Παρασκευή, 26 Ιουνίου 2015

God and Capital (Essay on the relationship between religion and power), By Kostas Lampos PhD

God and Capital
(Essay on the relationship between religion and power)

By Kostas Lampos PhD


"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

- George Orwell

There is a myth of the immortal soul, of the omniscient, almighty and most merciful God, of life after death, of heaven and hell, of the moralistic role of religions, of the charitable purpose of the churches as well as the “holiness” of priesthoods and priests. This is just a hypocritical facade which helps the minority retain its control of the majority. The great disease of lies and hypocrisy ruined the human vision of happiness and prohibited the human civilization from seeking social equality, leading it instead to the current state of capitalist barbarity. This obscurantist and authoritative myth, based on ignorance, fear, deceit and violence must be revealed. Humanity must abolish it in order to follow once more a path towards knowledge, conscience, compassion, struggle for social equality, global peace and an ecumenical humanist civilisation.


Lies cast a shadow on truth only to become the “one and only truth”. The obscurantist myths and ruling class ideologies usurp history and replace all the authentic experiences, as well as the people’s Logic and memory. The dominant power strangulates all kinds of scientifically proven and socially useful knowledge and presents instead a so called science-investigation-discovery fusion masked as a mixture of religion-faith-apocalypse. Hypocricy replaces nobility, fake and virtual things are being presented as genuine and real. At this point, darkness becomes the light of ignorance, a “holly enlightenment” that is blinding. As a result, human beings become shadows of themselves, mere instruments that produce wealth for their tamers, while their lives tend to become even worse than the lives of working animals.
Humans comprise packs of fanatics which undiscerningly regurgitate myths, obscurantist nonsense and ruling-class ideologies. The victors used violence to impose slavery and the ruling powers formed a state which legislated individual ownership of land and means of production in general. At that time, the obscurantist myths became soteriological religions, the ruling class ideologies became instruments of intimidation and violence, coercion and submission of the subordinate subjects. Likewise, the subordinate subjects have been trying ever since, through countless struggles and sacrifices, to improve their living conditions and create the necessary requirements for permanent liberation from the obscurantist myths and ruling class ideologies, which originate from the obscurantist elitocracy of their exploiters. Social equality has always been their objective.

In this struggle, the subordinate subjects needed the help of all those who, despite standing on the other side of the fence, have been willing to offer their knowledge in this claim for a better life.

The result has always been a tiny step towards improvement but their complete liberation would take a very long time to come, much like old age or the ripening of fruits on the trees. Disappointment and hope walk together hand in hand, forming a relationship where hope grows bigger at the expense of disappointment. This happened because the forces of Employment, Science and Culture, through their struggles and experiences, gained knowledge, came up with ideas, created utopias and constantly dreamt of a better world. Thus, as they gradually became wiser, more and more people started to increasingly comprehend that the social equality they claimed would only come as a result of their social liberation, which would never be offered as a gift by their incumbent rulers. This could be exclusively their own accomplishment. The new struggles contributed to the accumulation of new knowledge, new experiences and new ideas. At a certain point the question, “why so many people were stuck on obscurantist myths and ruling class ideologies”, started to touch upon “holy and inviolable taboos” and to demistify the authoritative role of religions.

Hence, by disputing authority, we started to dispute its grand creation, its secret symbol and fetish, the concept of God, revealing that the myth of God is substantiated through the myth of the “immortal soul” and the supposed life after death. This revelation disrupts the vicious circle that connects authority with religion. The latter is gradually losing ground as refuge for all those persecuted by dominant authority and as a supplier of voters and followers to the ruling elite, along with political and social legitimacy. As a result the ruling elite itself is weakened.

This subject is still a taboo for many fellow citizens and mentioning it is “an insult to their faith”. As for the obscurantist ruling elitocracy, this is considered a “high treason” crime. Perhaps, this is the reason why many notable thinkers avoid talking about it. Partly they do not want to embarrass well-intentioned, devout people, but mainly they do not want to challenge the obscurantist elitocracies which have proven to be ruthless and do not play around.

It is well known that no person has chosen his religion or faith. It was planted on them, it has been systematically cultivated in their head, purposefully, by the incumbent obscurantist elitocracies. We also know that very few people manage to permanently get rid of their religious beliefs. Some may change their faith under conditions of direct or indirect violence to save their lives or to keep their work.

On this particular subject, which has its roots in violence, in lies and private/class interests, I believe that silence is not golden; rather, it is a conscious complicity in a crime which has been committed intentionally against humanity and its civilization for a very long time. Therefore, I wished to write this book in good faith, in order to raise the issue again to the public debate. Nobody ever lost from this, except for people with an interest to cover up situations and keep them away from the public debate.

I also wish to declare responsibly that it is not my intention to insult anybody’s well-intentioned faith, with which I may disagree but I respect it as their fundamental personal right. I feel that I have a moral obligation, in defence of the deceived but well-intentioned devout people, to accuse all those institutions, like the ruling classes, religions, churches and elitocracies who act hypocritically, intentionally and shamelessly manipulating and exploiting the faith of naïve people for financial, social and political gains.

I feel an even greater moral obligation as far as the young people are concerned, the newly born generations that come into this world, unable to judge, to compare, to choose or reject. They end up, unprotected, following a sterile and stupefying “religious tradition”, becoming part of a foul class-oriented educational system which fights their genuine curiosity for knowledge and lobotomizes their brain so that it prefers myths and ignorance.

For all the above reasons, I would like, in this book, to protest against the obscurantist ruling-class elitocracies which use the youngsters’ minds like trash cans, stuffing them with toxic, rotten ideas, with expired and useless intellectual and cultural byproducts, with nihilist, individualist, ruling-class ideologies. I also wish to protest because the naivety of the “devout” and the malevolent activity of religions, churches and elitocracies does not only influence adversely my life among others; it also mangles humanity as a whole, pushing it towards a theocratic capitalist barbarity and obstructs the future of our children and of humanity. Still, I am glad because the human mind resists. It manages, slowly but steadily, to push developments ahead, giving way to the optimistic view of history, according to which a new, better world is possible.

The modern forces of Employment, Science and Culture must utilize their brain and adopt this kind of historical optimism to break the vicious circle of decline; to pave the way for humanity’s next step towards social equality. For exactly this reason, they need to realize, sooner than later, that the youngsters’ mind is not a trash can. Hence they must stop violating young minds. Instead they must protect them from obscurantism and ruling-class ideologies. They must help them become part of society, cultivate their critical thought and make their own choices in life; teach them to love life and fight for social equality, freedom and humanism, even if they must clash with all the authorities, religions, ideologies and their fancy scarecrows.

The only worldview for the person of the 21st century can be the defence of concepts such as: life, survival of the human race, progress of societies and humanity, dignity of the individual and harmonious co-existence of society and Nature, in conditions of social equality, self-management, peace and freedom. Only this perception of the world, beyond religion and power, may provide an answer to the eternal question: what happens to people, who are born free and equal but end up spending their lives like slaves in conditions of extreme economic and social inequality?

The elitocracies, along with the rulers, claim that there is an answer to the above question: it has to do with the “imperfect human nature” which comes from “God’s will” and hence there is no solution to the problem of social and economic inequality. Others claim that the answer to this question is not the “imperfect human nature” because human nature is not an arbitrary and unchanged creation of non-existent, imaginary, metaphysical forces, like “Gods and demons”, but the product of specific historical social forces and conditions. As for the “incomplete human nature”, it is the creation of social forces which act like a “selfish, unjust and inhuman class manipulated type of social organization”. Hence, there is a solution to the problem in this present juncture of the 21st century, towards the abolition of obsurantist myths, religions of hatred and authoritative ideologies. A natural consequence of this would be the abolition of the selfish capitalist organization of society which works at the expense of society and humanity.

However, in the end, the course and direction of history is not determined by the obscurantist elitocracies, which may come and go, but from the timeless forces of Employment, Science and Culture, which are steadily focused on social equality and ecumenical humanist civilization. The misrepresentation of truth as a lie and vice versa, to promote the authoritative ideologies, has become a lethal Gordian knot which must be cut in order for humanity to finally breathe and for civilization to shine.

This sums up the orientation and skepticism of this book and I trust that many of our fellow citizens share the same thoughts. Anybody who has something better to suggest regarding humans, the society-humanity and its civilization, should not keep it to themselves but speak out. This would be their moral contribution to the struggle of Man for a better world, a world striving for social equality, a classless society of direct democracy and for an ecumenical humanist civilization.

Themistokleous 37, 
Telefon: 0030 210 38 02 644. E-mail: koukkida.edit@yahoo.gr

Σάββατο, 20 Ιουνίου 2015

Copyleft and The GNU Manifesto

Copyleft Definition


Copyleft is a type of license that attempts to ensure that the public retains the freedom to use, modify, extend

This is accomplished by the copyright holder granting irrevocable permission to the public to copy and redistribute the work in the same or modified form, but with the conditions that all such redistributions (1) make the work available in a form that facilitates further modification and (2) use the same license.

A copyright is a designation by a government that grants the author of a creative work (e.g., a musical composition, painting, poem, product design, movie or computer software) the exclusive (but transferable) right to copy or perform that work. Its original purpose was to provide a financial incentive for producing such works in order to benefit society as a whole. Copyright does not protect facts, discoveries, ideas, systems or methods of operation, although it can protect the way they are expressed.

The term copyleft is a play on the word copyright, and it may superficially appear that it is because the concept is favored by some people who consider themselves to be leftists in a political sense. However, in reality, people from throughout the political spectrum, including many who consider themselves to be true conservatives1, have high regard for this concept because it is not at all about socialism or other political philosophies; rather, it is about freedom, the advance of computer technology, and benefiting the economy and society as a whole.

In the case of computer software, the form that facilitates further modification is source code, and thus copyleft licenses require that the source code be made freely available to anyone who wants it. Source code (also referred to as source or code) is the version of software (usually an application program or an operating system) as it is originally written (i.e., typed into a computer) by a human in plain text (i.e., human readable alphanumeric characters). There is no requirement to provide the executable (i.e., ready-to-run) version, as it is a relatively easy matter to compile (i.e., convert) source code into runnable programs.

Most copylefted software is issued under the GNU General Public License (GPL), which was the first copyleft license and by far the most commonly used license for free software. Free software is software whose source code is freely available to anyone to use for any purpose, including studying, copying, modifying, extending and giving away.

Not all free software licenses are copyleft licenses. For example, BSD style licenses and the MIT license are not, because they do not require that redistributions of modified versions in compiled form make the source code available along with them.

Copyleft is a somewhat controversial issue. Those objecting to it claim that it is viral in nature (because any works derived from a such works must themselves be copylefted) and that it contaminates all derivative works by forcing them to likewise be subject to copyleft. They claim that this destroys intellectual property. This term viral is considered derogatory, because it compares copylefted works to harmful computer viruses and biological viruses. The most vociferous opponent of copyleft has been Microsoft Corporation, which, according to advocates of copyleft, is because it feels threatened by Linux and other free software.

In addition to becoming popular because of its ideology, copyleft has also proved to be an extremely practical concept for the promotion of the development of high quality computer software. This is because it assures software developers that no dominant company will be able to take over their work and that such work will always remain available to everyone to use. The success is evidenced by not only the vast number of copyleft projects currently in various stages of development, but also by the substantial success of individual projects, such as Linux, MySQL, Open Office, Ruby and Blender.

The origin of the term copyleft is not certain. It may have first appeared in a message contained in Tiny BASIC, a free version of the Basic programming language that was written by Dr. Li Chen Wang in the late 1970s.

1The term conservative is used here in the traditional sense to refer to people who place emphasis on individual liberty and the free market. It does not refer to the recent phenomenon of so-called neocons, who claim to be conservative but who actually favor more government control at the expense of individual liberty together with the creation and strengthening of monopolies and oligopolies at the expense of the free market.
and redistribute a creative work and all derivative works (i.e., works based on or derived from it) rather than to restrict such freedoms.


The GNU Manifesto,