Classical Nihilism: Shakespeare & Qur’an

Is life a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing? Shakespeare evoked the idea. He created a mood. Out of it Bush, massacring all the Natives? Shakespeare, the Master Thinker is much admired in the Anglo-Saxon world, and beyond (perhaps in the hope of seducing Anglo-Saxons by loving where they come from?) The Bard was gifted with words, but some of the terrible ideas he lent to his characters have seeped into the world consciousness, as we must approve of them. Maybe it was no accident, not all Islam, when a Jihadist from London executed many, for the camera, in the name of the Islamist State. (That assassin was executed by an American drone, a good usage of the technology… for a change!)

In 1984, a program of reintroduction of Golden Lion Tamarins brought nine of these heart melting primates from the Washington Zoo to a reserve to Brazil’s Mata Atlantica. At the time no more than 200 were left in the wild. However, Western zoos had their own populations, some dating several centuries (the cuties were popular at the French court).

If Shakespeare Feels Life Is An Idiocy That Signifies Nothing, Does It Mean We Have To Die? Oder Arbeit Macht Frei?

If Shakespeare Feels Life Is An Idiocy That Signifies Nothing, Does It Mean We Have To Die? Oder Arbeit Macht Frei?

The Washington tamarins had been specially trained, for months to life outside. Logically enough, within weeks eight were dead. So much for Anglo-Saxon training (too much Shakespeare?). Subsequently, the Brazilians trained the tamarins themselves, with great success. (Now there are 2,000 in the “wild”. A “wilderness” full of freeways and high tension lines…)

The brutality, witchcraft, lethal ambition, and madness of a play such as Shakespeare’s Macbeth leaves images, and phrases, ideas and moods which pervade the Anglo-Saxon universe, and what it influences, namely the rest of the world from New Delhi to Beijing, Tokyo, even Moscow.

Who does not know “To be or not to be?”. It’s the opening sentence in Hamlet. The character is pondering suicide.

A new commenter on this site, Robin, subscribes to the Shakespeare cult, and quotes The Bard as an authority on my own idiocy. First Robin quoted the very last sentence of the following passage in MacBeth Act V scene 5::

LIFE’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

Robin kindly explains that I am the idiot, by quoting me: “So on the eve of yet another disastrous day of tragedies, to read: “The more powerful we humans become, the more perfect our government has to be. Thus, the more We the Citizens have to be perfect. Thus, the keener we will have to be to find the truth, and impose it, when lives, or the future, are at stake.” made my blood curdle.

Yet another clarion call to humanity composed of rhetoric, but absent of meaningful content.”

Robin took a sentence from The Bard, and made it into an aphorism. I have several disagreements here, both with the method (Shakespeare did not talk about me, but about life), and with the aphorism itself.

Shakespeare seems to believe that a tale told by an idiot signifies nothing. Quite the opposite. Idiots and madmen have much to tell, that’s the all idea of Shakespeare, come to think of it.

I replied that Shakespeare here is in total contradiction, not just with humanism, but humanity itself. Humanity’s task is to give meaning to life. Shakespeare may have been an idiot full of sound and fury, like Hitler. As, indeed, the Nazis agreed fully with Shakespeare’s preceding quote. So they were destroyed by those who give meaning to life. May reciting Shakespeare literally be quite a bit like reciting the Qur’an literally?

Reading Robin, one see analogies: “As for Shakespeare, well, he pretty much stands alone – a man who invented 27% of our language… It is the ACTIONS, not the form, which produce results of good or evil.” Similarly, some doctors of the Islamist faith will say the Qur’an invented Arabic. And they would be mostly correct about the written form! As far as English and Shakespeare in concerned, it’s pretty grotesque to say he invented English. 85% of English is mispronounced Franco-Latino-Greek, and of the remaining 15% much is in common with Old Dutch, the language of the Franks…

So Shakespeare obsessed about “form”, and “Action” (see extract of Hamlet below). What happened to thinking? Is thinking in Shakespeare? Yes, “Conscience does make Cowards of us all”. (Hamlet below, again.)

Modern law has started to discover that THOUGHT CRIME is a real problem (notwithstanding that it was made fun of by the fashionable Sci-Fi author, George Orwell).

French and German law punish Nazi holocaust denial with prison. They have been imitated with a number of countries (including Hungary after 2010, where a would-be Nazi was since condemned to several years in prison suspended when he agreed to visit a number of sites where Nazis perpetrated holocausts, and to write a reports about what he learned after each visit).

Here is the beginning of Hamlet; we can either suffer, or commit suicide. Forget about political change:

To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Whether ’tis Nobler in the mind to suffer

The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,

Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep

No more; and by a sleep, to say we end

The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks

That Flesh is heir to? ‘Tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep,

To sleep, perchance to Dream; aye, there’s the rub,

For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,

When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

Must give us pause. There’s the respect

That makes Calamity of so long life:

For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,

The Oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s Contumely, [F: poor]

The pangs of despised Love, the Law’s delay, [F: disprized]

The insolence of Office, and the Spurns

That patient merit of the unworthy takes,

When he himself might his Quietus make

With a bare Bodkin? Who would Fardels bear, [F: these Fardels]

To grunt and sweat under a weary life,

But that the dread of something after death,

The undiscovered Country, from whose bourn

No Traveller returns, Puzzles the will,

And makes us rather bear those ills we have,

Than fly to others that we know not of.

Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all,

And thus the Native hue of Resolution

Is sicklied o’er, with the pale cast of Thought,

And enterprises of great pitch and moment, [F: pith]

With this regard their Currents turn awry, [F: away]

And lose the name of Action. Soft you now,

The fair Ophelia? Nymph, in thy Orisons.”

Be all my sins remembered

The fact remains that believing that “LIFE’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing…”

Is as bad as nihilism goes. For people like that why does killing children mean anything? Is it what they mean?

Why not engage in various inanities and murders, then, to give life some spice, more meaning? Was then G.W. Bush’s presidency straight out of Shakespeare, fretting on a stage, heard of it no more,  “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”… In other words, was G. W. Bush’s presidency straight out of Shakespeare, something classical, natural, a normal way of behaving?

It obviously was.

Shakespeare is a double edge sword, and the handle itself is a blade too. By grabbing it, as if it were a well of wisdom, one cuts all tendrils of wisdom.

Kudos to Obama for crying at the White House when evoking small children cut down by automatic weapons’ fire. And why were those small children killed inhumanely, tortured to death? Just because idiots telling furious tales, full of sound and madness, have decided life means nothing as long as it cannot be cut down by automatic fire.

Reading Shakespeare, just as reading the Qur’an, should be done very carefully, under advanced philosophical supervision. Lest it feeds the idiots with the mood that life signifies nothing, and thus may as well be welcome as a tale told by an idiot (Hitler, or some other “Prophet”?), full of sound and fury.

Wisdom is not just blossoming with sophisticated ideas, it also avoids reeking of foul, dangerous, sadistic, cruel, nihilistic, vicious moods.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

30 Responses to “Classical Nihilism: Shakespeare & Qur’an”

  1. 1truegarcol Says:

    Well, Patrice, I had decided to ignore the argumentative hyperbole in your original response to my idiotic comment, but you have thrown down the gauntlet here, thus I will attempt to clarify and correct (though I doubt either attempt will be acknowledged or understood).
    First, the use of Hamlet’s lines was an attempt to sound educated and convey the context of miasmic confluence (tale told by an idiot) as a well to convey a (supposedly) understood meme. It was not a statement which I waved as a pennant for nihilism (not me, no how) – after all, it IS part of a dramatic speech by a confused, depressed, and agonized soul OF A CHARACTER IN A PLAY.
    It was not intended to stand for my beliefs on life, or Nazi-ism
    (I would not grace Bush or his administration with quotes from Shakespeare – the only identification with the bard and sick political actors – like Bush, Cheney, Hitler, Goebbels – would be as characters in that abortive travesty Titus Andronicus.
    I do not subscribe to any “cult of Shakespeare” or any author,playwright, politician, or blogger – I have found that continuous subscription to one’s proffered opinions tends to stultify logic and discovery.
    You set yourself as mentor and advisor and judge as to what might constitute valid insight or understanding of Shakespeare, the Qu’ran (and doubtless many more tomes you feel qualified to comment on) which I think is patently absurd.
    Let them read and think how so ever. And let their opinions be judged in the marketplace of discussion – or not.
    Mein Kampf did no horror – those subscribing to it, however, did, by their actions.
    The bible, the Qu’ran, the US Constitution, La Marseillaise, …have all been interpreted by zealots with various levels of comprehension – it is not the document (even the Elders of Zion) which hastens destruction and idiocy, but the agents of its misuse.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I do not “set myself as a mentor and advisor and judge, etc.” I do offer facts and logic, I offer gifts. I welcome contradictions.

      Shakespeare’s particularly insane, and most famous, declaration in Macbeth may, or may not have been his personal opinion. It’s irrelevant: people get exposed to it, and adopt it as something profound and realistic (to quote Chris Snuggs). I saw it basically quoted to justify the invasion of Iraq, on Fox News and the WSJ. Mad behavior by the USA was viewed as an example to inspire the world (as Macbeth is supposed to, or otherwise, why to read it?)

      Absurd comes from the Latin “Absurdus”, meaning out of, away from, tune, a dissonance. Of course what original thinking always does.

      I agree that too much “subscription to one’s proffered opinions tends to stultify logic and discovery”. However that does not mean that one should not stick to 1 + 1 = 2, and suddenly switch to 1 + 1 = 3. (Notice 1 + 1 = 0 makes sense in base 2… ;-)) This the difference between me and those who collect haphazard quotes from Shakespeare, feeling he is the greatest mentor, judge and connoisseur of human nature who ever was… While being certain that quoting J’expire (inside French joke), I mean Shake Spear (at the Indians!), can replace human behavior…
      PA

  2. brodix Says:

    Life is holistic. Meaning is reductionistic.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Humanity lives as much from meaning as from anything else. Without meaning we would have no love, no food, no shelter, no knowledge, no hope of survival.

      • brodix Says:

        No direction or goals either, yet what drives us is not the course we set ourselves on, but the essential desire within, that as mobile organisms, we need to focus.

        So it’s a tradeoff. We can be either fully connected to our environment, like a plant and immobile, or somewhat separate from it, to move in it.

        Conversely, much of that individual drive is counteracted and counterbalanced by competing organisms, in overall cycles. Which is why thermodynamic cycles are the bigger picture to linear temporal narrative. Much like the surface of the earth only appears flat locally.

        “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” What Newton forgot to add, possibly because it is obvious, is the action is linear, while the reaction is non-linear.

        When we are children, it is all about running forward, to new things. As we get older and have many things to deal with, it becomes more about balancing them all. Humanity is starting to leave its childhood. The end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end.

        The ultimate feedback loop is defined by living on the surface of this planet.

        There is an old African saying, “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go with a group.”

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          With all due respect, you seem to not understand the nature of physical law, to wit:
          ““For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” What Newton forgot to add, possibly because it is obvious, is the action is linear, while the reaction is non-linear.”

          Newton’s Third Law is correct. You are in a sense also correct, but only in what one should call psycho-physics. The physics of the mind, as any reaction will indeed have a problem to be strictly linear in reaction to action.

          Love those (West) African proverbs…

  3. Chris Snuggs Says:

    Chris Snuggs: Shakespeare understood human nature like almost nobody else. His characters are psychologically profound and realistic.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Patrice Ayme: I have a problem with viewing Macbeth, who is the most developed character in “Macbeth” as profound and realistic. Is madness profound and realistic? Making a hero out of a murderous madman reminds me of the Qur’an, for some reason. It’s the same general mood: I kill, therefore I am.

      And life makes no sense anyway, and you better ask no question about that, because Allah/Shakespeare knows, and you don’t. (There is actually such a passage in the Qur’an, where god ponders the natural question about Djinns and Satan. You may ask, say God, what’s the relationship between God, Shaitan, and the Djinns. But you better not, because of these things God knows, and you don’t.)

  4. Chris Snuggs Says:

    ‘Humanity lives as much from meaning as from anything else. Without meaning we would have no love, no food, no shelter, no knowledge, no hope of survival.’

    Chris Snuggs: I have a nasty shock for you! We HAVE no chance of survival.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Patrice Ayme: You are too hilarious, Chris, I am exausting myself laughing… Survival is a tale by an idiot, full of sound and fury, meaning nothing… Actually, come to think of it, survival is not the important notion, eating one’s enemies is.

      On a more serious note, I do practice survival sports, and I had two bouts of that in the last week, so I achieved 100% survival (although I must admit it was iffy,as I reached an epic level of ten on a scale of ten, for several hours…). Survival is one of the easiest ways to achieve meaning, while full of sound and fury…

      • brodix Says:

        Process goes past to future, while form goes future to past.
        Individuals are born and die, going future to past, as life moves onto new generations, shedding the old, past to future.
        Time and all concepts relating to it, such as survival, infinity, etc, are emergent from this dynamic. Energy is conserved, therefore only present, so it is only lost by dispersion. If you are gaining it, you are coming, if you are losing it, you are going.
        Nature gives and takes.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          In (one of) their theory of fundamental processes, Feynman and Wheeler had processes go backward in time, sometimes. In physics processes are indexed by time, form has to do with associating a set of numbers, thanks to a metric..

          • brodix Says:

            All form requires presence, which we experience as duration.

            We are constantly rearranging the past, by experiencing its effects.

  5. Gloucon X Says:

    http://xroads.virginia.edu/~drbr/levine.html

    As PA said he can turn a phrase, but there doesn’t seem to be a moral center. He was considered popular culture in 19th c. America, not elite culture and was quite often mocked, surprisingly. Nearly all Americans are required to read Shakespeare in high school. What are the results? The country remained the United States of Lyncherdom while reading Shakespeare, napalmed Vietnam while reading Shakespeare, willfully swallowed lies to invade Iraq while reading Shakespeare. Shakespeare was no help at all in improving the American character. Although in fairness to him, neither was The Bible.

    “The American people, taking one with another, constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.” ―H. L. Mencken

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks GlouconX! I needed some support, here, the Shake Spearians are coming out in force (Shakespeare himself used the SPEAR as symbol of his family). Actually the Bible and Shakespeare are closely related… Hence with the Qur’an.

      And you are right, the most shocking part is that Shakespeare is viewed as ELEVATING culture. One may as well get elevated thanks to… the Bible. In both cases the idiots will get exterminated, and, advantageously enough, it’s supposed to mean nothing… (Funny Mencken said this, accusing Americans to be “goose-steppers” as he opposed, as a good German-American, the entry of the USA in both WWI and WWII…)

  6. Chris Snuggs Says:

    Chris Snuggs: Have you see “Psycho” or “The Silence of the Lambs? Or read “Five Chimneys” about Auschwitz? Humans can be madder than one can possibly imagine. Macbeth is not exactly a hero in the normal sense.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Patrice Ayme: I saw “Silence”, it’s not much. I don’t know if I saw “Psycho”. Forgot. Saw extracts. I read the book, which was amusing, but should have been a bit more spicy. I am myself a great connoisseur of madness, second to none.

      I have practiced, and still do practice, extremely dangerous sports (and even inventing some, such as ultra snow running, or submarine surf). Did not hear about “5 chimneys”, but I know Nazism like the back of my hands. I completely enter the mad logic of the worst Nazis. However, I don’t think highly of them, and do not esteem their quotes to the point of letting them pervade my mind (some of the readers of my sites have disagreed, hahaha). Macbeth is quoted, he pervades, that’s what count.

      Macbeth was used to justify invading Iraq. More exactly, the mood behind that famous quote. Explicitly. It obviously haunt me to this day… I do even suggest that is why the Anglo-Saxon government stayed sympathetic to the Nazis all too long (the USA in particular did business with Hitler even after the latter had declared war to the USA, and all the way THROUGH WWII…)

  7. dominique deux Says:

    There is a reason (other than Anglo-centrism) why Shakespeare is used as an endless purveyor of scripts for movies: he created perfect monsters. And he was very clear about them being monsters, including Hamlet. What he put in their mouths may indeed be questionable, but that’s a monster for you; why assume they were his mouthpieces? (in addition Hamlet spent most of his time mumbling insanities, as a cover for his even more insane ploy).

    The same could be said of Greek playwrights such as Sophocles or Euripides, not to mention Homer, who described post-battle stress syndrome with uncanny accuracy.

    By contrast, classical French tragedy writers such as Racine or Corneille sought to create noble-minded, self-sacrificing heroes; the language is admirable, but they’re not the stuff of best-sellers. Nobility is boring.

    Think of the (deserved IMHO) worldwide success of RR Martin’s Game of Thrones, a perfect gallery of monsters, including the supposedly positive characters.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for these excellent points, Dominique!
      I agree that it would be unfair to posit that Shakespeare held his monsters’ opinions. The same holds with the Marquis de Sade, or any author of fiction. I encounter that problem a bit myself, and it’s why the Guardian decided that I was a… Jihadist. And the Daily Kos determined that I should be banned for being against progress. By that token I am all sorts of unpleasant things.

      Any element of a work of literature, if quoted as a truth obsessively, especially wildly out of context, becomes dangerous. The fact is “Life is a tale told by an idiot, etc.” is part of the Anglo-Saxon psyche, or, at least, that of those who have enough education to have been exposed to Shakespeare.

      Now here comes the difference with Sade: 1) Sade is not as obsessively studied (although he created even more monstrous monsters). 2) Sade is not viewed, whereas Shakespeare is, as the most noble firmament of what it means to be human. Nobody goes around quoting Juliette’s most debatable points as if they were truth incarnate. But that’s done with Shakespeare.

      My point: Shakespeare is the secular version of what made the Bible irreplaceable for holocaust, or murder determined monsters; make their work the stuff of honor and glittering legend. Bush on his aircraft carrier, mission accomplished, that’s Macbeth, and all too many of his supporters were conditioned to applaud that… Thanks to their extensive preliminary exposure to Shakespeare.

      Their uncritical, unbalanced, obsessive and monopolistic exposure to Shakespeare. Now, of course, monsters conquer continents best…

      I unfortunately don’t know Games of Thrones…

      • dominique deux Says:

        What you say about Shakespeare being, unwillingly, a source of totalitarian wickedness reminds me of one of the blasphemous cover pages by Charlie Hebdo (which prompted so much sanctimonious and odious twaddle in the Anglosphere).

        It showed Allah sitting in tears, saying “it’s real tough to be loved by complete idiots”.

        Maybe the Beard is thinking the same about the idiots who took his monsters for heroes. And went around disseminating their nihilistic values.

        As he would have quipped, “first, let’s kill all the scholars”!

        (Games of Thrones: I believe consumer-oriented works which meet extraordinary public success somehow reflect, rather than shape, moods. And moods are the source of politics. I could quote sci-fi movies which depicted Jihad and 11/09… beforehand… as if reality had had no choice but to follow the shift in moods. So GOT does deserve some attention.)

        • Kevin Berger Says:

          J’aime pas Shakespeare, le peu que j’en ai lu, en VF il est vrai, c’est barbant, inbitable… en plus et sauf erreur très possible de ma part, ses oeuvres non-adaptées sont déroutantes pour un public/lectorat moderne, interminables, confuses, destructurées et remplies de codes d’époque.
          Mais bon, sans doute faut-il aimer le Barde, parce que c’est tout ce que les Godons ont de meilleur, et les deux derniers siècles ont été des siècles de Godons, défaite Napoléonienne oblige.

          A côté de ça, mes petits camarades de classe d’un collège de branleurs de province se marraient comme des idiots, en lisant du Molière. Allez savoir.

          Sinon, pour les singes, les “entraineurs” se sont-ils reconvertis dans le “tutoring” et “mentoring” d’armées étrangères?
          Corée du Sud, Sud-Viet Nam, police Afghane, armée Afghane, armée Irakienne, forces anti-terroristes Maliennes, armée régulière Géorgienne ou Ukrainienne.. le bilan est presque aussi bon – voire même meilleur, contre des paysans d’Amérique centrale.
          A quand Hollywood se penchant sur cette histoire, avec Happy End victorieux à la clef?

          Bonne année à tous, en tous cas.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Happy New Year to you too, and thanks for your comments!
            France lost to the English way back… Even by Louis XV. Back to Shakespeare actually, as I will try to explain in my next essay. Nap could have done better, much better, indeed, but he was taking a nap from reality.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          The problem of dangerous literature (Qur’an, Sade, Shake Speare, Bible, etc.) is that it’s not only the only literature worth having, but it has to be read with critical passion.

          Mood shaping goes both ways. In the (typically despised) Star War PREQUELS (Episodes I,II, III) there are philosophical kernels of greatest interest, which throw a straightforward interpretation of Star Wars in disarray. The mood there is pretty wise and explains the turn of Anakin (?) to the Dark Side…

  8. Chris Snuggs Says:

    ‘Humanity lives as much from meaning as from anything else. Without meaning we would have no love, no food, no shelter, no hope of survival.’

    Chris Snuggs: How to define “meaning” is a proposition for Wittgenstein. For all animals, survival is their only meaning, I guess, but in the case of humans, survival is for most not enough, though perhaps it should be We need more: we want to know what we are surviving FOR. Personally, I believe there IS no “meaning” in life (which would suggest a Divine purpose). Life just IS, and is an amazing accident.

    However, surviving does help to pass the time of day, and thereby avoid us having to think WHY we want to survive and what we want to do with survival.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      What did Wittgenstein know? (Although he made good fun of Descartes!) Feelings give meaning to meaning. Survival provides us with meaning, such is the animal condition. To believe humans are different is arrogant, erroneous, and ignoring one of the main causes of war…

  9. Chris Snuggs Says:

    “Humanity lives as much from meaning as from anything else.”

    Nietzsche could write a whole book about “meaning”, and even THEN come to no definitive conclusion …..

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Patrice Ayme What did Nietzsche know? He sat on his rump, raging against Lou Salome, complaining she boosted her breast size with a stuffed bra…

      Instead, Homo Sapiens is a survival Natural Intelligence machine. Intelligence comes from the activities pertaining to survival. This is probably why brain size has diminished by 10% (if that’s true). Actually Nietzsche was more perceptive on this… Following Sade (himself followed by Hugo, Goya).

      Nietzsche practiced solo mountain climbing. I did climb and ski one of the mountains he used to climb regularly, when his health was still good enough. That would have been extremely serious ascent, solo, in the Nineteenth Century.

      That survival and giving birth provide meaning, explain the attraction dangerous sports and reproduction exert. Survival provides meaning with meaning.

  10. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Islam: a war religion from the start, beautiful dressing caravan attacks as something god ordered. That simple. Complicated lies hide that.

    • Jean Seb Says:

      Cognitive bias at it’s finest.

      Depend on what you call evil, that’s the catch. If evil mean non-believer for “you” everything get easier…
      Thus it is a bias, you twist logic to make look good what is bad, escaping reality.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Escaping reality, me? Do you know how to spell “twerp”? You seem hopelessly confused, confusing me and a Jihadist (as the tabloid “The Guardian” already did!)

        Hadith 41;685: …”Allah’s Messenger… : The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will FIGHT against the Jews and the Muslims would KILL them…”

        You don’t insult me. You go read the Qur’an, and the Hadith, as I have, many times, and then you report. I spent my entire life studying and it’s not to read ignorant twerps who believe they are straight, call me twisted. Fact is those who are admirers of Hadith, such as 41; 685 are a would-be killer of Jews. Just reconsider the quote above. Or maybe you can’t read?

        Waiting for an answer, Mr. would-be Insulter… (you did not really insult me anymore than the last cockroach I eliminated, I must confess, I find you rather amusing…)

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: