem to know that.  

Making religion overly important, raising priests above scientists, mathematicians, statesmen, doctors, lawyers, poets and philosophers -- this is madness, and it is pure bible.




Tuesday, January 21, 2025

Why I'm not Catholic or Christian at all anymore

Though I was raised Catholic, I am, at age 63, no longer Catholic nor Christian.  This happened in a pretty natural way, I would say.  I attended Catholic elementary school for 6 years, then went to public schools after that.  I was pretty much an atheist by the time I started junior high school.  I didn't use that word though.  I just knew I didn't believe the religion stuff anymore. I kept up appearances, but eventually it became clear to some of the people around me what was going on.  And after that, by the end of high school, I was no longer going to church with the family. 

I understand what it means to take the other's burden on oneself.  Imagine if I was your boss and you got a parking ticket while working for me, and I paid the ticket for you.  I understand how that would help you.  You understand how that would benefit you. But if I killed myself instead, it would not pay your ticket.  I don't see how it would help you at all, really.  Somehow Jesus' suicide by cop is supposed to help us all, but I don't see it.  

He supposedly took on all of our sins, but how much do those weigh?  You couldn't trade all the sins in the world for a plug nickel.  

Remember that despite dying for everyone's sins, Jesus sends the wicked into the lake of fire in the book of the apocalypse, so, what are we to make of that?  Didn't Jesus already accept the divine punishment for all those sinners?  Why the double harm?  First Jesus dies over it, then souls get the lake of fire for it, and that makes two divine penalties for every sin worthy of damnation.  

That is just one of thousands of intellectual problems in the bible.  It isn't just the absurdity of believing in the magic creation of mankind by the saying of words, or the talking donkey story in the old testament, or the talking snake, or the flying wheel, or the resurrections and virgin births. No, the entire New Testament story is hokum.  It is badly written pure myth.  And the way it is thought about, that is, the way the churches have interpreted the NT, is even more hokey than the original book.  All of the world's sins all at once for all time? What on earth are you smoking? 

For me there is also a kind of moral absurdity that is everywhere in the bible, such as the fact that I am supposed to respect rather than revile Abraham, Jeptha and several genocidal kings in the old testament. 

Another thing that bothers me is the fact that the churchlies and theologians and apologists and holy historians respect and revere, rather than hate, the Roman empire.  

May I just say this: if you don't hate the Roman empire, isn't there something wrong with you?  Slavery. Empire building (stealing other people's land). Ethnocide. Religicide. Endless war.  Animal sacrifices. Human sacrifices. Gladiatorial murder for sport. Strict control over public speech. Strict class system. Forced religion. 

The beginning of the end of ancient culture was Julius Caesar, who destroyed the republic and installed himself as autocrat. After less than a century of Emperors, the persecution of the stoics began under Nero. Philosophers were expelled from the city of Rome by Vespasian. Then they were expelled from Italy by Domitian, which forced Epictetus to move to Greece, which in turn forced a young Hadrian to go to Greece to study with him.

It is sad to see the republic turned into a kingdom by those pigs Julius, Augustus and Tiberius. I truly hate the arch criminal Julius Caesar, but that does not mean I love the republic against which Hannibal fought. No, I hate that too.  I especially love to hate Emperor Justinian in particular.  Justinian is a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church.  I also very much hate the wife and son killer, Emperor Constantine, another murderer made a saint by the Eastern church. His mother is a saint in the Roman Catholic church.  They are quite a pair to despise, no?  Mother and son saints in two different churches?  Mother and the son who killed his wife and child, and who chose Christianity because the other priesthoods would not offer expiation for the sin?  I figure his mom was just as evil as he was.  

So again let me point out that I was raised Catholic.  What do I think of the Catholic church?  I would like to say something nice, but I just can't really.  I think it is a crime of some kind, this church. 

The allegedly universal church came into being through a crime against humanity known as the destruction of paganism. This was an over 300 year long murderous and violent suppression of indigenous cultures throughout the empire.  It was religicide, it was ethnocide, and it was a project of the imperial office, that is, of the emperors.  It did not come up to the emperor from his governors and senators and consuls. No, it went down to them from the imperial office. Christianity was forced on the empire by Constantine and all of the emperors, except Julian, who came after him.  This massive crime against humanity began around 313 and ran on for centuries.  The Christians were still forcing conversions on newly discovered pagans in the 800s.  

After the western Roman empire disappeared, the Roman Catholic church (and, after 1064, an Eastern version of it) continued the project of threatening, torturing and murdering heretics. 

The Crusades (1096-1291) were a crime against humanity. 

The Inquisition (1231-1908) was a crime against humanity.  The last execution of a heretic by the Roman inquisition was in 1761. It was six years earlier, in 1755 that the Roman office of the inquisition put Casanova on trial for spreading libertine ideas, owning forbidden books, and practicing magic.  The last execution by the Spanish Inquisition was in 1826. The office of the Spanish Inquisition was officially shut down by the Spanish crown in 1834. Napoleon abolished the French office in 1808, though it had become ineffective in the revolution of 1789 when the church lost its judicial powers.  However, as recently as 1858 the office of the Roman Inquisition kidnapped a Jewish child who had allegedly been secretly baptized. This, they pretend, made the child a Christian and Christians cannot be raised by non-Christians according to some stupid papal law. The pope refused to return the child, who grew up to become a priest. The Roman office of the inquisition was converted to an office called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1908.  This is the office that still to this day harasses liberal theologians and tries to ban books. So, the ancient Roman impulse to resort to crime against opponents dies hard, it dies very hard. There is still an office for goading and depriving the opposition.

And it is easy to argue that those are not the only great crimes that the church has committed. The Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches) was published in 1486 by an official church inquisitor.  It became the handbook for witch hunts and witch trials all over Europe for three centuries. The last witch trial and execution was in the 1780s. The witch trials in England and the Holy Roman Empire are not to be confused with the inquisition, which was an office of the Catholic church licensed to kidnap, imprison, maim and kill heretics. Witch trials, such as those in America, were not exclusively a Catholic thing. Anglicans, Lutherans and other sects joined in, with most of them using the Malleus as their manual.  

During the middle ages, the Catholic church depicted Jews as heretics in league with the devil. This fueled the pogroms which the church occasionally denounced. There was an order from the pope to protect Jews from attacks after the disaster of the fourth crusade, in which Jews were attacked indiscriminately.  There was a pope who denounced the idea that Jews were Christ killers. But this was pretty weak tea from Rome. The rights of Jews to live free of Christian harassment is not something the Catholic church recognizes.  

The Church was two faced and ineffective on the matter of the treatment of indigenous peoples in the Americas in the 1500s and after.  Remember 1492, when Isabella of Spain gave Columbus ships to sail the ocean blue?  She also expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492.  It was a big year for the holy queen. The church never denounced the expulsion of the Jews, and of course it never denounced the robbery of the Incas by Spain's Catholics.  It also did not object to the enslavement of natives in the Americas. Instead they opened offices of the Inquisition in Mexico City and Peru.  

The Catholic Church owned slaves from the Roman era until the 1840s --as many as 1400 years.* The Catholic church did not condemn the slave trade until 1839.  Jesus explicitly preaches slavery, as does the old testament, so, it was a long time coming.  American Jesuits sold off their last slaves sometime after 1840 (they did not simply emancipate them). Two decades later, the Catholic church declared itself officially neutral during the American civil war (1860-65). Meanwhile, the pope wrote a letter to Jefferson Davis, president of the confederacy, recognizing his new nation.  I find the content of this paragraph utterly unforgivable.  

Imagine what a better world this would have been if one of the ten commandments had abolished slavery!  If god actually contacted some iron age tribe, why didn't he abolish slavery, or teach hygiene? 

In the 20th century, a pope signed the infamous Concordat with Hitler's Germany, giving the church a tithe, a tenth, of the taxes paid by German Catholics, who represented around a third of the nation. So it was on the order of a tenth of a third of taxes collected by the Nazis that went to the Roman Catholic church to buy its silence, support and complicity. Hitler's birthdays were celebrated in all Catholic and Lutheran pulpits throughout the Reich. 

The holocaust was, of course, a crime against humanity perpetrated by Christians of assorted denominations, including plenty of Catholics.  

Today the Catholic church in America is a backward, Trumpist outfit, working to take away women's rights and ban books. They want to fight gays and queers and trannies and abortion, but not corporate polluters, pedos, rapists or fascists.  Them they want to put in the white house.  

The church is still paying out millions to children who have been sexually abused by its priests, and it still does not fully cooperate with communities on the matter of outing abusers and getting them permanently away from children.  In the US they have paid out over $3 billion now.  There are cases all over the world though.  In France, there are estimates of 300k victims. Because the cases are in several languages and nations, it is difficult to find a full accounting of all the damage so far.  

Meanwhile, in Africa, the Catholic Church remains the biggest obstacle to the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of aids.  

It is a crime, this church. Its history is a history of the most abject moral failure, the most total moral abandonment! The pope is no better than Atilla the Hun or Genghis Khan.  

Here in the USA our jails are full of Christians. The hoodlums and bigots who attacked the American Capitol on Jan 6, 2021, were Christians.  Christians did America's lynching too. The KKK is a Christian outfit. Christians did the Indian killing, the western slaving, the holocaust, the pogroms, the witch murders, the Inquisition, the Crusades and the slow, centuries-long torture-killing of paganism. Christian inhumanity, Christian bigotry, Christian violence, Christian crimes against humanity. 

Xns come in every variety. No general rule about them can be set up. They are not particularly good or bad, talented or dull, etc. Christianity started out as a veil for evil and it remains a veil for evil to this day. I do not believe all Christians are evil.  No, there are good and bad people in every avenue. There are good and bad people in sports, in the arts, in public service and in every industry. That is just human nature.  There are plenty of nice people going to church. There are also rotten people going to church. To deny this is to confess total ignorance about society.  The rotten people at church are there for the veil effect, the good people provide it.  That is how it has always worked, and the whole scheme still works, it just has lots of competitors today.  

I dare you to scrutinize Christian history looking for happiness. The church is not about happiness, they do not even study it.  After the long rule of religious ignorance in the west, happiness itself had to be reconquered by enlightenment, along with science and scholarship.  We are still reconquering happiness today.  People are afraid to be happy.  They think its a sin.  

Religion is a costly enterprise that will squander anything and everything for no gain.  It serves the interest of the priest/church and no other.  Religion is a self-perpetuating game in which all doctrine, all practice, and all statements are intended to protect and strengthen victimizers at the expense of their victims.  This goes for monotheism as well as polytheism and Buddhism -- the main parts of religion are the reward of priests/elites and the exploitation of believers/dupes.  

Of all arts, the art of exploiting religious feeling is the most worked out and subtle art in the human arsenal.  Procession, recession, presentation, adoration, oratory, music, dance, magic, color, light, darkness, architecture, image, text -- religion uses it all.  By the time the Roman Empire was toying with Christianity, the priestly charade had been working for over 3 thousand years.  Christianity represents the harvest of the ancient world in precisely that area, the harvest of at least three millennia of practice and repetition in the subtlest of elite arts.    

From 313 onward, however, it was brute force that protected and promoted it. Every night, all over the empire, so-called monks formed gangs and broke into the homes of well to do pagans. They destroyed all of their pagan materials, statues, images, symbols, books, etc.  Some of these people had extensive holdings, meaning they had dozens of statues if not hundreds.  They had grottos and shrines on their properties. They had paintings and dinnerware with motifs that recall myths.  They had writing too. All of it was destroyed.  People all over the empire lived in fear of these mobs of "monks" for around three hundred years. 

The mobs only destroyed sacred buildings.  They did not destroy the Parthenon in Athens because it was not a temple.  But the mobs were illiterate. When it came to written words, they could not be expected to discern what the writings were about.  So, they simply destroyed all of a homeowner's written holdings. Whether it was a medical text, a ship-building plan, a love letter, or a poem to Dionysus did not matter.  The mobs burned the written word indiscriminately.  Because they systematically raided every pagan property, they, and the laws they operated under and the terror of the times, managed to burn the national literatures of three continents.  

After 300 years of systemic crime against their enemies, Christian barbarians ruled the ashes of the ancient world. Literacy and craft were dead. Serfdom awaited the masses, ignorance and superstition were everywhere, but there was one church, one emperor, one god.  Yeuch. The years of Justinian and the dark ages that soon followed were abysmal times to be alive. 

The destruction of the ancient world, the destruction of everyone else's religion, the destruction of other people's possessions in the name of your filthy, barbaric superstitions? Your stupid religion gives you the right to break into your neighbor's house and smash their possessions because their gods are demons and yours is not?  No, sorry, your god is the demon. Fuck Jesus with a broomstick!  

If I had a religion, it would not authorize violence, slavery, genocide or religicide. 

If your religion is Christianity, then your religion not only authorizes but practices those things.  

If your church is the Catholic church and you live in America, your church probably needs to be de-nazified. 

______________________

* How long the church owned slaves depend on its time of origin.  

When did the Catholic Church actually begin?  The church likes to lie about this, so look into it critically and independently.  

If by Catholic church you mean early Christianity, then it begins in the 1st century with the apostles, but this really does not resemble the Catholic church. 

If by Catholic church you mean a heirarchical institution based in Rome with a pope and canon law, you are talking about something that forms gradually between 313 and the 800s, and becomes fully distinct by 1054. 

If by Catholic church you mean the fully developed system of papal supremacy and doctrine, it takes  this full shape between 1054 and 1500.  

Almost every Catholic I have ever known answers the question as to when the Catholic church began by saying it starts with Peter in Rome, that he is the first pope, and so on.  Don't believe any of that. There were no popes at that time, and no bishops of Rome either.  It was the the bishop of Rome known as Victor I, in the 190's, who first tried to impose his decision on other churches.  He tried to impose uniformity on the date of Easter. His effort failed because the other bishops ignored him and churches continued to celebrate Easter on various dates. So, if a central authority over many churches is required as a criterion for saying that the Catholic church existed, it did not exist in the time of Victor I, and so the Catholic church did not yet exist. Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 and convened the council of Nicea in 325, but this was an imperial enterprise, not a papal one. The bishop of Rome known as Damasus I, in the 360's, pushed an idea called Roman Supremacy, which upped the status of the bishop of Rome. The Catholic church still calls Victor I and Damasus I popes, but they were no such thing.  With the fall of the western Roman empire in the  470's, the bishop of Rome became notably more important --  the only authority figure still standing in the west.  In the 590's, a bishop of Rome known as Gregory I expanded his office to include political activity.  He too is not really a pope yet, but the church pretends he is.  The bishop of Rome gained temporal power in central Italy only in the 700's.  And when the great east-west schism came in 1054, the bishop of Rome got free of the Byzantine emperors in Constantinople, and the independent pope was finally at hand.  What we think of as a pope, namely a man at the head of a world wide church that is independent of all governments, only comes into existence then.  

What is important to notice is that the church only gets its chance to lead when the western emperors disappear, and it gains its strength as more and more of the old pagan world is destroyed. 

That the Catholic church was born out of the destruction of paganism is pretty undeniable. What we know as Christianity has its roots in Roman cruelty and tyranny.  




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YFTgw8Bkec&t=345s

https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/dark-age/

https://www.rassias.gr/9011.html



Headline: Frankfurt Silver Inscription: Oldest Christian Inscription North of the Alps.   This article from 12/12/24 describes a recently deciphered Roman amulet from around the year 270 which says the following: 

(In the name?) of St. Titus.
Holy, holy, holy!
In the name of Jesus Christ, Son of God!
The lord of the world
resists to the best of his [ability?]
all seizures(?)/setbacks(?).
The god(?) grants well-being
Admission.
This rescue device(?) protects
the person who
surrenders to the will
of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
since before Jesus Christ
bend all knees: the heavenly ones,
the earthly and
the subterranean, and every tongue
confess (to Jesus Christ).


The ms is not fully legible, but notice the final lines: "before Jesus Christ bend all knees: the heavenly ones, the earthly and the subterranean, and every tongue confess (to Jesus Christ)".  This is pure totalitarianism, and it comes from 40 years before the office of the emperor of Rome took the Jesus cult under its protection in 313, which began the process of trying to force every knee in the empire to bend to the one god.  

John Adams on Character and Government

What did our felon in the oval call today? Liberation day?  Hah!  It is another wage slavery day, another oligarch's day.  Below are man...