Grand Ayatollah Obama, Islamist In Chief

Is Literal Christianism compatible with civilization? No. Not at all. “Literal” means, according to the mythical “Jesus” his “New Testament”, AND also the Old Testament (“Jesus” “said” this explicitly; Jesus insisted that the Old Testament was part of his message, maybe because he did not want to be condemned to death right away).

The Old Testament shows a jealous, mass-homicidal, cruel, non-sensical, sexist and demented God ruling the heavens. “Believers” are supposed to take order from that crazy monster in heavens. Literal Islam reveres the same exact God (and actually Islam reveres “The Book”, that is, The Bible, and whom he calls the “prophet” Jesus).

Literal Islam (by literal I mean straight out of Islamist texts) is NOT compatible with civilization, either. For the exact same overall reason as Literal Christianism is not compatible with civilization (that’s exactly why the Franks, and then later again, after it grew back, the Enlightenment, knocked Literal Christianism down). Literal Christianism’s implementation has been outlawed everywhere in the West. For the same reason, the same should be done for Literal Islam. Obama went to a mosque, and preached the world what Islam was, according to him, as if he were an authority in matter of Islam, to the point of telling us exactly what Islam is. I comment, you decide.

I Condemn Literal Abrahamism, But I Love Beautiful Mosque, & I Respect, Or Even Adopt, Whatever I Think Is Respectable In Islam

I Condemn Literal Abrahamism, But I Love Beautiful Mosque, & I Respect, Or Even Adopt, Whatever I Think Is Respectable In Islam

Obama: “…since 9/11, but more recently, since the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, you [The “Muslims”] ’ve seen too often people conflating the horrific acts of terrorism with the beliefs of an entire faith.”

All too often, what? Notice that Obama is here coming to the defense of “the beliefs of an entire faith“. However, the first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“. Is Obama establishing Islam, as president of the USA, by claiming that Islamist terrorism  has nothing to do with the beliefs of Islam?

The Qur’an (= The Recitation) consists in 80,000 words which are orders from “God”. Some, clearly, order to kill some categories of people. As far as I can see, the “terrorists” are implementing these orders, and this is also what the “terrorists” believe. The “terrorists” are, first of all, believers in an entire faith, warts and all. Missing that point, is missing how “terrorism” seduces disgruntled youth.

There are hundreds of beliefs in Islam which contradicts democracy, or even the simplest humanity. Consider Hadith 041; 6985: this Hadith, and several similar to this one, supposedly proffered by Muhammad, ask to kill all the Jews. Only then would God proceed with the Final Judgment. This is one of the central beliefs of Islam. By claiming, implicitly, that Hadith 041; 6985 has nothing to do with terrorism, is Obama saying that killing all the Jews has nothing to do with terrorism?

Obama sees a vast oppression against Muslims, all around the USA. Says Obama: “Around the country, women wearing the hijab — just like Sabah — have been targeted… Some of them are parents, and they talked about how their children were asking, are we going to be forced out of the country, or, are we going to be rounded up?  Why do people treat us like that?… I’ve had people write to me and say, I feel like I’m a second-class citizen.  I’ve had mothers write and say, “my heart cries every night,” thinking about how her daughter might be treated at school.”

Wow, wow, wow. Talk about hysteria. Whatever “targeted” means. Obama is depicting Muslim women “targeted around the country”, which is, as far as I can see, counterfactual anti-Americanism. It’s ironical that the President, who has condemned “anti-Americanism”, with truculence, where it is perfectly justified, engages in it, by inventing ‘facts’ trotting in his head.

I have seen pretend “women” wearing integral veils in the USA, and nobody bothered them, although it should be unlawful in the USA.  The integral veil is explicitly unlawful in more and more countries, because it’s used, as in Algeria in 1950s, to carry bombs. Several African countries made it unlawful recently. To boot, Africa is really hot, and when I lived for decades, I never saw an integral veil. The apparition of those is directly related to the inception of religious “Islamist” war.

Obama: “So let’s start with this fact:  For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace.  And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.”

This is not correct. First of all, Islam generally arrived in most places with dozens of thousands of slashing swords of vast moving cavalry armies. To pretend otherwise is either to be grossly ignorant of history, or a liar, or both (because one pretends to know what one does not know). I have explained this, many times. Just as I have explained many times that “Islam” means SUBMISSION, it does not mean peace, it means SUBMISSION. Obama should read me more carefully. Or then read Houellebecq who wrote the best-seller “Submission”.  Instead of quoting myself, I will quote Wikipedia:

‘Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, submission, safeness and peace.[23] In a religious context it means “voluntary submission to God”.[24][25] Islām is the verbal noun of Form IV of the root, and means “submission” or “surrender”.’

Obama knows this, and if he is following the gutter interpretation of the word “Islam”, it’s deliberate disinformation. (He is harping on the Common Misinformation that “Islam is the religion of peace”…)

Obama: …”like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity.  Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, “let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.”

All “faiths” have to be rooted in compassion, mercy, justice and charity, because so are human beings. One catches flies with honey, not by scaring them. Even Nazism caught its flies, its adherents, with honey. Lots of honey. Nazism was all about minority rights, justice, compassion (for those who deserved it). So compassion, mercy, justice and charity are a given in all religions. Aztec philosophers explained to the Conquistadores that the Aztec faith was much more charitable, human, merciful than Christianism (an irrelevant rejoinder, as the Conquistadores used Christianism as just another reason to massacre the Aztecs).

“Like so many faiths Islam is rooted in goodness?” Goodness is a Trojan Horse. Of around 10,000 “faiths” known, more than 99% encouraged human sacrifices (including the ancient Celtic, Punic, Aztec religions. Notice that religious barbarity does not mean primitivism in all ways: the Celts’ metallurgy was the world’s best, but they had the bad idea to burn Roman soldiers alive).

And “Islam”, Literal Islam, explicitly say, in hundreds of places, that those who kill in the name of God will go directly to Paradise (they will not have to go through the “Final Judgment”).

Obama: “Groups like al Qaeda and ISIL, they’re not the first extremists in history to misuse God’s name.  We’ve seen it before, across faiths.  But right now, there is a organized extremist element that draws selectively from Islamic texts, twists them in an attempt to justify their killing and their terror.”

“Draws selectively from Islamic Texts”? Tu quoque (And you too). The problem is that what they draw selectively are orders from God to kill categories of people (mostly, as one can see on TV everyday, other “Muslims”, who are “misinterpreting” the sacred texts, allegedly…) If you go see an organized crime boss, and he flatters you for half an hour, then to finally say:”Kill him!”, the important part of the discourse is “Kill him”. It’s actually why Obama is surrounded by a small army, wherever he goes. Because of this very short order, possibly floating around: “Kill him!”. Obama is well protected against this order of Islamist texts, ‘kill him’, he will have secret service protection for at least a decade. The rest of us? Who cares?

Then Obama draws selectively from the Qur’an, doing exactly what Al Qaeda and ISIL do, according to him. There are magnificent sentences, or even ideas, in the Qur’an (most of them not original). Says Obama:

“O mankind,” the Koran teaches, we have “made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another.”

Obama then says Jefferson was accused to be a “Muslim”. The generation of rebels just before the Founding Fathers in America, believed in “Nature’s God” and were anti-Christian (following Spinoza and the rest of the Enlightenment). Muslims, like Christians, are Abrahamists. They believe that a particular God who feels it’s cool to order parents to kill their children should be revered (and revered, just because of that particular trait: it’s spanking gone lethally insane, of the highest order of dementia). More civilized, or simply normal people, disagree strongly with finding the desire to order parents to kill their children admirable. Abrahamism could arise only in a land with too many children, prehistoric men, in the last 20 million years, would have considered that a religion which suggests to kill children is impossible, because defending children is mission number one of what defines humanity.

Jefferson, however admirable his discourses, was a great destroyer of Indians, and a pedophile who made pregnant children he had enslaved (in spite of the ultimatum of the French police in Paris).

Speaking of France, was Obama’s speech bad in all ways? No, he tried to make some medicine go down with the sugar coat:

Obama: “…there are Jews who’ve lived in places like France for centuries who now feel obliged to leave because they feel themselves under assault –sometimes by Muslims.  We have to be consistent in condemning hateful rhetoric and violence against everyone.(Applause.)  And that includes against Muslims here in the United States of America.  (Applause.)

    So none of us can be silent.  We can’t be bystanders to bigotry.  And together, we’ve got to show that America truly protects all faiths.”

Where is it in the Constitution that “America protects all faiths?” Certainly not: starting with Roman law more than 2,000 years ago, religions requiring human sacrifices are not protected, but, instead, outlawed. (The argument can be made that Literal Islam is a human sacrifice religion.)

After this flickering of the flame of truth, all too soon scorched by it, Obama gravely relapses through hopeless confusion:

“ Groups like ISIL are desperate for legitimacy.  They try to portray themselves as religious leaders and holy warriors who speak for Islam.  I refuse to give them legitimacy.  We must never give them that legitimacy.  (Applause.)  They’re not defending Islam.  They’re not defending Muslims.”

Grand Ayatollah Obama knows Islam better than the Muslims of the Islamist State, and refuses to “give them legitimacy”. And Obama sails away:

 The vast majority of the people they kill are innocent Muslim men, women and children.  (Applause.)

    And, by the way, the notion that America is at war with Islam ignores the fact that the world’s religions are a part of who we are.  We can’t be at war with any other religion because the world’s religions are a part of the very fabric of the United States, our national character.  (Applause.)

    So the best way for us to fight terrorism is to deny these organizations legitimacy and to show that here in the United States of America, we do not suppress Islam; we celebrate and lift up the success of Muslim Americans.  That’s how we show the lie that they’re trying to propagate.  (Applause.)  We shouldn’t play into terrorist propaganda.  And we can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem.  That betrays our values.”

Grand Ayatollah Obama knows that we “can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem.  That betrays our values.” Apparently, our core value have to do with sheer lunacy. Reading the Qur’an front to back, in a non-censored edition shows it to be as violent as the most violent book of the Marquis de Sade. Except Sade is meant to describe the activities of plutocrats, in a parodies, whereas, when the God of the Qur’an condemns people to atrocious torture to death, again and again and again, He is serious; it’s a religious order. And implicitly enjoins his followers to do the same. See “Violence in the Holy Qur’an“.

Once again, the question is: what is Islam? Islam according to Grand Ayatollah Obama, or Sufi Islam from West Africa, is completely different from Literal, Salafist, Wahhabist Islam. But only the latter is simple to describe, because it’s in the texts, and one can ferret it, armed with the Principle of Abrogation.

Then Obama’s discourse comes close to Orwellian double-speak:

“…across our country and around the world, Muslim leaders are roundly and repeatedly and consistently condemning terrorism.  And around the globe, Muslims who’ve dared to speak out have often been targeted and even killed.  So those voices are there; we just have to amplify them more.”

What? We want to amplify them more, so we can target and even kill them, more?

A French study on French Islamist terrorists is just out: there are more than 8,000 now, who are known to security agencies. That’s double the number of a year ago. 20% are children. 38% are converts. All together, they have generally been recruited by… professional recruiters, and other “Muslim” leaders.

Bearing on, Obama turns into pseudo-Islamist scholar:

“These are the voices of Muslim clerics who teach that Islam prohibits terrorism, for the Koran says whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind.  (Applause.)  These are the voices of Muslim scholars, some of whom join us today, who know Islam has a tradition of respect for other faiths; and Muslim teachers who point out that the first word revealed in the Koran — igra — means “read” — to seek knowledge, to question assumptions.  (Applause.)”

Absent an explicit denunciation of Taquiyah and the Principle of Abrogation, to describe the Qur’an that way,is all Taquiyah (lying to non-Muslims in matter of Islam).

Basically, there are statements to the contrary elsewhere in the Qur’an, and the Abrogation Principle and precise datation of the statements abrogate the preceding. All Muslim scholars know this, but Grand Ayatollah Obama behaves as if he did not. (In truth he does, of course, but an electable politician who can’t lie, can’t think.)


Plutocrats, by defending implicitly Literal Islam, create an constant abscess, pain, and raging conflict which distracts the world from the fact it’s led by a few. I was talking to a Saudi friend yesterday, and she told me with the utmost assurance that the upper reaches of Saudi Arabia, the top Saudis were positively, absolutely totally, dedicated atheists, agnostics, etc. But, of course, only in safe private. In public, they are just the exact opposite.

Thus the Wahhabist Islam in Saudi Arabia is just a show. Interpreted literally, though, Islam is the perfect religion to get mental retards to explode themselves in suicide missions, because, if they believe in Literal Islam, doing this is the best way to go to paradise. And they believe, so they explode.

And it’s perfect for plutocrats, because, this way, everybody talks about interpretations of a religion which rose in the desert before the Middle Ages, instead of whom it is who really rules the USA (and thus the world).

Meanwhile a UN panel will conclude Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being “arbitrarily detained” in the UK, the Swedish foreign ministry said.

Assange leaked to the world internal documents which were top secret, showing US forces annihilating journalists and their would-be rescuers, among other things. One can imagine that Assange would have revealed a tape of Nazis shooting and killing, civilians and their would-be rescuers, and then having Sweden accused Assange of rape (Sweden was Nazi Germany’s most important willing collaborator in World War Two; it provided Hitler with its most important weapon, and its crucial high grade iron).

Who did Assange “rape”? Somebody who organized a party, for Assange, two days after the alleged “rape”… The rape was alleged later. And who is the accuser? She had been earlier arrested in Cuba as a CIA operative. (In a way the story is allegorically true: Assange “raped” the CIA!)

No wonder the Grand Ayatollah Obama cherry picks the Qur’an: anything but talking about what he is really responsible of. Like the witch hunt against WikiLeaks, for revealing American war crimes. OK, a little injection of “God” should help here.

Grand Ayatollah Obama ended thus his sacred discourse:

“May God’s peace be upon you.  May God bless the United States of America.  Thank you very much, everybody.”

That’s an improvement: I use to rail GAO (Grand Ayatollah Obama) for ordering “God” to bless the USA. But now GAO has sat on his rump long enough, and meditated upon that point, apparently. GAO has decided that, indeed, to order “God” to “Bless the USA” puts him, implicitly, above “God”. And that, somehow, was not “cool”. GAO wants to be “cool”. So now GAO suggests to God what to do. Progress. This is the sort of progress we have learned to expect from GAO. Changes we can believe in. Tini-tiny ridiculous little changes.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , ,

39 Responses to “Grand Ayatollah Obama, Islamist In Chief”

  1. ianmillerblog Says:

    Your comment about Assange and the alleged victim should be made more widely known. A victim of rape does not organise a party for the rapist two days later.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Excellent point (which was also made by many supporters of Assange). She even tweeted, during that party how great Assange was (the tweets got deleted later). She had to recruit during that party the second potential “rape” victim.


  2. Chris Snuggs Says:

    Obama is a disgrace. End of. Anyone who cannot grasp that ISLAM is an evil, totalitarian cult is nuts. He won the Presidency for being glib and developing a few soundbites.

    The establishment is also a disgrace, for giving him the Nobel Peace Prize just for being sort of black.

    The world is mad.


    Liked by 1 person

  3. SDM Says:

    Obama- does he realize how how much his pandering to religion is not what is needed? Although he never seemed to be an enthusiastic believer, his religious pandering to Islam is counter to what is needed in the world. Does he really believe that this will lead to defusing ISIL? Political correctness in the name of defusing religious unrest (without recognizing economic, political, and other underlying causes of strife and oppression) is short-sighted and dangerous. Religion needs to be put in its place- Cruz gloats he is a Christian first- religion above all else -the intolerance is palpable.
    Obama has been a sad disappointment as was Clinton- a Democrat in name only perhaps although the economy was more robust during his office than most in recent memory yet only to unravel ultimately- though in different sense. He was elected in a groundswell, unlike Clinton, and then frittered away his momentum. Was he bought, as it appears Clinton had been, or was it his overestimation of his abilities? No question, his race caused a cultural backfire in the GOP and other white racist folks which led to obstruction at every turn. Still, he had the mandate of the people and then shrank from the task when it push came to shove- public option, prosecution of Wall Street, then the war, drones, etc. Another “leader” manipulated by the plutocratic puppeteers?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear SDM: I was at distance zero, just before the start of the Obama presidency. I got dismayed by the action of some of the actors involved (people will do whatever to have access to Obama). For very personal and extremely strong reasons (having nothing to do with Obama) my spouse and I could not get involved in the administration.
      I know for a fact that Obama was soon isolated in a sea of GOP, Trump like, Cruz like DEMOCRATS. Barry actually suggested MEDICARE FOR ALL, but he was opposed by all DEMOCRATS (HRC, Pelosi, Feinstein, etc.). The GOP had nothing to do with it. It was a democratic opposition.

      This is why I have no anger towards Obama personally. The loneliness he felt, I know what it is.

      After that he got thoroughly manipulated, probably knowing it, but knowing too, that it did not make a difference. He went for the ride. At least he made no super giant mistake as Bill Clinton, deregulating finance, and outlawing the rest of human activities…


      • SDM Says:

        That there were Democrats thwarted Obama is not too hard to believe- Pelosi openly declared there would be no effort to launch any investigations into the Bush-Cheney administrations Iraq disaster, as if it would be, shall we say- impolite? That alone was galling after the non-stop GOP assault on the Clintons.
        The public option was touted early on and then died, not to be heard of again. Then the the molly coddling of the plutocrats following the economic collapse. Those same Democrats again to tight with Wall Street standing in the way?
        Agreed, Obama never made the giant mistakes made by Clinton. It is sad, nevertheless, to see such promise gone to such waste.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          The truth is that Pelosi, other top democrats, and company are not just plutocrats (that would be with many of the tech giants), but corrupt plutocrats. And that’s the problem. They hide in plain sight, by confusing everything. Pelosi etc. claim they want progress, access to health for all, etc. But then they do all they can to prevent that.

          Obama got completely confused and blocked by that. A single guy could not do much. He had nobody to talk to in Washington, things went fast. In retrospect, it would have MUCH been better if Clinton had been president, and Obama were running now. But history is just one way.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I don’t know why Obama does what he does with religion. Maybe deep down, he is trying to get even. So he is trying really, whether he realizes or not, as you say, to make things worse. It’s a question for very deep psychoanalysis.
      But also, as I said, it’s distracting from focusing just on inequalities.


  4. Gmax Says:

    Obama is trying, and succeeding, to make us all stupid. The guy deserves contempt. He wants to make a contest with the Islamist State about who is best at ‘DRAWING OUT SELECT QUOTES’. How dumb can that clown be?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Obama is not the only one with that line. Even Emanuel Valls, the French PM, makes a point to say somewhat similar. Just as ridiculously, Islam is said not to have anything to do with suicide attacks.


  5. EugenR Says:

    There are two kinds of fools in this world, the one who don’t know history and then those who don’t believe they should learn from it.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      And then there are the vicious ones, who rewrite history to serve themselves. The most obvious example is Nazism at inception, which claimed to have been victimized by the Versailles Treaty written by the French and betrayed by the Jews (somehow). The first point is repeated by Academic idiots in the USA, continually. Thus Nazi propaganda (initially invented by Lord Keynes, a British plutocrat), lives to this day, and well.

      The major factor behind Islamist terrorism is that youth believes they go straight to paradise if they kill for Allah. That’s in the text. Yet, the ultimate cause is the lack of education given to these youth. So, ultimately, the Republic is at fault. All the more since inequality has driven them (and not just them) very angry.

      I have come to agree with Taubira (Justice minster who just resigned) and Tariq Ramadan (famous Swiss Oxford professor who is going to ask for French citizenship).

      The French government, just like the American government, is not addressing the deep questions… because ultimately, they are questions about plutocracy.


      • EugenR Says:

        Education, yes, but what kind? Most of the Taliban are educated (or rather indoctrinated) in religious schools. The problem is there are people out there, who wake up every morning and the only thing they do from the first moment they wake up until they go to sleep, is to think and plan how to kill you, how to kill your family and destroy the world you live in. These people are never alone. These are people who call themselves the true Muslims. Today they are in the stage of recruiting as many people from the Muslim community as they can to their cause. It seems, they have many sympathizers out there. Most of the Muslim people, according to the one time free elections was organized in Egypt, with about 100 million people, more than 50% voted for muslim parties whose fundamental believe is establishing a whole world Muslim Caliphate, just like ISSIS wants too. What’s even worse they have supporters also among the Westerners, who naivly believe, that by trying to understand them, and being supportive, they will appease them.
        Then when the military Muslims in their war of recruitment of soldiers to their cause destroy their own world, the West opens its doors under the slogan of humanism, which they learened after the disasters their predecessors caused to the world in the recent past. Then they are surprised that the newcomers are not coming with pure intentions to be adopted in the West, to be educated to western values, but rather to conquer it and to submit it to their Faith of “Submition”, which has nothing to do with peace, but submitting the world population to the God and his prophet Muhammad, and if not………


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Where education has failed, it’s in the Republic, in the West. And it was a chain failure. The present intellectual leaders, such as Grand Ayatollah Obama, are abject failures. They can’t think beyond their pocketbook.

          Their fundamental claims about Islam?
          1) The mess in the Middle East has nothing to do with Islam
          2) The mess in the Middle East was caused by colonialism
          3) Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.
          The latter point, a complete lie, is caused by the failure of these failed leaders to read Islam beyond the triplet of trite, extremely well known and misleading quotes Obama used like the teleprompter reading parrot he is.
          On 2): there were no colons in the Middle East, except for the (some) Jews. There was a Turkish occupation lasting several centuries. Turks considered they headed THE Caliphate.
          On 1): Islam has messed up the Middle East, from the start. When the Middle east, long the world’s richest region did better, it was because Literal Islam had been forgotten, or outlawed, or both. Everybody can see that Islam is a tool for Muslims to kill Muslims.

          Those failed leaders are themselves the heirs of a preceding generation of failed leaders (Russell, Sartre, De Beauvoir, their dozens of sycophants, Heidegger, etc.) which was enthralled with American, German and Soviet fascisms… Not to say I have not appreciated those failures in some ways.

          Isaac Berlin, speaking of the founders of Israel, said: “They did not listen to us, they listened to Hitler.” Well… Listening to Hitler more carefully, in a timely manner, would have saved millions of Jews, Isaac.


          • EugenR Says:

            The irony of the HISTORY. Berlin, Berliner, Deutch, Deutcher, Wiener even Ostereicher are very common Jewish names. This i call self deception.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            I agree with you. “Singer”, “Freedman”, “Friedman”: are other very common “Jewish” name (in the USA). Yes, Germanoid Jews were often very Germanized in name and language. And all the other “man”, like “Krugman”. Sometimes it gets crazy: many Jews in the USA are called “Rosenberg”… Same name as the Nazi (pseudo) “philosopher” hanged at Nuremberg (rightly so!)

            Yiddish seems to have been another Germanoid mix. It’s probably why it was not retained, and Hebrew was revived (a good decision for a number of reasons, including military!)

            A curious consequence is that Jews in the USA are actually carriers of… German ideas, moods, habits, etc. Hence the “Austrian School” in economics, founded by people who fled fascism… After being CONTAMINATED by it!

            A lot of old Jewish “traditions” were actually German(oid). A question for you: do you where the habit (supposedly religious) of orthodox Jews to dress like Western bankers (or, more exactly undertakers) come from? Another thing is that the “kipa” does not seem to be a religious order from God anymore than the veil for women (and Allah/Muhammad never ordered men not to wear shorts, BTW! Although mosques impose that in many places as if it were in the Qur’an… it’s not).


          • EugenR Says:

            Dear Patrice, i start with the easy one. Kipa is a kind of hat that supposedly creates a cover in front of God, who happens to be in the heavens. It is written somewhere in the Talmud, out of respect to God cover your head. It is kind of expression of respect. So it is not a custom, like in the case of the women Jewish ortodox or Muslim, that is more a custom.
            I don’t understand what do you mean by dressings like western bankers. I didn’t know they have special dresses, except if you mean Hugo Boss. But the Orthodox religious Jews do dress kind of rug under their cloth, with blue or black stripes, and with tassel fringes peer out of the clothes. This is due to direct fashion instruction out of the Bible.
            As to German influence on Jews, i wouldn’t say it was strong among the traditional Jews, even if they spoke Yidish, a mixture language of medieval German and Hebrew. Yiddish was mostly spoken in Poland, Russia and Romania, where most of the European Jews lived before WWII. But in Germnany, Austro-Hungary they spoke German or the local language. The Jewish intellectuals were exposed to German influence since Friedrich the Great, and the Jewish reform movement that started Moshe Mendelson. But these were already secular Jews, and many among them changed to Catholicism, like Heinrich Heine, Mendelssohn the composer, Karl Marx, Gustav Mahler, etc.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            By “Western bankers” I meant the usual black three piece outfit, generally associated to undertakers in the USA. Funny you mention Frederik “the Great” as, under him (but starting 50 years earlier) Prussia was racist against Jews (and also against Poles, same problem).
            France’s Jews at some points were re-absorbed (voluntarily), although “Saint” Louis kicked them out too (probably something about banking and spoliation, I don’t remember the details at this point). His son made do with the Templars (same reason, banking can be dangerous…).

            So you say the kipa… But is the Talmud from god? I thought only the Bible was from god, and everything else, “rabbis” chewing the fat. It’s a bit the same then, as the veil in Islam (Muhammad never said women had to wear veils, just that the ones in his family should wear “modest clothing”)


          • EugenR Says:

            In a way, talmud and not the bible is the real manual for the orthodox Jew. I just published the following that want to share with you:

            Bible, or at least the old testament is a magnificent product of a small tribe, that amazingly succeeded to create a cultural icon, without which today the humanity have difficulty to imagine itself. Still it was a product of a small group of ingenious individuals, who collected, edited and rewrote some ancient folk stories, castoms, legal order laws, historical stories, mythological stories, poetry, ethics, assays about morality, and above all philosophical assays about all mighty Omnipotent God, who has changed from one page of the book to the other from a personal tribal God to an universal God, who can be worshiped by anybody, whatever is his nationality, or tribal belonging. The humans all over the world, who are longing to a all mighty superfather, who is in one hand demanding and punishing, on the other hand merciful and loving, will find in the biblical text the perfect tool to satisfy their need. In our modern times, the educated self sufficient individuals, who don’t need anymore tribal belonging, and not a strong handed father to coordinate their life, can do without the message of the bible, but still there are many out there, who miss the supercoordinator and its manual for life, the bible.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Agreed to all!
            The Bible was written in Babylon (I heard). So it’s the fruit of an imperial system, and no wonder was co-opted by imperial fascist Rome, as the boot fit the foot. Some Jews had stayed in Israel all along…


          • picard578 Says:

            Actually, mess in the Middle East was partly caused by the colonialism, or rather the way borders were drawn when colonial powers were leaving (Sunnis and Shiites in the same country? Not a good idea). But the fundamental cause is the Islam itself.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Dear Picard: We both agree that Islam is the fundamental cause of the mess in the Middle East. One reason within Islam is that “apostates” (those who are viewed as rejecting Islam) are to be put to death. The reasons for “rejecting Islam”, and, thus, being viewed as an “apostate” are numerous. Hence Muslims have been at each others’ throats for nearly 13 centuries, nearly as long as Islam has existed (minus 20 years).

            The next question, which is deeper, is why did Islam appear? Because it’s a typical hydraulic dictatorship ideology. Fernand Braudel, a famous historian, invented the notion. As the Middle East desiccated, hydraulic dictatorship were the lazy mean to enable society to survive.

            Now the “colonialism” obsession is basically irrelevant. The French and British yanked control of the Middle East from the Turks, who had been there three centuries. The French and British were in control for 20 years, only 7% as long. Where they tinkered most was within Syria, when the French brought the Alawites (Assad’s tribe) from subjugation to freedom. And, also, by denying the Kurds a country. Actually, they intended to do the latter, to create a Kurdistan, and dismantle Turkey further, but the Americans interfered, with their holly-than-thou attitude, and the Turks resisted militarily. As the French and the British had suffered seven million casualties in the First World War, which had just happened, they did not go into full out war against Ataturk and company.

            So here we are. Turkey is still at it.

            Liked by 1 person

          • picard578 Says:

            “One reason within Islam is that “apostates” (those who are viewed as rejecting Islam) are to be put to death. The reasons for “rejecting Islam”, and, thus, being viewed as an “apostate” are numerous. Hence Muslims have been at each others’ throats for nearly 13 centuries, nearly as long as Islam has existed (minus 20 years).”

            Not only put to death. Just as serious problem (which, by the way, appears in Western society as well – including scientific communities) is that any reformators are attacked, ridiculed and then removed from the society by whatever means (Westerners typically choose more humane methods, but the effect is the same). This automatically prevents any possibility of a reform. People will often find death easier to bear than ridicule. Death + ridicule means that moral cowards (which most humans are) will never leave Islam.

            And I happen to have a caliphate-in-forming right next door (I live in Croatia). In Mostar, a mixed Christian-Muslim city in BiH, there are actually two separate communities: a Christian and a Muslim one. And Christians know better than to venture into Muslim part of the city (conveniently separated via the river and a bridge… Ottomans weren’t stupid) else they find themselves killed via throat cutting. Maybe the reason why capitalists promote Muslim immigration is because they like Muslim cutthroat behavior so similar to typical neoliberal economic behavior? (Just a random thought). Also, people who want to leave Islam are typically killed… sometimes even preemptively (I know you said that already, but I have heard that from a person who actually lived there, so nobody can claim it to be bogus).

            “The next question, which is deeper, is why did Islam appear? Because it’s a typical hydraulic dictatorship ideology.”

            You will notice that the Middle East was always troublesome area. So I believe that barbarity of Islam draws from barbarity of original nomadic groups on the Arab pennissula. They have always attacked Roman and Persian empires, but disunited. Islam brought them greater purpose, but it is a reflection of the society it appeared in. A reflection which then helped permeate that society.

            Thanks for the answer.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            The Egyptians had to evacuate the savannah, when it became a desert, early in the construction of their civilization. All over the Middle East, hydraulic dictatorship had to appear. Now, indeed, the mentality of desert nomads was a further twist. Fighting for grazing grounds, and raiding agricultural areas and oases is how survival happened. Hence the cruelty.


  6. Chris Snuggs Says:

    “Islam” does not mean “peace”, Obama is wrong. Islām is the verbal noun of Form IV of the root slm, and means “submission” or “surrender”

    Chris Snuggs: Obama hasn’t a clue. The geopolitical scene is very dangerous: Putin, Turkey, Saudi Arabia/Yemen/Iran, China – NATO preparedness in the Baltics and Eastern Europe – I can’t imagine Obama negotiating all this safely.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, Obama is on his way out. Within 3 months there will be president apparents, and all are going to be much tougher than Obama. The situation is dramatic regarding air superiority, where the immensely expensive fiasco of the F35 compromises the entire safety of the West. The one and only solution is for the USA to bite the bitter pill and accept to produce in the USA the Rafale NG (although the Grippen NG would be easier to swallow, that Swedish future fighter, although less performing, being partly American). The other (part) French fighter is the Eurofighter Typhoon, but it is (vastly) inferior to the Rafale in all ways except, arguably, one particular type of high speed interception.


  7. Partha Shakkottai Says:

    Hi Patrice:
    Here is a paragraph from a textbook “The evolution of man” by Gabriel Lasker, 1961.
    Playfulness, another capacity important in the development of human culture, may also be foreshadowed in some primates ( Kroeber 1948). It is doubtful that art, science and philosophy could have developed solely as planned activities with predetermined ends. Random activities engaged in for their own sake are certainly pleasurable to the young of many other mammals as well as to humans. In man and to a lessor extent in the chimpanzee, the delay of sexual maturity and the long period of childhood dependence provide opportunities for play. Man’s capacity for “make believe” is, in fact, a likely stimulus to invention.”

    Now I can explain why Islam is so non-human. The regimentation of Islam removes or overrides play. Almost everything is forbidden in Islam. The consequence is no art, no science, no philosophy, no humanity, no good will, nothing.

    All prayer and no play makes Mohammad a dull killer.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Partha: That’s a very smart observation. Anyway, “Islam” is a mish-mash of completely different religions, which include some completely insane local traditions which are not in Islam, stricto sensu.

      So, some will object that there is Islamic art (actually a part of the Louvre has a permanent Islamic two story area… I visited it, and found it a but disappointing). Anybody who has visited Isfahan, in Iran, as I have, will be struck by the incredible art and beauty. It has a main square, actually a giant rectangle, which is the second largest in the world, with absolutely magnificent mosques mostly covered with blues of various kinds.

      But the solution to this contradiction with what you say is that Iran had periods with extremely advanced “Islam”, where women even wore see-through tops (we have the pictures!!!). Literal Islam was made unlawful by Saladin, we just need to do the same now, again… Following Saladin does not make us very revolutionary, nor anti-Islam…

      That the Qur’an has persistent, much-repeated, abominable “orders from god”, as Chris correctly insists, and I thoroughly documented in:



  8. Grand Ayatollah Obama, Islamist In Chief « Defense Issues Says:

    […] Source: Grand Ayatollah Obama, Islamist In Chief […]


  9. ldutra Says:

    Aymé, your ignorance on religion is saddening. I really wanted to read your piece, but I could not stomach the first few phrases. I lament you never met better Christians to fill you on what you profess to know but never quite understood.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Idutra: Thank you for trying. If you can’t stand the heat of evil, I doubt you can stand in the Christian kitchen. Let me reassure you: I know Christianism and Islamism, very well. Strong philosophy, indeed, requires a strong stomach, as Nietzsche pointed out.

      Any Christian worth his salt knows that faith requires the ability to stand ultimate pain, let alone an upset stomach. If you read only a few words of a 3,000 words essay directed mostly towards Obama’s arrogant and deluded imposition of religion in American politics, in contradiction with what the Founding Fathers asserted, well… I did meet better Christians, don’t worry, all the way up to an archbishop. Once again, you cannot judge my knowledge of Christianism from a few lines. When God tortures to death the son of David because He, God, ordered David to massacre a tribe, and David did not, how do you call that?

      Being a Christian, first of all, demands the ability to look at reality. Including text.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      For reference, here is the start of the essay Idutra could not go through:

      Grand Ayatollah Obama, Islamist In Chief

      Is Literal Christianism compatible with civilization? No. Not at all. “Literal” means, according to the mythical “Jesus” his “New Testament”, AND also the Old Testament (“Jesus” “said” this explicitly; Jesus insisted that the Old Testament was part of his message, maybe because he did not want to be condemned to death right away).

      The Old Testament shows a jealous, mass-homicidal, cruel, non-sensical, sexist and demented God ruling the heavens. “Believers” are supposed to take order from that crazy monster in heavens. Literal Islam reveres the same exact God (and actually Islam reveres “The Book”, that is, The Bible, and whom he calls the “prophet” Jesus).

      Literal Islam (by literal I mean straight out of Islamist texts) is NOT compatible with civilization, either. For the exact same overall reason as Literal Christianism is not compatible with civilization (that’s exactly why the Franks, and then later again, after it grew back, the Enlightenment, knocked Literal Christianism down). Literal Christianism’s implementation has been outlawed everywhere in the West. For the same reason, the same should be done for Literal Islam. Obama went to a mosque, and preached the world what Islam was, according to him, as if he were an authority in matter of Islam, to the point of telling us exactly what Islam is. I comment, you decide.


  10. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Picard578’s Defense Issues, who kindly republished this essay.

    Thanks for re-publishing my essay, Picard. Such essays are meant to be thought provocative, so they invite debate. Debating is how thinking progresses. One also has to keep in mind that an essay of 3,000 words (roughly 3% of the length of the Qur’an) can only present some aspects of the debate, thus is intrinsically incomplete.

    The broadside against Christianism in the beginning has two main motivations: first, it is the extreme Christianism which greatly demolished the Roman civilization all by itself, which generated Islam (the cousin of the rich first wife of Muhammad was a professional Christian monk).

    Second, whenever one says anything critical of Literal Islam, one gets accused of being partial to Christianism by the Islamists. I am actually as critical of Literal Christianism (the one of 381 CE, or 600 CE in the Orient). Literal Christianism and Literal Islam are joined at the hip.

    Nowadays, Literal Christianism has vanished, but Literal Islam has been revived through fresh instrumentalization (which dates from interaction between Ibn Saud, founder of Saudi Arabia, and American oil plutocrats, in the early 1930s).

    I have many essays on my site buttressing the background context of my assertions, for example:


  11. Picard578 Says:

    Actually, the mess in the Middle East was partly caused by the colonialism, or rather the way borders were drawn when colonial powers were leaving (Sunnis and Shiites in the same country? Not a good idea). But the fundamental cause is the Islam itself.


  12. Picard578 Says:

    picard578 said
    February 15, 2016 at 6:06 pm
    “Second, whenever one says anything critical of Literal Islam, one gets accused of being partial to Christianism by the Islamists.”

    Welcome to reality… that is a typical “debating” tactic of dishonest people, one I am well familliar with (I have been accused of being employed by Dassault or Saab, on occasion). As my sociology professor once pointed out, people will never accept anything, no matter how true it is, if it causes them to loose their self-esteem. And Islamists view themselves exclusively through Literal Islam, without it they have no identity. Which is kinda a problem.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Patrice Ayme said
      February 15, 2016 at 8:06 pm
      I call this the “Anti-Idea” method (AI, like Artificial Intelligence, because it is a way to sound Artificially Intelligent). It consists into “answering” an argument by not addressing the logic at hand, but by making a meta-attack.

      It is extremely important to identify the method, as it is used everywhere. As you illustrated.

      I will try to flesh out the “Anti-Idea” method in an independent comment. (And I should make an entire essay about it; thanks for drawing my attention to it.)


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

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

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

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: