What If God Is Nuts?

A Moroccan Jihadist climbs on a High Speed European train in Brussels. It is easy to get weapons in Belgium, less so in France. He is armed with a full automatic machine gun, a Kalashnikov, AK 47, nine magazines for the AK47, a handgun, a knife. He has been told, and believes, that, as the faithful, he should obey god’s writ. And even more than that, he will fight racism.

How come?
If Islamophobia, the fear of Islam, is racist, does not that mean that Islamophilia, the love of Islam, is anti-racist? Thus by believing Islam to death, are not Jihadists fighting racism? Jihadists believe that, to the bottom of their all consuming hearts. When god is nuts, nuts are gods.

And What If God Is A Crazy Homicidal Maniac?

And What If God Is A Crazy Homicidal Maniac?

Notice that France is the most atheist country (thus number one targets for Jihadists). From my point of view, France’s healthy skepticism about the morality of god, is directly traceable, not just to Clovis and his Franks, but to the election, in Paris, more than a century before that, of Julian as “Augustus (supreme Roman emperor, in 360 CE). The Catholic bishops hated the all too moderate and philosophical Julian, who was derided as “the Apostate”. The Franks organized a flurry of anti-Christian coups, during the Fourth Century.

The High Speed train enters France. The Jihadist goes to the toilet to equip himself (for a slightly different version, see the New York Times). He comes out, a Frenchman in his fifties confronts him, grabs the Kalashnikov AK47, and runs away with it. The Jihadist shoots the Frenchman, the bullet enters next to the spine on the left side, in the lumbar area, through the entire left lung, and comes out through the clavicle. Alerted, two young American soldiers, and a friend, an Afro-American, plus a British businessman, and a French conductor, jump the killer. The lead American hero, Spencer, loses his thumb to the killer’s cutter (it got re-attached in a French hospital, right away). Everybody survives, because the would-be assassin’s gun jams. As related in the Times:

“Mr. Norman [UK Consultant] and Mr. Sadler [Afro-American student] had joined in the efforts to subdue the gunman, who “put up quite a bit of a fight,” Mr. Norman recalled at the news conference in Arras on Saturday. “My thought was, ‘I’m probably going to die anyway, so let’s go.’ Once you start moving, you’re not afraid anymore.”

Mr. Stone [large Martial Arts expert, Air Force First Class] wounded and bleeding, kept the suspect in a chokehold. “Spencer Stone is a very strong guy,” Mr. Norman said. The suspect passed out. Mr. Norman busied himself binding him up with a tie.

Mr. Skarlatos [22 year old Oregon National Guard soldier, back from Afghanistan, friend with Sadler and Stone] , the AK-47 in hand, began to patrol through the carriages, looking for other gunmen. He made a series of startling discoveries: The suspect’s guns had malfunctioned, and he had not had the competence to fix them.

“He had pulled the trigger on the AK. The primer was just faulty, so the gun didn’t go off, luckily,” Mr. Skarlatos said. “And he didn’t know how to fix it, which is also very lucky.” In addition, the gunman had not been able to load his own handgun: “There was no magazine in it, so he either dropped it accidentally or didn’t load it properly, so he was only able to get what appeared to be one shot off,” Mr. Skarlatos said.”

In the fifties, George Orwell wrote excellent books where he introduced, and condemned, the notion of “thought crime”. Actually he had invented nothing, the USSR had condemned people to death for “Thought Crimes” before.

Roman law itself distinguished the notion of “Mens Rea” (mental act). To be culprit of voluntary homicide, it’s not enough to kill somebody, one has to have thought about it (mental action). Orwell may have thought too fast, and too superficially: fast and shallow thought crime.

We live in a world where human thoughts are increasingly capable of enormous amplification. So what people think about matters.

Legislators recognized this after the Nazi fiasco. Nazism was an ideology of hatred. Once allowed to rule, it programmed tens of millions of Germans into exterminating others. Ideally, such hate ideologies ought to be outlawed. But the lines are hard to draw between fantasy and thought meant to program people into killing robots.

So legislators, starting in France and the USA, decided that hatred of an ideological character, if one could legally prove that it was present, would be an aggravating factor in the commission of a crime.

Another approach was tried earlier. With Christianism. In the Middle Ages, Christianism played an horrendous role. It started with the Fall of Rome to which it contributed heavily (said Gibbon, and I  agree, in part). Then Clovis and his Franks mitigated the Jesus superstition, and things went well, until the rise of nationalism, tribalism, plutocracy and Crusades in the late Eleventh Century (also the time of the break between Rome and Constantinople: all those phenomena are related). After that, Christianism became a force for the worst… Until the last execution for heresy in Spain in the Nineteenth Century, if not the Spanish Civil War and its aftermath, where the Church and its Opus Dei, were on the side of fascism (Franco, Hitler, Mussolini).

In the New Testament, Jesus orders to kill unbelievers: Luke 19-27. Thus Islamism is just a parrot, if not a parody, a parroty, of Christianism.

Luke 19:27: But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.

Please compare with the Qur’an “Verse of the Sword” (Sura 9, v5):

“9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.”

Islamophiles, like pedophiles, are hard pressed to explain that one away. Muslim terrorists revolve around this verse, doing what it orders. The Qur’an, a very short book (83,000 words, I counted) contains many other verses, to the same effect.

Christianism, obeying Christ, killed millions, if not tens of millions. Still, in the end, it was made to submit: any priest teaching Luke 19:27, the core of Christianism in the Middle Ages, would now be fired. So how was Christianism forced to submit? Asking Louis XI, Henry VIII, or the French Revolution, brings the same answer: Christianism was FORCED to submit.

Forcing Christianism is not new: the Franks forced Christianism to submit to their state, most notably in the Sixth and Eight Centuries. In the former case, the Vatican had to submit to the nomination of Frankish bishops, and when the Pope threatened to have them burned for teaching secularly, the Frankish authorities pointed out that Pope “Gregory The Great” had no army. In the Eight Century, the Church underwent nationalization, to pay for the war against Islamism. Then the Popes, on their knees, begged the Franks to come subdue the Lombards (Charlemagne did so, once the Church agreed to recognize him as Roman Emperor). (And I am not even mentioning Philippe Le Bel’s accidental execution of the Pope in the Fourteenth Century, followed by the incarceration of the Papacy in Avignon, among many similar exploits of anti-clerical type…)

There is one religion, always: that of the state (in the generalized sense of religion I use). Superstitions can be tolerated, as long as they are compatible with the state. So make Islam compatible. And that means some Islamist texts ought to be viewed as the Thought Crimes they are, and being ignored as well as Luke 19;27 (and other statements of Jesus to the same effect) are ignored.

If we, who believe in an ever wiser civilization, could submit the fury of Catholicism (“universalism”), we can certainly submit the meekness of submission (what “Islam” means)Civilization is rising: time for the savages to realize that the gods must be crazy.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

21 Responses to “What If God Is Nuts?”

  1. Chris Snuggs Says:

    “Islamophobia” is a stupid word. I prefer “Islamoloathing”.

    And THAT is just commonsense. I wish people would just read the bloody Koran; it is just a horrible tsunami of bile and hatred.

  2. indravaruna Says:

    I will take Catholicism over the kkkrazy American cults like Mormonism or the Evangelicals (if you read some Neocon think-tanks like The American Thinker they Evangelism vital for Zionista-American influence).

    Islam was created by jews to conquer the Arab Tribes after Christianity backfired on them but Mahommed saw that the jews were only using him and made Islam more Arab-centric (praying for Mecca and not Jerusalem like it was originally devised by the jews).

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, Catholicism is much improved since the Borgia popes instituted the Inquisition (at the request mostly of Ferdinand of Arago, with the belatedly reluctant Isabella of Castile in tow). What interests me is how Catholicism was made to behave. The long war between ultra Catholic Spain and not as Catholic France, which lasted around two centuries, was probably the main factor. It started under the Borgias, when “Spain” took over the Anjou possession in Southern Italy (Napoli, etc.). The Anjou/Normands/French had freed Sicily and the rest from the Islamists, centuries prior (starting with a Frankish army liberating Rome from invading Islamists in the Tenth Century).

      Finally the French army of Louis XIV defeated the famous Spanish squares. On the way, the Netherlands was freed in an 80 year war, but this backfired on France ultimately when the Netherlands, which hated Louis XIV for reasons some of which were very good, and should have been shared by most Frenchmen, took over England in 1688 CE, to use the latter as an anti-French war machine. In the next step, the Spanish king tried to unify France and Spain (war of succession of Spain, which ended with disastrous losses of territory for France, among other disasters such as famine and losses of lives).

      European history is a complicated mess. No wonder European Unification is a bit complicated…

      Individuals in Mahomet’s family were Christian… Not Jewish. True the Jews of Yatrib (present day Medina) supported Muhammad (before he massacred them)… Clearly Mahomet wanted to be the boss.

  3. De Brunet D'Ambiallet Says:

    Forgot his name, but one of the founders of the French Revolution was a priest who was very anti-clerical. He was all into forcing Catholicism to submit, and instituted the system where priests had to take an oath to the constitution of the revolution.
    In any case, it went all along lines of force.

    • dominique deux Says:

      Under the French monarchy, the Church was the only path to preeminence for highly gifted, but unconnected individuals (the Army blocked all non-nobles at fairly low levels, and success in trade/finance/industry required personal wealth). Thus it was very much in the position of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union; its members could be complete unbelievers. Remember Curé Meslier, a country curate in Louis XVI’s time, whose writings were distinctly anarchistic.
      I believe your unnamed cleric was Sieyès. Talleyrand was another such example.

      • dominique deux Says:

        Or maybe it was Abbé Grégoire.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Dear Dominique: Sorry I did not react sooner: I have been climbing mountains, an activity which demands a high level of attention. I was soloing just today with a potential 200 meters fall, and the holds were covered by debris from recent stormy weather, a characteristic which mobilized even more of my mental resources…

  4. dominique deux Says:

    I absolutely concur with Islamophobia or Islamoloathing, provided a clear distinction is made between the murderous, cretinous fundamentalists and the bulk of the Muslims, who are their victims of choice. However harsh your denunciation of the former, you’ll never match the feelings of some Algerian Muslims I met, who openly said they had to be exterminated.

    Your graph is very telling, depicting an Axis of Ferocity. However I must take issue with your characterization of those French (the huge majority) who agree that non-believers can be ethical persons as atheists. Most of them would depict themselves as Christians. Just, non-fundies.

    And I would even wager they include Muslims. There was a Pew Survey a few years ago which showed that (in contrast to British Muslims who were starkly hostile to non-Muslims and Britain) French Muslims held very different views from all other Muslim communities worldwide, to the point that (for example) they were the only ones with a majority positive view of Jews. So, contrary to mainstream opinion, the so-called French integration model did have results. After all, French armed forces include a large number of them, and we had no fundie-crazy episodes like the US forces had.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I have been very clear I loathe the ideology found in raw Islam, as I do the related raw ideology found in Christianism. However, in Africa, I met remarkable clerics of either religions, who had my sincere admiration and appreciation. I made very clear, and it’s totally obvious that Muslims are the first victims of Islamism. Just as Christians were of Christianism when nuts after holocausting millions of cathars to the last, and for no less than 6 (six) centuries….

      Most French “Muslims” are extremely well integrated. France is a self selecting mechanism to attract non fundies. Let’s keep it that way.

  5. Kevin Berger Says:

    Jean-Philippe Immarigeon

    Bon, nous sommes la Saint-Barthélemy, alors je vais redire ce que j’ai publié quelque part, et sans animosité aucune je l’assure. Mais depuis la Pragmatique Sanction de Philippe IV, en passant par la Révocation de l’Edit de Nantes et la destruction de Port-Royal de Louis XIV, la dissolution des Jésuites et leur expulsion par Louis XV, la Constitution civile du clergé de la Révolution agrémentée de quelques curés vendéens cloués à la porte de leur église, le Concordat imposé par un Premier Consul menaçant sous les 24 heures de faire avec toute l’église ce que Louis XV n’avait fait que pour les Jésuites, avant de retenir le pape otage à Fontainebleau pour qu’il renonce à ses derniers pouvoirs temporels, et je vous fais grâce des églises et des couvents fracturés à coups de hache et baïonnette au canon lors de l’affaire des inventaires au lendemain de la Loi de Séparation, il a fallu que rois, empereur et républiques d’une vieille France catholique et romaine cognent comme des tarés pour faire comprendre à plus tarés qu’eux qui pourtant les avaient éduqués… Aussi lorsque j’entends parler d’islamophobie alors que nous tolérons ce contre quoi nous avons lutté durant sept siècles, et à quoi nous devons, en partie, de pouvoir prétendre au statut de plus vieil Etat du monde encore existant (et troisième plus vieille civilisation), je ne comprends pas de quoi on parle.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Indeed. Nailing down the fanatics of god is certainly the oldest tradition of the Franks, dating clearly, and in moult examples, to the FOURTH century!!!! Abrahamoloathing is 17 centuries old in France… I guess the oldest civilization is China (Chinese characters ancestors are 35 centuries old) What’s the second oldest civilization? India?

      I am skeptical: what counts is the main ideas. Viewed that way, the civilization France stands as the symbol of, is more than 5,000 years old. Writing was invented by our philosophical ancestors in the fertile crescent, 5,000 years ago. Not just that, but so was the “democratic representation” system (in Sumer). Writing appeared in China a full millennium AFTER that of our direct philosophical ancestors.

      • Kevin Berger Says:

        Oh, not from me, but from JP Immarigeon – the link thingie didn’t work, as per the following empty comment.

  6. Kevin Berger Says:

  7. Kevin Berger Says:

    This one’s for Chris :
    http://www.courrierinternational.com/revue-de-presse/vu-du-royaume-uni-ces-francais-quelle-bande-de-laches

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The first man who jumped the terrorist would-be mass killer, was French. 28 year old. Modestly, he has refused to be recognized (although he is supposed to get the legion d’honneur). The next one, who ran away with the AK47, and was transpierced by a bullet, through his entire lung, next to the heart, was Franco-American. The result was that the killer lost the charger of the handgun in the scuffle and the AK47 cartridge primer went bad. So the killer’s two firearms were then inoperative, and that allowed the American soldiers to jump him, otherwise they would have been killed.

      Thus, paradoxically, the two French guys in the very beginning were the crucial INTERVENANTS.

      • Kevin Berger Says:

        Vous parlez faits, eux parlent de “narratives” – bien plus efficace pour façonner les esprits… type réactions exemplaires de non-Américains partant à fond sur les supposés Marines du début, avec Semper Fi! et autres automatismes véhiculés par le soft power US… (les Marines étant quand même les maitres de l’auto-promotion très “mytho” de la culture militaire US, bien qu’ayant été dépassés par les Navy SEALs, cf. vôtre tweet/FB sur “American Sniper”…. Pour ne pas polluer ce fil, j’irai d’ailleurs coller un lien ou deux sur ce sujet.)

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Good point. Facts rarely stand alone. They are generally sitting inside narratives. This is even true in physics. The photon theory is not just a few well known facts: hf, etc. It’s also a (mostly implicit) narrative…

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Chris has put out another strange comment, accusing France to do nothing against Islam. It may be true at the intellectual level, but kit’s worse in the UK and the USA (Salman Rushdie got in bad fall out with his (ex) USA writer-friends about Islam recently)

  8. “You Will Not Have My Hatred” | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Well, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Mr. Leiris is apparently confusing Christianism and Islamism. Same god, but there are subtle differences. In Christianism, we have been created in the image of god, indeed. Whereas in the direct Qur’an, we are his slaves. And in the Qur’an, it is ordered to “set every ambush” for the Non-Believers. Such is the “Verse of the Sword”, Sura 5, verse 9, and ABROGATING verse. Sura 5, verse 9 follows Luke 19; 27 in the New Testament. […]

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: