Progress Kills Killer Religions

KILLING “UNBELIEVERS” IS PROFITABLE TO SOME.

Abstract: A religion is any set of ideas that again (re) binds (ligare) people together. Secularism, nationalism, superstitions form religions.

Some religions call for more blood than our civilization can give. The world has shrunk, we are all neighbors, mass destruction lurks in our midst.

Carthage was a superior, extremely innovative civilization. Carthage was annihilated because it indulged in too primitive a religion. Same for the Aztecs. If Carthage had not burned children, while playing music to cover their screams, Carthage would have survived, as Marseilles did.

550 BCE. Carthage, Magna Graecia & Massilia share the Western Med. Rome is an Etruscan dot. Celts all over the north.

Carthage, in red, has, by far, the largest empire. Not shown are her trading colonies, some several thousand kilometers off the map, down the African coast, or in Britain. Greek city states are in blue. Massilia, with her large empire along the north west Mediterranean coast, would be in conflict with Carthage for centuries. It resisted, helped by good relationships with the Celts. 

***

This perspective on religion from the point of view of survivability has direct applications to life threatening practices brandishing Fundamentalist Islam. In light of the ever easier access to weapons of mass destruction.

Contrarily to the mentally insipid and counterfactual legend, among all too numerous intellectual cowards in the West, who howl their simplicity in unison; the Qur’an is a book that, read literally, ORDERS to kill people on the basis of beliefs that are purely spiritual.

Let say that you insinuate that an analphabet dead 13 centuries ago was deluded, or that god is dog, spelled the wrong way. Millions of so called Muslims will tell everybody that it’s their sacred religious duty to kill you. Can we tolerate this? Can we not denigrate this? Can we afford, not to denigrate this? Who can deny that denigration of such behavior is needed? Denial is at the limit insane: we have the quotes below, and a more extensive version.

Intellectuals cowards don’t need to read. Emoting is their reasoning, howling is their calling, a sort of religion of their own. The way out of the Islamist threat is absolute rigor, putting such people in jail, at every turn, because what they say is that jokes give them a right, a moral duty, to kill, flaunted for all to see. All they say is that joking, or just thinking differently are the worse imaginable acts, worthy of the death penalty. Respecting such terrorists and would be murderers is accepting to submit to their terror. It is to violate the fundamental nature of man, the only hope of man, that is, to think differently.

Around 400 CE, Christianism had transformed the Roman empire into a fascist homicidal theocracy (only the Jews survived, and barely so). Catholic god madness brought military disasters, and the near total military collapse of civilization (Rome was sacked, and the Frankish army on the Rhine could not hold the Vandals, Alans and their allies, with catastrophic consequences for the provisioning of Italy).

So tyrannical Christianism led to the swift destruction of the world’s richest polity. Yet, the fact that Christianism inspired Islam is no excuse. Tyrannical Christianism lasted a bit more than a century (from 363 CE, killing of Julian, until the imperium of the Franks, in 486 CE).

The vilipended movie “The Innocence of Muslims” charges that a professional Christian, the cousin of Muhammad’s wife, created Islam… This enrages Muslims to no end, but it is closer to official Muslim doctrine than to the opposite! Muslims in the streets were just ignorant of that fact. They should read more than just one book.

By 460 CE, the bishops of Gauls had understood that they were not military men, and that they needed military men to fight the Goths. They accepted that the last Roman army left, that of the Pagan Franks, would take over.

After the Franks took control in 486 CE, with the full back up of the imperial government in Constantinople, Christianism became little more than a façade. The Franks extolled the good sides of Christianism, made plenty of little fables with local saints to illustrate the new philosophy of altruism and care, and ignored the rest, the Dark Side of Christianism (although they resurrected it to beat into submission the Anglo-Saxons of northern Germany).

In the following three centuries, the Franks domesticated the Popes in Rome, and brought them back to a sustainable civilization, the effort crowned with the Pope crowning Carlus Magnus as Roman emperor… with the furious accord of Roman authorities in Constantinople, then in a regency!

By 800 CE Jews and Muslims had rights equal to those of Christians and Pagans in the Carolingian empire. The tolerance of Republican Rome was back, reinforced, and extended. Notice that this notion of religious tolerance, most Muslims, in their superstitious monomania, cannot yet get. They do not understand that they are the first victims of their quasi universal lack of tolerance for people, ideas and feelings.

Now, of course, the fundamental truth about the Franks was that they were secularists. They lived in their age, not inside a book of fables. (We know this from all the details; say, when the Viking showed up, the Franks, by then milder, negotiated settlements with them, driving the church crazy, as the church just wanted to exterminate the heathens right away; similarly, the Franks established a tradition of negotiation and co-existence with Muslim settlers.)

How has such a bloodthirsty book, obsessed by burning people, been in control of the minds of the multitude for so long? Well, just contemplate the dictators and theocrats where Islam reign. Where there is a profit, there is a way, such is the ambition of men. In the Middle East, that way to the profit of some was Islam. It fit well with meta traditions of subservience inherited from centuries of hydraulic dictatorships, made ever fiercer, as the area desiccated dramatically.

Some of the Dark operators in the USA believed that Islam could be made into a tool to get oil. It worked. So far. Yet, this is an entirely different subject. Plutocracy knows that theocracy is its most elegant tool. 9/11 was just a warning that such a policy brings drawbacks. Even to the USA.   

***

THE WEST AS THE BROADEST RELIGION:

When the Gauls were told their religion was outlawed, they shrugged. To the Gauls the Gallic shrug was a higher calling, a more important religion than the Celtic religion. Celtic civilization, with its many superior technologies, kept on going, unfazed.

This illustrates several important points:

1) civilization should not be identified with religion. “Civilization” allows the life of a city. Religion is any mental system interlaced with an emotional system tying (ligare) people together again (re). A religion can be anything, such as a mental scaffolding enabling cannibalism and mental sacrifices (the case of most passed religions). A civilization is much more constrained, because a city is a more complex machine than a cannibal band.

2) there are religions within religions. The Celtic religion was within greater themes which tied up the Gauls together, such as the Gallic shrug, and other characteristic behaviors that riled the Romans up (sometimes with admiration). The very word, “Gaul” comes from the Romans trying their best to ridicule the Celts by comparing them to roosters (Gallus Gallus), who are particularly noisy, colored and self assured volatile (Gallia). it’s fascinating that those traits traversed 30 centuries of history, and are still found in today’s French (who are glorifying in self mockery, as the rooster stays the French national symbol, a bit as if the Muslims took for symbol Muhammad with a bomb in his turban!).

The Roman civilization was a melting pot civilization. So was that of the Gauls. Together they united, making an even bigger melting pot, soon joined by a self conscious third melting pot, that of the Frankish confederation, a German melting pot.

The Franks themselves had proclaimed that they had a civilizational hyperlink to Troy.

The Catholic (“Universal” in Greek) religion was itself a melting pot (no choice, if it wanted to thrive under the roman umbrella).

Thus, by the time the Franks proclaimed the “Renovation” of the Roman empire, half a dozen melting pots were mixed together in a mighty brew. Inside that brew, ideas and emotions everywhere: let the best win!  

Human lives used to be brutish and short. They were put together by religions which were brutish and gross. Now lives are longer, sweeter and more complex. We have little choice: thermonuclear bombs, and other Damocles’ swords, keep us honest enough to not be at each others’ throat. Better being honest than dead.

Our religion is now secularism, truly listening to the gods within and the world outside. So what of yesterday’s fables? If they are brutish and gross, they have got to go. 99% of yesteryear’s religion had to go, because, typically, they called to kill people too readily (they also called to not kill them too much, be it only because one needs people to kill people.

***

ASTOUNDING CARTHAGE, AHEAD, IN SOME WAYS, BY 20 CENTURIES:

The Thera monster volcano exploded, flooding, burning and ruining the Minoan civilization centered on Crete. New civilizations arose to replace it. Foremost among them, the Phoenicians, based in Tyre. The Phoenicians put the efforts of Mesopotamians and Egyptians together, abstracting and simplifying them. The Phoenicians invented the alphabet. Variants (Tifinagh, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Cyrillic, Arabic, Indic alphabets) constitute most scripts in use today. A Phoenician expedition commissioned by a Pharaoh to send an expedition around Africa (in 3 years, circa 650 BCE). Herodotus, who relates the fact, expresses some doubt, because he says that it is impossible that the sun would have been on the right of the Phoenicians ships… Little did the Greek historian understand that such was the case between Port Elizabeth and Cape town, when rounding Africa…  

Tyre founded a colony, Carthage. In some ways, Carthage was the new Crete, in other ways, it was terribly flawed, and died from it. An expedition led by Hanno, of no less than 60 ships, carrying 30,000 souls, passed an erupting Mount Cameron, and captured gorillas, further south. Africans exchanged gold, and other rare products, but also salted fish, against Carthaginian trinkets. Other expeditions went north.

Carthage set up colonies, all the way down the African coast. This trade organization lasted centuries, and influenced, no doubt, both west Black Africa, and the Mediterranean. Some democratic habits in West Africa may be traced to those mind opening times, in my opinion (such as the “Sufi” religion of Senegal, with its similarity to Carthaginian practice). Then the Carthaginians sold the goods throughout the Mediterranean. British and African tin, then a very important metal, was imported to the Med, allowing to make bronze (by mixing it with copper). The Carthaginian bred dogs in the Canary islands.

Rome would never fill such an extensive global role in Africa (although Rome traded with China). One had to wait after 1500 CE for enterprising Europeans to fill Carthage’s sails, using this time, Celtic ocean going technology.

Carthaginian ship technology was superb, the world’s best. Although the Celts had ocean going ships, the Carthaginian ships were much faster. Some Carthaginian coins struck in 350 BCE represents the entire Mediterranean, with a large land mass, far to the West in the Atlantic: America?

We know little about Carthage, because it shrouded its trading routes in secrecy and disinformation. But, mostly, we know little about Carthage, because her tormentor and assassin, Rome, did its best to even destroy her memory (memory destruction being a Roman specialty).

***

“CARTHAGO DELENDA EST“ [Carthage Is To Be Destroyed!]:

The plutocratic party in Rome finished its discourses, for years, about anything whatsoever with: ‘Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse’ (“Furthermore, (moreover) I consider that Carthage must be destroyed”). It went hand in hand with the nationalistic movement. Still, it does not explain the immense breach of ethics committed with Carthage. That was furnished by Carthage herself. In turn, the crime committed together, the holocaust of Carthage, annihilated by the fire she used to kill the innocent with, tied the Roman together again, in a sort of satanic religion, the triumph of the Dark Side, that devoured Rome itself.

Thus there is lots of morality and philosophy hidden in the sad story.

***

WHY & HOW DID ROME DESTROY CARTHAGE?

Carthage, like Rome, had a mixed constitution. Yet Carthage was destroyed by Rome.

Why, and how did that happen? Well, the traditional story is that the Romans were geniuses of engineering, and they copied Carthaginian tech massively and quasi-instantaneously (after they captured a Carthaginian ship, the Romans copied 120 ships in 2 months). In the end, the Romans won at sea, after losing several fleets with dozens of thousands on board of each.

But, mostly, the main reason for Carthage’s destruction was that Rome did not behave well with Carthage. The Romans hated Carthage. That hatred against Carthage was directed to no others, among the many nations Rome conquered.

The Romans stole from the Punic city Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. The latter two in direct violation of a peace treaty. Such a breach of honor and treaty was rare with Rome. In their next act the Romans declared war, again, because they just did not like Carthage’s empire in Spain.

In the end, Rome made a holocaust (general burning), of Carthage (146 BCE). Destroying entirely an extremely advanced civilization, all the way down to one book, which the Romans preserved, because that solitary book was an agricultural treaty on how to grow food in Africa. That book fed Rome for six centuries. This is what one reads in history books: a litany of war and destruction.

Why so much hatred on Rome’s part? And how could Rome destroy the senior civilization?

There was a third power left in the Western Mediterranean when this drama started. Massilia. Marseilles, had her own (Greek) mini empire, and, although incorporated by Caesar, Massilia was not destroyed. Rome tolerated other big cities. An example is Alexandria, with its hundreds of thousands of Jews (let alone Greeks and Egyptians): it was pretty much left alone.

Why was Carthage annihilated?

***

CARTHAGE LOST BECAUSE ITS RELIGION HAD BEEN TOO BLOODTHIRSTY:

Carthage was much older than Rome, and a great power when Rome was nothing. Carthage drove the Greeks out of the Western Mediterranean (except for it enemy Massilia). Carthage was the head civilization of Africa, its trade network, with colonies extended along much of the west coast of Africa, probably to the Gold Coast and Ivory Coast. The relationships from Morocco to Senegal were extensive.

On the other side of Africa, the Phoenicians’ commerce reached beyond Somalia. However the giant fascist Persian empire more or less enslaved the Phoenicians (as it did the Ionian Greeks). At the battle of Salamis, most of the “Persian” fleet was actually Ionian and Phoenician. This led to some bad blood with the Greeks and gave a pretext for Alexander later to mistreat Tyre (crucifying 2,000, selling 30,000 women and children survivors into slavery).

Carthage lost because of its religion, such is my thesis. The religion gave a pretext and excuse for Rome’s hatred, and it made Carthaginian allies undependable (coerced by Carthaginian cruelty in peacetime, they bolted at the first occasion given by a less bloodthirsty Rome).

The religion of Carthage was so bloodthirsty, that Carthage lost the most important high ground, the moral high ground. So bloodthirsty that, later, many came to doubt the descriptions the victors, the Romans and their associates, made about Carthage’s bloodthirstiness.

However, recent, incontrovertible archeological discoveries, reveal sinister machines. Therein, partially burned remnants of children, up to four year old. The inscriptions below were unequivocal. Yes, Carthage’s religions sacrificed young children.

A wantonly bloody religion loses the high moral ground. Rare are the armies which can lose the high moral ground, real, or perceived, and still win. Even the Mongols, when they built their giant empire, were careful to occupy (what they perceived as) the high moral ground.

Bloody religions have diverse gradations. They are more or less bloody. The Aztecs were more bloody than any other religion of the Americas (there too, there were nuances; the Aztecs were horrified by Spanish torture; however North American Indians held torture in high esteem!).

How does one lose because of a superstitious religion? Three ways contribute:

a) Lost of prestige. In the Bible the Jewish god fulminates that Carthaginians are killing children, but, he acts equivocally “I never asked them to do that!“. Good to know, goddie boy. Killing children did not look good, 23 centuries ago. So Carthage did not look good.

Equivalently, in today’s world, when Muslim sects kill children of other Muslim sects children, a form of human sacrifice, they also lose prestige (see Syria for illustration). Would one want them for neighbors? So why would one help them?

b) Reputation for cruelty. A religion who ask to kill innocent people, just because they are determined to “not believe” is obviously cruel. That is why Christianism was enslaved, fettered, domesticated in Occident. Both the Bible and the Qur’an have calls to kill unbelievers. That sure helped Charlemagne in empire building, and was central to Islam building the greatest empire ever, in a few years.

c) Loss of allies. During Hannibal’s long invasion of Italy, the Latium allies of Rome did not defect. They were satisfied of their contract with Rome. But the Spanish allies of Carthage did defect. In truth what Rome and the Latium had was a secular religion in common, republicanism.

***

EPITAPH FOR CARTHAGE:

In the end Carthage reformed, and became more democratic than Rome. Carthage was not militarily dangerous; it controlled nearly nothing anymore, the might of Roma was absolute, and extended from Portugal to Asia. Carthage had just become an idea, and a city full of history, and thus wisdom. And thus an even deadlier enemy of Roman plutocracy.

The Roman Senate fabricated reasons to attack Carthage a third and final time, with the official aim of destroying it. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous quote is in Obama’s office: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

And it’s not true.

The arc of the moral universe is long, and, sometimes, with great efforts, it can be bent towards justice, and often, it’s too little, too late.

The crimes of Rome vis-à-vis Carthage started early on, when Rome grabbed Sardinia and Corsica, in violation of a Peace treaty.  They had to be bent back, but the moral universe has no more soul than the real one. all the soul it has, human beings put it there.

Those Roman crimes exacted a lethal price on Rome: they corrupted her soul, made her believe that Carthage was the problem, when the first problem of Rome was institutionalized inequality (plutocracy). That corruption, in the long run, led to the plutocratic phenomenon running amok, entangled in a fight with the headless military, soon to be appeased by the brainlessness of rabid theocracy.

Carthage’s bloodthirsty, child torturing religion gave Rome the excuse it needed to foster its Dark Side. Suppose a Pakistani made thermonuclear nuke exploded in New York’s harbor. What would happen to “democracy in America”? Dimwits would say:”What?” But, although Carthage existed for centuries before Rome was more than a village, ten miles south of the mighty Etruscan city of Veii, Pakistan, complete with nukes, and rabid Islamism, is pretty much an American creation, and the question is why?

And part of the answer is that assemblies of human minds have more mind that one can think.

***

WHEN SECULARISM OVERWHELMS RELIGION FOR ALL TO SEE:

The Spanish held in high esteem both torture and execution. Both concepts are united by the crucifix adorned with the squirming sadomasochist Jesus. Aztecs philosophers pointed out the contradiction: Christ’s was supposedly a religion of love, and human sacrifices were bad, and then the Spaniards  brandished torture to death during a human sacrifice, as if they were good things.  Spaniards could see the points, so they removed their squirming monkey and its nails, from the crucifix. Thereafter Christian crosses were bare in the New World.

Semites tend to be fanatical about religion, it’s a meta cultural trait (or maybe it’s due to the desert sun, as Camus had it, and a most recent scientific study asserts).

In any case, we see meta cultural Semitic fanaticism appear, when compared to others, say the Celts, and the ancient Greeks, Etruscans and republican Romans. The Romans did sacrifice four prisoners after the enormous defeat at Cannae (87,000 Roman elite soldiers, officers, senators, proconsuls and consuls  killed). They were ashamed of that human sacrifice later. Yet, in less desperate times, if Romans did not like what their superstitions told them, they would rough the silliness up.

Once sacred chicken refused to eat before a sea battle with Carthage. A very bad omen. The commanding admiral said: “if they will not eat, let them drink!” He ordered to throw the sacred volatiles overboard, in the sea. There were many such incidents, depicting a Roman pattern of scoffing at religion. Soon Rome was open to nearly all cults (compare with Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan).

After Rome took control of Gaul, the Celtic religion was purely, and simply, outlawed. An excellent occasion for the Gauls to flaunt a more important religious gesture, the bottom line of a deeper religion: the Gallic shrug. There was never a Celtic cult rebellion. Simply, after the Franks took military control of Gallia and Germania, all Pagan habits were declared to be everlasting Catholic traditions. (Even poor Jesus saw his birthday displaced six months to become part of the Winter Solstice feast, with their cut evergreens, and the Saturnials, with their gift exchange.)

By contrast, the Jews are still anal about their dubious fantasies (although Judaism was derivative, from Mesopotamian and Greek stories and more recent than the Celtic cult).

***

REALITIES OF CHRISTIANISM & RELATED ISLAMISM:

Thought crimes occur when texts presenting themselves as real, order to kill others for activities secular law does not recognize as criminal. (The notion of secular law is many millennia old, it goes back to antique Mesopotamia; more recently, it was made explicit by emperor Justinian when he ordered the refurbishing of Roman law, separating clearly the secular from the Christian considerations.)

Christ famously started the demand of killing unbelievers: ” Luke 19:27: “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.”

Islamism was invented as a war machine against Rome, and was heavily influenced by Coptic Christianity, at the time in quasi-war with Constantinople (that is, “Rome”).

***

WAS MUHAMMAD MORAL BY WESTERN STANDARDS?

Six centuries later an analphabet prone to epilepsy had some hallucinations in the desert, and He asked is a relative what that could mean. The relative was a professional Christian, a monk. The cousin of Muhammad’s wife. The cousin revealed to Muhammad that it was Archangel Gabriel who had been speaking to Muhammad. Thus Islam was born.

I have mentioned this episode, many times, years ago. All learned Muslim should know it. It is recounted in the trailer of the film “Innocence of the Muslims“. Then that movie is depicted as “Islamophobic”, meaning Islamic history, as taught by Muslim scholars, is Islamophobic.

That movie has caused great fury. The film has been presented, to great indignation, as portraying Muhammad as a rapist of little girls, an homosexual, and an assassin.

This maybe allusions to facts known by learned Muslims, among them:

When an assassination attempt was conducted against Muhammad, his relative, and son in law, Ali, got dressed as if he were Muhammad, and laid in Muhammad’s bed (as a decoy).

Muhammad married the daughter of his associate Bakr, Aisha, when she was 6. The marriage was “consummated” when she was 9 years old (9, as in, less than 10).

Thus we can say for the child (pedo) love (philia) Muhammad went all the way. If that drives Muslims crazy, no wonder. They feel, intuitively, that it is hard to justify by modern, that means, secularist, standards. 

Muhammad annihilated, among others, an entire Jewish tribe, and was a warrior and raider. He was directly involved in the death of well above 1,000 individuals, sword in hand. Once again, any seriously knowledgeable Muslim has a command of these facts.

The ambassador of the USA, a young and enthusiastic Arab (and French) speaking friend of Libya, was killed by Muslims, for, they claim religious reason. You see, someone else had made a movie. Let me explain the logic therein with two quotes of the Qur’an, two of many, which may be viewed as relevant, even by the dimwitted:

“2:39. But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Companions to the Fire. They will abide therein.” [Qur'an Sura 2, The Cow, Verse 39]

(The quote was copied from the most prominent Muslim website.) Statements such as these are all over the Qur’an, a very short book. Here is another verse, and a few are pasted later, so that readers can penetrate themselves with how much they should respect the Qur’an and those who abide by it.

“4: 89. Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” [Qur'an S4: v89]

Now Bernard Henry Levy, the billionaire “New philosopher“, knew the US ambassador, and called the assassins “imbeciles”.

Two questions:

a) Are people acting according to the Qur’an, “imbeciles“? It seems to be what BHL is saying. The Qur’an is clearly saying that those who disbelieve and deny Islamist Revelations should be put in a fire. The ambassador of the USA may have been judged to be denying the Revelations, and so was put in a fire. What is wrong with that?

b) is it imbecilitic to kill people to become the boss? Are mafiosi imbeciles? Were Stalin, and countless successful tyrants throughout history imbeciles? Was Alexander the Great an imbecile, because he annihilated Thebes and Tyre?

For that matter, Muhammad himself killed well above 1,000 people as he became the Prophet, does that make him an “imbecile”, according to BHL?

Pseudo sophisticated people, and the USA State Department have widely condemned “inflammatory content on the Internet” about Islam, the religion of (eternal) peace. It is a testimony to the powers of ideas, that the State department would complain about virtual flames on the Internet, a few hours after its ambassador in Libya was set aflame by real Muslims firing real rocket propelled grenades. Or is just the government of the USA terrified of enraged Muslims? Many are afraid, so they want to agree desperately with those who terrorize them. They call that wise.

In the eighteenth Century Voltaire, wrote a play “Fanaticism, Or Mahomet  the Prophet“. The play was forbidden in Switzerland in 1993, more than two centuries after it was played there. Thus, in a sense religious fundamentalist terror reigns over Switzerland more in the Twenty-First Century than it did, even well before the French revolution.

And so it is, all over.

As to why the world may feel like denigrating the Qur’an, readers are welcome to read it. You read, you judge. You don’t read, you don’t judge. I have read the Qur’an, cover to cover, many times. And in my goodness, in an argument with Muslim Fundamentalists, I complied the violent orders in the Qur’an. They can be consulted at:

http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

That essay contains 7,300 words of verses calling to violence, much of it, lethal. And these 7,300 words are revered by Fundamentalist Muslims of the Wahabi type, as orders from god.

Some will say:”Well, that’s racist, you can’t just discriminate on the basis of what’s in a book.” Well, if it were truly a book, it could be burned, no? Truly, it is an embodied superstition.

Secondly criticizing a superstition is not racist. I have no racism against Mexicans, and celebrate the Aztecs, Toltecs, Mayas, and their great achievements. But civilized people, nowadays despise their religion… Although some understand its origins. Similarly, I adore Isfahan, a religious city of incomparable beauty.

We can condemn, on the basis of a book, the beliefs attached to that book. Anybody reasonably literate should. Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” is a book that enabled the killing of 80 millions, although it’s nowhere as explicitly violent as the Qur’an. In “Mein Kampf” Adolf mostly claim that all the problems of Germany come from the French and the Jews. And that the end, unified Germany, justifies the means. If it were,

The Mufti of Jerusalem, a sort of Muslim pope, was violently anti-Jewish, and pro-Nazi. Not only did he meet with Hitler, he gave him troops. Thousands were incorporated in the SS.

The Qur’an, with its unending violent ranting against the Jews, is clearly full of hate crime, and that’s a fact, not an opinion. I complied 7,300 words of hate quotes in the Qur’an, that’s about 10% of the entire book. And the hatred is not just about Jews and Christians. Here is a sample towards the end of it:

Those who consider the Qur’an to be “mere fables” will be branded on the nose. [Qur'an sura 68:verse 15-16.]

Those who do not believe in Allah will be chained up and cast into hell-fire where they will eat filth. 69:30-35

“Lo! it is the fire of hell Eager to roast.” 70:15

Doom is about to fall on all disbelievers. Only worshippers (Muslims) and those who preserve their chastity (except with their wives and slave girls) will be spared from “the fires of hell” that are “eager to roast.” 70:1-30

“Lo! the doom of their Lord is that before which none can feel secure” (except for maybe those who are fearful of it). 70:27-28

Disbelievers will enter hell with frantic with fear, knowing they will be tortured forever by Allah. 70:36, 44

Allah sent Noah to warn people about the painful doom he was planning to send. (It didn’t work out well; Allah sent it anyway.) 71:1

Those that Allah drowned in Noah’s flood were then tortured forever in the Fire. 71:25

Noah asked Allah to drown all the disbelievers. 71:26

The fires of hell will be fueled with the bodies of idolators and unbelievers. They will experience an ever-greater torment. 72:15-17

Those who disobey Allah and his messenger will dwell forever in the fire of hell. 72:23

Allah will take care of the deniers. He will tie them up, burn them in a raging fire, and feed them food that chokes them. 73:11-13

The last day will be a day of anguish for disbelievers. 74:9-10

Those who are stubborn to Allah’s revelations will face a fearful doom. 74:16-17

The fire of hell shrivels humans and spares nothing. 74:27-29

Allah has appointed angels to tend the Fire and has prepared stumbling blocks for those who disbelieve. He sends some people (whoever he wants) astray. 74:31

Those who pay attention to this life and ignore the Hereafter will suffer forever in hell. 75:20-29

The doom is coming soon. 75:35

Allah has prepared chains, manacles, and a raging fire for the disbelievers. 76:4

Non-Muslim who pretend to believe (so they won’t be killed by Muslims) are unclean and will go to hell. 9:95.

After agreeing to send down a table of food from heaven, Jesus warns his disciples that will catch holy hell if they ever stop believing. 5:115

Christians will be burned in the Fire. 5:72

Christians are wrong about the Trinity. For that they will have a painful doom. 5:73

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

“Disbelievers will be burned with fire.” [Koran, S. 2:39, v. 90]

“Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They’d like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell.” [Koran, s. 2: v.96]

“Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire.” [Koran, s. 2:v. 126]

“Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don’t kill them.) [Qur'an s.2:v. 191-2]

So you see, unbelievers, if you die, that’s your fault, you did not “desist“.

***

Conclusions and recommendations:

MADNESS, IN GODS AND DOGS ALIKE, HAS NO TREATMENT, BUT ERADICATION:

“I have made it clear that the United States has a profound respect for people of all faiths,” said Obama, September 15, 2012. Well, maybe the USA does, but the civilization does not. 99.99% of faiths have been annihilated, as understanding progressed. Who wants yesterday’s papers? Only people in the desert their minds try to inhabit. A desert of knowledge, perspectives, wisdom.

Faith can become not just suicidal, but as murderous as imaginable (hundreds of thousands of Nazis prefered deaths to life in a non Nazi world, the most famous example being Goebbels, who assassinated her 6 children; yes, Nazism was a religion!)

Group selection between tribes has driven evolution. Man is unique, becasuse he killed all species that ressembled him. Fascism is an instinct, that makes the tribe as one. And it’s driven by the activity that fascism provides to pleasure centers, in a mechanism honed by 50 million years.

Eradication of a religion, evolution of a civilization. That one treatment, was used so many times before, it’s how civilizations breathe. Christianism in Europe is arguably more alive today with its best values than in the Middle Ages. But the abject terror exerted by the Crucified during the times of the inquisition, and the Crusades, is now not just gone, but viewed as the highest crime.

It’s not because a particular job was not finished, that it can never be finished. Maybe the Middle East could finally imitate what Europe did. That’s what Ataturk did, in turkey, and also Pahlavi, in Iran (the father of the Pahlavi who became a CIA instrument).

Or, for that matter, Peter the Great in Russia. Peter the Great decided to decapitate the obscurantist, funadmentalist church that blocked his reforms and tried coups. Decapitation being too nice, he tore with pincers, and broke on wheels, some of the haughty men of god, pitching in some effort, as one of the excutioneers. Peter heard their pleas to let them live, even after they were all broken up. Sweet music to Peter’s ears. Funny how men of god, given the occasion to duplicate their Lord’s suffering and ascent, are not that keen… Is it all hogwash, even to them?

A few years later, having modernized Russia extensively, Peter the Great pulverized the Swedish army at the battle of Poltava.  he marched out of the fortified camp and led the crucial part of the combat himself.

If we want to survive the catastrophes we are heading towards imminently, men of such immense courage and determination s Peter the Great, battling in the name of progress, men who are not afraid of yesterday’s faiths will be needed. 

Whether some enjoy murder as they make a fortune that way, be they plutocrats, or theocrats, is irrelevant. The law ought to set society right, by force. Force for the good, is why law exists. law, secular law, ought to apply to theocrats, just as it ought to apply for plutocrats, and other mayhem obsessed sadists. That it does not apply to them too much of the problem nowadays. if larry elison, a californioa plutocrat decideds to save himself a few million of dollars in taxes, he gets away with it. If a local boy steals a pizza slice, he goes to the slammer, for life. And then some are surprised that there is a Greater Depression? Similarly, crazies of god can be seen on TV, threatening to kill people because, well, you read the quotes. Why are they not arrested? Or, at least, fined? Is not threatening to kill someone for no good reason a crime?

Secularism is the default religion. The word “superstition” should be used systematically for those religions which rest on obvious fables.

In the times of weapons of mass destruction, while the biosphere totters on the verge of mass evaporation, from other human activities, God madness ought to be treated more resolutely than madness in dogs. After all, Gods have nukes, dogs don’t.

The preceding ought not to be construed as Islamophobia. There is no fear, no phobia, of Islam, and the main criticism against Islam is made of materials found in the Qur’an. Those who have Islamophobia are those who are afraid to say there are ideas which are not kosher in the Qur’an. And those who are afraid that discussing a book of Islam is racist, as if discussing the dubious fables in the Bible was racist.

Saint Augustine (whom I detest) was aware of some of the critique above, the craziness, the bloodthirstiness in Christianism. Thus Saint Augustine said, wrote for the title of his Book III, Chapter 5 of his City of God: “— It Is A Wretched Slavery Which Takes The Figurative Expressions of Scripture in A Literal Sense. “

Thus, according to Augustine, writing 250 years before the invention of Islam, by some generals and dictators, the hysterical characters we see screaming on TV that they are going to save a prophet and his dog from insult, are living in “A Wretched Slavery”.

In other words, don’t take the sacred texts too seriously. Many Muslim thinkers have followed the same logical drift (but they are less followed, because they are not connected to oil and Wall $treet plutocracy).

The Qur’an was written decades after Muhammad’s death, when written Arabic was not even a complete language (so there is ambiguity about what was exactly meant, all too often). A fanatical war between some in the Prophet’s family and others started just then about whether the Qur’an faithfully respected what Muhammad believed. Aisha, whom Muhammad married at six years of age, and Ali, cousin and son in law, violently disagreed, and went to war. They sort-of-lost. But the hot war is still going on: look at, Syria, Bahrain…

Following the drift of Saint Augustine, many parts of the middle East and Africa “Sufi” variants of Islam were created, precisely to circumvent the fanaticism in the dominant Sunni cult, and the explicit contradictions of Islam with secularism. The Alawites, the Druze, the Assassins, the Ishmaelites, are examples (there are dozens of others). For their own safety most have historically refused to say what they exactly believed in… As the Qur’an has it that unbelievers ought to be killed. This is why one has to be very careful with the situation in Syria. Assad is no doubt terrible, just as there is no doubt much worse waiting in the wings. Just look at what’s in the book they brandish (see above).

The largest Sufi movement comprises the one created in Senegal, somewhat tweaked by the French Republic (after the French secularists and their military realized that those Muslims were precious for their side against racial fascism, the religion embraced by the Prussians). It has now much more than ten million followers, and I approve of it.

So here we are. Some reasonable and influential people, say in Israel, know much of what was written above, for the simple reason that it is the truth. At some point, if Iran persists in the same collision course, Israel will have to try to decapitate the nuclear bomb effort in Iran (as it did in Iraq, the French having had the great idea of embarking in the building a Plutonium reactor there!). It will not be easy, but it is inevitable. And Pakistan is next. That, too, is inevitable. Pakistan actually engaged in a mini war against India recently, while boasting that India would not globalize the conflict as India was afraid of Pakistani nukes (a dumb strategy is there ever was one!)

9/11 was a prick on an elephant, and the elephant got so furious, it gored Iraq, which was, actually… a secularist friend. If and when the tremendous light of man-made thermonuclear fusion is lighted in the name of whom the sacred texts tell us was a mass homicidal pedophile, billions will be enlightened; yes, some religions are not made to share the planet with survival, let alone, progress.

24 centuries ago, the Cynics funded a philosophical movement that assimilated humans to dogs. They would have been amazed by fanatics who claimed to know so much that they spend all the time, killing in the name of god, as if god needed defending, and protecting a long gone analphabetic epileptic (it is known lots of sun has an effect on such people, and that has been traced to genes). Want a better slogan?

There is no dog but dog, and stupidity is its prophet.

This being said dogs, when hungry, and in a pack, are very dangerous. Fighting in Tunisia started after the price of wheat, driven by Goldman Sachs (main instigator), Barclays, JP Morgan and the like, became unaffordable. Such trading, as it is presently done, trades hunger against extreme profits of the few. (There are ways to fix it, starting with lowering leverage and showing the names… As in the past.)

Inside all of us are simple primates who want simple things we need. Around those simple notions we should bind together again: re-ligare. As we can, today, in this age. Such is the wisdom of the ages. Secularism. Secularism: what even baboons understand. Per Omnia Secula Seculorum: for all ages of ages.

I was brought up in the desert, in a sacred city. My first memories are of the local oasis. The beauty of the sparkling stars in the desert as the red dusk sinks in the bluest night still seize my heart. I can never wait to go back.

The important traditions of the desert are deeper, older, and much more respectable than Islam. They do not normalize deviance (to use a NASA concept). Some are congealed into proverbs. Here is a famous one, that rocked my childhood: “Dogs bark, the caravan passes on through.” The crazed men of god are nothing more, and ought to be treated as nothing more, than barking dogs. Except when they bite. Of course. Then they should be disposed off. It seems Obama does this very well. Yet, dogs are not a case where the Dark Side is required. So don’t bomb the children, whatever you do. make no mistake: roasting the children, when there clearly was another way, is what did Carthage in.

***

Patrice Ayme

Derangement Of The Weak

FASCISM, A STRANGE LOVE.

Kissinger, Or Why Fascism Is So Tough, It Survives Holocausts.

***

Abstract: The notorious Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State of Nixon, and Chinese contractor, has always supported notions which happened to have given birth to Nazism. This is counter-intuitive, since Kissinger, an “Untermensch”, had to flee Nazi Germany at the age of 15.

Is he still trying to please his masters? I enquire, and use the occasion to explore how fascism, nihilism and plutocracy interconnect. From the empire of the Rising Sun, to the empire of the Burning Book. So on to the derangements of the week, to see how they connect to those of the past, and those of the weak.

***

It is fascinating that so many who were victimized by Nazism learned nothing important. Or learned that it was important to keep on serving the same masters. Victims tend to reproduce what they know, and they know what they experienced. They become their own executioners. Thus the reproduction of persecution, and the incapacity to understand where the problem comes from. Abuse breeds abuse.

Henri Kissinger stays a work of art that way. I am not alluding here to The Trial of Henry Kissinger, where Christopher Hitchens calls for the prosecution of Kissinger. “For war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture.”

Kissinger just wrote a review of a book on Bismarck. The title of Kissinger’s review says it all: “Otto von Bismarck, Master Statesman“. What Kissinger forgot to mention is that Bismarck, a red haired giant, was, by virtue of his leadership of a legally anti-Jewish state, the master of the Jews. Bismarck also planned wars of annihilation.

 In “Bismarck, A Life”, Steinberg argues that Bismarck fostered a Prussian dominated civilization, enmity, an aggressive Reich, an antagonistic Europe, and eventually a world war. This is the very least that one can assert, and it is nothing that genuine anti-fascists don’t already know.

Fascism is an instinct that does with anything in the way of obeying the leader. That is both its definition, and its reason for being. The leader can be one man, or one idea, or best, an union of both. Fascism is precious in combat, but leads to weak, deranged minds in civil society.

In October 1943, an American task force bombarded Wake Island, which had been conquered by the Japanese army in 1941, and was under Japanese occupation. American civilians and POWs were gathered on a beach, shot, and finished with bayonets. This was done with military precision, under direct order and presence of the top Japanese commander on Wake. The commander, Shigematsu Sakaibara, was promoted to Rear Admiral a year later. Hanged in 1947, as a war criminal, he maintained to the bitter end that: “I think my trial was entirely unfair and the proceeding unfair, and the sentence too harsh, but I obey with pleasure.” In other words, he had learned nothing.

Why so nasty? Why violating so much the laws of the Western warriors? Well, the Japanese had to manage their western weapons in western ways, and learns bits of western science to do so, but, for the rest, they were all Japanese, Bushido style. Killing Americans quickly instead of torturing them to death slowly was a favor.

The first time the Japs had tried to conquer Wake, the US Marines had repelled them. A grave insult. Several Japanese ships were damaged, two destroyers were sunk with all hands, after their ammunition stores ignited, and exploded (in one case from shore battery action, the other from a bomb dropped by one of two remaining Wildcat fighter-bombers). Days after Pearl Harbor, an impressive American victory by a handful of Marines, already predicted an ominous dusk for the Empire of the Rising Sun.

1,200 other POWs from Wake were sent to camps. Some were picked up, brought up to the deck of the ship, and beheaded. Why? They had been associated to the US fliers, who with their four planes, had struck such an incomprehensible blow to the invincible imperial army in its the first attempt to conquer Wake Island.

Of course, as I use the word “Jap”, an historical abbreviation, all what the superficial ones will see is that word, instead of analyzing the facts. Abbreviations may be insulting, but they are not living in the same conceptual space as murder. I have met people who called me “Pat”, just after encountering me for the first (and last) time. Maybe they could not find enough energy to pronounce my full name? In any case, I did not confuse this lack of education with an attempt to murder me. American POWs were murdered at Wake.

In Afghanistan, 20 UN workers were assassinated, in one day because an enraged mob was incensed. Someone burned somewhere far away, they heard, a book of superstition to which they attach greater importance than to life itself. Intellectual fascism at its best: there is no thought, but what is in one book, and stupidity is its prophet. Attaching more importance to a superstition than to life itself is the concept that their masters (Taliban, tribal leaders, local potentates, and the Pakistani intelligence, the ISI) have ordered their underlings to emphasize.

It does come not to their simplistic minds that a god that weak, that the slightest insult makes it welters, ought not to be revered. The fascist mind is not just all one way, it is pretty stupid out of that.

Something similar happened a few years ago, in Benghazi, Libya. A mob got enraged about cartoons depicting abbreviations, or interpretations of Mahomet’s nature. People died. Qaddafi’s troops “re-established” order, by killing more people. Bottom line: believing fanatically allows masters to kill whoever they wanted to kill all along. As the Muslim Brotherhood allies itself to the army in Egypt, expects more of this, on a larger scale, after conducting elections, Iranian style. And Turkey is going down the same road. Hence another interest of the demonstration of pro-democratic Western inspired force in Libya (with cooperation of Qatar and UAE!)

Similarly the war criminals at Wake island who assassinated the innocent civilian contractors believed in superstition too. Bushido was a superstition to which they had been imprinted to attach more importance than to life itself. Especially the life of others. Same idea as in Afghanistan.

A Japanese proverb was impressed onto soldiers when the fascists at the head of the Japanese military were expanding their empire throughout South East Asia:”Life is light as a feather, duty is heavy as a mountain.” Such an idea does not stay just on paper.

Such an idea establishes neurological connections. If you have to do your duty, you can’t escape. However, if you have to give your life, or terminate the lives of others, it’s easy. Life is cheap, fascism is all (as found in a literal interpretation of the Qur’an).

In the West it is the law which embodies duty (on a good day). And the (Roman, republican, secular) law was built around the sanctity of life and property, and equality of all for the law (“isonomy“). The tradition of that state of law, was so ingrained that even the emperor Justinian separated secular law from religious law (sixth century).

Such civilizational wisdom is not pervading Egypt yet. The Grand Pope of Islam in Cairo (OK, it’s called a “Grand Mufti”) issued a proclamation in the New York Times claiming that “There is no contradiction between Article 2 and Article 7 of Egypt’s interim Constitution, which guarantees equal citizenship before the law regardless of religion, race or creed.”

Article 2 of the Egyptian constitution: Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).

Fascism at its best. Sharia does not recognize isonomy. Arabic was the language of some terrorizing religious invaders, who replaced, displaced and eradicated the world’s oldest language, Egyptian, known also as Coptic. More than 45 centuries of history were extinguished by “sand dwellers” (as the real Egyptians called the aggressive nomads of the desert).

It is always eerie to listen to Japanese fighter pilots who escorted kamikaze attacks. Now wrinkled and white haired, they have completely changed from what they used to be. Why? Because they have other values, and those values built them another brain. Neurological readjustment can be very fast perceptually, so we suspect it can be also fast and thorough conceptually. There is evidence for a neurological change ordered from the top at the end of WWII, by the Japanese leadership. First they made them fascist, then they told them they were sheep, and ordered them to bleat.

At the end of the war, the Japanese Navy conducted a suicide mission. The giant battleship Yamato and its escorts were supposed to charge the US Navy armada assaulting Okinawa. However the sailors were told that, should their ship sink, they had to fight for their lives, because they would be more useful alive, to rebuild Japan afterwards. That order was interfering with Bushido, the way of the warrior.

Shockingly, contradicting Bushido made Japanese warriors into despised American surrendering hamburger eating monkeys. This was an important conceptual change, from fighting to death for and against the end of the world, to helping to clean the mess in the kitchen.

Weeks later, the emperor Hirohito ordered a full perceptual and conceptual switch. As he put it in the “Jewel Voice Speech” in which he surrendered Japan: “However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable.”

Learning to endure what used to be endurable, learning to suffer what used to be insufferable. Afterwards the Japanese were nice like lambs. They had been ordered out, yanked out of fascism. They were ordered to get different brains.

Fascism is really a mental mode. And the Germans did it as well as the Japanese, if not better. When the war was already completely lost, the Nazis decided to call onto suicide pilots. The idea was to ram enemy bombers with Me 109s (the standard Nazi fighter). At this late hour, when Germany was in smoldering ruins, there were 2,000 volunteers. On the order of Adolf Hitler, the plan was carried out on April 7, 1945, three weeks before Hitler’s suicide.

Less well known, the Nazis had broken through French fortifications in May 1940, thanks to suicidal charges by explosive carrying engineers. Nazism was a superstition to which they had been imprinted to attach more importance than to life itself.

This willingness to sacrifice the best and the brightest fascists explain that later, both the Germans and the Japanese had run out of competent warriors. In particular they had run out of trained pilots. It would take just a week to form a kamikaze, whereas it takes many years to form a good fighter pilot. The good Japanese fighter pilots were at the bottom of the ocean. The Nazis built 2,000 superlative jet interceptors, the Me 262, but, by 1945, had nobody left to fly them competently.

How does my obsession with fascism connects with the obsession Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, and various minnows of the absurd had for nihilism? Very simple: the strength of fascism is annihilation. Nihilism is what fascism does. Fascism is a mental state where the entire mind has become slave to the will to annihilate. Thus fascism implements nihilism, and is the master state. Condemning nihilism, as Nietzsche did is not enough. So Nietzsche also condemned emotional and logical states that led to nihilism. But they all come from one root, the will, or acceptance, to order one’s mind behind all too few ideas and emotions, which I call intellectual fascism.

How does Henri Kissinger’s somewhat deranged commentary on Bismarck fit in all this? Here is its conclusion:

“I must register two caveats. Steinberg’s hostility toward Bismarck’s personality sometimes causes him to overemphasize personal traits at the expense of his strategic concepts, which were usually quite brilliant. The second caveat concerns the direct line Steinberg draws from Bismarck to Hitler. Bismarck was a rationalist, Hitler a romantic nihilist. Bismarck’s essence was his sense of limits and equilibrium; Hitler’s was the absence of measure and rejection of restraint. The idea of conquering Europe would never have come to Bismarck; it was always part of Hitler’s vision. Hitler could never have pronounced Bismarck’s famous dictum that statesmanship consisted of listening carefully to the footsteps of God through history and walking with him a few steps of the way. Hitler left a vacuum. Bismarck left a state strong enough to overcome two catastrophic defeats as well as a legacy of unassimilable greatness.”

 

Bismarck: A legacy of greatness propelled by bribes and threats. And also propelled by fear and lack of love. Full grown men, such as his doctor, had to hold Bismarck’s hand through the night, so that he could sleep. How strong is that?

Funny, this love of Kissinger for Bismarck, because Kissinger’s Jewish family had to flee anti-Jewish Germany.

There were horribly anti-Jewish laws and practices under Bismarck (who was Chancellor of Germany 28 years). Not just this. Bismarck announced his “colonial” policy: “My African colonies will be in Europe“. So much for not wanting to conquer Europe. In truth, Bismarck’s main effort was to have Prussia conquer Europe (Hitler wanted even more, including redoing the genetics of man, true, but no excuse!)

It is well known that Bismarck fixed extravagant reparations on France, after grabbing two highly industrialized provinces of France. Bismarck’s hope, which he stated explicitly, was that France could not pay, and then the “Deutsches Reich” would have a casus belli to finish her off. (But, thanks in part to her colonies, the French republic was able to pay, to Bismarck’s chagrin.)

Of course, for someone such as Kissinger, France does not count. It is still the hereditary enemy, as it was to Bismarck, Von Molkte, Kaiser Wilhem II, and Hitler. Kissinger knows that those who pay his bills view France as a very bad example to the American people. Thus France ought to be belittled, or ignored at the first occasion, and the one after that. But France was actually the centerpiece of German and Prussian fascists for 140 years. They wanted to crush it, because it embodied democracy, and they wanted fascism, so that they could play in their vast Prussian estates, while keeping in line the Jewish and Polish subhumans out there.

The “Deutsches Reich” was proclaimed in occupied Versailles.

Die Proklamation des Deutschen Kaiserreiches by Anton von Werner (1877) (18 January 1871, Palais de Versailles). At the point of civilization…

Left to right, on the podium (in black): Crown Prince Frederick (later Frederick III), his father Emperor William I, and Frederick I of Baden, proposing a toast to the new emperor.
Center (in white): Otto von Bismarck, first Chancellor of Germany, right of him, in front, Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, Prussian Chief of Staff.

***

Germany was made by Bismarck into a tough plutocratic-military dictatorship. To blunt democratic aspirations, and envy for the French republic, while he took control of dozens of German states, Bismarck made his Reich look superficially like a constitutional monarchy such as Great Britain, Belgium, or Italy. So he installed a national assembly (“Reichstag”). Bismarck (like Hitler later) could take some good decisions were taken, such as universal health care, and universal vote of men for the Reichstag. But it is not because the arsenic cake tastes good that it is any less poisonous.

Bismarck, only an angry lawyer, was fond of military uniforms, as all grandees of the Reich. The militarization of German society, culture, schools, and industry allowed for quick progress of GDP, especially in dual use economic areas (half civilian, half military). However, it created also an all too murderous, exploitative, idiotic mindset. “The Bismarck regime was a constant orgy of scorn and abuse of mankind, collectively and individually”. Nietzsche derided the omnipresent racism.

Bismarck engineered three wars to create the “Deutsches Reich”. Three wars in 8 years. War with Austria, war with France. The “Deutches Reich”, under that name, perished in 1945. Kissinger would have us believe that when Hitler christened his super battleship “Bismarck”, he did not know what he was doing (just as when Hitler proclaimed himself a Catholic, Kissinger would have us believe that Hitler did not know what he was saying. But it is Catholicism which invented murderous anti-Semitism, and did so twice: for the Dark Ages, and during the relapse of the Crusades!)

Which state of “unassimilable greatness” did Bismarck leave? The state Bismarck was Minister-President of, Prussia, disappeared under cannon fire in 1945. the Allies viewed Prussia as so culprit of what happened, that, by common assent, the proverbial “FINAL SOLUTION” WAS APPLIED TO PRUSSIA. In the old capital of Prussia, one now speaks Russian. In most of historical Prussia, the language is now Polish. So much for Kissinger’s vision of power. Bismarck brought a legacy of eradicable mediocrity.

Inappropriately, Kissinger evokes Bismarck’s sense of limits and equilibrium, but the chancellor of blood and iron disagreed. “For things to remain the same, everything must change”. Bismarck opined after 1890, after he had been fired by Wilhem II, that the “Deutsches Reich” he had created with such demonic purpose, was a monster.

So why does Kissinger refuse to mention all and any of this? Because in 1954, he wrote a PhD on Metternich, at Harvard. Kissinger became close to the Rockefellers and other plutocrats, from the Shah to Allah knows what. His job, his mission for which he was rewarded, was to convey a misleading view of history. A misleading view in which yesterday’s pillars of the old order were esteemed, so that those to come, descending from the preceding ones, could be too. Associating the old racism to the old order would have been self defeating: Kissinger’s own masters would be put under a cloud.

Thus it was important to lie about the tremendous legal anti-Judaism in Central Europe. Because, if it had been revealed, the next question would have been why did Jews of tremendous influence such as the Rothschilds had put up with it?

Well, the explanation is that plutocracy was more important to the Rothschilds than basic empathy (even for fellow Jews). similarly, those who pull the strings of Muslim fundamentalist rage believe that their own power, their own plutocracy, is more important than thousands of people dying, here and there, now and then.

Thus, for Kissinger, the notion that Hitler was not taught Nazism and racism by the established order is important. Otherwise one would suspect an established order there, and then, and maybe We The People become uncomfortably suspicious of the established order, now and here.

Relating Hitler to Bismarck would reveal that Hitler was not an accident, but part and product of a system. A plutocratic system. Thus, as far as Kissinger is concerned, it is better to just accuse mad dog Hitler, to have invented all that evil all by himself. Hitler is thus transformed from revelation to scapegoat. Thus it can denied that Hitler had been instrumentalized by the powers that Kissinger served. And he still serves them, so he is still at it. Hence his logically and factually weak analysis.

Kissinger inverted all values, and became the model for “Doctor Strangelove” in the famous Kubrick movie with the eponymous title, where the adviser of the president of the USA, uncontrollably programmed as a Nazi, pushes for thermonuclear war, as much as he can. Kissinger embraced fascism, so he still embraces Bismarck. It seems that, for Kissinger, Auschwitz is a detail, and fascism’s strategic concepts, which [are] usually quite brilliant.

The philosopher Hannah Arendt did not make friends by suggesting that Hitler became all he could be, thanks, in part, to the cooperation of all too many Jews. Those Jews were weak. They had been trained, like most Germans, to be weak in their spirits and minds. They were strong as a herd, because they were individually weak. And deranged.

Plutocracy’s Achilles heel: plutocracy can only be served by the weak, and is made of the weak. It is made of the weak, because it is a form of fascism, and fascism is for the weak. It is also made of the weak, and is served by the weak, because the truly strong fights it, be it only just because it looms over there. The true path of the ultimate warrior finds the highest mountain. And that mountain is plutocracy, and fascism itself.

Patrice Ayme

Changing Iran For the Best.

 

THROWING OUT IRAN’S REIGNING FASCIST THOUGHT SYSTEM.

***

Protesters in Iran have started to ask for a "Republic Of Iran" instead of an "Islamist Republic of Iran". Excellent.

The Shah of Iran was made into a dictator (instead of the constitutional monarch he initially was) by the CIA and the Shiites the CIA supported, financed, and excited. So, in a way, those Shiites being initially the arm of the CIA, can be suspected of being American agents in a contrived, extremely Machiavellian way.

Before I get accused to be delirious, notice that, in a long winded sort of way, the Islamist revolution in Iran allowed the West to incite (some will say manipulate) Iraq into attacking Iran (with the help of the West), later on facilitating the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has much greater reserves of oil than Iran. Those who do not believe in "conspiracies theories" can check "Iran Contra", when Reagan secretly armed the Shiites dictators of Iran, to fight Iraq that he was arming simultaneously, in the extremely deadly Iran-Iraq war (one million dead). Profits know no bounds.

All these oily manipulations would break down if, at last, Iran would become a genuine democracy. The time has come, all the more since oil is on its way out.

Secularism is the religion of the age ("age", as a period of 120 years, is what "seculum" means in Latin). Secularism means that one lives in one’s age, and not in one’s past.

Secularism can tolerate one superstition, or many superstitions, but just that way: as tolerance. Toleration and tolerance come from the Latin tolerationem (nom. toleratio) "a bearing, supporting, enduring".

Secularism has never been more important: the world has never been changing so fast. The sea level rise has augmented by 50% in the last three years, as the ice shields in Antarctica and Greenland are finally giving way. What has Allah or Jehovah, Molloch, Belzebuth, or Huitzilopochtli, to do with it? Nothing.

The disaster visiting the Earth is all the making of man, or more exactly of a few particular nations, chief of them, the USA. So, instead of evoking the non existent Allah, evoke the all too existing United States of America, and what ought to be their obligations.

What we have in Iran, instead of the reign of reason and what can be done today, is a superstition masquerading as a republic. But the public ought to be free to think about whatever, in whichever way, and conduct its life accordingly, after democratic debate. Whereas the superstition, or, more exactly the oligarchy promoting it, orders the People to believe in its arbitrary credo.

Moreover, that castle in the air of a self serving credo is so incredibly primitive, so tribal, so sectarian, so obscurantist, so sexist and so anti-intellectual that it makes the European Middle Ages seem more enlightened in all too many ways. Thus, there can be no compromise between secularism and the superstition.

In particular, the Qur’an contains some horribly fascist orders, upon which the principle of Ali Khamenei’s dictatorship in the name of Allah, rests.

Indeed, Allah, according to the Qur’an, wants us to obey whoever detains power: "O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER." (Quran’s fascist principle, Sura 4; v. 59).

"YOU" meaning, YOU, the Muslims. The Qur’an makes clear that, although anybody, after the appropriate incantations and a few meek rituals, can proclaim himself or herself to be a Muslim, renouncing Islam afterwards is then subject to the death penalty. But, then, it is up to others to decide whether you are indeed a Muslim, or not. Thus Islam is the ideal mechanism for a dictatorship to eliminate physically its opponents. It is a "great religion" that way.

This superstitious mechanism to eliminate opponents was not invented by Muslim dictators at all, but by those who inspired them, the Roman "Catholic Orthodox" imperial dictators in Constantinople (and later Rome). An atrocious, bottomless Christian dictatorship had firmly established its grip on the Roman empire for more than three centuries, when it inspired the Muslim would-be dictators in the desert. The Christian dictatorship had caused many holocausts, and weakened the empire so much that it got into a very nasty war with Sassanid Persia, in part about Roman intellectuals and their books, who Persia succeeded to protect to enough of an extent to save a lot of the mental work of Greco-Roman antiquity.

OK, back to the present situation in Persia, which is inverted relative to the Sixth century: it’s now the West that protects the intellectuals and their works, and the theocratic dictatorship in Persia which is at fault.

Application of the Qur’an Sura 4, verse 59: Ahmadinejad has power, he is a Muslim, so he has to be obeyed. Khamenei has power, he is a Muslim, so he has to be obeyed. By that token, were Barack Obama a Muslim, since he is in power, he would have to be obeyed indefinitively, if he reigned over Muslims. That’s how Islam fabricates dictators, from Saddam Hussein, to Ibn Saud, to Hosni Mubbarack.

And that will keep on happening, as long as the Qur’an has a grip on the Iranian public. Or the Egyptian public. Or any Muslim public (this does not mean that any place which has a majority of Muslims will be a dictatorship, but that so it will be, if the Qur’an is the Constitution, which is the case in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but not in Kazakhstan or Indonesia.)

Once the Qur’an has been kicked out of the Iranian Constitution, or on its way out, France, and, or, the USA, or, better, both together, should formally guarantee the secular Iranian republic its security, with a formal defense treaty, including the nuclear weapons umbrella.

***

Patrice Ayme

http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/

***

Annex 1: Why not to guarantee Iran with other nuclear powers? Well, Russia and Britain have a history of imperial interference in Iran, and the Iranians will probably reject their mediation with horror. (The USA too, interfered in Iran, but to a lesser extent; in 1953, the CIA messed up, organizing the professional Quranists against the secular democracy, true, but it was a lot in the name of British and American oil companies, which had decided they owned Iran as a major profit source. Those devils are less powerful nowadays, and resented in the West too.) I will not bother mentioning China as a guarantor power, since it has no history of being able to do that, and its behavior in Africa leaves a lot to be desired.

France, though, has more than a millennium of experience in going to war to guarantee other powers’ existence. The last most significant case being 1939, when France went to war against Hitler, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and American plutocrats, to guarantee Poland’s existence. France (and Britain) also unilaterally and voluntarily guaranteed Bosnia, going to war against Serbia, in the name of human rights, and against fascism. (Clinton’s USA followed later, driving the final nail into Serbian fascism.)

 

Annex 2: Apostasy in the Qur’an. It is condemned, and is to be punished in the next world mostly. But, because of Sura such as 5, verse 33, Muslim scholars made it a capital crime in the Hadith, an ensemble of texts illuminating the Qur’an by providing a supposed context to it, and which was passed orally for more than a century after Muhammad’s death. It is all a question of the mood imparted by robust, not to say severely abominable, verses in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an in Sura 5:33 says:

5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004).

Poor little Muslim God, so weak, frail, that it needs to be defended with the strongest atrocities…

In any case, it is important to realize that this verse defines a legal context: Muhammad is laying down the law of the land. Enough said. I won’t get in the story of the old woman who was split in two, alive and screaming, by camels, just because she belonged to the wrong tribe… (Tabari.) The just diseased Grand Ayatollah Montazeri tried to make all kinds of reasoning and excuses about why Islam required death for quitting the faith, historically speaking… Montazeri claimed that apostasy was only punishable under restricted circumstances, but these minority opinions have not found acceptance among the majority of Islamic scholars. Khomeiny condemned people to death when he viewed them as having left Islam.

KORAN’S SEXISM EXHIBITED, NATO DECRIED.

THE QUR’AN IS OUTRAGEOUSLY SEXIST.
ITS INCOMPATIBILITY WITH WESTERN CIVILIZATION RUNS DEEP.

***

I extracted ALL the significant sentences in the Qur’an having to do with women, and put them below. When philosophy goes to war, it can be as simple as pointing to the naked truth. But old remnants tremble and shatter.

***

Warning: Extracting from the Qur’an all verses relative to women was widely viewed by some simple minds, apparently replacing mental activity by pseudo political correctness, or simple cowardice, as “moronic”, “racist” and “neofascist”.

It’s of course none of the sort. Quite the opposite. Publishing parts of a religious text is neither racist, nor stupid, nor neofascist. Various dictators have been trying to hide behind religion at the United Nations, true, by equating secularism with racism. But civilization should not surrender to them.

***

OLD RELIGIONS, OLD AND OUTRAGEOUS SEXISM: IS THIS WHAT NATO IS FIGHTING FOR?

In previous versions of this essay, the Qur’an was quoted directly, right at the start of the essay. An argument was then made, though, that I did not refer to the Bible and Hinduism while I mentioned the Qur’an, and that I thus exhibited this way my fanatical pro-Bible, pro-Eight Sacred texts of Hinduism disposition. So let me correct that by being very clear.

Both the Bible and old time Hinduism are sexist, true. The Bible being, moreover, a direct source for the Qur’an (see below). Hinduism was much more murderous than the Qur’an against women, no comparison (widows would be burned alive, sometimes, as in the Old Scandinavian religion).

OK, now that these greetings are out of the way, and before quoting the Qur’an’s abusive disposition against women, let me get to the crux of the matter as far as the point of it all, another bone of contention, some having accused me of ‘Historicism’, being obsessed by old texts, out of context.

Neither the Bible nor Hinduism are the law anywhere nowadays. Instead the Qur’an is officially the law in many so called “Muslim” countries. NATO supports many of them.

In particular, soldiers from secular NATO are supposed to fight in Afghanistan, to defend Afghan law against insurgents. But Afghan law’s core is the Qur’an. Thus secular countries are supposed to die in the name of the Qur’an.

But I present a thorough and handy demonstration that those who apply the Qur’an to the letter are in drastic violation with Human Rights as defined by the Charter of the United Nations.

Differently from Nazi law, or the Shariah, the Charter of the United Nations imposes at the outset the fundamental doctrine of Western Civilization, namely equality of all to the law. It’s fundamental to Athenian law, and Roman law, and the doctrine of the State Of Law made explicit by a Roman empress, 16 centuries ago.

Using NATO troops to support Islamist regimes, like the one in Afghanistan, is an intrinsic contradiction, and actually in violation of international law. This drastic observation ought to have major consequences on the present Western strategy, which is therefore not just illegal, but unwise, besides being inhuman.

(I use occasionally the older word “Koran” instead of the apparently more correct “Qur’an”, to the benefit of older readers; Only a few technical administrative verses about details on how to manage those pesky women have been omitted.)

***

 

THE QUR’AN SAYS THAT RAPING WOMEN IS RIGHT BECAUSE THEY ARE PASSIVE “FIELDS IN WHICH TO PLOW”:
After general salutations in Surah 1, and the introduction of Allah, and His “Messenger”, Muhammad, the Qur’an starts for real with Surah 2, by far the longest in the Qur’an. It is called “The Cow”. The Cow has five verses on women. Two are innocuous, three are abusive.

“It’s OK to have sex with your wives on the night of the fast.” [Surah 2; verse 187]. “Menstruation is a sickness. Don’t have sex with menstruating women.” [S. 2; v. 222]. “WOMEN ARE YOUR FIELDS SO GO THEN INTO YOUR FIELDS AS YOU WANT. [S.2: v. 223]. “Women have rights that are similar to men, but men have a status above them.” 2:228. “A woman is worth one-half a man.” 2:282.

Thus it can be perceived, as soon as The Cow, early in the Koran, that once a woman is in the possession of a man (it could be a wife, or a “slave girl”, a concept ubiquitous in the Qur’an, not just in Southern American plantations of the eighteen century), she has no right in refusing sex.

The Afghan law article 132 just states this fact. But Obama finds this article 132 “abhorrent” . Thus it would seem that Obama, although “not at war with Islam”, finds it “abhorrent”. In other words, apparently without being conscious of it, Obama is self contradicting. That is the exact Achilles’ heel of NATO’s Afghan and Pakistan strategy. It has been fighting the wrong enemy, and has allied itself with the wrong friend, who, verily not a friend, but the West’s enemy of old.
***

QUR’AN: WOMEN ARE SEX WIDGETS:
“Marry the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four.” 4:3.

“And if ye wish to exchange one wife for another and ye have given unto one of them a sum of money (however great), take nothing from it. Would you take it by the way of calumny and open wrong ?” [4:20.]

(Nothing wrong with exchanging wives, something wrong about adding “open wrong”.)

“All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” [4:24.]

(You can’t have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war, with whom you may rape or do whatever you like.)

And those who are not able to afford to marry free , believing women, let them marry from their believing slaves…  [4; 25.]

“And leave the wives your Lord created for you ?” [S. 26; v. 166]

(Women were created by Allah for the enjoyment of men.)

***

QUR’AN: DON’T FORGET TO PUNISH WOMEN:
Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15.

You may not forcibly inherit women, unless they are flagrantly lewd. 4:19. “All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess (slaves).” 4.24.

…”And if when they are honorably married they commit lewdness they shall incur the half of the punishment (prescribed) for free women (in that case). This is for those among you who fear to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” [4; 25.]

MEN ARE IN CHARGE OF WOMEN, BECAUSE ALLAH MADE MEN TO BE BETTER THAN WOMEN. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and BEAT THEM UP. [4:34].

Men are guardians over women because Allah has made some of them excel others, and because men spend on them of their wealth. So virtuous women are obedient… [4: 35].

Lot offers his daughters to a MOB of ANGEL RAPERS. 11:78. (This is actually Genesis [19; 7-8], one of the many extract of the Qur’an, cut and paste from the Bible.)

When the doom of Allah comes, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, nursing mothers with forget their babies. 22:1-2.

The wives of Muhammad will be punished double for lewdness. (And that is easy for Allah.) 33:30. The wives of Muhammad are not like other women. They must not leave their houses. 33:32-33.

Those who “did wrong” will go to hell, and their wives will go to HELL with them (no matter how well the wives behaved). [37:22-23]

The wives of Noah and Lot (who were both righteous) betrayed their husbands and are now in the FIRE. [66:10.]

Muhammad’s wives need to be careful. If they criticize their husband, Allah will replace them with better ones. 66:5.    
***

QUR’AN: WOMEN ARE PLAIN DISGUSTING:
Don’t pray if you are drunk, dirty, or have touched a woman lately. 4:43. When it’s time to pray and you have just used the toilet or touched a woman, be sure to wash up. If you can’t find any water, just rub some dirt on yourself. 5:6.

“The GUILE OF YOU WOMEN… IS VERY GREAT.” 12:28.
Those who disbelieve in the afterlife give female names to angels. 53:27.

YOUR WIVES AND CHILDREN ARE YOUR ENEMIES. They are to you only a temptation. 64:14-15 [That idea comes straight from Jesus, a prophet of Islam. A relative of Muhammad was a professional Christian, and told Muhammad was he saw in the desert.]  
***

QUR’AN: the WOMEN, and the children ARE FEEBLE MINDED AND ARE UNABLE TO DEVISE A PLAN. [Surah 4; verse 98].

***

QUR’AN: STEAL WOMEN:
There is no blame on you if you divorce women when you have not… appointed for them a portion, and make provision for them… (this is) a duty on the doers of good (to others).[2.236]. Males are to inherit TWICE AS MUCH as females. 4:11. “Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females.” 4:176.
***

QUR’AN: SEXISM IS GOOD:
A man cannot treat his wives fairly. [4:129].

MEN AND WOMEN ARE ENEMIES! [Surah 7: verse 24].

If you value your parents, wives, and children more than Allah and Muhammad, then just wait and see what Allah will do to you after you die. [9; 24.]

If you accuse an honorable women of adultery, be sure to bring four witness. Otherwise you will receive 80 lashes. 24:4. A husband can accuse his wife of adultery with only one witness. 24:6 .
You don’t have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls “that your right hand possess.” 23:6.

Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves. 24:31.

(That was the verse believed to justify Hijab.)

Prophet, enjoin your wives, your daughters and the wives of true believers to draw their veils close around them. 33:59.
*** 

MUHAMMAD HANKY PANKY:
Allah gave Zeyd to Muhammad in marriage. This was so that all Muslims would know that it’s OK to marry your adopted son’s ex-wife. 33:37.

Allah says it is lawful for Muhammad to marry any women he wants. 33:50-51.

When Allah or Muhammad decide that a man and a woman should marry, they must marry. 33:36.

If men must speak to Muhammad’s wives they must speak from behind a curtain. And no one must ever marry one of his wives. 33:53.
But it’s OK for Muhammad’s wives to talk with certain people. 33:55 If Muhammad’s wives are good, Allah will give them “an immense reward.”

33:28-29. O Prophet! Why bannest Thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives?”
Allah says it’s OK for Muhammad to have sex with any of his wives whenever he wants. 66:1. (Article 132 of Afghan law again!)

Muhammad’s wives need to be careful. If they criticize their husband, Allah will replace them with better ones. 66:5  
***

APPRECIATION FOR HUMAN FEMALES:
Virgins await those who enter paradise. 4:57.
But the single-minded slaves of Allah will enjoy a Garden filled with lovely-eyed virgins. 37:40-48
Female companions await those who enter the Gardens of Eden on the Day of Reckoning. 38:52 
Allah will reward faithful Muslims after they die with “fair ones with wide, lovely eyes.” 44.54

Allah will give those in the Garden women of modest gaze whom neither man nor jinn have touched. [56. 17-23.] (Jinn = Evil spirits, or genies, created from fire.)

Allah will reward believing men with “fair ones” (beautiful women) in heaven, “close guarded in pavilions”. [55:71 & 72.] (Lest they escape?) Allah made virgins to be lovers and friends to those on his right hand. [s. 56; 36 & 37.]

The preceding appreciation for women, in conjunction with other verses calling for killing unbelievers, to go to paradise, entice young men to die for Allah.
***

NOT TO SAY MUHAMMAD WAS NOT A COURAGEOUS PROGRESSIST:
The parts of the Arabian desert that neither the Greco-Romans nor the Christians or Jews had penetrated yet were savage and cruel. Muhammad fought a lot of that successfully. For example, it was traditional to bury alive infant girls. The Qur’an condemns this:
“And when the one buried alive it is asked for what sin she was killed,” (81:8-9).

In truth, the Qur’an as we know it was ordered by Uthman, the third successor of Muhammad, the greatest emperor of his time. This was extremely opposed at the time: a coup developed against Uthman, and he was assassinated, or executed for it. The situation degenerated into a civil war that last to this day. So Obama’s statement that:” “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country,” on the face of it, means nothing.

The literal interpretation of the Qur’an was long unlawful, centuries ago. In modern times, it was pushed by oil wealth and the Saudis, long with the full approval of the CIA, which was delighted to have an issue to divide everybody (Pushing Quranism was especially useful to fight, France, Britain or the USSR, or divide South Asia).

There are excellent reasons to believe that Muhammad would have been seriously irate about the Qur’an we have presently. There are plenty of aspects of His personality in the Hadith, which, concurrently with known fact of His life (“Sunna”), depict Him as very advanced, especially about the condition of women.

That puts the rest of the Qur’an under suspicion.  Aisha, Muhammad beloved child-bride went to war about the sexism in the Qur’an. As she said: “It is not good that you people have made us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys.” [Hadith, Volume 1, Book 9, Number 498.]
***

THE UN CHARTER CONTRADICTS THE QUR’AN:

The United Nations Charter, is an overgrowth of the “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. The Quranic instructions above, which, once again are ALL instructions in the Koran relative to women, form a clear picture of complete violation of all the first seven articles of the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations.

“Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
***

THUS, THE QUR’AN IS AN ANTI WESTERN CIVILIZATION RECIPE BOOK:
The Qur’an explicitly contradicts the STATE OF LAW. The State of Law has been central to Western civilization for more than two millennia.

That principle is that all adults, even the monarch (if any) are equivalent in the eyes of the law. It is central to the present civilization (See Galla Placidia, Roman empress, in the conclusion).

On the contrary, the fascist principle, the Fuehrerprinzip, is verse 59 of Surah 4 of the Qur’an (and that maybe where Hitler found it). It says that the leader should be viewed as God, as long as he is a Muslim. Hitler modified that in: “The leader ist Gott, as long as he is a German.”

Now true, from Justinian to Hitler, including Henry VIII and countless others, including G.W. Bush, the principle of the State Of Law was violated by many. But Bush may still be brought to justice by the independent judicial system of the USA.

The preceding should put to rest the issue of violation of the rights of women by the Qur’an. 

The Qur’an does not treat married women equally, and expect women in general to often be “slave girls”, or “those that your right hand possess”. A woman captured in war, even if married, is totally owned and has no human rights whatsoever. Women should be covered, beaten and confined, as soon as found morally short. In which case one can seize their property. Sometimes women are only allowed to speak behind a ‘curtain”, and are forbidden to leave the house. Why not? Women are “enemies”, it’s that simple. Why should enemies go school? When Obama says he loves Islam, shortly after saying that he wants girls to go to school, he is obviously contradicting himself.

Now, true, not all Muslims follow the Qur’an literally. Many of the outlying areas (Senegal, Indonesia) long had their own interpretations that used to avoid a literal interpretation of the Qur’an. These much more modern and compatible interpretations should be the only allies the West can trust.

Unfortunately, oil money and its clout, plus CIA pro-religious extremist machinations, have increasingly brought a renaissance of the literal interpretation of the Qur’an. The bombing campaign of the USA, all the way to Pakistan, can only make the situation worse.

People should not be bombed. What needs to be bombed is many ideas in the sexist and fascist Koran that Uthman contrived, obviously contradicting Muhammad, at least as far as the treatment of women is concerned.
***

Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.com/

***

Remarks: 1) Publishing the preceding on various sites I have (DK, ET, CD), I got lots of hate mail, and insults. I found this interesting, because those critics called my quotes above hateful, hating me for them, although, since I was just quoting the Qur’an, what they are truly hating, unbeknownst to them, is not me, but the Qur’an itself.

…The way of the hate monger is long, difficult, and full of traps.

2) Some people asked, in their naivety: what is the point of exhibiting all that sexism? Well, it’s part of an immense reasoning the subtlety of which escapes those who decided the strategy of the USA in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Some, of course, ask: what is the point of exhibiting the tortures, the crimes, even the holocausts?

What was demonstrated here, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that the Qur’an, as it exists, is extremely sexist. This does not say other religions are not sexist. Some are. Judeo-Christo-Islamism is  not the worst. And, Christianism and Islam, are variants of  sexist Judaism. The Bible is full of outrageous sexism, and some sexism in the Qur’an is straight from the Bible.

3) Some argue that of these things one should never talk. According to this emotional logic, if something is inconvenient, it should not be mentioned. This was tried before: one did not want to mention the massacre of the Jews, that was too politically incorrect, so one ended with Auschwitz.

4) An objection from the Internet:

“When Patrice said: “Now, true, not all Muslims follow the Qur’an”, it showed her ignorance in a major and extremely surprising way. The simple fact is that one cannot be Muslim and not follow the Qur’an – all of it. To suggest that “not all Muslims follow the Qur’an” is completely off the mark. This is truly one of those “either/or” situations: You either believe in the revelations of the Qur’an and follow what it says, or you’re not a Muslim. Period.”

Patrice’s amused answer to this: Sometimes, “extreme surprise” is a major warning, not just a simple fact. Ignorance can masquerade as knowledge.

Your culture is smaller than you think. Check for example Senegal and the Mourides… Among many others… It’s not because you are ignorant that others are too. Oh, check the Druses, too, Hashashins (“Everything is false” as ultimate meta principle) and many Salafists. Right from the start, the Qur’an was not believed by many people who viewed themselves as Muslim, especially the closest family members of Muhammad. Far from feeling the Qur’an was everything, some looked at it as trash. Sexist trash, said Aischa.

Hence the ongoing Muslim civil war, as I said above. Many naive Americans think Wahhabism is everything, because oil is everything. But Wahhabism is not everything, because oil is not everything.

5) Much of the Qur’an comes from the Bible. The idea that woman is worth half a man is there. Oops, not quite:

Leviticus 27:1-7 … “The Lord set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel, and if it is a female, set her value at thirty shekels.”

6) GALLA PLACIDIA & THE STATE OF LAW: On 11 June 429 CE, Roman empress Galla Placidia had a law passed, with the following remarkable passage: “it’s an admission worthy of the majesty of a prince to confess when obliged by the law: because Our authority results from that of justice. A prince who submits his dignity to the laws is more respectable from this than from his power. By the present edict We deprive others of what We forbid to ourselves.”

That law was incorporated in the refurbishment of Roman law under emperor Justinian, a century later.

Now of course, the Muslims never had an empress (there was a sultaness once, in Egypt, among the Mameluks confronting Saint Louis; it did not last long.) How could the Muslims have an empress? What, with a half wit? A creature worth half a man? Something in which to plow? A fortiori not an empress extending the theory of the secular state. Compare the nobility of the preceding passage to the grossness of the Qur’an fascist principle: “O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Quran’s fascist principle, S.4; v. 59).

Nor was Galla Placidia alone. She was not the only “Augusta”. When the Franks established their empire in the north west quadrant of the ex Roman empire, they had around 7 reigning queens in 150 years. One of those queens was Bathilde. She had been captured as a slave in England, and, once reigning queen, abrogated slavery. That was at the exact time that Uthman ordered the writing of his pro-slavery document, the Qur’an. 

7) As soon as one mentions the Qur’an, in a way that is not thoroughly respectful and apologetic, the Politically Correct and Intrinsically Stupid generally screams that it is racist and xenophobic, and, in the USA they often deduce one is pro-Bible. 

The problem with holding onto such hysteria, is that the Qur’an is pretty much a desert version of the Bible light. A demonstration of this is that one finds some of the preceding outrages in the Bible first. The Bible was written, in Babylon, 11 centuries before the Qur’an.

Here it is:

Deuteronomy 22:20-1: If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

Leviticus 20-9: If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

Exodus 35:2:  For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

***

GOD: SLAY BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE.

 

A LITTLE BIT OF DECONSTRUCTION OF QUR’AN’S SURA NUMBER NINE.

Abstract; Islamists love to claim that Islam is a religion of peace and harmony.  We investigate, concentrating on just one of the chapter, a Sura, of the Qur’an. Just one. Sorry about the cruelty. We find what seem to be calls to murder for subjective reasons, anti-Judaism, anti-Christianism (both with thievery or murder in mind), and a few other problems besides. No wonder that interpreting the Qur’an “literally” was considered to be a grievous crime in thirteenth century Muslim Egypt.

***

Ten Muslim fundamentalist terrorists from Pakistan hijacked a boat, assassinated half a dozen crew, and landed in Mumbai, killing about 200, including 40 Muslims, and quite a few Jews (having raided specially a Jewish center). It was reported that some of those terrorists were children.

Why did this happen? Why does this keep happening? Because Pakistan is a religious fundamentalist state. Whereas in a democracy like India being elected to office is independent of religion, not so in Pakistan. The Pakistani Constitution gives many privileges to Islam, and only to Islam (top officials have to be Muslims, “insulting” Islam is subject to the worst penalties, including death, etc.).

Whereas India is a democracy, a meritocracy that rewards excellence, Pakistan is a theocracy that rewards Quranism. In India, intelligence, being rewarded, grows. In Pakistan Quranism grows. So India lands on the moon (an old superstition from Mecca), and Muslim terrorists land in Mumbai.

What is Quranism? Well, in one sentence, Quranism is what went wrong with Islam. The Qur’an was NOT the work of Muhammad (a little known fact!).

The Qur’an was written under the order of the dictator Uthman, self proclaimed successor (Caliph) of the Prophet. Other versions of Muhammad’s ideas were ordered destroyed by the dictator. The Qur’an was so controversial at the time that it provoked a massive rebellion, and caused directly Uthman’s demise. After an argument from a roof top, stones flying, Uthman was given the lethal blows, while he made a show of reading his Qur’an. This was followed by several entangled wars, in which members of Muhammad’s family led armies fighting the followers of Uthman’s Qur’an.

The accusations against Uthman’s Qur’an resonate to this day. For example Aisha, Muhammad’s child bride, accused the Qur’an of extreme sexism, and insisted Muhammad was in no way sexist [and indeed, there is plenty of evidence that Muhammad was extremely modern in his behavior regarding gender, to the point of equalitarianism].

Muslim fundamentalists denounce cartoons because they have a problem distinguishing fiction and reality. When one reveres a book that orders ultimate violence against other people for not believing we don’t know what it is, that goes with the territory. The Qur’an is one of the most violent books ever written. Here are a few extracts of the first eleven consecutive lines of Sura 9, forming its first eight verses:

“[9:1] An ultimatum is herein issued from God and His messenger to the idol worshipers … know that you cannot escape from God, and that God humiliates the disbelievers.

[9:3] … God and His apostle are under no obligation to the idolaters…Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers…

[9:5] When the sacred months are over SLAY the infidels WHEREVER you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in AMBUSH EVERYWHERE in every way for them … the idolaters are ignorant men.

[9:7] God and His apostle repose no trust in infidels…

[9:8] How can you trust them? If they prevail against you they will respect neither agreements nor ties of kindred. They flatter you with their tongues, but their hearts reject you. Most of them are evil doers.”

Not bad, in a grand total of eleven lines. God has spoken. Very mercifully: we are warned. Have Mercy on us…

The entire Qur’an is like that [see P/S for more deconstruction of Sura number nine]. Other fundamental sacred Muslim texts agree and support this violence, and the threat it represents. As a murder ideology, the Qur’an is second to none. Now remember that just one bad sentence is enough to condemn an entire moral system. One word is enough. And one word is the worst: “SLAY”. (And moreover, slay for subjective reasons, although the Qur’an gives some groupthink, ethnic and religious criterions of a priori disbelief; see P/S.) When kids infused with that ideology of hatred, waded ashore with heavy weapons in Mumbai, they slayed wherever they found, as Verse Five above orders. Serving God is hard, but someone has to do it: and it will go on, as long as “God” is allowed to pontificate with murder.

Pontificating with murder is what the Qur’an does. It will go on until potential victims have had enough to live with the threat.
***

Patrice Ayme
***

P/S 1: Aisha was married to Muhammad around age 6, and the marriage was “consumed” when she was about 9. But she loved him sincerely. Muhammad brushed off very specific accusations of infidelity against her. Long after Muhammad’s death, Aisha fought followers of Uthman’s Qur’an, greatly because she felt the Qur’an was horrendous for women. She led an army in the “Battle of the Camel”, when she occupied a prominent height, mounted on such a beast, in full view of all the participants. Unfortunately, she lost. Although her eloquence against the Qur’an survives to this day (“Who are you to tell us what Muhammad thought, you who never lived with him?” etc.). Aisha’s war goes on, and we are going to win it for her.

 

P/S 2: A FEW MORE REVEALING EXTRACTS FROM QURAN’S SURA NINE:

More on unbelievers, still [only!] from Sura Nine:
“[9:14] You shall fight them, for God will punish them at your hands, humiliate them, grant you victory over them, and cool the chests of the believers.”

Ransom unbelievers violently:
“[9:27] Ultimately, God redeems whomever He wills. God is Forgiver, Most Merciful. [9:28] O you who believe, the idol worshipers are polluted… God is Omniscient, Most Wise. [9:29] You shall fight back against those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what God and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth – among those who received the scripture – until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.”

The following makes it clear that Jews and Christians are unbelievers:
“[9:30] The Jews said, “Ezra is the son of God,” while the Christians said, “Jesus is the son of God!” These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. Allah’s curse be on them. They have surely deviated.”

FIRE OF HELL FOREVER:
“[9:63] Did they not know that anyone who opposes God and His messenger has incurred the fire of Hell forever? This is the worst humiliation.”

MOCK GOD, DESERVE THE FIRE OF HELL; If nothing else, those who mock are like the Hypocrites:
“[9:64] The hypocrites worry that a Sura may be revealed exposing what is inside their hearts. Say, “Go ahead and mock. God will expose exactly what you are afraid of.” [9:65] If you ask them, they would say, “We were only mocking and kidding.” Say, “Do you realize that you are mocking God, and His revelations, and His messenger?” [9:66] Do not apologize. You have disbelieved after having believed. If we pardon some of you, we will punish others among you, as a consequence of their wickedness. [9:67] The hypocrite men and the hypocrite women belong with each other – they advocate evil and prohibit righteousness, and they are stingy. They forgot God, so He forgot them. The hypocrites are truly wicked. [9:68] God promises the hypocrite men and the hypocrite women, as well as the disbelievers, the fire of Hell, wherein they abide forever. It suffices them. God has condemned them; they have incurred an everlasting retribution.”

[It is on this sort of text that the hysteria against the cartoonists rest; they deserve the "fire of hell", indeed, and one can understand that true believers have to show that get them all heated up! Uthman, as a fascist dictator, wanted to be feared, and there is nothing fear fears more than fearless mockery. Thus the insistence that mockery deserves burning alive, a style of execution Caliph Ali was partial to.]

 

P/S 3: We did not address the long arm of US secret services and US policies in all this. But they should always be kept in mind. US policy makers resurrected the literal interpretation of the Qur’an from oblivion, in a crafty maneuver to create strife among Muslims, starting in 1945. Quranism, a throw back into a form of primitivism so primitive it ignored many of the advances of Greco-Roman Antiquity, was a perfect weapon against modernity. Modernity is associated to socialism, hence redistribution of riches in the Middle East, hence so much less for American plutocrats, who pulled the strings in Washington. This is a somewhat different subject, but it is fully relevant (because Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence, long propped up by the USA, is behind lots of Muslim Fundamentalism in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not only the plutocrats have their own interests, but those who are actively pulling the strings, the intelligence services, develop their own access to power doing so, and keep on going, even when it is suggested to them to stop; a new cold war with India would be the best pretext to prevent a further offensive against the ISI’s allies in Western tribal territories; thus it gives a motive for elements of the ISI to facilitate terrorism of the Mumbai type; it would be a mistake for the West (that would include India!), to fall into that trap…)

 

P/S 4: “SLAY the infidels”, God’s order, has different variants in different translations of the Qur’an [originally in old Arabic, with an uncertain, incomplete, inchoating alphabet]. All translators agree on “SLAY”, but “infidels” can be rendered as “idolaters”. “Pagans”, “disbelievers”, “unbelievers”, etc… We want to know, because we want to know whom among us, deserve to die.

 

P/S 5: What does the observation that the Qur’an is a problem, mean regarding the West’s offensive against Islamist terrorism? It means that the Qur’an should be exposed for what it is, namely, as above. Certainly Muslims that want to throw out the literal Qur’an should be encouraged and financed. It also means that maybe the old crime of “literalism”, as in 1300 CE in Egypt, should be reintroduced. Certainly a call to murder against a religious, or ethnic group [such as Jews] under the guise of the Qur’an, should be treated as any other hate crime. Certainly the Shariah should not be given an inch [give them an inch, and then one should end burning heretics again, except in this case, heretics would be the "infidels"]. 

***

THE QUR’AN HATES DEMOCRACY.

WHY AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, IRAN AND OTHER ISLAMIC REGIMES ARE FUNDAMENTALLY HOSTILE TO THE WEST.

Pakistan has a new “President”, Benazir Bhutto’s widower. Afghanistan has a “President” too. But what does that mean? During the Roman empire, for centuries, citizens could embrace whatever religion they pleased (before the rather short lived Christian dictatorship). In today’s Afghanistan the “law” has it that if a “Muslim” becomes a “Christian”, he shall be executed. What happened to civilization? Is it supposed to be going backwards? Are Western powers helping those vicious superstitions, and thus undermining themselves?

Pakistan is an Islamic Republic (since 1956, reviewed in 1973). This causes an insurmountable problem because Islam is not compatible with democracy. Although Benazir and her husband seem noble and extremely courageous, the task they gave themselves is hopeless. Islam was designed as a war machine against the West. That is why it succeeded, and only ultimate force stopped it (in Francia in the West).

Benazir Bhutto, in her posthumous book, “Reconciliation” observes that “a discussion of Jihad is critical to the world”. She presents what she calls a “thesis”, that “democracy and Islam are compatible”. But she admits that this is true only if Jihad is not “about religious war against other religions and Muslim sects”. But she is not sure. Maybe, maybe not. Hope is her only logic.

Whatever. What part of the word “Jihad” did Benazir not understand? During that last bomb explosion, that killed her, did she see the light? Well, we sure saw it on TV.

Muslim fundamentalists have (correctly) counted nearly 200 passages containing calls to extreme murderous violence in the Qur’an. The Fundamentalists know best: they use those precise passages to justify their own murderous violence, including killing little girls that go to school, and women who go to work. Threatening to kill those who insulted “the prophet” is a particularly appreciated delicacy.

But the violence of the Qur’an against Western civilization is not restricted to calls for maximum and lethal physical violence. First, there is the fact that “Jihad” replaces all and any of the activities connected to democracy. Islam is about one man, one jihad, not one man, one vote. Moreover the Qur’an is full of statements such as: “And those who disbelieve in our communications, they are the people of the left hand. On them fire closes over.”  (S 90; v. 19-20). the left hand is used for the rest room, in the desert, you know. (Wash with dirt, recommends ‘the prophet”, always very practical!)

There is also a fundamental violence of the Qur’an against the very principle of democracy. The Qur’an enjoins that: “O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, S.4; v. 59). In other words, obey authority as a matter of religion.

Hitler, who admired Islam as a war religion, used to call this the Fuehrerprinzip, and it was the central functioning principle of his Nazi Reich. All Germans had to obey any authority as a matter of religion. The fascist principle makes Islam incompatible with democracy. (Of course, the entire point of Islam is that dictatorship is religion, so it’s no accident!)

Some will say: “Wait a minute! What about Christianity? Europe is Christian, and still became democratic! Indeed, Islam is the bastard child of some type of Judaism and Christianism, marinated in a pungent desert sauce. And indeed the West became democratic. But the West had been democratic before (republican Rome, many Greek City states). Even at the worst of the Roman Christian Imperial theocracy (fourth and fifth centuries), the law was mostly secular, and its own power, independent of religion. Even at the top of the Roman Christian Imperial theocracy, a woman, an Augusta, reigned (fifth century). She invented the theory of the STATE OF LAW: “The law shall apply to us just as much as it applies to our subjects.” 

When the Franks took control in the West, they did not establish a Christian dictatorship. Quite to the contrary, they progressively transformed Christianity in an instrument for the advancement of civilization. The Franks, as good Germans, were more democratic and less sexist than the Greco-Roman. As good Germans admiring Greco-Roman civilization, they were dismayed by what Christianity had done to it. All in all, the Franks imposed on Christianity much higher ethics. They forced the Christian establishments to teach secular knowledge.

Saint Augustine and his accomplices, the Founding fathers of the Church, had justified slavery as a punishment from God (as the Quranic parrots would later do). The Franks just outlawed slavery. By 800, the Pope was the Franks’ pet, and the Carolingians (who had crushed Islamic invasions earlier) took a great dislike of the Eastern Christian Roman empire. In 1204 the Franks conquered Constantinople, smashing for good the remaining Roman imperial Christian power. the anti Christian humor of the franks could be tasteless: during some crusade, a bit short of food, they made fun of Christ’s recommendation to eat (his) flesh, by actually eating some of the (Muslim) natives.

Even as dedicated a Christian as the formidable Roman emperor Justinian, when he ordered a refurbishment of the entire Roman legal system, nominated a pagan law professor to head the commission, and the emperor instructed him to separate the huge body of secular law from the laws of a Christian nature. That secular body of law the entire world use nowadays, except for the Islamic states.

The secret of the West is not Christ, it’s the Pagan Franks masquerading as Christians (proof: when they smashed the three Muslim invasions of the eight century, the Franks, after having nationalized the Christian Church to draft the entire economy, called themselves “Europeans”; they viewed Muslims as a new Christian sect).

During the later Middle Ages, the Frankish empire was breaking down in national powers. A Christian fanatic such as (Saint) Louis IX, hated the Jews. Still he could not do much against them: centuries earlier Frankish law, following Roman secular law, had recognized Jews as full citizens. In the end the holocaust of the Jews had to wait for the replacement of secular Roman law by Nazi garbage.

In Pakistan, according to the Islamic Constitution, only a Muslim can become President or Prime Minister. No law repugnant to Islam shall be enacted and the present laws shall also be Islamized. Injunctions of Islam as found in Qur’an and the Sunnah have to be obeyed. The 1973 (and current) Constitution of Pakistan gave a definition of a Muslim which states: ‘Muslim’ means a person who believes in the unity and oneness of Almighty Allah, in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Mohammed [PBUH: Peace Be Upon Him], the last of the prophets, and who does not believe in, nor recognize as a prophet or religious reformer, any person who claimed or claims to be a prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Mohammed.”

In other words, sheer superstition. Well, Poo Be Upon It [PBUI].

Islam has got a long way to go, before it can join Christianity, and be put to sleep…

The West may want to reconsider its attitude relative to all Islamic regimes, including “republics” such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Obama suggested this: next time bin Laden is in the crosshairs of the West, if Pakistan refuses to act, the West will; France, more directly, suggested that a French 9/11 may be rewarded with nukes for the host country.)

For a long time, Islamic dictatorships (a pleonasm, sorry) were the best friends of the oil thirsty USA. Oil was good, so dictatorships were good, so the dictatorship friendly Qur’an was good. Well, that was before Islamic Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now all these discourses about fire from the sky and holocausts, in the Qur’an, after 9/11, do not seem such a good idea anymore, even to the USA. It maybe time to encourage forced de-Islamization programs, somewhat similar to those implemented by the Franks against Christianity.

It’s better to put the Qur’an to sleep that way, rather than the alternative…
***

Patrice Ayme 
***

P/S: Under the Hanafi jurisprudence of Afghanistan’s Sunni majority, favored by the Afghan Constitution, apostasy -abandoning Islam for another religion- is a crime punishable by death. it’s all about whether it’s the sovereignty of the people (democracy) or the sovereignty of God (a figment of the imagination and tradition of cavemen). It should not be tolerated anymore that Western soldiers die for this.

P/S 2: ”In reality, the monotheist texts preach neither peace, love nor tolerance. They are texts of hate.” (Michel Houellebecq.)