Submission To War

Religions pull people together again. It could be the religion of the Republic, as under the Romans. In this case the religion served the Public.

Superstitious religions are much more frequent: they serve madness, by obliging “believers” to believe the unbelievable, thus to suspend reason, and fascistically follow those who are with god(s).

Human beings are one with reason. Suspending reason is suspending themselves. It can only be achieved violently, explicitly or not. That’s why millions, even tenths of millions, were killed in the name of Christianism and Islam.

Making A Religion From Killing People

Making A Religion From Killing People

Indeed, oligarchies and plutocracies are more frequent than republics, the history of civilization shows. A republic is much harder to achieve. Calling on the fascist instinct to obey those with access to weapons, and the training and mentality to use them, is much easier.

Sometimes, there are spectacular variants to superstitious, fascist religions. The Aztecs lived at high altitude, and had little protein (the Incas lived at even higher altitude, but had engineered potatoes, which are full of proteins). So the Aztecs religion recommended to fetch large, nutritious animals. However, Mesoamerica had no cattle or sheep, lamas or vicunas. The camels and horses had long been exterminated. The only animal which could walk to his fate in Tenochtitlan, was man.

So the Aztec religion recommended to kill people. Well fed Aztecs could not be defeated by those they ate… Until Cortez elite, but minuscule, army showed up. Cortez had little trouble to raise an army among the Natives, and exterminate Aztecs, and their religion.

The Romans exterminated several major religions which condone killing people as a matter of faith. The Gallic religion was the foremost, and largest such example. From Caesar to under Nero, it took a bit more than a century for Roman armies to eliminate the Druids and their theocratic plutocracy. The Franks would then take care of the savage Germanic religion. It took four centuries.

The Violence in the Holly Qur’an can only be holly, as it comes from god’s mouth. Thus it’s completely natural that a young perfectly integrated Muslim, especially trained as an assassin, grabbed a gun, and killed five Mariness and Sailor, wounding others.

Islamophiles will howl to the sky that the fanatic was not following a religion of peace. True enough. The true Islam is a religion of war.

However, it’s beneath the dignity of, or maybe against the religion of,  the Politically Correct and Philosophically Stupid (PCPS), to read any of the sacred texts of Islam.

The Qur’an orders believers to kill unbelievers. Such verses are unambiguous, and starts as soon as the first (which is the second) chapter of the Qur’an:

“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter… and fight them until fitnah is no more, and religion is for Allah.” (Qur’an 2:191, The Cow)

Islamist so-called “scholars” make impressive gymnastics to tell you that what you just read is all about peace. A preferred trick is to not translate “fitnah”. Fitnah means “strife”. In other words, Muslims are ordered to kill and kill and kill until all resistance (fitnah) has ceased.

Naturally, Muslim “scholars” contest the straightforward explanations of the texts they read ad nauseam . Why? How? The Qur’an orders them to use “every stratagem“… Including lying, which is expressly ordered too:

The Quran, chapter 9 (At-Tawba), verse 5:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.— translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali

What to do with a terroristic religion?

The Celtic religion, and Carthage’s religion, were eliminated violently, by the Republic. Rome tolerated all religions, as long as they did not cause death, mayhem, or conditions bringing them forth.

The Republic, as a religion, can be peaceful (Italian Republics showed this). Hinduism is peaceful: with one million gods, there are so many leaders and emotions to follow, that none can exert too much of a weight.

There was a sort of betrayal of the West by its own intellectuals: they told us that Islam had to be respected. Whereas the entire Western civilization was built upon replacing superstition by reason and jurisdiction. Thus the West was built upon NOT respecting the superstitious religion, Christianism, beyond reason. So why to extend the courtesy of respecting Islam more than Christianism?

Is it because Islam is so much more violent that thinkers are afraid to be critical? Or is it racism? It’s good enough for them?

Islam means submission. Submission to what? What’s hardest to submit to? The most violent orders?

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , ,

96 Responses to “Submission To War”

  1. Chris Snuggs Says:

    George Orwell would have loved this era. You can simply redefine things according to your own agenda. For example, anyone calling himself a Muslim who does something nasty (no shortage there) is simply redefined by the establishment as “non-Muslim”. Easy ……


    • Kevin Berger Says:

      For once, I’m quite in agreement with Chris; maybe it’s because I have no historical perspective (and even then, one may know History, but History is perhaps about broad strokes, a “commonly agred upon lie”), but I certainly do feel like we’re living in an Orwellian era, and obscenely so.
      t’s not much that they can, thanks to unprecedented mass-media, that they know how to do it, thanks to the lessons learned in WWI and WWII and refined in marketing and the consent-manufacturing industry, I guess.
      Though, it might be more fitting to talk about a Satanic or Luciferian invertion. This is your take, after all, just through a secular lens.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, indeed, Chris, the establishment uses that technique systematically. The establishment has a vested interest in Islamist terror, as it is a friend of the fascist state.

      Just before going out to assassinate people, the Believer quoted Hadith 38, which I reproduce (from an Islamist site), in another comment.


    • itsnobody Says:

      But any non-Muslim who kills is redefined by the establishment as “who cares there’s crazy people”.

      Like for instance the guy in Norway in 2011 who killed 75 people…I remember that day back in 2011 an atheist I knew was really happy and excited when he heard about the attack and they thought it was an Islamic terrorist…but then after they showed the guy who did it and said he was White and non-Muslim he didn’t care about it or talk about it anymore…the story in the media changed to “who cares there’s crazy people, he’s getting 21 years in jail, let’s move on”.

      Before when they thought it was an Islamic terrorist it was a real big deal, but not after they found out it was a White non-Muslim guy.


  2. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [From New York Times July 19, 2015.]

    CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — The F.B.I. is reviewing a text message that the gunman who opened fire on two military facilities here sent to a friend hours before his rampage, a law enforcement official said Saturday. That text, which might provide insight into the gunman’s motivation, included a link to an Islamic verse saying, “Whosoever shows enmity to a friend of Mine, then I have declared war against him.”

    At the same time, the bureau is expanding its investigation into a trip the gunman, identified as Mohammod Abdulazeez, made to Jordan in 2014, by dispatching agents to the country to interview Jordanian officials about the gunman’s contacts, the law enforcement official said.

    “All indications from the interviews is that there is something different about him after he returned home,” the official said. “He was different, but it does not appear that he was showing the typical outward signs of someone who was going to lash out violently. It does not appear from the interviews that he was saying a lot of anti-U.S. things to his friends.”

    [One more logical step and those saying “anti-US things” will be identified to Islamists…]


    • hazxan Says:

      Do you believe the F.B.I? It is interesting that this looks to be going down the mind control rabbit hole already occupied by Lee Harvey Oswald, The Manchurian Candidate, David/Delores Shaylor and numerous others.

      Do you know of Hassan I Sabbah? Rumoured to be have men who were controlled by him, yet unaware of it. They would remain unknown in some town for years, until one day they were “triggered” by their master and would assassinate their target. This was nearly 1,000 years ago, you’d assume the techniques are perfected now.

      Never mind Orwell and 1984, it’s currently only taking 5 years for tin foil hat conspiracies to become mainstream news. What next? Google spying on us? Facebook controlling our moods?


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        There are lots of real conspiracies out there. The FBI, it has been demonstrated, engaged in many conspiracies, for many years. I do believe (from eyewitnesses I talked to) that Google and Facebook were into control, and collaboration with the goons.

        I think there are lots of good reasons for great anger out there, and then, if one does not know much, and one opens the Qur’an, plenty will have plenty enough to go out, commit a massacre.


  3. Patrice Ayme Says:

    The Hadith are books of gossip about what the Prophet Mahomet supposedly said. The Sunnah, books of gossip about what the supposedly did, or said. They are both viewed as authoritative, meaning believers have to obey them.

    Notice the nice abstract of how a plutocrat (the Believer) ought to treat his “servant”, until he becomes his one and only nervous system (the essence of fascism).

    Here is the reproduction of:

    Hadith 38. Attaining Allah’s love Part A

    On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (RadhiyAllahu ‘anhu) who said: The Messenger of Allah (SallaAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said,

    “Verily Allah (Glorified may he be) has said: ‘Whosoever shows enmity to a wali (friend) of Mine, then I have declared war against him. And My servant does not draw near to Me with anything more beloved to Me than the religious duties I have obligated upon him. And My servant continues to draw near to me with nafil (supererogatory) deeds until I Love him. When I Love him, I become his hearing with which he hears, and his sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him; and were he to seek refuge with Me, I would surely grant him refuge.’ ”

    [Reported by Bukhari]

    Brief Commentary
    •Scholars said this is the most noble hadith in describing the friends of Allah, so it is a mighty and important hadith
    •This hadith gives us the methodology of becoming from the friends of Allah and the consequences of being from the friends of Allah
    •Due to its importance, scholars authored books on it. Imam Al-Shawkani wrote a 500+ page book on this hadith
    •From Surah Yunus [10:62-64] we can see that to be a friend of Allah, you need to be a believer (excel in faith) and pious (excel in actions)
    •There three levels of the friends of Allah, taken from Surah Fatir [35:32]: ◦{Wronged themselves}: Generally good people, but sometimes miss obligations or fall into sins
    ◦{Stayed between right and wrong}: Fulfil obligations and don’t sin, but don’t go further than that. May carry out disliked actions
    ◦{Foremost in doing good deeds}: These are the elite of mankind. They fulfil the obligations and don’t sin, and they also strive and excel in doing recommended actions and avoid disliked actions


    • hazxan Says:

      Are there any verses demanding peaceful behaviour? If so, what does the slavish, literal follower of the texts do then?

      The Bible (and many other texts) have demands to destroy the unbelievers. However, the Bible, also has statements that ask for compassion and consideration of fellow humans rather than destroying them.

      I’ve only read some extracts online from the Koran, and don’t recall any such verses, an expert would know if they are there though. I have read some of the Sufi writers, Rumi, Attar etc. No extortions to violence in them, quite the opposite. However, I’m also aware that Sufi’s often, perhaps invariably, fall foul of the Islamic states and the official clerics in their homelands and were often treated brutally and executed.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Evaluation of Islamist texts is a sort of science, or, more exactly, game. The diverse verses are evaluated whether in importance, chronology (sometimes word by word), and primacy.

        All this, whether there are nice verses in the Bible or Quran is irrelevant: once one is dead, nice words don’t matter.

        The way to judge an ideology (and it could be Euroscepticism, Climatoskepticism, Banksterism, etc.), one should apply what I call “catastrophic calculus”, just looking at the worst cases and combinations.

        Conclusion: those who believe in literal Bible of Qur’an are thought criminals, just the same as those believing in straight Celt religion, Aztec religion, or Carthage religion. Whether they enact their criminal thoughts is not the only problem. The worse is that they get younger people to do it for them.

        I have got to run right now, so I may say more LATER. ;-)!


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Wahhabism/Saudism/Salafism has devoured Sufism alive, thanks to petrodollars coming from USA ultimately. I spent my childhood in Sufi lands, I was worse than now, and never had any troubles, whatever I did.

        Not just that, but sometimes, I was out-edged philosophically (as a 12 years old). Now what we have is the worst “Islam” all over. As a past Muslim president of Senegal said, “it’s not my religion“.


  4. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Eugen who feel Germany is unjustly criticized.]

    Greece became instantaneously too expensive when the Drachma was converted at too high a rate. So car producers moved to dirt-cheap Slovakia. Including VW. One Greek city had the world’s highest density of Porsche. Fact is the banks most rescued were German, second only to the French ones.

    Dominique Strauss-Kahn just condemned the recent accord, calling it a GERMAN DIKTAT.
    DSK proffered in an open letter critiques I have made before.

    Fact is, a lot of German politicians behaved very badly in the last few weeks (although they backed off, and changed their wishes later, 180 degrees).


    • EugenR Says:

      I think I replied, that the Greeks were just happy with the overvalued currency, so they can borrow and spend easily now and the future is not important. Well, the future had come. They are lucky that the EU is still there for them, if they fufill their part of the contract.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Germans were happy too. So let them stay happy. If Germans love order, let them have orderly emotions.

        DSK puts related matters very well, I am looking for a text of his just published open letter.

        Basically Europeans are idiots at the feet of plutocrats they lick the toes of, thinking they are real smart not to have enough money to operate their economy. Whereas the American empire is socialist, and uses his plutocrats as weapons of massive subjugation, as they did in the 1930s, with their little employee, Hitler.

        I had a very revealing talk with a French engineer today. He thought Europe ought to spend less and less money. In other words, get ever poorer. BTW, you understand part of what I say, as you just mention it on your site.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Hmmm…. I replied to this quite a bit, but it mysteriously disappeared.

        Germans were happy with the way they arranged Greece, let them keep on keeping on. If they like order, let them start with their sense of happiness..


  5. Chris Snuggs Says:

    “It’s against the religion of the Politically Correct and Philosophically Stupid (PCPS), to read any of the sacred texts of Islam.”

    Chris Snuggs: Here is something to read:

    Click to access readit.pdf


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Nice (so to speak). I don’t know it’s as complete as my own “Violence in the Holly Qur’an”, as far as the Qur’an. But then it goes into the Hadith, which have not cited much, except for the fact that the Hadith claims one has to kill all Jews, for the apocalypse to proceed. See:

      Here is such a well-known Hadith, that it is part of the Charter of Hamas. Book 041, Number 6985:

      “Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”

      Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim. See also from Sahih Muslim: Hadith: 41:6981, , 41:6982, 41:6983, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791, and 4:52:177. All this is readily available on Islamist sites. Can one get clearer than that?


  6. brodix Says:


    Anyone with any historical knowledge understands Islam is a particularly passive-aggressive meta-tribal philosophy, just from its territorial successes and I can understand that how from your own background that you sense its threat, but challenging it directly and on its own political terms only serves to enhance the brand. It’s like short sellers serving to expand the market for what they are betting against and having to buy it when it doesn’t break before they do.
    Islam is the more doctrinaire and least intellectually complex monotheism, as its primary success has been to give tribal societies a larger sense of connection and drive, which translates to military success. Now I’m not saying you are not right, but given the situation, you are hitting your head against a rock wall. It is not susceptible to logic and threats only serve to validate its methods.
    What will be the only viable route is picking apart the whole western, object oriented, linear theory of reality, on which monotheism is based. Then once this conversation gets going in the more philosophically open west, in which even the idea of the entire universe is presumed to be one unit, rather than an infinite network, after a few decades the consequences will trickle down into the more intellectually dense underbrush, in which Islam thrives.
    If you want to sever the spine, use a scalpel, not a sword.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      John: I am NOT HITTING my head against a rock wall. I lived my babyhood and childhood in countries of Muslims, never had a problem, and was even more provocative than I am now.

      There USED TO BE many variants of Islam, and most of them did not take the sacred texts literally. But now there are just two domineering variants left, both based on literal interpretations. They hate each other to death.

      I am NOT HITTING my head against a rock wall. But certainly the USA and France are. France has officially 5,000 Jihadists within. They have 3,000 men to watch them, they need at least 30,000.

      4 days ago Jihadists (likely) attacked an extremely defended refinery. Some bombs did not explode, still two giant tanks went in flames. Two weeks ago, it was a French military depot.

      The USA is scrambling to arm… the military, within. So we are going to get security states.

      I am not threatening Jihadist (I banned one here, not because he was Jihading, but he insulted some commenters calling them “subhuman”, and was obviously deranged and self contradicting. Other Jihadists were debated here, and just gave up.)

      What I am condemning is the attitude of Western Leaders and intellectuals. They truly are the ones, wittingly or not, who have instrumentalized Islam. These are the ones I plan to slice like salami.

      Other thing: I want you to show me where, just by quoting terrorist text, I use a scalpel not. If I quoted Hitler, I would not be using a scalpel? If I quote the terrorist Luther, a scalpel I am using not?

      And what’s wrong severing spines with swords? This is all going to end with thermonuclear fireworks, and cutting spines is then irrelevant, because it’s all about sublimation and ionization.

      Don’t be too subtle by half, my friend, don’t go the battlefield brandishing the scalpel in your head. You need real weapons. The French army has rocket artillery that reaches 70 kilometers, excellent against Jihadists… Then there are fuel-air explosives, equivalent to small nukes…

      But, first of all, one needs the ability to quote the enemy.


    • hazxan Says:

      Or demonstrate practically that life really is more fulfilling in our tribe for everyone, not just those who live off the interest. Carrot rather than stick.


    • pshakkottai Says:

      Islam is a war religion successful in grabbing territory and wiping out a lot of people in its 1400 years of jihad. It had military superiority all along. Boko haram and ISIS are Islam and are repeating what mohammad did in the sixth century. The only way it will change is through warfare and destruction. It is highly unlikely to self reform into a civilized religion compatible with human rights and democracy.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Agreed, Partha. One can see this clearly with the confused Jihadist, “itsnobody” who wants to call people such as us “subhuman” and, actually “lower than animals” (the Qur’an has it that pigs, monkeys and the like are actually Jews…..

        I just made a search on this: it was very difficult, full of pages of Islamophilic texts, often of very twisted logic….


        • itsnobody Says:

          So what’s wrong with viewing atheists as subhuman for being racist, White Nationalist, and Nazi?

          You said your rants against Muslims and cartoons against Muslims and atheists Nazis are protected by “free speech” and isn’t “hate speech” since you’re really one-sided and biased.

          I view atheists as subhuman beings, so what’s that? It’s free speech.

          I find it funny that atheists hate Muslims but agree with Muslims on hating Jews and supporting Nazism, lol.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:


        The Quran Dehumanizes Non-Muslims
        and Says that They are Vile Animals

        The Ayatollah Khomeini, who dedicated his entire life to studying Islam, said that non-Muslims rank somewhere between “feces” and the “sweat of a camel that has consumed impure food.” Small wonder. The Quran dehumanizes non-Muslims, describing them as “animals” and beasts:

        Those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)

        Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)

        Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to “panting dogs” with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness. Verse 7:179 says they are like “cattle” only worse.

        Verse 5:60 even says that Allah transformed Jews of the past into apes and pigs. This is echoed by verses 7:166 and 2:65.

        A hadith (Bukhari 54:524) says that Muhammad believed rats to be “mutated Jews” (also confirmed by Sahih Muslim 7135 and 7136).

        Verses 46:29-35 even say that unbelieving men are worse than the demons who believe in Muhammad.

        According to Islamic law, non-Muslims may be owned as property by Muslims, but – in keeping with Islam’s supremacist message – a fellow Muslim should never be (unless they convert to Islam under enslavement). Even Christians and Jews are not considered fully human in that the penalty for killing one of them is limited to one-third of the compensation due for unintentionally killing a Muslim.


        • itsnobody Says:

          But you dehumanized Muslims many times…so what’s the difference?

          You don’t have an issue with Nazis who dehumanize Jews.

          You don’t have an issue with the Roman Empire killing Christians.

          You don’t have an issue with North Korea dehumanizing religious people.

          So what’s your problem?


  7. dominique deux Says:

    You know I don’t follow you on the line of singling out Islam among religions as being essentially the worst.
    But you are right on the spot when pointing out that the West got civilized by potty-training its own crazies. We did not spend centuries putting the local clerics in their right place (mostly, and they’re still struggling and wreaking havoc on their usual victims wherever they hold sway, like in Poland or Ireland) merely to have another wild bunch spot a void and take over.
    The problem you address mainly stems from the fact that the West’s progress is far from uniform, and its largest component is still deeply mired in religious folly. Before the Jihadists showed their true terrorist colors, any goon with a beard, a robe and a holy book was viewed as a Biblical holy man and given due respect along with bundles of greenbacks. The Bush administration’s dealings with the House of Saud to check any progress in women issues at the UN is well documented.
    (btw it’s holy not holly, fix your spellchecker!)


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I did not “single out Islam”. I mentioned the Aztecs, the Celts, Carthage, and my preferred whipping boy, Christianism.
      Is it my fault if all those religions were eradicated or mostly extinguished, by force? (Yes, Francis I is around, and I approve much of what he says, which is new and scandalous. Neither do I talk more about Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, who is basically irrelevant.)

      Thanks for the “holly” versus “holy”. I have a spell checker which changes some words systematically, sometimes quite a while later (like anti-Islam becomes “Anti-spam”).

      The church goes tax free in the USA. Any church just has to show it’s all for Abraham tying his son up so as to cut his throat.

      BTW, did you find a text of Strauss-Kahn’s open letter? All I could find is photographs of it. DSK puts the European matter not far from the sort of philosophical contexts I put them in general. I want to reproduce it here, with add-ons comments.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      “Islam” is around 100 religions. When I attack Qur’an or Hadith, or Suna, I attack just those who really believe that’s the principal, principled, truth worth having. I don’t care if they call themselves French intellectuals, pataphilosophers, USA president, or devout Muslims.

      Clearly some brands of Islam having NEARLY NOTHING to do with Salafism, Wahhabism, etc. They are actually more advanced, more modern, open minded, than Christianism ever was.


    • EugenR Says:

      To my opinion the aggressiveness of Muslims is not caused so much because of what is written in their holy book, but more because of the social consequences of the interpretation of it. If someone is looking for justification to violence, he will find it. Even in Buddhism could be found justification as it appears in Burma of today, and in Japan 70 years ago. But the social disruption of the Muslims is caused by their denial of modern liberal ideas not only in politics, but also in their education, based on religiouse text memorizing, instead of teaching free expression and free creative thinking. Islam seems to support economic inequality, and don’t speak to me about the muslim


    • EugenR Says:

      To my opinion the aggressiveness of Muslims is not caused so much because of what is written in their holy book, but more because of the social consequences of the interpretation of it. If someone is looking for justification to violence, he will find it. Even in Buddhism could be found justification as it appears in Burma of today, and in Japan 70 years ago. But the social disruption of the Muslims is caused by their denial of modern liberal ideas not only in politics, but also in their education, based on religiouse text memorizing, instead of teaching free expression and free creative thinking. Islam seems to support serfdom and economic inequality, and don’t speak to me about the Muslim charity, which is part of the system to sustain the gap between the poor and the rich. It is not accident that the foreign workers from Bangladesh and other Muslim countries are treated like slaves in Saudia and other golf countries. The Muslims react with extrem violence to any idea, faith, understanding, that opposes their faith. In this it is similar to the other monotheistic faiths. But while the Christianity and Judaism learned to submit itselves to racional thinking, the Muslims fearfully fights it. But above all this stands the enslavement of women in most of the Muslum , and I don’t know if it is according to


  8. brodix Says:


    I think you, dominique and I are all trying to address some elementary, “clash of civilization” type issues, in which political and social inertia is driving the world into an abyss.
    You and I do not have the sword, nor any armies at our disposal. So my point is that to dissect this situation, the answers we might arrive at are not going to be found in fighting the effects, the jihadists and other crazies using civil strife to express their own anger and frustrations, but to try and peel away some of the paradigms motivating the larger dynamic.
    For instance, a spiritual absolute would logically be the essence of consciousness from which we rise and which seems to be the vital element of biology. Not an ideal father figure or judge from which we have fallen and seek to return. Nor are good and bad some cosmic duel between the forces of righteousness and evil, but the basic biological binary code of attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental.
    Taking heed of this might cause society to examine the more questionable aspects of all religious beliefs. In order to function as a whole, society does need a mutual sense of right and wrong, otherwise it will break down. As well as that different societies will have different poles of attraction and repulsion.
    Then again, much of the political and economic strife giving rise to this tension is that our financial medium is being used as a runaway rent extraction device and by sucking any and all extractable value out of every possible source, while suborning most western governments to enforce its appetites, is driving many populations to desperation, which will result in far more civil conflict than just jihadists in statistically minor but telegenically compelling ways.
    Money is really just a voucher system and there is nothing more detrimental to such networks than large surpluses of vouchers, yet our entire culture has become taken over by the desire and methods of acquiring and storing enormous amounts of such promises.
    We have to understand that money is a public medium, not private property. It is more the road, than the car we drive on it. This isn’t socialism. We can certainly store value in any number of other ways, such as healthy environments, strong communities, well built and lasting machinery and buildings, but what we are doing now, chasing after notes based on unfulfillable promises, is as delusional as any religion.
    So this is my point. We need to remove the beam from our own eye, before worrying about what blinds our neighbors. If we were to do so, than it might improve our relations enough that the neighbors might take heed and remove their own, without our further meddling.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear John:
      I have heard of the beam-straw thing before. I am forging ahead, 25 centuries in the future.

      Islam was CONCEIVED as a war machine against civilization. Literally. Excluding Oman and Yemen, the Arabs had just two cities: Mecca and Yattrib. Mahomet recommended the attack at this point, the most favorable in 25 centuries, as Persia and Roma had exhausted each other.

      Islam, as conceived initially by Mahomet and the four righteous Caliphs is NOT a civilization, it’s a war religion. It’s supposed to take over civilization.

      Plutocrats have infused YOU with error: now, you go about talking about the beam in your eye. Their recent creation, the conspiracy known as Islam RE-FUNDAMENTALIZED has invaded your brain, made you doubtful. This way you are busy with imaginary beams, somewhere between your eye and the desert, while you are distracted with their toys and puppets, they take over the planet.

      I lived in Islam, early on. The present madness was nowhere in evidence, it was created with dollars, later.

      Those obsessed with avoiding a clash of civilization are doubly silly: they already have it, and it’s not really what’s going on. A traditional take-over by plutocracy, using Islam refundamentalized as a Trojan Horse, is more like it.


      • brodix Says:


        Yes, they are taking over the planet by replacing local financial circulation systems with their own global one. The English did it with their empire. Genghis Khan did it.

        Yes, Islam is a war religion and a very successful one, for its first 7 centuries. They coasted for the next 6 and have been decidedly surpassed by the west over the last century and a half.

        That is not a mystery. All monotheistic religions are inherently “plutocratic.” It goes with the territory of being monolithic. As you have pointed out, Christianity entered that stage when Constantine envisioned the cross as a war totem.

        Jewish history is pretty much the same.

        My point is that the basic premise is political, not logical. The absolute, the universal state, would be basis, not apex. The field, not the point. A point necessarily implies the existence of other points, not that it is a sole entity. Monotheistic religions are based on the assumption that their point/savior/god/etc, is the sole point and there can be no other.

        The political power of this is to induce fanaticism, to convince its adherents that there can be no other point.

        Now, instead, capitalism is creating a universal/global system from the bottom up, by replacing the local social contract inherent in money with a global system of exchange. One which makes local societies dependent on this system to function, having squashed their local medium of exchange. Witness Greece.


      • itsnobody Says:

        So where’s the violence and war? The European countries with the highest percentage of Muslims have the lowest murder rates in ALL of the entire world.

        Like for instance, Sweden, let’s compare the murder rates:
        – US murder rate: 4.7 per 100,000
        – US state with the very lowest murder rate: 1.1 per 100,000
        – US state with the very highest murder rate: 10.8 per 100,000
        – Sweden’s murder rate: 0.7 per 100,000


        So Sweden’s murder rate is lower than ALL 50 US states and almost every country’s murder rate in the entire world!

        I don’t see the violence…if you understand how the murder RATE is calculated it’s the murder count in proportion to the population size…meaning that if the murder COUNT went up slightly the murder rate would really go up since Sweden’s population size is low…but instead 2012 was Sweden’s lowest murder rate ever since the 1960s…ROFL

        The only time Norway’s murder rate went up was in 2011 when that White non-Muslim guy killed 75 people…ROFL

        The European countries with the highest murder rates, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia have the least non-white immigration, lowest percentage of Muslims (near 0%), and purest European stock…ROFL!.

        I don’t see the violence…the FBI agrees…


  9. Kevin Berger Says:

    FWIW, a narrow view of part of the problem – and as far as I can tell, it’s the first time I have seen this guidebook discussed in a French news source.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, well, I agree with he article, yet, the number one terrorist manual is the Qur’an, as a new commenter I have not let the comment through yet said. It’s pretty much said explicitly there that their duty is to kill those who stand in the way of Islam. Assassins had developed the exact same tactics, 8 centuries ago.
      The aim is to exhaust the West. Either every young Muslim has to be watched, or the Qur’an has to become a partly censored, or forbidden book, which will have to see a completely edulcorated version discussed in mosques.


      • itsnobody Says:

        lol…so then if that’s true where’s the violence? Why do the European countries with the highest percentage of Muslims have the lowest murder rates in the entire world?

        I don’t see the violence as I pointed out…and the FBI agrees.

        North Korea has already exterminated religious people and has a 0% Muslim population, don’t you agree with them?

        But North Korea has a high murder rate with a 0% Muslim population, lol.


  10. gmax Says:

    The real terrorists are the leaders of the West, intellectuals or not, who enjoin us to admire Islam TERRORIST TEXTS. Indeed they work hand in hand with banksters. They distract us from our own survival, drive us to misery by teaching us we have to love and admire those who want to kill us.

    As the self-radicalization of that creep in Tennessee showed


    • itsnobody Says:

      I don’t know of any leaders of the West who enjoin us to admire Islam at all, which do?

      I do know leaders in the West who refuse to seriously look at non-Muslim violence going on in the US and instead focus on near fictional enemies that the FBI has told us isn’t as dangerous as other organizations.

      I don’t think that a murder rate lower than all 50 US states is a threat to me.

      I came up with a great strategy to cripple and ruin everything for the atheist/racist movement: Encourage them to gain a 0% Muslim population and a high non-white non-Muslim population.

      They can pass a law banning and deporting JUST Muslims, but still allowing non-Muslims.

      Since they are pretending to be merely anti-Islamic as opposed to racist/White Nationalist/Nazi they should have no issue with this suggestion.

      In my opinion it doesn’t matter if the violence is Muslim or non-Muslim or religious or non-religious, what matters is the fact that people are getting killed.

      The author of this blog site doesn’t seem to care much about non-Muslim or non-religious violence at all…like in the Roman Empire the gladiators killed around 8,000 a year…the gladiators were like the ancient version of modern day UFC or WWE. The Muslims didn’t allow such violence, as it would be viewed as barbaric to kill for no reason.

      A murder rate lower than all 50 US states is not really threatening to me….people can cherry-pick incidences with Muslims or any group, like for instance the Asians:
      – Virgin Tech shooting (32 dead, 1st deadliest University shooting)
      – Oikos University shooting (7 dead, 3rd deadliest University shooting)
      – Binghamton shootings (13 dead)
      – University of Iowa shooting
      – Cornell University shooting
      – University of Washington Medical Center shooting
      – Weber State University shooting
      – [Don’t have all day to list out a bunch of University names]
      – The Asian rapist Ming Sen Shiue (one of the few rapists to succeed at stabbing his accuser during his trial with critical wounds)

      But people don’t think that every Asian is you know some type of disturbed kid who gets insulted and picked on so much that they just feel like killing people just because there’s such an extremely low percentage of Asians in the US and they did so many University shootings in the US.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        I am afraid your Jihadist propaganda will have to meet a dark and ominous fate! 😉

        As a Qur’an cherishing lad, he does not come to your silly mind that killing 8,000 gladiators a year would have been way to expensive…


        • itsnobody Says:

          Repeatedly falsely accusing me of being Muslim doesn’t prove anything.

          There aren’t many Muslims here in the US and I don’t even know many Muslims at all.

          The reason why you have to ban me is because you know that you are wrong and that if a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism, so you have to stop it, being weak, useless.

          You’re a weakling, just go home and cry about “hate speech” that’s just criticism of your hateful rants against Muslims which you interpret as “not hate speech, just criticism”.


        • itsnobody Says:

          I’m afraid that I don’t know what you’re talking about….you’re still not understanding what I’m saying ISLAMIC MEN ACT LIKE WOMEN.

          Everybody has already heard this cliche-ish stuff about violent verses from the Qu’ran and “The Problem of Islam” and blah blah blah…but what does the evidence show us?

          The murder rate is lower than all 50 US states… where’s the violence?

          I objectively evaluate anti-Islamic claims just like any other claim…the murder rate there in the European countries with the highest percentage of Muslims is lower than all 50 US states…they have among the lowest murder rate in the entire world.

          From my personal observation, Islamic men ACT LIKE WOMEN.

          That explains why the murder rate their is so low…more than 90% of homicides come from males in the US…if males would start to act like females like Islamic men do maybe we could get the murder rate down to 0.

          In the Islamic religion men and women are viewed as like closer to equals than in the majority of civilizations.

          Why would I want to be an Islamic man? It’s just like being a woman.

          Men and women are biologically different, with different brains, organs, and hormones…they’re not the same.

          From my personal observation Islamic men act like women, and Islamic women act like men.

          A co-worker of mine is Islamic and he has a weird feminine high-pitched voice, like a woman.

          Another co-worker of mine is Islamic, but she has a weird deep monotone voice, like a man.

          When I talk to Islamic men it feels like I’m talking to a woman, they have like a feminine vibe.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Weird and weirder… Overseas men, and women, esp. Middle East, Africa, are not obsessed by voice pitch as Euroamericans are. This is something I discovered to my surprise, when I came out of Africa.


      • itsnobody Says:

        Yeah but male Asians make up an extremely low population of only around 1% – 2% in the US…so how could the 1st deadliest University shooting and the 3rd deadliest University shooting, and the University of Iowa shooting, University of Washington Medical Center shooting, Binghamton shootings, and other shootings be from male Asians?

        It should be like almost impossible since the US has only a 1%-2% male Asian population.

        With such an extremely low population of male Asians in the US how is that possible?


  11. EugenR Says:

    Sorry, I sent it twice without being able to finish it.
    To my opinion the aggressiveness of Muslims is not caused so much because of what is written in their holy book, but more because of the social consequences of the interpretation of it. If someone is looking for justification to violence, he will find it. Even in Buddhism could be found justification as it appears in Burma of today, and in Japan 70 years ago. But the social disruption of the Muslims is caused by their denial of modern liberal ideas not only in politics, but also in their education, based on religiouse text memorizing, instead of teaching free expression and free creative thinking. Islam seems to support serfdom and economic inequality, and don’t speak to me about the Muslim charity, which is part of the system to sustain the gap between the poor and the rich. It is not accident that the foreign workers from Bangladesh and other Muslim countries are treated like slaves in Saudia and other golf countries. The Muslims react with extrem violence to any idea, faith, understanding, that opposes their faith. In this it is similar to the other monotheistic faiths. But while the Christianity and Judaism learned to submit itselves to racional thinking, the Muslims fearfully fights it. But above all this stands the enslavement of women in most of the Muslim societies, and I don’t know if it is according to the Islam or only the Machoistic interpretation of it by men, who are afraid to lose their control on women. Keeping Muslim women locked and uneducated, mwans the next generation of Muslims will be less educated too.


  12. De Brunet D'Ambiallet Says:

    WHAT ARE we waiting for condemning the Koran as a terrorist manual?


  13. picard578 Says:

    Reblogged this on Defense Issues and commented:
    Note: full text of Qur’an is here:

    Click to access Holy-Quran-English.pdf

    Citations are from pdf pages as follows:
    2:191 = pg 42
    Chapter 9, verse 5 = pg 216


  14. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to the Conversation,
    July 21.]

    This article entangles Islam and free speech. Cameron (who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me, nota bene) was talking about Islam.

    The problem with Islam is that many talks about it, but have not read the Qur’an, or, a fortiori, the Hadith. Absent this reading they support what they would NOT support, had they read those sacred texts, in full.

    Nobody advocates Fundamentalist, straight-out-of-the-Bible Christianism: it’s deadly, obscurantist, intolerable, incompatible with the modern world. So why to advocate a fundamentalist religion straight out of the Bible, Qur’an and Hadith?

    Fundamentalist Islam is completely incompatible with the United Nation charter, and any reasonable interpretation of Human Rights. Let’s impose on Fundamentalist Islam what Western Europe imposed on Fundamentalist Christianism.

    If we want Free Speech, we cannot have Fundamentalist Islam. Saying that we can have the latter, when the latter condemns to death the former, is a contradiction in the conversation.

    Please read thoroughly the Qur’an and the Hadith. Then you can take part, in the Conversation, in a cogent manner, instead of an instinctual howling to the sky.


    • itsnobody Says:

      How foolish….lol…but you oppose free speech and encourage people to kill Muslims and exterminate Muslims.

      You said that my speech against atheists was “hate speech”…but why? What’s wrong with it?


  15. David Cameron’s speech on “extremism” and segregation | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] […]


  16. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Coel’s Blog.]

    Phil: You clearly never read Charlie Hebdo. None of the handful of covers on Islam was “insulting”. Except to idiots. Several of the principals at Charlie Hebdo were either Muslims or married to Muslims. About 25% of them, that is. Three of them were killed in the attack. I was raised in the Sufi tradition, and attacking Charlie Hebdo is attacking not just civilization, but the very root of the human spirit.


    • itsnobody Says:

      The root of human spirit? Like me viewing atheists as subhuman beings?

      That’s the root of human spirit, it’s free speech, the freedom to criticize, question, and scrutinize, which you strongly disagree with.

      If a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism, that’s why criticism use to be one of the main principles in science prior to atheists taking over science with their anti-science stances.

      So what’s wrong? Are you afraid that you’re wrong?


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Viewing a category of human beings which I consider honorable as “subhuman” (and all children are atheist in the beginning, BTW) is a banning offense. I am also tired of your continual insults and mis-characterization of my thoughts. Your incoherent statements are sometimes interesting, but overall you haunt this site with a bad mood and nasty spirit. Further insults will be banned.


        • itsnobody Says:

          [The comment below by “itsnobody” was edited by administrator for insults and hate speech (which were removed by said administrator). Three other comments by the same author, “itsnobody” were outright blocked. As a reminder, although critiques against any ideology, be it Islam, Abrahamism, Relativity, “French Theory”, Hitlerism, Stalinism, Superficialism, Existentialism, Germanism, nationalism, etc. and particular authors, for cause, are welcome, any hate speech against categories of human beings will be banned. I agree there is a fine line, such as when vigorous critiques are directed towards people who sing the praises of Judaism, or various people behave in atavistic ways, or Roger Cohen accuses the French to have exterminated the “Jews”, etc. But those lines “itsnobody” has clearly crossed. Here is a partly censored extract below:]

          You’re really stupid and uneducated…you’re basically just saying that you don’t interpret when you say negative things about Muslims as “hate speech” but interpret what I said as “hate speech”.

          How is hateful to view a group as subhuman…?

          You fools claim to be merely anti-Islamic as opposed to racist, White Nationalist, or Nazi so why don’t you prove it by gaining a 0% Muslim population and a high non-white non-Muslim population and having no issue with it?


        • itsnobody Says:

          The author of this blog site is VERY biased and one-sided, incapable from seeing things unbiasedly.

          The author of this blog site is just a weakling, breaking down and crying about “hate speech” that’s merely criticism of hateful rants against Muslims interpreted as “free speech” by the author.

          The author of this blog site seems to have no issue with non-Muslim violence…so then if I’m wrong and you fools are right why don’t you prove it by passing a law banning and deporting JUST Muslims but allowing non-white non-Muslims?

          Atheists are weak, useless, and savages to me.

          What are you fools scared of? It’s just mere criticism.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            There are NO “rants against Muslims” on this site. There are targeted critiques against sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Texts which can be viewed as calls to hatred, and even murder against innocent human beings, including children. Criticizing a text, or an ideology may feel harassing to those who hold them, but that’s OK. People have to learn to live with lively debate.

            When texts in the Hadith call to kill all Jews so that God will consent to the Apocalypse, they should be condemned for what they are: savage and unlawful (except as fiction, of course; but then they have to be preached explicitly as amusement).


        • itsnobody Says:

          Viewing a group as subhuman FOR BEING racist, White Nationalist, and Nazis isn’t hateful in my opinion.

          In your subjective opinion it is, but everything else is free speech, how ridiculous and foolish.

          Racist speech, insults, and other speech are interpreted as “free speech” to you.

          Just put a sign on your blog site that you’re weak, useless, and afraid of criticism.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Viewing any group as “subhuman” is racist, by definition.
            There is no racism in my life or in my writings. That does not mean I shrink from criticism, for cause, say when a particular human group defines itself in an objectionable way, precisely ascertained.
            I cannot put such a sign, as people would Roll On the Floor Laughing (ROFL), as I am so obviously useful, strong and unafraid.


  17. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Coel’s Blog]

    Phil: Rabelais put the church, and the Sorbonne, in the toilet, and then flushed. So we are here. Do you ever flush?

    The church, and the Sorbonne, reacted by burning several of the printers associated to Rabelais. Rabelais himself, as a noble, a celebrated surgery professor, and a Franciscan monk, was a more difficult target.


  18. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [To Coel]

    Charlie Hebdo’s critique of Islam was a sideshow of its critique of Judeo-Christianism, itself a sideshow of its critique against organized religion, itself a sideshow of its more general political critiques, itself part of even more general social and philosophical critics, and general humor.

    Religion is not big enough, right. What we need is more gods. The god of Abraham has obvious issues, Better to drown it in a sea of gods, as India has done. One million gods do much to re-establish rationality to fanatics.


    • itsnobody Says:

      The only person who thinks that Hebdo’s cartoons aren’t hateful but mere criticism is you because YOU’RE BIASED AND DON’T SUPPORT FREE SPEECH.

      I support free speech, I view atheists as fully subhuman because of the racism, Nazism, and White Nationalism caused by the atheist population.

      The cartoons were designed to ridicule and insult Muslims…if I were to ridicule and insult atheists in the same manner you would interpret as “hate speech”, not “free speech”.


  19. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Embracing lethally insane ideologies is one way to inflict mayhem on those who hold them. Deep down inside, the left ought to hate Islamism. Superficially, it embraces it, by identifying Islamophobia, the fear of Islam, to racism.

    Yet, this apparent embrace from the left, is Islamism’s kiss of death. How? By encouraging Islamism, it encourages Islamism to over-confidence conducive to a war that it will not win. We have seen it all before, with Hitlerism, fascism and Stalinism: European leftists used to love one, or more, of the preceding, and this allowed these perverse ideologies to grow into monsters, all the way to cataclysmic war.

    Being nice to infamy has no future, but to be forced to have to crush it someday, in worst circumstances.


  20. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Fearing Islam is OK: just read the sacred texts of Islamism:

    Fearing Christianity is just as legitimate: just read history (Crusades, Inquisition, millions of Cathars killed, roasting non-Christian children, religious wars, fall of Rome, etc.). Or then read the sacred texts of Christianism: even Christ orders to kill “unbelievers”


    • mybetanoire Says:

      @vi-lontano @Patrice Ayme

      Islamophobia is NOT racism.

      Persons of Islamic faith are found in every country, nationality and race on earth. To be Islamophobic is to be anti religious not anti race.

      The comment you address doesn’t advocate “rounding up” anyone at all.

      It suggests that embracing Islam will lead to its downfall by way of encouraging an aggressiveness that results in its being defeated in an all out war — using past totalitarianism as an example.

      There are no persons being “rounded up” anywhere but in countries dominated by theocracies, where the tolerance you defend is not practiced by believers at all.


      • itsnobody Says:

        So then if being anti-Islam is ok and not interpreted as “hateful” or “hate speech” then why isn’t being anti-atheist ok?

        The author of this blog site interprets it as “hate speech”…how ridiculous.

        I view atheists as subhuman beings, what’s wrong with it? It’s free speech.

        It’s a real shame that because the media and society is so well-controlled by atheists that they get a free pass for everything.


    • jwjanneck Says:

      @vi-lontano @Patrice Ayme “Islamaphobia is Racism”

      “Islamophobia” isn’t even a real thing, but if it were, it’s not racism unless you claim “Islam” is a race.

      If a significant and growing number of white male Christians would support McVeigh’s acts, it sure would give cause to look what it is about being a white male Christian that makes people support killing people, and it probably would give rise to criticism of Christianity and whatever ideas in Christianity (or being white and male) are cited by those people to justify their sick views.

      The same thing doesn’t really happen with Islam. People kill in the name of Allah literally every day, and “sophisticated orthodoxy” has been to divorce every single reference by those murderers to their religious texts from the religion itself, chalking it all up to misunderstandings, misinterpretations or mis-something else. Whatever it may be, it isn’t, and cannot ever be, a legitimate interpretation of the religion. It’s always “extremism”, and as Nawaz points out, frequently even seen as understandable, if perhaps slightly over-zealous, realization of otherwise justified grievances against “the West”.


    • itsnobody Says:

      So then what about fearing Communist atheists like Stalin or in modern times North Korea?

      North Korea has a 0% Muslim population, is an official atheist state, and executes and kills Christians every year, you don’t have an issue with it, as most atheists agree with killing Christians to promote the good of society, just like North Korea and Stalin!

      North Korea executed 1,200 Christians in 2013 and 2,400 in 2014.


  21. itsnobody Says:

    The author of this blog site is a hypocrite and not very intelligent.

    You celebrated free speech with the Hebdo cartoons (I’ve personally looked at the cartoons and there’s no way to interpret as anything but insulting, ridiculing, and hateful) but you interpret me criticizing atheists for being intolerant, hateful, racist, Nazis, and White Nationalists as “hate speech”…ROFL!

    You celebrate the Romans for killing the Christians, saying it’s justified since they don’t tolerate other religions, but then criticize Muslim scriptures for encouraging people to kill Pagans on the basis that most Pagan religions have many many immoral practices, especially against women… you basically HAVE THE SAME MENTALITY AS THE RADICAL MUSLIMS.

    You also encouraged people to kill Muslims in your other article:
    “Cool It; Not Drawing Muslims Is Not About You, It’s All About Killing Muslims:”

    “So what do we want exterminated? Palmyra? Or the Islamists?

    Patrice Ayme’”

    You then justified it with saying “Not destroying those Islamists is identical to destroying Palmyra”….so you basically HAVE THE SAME MENTALITY AS RADICAL ISLAMISTS.

    If you believe that killing in certain conditions is ok, then how are you different from the Islamists that you criticize?

    Muslims believe it’s ok to kill in certain conditions, you also believe so.

    If you believe that me criticizing atheists for being White Nationalists, Nazis, and racists by labeling them as “subhuman” is hate speech then how are you different from Islamists who interpret criticism of Islam as “hate speech”?

    You talk about the “violence”…but the European countries with the highest percentage of Muslims have the LOWEST MURDER RATES IN THE ENTIRE WORLD…so where’s the violence?

    The Roman Empire had more domestic violence than most Muslim Empires.

    Your ideology is backwards and nonsensical…you believe it’s ok to kill and exterminate certain religions but then criticize Muslims for believing that it’s ok to kill and exterminate certain people…ROFL.


  22. itsnobody Says:

    Almost every civilization all around the world viewed women as lower, including the Roman Empire and the Hindus you celebrate in the name of “tolerance”.

    You have no issue with the Romans being intolerant of Christianity, justifying it.

    You have no issue with the Romans viewing women as vastly inferior.

    Buddhists view women as inferior, as it says in the Buddhist pali canons:
    “279. It is impossible, monks, it cannot happen that a woman could be a Worthy, Fully Enlightened One. This is not possible. It is possible, monks, that a man could be a Worthy, Fully Enlightened One. This is possible.

    280. It is impossible, monks, it cannot happen that a woman could be a Wheel-turning Monarch. This is not possible. It is possible, monks, that a man could be a Wheel-turning Monarch. This is possible.

    281-283. It is impossible, monks, it cannot happen that a woman could be Sakka … Māra … Brahma. This is not possible. It is possible, monks, that a man could be Sakka … Māra … Brahma. This is possible.” – Atthānapāli

    So what do you have to say about the majority of civilizations around the world that viewed women as lower and treated women worse than Muslims did?


  23. robwriter Says:

    However…Judaism comes from the Old Testament, Christianity from the New Testament and Islam from the Quran. All of these writings say some hideous, cruel and stupid things and were written by men who accepted cruel and stupid ideas as self-evident and believed that every commandment must be followed. (Compare Matthew 5:19 in the case of Christianity.) The purist, the literalist, the believer who regards each and every word as holy revelation always has logic on his side. However the “liberal” Jew, Christian, or Muslim choses to interpret the holy books, the holy books still give license for discrimination and violence and there will always be factions who “stand up for” the literal meaning of the text. That, “sola scriptura,” is, in fact, the driving force behind Christian Protestantism. Ultimately the texts of the “religions of the book” are authoritative. The difference between the truly secular and the secularized believer is that the truly secular person regards the foundational texts of the “world’s great religions” as no more than curiosities of bygone era that have no force in the present.


  24. itsnobody Says:

    The author of this blog site is just an angry nasty hate-filled weakling.

    He/she is weak, useless.

    All he/she does is breakdown and cry about alleged “hate speech” that’s mere criticism of hateful rants against Muslims interpreted as “free speech” to the biased delusional author.

    I don’t have to ban/block/edit comments on my blog site, I allow full-fledged free speech.

    If a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism, so what are you fools afraid of?

    In most Western countries women are viewed as lower, inferior.

    Why would I want to be a man in an Islamic country? Women are viewed as closer to equals in most Islamic countries, the men in Islamic countries act like women, lol.

    I grew up in a non-Muslim culture where women and men are viewed as different, but not really higher or lower just different.

    I remember when I was 4 or 5-years-old it was Halloween and my parents wanted me to wear Egyptian wear which was like a dress but me and my friend said “ewww…only girls wear dresses”.

    The idea of women’s rights in Western countries is to get abortions, dress provocatively, be promiscuous, and do pornography.

    It’s great to be a man in a Western country, the Western women are submissive, view themselves as weaker, and only champion female promiscuity as women’s rights like that White show “Sex and the City”.

    Most women in Western countries strongly prefer having a boy child to a girl child because women know that males are superior and females are inferior.

    Their idea of women’s rights is to please men sexually, it’s great to be a man in a Western country.

    An alpha male in a Western country is like the leader, the women naturally become submissive and stay down.

    Since I’m an alpha male when I walk through in a Western country it’s just like I’m the leader, the king, I feel superior, it’s great…such a thing wouldn’t happen if I was in most Islamic countries.

    The first female to a win a Fields Medal (equivalent to the Nobel prize in mathematics) is from Iran, a Muslim country.

    Even though Western countries have a population of more than 500 million women, better education systems, and are more developed than most non-Western countries there still hasn’t been a women who’s won a Fields Medal from a Western country, lol.

    This is because women in the West campaign more on things like abortion rights because they know that having an extra form of contraception and sleeping around is important to them,

    Males who support male promiscuity think that it’s great that they can sleep around the person can just get an abortion, it’s great for males!

    Being more intelligent, more successful, or having a higher income isn’t important to Western women.

    It’s great to be man in a Western country.

    Men will always be superior in Western countries.

    Just go home and cry I don’t want to be part of your nasty hate-filled blog site.

    I’m a one man army, no one can stop me.

    You can keep crying, I’ll always be on top.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It did not come up to your simple mind that this Iranian (now also American) Fields Medal was a bit like Obama’s Nobel for (Eternal) peace? You are amusing in your repetitiveness. Or maybe you feel the white males who decide the Fields Medal are gods? Do you also want a medal for being hare brained? 😉
      The Fields is, to a great extend, silly (it’s not given above 40, so many great mathematicians, like the one who solved Fermat’s Theorem, don’t get it)


      • itsnobody Says:

        You keep crying like a woman about “hate speech”…that it’s hateful to criticize someone for hateful rants against Muslims…ROFL

        You need to stop acting like a woman…and be able to handle criticism and scrutiny like a real man.

        I can handle any type of speech against me.

        A Nobel Peace Prize is worth about the same as a made up printed out paper prize…I can print out a piece of paper and say that it’s a prize and it’ll be nearly the same as a Nobel Prize in Peace.

        Nobel Prizes in science or mathematics or the equivalent are the real prizes worth something.

        The Fields Medal is worth about a 1000 times more than a Nobel Peace Prize, ROFL.

        The Fields Medal and Abel Prize are the highest prizes in mathematics….Western countries have a population of more than 500 million women, better education systems than most non-Western countries, and are more developed than most Western countries….so obviously we would predict that the first Woman to win a Fields Medal would be a White Western woman, not an Iranian.

        The Iranian woman (who acts like a man) won her IMO Gold Medal in Iran and was educated in Iran.

        Islamic men act like women…in the Islamic religion men and women are viewed as more like equals than in most other religions….most of the sexism in Islamic countries comes from pre-Islamic culture.

        In most cultures and religions men and women are viewed distinctly different.

        A friend of mine’s friend who is male is Islamic and he acts like a woman, he wears pink clothes and doesn’t act very masculine just like a woman.

        If there was a group of alpha males in the room and I showed up I would be the alpha male above the alpha males, even without uttering a word or saying something I would feel superior and the vibe I put out would show unconsciously…the alpha males in the room would feel weaker and inferior just like women.

        Men will always be superior, smarter, more successful, and with higher incomes than females in Western countries.

        I’ll always be superior, regardless of how hard a female tries.

        It’s a cosmic writ behind in the laws of nature behind reality for women to be inferior to men, that’s just the way it is.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Thank you for another completely incoherent discourse which would induce a psychiatrist to give you medication to calm you down, “itsnobody”. Thank you for exhibiting your blatant sexism, too. There is nothing wrong about being a woman, and some women have contributed irreplaceably to civilization (not so much the Stanford University professor you are obsessed with, BTW, but she is still young).

          Once again, I do not criticize “Muslims”, the individuals (I have close Muslim friends, we rarely talk religion and politics, as we are focused on baby sitting for each other). I criticize Islam, an ideology I have been bathing in since birth. You continual brandishing of the vicious lie that I hate Muslims, the individuals, will make you subject to partial banning, editing, etc…


  25. De Brunet D'Ambiallet Says:

    Why don’t you ban definitively that mental retard of a lunatic Jihadist? It looks like he is paid by the Saudis, or something… He is polluting the comments with his unending self boasting, plus he is completely incoherent, as you said.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      He seems to be paid to be wacko, indeed: I blocked many pages of his he produced overnight… His incoherence seems to indicate major technological dysfunctions… Even the Nazis who comment here occasionally are coherent (for them Hitler is god, period.)


  26. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Irony of ironies… The Guardian is censoring me because of I am culprit of “blogging the Qur’an”.
    Meanwhile, the New York Times continues its policy of censoring any comment of mine on an article on Islam, if it includes a religious QUOTE from, say, the Qur’an.

    This all fits the Islamophilic conspiracy theory….


  27. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [The following outrageously sexist comment, discriminatory in nature, and not really better than conventional racism, is allowed through by the administration, on the ground that it depicts well how low sexism can go.]

    Submitted on 2015/08/28 at 1:33 am | In reply to Patrice Ayme.

    Yeah but you can’t deny the biological facts that men and women are different.

    The reason why you are against my mere criticisms is because you’re a woman, so you’re mentally weaker and can’t handle criticism just like a crying baby.

    Since I’m a man I can handle any criticism, I encourage criticism and allow full-fledged free speech for the reason of knowing that if a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism.

    Biology and neuroscience has proven that men and women have different brains.

    Men have larger brains and neurogenesis is higher in the male hippocampus than the female.

    Women can’t achieve the same things men can, even if they try really hard.

    You can’t use your female brain like how I can use my male brain.

    The majority of civilizations viewed men and women as distinctly different but in the Islamic religion men and women are almost the same, it’s more unisex, the men there are weak just like the women.

    Western men often criticize Islamic countries for having women covered up because they would prefer for women to be viewed as sexual objects like they are in Western countries, celebrated for sexual attractiveness and beauty and nothing else.

    That’s the Western idea of “women’s rights”, to celebrate women for sexual attractiveness and nothing else.

    That’s why women in the West campaign a lot on abortion rights but very rarely on things like being more intelligent, successful, or having higher incomes than males, it’s the inherent nature of a woman to be lower than a man.

    The Western idea of women’s rights is just to have women as sexual objects, being promiscuous, doing modelling, dressing provocatively, doing pornography, and getting abortions…those are main criticism Westerns have of Islamic women.

    Like for instance in the US the gender gap between males and females in math scores is HUGE, but in some Islamic countries like Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, United Arab Emirates females outperform males in mathematics! Something unheard of in Western countries.

    It’s great to be a male in a Western country, you can have a limitless number of women and women campaign on being promiscuous, getting abortions, and doing pornography, lol.

    As a male in a Western country I’ll always stay on top as smarter, superior, and more successful than females.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Much of what you speak about ignores little facts such as lower lean body mass of women (bringing a “smaller” brain, as brain size depends upon lean body mass). You are just misinformed, ravaged by female envy, perverse! LOL!

      Perverse (adj.) 14 century, “wicked,” from Old French pervers “unnatural, degenerate; perverse, contrary” (12c.) and directly from Latin perversus “turned away, contrary, askew,” figuratively, “turned away from what is right, wrong, malicious, spiteful,” past participle of pervertere “to corrupt” (see pervert (v.)).


      • itsnobody Says:

        No…you’re the one misinformed…every study done shows women as having significantly smaller brains than men (by around 100-200 cc).

        Neuroscience proves that men an women have different brains and think differently.

        Just as how a weak male could be conditioned to be stronger than the majority of females easily with proper training so too can an unintelligent male be conditioned to be smarter than the majority of females.

        Males have higher neurogenesis (the generation of neurons) than females…they have more potential to learn.

        The reason why you have to edit my mere criticisms is because you’re a female with your female brain…you can’t handle criticism and scrutiny like I can with my male brain.

        The only way that females can appear superior is if they have a religion/culture/form of government making it appear so…otherwise their inherent natural nature will be to be lower than males.

        In a free society females will naturally tend to be lower than males like they are in Western countries…they would want to focus on things like physical beauty, pornography, abortion, etc…but not on things like being more intelligent, successful, or having higher incomes than males because that’s their inherent nature.

        The reason why you cried when I criticized atheists for being racist labeling it as “hate speech” but then said when you insulted and ridiculed Muslims saying you wanted to kill them and stuff that it was “free speech” is because you’re female, your female brain wants to be biased and can’t handle criticism.

        You also label saying anything negative about other non-Muslim religions or civilizations as “hate speech”…which means that you’re just biased.

        Since I’m a male I can handle any type of criticism without crying unlike females.

        People like you can talk about the “Problem of Islam” all they want…but the facts are the facts…the fact is the European countries with the highest percentage of Muslims have the lowest murder rates in the entire world lower than all 50 US states…Muslims claim that they aren’t allowed to murder and that violent verses are taken out of context only referring to war times and special conditions…so what they’re saying is believable based on the evidence.

        From my observation Muslims aren’t violent…they’re pop tarts…the men and women act alike…to really be afraid of a murder rate lower than all 50 US states ROFL….

        The only way women can appear superior is if you have a religion/culture/form of government making it appear so like the Islamic religion which says that men and women are almost like equal even though modern biology proves that they aren’t.

        Islamic men and women act the same, dress the same, have the same voice, etc…it’s more unisex than the majority of civilizations and religions.

        Women in the West can’t be more intelligent, more successful, or have higher incomes regardless of how hard they try!

        I’ll always stay on top in the West as superior, smarter, and more successful than females!


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          You are silly. Brain size depends upon (lean) body size, which is about 10% less, in the average, in human females (and actually more, as they have more fat, in the average). Taking that into account, females do not have smaller brains.

          Well known that Islam treats females same as men, by all those who never read anything about the basics of Islam, in full. I keep on displaying you, as a scarecrow for the vast unwashed, ill-informed masses… 😉


          • itsnobody Says:

            Don’t be delusional…the brain size data shows that some females have smaller brains than even gorillas!

            The majority of civilizations around the world viewed women as lower, but in the Islamic religion men and women are almost like equals, even though modern biology has proven that women are lower…this is normal history you can’t handle it?

            Confucius said “One hundred girls are not worth as much as one boy” encouraging female infanticide…the majority of couples in the West also prefer a boy child but the Muslims abolished female infanticide even though biology shows women as inferior…will female infanticide come back in the future as abortion is already legal?

            In the Western world men and women are viewed as more different than in most Islamic countries. Most of the sexism in Islamic countries comes from pre-Islamic civilizations.

            Like for instance many Islamic females have deep monotone voices, and sound like men…unlike in the West where most females have higher pitched voices.

            Islamic females and males dress almost the same, in the West women dress distinctly differently (like if a guy wears a dress Westerners would find it odd).

            In some Islamic countries there’s a higher percentage of female engineers than male engineers, something unheard of in the West (and the majority of the world).

            The first female to win a Fields Medal (equivalent to the Nobel prize in mathematics) is from Iran, there has never been a Western female who has won a Fields Medal or Abel Prize even though there’s more than 500 million women in Western countries, and most Western countries are more developed with better education systems than most non-Western countries.

            It is known in the West that females are bad at mathematics and incapable, it’s a man’s thing to do mathematics.

            In the Islamic religion they believe that men and women are almost equal, lol, even though they are biologically different.

            There was a good looking Persian female at the job I use to work at but she has a weird deep monotone voice and sounds like a man so I didn’t like her….it’s kind of creepy that a religion can be make males and females appear equal.

            Muhammad said:
            “Women are the twin halves of men”
            “God enjoins you to treat women well, for they are your mothers, daughters, aunts.”
            “Whoever doeth good to women, it will be a curtain to him from hell-fire”

            Is there any other spiritual teacher in all of human history who said as many positive things about women as Muhammad did? I don’t think so.

            The majority of civilizations and religions viewed women as vastly inferior treating them as much worse than the Muslims did.

            Modern biology has proven that men and women are different, with women being inferior, even though the Islamic religion says otherwise.

            This means Muhammad was wrong.

            The majority of women in the West agree that males are superior to females, or at least different to say the least.

            What women’s rights is in the West is dress provocatively and getting females to be viewed as sexual objects, not men and women being viewed as equals.


  28. itsnobody Says:

    WARNING by Patrice Ayme’: Rabid MISOGENY below! Another blast of hatred, stupidity, disinformation and plain insanity. Some will say: let’s censor it, let’s hide it, surely humanity could not be that bad, that dumb, that hateful.

    I say: No, let’s show it. This is what all too many humans are, one of my main points. The comment below was not moderated or modified in any way. Itsnobody? Well, itsalltoomanybodies.

    Submitted on 2015/09/18 at 3:54 pm | In reply to Patrice Ayme.

    The reason why you’re dumb is because you’re a female, females have smaller brains, some females have even smaller brains than gorillas!

    When we look at human history the majority of civilizations viewed women as lower and vastly inferior, much worse than the Muslims did who regard men and women as almost like equal even though modern biology proves that men and women are different.

    Almost every civilization and spiritual teacher in human history regarded women as lower and treated them worse than the Muslims…which you have no issue with, lol!

    If I were to criticize other civilizations for their mistreatment of women you would say it’s “intolerant” and “hate speech” or whatever.

    Confucius for instance said “One hundred girls are not worth as much as one boy”…encouraging female infanticide but the Muslims abolished female infanticide.

    With abortion legalized we can finally get female infanticide practiced legally since the majority of couples in the West prefer a boy child to a girl child.

    Most females in the West want men and women to be viewed as different, with men as superior, as the leaders and women as lower, unlike the Muslims who view men and women as closer to equals, lol.

    Women in the West know that they are inferior, lol.

    I’ll always stay on top as superior in the West as a man, just like how it’s supposed to be!


  29. itsnobody Says:

    The point of this nasty hate-filled blog site is that “if you’re insulting, ridiculing, or criticizing Muslims” it’s not hate speech, it’s free speech, but if you criticize non-Muslims without using insults or ridiculing them it’s interpreted as “hate speech”.

    What a real idiot.

    She’s a real low-life, females have smaller brains than males and are inferior.

    She can’t handle criticism since her blog site anti-science and opposes the concept of criticism and scrutiny.

    A real anti-science fan.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I let this goes through as an example of how hatred justifies itself, by accusing others of… hatred. There are more than 100 different versions of Islam. I am 100% OK with the three variants I knew when growing up. However Salafism, Literalism, the literal approval, non interpreted Qur’an was declared unlawful under Egypt Saladin, eight centuries ago. Punition? Death. (The founder of Salafism was left to die in jail).
      I must give you this: you have the courage of your own hatred. During the Nuremberg trial, no Nazi dared to defend Nazism. You keep on insulting half of humanity to start with, etc.


      • itsnobody Says:

        Ok…so what if I were to point out negative things about non-Muslims? You would just cry and interpret it as “hate speech” or whatever.

        Like I pointed out North Korea, Communist atheist country with a 0% Muslim population, punishment for being religious? Death.

        The Nazis were also atheists and anti-Christian, like in modern times Tom Metzger founder of the Neo-Nazi group White Aryan Resistance is atheist.

        Or I pointed out that brahminical supremacy is still popular in India and you said it was “hate speech” or intolerant or whatever to criticize the caste system in India.

        You claim that the Muslims are such a danger or whatever but the FBI has said that al-Qaeda is not as dangerous as other organizations and the European countries with the highest percentage of Muslims have the lowest murder rates in the world, lower than all 50 US states, so I believe the FBI when I look at the statistics.

        I disagree with Muslims on opposing Israel, but atheists also agree with Muslims on opposing Israel.

        So what’s your problem with believing that criticizing non-Muslims is hateful and hate speech or whatever since you celebrated insulting and ridiculing Muslims as free speech?

        It’s because you’re hate-filled person who doesn’t care about “hate speech” or whatever if it’s against Muslims.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          You behave like a complete idiot: I do not have anything against Muslims, I said this hundreds of time, but you keep on accusing me of Muslim hatred. Four of my very closest friends at this point are Muslims (and we talk religion). I always had friend or family members who were/are Muslims. What you do is accuse me of “hate”, which is the first thing haters do: accuse those they hate to be full of hate.


          • itsnobody Says:

            I thought you did…you said you wanted to kill Muslims in your other articles.

            I support full-fledged free speech so I think people should be allowed to insult, ridicule, or criticize any group including both Muslims and non-Muslims.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            You are half mad. I never said, or wrote I wanted to kill Muslims. I never ever felt, or expressed myself that way, and it’s hate speech to attribute this mood to me. That you are so ready to feel people want to kill people means that YOU are like that.


      • itsnobody Says:

        Oh yeah I forgot you don’t allow free speech on your blog site like how I do, some people (mostly women) can’t handle criticism.

        You know Aristotle said that “Women are defective by nature”…now we have real evidence in neuroscience and biology showing so.

        I also noticed that you don’t have any issue with the negative aspects of any non-Muslim religion or civilization…that’s kind of stupid.

        Why do you think it’s hateful to point out the negative aspects of other non-Muslim religions and civilizations but “free speech” to ridicule, insult, and criticize Muslims?

        Like for instance North Korea is an official atheist state, with a 0% Muslim population that kills people for being religious and wants to exterminate religion.

        The majority of atheists agree with North Korea on killing people for not accepting atheism as the truth….you never hear any atheists saying negative things about North Korea.

        North Korea has a higher murder rate than almost every Muslim country.

        The Batman movie theater was atheist-agnostic.

        Tom Metzger founder of the Neo-Nazi group White Aryan Resistance is atheist…the majority of atheists support White Nationalism and Nazism.

        Larry Darby former state director of the popular atheist group “American Atheists” is a holocaust denier.

        If I were to say that atheists should be viewed as subhuman until they come out to oppose Nazism/racism/White Nationalism like how they voice up their position on gay rights or abortion rights you would think that it’s “hate speech”, but why if you think that making fun of and ridiculing Muslims is “free speech”? It’s because you’re a low-life, a hypocrite, an untrustable, an untouchable.

        Like you celebrated the Roman Empire, don’t have any issue with the religious and non-religious violence during the Roman Empire, or the treatment of women…you lied and said that women were viewed as like equals in the Roman Empire, lol…there’s no writings from any Roman women describing life during the Roman Empire, all the laws the Romans had were biased towards males…during the Middle Ages there were female Islamic writers, mathematicians, surgeons, scientists, etc…

        The majority of civilizations viewed women as significantly lower with only a few as treating women like equal or almost, like the Egyptians, Celts, the Muslims, and some Native American tribes.

        The Romans wrote about how they raped Celtic women (like Boudica’s daughters, the Celtic War Queen).

        From looking at the facts and evidence, of course I don’t consider Muslims a threat, except for the more moderate Muslims, who would do violent acts for non-religious reasons, meaning there would be more violence overall.

        The less moderate Muslims would only do violent acts for religious reasons that occur very rarely, so the murder rate would be really low like it is in the European countries with the highest percentage of Muslims.

        Like the Batman movie theater shooter, or Virginia Tech Massacre, or Elementary School shooter, gangs in the US, domestic violence, etc…there would be more non-religious violence…just like there is in the US…once the atheist-controlled media finds out that it’s for non-religious reasons they wouldn’t care about it as much.

        If the fools are really telling the truth and they are merely anti-Islamic as opposed to Nazi or White Nationalist then they should be really happy about my suggestion of gaining a 0% Muslim population and high non-white non-Muslim population.

        I would love to see Europe with a 0% Muslim population and a high non-white non-Muslim population.

        It would ruin everything, I think it’s a great idea.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: