If You Want Peace, Make War

A lesson hard to swallow for those who feel peace wins all. Sometimes, all you can do, and all you have to do, is war:

Those who have never bothered to observe reality long pretended that, to have peace, one just needed to roll belly up, and make love. As anybody who has studied the wilderness can tell you, this tends to occur when the carnivores tear the soft belly of the prey, starting generally by the apparently succulent naughty bits. Even Obama seems to have vaguely realized that his entire presidency was a devouring alive of his so-called “hope you can believe”. So he is sending 50 special forces to Syria. Wow.

What needs to be imposed in the Middle East is forceful Western philosophy, the sort which has turned China around, after 26 centuries of Confucianism.

Everyday, at this point, 8,000 war refugees reach the island of Lesbos, just off the Anatolian coast, but part of the European Union. Officially Greece, which has only 11 million citizens, admitted 600,000 war refugees, in a few months. Europeans are officially sending money to help Greece, but it did not arrive yet: notice that, when people are dying, by the thousands, it’s no big deal, but if a state threatens to spend more money than private bankers are willing to lend to it, it is the crime of all crimes, the crime that the world cannot, should not, will not tolerate.

The Black Mamba Is A Fact. Kill From A Great Distance. Or Get Real Smart.

The Black Mamba Is A Fact. Kill From A Great Distance. Or Get Real Smart.

A Black Mamba can bring up a third of its body, and look a man in the eye. And it is a very aggressive, some say furious, snake, feared by all including herds of buffalos. Still prehistoric man learned to live with it very well. Meanwhile, Austria is building a wall. A wall, all along its border with Slovenia. Slovenia is, in more ways than one, basically, historically and geographically speaking, a part of… Austria.

What to do? First, find out which superior philosophy should guide us. Inebriation with the “make love, not war” philosophy leads only to four bullets in the back, as John Lennon dramatically demonstrated. Europe ought not to tolerate gross violations, gross deviations from the norms of… Western civilization. While considering the origins: for example, one cannot order Arabia to behave as civilized, as, say, Israel… Simply because Arabian brains have more work to do to get civilized. In practice, it means that the deliberate destruction of housing and other deliberate

invasive actions of the Israeli government ought not to be tolerated, because they are part of a descent to hell, whereas Saudi Arabia has to ascent from hell. So, being in hell is not enough

information: as in physics, one has to consider momentum and potential (this may sound vague, but it’s not just correct relativity, but correct Quantum Mechanics: De Broglie introduced momentum in 1924, and Bohm & Aharanov noticed in 1956, that potential energy was part of De Broglie’s reasoning, and that this had practical consequences; so this is the case where the strict analogy with physics has practical political consequences!)

Human beings do not have all the same interests. Yet, notwithstanding the unreal elucubrations of the animal rights fanatics, the rights of a Nazi, the rights of a serial killer, the rights of

Palestinian backstabber, or the rights of financial manipulators, are not the same of that of a Syrian infant landing on Lesbos. The latter are worth dying for, whereas the former are worth killing like venomous snakes.

Killing venomous snakes? Is not that uncalled for, unphilosophical, plain nasty, and unwise? A few years back, some individuals suggested that death by venomous snakes was a major problem. Generalized laughter followed, at the highest level of those supposedly in charge of world health care. Venomous snakes have interests, and therefore rights, the animal fanatics would point out, let them be. Assuredly, fighting snakes sounded biblical, and could not possibly be correct, or as noble as fighting Ebola. However those who are anchored in reality persisted.

As a child, I remember seeing many venomous snakes, and I feared them intensely. Having one in my bed was a recurring nightmare. True, there were some in the thatched roof in Ivory Coast. I also played with deadly Yellow Scorpion in the desert (“coucou be’!”), before parental intervention, and another time a scorpion stung my mom in bed. One most enlightening encounter was with a Black Mamba in Senegal (contrarily to comments on the Internet, the Black Mamba is Senegal, probably the first met by Europeans, is not olive grey, but black; it’s not just its mouth). The snake fled, much faster than I could run, or even see, it was mostly a blur. A long black blur, an incredibly long black blur, like several bull whips long, whipping all over the place, yet so fast, going where it willed.

Well, consulting reality would help: venomous snakes kill hundreds of thousand of people, every year. One of the reason? Colonial institutes such as the Pasteur Institute have found too onerous to maintain enough reserves of antiserum at the ready. You want to live, you envenomated savages? Go back to colonialism. (Somebody will have to pay for it, though.)

In other news, Netanyahu corrected his lie on the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem giving the idea of the extermination of Jews. He actually said word for word what was already said on this site:

Mr. Netanyahu, was criticized by historians (some of them Israeli) for erroneous causality, had already said he never intended to absolve Hitler of responsibility for the Holocaust by blaming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, but his new statement went further.

“The decision to move from a policy of deporting Jews to the Final Solution was made by the Nazis and was not dependent on outside influence,” Mr. Netanyahu posted on Facebook, in Hebrew and English. “The Nazis saw in the Mufti a collaborator, but they did not need him to decide on the systematic destruction of European Jewry, which began in June 1941…Contrary to the impression that was created, I did not mean to claim that in his conversation with Hitler in November 1941 the Mufti convinced him to adopt the Final Solution. The Nazis decided on that by themselves.”

It’s always simpler to tell the truth rather than to tell lies.

The basic story of June 1941 was related here many times: as Operation Barbarossa, the attempted destruction of the USSR, launched to the East, the 150 German army divisions were followed by 3,000 elite men from the “Zonderkommandos” (Special Commandos). The latter were older and generally of a high educational level (such as lawyers). They were also dedicated Nazis whose one and only task was to kill all and any Jews they would encounter.

Many Jews had been already killed by the vengeful Natives: when the area was invaded by the USSR, many Jews were put in charge of the occupying Bolshevik administration, earning them the hatred of the locals, beyond their basic antisemitism.

Hatred is a basic human mode of thinking. To suppress it, one cannot simply piously deplore and condemn it, one has to kill what causes it. In the case of the Middle East, Salafism, the way of the old ones (that’s literally what “Salafism” means) was the way of war.

It was even, as Islam surged in its defeat of the Persian and Roman armies, and its conquest of Syria and its repression of the rebellion in Egypt, the way of total war by extermination of all fighting age men. No, I am not pulling a Netanyahu and getting all confused. Assad and his Alawites, and many other sects, tribes or nations in the Middle East are equally persuaded that, if they don’t exterminate their enemies, they will be exterminated.

This will go on, as long as no more advanced philosophy is imposed there. Meanwhile, to survive in style, Europe needs to embrace a more sustainable philosophy, and that demands imposing order on itself and its neighborhood, by force. Reality is a Black Mamba: it can be lived with, but only given proper precautions.

But that would require correct philosophical leadership, and all the philosophical leadership we have, in these despicable times of ours, is that “markets”, that is, the richest and most obscure, ought to rule. Said markets have no market for Syrian infants, so they don’t care.

During Barbarossa, in five months, five million soldiers died (4 million of them Soviet). Barbarossa failed, because Fall rains and their mud, plus the worst freeze from General Winter in 50 years, arrived before the Nazis could encircle Moscow. Crucial in that non-achievement was that Barbarossa was delayed by 5 weeks (from May 15, 1941, to June 22, 1941). Moreover many elite Nazi units were decimated, wounded and exhausted because of action in Greece and Crete where Greeks and the British gave them a very hard time. A lot of equipment got also used up in that Hellenistic campaign, and not available for Barbarossa anymore, including lots of planes and paratroops (most of them killed in Crete). That’s why the Nazis could only get to see the Kremlin’s golden domes in the distance.

So you want to stop horrendous war? Use more war, in a judicious, and timely manner. Some will sneer, because they do not know history, and they are in no hurry to correct that, as they view history as so immoral, it should not be contemplated, let alone meditated upon (only really nasty people such as me do this, ought of sheer malignancy, or so they feel, before going to play trick or treat with their children…)

Yet war has its logic, and morality flows from it. The crime of the Jews, when Hitler rose, is that they cooperated with Hitler instead of fighting him to death (not just Republican candidate Carson said this, to some extend, but Hannah Arendt, long ago; in any case the historical record is clear).

What happened more precisely, in the case of that delaying attack on Greece, is that Mussolini, the Italian fascist leader, had invaded with his elite armies, the Albanese and Greek regions. The Greek army counterattacked, and walloped the Italian fascists. It was an extremely humiliating defeat. Mussolini had already suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the French, the previous spring. Now with the Greeks? Also there was a strategic problem: could not the British counterattack, through Greece, in the soft belly of the Great Reich, all the way to the vital Rumanian oil fields? So Hitler decided he had to intervene in the Balkans.Thus he attacked Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete. The Greeks resisted fiercely. The Royal Navy ruled the seas. Barbarossa got delayed by a crucial 5 weeks.

Now what would the peaceniks have advised the Greeks to do? Rise the white flag, offer roses to the fascists, have sex with them, give them all properties, dignity, freedom, hope. The Jews were forced into that. And still, they ended exterminated.

The peaceniks wanted the Greeks, and the French, to surrender. Such is their burning desire.  (Most of the people holding this sort of opinion are white, and probably closet racists who wanted Nazi Germany to win). Then Barbarossa would have happened on schedule, and the USSR be defeated. So, instead of having just exterminated most European Jews, the Nazis could have exterminated much more, and all Slavs, etc.

Instead the Greeks fought, as the French had done, ten months earlier. By the time Barbarossa started, the Nazi army was much weakened from what it had been, a year earlier, having lost more than 100,000 of its best elements. (Plus thousands of planes, and better pilots.)

When confronted to French fortifications on the other side of the Meuse, Nazi engineers charged with explosive backpacks, a non-sustainable technique providing with little inspiration; from their point of view, they were going to die, one way, or another, as they were stuck between the river and French guns, so it’s not like, in their minds, at least, they were really the suicide bombers they, in reality, were.

You want peace with killers? Then be ready to die, with all those, and all what you love, and respect. Yet, don’t expect those who are more worthy to follow you.

Reality has no morality. We have morality to adapt to reality. Those whose morality can’t adapt to reality have no future.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

26 Responses to “If You Want Peace, Make War”

  1. pshakkottai Says:

    Hi Patrice:
    The ISIS is the black mamba and Russia is right in eliminating them.
    Partha

    • Gmax Says:

      I don’t think it’s that simple: Assad freed the guys from ISIS, to start with, from his own jails. Also Putin is aiming at Alepo, and ISIS is nowhere near. Putin LOVES Fundamentalists, consider Chechnya

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      A Gmax said, Assad created ISIS. More than 90% of Putin’s strikes aim at ISIS NOT, thus reinforce ISIS (which has been fighting with those Putin bombs; now that Putin is getting bombed, see the plane explosion… We are going to see how hard to fry Putin’s balls are…)

    • itsnobody Says:

      But…Russia has lots of violence from non-Muslim Russians…what’s Russia going to do about it?

      I had a friend from Estonia (a country with a 0.1% or less Muslim population according to the 2010 Muslim Pew report)…his parents were murdered there when he was 5-years-old by the KGB.

      He told me that he could vividly remember seeing his parents getting murdered and killed….he was adopted by US parents.

      The European countries with the highest murder rates in Northern Europe (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) have the least non-white immigration, lowest percentage of Muslims in the world, and purest European stock, LOL!

      LOL at ISIS being a threat…just a small gang in the US would be more dangerous.

      Growing up in the US I’ve had friends killed and friends of friends killed….I don’t know anyone who’s been killed by a Muslim. In high school I saw gang members with knives and once we had to evacuate school because of a gang stabbing.

      One of my friends had to hide from Russian mobsters! She got beat up really badly with a broken leg by Russian (non-Muslim) mobsters!

      I don’t view Muslims as that big of a threat based on the facts and evidence but I disagree with Muslims on opposing Israel like how Nazis and atheists oppose Israel….if I’m wrong about the Muslims then the fools can prove it by gaining a 0% Muslim population and a high non-white non-Muslim population and having no issue with it.

      I’ve figured out how to gain world peace, but without using war and violence…it has to do with the physics model that I’m working out…since there is no free-will it’s pretty easy to bias someone to be non-violent…it’s not really that complicated actually.

      Most violence is caused by aggression…using the technology I’m working on I can eliminate the aggression within any individual.

      Then eliminating war using science should also be possible.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Itsnobody: You just go sober, and quit your obsession with Muslims, and the obsession that others are as equally obsessed with a big minus sign in front. Criticizing Salafism (the senile observance of all old sacred “Muslim” texts, word for word) is kosher. “Muslim” on the other end does not mean much when it is trying to describe individuals: for example most “Muslims” in France are thoroughly secular (that’s probably true for Western Turkey too).

        • itsnobody Says:

          Like I said I view the more moderate Muslims as more dangerous because they would do violent acts for non-religious reasons like other moderate non-Muslims do…so there would be more violence overall.

          Like for instance the Turks are more violent for non-religious reasons because they are more moderate Muslims.

          Atheists and secularists look at non-religious violence and think “who cares” but it really matters to the victims friends and family members even if the killing is done for non-religious reasons.

          Like for instance if you watch that show “Dateline ID” you would see people in the US who kill their wives, husbands, and children for non-religious reasons, and this occurs frequently every year.

          The less moderate Muslims would only do violent acts for religious reasons that occur really rarely.

          The more moderate Muslims would do violent acts for non-religious reasons that occur frequently…so there would be violence overall.

          I go by facts and evidence, so since the murder rate in the European countries with the highest percentage of Muslims is lower than all 50 US states, and the CIA and FBI has told us that other organizations are more dangerous than al-Qaeda of course I think it’s no threat to me.

          I don’t personally know anyone who was killed by a Muslim, but I know lots of people who were killed by non-Muslims.

          I’m not obsessed with Muslims, rather with ruining everything for atheists/racists/Nazis/White Nationalists.

          We can ruin everything for the Nazi/atheist/racist/White Nationalist by encouraging them to pass a law banning/deporting only Muslim immigrants but allowing non-white non-Muslim immigrants!

          It would ruin everything, haha

  2. Kevin Berger Says:

    “and that demands imposing order on itself and its neighborhood, by force”

    Still speaking from my very narrow vintage, this brings to mind the litany of disorders in France over the last months (and, actually, over the last decades, really, each a little step toward the worst), that may not be much in themselves each, but clearly and absolutely do illustrate a “mood” (as you would put it perhaps) of lawlessness and anomia.
    Not even touching the more “socially”-tinted ones, such as the taxi drivers vs. uber or the bonnets rouges destrying truck toll-gates, the clearest examples would be IMHO the two recent gipsy road block and rampaging vandalism, in the north and near Grenoble (there was IIRC one notable precedent only a years years ago to the later, while the former seems to be a bit more common, as I seem to recall a few instances over the years); a neatest illustration of that “mood” and of the (rightfully) perceived impotency and toothlessness of the French State, I cannot imagine.
    Anyway, it’s a litany, as I wrote, that nicely illustrates the crumbling of the social pact.
    Random example today, “Youths” vs. carnies, again a pretty run-of-the-mill happenstance :
    http://www.leparisien.fr/clermont-ferrand-63000/clermont-ferrand-deux-bandes-s-affrontent-au-moins-7-blesses-01-11-2015-5237759.php

  3. Gmax Says:

    This is the sort of essays of yours, that, I am afraid, is way too advanced for common folks. I love what you write, and I agree wholeheartedly, but people prefer virtual reality goggles and Kim Kardashian. This country now is like in Rome around the time of Trajan: bread and circus. Folks don’t want to think, it’s like fast food. They want sugar foods they can swallow real fast. They hate deep thought, it reminds them of them of their shortcomings

  4. Kevin Berger Says:

    Toujours pour la France. L’électrochoc à venir, sans doute pour le pire et pas pour le meilleur?
    http://lavoiedelepee.blogspot.fr/2015/10/le-jour-dapres-la-grande-attaque.html

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      D’accord avec l’article, mais la “grande attaque” avec 300 tues, je n’y crois pas. The USA lost 3,000 on 9/11. Result? It’s pulling out of the Middle East and letting Russia and Iran in. OK, pulling out, except for leaving Israel, and its pluto allies in Qatar and SA in charge.
      To have a real impact, you would need 30,000 killed. But now the water works are under surveillance…

      • Kevin Berger Says:

        Les 3000 tués du 11/09 ont rendus les USA dingues, conchiés de trouille mêlée de rage impuissante (et le “french-bashing subséquent a été je crois une manière d’exorciser cette peur abjecte, en la projetant sur une France couarde et pusillanime). Qu’ils se soient tiré une balle, ou dix, dans le pied avec une guerre foireuse à tous niveaux en Irak, cela reste une autre histoire.
        Je vous rapporterai juste à tous ces écrits aux alentours de 2002-2003, avec la puissance US qui allait remodeler le MO, et qui ont finis glissés discrètement sous le tapis, au vu du bordel résultant.
        (Bon, c’est un peu ce qui est en train de se passer, par défaut, le chaos engendré se rapprochant pas mal des rêves les plus humides des stratèges du pire Israeliens, avec un monde Arabe à feu et à sang, morcelé et sans avenir immedédiat.)

        Après le niveau de violence nécessaire pour un “changement de paradigme”, je n’en ai aucune idée, certains pays en Amérique du sud vivent au quotidien, sans trop d’états d’âme, avec une violence de rue qui ridiculise le “terrorisme” type conflit Israelo-palestinien, et tout cela reste de toute manière limité face aux morts évitables du tabac, de l’alcool,…

        Cependant, personne ne me fera croire qu’il n’y aura pas *quelque chose*, quand ou si une attaque “à 300 morts” survient en France…
        Tensions sociales, tensions ethniques, tensions religieuses, tensions politiques, la situation peut se régler d’elle-même au moins en partie si mettons la situation économique s’améliore.
        Mais, s’il y a un gros attentat, même si statistiquement insignifiant par rapport aux tués sur la route ou autres, tout peut partir en vrille, et vite.
        Juste après le 11/09, les premiers mots de Jospin ont été de l’ordre de “chers Français, je vous en prie, pas de ratonnade!…”; après AZF, les premiers mots de Chirac ont été quelque chose comme “je ne veux pas entendre parler d’un attentat!”.
        Si nier un attentat de masse est de bonne guerre durant la guerre d’Algérie (barrage de Malpasset???), alors qu’est-ce que cela veut dire sur la situation de 2001, ou 2015?

        Désolé si je suis grandiloquent, mais dans une vue d’ensemble, la société Française n’est plus : les hommes politiques le savent, le dérapage n’est qu’à un incident près (cf. la gestion des émeutes de 2005, qui a vue les FdO en prendre plein la gueule, pour justement éviter un embrasement qui aurait été impossible à gérer); il n’y a plus de Nation, juste une cocotte-minute sur le point d’exploser, le pouvoir les deux mains sur le couvercle, “une dernière minute M. le bourreau (nous ne nous somme pas encore assez goinfrés)”, terrorisé de devoir faire face aux conséquences de ses manquements délibérés.
        Avec nos amis et voisins plus ou moins proches en embuscade.

        Tout est à reconstruire à ce niveau, avec comme horizon idéalisé, un retour à un niveau de civilité façon années 60… quel glorieux projet!

        Sinon, suite en quelque sorte de l’article :
        http://lavoiedelepee.blogspot.fr/2015/11/la-derniere-bataille-de-la-france-un.html

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          La rage des USA contre la France est une tres vielle histoire. American Founding Fathers were slave owners, and they hated the French Revolution for having freed the slaves in the New World. Then the American Founding Fathers were immensely wealthy, and they did not like the “Sans Culottes”. Giving the vote to everybody, not just people of wealth, taste and the right religion, was definitively anathema.

          Then the USA got really worried, during the immensely nasty and deadly American civil war (3% of the population killed), that Britain and France would recognize the Confederacy. Didn’t happen, but the fear was there, and stayed.

          Then there was 1914, in part engineered by the USA (which promised and then effectively gave, help to the Kaiser, until 1917!)

          Then there was 1919: at that point the aim of the USA was world supremacy, and France and Britain, but especially France, were in the way. Nazism, a most useful tool for American plutocrats, was the object of French threats of violence, which, ultimately, brought World War Two…. Spoiling the racist dish.

          So no wonder the USA gave weapons to Ho Chi Minh against France, supported the FNL, etc. If anything it all came to a head at Suez in 1956, the abominable week I described here in the past, in details, when Dulles the Nazi US Sec State allied himself with the Stalinist dictator Khrushchev, who threatened to atom bomb Paris and London and destroyed Hungary.

          So 2003 is just un autre petit pave’ in this road to hell…
          PA

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          We are going to a world of war, simply from the run-away greenhouse.
          Michelle Obama was in Qatar, showing her luxurious hair in her star speech there: a good thing she did.
          Like in all wars, there will be heroes. No war, no heroes.
          I think the main problems in France, as in the world, are related to how people think. I just had a very emotional exchange with a top lawyer (she was, I was rather impersonating a Black Mamba). I was astounded by her inability to keep issues confined in their own categories. People are not trained enough this way, these days. Even top lawyers. (I must admit though that I can be the interlocutor from hell… ;-0)

  5. Paul Handover Says:

    Gmax’s reply resonates quite well with my own thoughts. Yes, no doubt this is a very strange period.

    There’s an old saying that comes to mind: “Man with good argument less effective than man with good argument, with gun!” Thus if one’s back is against the wall then having the ability to defeat one’s enemy makes total sense.

    But (and you knew there was a but coming, didn’t you!) the complexity and scale of the challenges facing all of humanity, and much of the natural world besides, can only only be dealt with through “jaw, jaw”, not by ” war, war”.

    Am I confident? No!

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Jaw, Jaw! is not different from war, war! The best example is the greenhouse/CO2 situation: it’s a war (against the planet and the millions who have already died, according to the UN), because there was not enough Jaw, Jaw. Still, as long as said war does not become insufferable, there will be no serious Jaw Jaw.

      In Syria, decisive action by France and the USA (forget London, which is sold to Assad) could have brought forth a more amenable general. However, the true aim in Syria of those with influence (some live in the south, others in the north, some in Europe, USA…) is to destroy Syria. The war is a way to achieve that.

      So what’s the way out? Expose, not just the ideas, but the moods at work.

      • Paul Handover Says:

        Can only fall back on my instincts. That in just the same way that my liberal leanings do not prevent me being quite conservative at times, my leanings towards all other solutions rather than war does not inhibit me from considering war if all else fails.

        It’s just that history does not seem to indicate that war is ever the answer.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          War was the answer with Fascist Germany> Bertrand Russell, who I love and respect very much, although he was an Earl, was wrong when he pushed for Britain to surrender to Fascist Germany in WWI.

          And WWII was the second round of WWI, because Fascist Germany had not been crushed to smithereens enough in WWI!

          Certainly war in 1066 CE solved the problem of slavery in England (Guillaume outlawed it). History shows that war is often the only available answer: the Huns were defeated at Orleans (Aurelianium), the Muslims at Toulouse (721), Poitier (732), Narbonne (748 CE). Otherwise as Gibbon said, the Qur’an would have been taught at Oxford (in truth, there would have no Oxford, as the Muslim world developed no independent universities)…

          War is ALWAYS the solution to the worst situations, so shows history, I boldly asserts (and can justify it).

  6. itsnobody Says:

    The article is delusional and hypocritical.

    I thought this foolish woman criticized the Muslims for believing that war is ok in certain conditions, and now she’s saying that war is ok in certain conditions, how foolish.

    I guess she is tyrannical and a war monger.

    ISIS a threat? How ridiculous. The European countries with the highest percentage of Muslims have the lowest murder rates in the world, lower than all 50 US states, the FBI and CIA has said many times that other organizations are more dangerous.

    Of course I think the FBI and CIA are right when I look at the statistics…a murder rate of 0.7 per 100,000 is a threat when the US state with the lowest murder rate has a murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000? LOL, so much for a threat.

    The Muslims who are really dangerous are the more moderate Muslims, who believe that violence for non-religious reasons is ok…just like the more moderate or less religious people in general.

    The less moderate Muslims believe that non-religious violence is immoral, and would only kill for religious reasons in conditions that occur really rarely…so there would be less violence overall.

    Non-religious violence like the Elementary school shooting, Batman movie theater shooting, the Virginia Tech massacre, gangs in the US, domestic violence, etc…plagues the US and is viewed as “who really cares?” by the atheist-controlled media if it’s done for non-religious reasons.

    Just a small gang in the US that results in like 5 or more homicides a year would be more dangerous than al-Qaeda.

    I think Muslims should join Westerners on women’s rights and view women as inferior like Westerners do.

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

    Women should be promiscuous and be viewed as sexual objects like they are in Western countries to please men.

    Women in Islamic countries should unveil themselves so that they can be viewed as sexual objects like they are in the West.

    Women in Islamic countries should do pornography so that they can please men like women do in Western countries.

    Haha, that’s all a woman is in the West, a sexual object. That’s their role in society.

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

    It’s well-known in the West that women are incapable of doing mathematics like men are, women have different roles in society.

    There’s a higher percentage of female pornstars than male pornstars in the West and there always will be.

    I have a much better idea for Western countries or any country that views Muslims as a threat – pass a law deporting/banning only Muslim immigrants and still allowing non-white non-Muslim immigrants.

    This would ruin everything for the White Nationalist/Nazi/atheist movement, a 0% Muslim population and a high non-white non-Muslim population, haha

    Man, I’m ingenious, unlike a woman, who’s less intelligent with a smaller brain, lol.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I let this comment through as an example of rabid, ill-informed misogyny, and delirious unrealism (same as allowing through rabid Nazis). The one about Al Qaeda killing only 5 people is a nice touch of counter-factuality. BTW, it ought to be clear by now that international (science or not) prizes are politically motivated.

      • itsnobody Says:

        You must not understand basic math, not your fault, you’re a woman.

        I noticed that you didn’t refute any statement that I made because you know that you’re wrong.

        The murder rate is the murder count in proportion to the population size of a country.

        What this means is if the murder count were to go up slightly in countries with low population sizes like Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, etc…the murder RATE would really go up.

        But instead Sweden’s murder rate is 0.7 per 100,000.

        The US state with the very lowest murder rate has a murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000.

        US state with the highest murder rate is 10.8 per 100,000.

        The US has a murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000.

        So Sweden’s murder rate (like the other European countries with the highest percentage of Muslims) is lower than all 50 US states!

        This from the 2012 murder statistics, you can double check it if you don’t believe me.

        So indeed I am right that a small gang that results in 5 or more homicides would be as dangerous or maybe more dangerous than al-Qaeda just like the CIA and FBI has told us.

        If the US or Europe has a 0% Muslim population it wouldn’t matter for the murder rate, the murder rate could be higher depending.

        You should stop watching TV or whatever and learn real facts.

        A police officer came to my school and told me this very same thing, then I looked at murder statistics and saw that it was true.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          That I do not answer garbage logic does not mean I approve it. Your stats above and their analysis are correct, until you stray into your usual Muslim obsession. France has around 40 times more people of Muslim origin than the USA, and the French murder rate is a tiny fraction of that of the USA. Glad to hear the police is teaching you. I doubt you ever took calculus, as primary school stats seems your ultimate.

          • itsnobody Says:

            Seems you like agreed with me and then threw garbage personal attacks as usual…if you think that I’m wrong please explain.

            Since you agreed with me why do you think that I’m wrong?

            You said in your other comment “The one about Al Qaeda killing only 5 people is a nice touch of counter-factuality.”

            But I never said that al-Qaeda only kills 5 people worldwide….in the scope of a state a small gang that results in 5 or more homicides would be as dangerous or more dangerous than al-Qaeda, and I cited statistics to support it….but I guess you didn’t understand as a woman is less intelligent than a man.

            Then you said “BTW, it ought to be clear by now that international (science or not) prizes are politically motivated”…even though the Fields Medal prize was awarded to Maryam Mirzakhani for her contributions in mathematics…they are very few (if any) Western women who made comparable contributions in mathematics even though there’s more than 500 million women in Western countries, and most Western countries are more developed with better education systems…LOL

            But there are lots of Western women ahead in pornography!

            Maryam Mirzakhani had already won the Blumenthal Award, Ruth Lyttle Satter Prize, and Clay Research Award before the Fields Medal and had also won the IMO Gold medal 2 times in Iran.

            She’s not simply the first female Iranian to win a Fields Medal, but the first Iranian in general.

            She’s not simply the first female Iranian to achieve a perfect score in the IMO, but the first Iranian in general.

            There aren’t any mathematicians who think that Maryam Mirzakhani got the Fields Medal for political reasons because her outstanding contributions are in the Fields Medal worthy range.

            I’m sure the Fields Medal committee wants to give out the Fields Medal to a Western women but they aren’t any that have made Fields Medal worthy contributions…Western women are too busy focusing on getting abortions, dressing provocatively, modeling, or doing pornography, that’s women’s rights to them.

            You’re a real stupid woman.

            It’s good thing you have to pre-approve your comments or whatever so you don’t get destroyed by me.

            Just go home and stick to pre-approving comments, don’t allow people to question, criticize, or scrutinize your foolish statements.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Maryam Mirzakhani is an excellent mathematician, one of the best in the world, no doubt. It’s indeed a good lesson that the most famous (modern) Iranian mathematician is a woman (although the one who introduced Indian numerals was a man). I am not the one who made misogynistic comments.

              The first work in the West (meaning west of India) on the modern number system is Al-Khwarizmi‘s On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals (ca. 825).
              https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/shocking-arabophilia/

            • itsnobody Says:

              Well that was obvious…during the time-period that “Hindu numerals” was introduced (the 800s AD) almost everything around the world was strictly male-dominated…the majority of people in general were also illiterate around the world until relatively recently.

              Still today in the West engineering, mathematics, and physics are male-dominated.

              I remember in college in my engineering courses there weren’t many females at all.

              I also remembered that the females were less intelligent than the males who figured out everything quicker and more easily.

              What could be preventing women in the West from being more intelligent or more successful than males?

              I guess in the West women have distinctly different roles than men.

              It’s pretty embarrassing to Westerners that even though there’s more than 500 million women in the West, and Western countries are more developed with better education systems there’s never been a Western female who’s won a Fields Medal or Abel Prize.

              All of the mathematicians who have looked at Mirzakhani’s work agree that she deserved the Fields Medal for her contributions…there’s no controversy about it.,,,others who have won the Fields Medal are more controversial.

              Manjul Bhargava (an ethnic Indian who won the Fields medal the same year as Maryam Mirzakhani) said that “Her [Maryam Mirzakhani’s] work is absolutely fantastic. I hope the media will not speak of her only as a top-rate female mathematician, but also as a top-rate mathematician who is doing truly groundbreaking work.”

              She has a deep monotone voice like a man, lol, the Muslims believe that men and women are like equal, how ridiculous.

              Women will always stay down in the West, the way it’s supposed to be.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              There were several top mathematicians who were women in the past, including Emmy Noether.
              I despise the Fields Medal, as it is given to people at most 40. Thus it is ageist, a sort of youth carrot.
              Her voice sounds a bit engineered (that of Obama is massively engineered). Still, she has rather a woman’s voice.

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: