“Cult of Death” Against World Government

It is often argued that Muslims are oppressed (say in Europe), so to defend themselves, they go aggress or kill people. However, Bin Laden was one of the world’s richest men, and both in the Paris attacks and the San Bernardino attacks, the ringleaders were from rather wealthy family. Same for the attacks in London, a few years back.

The woman who moved to the USA just to conduct mayhem was, a few years back, taking classes in a university pervaded by Muslim Fundamentalism. She could not stand to share a house with her very conservative (female, it goes without saying) classmates. So her father rented a house for her alone, so that she could pursue her pharmacy studies in style. Renting a house as a student: how destitute does that sound?

The father worked overseas, an engineer in Saudi Arabia, who turned too Muslim Fundamentalist for his family in the very fundamentalist region of Pakistan he was from.

The same held for the ringleaders of 9/11.

True Believers Shoot Their Way To Paradise: San Bernardino Killers

True Believers Shoot Their Way To Paradise: San Bernardino Killers

So what is motivating Islamist killers who try to die in the process? Just the sacred texts which they believe are, they are certain are, the word of god. These people know how to get to paradise. They are just greedy. They firmly believe in the “Cult of Death”. Maybe we should just use the words “Cult of Death”, instead of the I word. But actually the “Cult of Death” is all about the “I” word. “I” like in me, myself and “I”.

“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian or any other disbeliever… including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him,” said IS spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani.

“Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military,” he said in the message, which was released in multiple languages. That was in September.


Meanwhile Trump proposed a moratorium on new Muslim entrances in the USA “until our representatives understand what is going on”. The New York Times, who has censored all my comments on Islam, including those correcting erroneous facts (as it used to do in 2003, when the New York Times wanted to invade Iraq) transmogrified that into “until our leaders understand what is going on”. Subtle disinformation.

The attacks in Paris used Syrians who penetrated Europe by presenting themselves as refugees, and the rich Pakistani woman obviously entered the USA just because she greedily she would go directly to paradise later (this is the conclusion the FBI is already drawing).

This is all very practical: for example, Afghanistan is collapsing under the assault of the “Cult of Death”, so Afghans are leaving Afghanistan as never before. Where are we going to put them? How are we going to make it so that they can be put anywhere, safely enough for all concerned.

So will say: wait, days of empire are gone, respect to all concerned, give peace a chance, cool it, relax, new age, peace and love… The day of empires is indeed gone. This is the days of empire… without the plural form.

When idealists in the middle of the Twentieth Century called for “World Government”, they did not realize what it entailed. It entailed re-establishing enough order in places such as Afghanistan, so we can all breathe and not have to worry about lunatics (a code word, turns out) making some weapons of mass destruction in a cave somewhere.

This is not a figment of my imagination. In France the water flowing inside municipal districts, is constantly inspected in real time since 9/11: the authorities, rightly so, know there are many ways to poison the water supply. This is the world we are in now. Just a few lunatics can kill millions (in the worst possible, imaginable case).

So we have to control what even lunatics think.

This is what world government means. It means the United Nations Security Council voting unanimously to support the French resolution to terminate the Islamist State. As happened.

And what should the guiding philosophy of that civilization be? Nothing very difficult. What comes naturally. The Cult of Man.

Patrice Ayme’

19 Responses to ““Cult of Death” Against World Government”

  1. Chris SnuggsChris SNUGGS Says:

    This is all beyond belief and reason. If any Muslim feels “oppressed”, he or she is free to go back to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia or whichever Islamic cesspit they crawled out of.

    Those who rant on about the oppression of Muslims in the USA might like to consider this image:


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Or they can leverage themselves by killing lots of unbelievers, idolaters, pagans, apostates, homosexuals, etc. and then go directly to PARADISE. How can you indeed compare Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia to PARADISE, as you dare to do! Muslims know that those are as far from paradise as possible!


      • Chris SNUGGS Says:

        “How can you indeed compare Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia to PARADISE?”

        I try to be logical.

        A) According to Muslims, a Caliphate or Islamic state is the only one acceptable for Mankind. Such a state is indeed ideal for Muslims.

        B) Pakistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia etc are all Islamic states or states where ISLAM predominates.

        C) Ergo, ALL those countries should be ideal for Muslims



        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I was being ironical: Muslims tell us these places are paradise, still they flee them, so that, coming to the West to kill, pagans, idolaters, restaurant goers, music lovers, county workers, etc. they can go to the real paradise, the one described in the Qur’an… 😉


  2. Chris SNUGGS Says:

    “So what is motivating Islamist killers who try to die in the process? Just the sacred texts which they believe are, they are certain are, the word of god. These people know how to get to paradise.”

    A catastrophic error was made some years ago over the Danish cartoons, after which Muslims went potty and the free world caved in to their lunacy. What SHOULD have happened was a tsunami of publications by every free world publication on the basis that A) they can’t cut ALL our heads off and B) they HAVE to grasp that the rest of the world considers their cult unacceptable. There was some Koran-burning organised, but the PC idiots soon squashed that. So, we stopped telling the truth (The Koran and Islamic practices are abominable and incompatible with civilisation) and things are getting worse; hardly a surprise, is it?

    The Japanese have the right idea, but nobody slags THEM off continuously for being “racist” (What a stupid expression.)



    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I think the problem with the modern attitude of the West relative to Islam goes back to the rendition of Abd El Kader. Then the commanding French general agreed to the condition that Islam would be left alone. So when, not so long after, Jews and other non-Muslims in French controlled North Africa were given FRENCH nationality, this was not extended to Muslims. At the time there was around one million Muslims in Algeria!

      Then the comedy of errors went on. One of the reasons Muslims were left to fester in their Cult of Death was sheer racism (in the guise of Political Correctness). Another was the Great Bitter Lake Syndrome (USA using Muslim Literalism cynically). Now it’s backfiring, big time.

      But we can’t make the same mistake the Romans did.

      Although the Romans were smart enough, some of them were, to found a Second Foundation, that of the Franks, thanks to the Salian/Salic Law (which they wrote).


  3. dominique deux Says:

    I just wanted to express my pride at being singled out, as a French citizen, as “especially spiteful and filthy”. First the neocons, then the creeps. We must be doing something right.
    Btw it would be amusing, if at all possible, to cross-correlate individual access to Salafist sites and to porn sites. What a bunch of sad twerps, really. And they’re losing even on the home front.
    I personally witnessed (in Egypt) a lingerie shop (think Victoria Secrets, but racier) being swamped by a swarm of Gulf women swathed in black garb. Way to go ladies. And an Algerian lady told me many of the niqab-wearing women in Algiers’ streets actually found the disguise quite convenient to go around and meet their lovers.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: On a serious note, some women who worked for the Islamist State turned against it when they came to understand that the mistreatment of women, including supporters of Islamism, was a major component. That was obvious all along: one just has to consider the Qur’an’s theory of battlefield brides, and Muhammad himself, who was suspected of immoral (by Islam’s standards) behavior for fornicating with a beautiful Jewish wife, and also with the wife of one of his associates (whom he stole, for want of a better word).

      Verily, who needs Agatha Christie, Ian Fleming, and the spiciest of porno literature, when we have the Sunnah? (The Sunnah is the description of Muhammad’s life; the Hadith focuses on its sayings as reported by companions.)

      The niqab, tchador is indeed best for cheating in all sorts of ways, including for transsexual Arabian males to go meet their lovers. Maybe that’s why they are all for it?
      They also did not invent it: the “men in black” who trashed Egypt around 400 CE were Christian Copts, and the fundamental inspiration for all this “Islamism”. Frankish spies in the Seventh Century reported to Paris that “the sons of Sarah” (“Sarasins, Saracens”) were a dangerous new Christian sect…


  4. Antarctica Disintegrating Soon | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Morality Without Intelligence Makes As Much Sense As Will Without Mind. Intelligence Is At The Core Of Humanism. « “Cult of Death” Against World Government […]


  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/muslim-children-isis-america-and-europe-213420?o=1%5D

    The author Hisham Melhem, says: “France’s ethos, that is the country’s core beliefs and values including its unique concept of secularism, or Laïcité, perceived by many as anti-clerical, or even anti-religion, with its strict prohibition on the clergy and religion influencing public life.
    Laïcité in that sense is different from American secularism, which is simply the separation of church and state, without creating enmity between them.”

    This statement implies two things which I believe not to be correct, and which feed anti-French sentiment in the USA:

    1) the first erroneous proposition is that church and state are separated in the USA. So how come the motto instituted in 1954 is “In God we trust”? What if we don’t trust “god”, or know of no “god” (or dog)?

    And how come churches pay no taxes in the USA, although some are very rich? In France (and England) churches started to pay tax in 1300 CE (this brought a major conflict between of the French and English monarchies against the pope; the pope ended arrested by the French, and then dead, and taxes were imposed by the two states; that means in some ways, the French and English states were more separated form religion in the middle of the Middle Ages, than the USA is, in 2015 CE!)
    Also the president of the USA ended thousands of discourse with “God bless America” as if he was a Pope of some sort. How separated is that? The end result of all the god state propaganda in the USA is that most people believe in God (and gun!) In France, people don’t believe in god, including most of the six million descendants of Muslim believers living there.

    2) the second erroneous notion is that Laïcité implies an enmity. It does not. It’s not because religious authorities enjoy a strict prohibition on “influencing” public life. Actually it is not forbidden to “influence” public life. What’s forbidden is to dictate public life. The fact that the French Republic is ruled by the People and its laws means religions cannot dictate We the People and its laws.


    • Kevin Berger Says:

      “2) the second erroneous notion is that Laïcité implies an enmity. It does not. ”
      Hum, that is very debatable.
      Arguably, the French laïcité is intrinsically aimed toward Catholicism.
      How it deals, or rather, how the men and women making up French officialdom, deal with Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam, is IMHO a different story altogether. This, even without taking the worst effects of rampant clientèlisme/communautarisme into account, from Valls sucking up to (the official and at least supposedly representative face of) French-Jews, to the PS lower echelons shamelessly stepping over their supposed principles to buy local Muslim votes (as denounced by that female Muslim PS official whose name I just can’t recall right now). Not that other parties are better on that front – even crass wingnut Estrosi is seemingly pretty fond of cozying up with local Muslim structures, in exchange for support.
      And let’s not mention the Gulf sugar daddies, and how their “some animals are more equal than the others” treatment (half-memories of a Jospin gvt-era Canard Enchainé short article about Dominique Voynet having to sit on her principles, so an highway exit could be constructed in order to facilitate the road travels of a Saudi (?) princelet to and from a manor of some kind).

      No, French Laïcité is an empty shell, at least when it should count. Strong with the weak, weak with the strong – the motto of the late, riping 5th.


  6. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Hisham Melhem claims that:”It is ironic that majorities of European Muslims, including in France, feel strongly or fairly that they do belong to their country of residence,”

    This is false. The mother of a terrorist in Paris (herself Muslim) contacted the police to tell them that she suspected her son was one of the self-exploded terrorists. She offered her DNA to be tested . It came positive.

    Most French “Muslims” feel very French, and more “French” than “Muslim”. The suspected terrorists are only 4,000 (“fiche “S” for Security).

    However, the danger is a bit as with Nazism: that a few thousand fanatics succeed, through their violence, to impose their politics of hatred.

    Hisham Melhem ignores completely what is inside the sacred texts of Islam. Under Saladin and thereafter (around 1200 CE) the literal reading of the Qur’an was made into a capital crime (because such a reading orders to kill too many categories of people; Saladin himself, Sultan of Egypt and Syria, was a Kurd, and could not appreciate that those deemed “apostate” should be killed; Saladin made peace treaties with the French and English kings…)

    Many quotes from Islam sacred texts can be found on Patrice Ayme site (they explain why young Muslims are anxious to kill to get to paradise, as Muhammad explicitly said, according to the Hadith/Sunnah).


    • Kevin Berger Says:

      “This is false.”
      Well, that’s debatable, again.

      Aside from the half-remembered litany of thuggish “Youths”, killed for one reason or the other, but sufficiently exposed to be publicly covered (think, crashed while trying to flee the po-po, with a riot ensuing, crap like that), only to end up buried “in the old country”… I do seem to recall that, among Mohamed Merah’s military victims, the paratroopers he shot execution-style, most of them of North-African extraction, who opted to serve, the only one who was buried in French soil was a Christian convert – though, I may well be wrong and prejudiced with that.

      Anyway, that’s anecdotal at best, but in the nested Russian dolls of identity(ies), I am far from convinced that “MOST French “Muslims” feel very French, and more “French” than “Muslim”.”
      Some, no doubt; a majority, possibly? Most, very doubtful.

      France cannot even assimilate its own, White, European, “Gauls”, sons and daughters; everything that happens, positive assimilation-wise, happens despite the France of the last 30-40 years, and would be a tribute to the deep, telluric forces of that old Nation… there is no way to be optimistic in that regard.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Depends how “Muslim” is defined. The number of French with (partial) North African descent is huge. Merah killed 2 military, no? The (traditional “Muslim”) mother of one of the two (Muslim who refused to kneel to Merah) has been going around with French politicians pleading against Jihad…

        Part of French “assimilation” is to assimilate a propensity to continual protest. So all French subcategories are perfectly French when, and if, protesting.


  7. Kevin Berger Says:



  8. Kevin Berger Says:



  9. Gmax Says:

    By denouncing the CULT OF DEATH, also known as ISLAM, Obama has gone to YOUR side, BIG TIME. Seeing Islam for what it is, below the abrogation trick, and the Quadiya , the organized lying of the systematic BS that Islam is peace.

    That’s awesome, truly awesome that Obama has seen through that BS, and used the Oval Office to make it known


  10. CFR Says:

    We were told for decades to esteem Islam. Thus it may be a good idea to read the Qur’an and the Hadith (the sacred texts of Islam). Enlightening extracts of the Hadith can be found for example in:



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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: