These congratulations to the President elect of the USA (and thus, as we are citizens of a vasall- or rather client state of the USA, nolentes volentes to our Emperor in the sense of the Imperium Romanum, which was structured exactly like the NATO is today, not like the USA), whose election makes the US-megacapital as well as all their watchdogs mad, is meant most honestly. For thanks to this outcome, we – and together with us everybody living in Germany or in the adjoining countries, independent from sex, age and political opinion – shall live considerably longer than about 2-3 years, or at least we shall have a drastically greater chance to do so.

How come?

Very simple: Hilary Clinton means war against Russia, its destruction and occupation according to the model of Iraq, and thus the rounding off of absolute American world rule, and this to the detriment of the Europeans. (Hilary already boasted, the destruction of Libya was her work, because as a Foreign Minister she could extort from Russia to let Libya down.) For the US plan is targeted at the nuclear destruction of rest-Russia from bases in Romania and the Baltic states – there are enough pretextes already, and, after all, what do “we” have the press for?! - ,while the headquarters controlling the missiles stationed there and in the former GDR are located in former Western Germany. Russia, when stroken by a deadly blow, will unfortunately not be able to fire back at the aggressor at an efficiently deterrent scale as to discourage the latter from attacking – the latter’s antiballistic missile defence is too effective, their advantage from firing the first blow is too big for that - , but certainly Russia will be able to fire at the USA’s wilful servants, who, in this case, will have deserved to die. (Unfortunately, just like the surviving members of the German Communist Party during the Third Reich, that was the target of so many conventional bombs, we are sitting right among them and cannot play the role of “war refugees”.) But this is still not all of it.

The US nuclear missiles are conceived as offensive weapons, the Russian ones only have the function of deterrence. That means: the latters’ constructors do not need to consider holding nuclear contamination as low as possible or hitting their targets as accurately as possible – those missiles have a larger explosive force instead – as those weapons are just meant for killing aggressors, not for allowing the subsequent occupation of the attacked countries. This is the reason why the Russians never needed and still do not need to construct neutron bombs, which almost exclusively kill living beings (“vapourize them”), but leave comparatively few nuclear contamination behind and occasion only limited material damage. If the Russians under attack, who, for instance, to the aggressors’ annoyance, wished to stay the owners of their country, hit back with their classical nuclear bombs on to the heads of the wilful servants, because they are not able to hit the latters’ masters, all of us will be “in for it”, no matter whether the imaginative power of the dumb masses again is as poor as it was before the Second World War or not, and we do not want to share this fate. This is why we are glad about the fact that the election of Trump has saved us in the nick of time, in any case procured us a respite, even if the vast numbers of wilful idiots guided by the press are now totally depressed about not being soon the victims of nuclear contamination and being burnt www.bund-gegen-anpassung.com by atomic bombs for the only purpose that the masters of the US trusts will have to have no more inhibitions whatsoever and gathered even more wealth.

The scenario illustrated above was and still is Hilary Clintons plan and that of the most aggressive (and the largest) part of the US megacapital behind her; it was planned to be carried through quickly, before Russia should be able to recover a bit and could thus be able to even bring about three or four American Hiroshimas instead of one or two at the most, as it would be today, during its destruction and subsequent occupation and subjugation, N-bombs make it possible, after all. This, together with the prospect of further pauperization, which did set in quite massively throughout the USA already, made the more intelligent, for at the same time poorer and more press-resistant half of the US American people elect Donald Trump. The billionaires and the world press in their possession or under their control were foaming with wrath – they simply had not regarded the American people, whose minds had been dulled so successfully and forcibly during centuries, as being so clever. It is good and almost a miracle, that there was no electoral fraud.

Trump does possess quite a lot of money as a building contractor, just as shortly after their emancipation in Germany and France also some few Jews, quite to the great annoyance of the Christians – otherwise he would certainly not be able to survive the smear campaigns raging – something absolutely unprecedented in US history – on an international scale right from the very first second of his candidacy, against him. But what is more important in this matter: as a building contractor he depends on the American domestic market in the first place, and secondly, serious and widespread mass pauperization will not help him, otherwise the recession on this market would be massive. This allows him to preserve some sense for the national dignity of peoples different from his own, too, as well as for the injustice in their being slaughtered and subjugated (“Putin-understander”, which in our liars’ press is supposed to be an abusive name; similarly, the “Völkischer Beobachter” might have written about “Jew-understanders”).

As to the international US capital, for which Clinton stands, the opposite is true: they do not care a bit about the pauperization of their own people, they hate the Europeans, to whom the many sacrifices of their late workers’ movement often have brought a more decent living, which now finally is to be flushed away, as “bad example” for their own people (but they also despise the Europeans, and they do so rightly), and every further conquest of, for instance, rest-Arabia, Russia or China makes them even wealthier and their position stronger. This explains their and therefore Clinton’s policy and strategy.

The US american people has set a temporary obstacle to this by their resistance to the media, proven for the first time and not at all shared by the European servile peoples. Well done, unpropertied people of America and holders of small properties, let us get talking to each other! Your President and our nolens-volens-Emperor Donald will need a lot of steadfastness and luck against your mega capital and their daily press smear campaigns – we wish him that already from quite egoistic motifs, because we do not want to become the literal Holocaust victims of this mega capital (as well as you also don’t wish to thus fall victim to them nor pauperize). There once was a parallel to this situation in Roman history in the person of Emperor Julian, who, after long generations of Christian terror and extra privileges, reinstalled the freedom of religion and allowed the Jews after about 300 years of suppression to rebuild their temple: the Christian Church, firmly installed and growing rampant fumed and foamed and finally hunted him down (and burnt the first constructions of the new temple down again). Guard your new President, so that he will have a better fate! (And you and us, too.)

Leaflet in pdf format

 Read more

 Read more

The Catholic Church takes every effort not to make us forget that it has absolutely to be counted among the plague of humanity (as likewise only the Islam; jointly, they have brought more misery upon mankind than all fascist and Stalinist regimes together). As the ‘secular arm’ of the Catholic Church, the Polish justice minister Mr. Zbigniew Ziobro has appealed the decision of the Kraków court which recently had rejected as illegal the extradition of the ingenious director to his American tormentors (Besides the French nationality, Roman Polanski also holds the Polish nationality and has a residence in Kraków). It is true that the conservative Polish government withstands the EU dictates of conformity – in that respect comparable to the Hungarian Orbán government –, but its vassal’s loyalty to the United States and the Vatican (that is to say, to ‘Throne and Altar’ in their present form) is unconditional
and spineless. Thus, the Polish minister does not only act as the obedient servant of his Pope, but also as the obsequious lackey of the U.S. government that has just imposed upon the Polish people, right at their front door, missile systems poised against Russia along with American ground troops (The Soviet patronage of Poland may have been a nuisance, but it was never as thoroughly repulsive as this combination of religious terror and Imperialist dictate, since even Stalin’s show trials and mass shootings did never succeed in blacking out entirely the basic humanist concern of communism that the priests pupil Stalin hated and wanted to wipe out).

As unclean as the Polish minister’s endeavour is, as flimsy are his ‘arguments’, since he exclusively calls on the (sexual) envy of those who haven’t got their share, the ‘painters’ and ‘plumbers’ and even ‘doctors’ as whose self-appointed advocate he pretends to act. Formerly, such methods and demagogic stereotypes were used to hunt down witches and heretics – this filth must be left on the garbage heap of history and shall reek there. In any case, it does not belong in a democracy that deserves this name.

Never again the Dark Ages!
Hands off Roman Polanski!

Please address your protest letters to the Polish government:

1. To Mrs. Beata Szydło
Prime Minister
The Chancellery of the Prime Minister
Al. Ujazdowskie 1/3
00-583 Warsaw
Poland

2. To Mr. Zbigniew Ziobro
Minister of Justice Prosecutor General
Ministry of Justice
Al. Ujazdowskie 11
00-950 Warsaw
Poland

And please send a copy of your protest letters to us.

Protest as a PDF

Reed the speech

Read the speech

Read the speech

Ladies and gentlemen,

first of all I would like to thank the Polish Atheist Coalition for your invitation which gives me the opportunity to speak about a very interesting topic we are also faced with in our everyday life. In our times one can easily observe that the word democracy is widely spread and seems to be a kind of daily issue on the one hand. On the other hand we see that the word is used in an at least very superficial and confusing manner, to put it in a euphemistic way. But by far more often it is even worse because the term democracy is misused to justify acts against human rights, aggressions against sovereign states and so on.

Therefore it might be good to take a closer look at the etymology of the original meaning of the word democracy: “democracy” derives from the Greek word “demokratia” which falls into two components: “demos” meaning “the people”, while “kratia” means “rule”. So democracy means translated “the rule of the people” (“Volksherrschaft” in German, “popular government” is the English expression). The word itself is of Greek origin because historically democracy firstly appeared in Athens and the surrounding “city-states” about 500 years before our time. Democracy in the ancient world could develop after the successful victory of the free citizens over the ancient nobility (the latter was organized in oligarchic structures). Then the people or at least the citizens voted according to their interests and concerns in the agora. That is how democracy in its original meaning “the rule of the people” came into being in the history of mankind. Of course one should not idealize this political situation of the ancient world: the Greek states were based on slavery, and not everybody could vote on their issues in the agora – but at least a certain percentage of people could decide about their issues. Here again etymology is of further help: if we take a closer look, we can see that democracy is the contrary of oligarchy meaning the rule of a minority, whereas democracy is the rule of the majority: Oligarchy always meant the rule of a rich minority over a poorer majority whereas within democratic structures it is vice versa.

So this leads to another point of interest: the relation between democracy and criticism on religion. If we consider the European history of the last centuries, one is easily inclined to believe that the Enlightenment or at least fundamental criticism on religion is an obligatory precondition for the development of the modern democracy – but this is a fundamental mistake, the truth is just the other way around: democratic structures make people think more; therefore critical thoughts, especially on religion, can evolve more easily than in monarchic or oligarchic structures. When democracy came into the world, gods and demons simply held the loosing cards. Free people who learned that intelligence is of value, not only on a subjective, but also on a material level, tend to think more critically. Statistically significantly more people will evolve and develop their critical mind, and they may ask themselves more often: does this gasiform vertebrate really exist? The most intelligent ones will answer with Democritus that there are only atoms and their distances in between. The proof for this historical dynamics, the dependence of intelligence on the underlying power structure, again lies in history itself. If we take a look, for instance, at ancient Greece after democracy developed and spread, critical thinkers on religion also appeared: think of Anaxagoras who postulated a non-personal pantheism as a kind of polite form of atheism at those times. Another, even more radical example is Diagoras of Melos, a disciple of Democritus who had the courage to attack the Demeter cult in public. He was sentenced to death for that, but he could flee right in time to Corinth. By the way, already during his lifetime Diagoras of Melos had “the atheist” as a kind of nickname. And last but not least we think of Epicurus: his idea was that all the gods must stay in the intermundia, some in-between-worlds or extra world for the gods from where they cannot be of any harm for the humans.

Now, if we want to give the issue of democracy and religion a clearer shape, one should appreciate the principle of tolerance, because without tolerance democracy on the one hand, but also religious freedom on the other hand is not possible. The originally Latin verb “tolerare” means “to bear something”, which means explicitly to bear thoughts and opinions you do neither share nor appreciate. The principle of tolerance also means the abstinence from violence in discussion though the discussed issue might be controversial. To put it in the words of one of the most famous leaders of the Enlightenment movement, Voltaire: “I do not at all share your opinion, and I will always oppose it; but I am ready to die for your right to freely express it.” So tolerance did not mean something like politeness or abstinence from criticism; but it did and does mean abstinence from and absence of violence or similar unfairness in discussions. It also does not mean excluding someone from the debate, “not giving a forum” to him, as modern newspeak calls that, but on the contrary, it meant giving a forum to everybody, but to nobody the freedom of evading argumentation – under fair conditions as always. Forum means literally market, and exactly that was meant by the Enlightenment movement and Voltaire himself. Everybody may try to sell his goods on the market of opinions, nobody is excluded from it, and everybody has to pay the same fee for the same table, but not the weak one a high excessive fee and the strong one a low to symbolic fee; and nobody is urged to buy the goods. And furthermore and of course: tolerance does not mean freedom to commit crimes, even if these crimes, as lapidation, circumcisions, flagellation, etc., are inspired by religions; the very core of Enlightenment was and is the equality of all citizens before the law, and therefore their equal treatment by the state, especially when religion is concerned: no exceptions for big and old religions, no severity against small and new ones.

In the tradition of the Voltairian point of view, it is by all means the duty of all secularists to defend religious minorities against attacks of religious majorities or the state, even if the order to persecute a religious minority is given by the pope personally, some government or US President Obama himself. It is self-evident that every sincere atheist agrees with the principle of tolerance in its original meaning, and we always need to keep an eye on a kind of perverted development within the atheist movement, namely that secularists become the paid or unpaid dogsbodies of the state which persecutes religious minorities and at the same time squanders our taxes to fatten the big churches.

As secularists we do not tolerate violence in the name of religion, but we do demand religious freedom; every religious organisation must be treated equally, no special treatment or disadvantage for any of them! We also must be tolerant towards purely symbolic rituals within religion. I have heard that Spanish atheists seriously asked for a prohibition of baptism; these people argued that baptism is as bad as circumcision. With this we strictly disagree, and we will always oppose this opinion: because you can wash away the dirt of religion you have been brainwashed with when being a child, but you will never get back your foreskin that has been cut off in the name of religion when you were a child. Generally speaking, we should not interfere with purely symbolic rites as they do not harm or at least not severely harm the integrity of children, in contrast to circumcision that does physically and in consequence psychologically severely injure the individual.

What I want to express is that we cannot protect children from all the means and ways of religion, even if they do work with social pressure and subtile psychological atrocities: of course unfair treatment happens in everyday life to children in religious families, but please keep in mind: if you want to control all these things you need a spy in every household. And also take into account that children need to develop antibodies against religion; they cannot develop them if they grow up in a sterile surrounding.

Added as a parenthesis, I would like to mention that it is of no use if kids tell us like a parrot that 2 plus 2 equals 4 because they believe this and they have never calculated it. Then reason itself becomes religious, they believe instead of understanding contexts.

Concerning democracy and religion last but not least I would like to point out one severe problem regarding the atheist movement of our days: in times of mass television making people reliably stupid, religion is not as essential for the ruling class anymore as it was in former times. Nowadays it seems to be quite en vogue to be an atheist, not a lot of courage is required to be one today; nobody needs to fear to die at the stake or to suffer social disadvantages for atheist thoughts. In the last years one could observe within the free thought movement in Europe that so-called atheists are having an eye to government positions or at least government-paid positions in the name of so-called reason or so-called democracy. Just to illustrate this with one detestable example: French so-called atheists openly support a governmentpaid institution of inquisition called MIVILUDES which is directly assigned to the French Prime Minister and has been solely founded to persecute religious minorities by campaigns, by financially ruining them, by destroying their reputations – they simply spread lies, and they even demand to be granted immunity from criminal prosecution, which would mean that these modern inquisitors could not be legally punished for spreading their lies. So in a nutshell this is what so-called French atheists support: an institution of inquisition for persecuting minorities – how detestable!

Here I can just emphasize again a slogan of the original Enlightenment movement: “Écrasez l´infâme !”, whereas the Enlightenment movement did not at all tell us “Enviez l´infâme !”– destroy the monster and fight against it in the most effective manner, not admire, envy or brownnose the monster of religion.

Speech in pdf format

Leaflet in pdf format

Leaflet in pdf format

Leaflet in pdf format

Certainly not because we prefer common property as such to private property (of means of production; Marx and Engels never had anything against any other kind of private property anyway as there is no reasonable point to it, despite all the malignant lies concerning this topic even at their time, see Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. VI p. 497sq.; just like Marx, Engels and Lenin we leave renunciation of worldly commodities and social masochism to Christians and the »Greens«). We simply think having common property is better than having no property at all. For not owning the foundation of one’s existence means to become a victim of extortion. This is what we don’t want to be or to remain. Whoever doesn’t want that either should stop avoiding us. It could be rewarding, even if it is just for the purpose of keeping one’s dignity: not to be the idiot permanently manipulated by teachers, newspapers or other media controlled by the ruling class.

We also wouldn’t have any objection against a craftsmen’ and farmers’ idyll as it existed during certain periods of the Middle Ages or the pioneering days of Northern America. At that time, it was not exceptional and still possible to be the owner of one’s means of production. But such structures have not been competitive any longer for quite some time already as they were based upon a very low technical standard. Today, however, with a reasonable and efficient distribution of labour, three working hours a day would be enough to enable all people to enjoy a much higher standard of living than the one Germans have today, i.e. approximately that of Western Germany during the Eighties, which really was quite good (»Schaufenster des Westens« [»Show-case of the West«]). However, in order to achieve this, several generations of one-child families world wide would be necessary to make the number of people match with the resources available on our planet. That would be quite easy, if the one-child family policy would only be propagated and supported half as much as today’s propaganda that makes smoking a target of ostracism or preaches endless shrinking of the standard of living and mobility for no reasonable purpose at all. For our parasites in power, who are controlling the media and have been streamlining and using them for their own purpose since long, hate nothing more than a decreasing competition among the unpropertied people, resulting in a decrease of the latter’s susceptibility to extortion. But this is what would actually happen quite soon in case the number of people would drop down, and this is therefore what this human filth in power fears the most. For then, along with a growing population of e.g. black grouses and rhinos, there would also be a rise in wages and the quality of life – and what major shareholder or government parasite could like that? For, with increasing instead of decreasing wages but decreasing instead of increasing working hours, many people, instead of being rushed and miserable, could get brighter and wonder whether production should not be organized collectively for the supply of the people and the wage system not be replaced by a share system quite similar to that of stockholders established for the last four hundred years.

»Communism» has a bad reputation though – not only due to the defamation mentioned above but also due to the poverty and pettiness prevailing in the destroyed »Eastern Block«, which has claimed to pursue the establishment of communism and even claimed to pursue the goals of Marx and Lenin. This inherited poverty, which it did not share with its serious military opponents, existed indeed, but has it really been the result of its economic system, as schools and media have been hammering into our heads? If this had been the case, its satellite states would have had to get richer after their submission to the USA and the establishment of the capitalist system in the remains of the USSR. In reality, however, most of their inhabitants are driven into poverty, degraded to beggar status or ruthlessly exploited by putting them under extreme pressure at work, and they are all by far more patronized, kept in leading strings and lied at than ever was the case during normal times in any country of the Eastern Block.