No Assimilation: Racism & Destruction

November 29, 2015

We have to be guided by history. The present ecological, plutocratic, immigration and Islamist crises (in order of importance) are informed by history. However neither our delusional “leaders” nor the herds they guide know enough history to inform decisively the present crises. Verily, history is the best teacher.

The Ancient Greeks and Romans were also guided by history, but we are in a much more advantageous position than they were: history in Greco-Roman times was at most 1,000 year old. Now the history we know of, much of it from increasingly detailed archeological work, is more than 10,000 years old.

An example: detailed archeology, recently done, revealed that the Late Roman empire was much richer than previously believed. There was no evidence of economic decay, far from it. So the catastrophes which struck it in the Sixth Century were of a different nature than Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”.

Small Surviving Portion of Diocletian Baths (Circa 300 CE). Christian Hated Bathing, So They Destroyed Baths.

Small Surviving Portion of Diocletian Baths (Circa 300 CE). Christian Hated Bathing, So They Destroyed Baths.

Diocletian Baths

The Ancient Greeks, Romans, and Franks were stuck by the story of Troy, which was the limit of what they thought they knew for sure (modern archeology has not decisively determined the exact events of Troy’s adventures: it’s a work in progress). But they did not really know the truth: soon thereafter the “Greek Dark Ages” nearly obliterated history.

Something was learned though: the Franks (barely) avoided the total collapse which had struck the Greeks 15 centuries earlier. The Franks (like the Romans before them) claimed they descended from Troy. Whether that’s true or not, what they meant is that they knew how to avoid catastrophe.

And they did.

How did the Franks do it? By NOT doing what the Romans had done. Or, more exactly, by doing civilization in the spirit of Ancient Republican Rome, not the degenerated  self-obsessed imperial fascism of emperor Commodus and his successors.

I am a bit unfair to the successors here: Commodus perpetuated a mood actually launched by Augustus himself: Augustus, differently from his great uncle, Julius Caesar, had not understood the necessity to expand the empire. Augustus explicitly advised his successors to NOT conquer Germany. The advice was respected, and therein all the problems of Rome.

Had the Romans made a determined effort to conquer Germany, they would have had to reinstitute the Republic in full. If the Republic had been reconstituted, in full, Roman governance would have been much smarter, and capable of solving the problems thrown at Rome.

Thus, when speaking of war, and whining about it, the herd forgets that democracies make war best (as the Athenians demonstrated at Marathon, when they charged irresistibly the immense multitude of fascist imperial Persian storm troopers).

Thus, to push things a bit, to make war better, one has to make democracy better. Thus the army was an important factor of de-segregation in the USA.

Speaking of segregation, that was the problem which killed Rome the most. The Romans had basically renounced ASSIMILATING the Germans. Germans were viewed as hopeless, yet too strong, barbarians.

The analogy with what is going on today is total. The Germans came in with their own legal systems, their own Sharias. The Romans respected that. So states within the state grew (a bit as has been observed in France and especially Belgium, where at least one city should be de-Islamized).

And why were the Germans so strong? Because the state had grown weak, from not taxing the hyper-rich enough. Just like now. Lack of taxation of the hyper-rich has made Europe weak. Military weak. Germany is going to send 650 soldiers in Mali, to relieve the French Army there (which then will be able to attack the Islamist State). One is talking about pathetically small numbers here, for a country as large as today’s Germany. Meanwhile the French don’t have enough air refueling capacity to bomb as much as they could (Germany there is speaking to provide air refueling for the French Air Force).

When the Roman state decomposed in the “Occident”, very small numbers of warriors were involved, roughly equivalent to those the Islamist State and its various faction have.

Verdict: one has to forcefully assimilate, and make the Republic stronger, as needed to do so. Both phenomena are entangled.

And don’t try to assimilate Islam instead: that was tried before. Not just with Islam, but Christianism itself: to convert Germans to the empire, the Roman leaders (Constantine and his successors) used Christianism. Christianism is a sort of superstitious republicanism claiming all men are equal, under fascist god, etc…  Well, it did not work: Christianism devoured civilization, and did so, in particular, in the Orient. The Orient was suddenly destroyed, within a generation by the wars, and the weakness, physical, intellectual and moral, which fanatical Christianism brought. In particular it brought Islam (just read the Qur’an, Muhammad himself explains it very well!)

I am perfectly aware that the ignorant view assimilation as racism. This mentality was launched by a herd of European pseudo-philosophers who loved fascism (either Kaiser, see the deluded Bertrand Russell, Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin style). Loving fascism provided them with perks, including from American pluto-imperialism (which was delighted to see proper critique replaced by non-sense).

That assimilation was racism has been the main driving force to create racism and segregation in French society (against the very people those who denounced assimilation pretended to protect!) Same, and worse in Belgium, a state representing well the sort of degeneracy which affected Rome. Actually Belgium’s only justification, as I have explained many times, was to weaken France, by cutting off from it the fiercest part of Gaul (“Gallia”; reference on that: Julius Caesar). It’s working splendidly: France nearly lost the two world wars against fascist Germany thanks to the existence of Belgium as a mentally, and militarily tiny independent kingdom.

(For those who do not understand the preceding paragraph: all the recent terrorism in France was planned in Belgium, by pseudo, unassimilated “Belgians”, who were simply barbarians educated by the Sharia.)

Hollande seems to be taking his war against the Islamist State seriously; that’s a political U-turn: just as Rome needed to conquer Germany, the empire needs to reconquer the Orient . Because, indeed, before it got subjugated by Islam, with the results presently observed, the Orient was to Rome, and before that to the Macedonio-Greeks, and, even before, to the Zoroastrians (I don’t expect the admirers of the late Edward Said to understand any of this).

Philosophy has to guide. Philosophy which knows history, and thought about it, that is. But force is to observe that most so-called philosophers of the Twentieth Century knew no history, or then so little, that they could use it to justify their madness (this is an attack against Michel Foucault, Althusser, etc.). Simone de Beauvoir, who knew enough history to teach it to all of France under the fascist Vichy regime, was rightly infuriated by Foucault’s distortions of history. Now all these obnoxious, and cruel, self-obsessed dwarves are viewed as pinnacles of wisdom. No wonder our politicians went mad. Now they have to quit the Fourth Century Roman political line they have been repeating.

Patrice Ayme’   

Talk, Listen, Debate

November 28, 2015

What do we need? Correct, or, at least, less erroneous thinking. How do we get there? By rejecting yesterday’s all too simple thinking. It will have to start with revisiting simple sayings, and the trite dichotomies attached to them (presenting the world as black and white conflicts of opposites). Let’s consider one of the Dalai Lama’s (trite) sayings:

“When you talk, you are only repeating what you know, But if you listen, you may learn something new.”

Yes, well, and then? Is that supposed to be true? Speech and listening are somehow opposed, and speech is useless? But if someone is speaking somebody else is listening, no?

The Dalai Lama makes a dichotomy, a Manichaeism, a total opposition between “speech” and listening. That’s erroneous. He compounds the mistake by telling us that speech cannot be creative. The Dalai Lama views mental exchange mostly as listening (religiously?) and then mechanically reproducing what one has listened to. In other words, be a Tibetan monk.

Speech HAS TO be creative, it’s a question of morality. First one has to talk to oneself, so one can consider what one is talking about:

I Think, Therefore I Debate With Myself. Rodin Museum, Paris

I Think, Therefore I Debate With Myself. Rodin Museum, Paris

When people talk they do this according to a method peculiar to themselves, as different individuals, handling differently different subjects, either human or theoretical. The speech spectrum has two extremities: on one end, brainless slogans repeated with the intelligence of a recording. On the other end, talk can be used to weave a meta discourse bringing together disparate elements of one’s mind never united before. So the spectrum of speech goes from brainless slogans, all the way to its exact opposite, the creation of new logic.

Thus speech can bring something new to the one proffering it. Indeed, this is what honest to goodness papers in theoretical science do. A good example there is probably Einstein’s famous paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. This paper of 1905 is generally seen as founding the Theory Of Relativity. However, I don’t think it contains one original element: not one original equation, nor even an original thought (Poincare’ and Lorentz, plus at least a dozen other lesser, yet still important. authors, had contributed before; Poincare’ demonstrated E = mcc in 1900…)

So what did Einstein do which was original? He weaved all preceding efforts in just one discourse. He repeated what he knew, and many others knew, but organized as one (apparently) simple logic (which swept under the carpet some of the difficulties Poincare’ was bothered by). None of what Einstein said was new, but the presentation was. Jean de La Bruyère‘s “Tout est dit depuis qu’il y a des hommes et qu’ils pensent”  (All is said, since there are men, and they think) is doubly false: not only there are new facts, but new ways of organizing them.

So there is an alternative to the dreary opposition of talking versus listening: DEBATING. Then the back and forth between talking and listening can bring new logic not suspected before. Even debating fools can be useful that way: the method was used by Socrates and Plato, or by Galileo Galilei (in the latter case, it made his friend the Pope furious, as it suspected that he was the fool Galileo had depicted in his “debate”).

For example debating climate deniers was useful to me: their brainless opposition helped me point out the irrefutable, and go around their irreducible single-mindedness. We went from 280 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 EQUIVALENTS to 450 ppm of CO2 EQUIVALENTS (CO2 + CH4 + NO + NO2 + Fluorocarbons, etc… in 200 years. Obviously not something one can brush off: these gases have physiological effects, if nothing else.

When we talk,

We should try to express

What we did not know,

That we knew, the hidden logic

Within what we knew

Helped by your interlocutor’s Objections,

Informations, And Passions,

Needed to produce

What no one knew before.

It is complexity

We want to learn from,

Not just from what others think they know.

“Knowing” and “Thinking” are much tortured, thus tortuous, concepts. 

“Debate” comes from the Old French “Debatre” (to beat down completely). The modern French usage is noble: it means a thorough exchange of ideas and emotions supposed to create the sort of mental turmoil necessary for mental progress.

We are very far from the Dalai Lama’s implicit assertion that speech is devoid of creativity and only the others know something new. Now, indeed the speech of someone leading a superstitious religion is bound to be mechanical (Tibetan Buddhism is very superstitious, Zen Buddhism is not).

Complexity of thought is characterized by meta-discourses. The usual theory of “META” involves generating new elements through Cantor Diagonalization (or something close to it). I simply say that a theory is META relative to another if it is bigger.

For example the physics we have today is bigger, than any previously, because not only it’s more correct, but it exactly explains the erroneous physics of the past, and how our unfortunate predecessors got to commit their errors We beat them up completely.

So listen, yes, but don’t forget to contradict… And to complexify. It is not enough to present a better theory, one has to demolish the preceding theory. A debate is automatically bigger. It is more meta.

I think, therefore I debate. Yes, there is an aggressive element in it. We should admit it, instead of whining about all and any violence (because if we do not violently think, physical violence will be directed at us, anyway!)

Anne, my sister-in-law, has lived all around the world. American-born, now emigrated to Australia, she just observed the following. Anglo-Saxon countries such as Australia, the USA, Canada, are young and sport obsessed. A question is why the sport obsession?

The sport obsession is not just there to fight the poor diet and general spiritual vacuity particularly marked in the USA (as if it could). It is there to teach the young to accept defeat. Sport practice, thus graciously accepted defeat, is the back door to welcoming debate, and to accepting its conclusions, however unpalatable. Thus obsessive sport practice is key to British style pragmatism.

So, paradoxically, higher thinking relates to the theory of just war. In truth, it’s not that weird, for the reasons I gave above. It suggests why, should there be another advanced intelligence out there in the universe (unlikely), it will know how to debate, to  completely beat down, and we better make sure that ours is bigger than theirs, if we joined the debate (not that we will have a choice; and you thought this was just about the Islamist State!)

We think well, because we are an aggressive species, and sometimes, all too aggressive (and that’s why Einstein quoted nobody in his famous 1905 paper).

Religiously listening to others, as the Dalai Lama proposes to do, carried to the extent he proposes, believing we cannot think anew, all by ourselves, is actually immoral. It is throwing down THE THINKER, as a parrot to himself.

We live increasingly in the shared economy: if people know how to drive, cook, or make a bed, they should be able to get compensated financially when they offer their services to someone else. And yes escorting someone is not brain surgery, and one should not have to be certified and mandated by the state to do so.

Similarly, we live in the SHARED MIND, and that should be directly connected to Direct Democracy. The Shared Mind ought to be, first of all, about debating issues, with priority given to those directly impacting the survival of the biosphere, that is the survival of all we love.

Last, and not least: debate, as I explained, involves aggressivity. But one has to learn to keep it in check, naturally, as too much aggression will kill further debate. So learning to debate is a skill. A skill which involves listening, talking, and learning to go beyond, where ideas and emotions have not gone before. And to learn to let ideas and emotions run free, before corralling them back, changed as they are by their excursion in the wilderness.

Debating is actually what the café’ culture is all about, promoting deeper thinking, and that is exactly why the Islamist State tried to kill it in Paris with bullets. That’s why it will have to be beaten down completely, starting with its terror manual.

Patrice Ayme’

Can A Religion Be Abject?

November 27, 2015

Are there abject religions? Yes, of course. Their annihilation, or domestication, describe the progress of civilization. 99% of the known religion were rejected, or outlawed, because, precisely, they were abject. Is there an objective criterion to find out if a religion is abject? Of course. The Romans, who launched our civilization, or, at least, our legal system, taught us that a religion is abject, and should be made unlawful, when it practices human sacrifices. Let’s outlaw religions clamoring for human sacrifices! Our ancestors did, let’s heed their example!

Rome, invaded and occupied by a Gallic tribe, or others, sacrificed of a couple or two. The Romans, though, were ashamed by what they had done. Human sacrifice was formally outlawed by senatorial decree in 97 BCE under the consulship of P. Licinius Crassus.

The Romans accused Carthage of killing children. Thus Romans acquired moral superiority on Carthage which created a mood conducive to the annihilation of that civilization. (Whether Carthage sacrificed children is still researched; archeological evidence points to the correctness of the Roman descriptions.)

Aztecs’ Description Of Paris, November 13, 2015: Jihadist Sacrificing Gourmet

Aztecs’ Description Of Paris, November 13, 2015: Jihadist Sacrificing Gourmet

[Codex Laud, folio 8.]

The Romans prohibited human sacrifices by the peoples they conquered (and used human sacrifices as a justification to conquer them). Romans advertised human sacrifices  as barbaric.

Outlawing them distinguished civilization from barbarity, said Rome. Rome was also critical of Greek mythology for celebrating human sacrifices in disguise, and that refined intellectual critique helped promote the switch to Christianism…

The same mood, of revulsion to human sacrifices, presided over the annihilation of the Aztecs.

The mood of being horrified by human sacrifices originated in Rome. However, human sacrifices were practiced in disguise for centuries (by gladiators’ deaths and the occasional sacrificed Vestal as happened once under emperor Domitian, as the chief Vestal having had sex).

Our civilization is Rome Renovated (as the Franks proclaimed in 800 CE). And the next question is: is there any religion today which practices human sacrifices?

Some have tried to deny that any religion practiced human sacrifices. Maybe because of the natural question:

Does Islam Practices Human Sacrifices In Disguise?

When a religion organizes human sacrifices, it orders to kill some particular individuals, under some circumstances. As Wikipedia says: Human sacrifice is the act of killing one or more human beings, usually as an offering to a deity, as part of a religious ritual. Human sacrifice has been practiced in various cultures throughout history.”

Is there, today, a religion which orders to kill other people and claims that those who kill other people go to paradise? Of course there is.

A religion which orders to kill “apostates”, “unbelievers”, “pagans”, “idolaters” of food, music and the good life in general, consists in practicing human sacrifices in disguise. Or, actually, come to think of it, not in disguise at all, but full view. The emperor wear no clothes, He is just drenched in blood. Islam also punishes homosexuals by stoning, to death (on the ground that this is the punishment in the Bible), “Adulterous” women get the same treatment: stoning by a crowd practicing human sacrifice.

LOL, Muslims, why don’t you call all your stoning, stoning, crucifixion, and whipping to death, human sacrifices?

So why is it lawful? Maybe I should ask the question in reverse: is (Literal, Salafist, Wahhabist) Islam lawful because it was not pointed out that all its most troubling practices amount to human sacrifices? Let’s point out, that’s what thinking is all about. And a last question: are those who promote Islam, thus the Qur’an, as Obama had done, promoting what is inside the Qur’an, namely the orders from God detailing when and when the believers are to engage in human sacrifices? And if not, why not?

Tip for anti-terrorism: stop calling them monsters “suicide bombers” or “Jihadists”. Call them what they are: human sacrificers.

But then, of course, one will have to overcome first the mood that simply describing the Qur’an in its own words is racism, as the Common (Plutocratic, Democracy-Destroying) Mood has it. Can reality be racist? This whiff of realism could well end up with the wealthiest paying 93% tax, as they did under Republican president Eisenhower, lest the realistic mood takes over, and various superstitions squirm back to the unspeakable shadows they should have never left.

Patrice Ayme’

Russian Jet Downed By Islamizing Turkey

November 26, 2015

Big wars have started for much less. What we know is this: a Sukhoi 24 Swing Wing Tactical Bomber, a work horse of the Russian Air Force, in service for decades, was shot down by Turkish F16s. Putin, rightly, called it “a stab in the back“. Except, as we will see, Turkey is pursuing an imperial dream, and hoping to get leverage from NATO to do so. Both of those dreams are nightmares which make the Islamist State a walk in the park, in comparison. And Obama’s Islamist wet dream is much to blame, as I will explain

The Captain and the Navigator ejected safely, but Pro-Turkey anti-Assad rebels fired on the parachuting crew, killing one of them. The latter fact is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention:  attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. They also fired on a rescuing Russian helicopter, killing one Russian marine.

According to a document leaked by Wikileaks, the Turkish government admitted that the plane was over a saillant of Turkish territory, for only 17 (seventeen) seconds, just around the time it takes for a full yawn.

The Russian who survived got the top prize as a navigator, a few years back. As well as denying Ankara’s assertions that the plane was in Turkey’s airspace, navigator Murakhtin, who says he knows the mission area “like the back of my hand,” also refuted Turkish officials’ claims that the pilots were warned repeatedly.

Clearly A Deliberate Aggression Of NATO Backed Turkey

Clearly A Deliberate Aggression Of NATO Backed Turkey

In actual fact, there were no warnings at all. Neither through the radio, nor visually, so we did not at any point adjust our course. You need to understand the difference in speed between a tactical bomber like a Su-24, and that of the F16. If they wanted to warn us, they could have sat on our wing,” said Murakhtin, who is currently recuperating at Russia’s air base in Latakia, northern Syria. This is indeed correct. The F16 is much faster and maneuverable. The Turks shot down a Russian plane, which indisputably fell in Syria, because they wanted to shoot down a Russian plane.

The consequence is that now Putin is going to bring all sorts of deadly missiles and planes to cover Russian tactical bombing. Some Russian anti-aircraft missiles can go 400 kilometers, at Mach 4. For a little while, France flew its bombers without armed escort, but that would have to change if the Russians get really trigger happy, Turkish style (except the Turks really indented harm, obviously).

The Russian navigator made an astounding admission: “As it was, the missile hit the back of our plane out of nowhere. We didn’t even have time to make an evasive maneuver.”

It brings questions on Russian MAWS (Missile Warning Systems). These are generally connected to various counter-measures, such as taking evasive action, ejecting flares, or flashing lasers at the incoming missile.

More generally, NATO may ponder its association with Turkey. Having Turkey drag NATO into a conflict with Russia is a NO-NO. Turkey Islamizing government has been playing a very complicated game. In particular by using Islamist tricks to support a fighting force of 10,000 “Turkmen” whom it has tried to Islamize, using the Muslim Brotherhood. The idea has been to block the Kurds, whom Turkey also directly bombs.

On February 21, 2015, Turkey launched an invasion of Syria by 500 men supported by tanks and warplanes, to open the mausoleum of the medieval warlord Shah Suleiman, the grandfather of the first Uthmanid emperor Osman Gazi ben Ertugruo. They removed the remains of this man who died 779 years ago, and brought them back to safe ground.

This curious foray may sound pretty crazy, but there is a general method to it. Neo-Ottoman fantasies are taking a growing grip on Turkish leaders’ imaginations. They see the Arab Spring as an opportunity to rebuild the region as an empire with Istanbul as capital, no less. And now they have won elections, giving them 5 years to pursue Islamization, their way.

Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu wants to build a born-again Ottoman Empire, in which Istanbul would “reintegrate the Balkan region, Middle East and Caucasus”. Hey, if Russia can try to do it, so can Ankara.

Turkey’s religious-right government has imposed an Islamist leadership on the insurgents fighting Bashar al-Assad, using as elsewhere in the region, a cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Those who were so much against European empire may some day discover reality: nature abhors a vacuum. Taking Europe out, brings back Turkey. Europe spent a millennium fighting Turkmen in the Middle East. A combined assault led mostly by Russians, Greeks, French and British (and let’s not forget the Australians at Gallipoli), in the last 300 years, succeeded to push Turkmen back to Anatolia (which they invaded less than 1,000 years ago).

However the Turkmen’s mentality exterminated or ejected millions of Greeks, Armenians and Kurds in the last century. So Turkish imperial fascist ways have stayed strong.

The Muslim Brotherhood resisted the secularising, Arab-nationalist Ba’ath, starting in 1963. Later it capitalized on protests provoked by high prices and housing shortages. This set off a cycle of violence which ended in the regime of Assad father ’s destroying the Brotherhood in a 1980 carnage with a city annihilated and more than 25,000 dead.

Liberals are aghast that the Muslim Brotherhood has hijacked their revolution. The truth is that Islam is a deep network, not just underground, but neurologically: a war religion perceived as a religion of peace, it has got all its bases covered.

For the West, the ongoing war is becoming increasingly a moment of truth. In 2009, United States’ president Obama went to Cairo to sing the praises of Islam. He thought that was smart, modern, In truth, that was a return to the Middle Ages.

More specifically, Obama’s told his aides that there are tensions between the Muslim and the West which root in colonialism. Sorry, Bambi, the roots are much deeper than that. The roots themselves are as deep as the word “Europe”. Because that word got used by the Franks to symbolize their resistance to the Islamist invasions.

Obama also said that he knows from his personal experience that the West and the Islam are not separate worlds because they share things such as love of God and family. Except God does not exist, and families always exist, so Obama was just agitating his tongue. He may as well have evoked the Moon.

Ever since the USA and Europe have put their faith in the “moderate jihadist”, a unicorn-like beast spitting fire, great killer of unbelievers, idolaters, apostates, pagans, other Muslims, Yazidis, and all enemies of God, yet respectable enough, admired by Obama, and a lover of families.

Now, it seems that this intriguing chase of the impossible presents some disagreements, such as Jihadists in our midst, killing the “idolaters” of music and cafes. The West must choose between going on, enunciating non-sense about Islam’s goodness, or reluctantly accept Bashar al-Assad’s brutally secularist regime as the less bad of a set of options which are all bad. But an increasingly insanely aggressive, Islamizing Turkey is potentially a much worse problem than Assad.

Speaking of encroaching insanity, Putin has been trying to amend his ways. He should be encouraged to do so. Meta-policy consists in encouraging the good moods.

When Obama went to Cairo to encourage Islam, he made the immense moral and strategic mistake of encouraging “Islam” (When talking about Algebra, no need to thank Islam; actually a Greco-Indian invention). Encouraging Islam just encourages war, because war is what the Qur’an is mostly about (read it!) So now Obama has got what his mood led to: more Islam, that is, more war. He compounded this when he refused to punish Assad personally for mass gas attacks. So now Assad is all what secularists have to work with (besides the Kurds). Putin agrees. No choice. Simply the West should try to protect secular rebels… who have to buy oil from… the Islamist State. War is complicated, always.

But the war we have, ultimately, is one between the mood leading to secular, direct democracy and its enemy, Islam, an objective ally of tyranny (read the Qur’an!) and plutocracy. That God Obama loves and respects so much, plans to destroy all of humanity (read the Qur’an, especially the latter Suras). What is more satanic?

Patrice Ayme’

Annex 1; Obama in Cairo: …”a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles…” How can one put a state (the USA) explicitly founded as secular, in the same category as a superstition (Islam)? Obama also deliberately hijacked the famous Washington-Adams declaration on the secularism of the USA, which I have quoted many times, well before 2009. Obama selectively sampled it, like a disk jockey from hell, cutting out the secular part, to make it sound pro-Muslim. So now Obama has got the Islamist State which, he says, is not a State of Islam, but the work of Satan: Commander-in-Chief of the Truly Faithful? The mood of theocracy spreading got (re)launched in the West, by the USA, during McCarthyism, and has made Western leaders mushy in the mind. But then you can call Obama a McCarthyist, and that’s great fun.

Annex 2: Lawmakers from the Kremlin-friendly A Just Russia party introduced a bill calling for a maximum punishment of five years in jail for those who deny that the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turkey in 1915 was a genocide. (France recognizes formally the Armenian Genocide, since 2001, but, differently from the Jewish Genocide, denial is not punished by law.)

Media Manipulations

November 25, 2015

More than ten years ago, I pointed in comments that President Wilson was a racist, and that this had a dominant effect on policy, in the USA, and worldwide. To this day. The New York Times blocked all such comments. The New York Times thus gained more than years in the public revelation that president Wilson was an extreme racist, who implemented racist policies, from inside the USA, onto the world stage, on the grandest scale. Not just this, but racism was, arguably the most important effect of the Wilson presidency. When that policy was not anti-black, it was anti-French. It was also extremely crucial in supporting exterminationist racist oligarchy in Germany, which peaked with World War Two and exterminationist policies. The intimate conviction of exterminationist Germans, thanks to Wilson, was that the USA was on their side. And indeed it was, in many ways.

The New York Times is considered to be the USA’s “Newspaper of Record”, so one would think it is below its dignity to censor its subscribers (other “newspapers of record” in some other countries do not censor me).

Americans Think, and Feel, What They Are Told To Think, and Feel. NYT Led Attack On Iraq, Thus To Islamist State

Americans Think, and Feel, What They Are Told To Think, and Feel. NYT Led Attack On Iraq, Thus To Islamist State

[New York Times’ articles are reproduced by several hundreds of newspapers in the USA, including most of the major ones… With the exception of WSJ, to which I also subscribe, BTW. .]

Readers of the New York Times were not appraised of the fact that Wilson was a racist, because the New York Times blocked me. This has happened on many subjects, and still happens to this day: if I point out that Quantitative Easing favors Big Banks (“Too Big To Fail”), they block me. The New York Times, and similar pseudo “left” publications are mostly interested that I stay out of sight and out of mind of all and any readers. Even WordPress does this actively (removing my comments on other blogs).

Why so much aggressivity? Because the New York Times actively directs its readers towards brain-killing “blogs” from insipid, ill-informed writers out there. Those “blogs”, one should say “blobs” typically gloat that “Republicans are bad and stupid, Obamacare is the greatest thing ever, Democrats saved the economy, elect Clinton, it will get even better”.

A friend of mine who works in an executive position in the media in New York called my attention to the fact the New York Times ran a long article about its “top commenters”, and that they forgot to mention me (that was tongue in cheek, as he knows the NYT deliberately censors me). Actually the top commentator in the New York Times is probably your truly, if judged by the depth of the contributions, and that is why my comments on the war in Iraq were blocked in 2003, as I exposed the lies of Bush, and its parrot, Judith Miller, a New York Times (then) star journalist, about Iraq (although the NYT supported the destruction of Iraq, neither Obama nor Krugman did).

The NYT enabled comments on its (rather insipid) commentators, and I chimed in with (knowing it would be censored, as usual, I avoided any incendiary adjective):

The New York Times censors me systematically. It has admitted in emails to have blocked thousands of my comments for no reason whatsoever (except that the computer blocked unusual words, I was told).

None of my recent comments were published. Many, in the past, were delayed days. I found increasingly most comments published by the New York Times uninteresting: they support what the New York Times wants to be said.

As I have been systematically censored, I do not bother reading any (all too predictable) official comments anymore. I feel completely excluded, and a bit like a criminal: how do I dare to still send comments to the New York Times, after thousands of my comments were censored? Don’t I get the message?

Don’t I get the message that I do not deserve the little green marker: all what the New York Times wants from me is money (lots of it, over the decades), and not give me a green light.

I will probably end up, after decades of full subscription, cancelling my financial contribution to a paper whose censorship I despise ever more. Indeed, I spent my time searching for truth, and the New York Times declares that what I think is unworthy of publication, a danger, or bore, to society.

Thus, it is becoming ever more painful to read the Times. Let alone insulting, considering the platitudes most of the authorized commentators roll out. Full contributors to the NYT should have comments published right away, except if they exceed bounds defined by law. One day, manipulation of comments will unlawful.

Patrice Ayme

The preceding comment was, of course, censored. As were all my comments on the connection of the policies of the USA and the rise of the Islamist State, all my comments on Islam, or comments pointing out factual lies by the New York Times. Reading the New York Times is, increasingly, taking part into a fraudulent scheme, where correct ideas are diluted into ineffectiveness, or outright blocked (my comments on carbon taxation were also blocked, just as those on how to remedy inequality, and Delaware as the ultimate tax haven, etc.)

The New York Times is not the only Main Stream Media doing this: most do. It is the functional equivalent of search engines biasing searches for profit. It is a form of secret advertising, and should be unlawful for the same reasons as secret advertising is. It should be completely illegal, except if the MSM announces that it is biased, with an agenda, and actively misrepresenting public opinion. The “Daily Kos” has such a warning.

However, like the New York Times, the Daily Kos is lying, but at a higher level. Whereas the Times pretends to be the “Newspaper of Record”, the Daily Kos pretends to be on the “Left”. In truth, it’s not. Otherwise why do they have a skull and crossbones next to my name? In truth the Daily Kos was founded by a CIA employee of Greek origin (that’s where the “Kos” comes from). However all the American “Left” has fallen in the trap, and really feel the “Daily Kos” in on their side, when, in truth, it was just a mercenary for American for profit health insurers, and the like. As most “Left” people are addicted to the Daily Kos, my representation there as skull and crossbones has made me an object of repulsion for most would-be American “progressives”, as intended.

So who does not censor? The Wall Street Journal , and The Economist do not (it pains me to point this out).

That there would be more lying on the “Left” is no surprise, as the “Left” is where all the propaganda is, to persuade “progressives” to support regressive policies. Whereas more right-wing media don’t mind to be exposed to, or even adopt, “progressive” points of view: it shows, to themselves, how open-minded they are.

By supporting president Wilson with an intense cover-up of his racism and manipulations, the New York Times, while mellifluous, that is, sugar-coated, made itself an ally of the Ku Klux Klan. And such was its deepest effect.

As long as “progressives” do not realize they are being played, and how, there is little hope of real progress, it’s going to be Obama Care all over: lots of the correct talk, to hide ever more efficient plutocratic policies.

Patrice Ayme’

Considering Evil: Prince Charles & Lord Keynes

November 24, 2015

Plutocrat Charles, Following Plutocrat Keynes, Rewrites History:

Prince Charles connects climate change to the Syrian conflict and terrorism. In a sense, this is obvious, and I have been saying as much, since ever: the massive change of climate enfolding will result in billions of people dying potentially, so they will not come down without fighting.

The Egyptians had to leave the desert when it became desertic, and settled in the valleys. So it was all around the Middle East. Lush landscape, lakes and rivers, from the Mauritanian coast on the Atlantic, to the Gobi desert, through Arabia, turned into Mars (but with air and torrid temperatures).

In reaction to desiccation, civilizations became much more organized, engineered, and, thus fascist (“E Plutibus, Unum”). Or as great historian Fernand Braudel called them “hydraulic dictatorships”. Indeed hydraulics enabled agriculture, because much of the area has the good fortune to be endowed with very high, rain catching mountains (but less so the Sahara, which had to be 99.9% evacuated). The problem was to carry water from rocky mountains to fertile land (hence the first dams in Yemen, or extensive canals in Oman, Persia).

Lord The Racist Keynes Wanted Poland Occupied By Germany Indefinitely Because Poles Were An Inferior Sort & That Was Best For The Economy

Lord The Racist Keynes Wanted Poland Occupied By Germany Indefinitely Because Poles Were An Inferior Sort & That Was Best For The Economy

Hundreds of thousands of often Islam befuddled Syrian refugees are rushing to Europe, all too often not because they love Europe but because they want to survive. That’s a problem for all concerned.

Let say in passing that Europe should put in place assimilation structures which discriminate between those who want to learn to love Europe for real, and the rest, The USA has such structures in place. But the American ways of forced integration have escaped detection by naive Europeans. Right now, interviewing locals in Hawai’i, I can appreciate them anew. Locals don’t give a hoot about Barry Obama. what matters to them is the local football, or basketball star, then thriving: they have been completely de-politicized, all they love is greasy sugarized food, and sports, as imposed by Main Stream Media (thus their own islands are, or have been, stolen from them).

Those Syrian refugees who do not want to assimilate should be turned back. Violent? Yes. But turning back hostile refugees is a matter of survival, the same logic which animates the refugees themselves. In Islam, Europe used to be called, in the sacred texts, the “House of War”. Those who still think it is, should be imposed their own insult.

Dar al-Harab (Arabic: دار الحرب “house of war” is the term, in the foundation of Islam, referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force, in the matter of worship and the protection of the faithful and dhimmis. It is unclean by definition. The House of War, Europe, will not become clean until it is annexed to the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam, دار الإسلام‎ ) Its denizens are either to be converted, killed, or. Allah being most merciful, taxed exorbitantly if, and only if they are “People of the Book” (a matter of interpretation depending upon the Caliph, or the local Emir).

As the attacks in Paris show, a few fanatics with modern weapons can kill or injure 500 (and using biological and, or chemical weapons would kill much more: ISIS uses neurotoxic gases). But back to the congenital plutocrat, Princes Charles, heir of Great Britain.

In an interview with Sky News, red-cheeked apparent alcoholic Charles, said there was:

“Very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria was a drought that lasted for about five or six years, which meant that huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land because water ran out, their crops failed and so on. And increasingly they came into the cities, already full of Iraqi refugees. And this combined created a very difficult situation.”

He then called on the public to deal with climate change “because the conflict very often comes from movement of people as a result of not being able to survive”.

The hypocrisy there is colossal, the lying expert: the British elite, not to say “plutocracy”, engineered the Iraq War which destroyed Iraq, spawning ISIS, in part with debris from Saddam’s army. By ignoring this major fact, plutocrat Charles is lying. It is a LIE BY COLOSSAL OMISSION.

If Tony Blair’s government had joined France in opposing the invasion of Iraq by the USA, and the attendant destruction of the Iraqi State, the latter by itself a massive violation of the Geneva Convention, war criminal Bush would not have been able to proceed. Instead British plutocracy joined Bush to visit war crimes on Iraq. Where was rosy-cheeked Charles then?

The Iraq War is still enfolding. The greatest enemy of George W. Bush and his lackeys’ aggression with that idiotic war was the French Republic which singlehandedly prevented the USA to get a resolution of the United Nations authorizing war.

The USA, with the help of many in its plutocracy (including Hilarious Clinton, then a war mongering senator from New York) proceeded nevertheless, while organizing a French hating campaign. However, opposed France WAS, the situation has degenerated so much that France has now been dragged in the war she opposed (and so is Obama, who opposed the Iraq War then, albeit with much less power than Clinton had).

War is complex. Differently from the crazed psychopath Qaddafi, busy raping teenage girls, one could negotiate with Saddam who pointed out correctly that he could not understand why the USA and Britain attacked, since “we had good laws”. (Similarly, one can negotiate with the son of Qaddafi. who is much smarter, and less psycho than his dad.).

When talking about war, violence, conflict, aggression, the primitives cannot handle the complexity, and their discourses bring nothing to guide action. War is, arguably, humanity’s most complex activity.

Thus wars deserve complex descriptions (even wars such as invasions by Attila, the Avars or Genghis Khan were very complex, as the Mongols themselves were first to recognize, hence their successes in the latter case).

All and any partial description of war brings further conflicts. A very good example is the abject way the Anglo-Saxons and their lackeys describe the Versailles Treaty, following the atrocious racist, Lord Keynes, and Anglo-Saxon imperial icon.

Nazi Keynes described the Poles in the abominably racist way the soon to be formed Nazis were going to adopt. So it is correct to view Keynes as Hitler’s mentor, and always a big thrill when self-absorbed “Jews” such as Paul Krugman, adulate Keynes, Auschwitz’s grandfather.

Lord Keynes’ big economic trip was that as the Poles were hopeless lazy cretins with immoral habits congenital to their race. Europe, now deprived of its grandiose German imperial leadership, insisted Lord The Racist Keynes, would sink economically. Lord the Racist Keynes called that “The Economic Consequences of Peace”. American plutocrats and their universities cannot laud enough that piece of trash propaganda in learned guise. As Lord The Racist Keynes is anti-French, in learned, hypocritical guise, it is a bonus: one is never careful enough with these Sans-Culottes, Marseillaise singing types.

The meta teaching of Lord The Racist Keynes is that, if one sounds detached enough, one can make the credulous swallow whatever concepts are crucial to foster plutocracy. This is exactly what the future Owner of Britain insisted on: climate change caused the war in Syria, the support of the British elite for plutocrat Assad and his immensely rich family, or the invasion, and destruction, of Iraq, has nothing to do with it.

Let little people gobble this, from Australia to British Columbia, London to Singapore, South Africa to Wall Street, and Dog save the Queen (she is going to need it!) Ultimately, this sort of fables, repeated ad nauseam, become the official truth (as Hitler explained in detail). So it is that the Versailles Treaty, Anglo-Saxons insist, now followed by quite a few French anxious to please their masters, caused Nazism. An abject lie, useful to plutocrats in so many ways, they have been repeating it ever since. And one of the ways is precisely to kill the spirit of inquiry: it’s so obviously clear that the Versailles Treaty caused Nazism, as Lord the Racist Keynes said, that the subject is not worth studying: this is common wisdom among the educated, doctorate equipped elite, and those noble parrots go around repeating Nazi lies invented by Keynes, self-congratulating about how wise they are.

Thus it is that little minds learn to NOT even to ponder complex issues. (In that case not that complex: the submission of many nations of Eastern Europe to imperial Germany should be something as revolting as slavery, because it’s all what it was.)

I must admit that Paul Krugman has made efforts to exhibit how knowing better the history of the Twentieth Century enlightens the present fatal systems of thoughts ruling economics.

My own Mom is exasperated by my enthusiastic brandishment of the word “plutocrat”. She looks down on explaining so many phenomena with the notion (which even the mythical Jesus used, without naming it). There is something to it, in the sense that we need variety in life. I know some of the individuals around Obama, saw them transformed as they got a whiff of power. They were too stupid, or too moral to exploit it, so they came short on the satanic side of things (small “Pluto” factor). Yet, they were clearly intoxicated, as everybody around the White House is, by power. Fortunately my fertile imagination comes to the rescue to qualify those herds of slaves who serve, or aspire, and thus valorize power: CRATS.

“Crats” has the correct etymology: that of those obsessed by grabbing power, smelling power, basking in power (Greek “kratos” for power). It also reminds one of “rats”, animals so obsessed with cheese they would die for it, and the insult the French used to throw at fascist Germans of yore: Krauts. Let there be crats, those whom power obsesses, as they already exist, in all but name. We need to name what ails us.

Patrice Ayme’

Wilson A Racist; Exploding Seas

November 23, 2015

A quickie today, I have to go dive with the Manta Rays:

The Architect of USA Policy In The Twentieth Century Was A Frantic Racist Disguised As An Apostle Of Peace:

A scandal is surfacing at Princeton University, as the president and founder, Wilson, is found by the student body to be a racist. The official view on Wilson is that he was a saint, an apostle of peace, and the gentleman who, to his regret, had to intervene in World War One.

My vision is the exact opposite. I  have explained that Wilson, after he became president of the USA, and because he was a racist, encouraged the Kaiser and his top generals to attack the French Republic. So doing, Wilson invented the American policy of using fascist Germany to destroy the world, and, in particular the world order imposed by democratic European power.

During World War One, American trade, with the active collaboration of the Netherlands enabled Germany to keep on fighting (otherwise the Franco-British blockade would have forced it into surrender within 18 months).

It is good to see the student body, and even some of the administration of Princeton University, is rising a piece of the veil covering up American racism, and its far-fetching consequences…


How the USA explodes seas:

One far-fetched consequence has been that, as the USA was made by oil, the fossil fuel industry has had a tight grip on American policy. Just a few weeks ago the American Secretary of State was claiming the Paris Climate Conference would not be bidding. He was rebuffed by the French president (they are friends, and speak in French together as Kerry is bilingual). If COP 21 is not binding, seas will explode beyond the comfort level…

Vast mounts have just been found in shallow seas off Siberia, some 1,000 meters across. They are probably caused by global warming, which is much more pronounced up north.

From university of Tromso:

….these newly discovered subsea pingos may be quite recent. This lends support to another hypotheses, the one that states that mechanisms that form pingos on land and mechanisms that form mounds on the ocean floor are completely different.

“The subsea-pingo like formations are significantly larger than the ones on land. Gas leakage from one of the ocean floor pingos offshore Siberia shows a specific chemical signature that indicates modern generation of methane. We suggest that the mound formed more recently, moving material physically upwards.”

Dissociation of methane ice

On land pingos are mainly formed when the water freezes into an ice core under soil, because of the chilling temperatures of permafrost. However, subsea pingos, may be formed because of the thawing of relict subsea permafrost and dissociation of methane rich gas hydrates.

Gas hydrates are ice-like solids composed of among other things methane and water. They form and remain stable under a combination of low temperature and high pressure. In permafrost the temperatures are very low and gas hydrates are stable even under the low pressure, such as on shallow Arctic seas. Thawing of permafrost leads to temperature increases, which in turn leads to melting of gas hydrates, therefore, releasing the formerly trapped gas.

“ The methane creates the necessary force that pushes the remaining frozen sediment layers upward, forming mounds.” says Serov.

Quiet explosions beneath the Arctic shallow seas

Subsea pingos can potentially blow out, without massive attention, as was the case with the highly visible Yamal craters, but with massive expulsions of methane into the ocean. For petroleum companies these areas may pose a geohazard. Drilling a hole into one of these subsea pingos, can be not only expensive but also catastrophic. During a geotechnical drilling in the close by Pechora Sea, an industry vessel unknowingly drilled a hole into one of these mounds. It triggered a massive release of gas that almost sunk the vessel.

“We don´t know if the methane expelled from the subsea pingos reaches the atmosphere, but it is crucial that we observe and understand these processes better, especially in shallow areas, where the distance between the ocean floor and the atmosphere is short.” says Serov.

Reference: “Methane release from pingo-like features across the South Kara Sea shelf, an area of thawing offshore permafrost”,  Journal of Geophysical Research.

Yes, the situation is serious. Even more serious than when American racist were supporting, enabling, instigating German racists, a century ago. Let no one say it was not clear. The racists failed, in their attempt to impose their order worldwide. However, the destruction of the biosphere, once it has gone too far, will be self-feeding. That’s what the tipping points are all about.

Patrice Ayme’

Marseillaise: World Anthem

November 22, 2015

The world needs song. Just as the world need hope, it then needs to sing that hope, and man is a fighter, or is not. The world found that song of hope and pride, naturally enough in the powerful song that was sung to call for the defeat of those who hate humanity. La Marseillaise. The Marseillaise resonated around the world, from Wembley stadium, London, to the New York Philharmonic, to Australia, Russia…

La Marseillaise was used as a republican revolutionary anthem by those who knew French starting in the 18th century, simultaneously with its adoption in France. Such was the case in particular in Russia, where the tradition to use the Marseillaise as an anthem went on under the USSR (alongside The Internationale, another French revolutionary song with deep and famous words, this one from 1864).

In 1792 the First Republic defeated Europe’s plutocrats. Those, in giant coalition, had threatened the entire population of Paris with “military execution“. (Or read directly the demonic statement, a preliminary declaration that Auschwitz was something Prussians found natural to do, was removed from the link, instead Wikipedia just allude to it.) “Military Execution for Paris: these were the words used in July 1792 by the Duke of Brunswick, the coalition’ military commander. Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia were part of the coalition to extinguish the First Republic.

Liberty, Wearing the Phrygian Cap, Guiding The People Against Tyranny

Liberty, Wearing the Phrygian Cap, Guiding The People Against Tyranny

At Valmy, September 21, 1792, just east of Paris, superior French artillery withered the Prussian army which had to ignominiously retreat. The Republic was saved from ravenous plutocracy. At least for a while (plutocracy lite would come back perfidiously with the dictator Napoleon, a Corsican noble who succeeded to highjack the Revolution, for a while, serving instead his own demonic aspirations and those of the French oligarchy).

Every country has an anthem. Even the spineless European Union has Ludwig Van’s magnificent Hymn to Joy (within his 9th Symphony).

But what of the world? Is the world a country? Some will say the world is not a country. How irrelevant. Humanity is defined by hope and imagination, not just reality.

This week the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a French-drafted resolution which urges UN members to “redouble” action against Islamic State, and “take all necessary measures” in the fight against IS.

This is excellent: it’s the world government in action. In decisive action. Because the United Nation Security Council is the world government.

Humanity is both crew and passenger on this very large spaceship, planet Earth. Massive war is not an option on this ship. Several life support systems of the planet are already on the verge of collapse. It is not just about greenhouse gases. Earth’s life support is threatened by multiple organ failure.

I am right now on Maui. Locals told me up to 30,000 Humpback whales show up usually, now. Many come very close to shore. This year, there are none. One can, of course, accuse the super-powerful El Nino we presently enjoy. However, El Nino is how the planet warms up; in case of strong warming, El Ninos become continuous. There was a sort of half-baked El Nino last year, indeed (El Nino is supposed to come every seven years or so).

So we really cannot afford a big war. Nor do we see why we should have one: the largest states on Earth control immense territories: Russia is ridiculously big, 70% larger in land mass than Canada, the USA and China. China itself is immense and does not need the South China sea, to show it is an imperial power, considering its vast imperial colonies in Tibet and Xinjiang.

The European Union, thanks to France’s, and Britain’s immense Exclusive Economic Zones, controls even more territory than Russia (France and the USA have the largest EEZs). And now Russia and France are military allies (as in the latter stages of World War Two). Putin has calmed down, now that the frailty of his, and Russia’s posture, had become blatant.

What we need is to sing together. The words of the Marseillaise sing against what ails us now: the demonic instincts of those who want to reduce humanity to a soil they can trample on. In recent decades, as part of the decline of civilization envenomated by plutocratic ideology, the Marseillaise came to be viewed as too bloody. However, bloody calls to arms against bloodsuckers are perfectly appropriate… And always wise. Third rate philosophers teaching in the most prestigious universities, armed with soporific discourses, and indeed universally adulated, have spoken of chicken and rats, telling us they deserve equal rights with us (for example Peter Singer, Princeton University). While young people were obsessed by such preoccupations, the satanic instincts of naturally forming oligarchies went on a rampage, all over. The Marseillaise puts the mood back where it should always have been: if you are not interested in fighting tyrants, they are very interested in subjugating you. Or submitting (Islam). Here is the beginning of the Marseillaise:b

Rise children of the fatherland,
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us tyranny’s
Bloody standard went up, (bis)
Do you hear in the countryside
Bellow these ferocious soldiers?
They come up within your arms
Slit the throats of your sons, your spouses!

To arms, citizens,

Form your battalions,
March, march!
Let it be that an impure blood
Soak our furrows! (repeat)

What wants this herd of slaves,
Of traitors, of conspiring kings?
For whom these repugnant bounds,
Those irons since long prepared? (repeat)
Frenchmen, for us, ah, what an outrage
What passions it must arouse!
It’s us that one dare contemplate
To return to antique slavery!
To arms, citizens

What! Aliens cohorts
Would legislate in our hearths!
What! These mercenary phalanxes
Would strike down our proud warriors! (repeat)
Great God! From chained hands
Our brows would yield under the yoke
Vile despots would become
The masters of our destinies!

To arms, citizens…
Tremble, tyrants and you perfidious ones
The shame of all parties,
Tremble! Your parricidal schemes
Will finally receive their reward! (repeat)
Everyone is a soldier to combat you
If they fall, our young heroes,
Earth will produce new ones,
All is ready to fight against you!

All is ready to fight you, including, but not limited to, the planet itself. To make the Marseillaise truly universal: one has to replace “Frenchmen” by “Humans”, in just one place. There is more to the Marseillaise, including an acerbic critique of Republican Rome, which asserts that Rome was more interested to conquer land rather than minds. Thus we will have to come back to the subject.

The Declaration of the Rights of Humanity and the Citizen of 1789 is the basis of the United Nations, and the only scheme to manage humanity, besides holocausts. So let’s rather sing appropriately, all together, that we have to fight tyrants and their servants, lest we want just to be carpets, and thus kill humanity and the biosphere, because, ladies and gentlemen, however serviceable carpets are, they don’t think much. And without sinking, we will all sink. Including those who confuse Satan and the Good Lord..

Patrice Ayme’

How & Why The West Causes Submission

November 21, 2015

The very wealthy people who have long dominated the world, the plutocrats, want Submission (in Arabic, “Submission” is “Islam”). They want us to be submitted to them. Oil Barons made tremendous money from their satanic deal with the Devil, Ibn Saud, where Islam (= Submission) and Wall Street were central. Ibn Saud was the head of the most successful Islamist State of the Twentieth Century. That Islamist State was successful, because it made friends with the British plutocrats, before switching to the American ones in 1945.

How is it possible that young women and men want so much to kill other people that, for them, dying in the process is just a detail? Many ask this question, and roll out many complicated explanations to avoid giving the simple answer. That simple answer is in their face, in four words: just read the Qur’an. If you believe the Qur’an, killing yourself and others will send you directly to paradise (Qur’an (3:169-170), among others). Allah is merciful and very efficient to kill enemies.

This inability to read the Qur’an in turn comes from the mood that reading the Qur’an may reveal the truth. And that mood would contradict what politicians say all over: radical Islam is a pathology of Islam (I was listening to Raffarin, an ex-Prime Minister of France, who used these exact words). So doing they are blind to their own stupidity: radical means “roots”. Saying that the “roots” of something are a pathology of that something is a contradiction: the genes cannot be a pathology of what they generate.

Thus what is being imposed here is the mood that truth is not Politically Correct. This is not the only crazy, self-destroying mood imposed: another is that love wins all (just listen to John Lennon in this matter, he was a specialist of that delirious attitude, until that moment when he was made into Swiss cheese).

And When That Does Not Work, Extermination Will. Nazis Were Not Loved To Death, But Bombed To Death. And Ike Brought to Bear the National Guard, That Is, Force, to Integrate Schools. MLK Did Not.

And When That Does Not Work, Extermination Will. Nazis Were Not Loved To Death, But Bombed To Death. And Ike Brought to Bear the National Guard, That Is, Force, to Integrate Schools. MLK Did Not.

It goes without saying that the mood that truth is immoral is most profitable to the powers that be. The superstition habit (Christianism, Islamism) is a good way to kill respect for truth, by extending instead respect for collective hallucinations, as long as they are crazy enough.

Deeper than ideas are moods. Talking about ideas is not enough, one has to talk about what underlays them, moods.

Submission is a religion more known under its Arabic name, Islam.

I exposed its nature. Normal media, censors me, in particular when I quote from Submission’s most sacred text, the Qur’an. And when I quote Voltaire about it, it’s Voltaire’s turn to be censored. What does that say about civilization when truth is viewed as a racist crime?

A reminder for all these suicide bombers: they are going straight to paradise:

Qur’an (3:169-170)“Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve.”  Martyrs go directly from life to paradise, and should rejoice for them.

From the Hadith:

Muslim (20:4678)…a man said: “Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], where shall I be if I am killed?” He replied: “In Paradise.“…

So Submission (= Islam) is a problem, but the meta attitude relative to submission, even more so. That meta attitude is that, if you read Islam’s sacred texts, you are a racist. Killing and wounding 500 people in Paris because they listened to music and went to restaurants, doing what ISIS called their idolatry cannot be explained by those who have no read Islam, the set of orders from Allah, the bloody dictator supposed to rule over all Muslims’ hearts… and souls.

In Europe, for example Germany, Salafists are free to preach, and it’s a full time job. This is lawful, under the pretext of “tolerance”, “freedom of expression”, “freedom of religion”. However strict Islam, teaching the Qur’an, in full is teaching hatred, maximally (see quotes in other essays). In particular, preaching the Sharia.

All this should be unlawful, and punishments should be applied. certainly if people can go to prison for possession of illegal drugs, which only injure themselves, those who preach violence should be punished much more.

This is common sense. That this common sense was not enabled by legislators is certainly a form of complicity, just as pontificating about islam without having read the Qur’an is also a form of complicity with the madness.

The ultimate red herring to divert attention from gathering inequality in the world: focus on this Islamism we have incited to grow in your midst.

Is that all very twisted? Maybe, but straightforward logic is not good at manipulating people; twists are required. But, behind these twists there are laws, psycho-historical laws, immutable.

Because, indeed, this is how the Greco-Roman empire went down. A religion was imposed from the top (Christianism), just as now Islamism is imposed from the top (by calling those who fear Islamism “racist”, and by NOT applying hate crime laws against Salafists). Simultaneously schooling and the army were hugely weakened, under the guise of austerity (so that Roman plutocrats would not have to pay taxes so high that they will not be able to become ever richer).

The analogies are strict. Meanwhile Rome suffered a broad resource crisis… which only greater education could have solved. Instead the world fell in exactly the same superstition which is now called Islam. Yes, Islam existed before Islam. And in particular with the most important love of death and the apocalypse, which is the underlying deepest theme of the Qur’an.

When god is a creep, creeps are gods. Thus creeps want creepy god to be great. “God is great!” they scream, meaning: we are great! Yes, indeed, great, very great creeps

The Islamist crisis we have is very similar to the Christian crisis of the Fourth century, and the fundamental cause is the same, namely the oligarchic crisis having gone so bad, that it hated, and ate, the brains

Patrice Ayme’

Love Without Wisdom: Ruin of Humanity.

November 20, 2015

Love without wisdom is only ruin of humanity? Lying, too, is the ruin of humanity, which is truth, if nothing else.

Lying about Islam will not seduce youth. Just the opposite.

If there is no love of wisdom, there is no wisdom in love.

Attack of the day, this time Al Qaeda on Bamako’s most prestigious hotel. Ten Muslim Fundamentalists versus 200 guests and 30 employees. What could go wrong? “God is great!” screamed the gun totting Radicals. Therein were airline crews from Air France, Turkish Airways, and many Members of Parliament from many countries, including France (of course), Senegal, Quebec, etc.

Human Spirit Is Indomitable

Human Spirit Is Indomitable

Well what could go wrong is that there were 40 French gendarmes from GIGN (Groupe d’Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale) plus French and U.S. Special Forces in the immediate area. The siege got resolved very quickly with only two dozens killed.

The deepest problem we are facing is philosophical. There is the Islam we have, and then there is the Islam we wish to have. The Islam we have, is the one in the Qur’an. Nobody reads the Qur’an, everybody talks about it, as if they had. Well, nobody reads it, except for the Islamist State, and other Muslim Fundamentalists, or “Radicals”

The West says:”The Islamist State is not Islam, it’s terrorism”. The Islamist State, and other Muslim Fundamentalists reply:”Just read the Qur’an”. Young, dissatisfied people (rightly dissatisfied from austerity, discrimination, inequities, etc.) then decide to make a little experience for themselves: who is right? They read the Qur’an and discover that the Muslim Fundamentalists told the truth: the Islamist State is the Qur’an, unadultarated. As long as the leadership of the West (political and intellectual) lies in a blatant way, and is easily caught lying, it will have no credit, and will only enrage youth ever more. (Maybe that’s what they want? As war serves plutocracy well?)

Islamism Is Terrorism, Wisdom Is Love

It’s as simple as that. Don’t agree? Well read the Qur’an oh you silly ones who talk about books you never read and were mostly told lies about. Before reading comprehension, one needs reading. Right, normal people prefer reading novels than reality.

In the Qur’an it is famously said that who kills someone, kills all of humanity. Never mind that Muhammad himself killed more than 1,000, including an entire tribe of Yathrib (now Medina). Yet, the Qur’an says this. However that verse is ABROGATED by tens of later verses which order all sorts of people (remember that later verses take precedence over earlier ones):

Imams bemoan “Radicalism”. But “radical” means about roots, and in the case of Islam, it means the Qur’an. Radical is the Qur’an. The Qur’an itself is a fabrication of Uthman, not Muhammad, as Aisha pointed out. Entire pieces of it were removed (notably the famous “Satanic Verses”).

So why not rewrite the Qur’an in a new version, the “Real Message of God According to Muhammad, Which Uthman And Others Hid From You”?

That will allow to remove the verses in the Qur’an which are in conflict with civilization.

Meanwhile the comedy of stupidity unchained, keeps on unfolding. I showed an educated lady from California hyper-threatening verses from the Qur’an, which should be unlawful, just because they are hate crimes. She quietly told me: ”Oh, there is the same in the Bible.” She has been a professional woman earning her keep as an engineer for decades.

So the pan is hot?’ Say who pass nowadays for smart, well-balanced people. ‘No problem, the fire is hot too.” Surely, the argument that we should be happy with the Qur’an, because it is similar to the rule book of the Inquisition belongs to those who hope keenly to bring back the Inquisition.

If there is no love of wisdom, there is no wisdom in love. It’s not enough to love God. You have to check first it’s not the Devil, as the Cathars pointed out.

The Vatican had the King of Paris (also known as “France”) annihilate the Cathars, using a Bible Fundamentalist army. One million dead. And all the Cathars’ writings.

But not, as you can see, all their ideas.

Meanwhile in Algeria, the local dictator, Bouteflika, had cartoonist Tahar Djehiche imprisoned 6 months in jail for cartoons ‘insulting the president’ -”. When the mood is around that insulting the Prophet deserves death, surely insulting the president deserves 6 months. Islam is the bed of gory dictatorship.

Who is Bouteflika?  A terrorist who became a general. He is one of the original principals from the FNL, a terrorist group to whom the French dictator (the one who dictated), De Gaulle, gave power in… 1962. De Gaulle, a famous racist, thought that Bouteflika was perfect for Algeria. De Gaulle thought he could keep “Muslims” or North Africans at bay, and away, by giving them to the wolves. That mood persisted, although its racism had to morph a bit. So the children of the North Africans who fled to France, or Europe, were mistreated by austerity (no schools for you, Muslims, the Qur’an is good enough, and selling drugs, too). So here we are. (Fully describing the relationship between France and North Africa deserves 1,000 pages, I am myself a byproduct; this was just an appetizer…)

If there is no love of wisdom, there is no wisdom in love. People are born from love, and thus have a capacity, and a need to love whatever, including evil. Love is not enough. Love without wisdom is only ruin of humanity.

Patrice Ayme’


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 405 other followers