Decrying Islamophobia Is Racist

On June 13, 2016, the so-called Islamist State killed a police captain in France, cut the throat of his wife, who died as a result, and took their three-year old toddler hostage. The killer, a (“French”) Islamist State recruiter who had been condemned to 3 years in jail for terrorism, was killed. Yes, that was the day after Orlando. France and the USA are squeezing the so-called Islamist State bridgehead in Libya hard, hence the quick pace of terror. Practitioners of total Islam are showing the true nature thereof.

Islamophobia means strong fear of Islam. It is called racist by the haters, but it is not racist: strong fear is not racist if it can point at explicit threats: strong fear of Nazism would not have been racist in the 1930’s. The Sacred Texts of Islam explicitly order to kill some categories of people, just because of what they are, or believe, even if those beliefs have no bearing on other people’s lives. Not to be afraid of lethal threat for no good reason is, assuredly, self-destroying.

Not that brandishing self-destruction enables to win arguments with Islamists: the Sacred Texts of Islam all give the highest rewards to so-called “martyrs”: they sit on the right of God, and will not be judged during the Final Judgment, but, instead, the “martyrs” will go directly to paradise, where they will enjoy milk, honey, 72 virgins and “fresh boys who are like pearls”. See the self-destruction? Not only is the Qur’an homosexually oriented, but it kills homosexuals (or martyrs in general, for that matter).

So why such pronounced fear of Islamophobia among so many of the pseudo-good thinkers? As I have argued, the rebirth of Islam was a plot mostly initiated by American oilmen and Anglo-Saxon financial plotters, more than 80 years ago. So why not to condemn it? Because now a new factor has risen: the fear of anything, and, first of all, of iconoclastic opinion. They tend to agree to all and any deployment of force, they are the equivalent of intellectual invertebrates.

Islamophilia Promotes Inhuman Activities. Snowflakes Sell Their Souls To Satan, Lest They Melt In Tears

Islamophilia Promotes Inhuman Activities.  Snowflakes Sell Their Souls To Satan, Lest They Melt In Tears

We are now dealing with a generations with so little intellectual backbone, they have to be called “snowflakes”. Those flakes can’t take an idea, let alone a joke, if it’s not “safe”. Don’t try lousy jokes such as:’Hot Muslim guy penetrates 100 gays in minutes’… they will burst in tears, and have worse words for you, than for the steroid laden gunman himself. However, jokes are crucial: the ambivalent attitude on homosexuality in the Qur’an which I made explicit in the preceding essay is revealing, and should be the butt of jokes. 

We are dealing here with propaganda of the worst type. Not just a propaganda of ideas, but a propaganda of moods: generation snowflakes, the hysterical fear of all and any fears erected as a panacea. The sort of propaganda that enabled terror to rule for millennia. Such terror profits those who rule through the most demonic means.

The Bible, Old Testament, claims that homosexuality is an “abomination“. The idea passed explicitly to the Qur’an, which quotes the Bible, 12 centuries later. Then the Hadith (more sacred Muslim texts from 13 centuries ago) was very explicit that homosexuals should be killed…

Those texts have to be condemned and called allegoric, metaphoric, whatever… This is exactly what the “Founding Fathers” of the “Catholic Universal” church did around 400 CE. 

The Founding Fathers of the Catholic Church were trying to make Christianism acceptable to the masses, and especially, to the Roman army. In 400 CE, the Franks were put in charge of the military defense of Gallia (to become “France” a millennium later), Germania Inferior (Low countries), and Germania Superior (Germany, Switzerland)

Although the Founding Fathers of Christianism called the Bible metaphorical and allegoric, it was taken literally, a millennium later with the crusades, inquisition, religious wars… In France alone, the Crusade against the Cathars, by itself, killed more than one million (7% of the population). Nearly four centuries later, seven religious wars between French Protestants and French Catholics killed millions.

The crusading madness had started after the Roman empire eastern capital, Constantinople, begged the Franks for a rescue from the Turks, who, after converting to Islam, a war religion, swiftly invaded Anatolia. So, initially, the motivation was good, but there was then horrendous mission creep (very long story including cannibalism and bathing in blood).

From the point of view of the Franks, ever since 721 CE, Muslims had horrendously invaded Europe, and were defeated at huge cost, in countless battles and wars. So, once again, the motivation, for many centuries was excellent, and as fundamental as it gets, for example when a Frankish army delivered Rome and the destroyed Vatican from a marauding Muslim army.

All in all, though, bad people saw the use they could make of the Catholic frenzy. Many of the great emperors of the European Middle Ages had negotiated, and even allied themselves with Muslim rulers (Charlemagne and Frederick II Barbarossa did this). However as time went by, very bad people used the worst aspects of Christianism (which have been duplicated in Islam, and then some!)

The wars generated by Christianism stopped when Europe and her colonies went through a philosophical change enforced by the primacy of secular laws over those of religious superstitions. The same remains to be done in the lands over which Islamism reigns presently. The task is huge: consider the crusade against the Shia which Saudi Arabia is presently waging in Yemen to a huge cost of children’s lives (the United nations declared a few days ago).

Linda Putnam commented: “Christianity condemned this practices as you say, Patrice. And in the Western world they are strictly illegal today. However, in the Near East, these Islamic practices go unpunished for the most part….

In the last 19 centuries, Christianism was all over the map with much of the 1789 “Rights of Man”/United Nations Charter. Jesus, strictly speaking, condemns homosexuality, as it is condemned in the Old Testament,  as an “abomination”, and Jesus claims he preaches all of the Old Testament, in its entirety.  Killing non-believers was preached by Jesus himself (Luke 19;27, among others). Now Christianism is confined to a secular legal cage, and can be shown to the masses safely.

Many countries have Sharia law. For example Malaysia (where only 50% of the population is Muslim!). Malaysia replaced British Common law with Sharia… At least for the Muslims. Reason? The Qur’an is very friendly to dictatorships. See:

“O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, Surah 4; verse 59).

Linda Putnam: “The ‘Religion of Peace”. Is ‘peace’ only for the believers of Islam. The kafirs cannot expect peace at the hands of the strict practitioners of this religion.”

Indeed. The Non-Muslim part of the world is called the “House of War”. The greedy elite of a corrupt country such as Malaysia, a monarchy with just 50% Muslims, has not just imposed Sharia law, but proclaimed that Islam was the “state religion”. Indeed, Islamizing terror is a dictator’s best friend.  

Overall, Islam was imposed onto the Middle East and North Africa by the application of sudden, overwhelming brutal military force. The counter-attack led by the Franks, including some of the crusades, evacuated the dictators and savages who had embraced Islam as the best pretext, from most of Europe proper. It took 11 centuries (from the invasion of Spain to the liberation of Greece). But one cannot say the job is finished. A superstition reigns over the natural ethology of man, the Republic.

Islam is friendly to dictators, who are always looking for reasons to execute or terrify people. They find plenty of such reasons in Islam’s Sacred Texts. By promoting Islam as excellent, and most peaceful, for populations suffering under it, the pseudo-left, the PC crowds, and the oilmen and financial plotters they have been sleeping with, are racist. Not to say greedy.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Decrying Islamophobia Is Racist”

  1. Gmax Says:

    Typo: you mean phobia of Nazism would NOT have been racist in the 1930s. The “NOT” is missing!!!!!! Please correct ASAP, as the idiots out there will be lost in space… Otherwise, great essay!


  2. SDM Says:

    the respect for religion is a vexing problem. some sort of psychological side effect of human development that has yet to be discarded by evolution perhaps.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      There is only one religion: the ethology of man. And the Republic incarnates it on a large scale.
      The Republic can tolerate superstitions, if they are domesticated enough. If not, they should be made unlawful.
      The Romans outlawed all religions which called for human sacrifices. This is how the Druids went into the well deserved garbage bin of history.
      The respect for Islamic Sacred Texts is entirely artificial. As I have documented, it was mostly an invention of the American Deep State, in connivance with oilmen and Wall Street money changers.
      The most basic text of Islam, refereed by Muslims as “THE BOOK”, also known as THE BIBLE (= the book) SHOULD NOT BE respected by the Republic. It’s contradicted and despised by the US Constitution. In the French Republic, no oath is taken on that dreadful book.


    • dominique deux Says:

      “the respect for religion” is a bizarre cultural peculiarity of certain countries. See how the State Dept went bonkers when the French Republic was alerted to Scientology’s activities on its territory, and duly indicted it for stealing money from its victims… But but but it’s a RELIGION! (incidentally, respect for religion from US agencies did not extend to Voodoo, a genuine, ancient religion in its own right; it was labeled witchcraft and its people-helping activities barred from US funding).

      Religions, like any other human creation/activity, have to earn respect. Some only deserve indictment and, if need be, a sound kick in the butt. No matter what the State Dept sputters about.

      In fact, being semi-sentient entities with only a nominal layer of neurons, religions are much like dogs, which need to be house-trained and to recognize humans as their masters, owners and pack leaders. Or to be put to sleep.

      We now have a slavering cur scratching at our doorstep, sensing that previous canine occupants have been house-trained, and eager to replace them as the house pet and lord; it needs to be taught manners or to be kicked out, its choice.

      As an aside, I would not be too harsh against those Anglo-Pluto plotters who sought to use Islamic fundamentalism as a tool. The Anglo cultural compulsion to view anybody in flowing robes and a flowing beard spewing forth godly nonsense as a holy Biblical character is very strong, alas. They fell victim to the idiocy they imbibed as toddlers. Preferring the Russian-supported secular dictatorship in Afghanistan to its Islamist successors would come naturally to a genuine Republican, of which there seems to be very few in the US.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Very good point about Scientology, long pushed, also by Hollywood. The State Department, US “intelligence”, the US Deep State, believe we are all stupid Indians, ready to believe all they say. The US Deep State uses the “social networks” and foundations, and various “religions” to project soft power, as Rome did with Catholicism when the Imperium Romanorum decayed, from the sheer weight of its own corruption.

        In truth, the “social networks” are spy networks, hence the rage and fury against those who revealed that unambiguously for all to see.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        As I have documented in the case of Afghanistan, the USA messed up with it as soon as they realized the French geologists were going to help the Afghan state exploit the considerable mineral resources of Afghanistan(thus making Afghanistan part of the French orb rather than the American one, as Iran and Pakistan were at the time). My father took part in three geological missions in Afghanistan, and went all over the country… with my Mom. Then the Americans unleashed Pakistan’s rabid “Fundamentalists” (pseudo-Muslim obeying orders from Washington). Only then did the USSR get involved… Through treaties.

        In a sense, the Afghan war is a prolongation of the Algerian War, when the USA was on the side of the FNL, or of the Suez Canal nationalization/attack on Hungary, and this was all very clear after the intervention of the Americans on the side of the Vietminh, against the French Republic, in 1945…


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        The Theory of Evolution of Lamarck was taught in Scotland in the 1820s, where Darwin and Lamarck learned it. It was outlawed in Englkand, as the English universities could not teach it, for the religious reason that it contradicted Anglicanism.


        • dominique deux Says:

          How could Lamarck learn in 1820 a theory he had penned in the previous century? I smell a typo there. You must have had somebody else in mind.


          • Gmax Says:

            That’s clearly a typo: Patrice has said many times before that LYELL and Darwin were taught LAMARCK theory at The University of EDINBURGH. THE two men stayed friends thereafter


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 )

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: