Fight Burkinis With Monokinis

Burkini, Bikini,  Monokini, Naked Truth!

For at least 2,000 years, and contrary to “postmodernist” repute, France has been at the mental helm of civilization. Francia pretty much invented the legal system which “renovated” (as the Franks themselves proclaimed in 800 CE) the Greco-Roman globalization, under a more sustainable form (no more slavery, replace it with education, science and tech). This is why today’s basic world globalization is along French lines through and through (a vague feeling that it may well be so infuriates American neo-imperialists, who are partial to slavery, in their own time-honored tradition, and feel, rightly, that the French equalitarian approach is the natural enemy of their own oligarchic drive… thus explaining their friendliness to Islam).

The term “bikini” and the two piece garment named accordingly, was the invention of a French engineer, and (concurrently!) a French fashion designer. “Bikini” was an allusion to the new, explosive world made manifest at the Bikini atoll (where nuclear fission bombs were tested). It used, craftily, the prefix “bi”, for “two”, as the bikini was indeed in two pieces.

The bikini was not really new: bikini representations are around 8,000 years old (the mother goddess, Cybele, appeared that way, sometimes). The bikini was a natural technology to invent. 

Roman Bikini Babes Frolicking In Gym, Centuries Before the Famous Rophet Married a Six Year Old

Roman Bikini Babes Frolicking In Gym, Centuries Before the Famous Sexist, Murderous Rophet Married a Six Year Old, Breeding With Her, When She Was Nine!

13 centuries ago, though, the fanatical, anti-civilizational ideology known as Islam, having been irrigated by Persia and the Greco-Romans, brutally arose in the desert. A key to its sudden military success against Greeks, Romans and Persians, was to treat women as breeders, rabidly, one should say, rabbitly, breeding immense hordes of fanaticized warriors, to make Arab armies large, numerous and completely relentless. To breed a fanaticized warrior, it helps that his mother knows little, and aspire only to obey… religiously. So the future warrior will not know enough to second guess his superiors when they order him to die for the “faith”.  

To keep women subjugated, those breeding machines have to learn to enjoy obeying absurd orders, and the more absurd, and the more gleefully obedient those culture deprived morons are, the better. Naturally, breeding machines will transmit the same love for absurd orders, and lack of critical culture, to their children. Don’t laugh: this is how Islam became the world’s top war ideology (this is so obvious that even Adolf Hitler understood this, and basically said it). In one generation, Arabia was overflowing with single-minded warriors, ready to take on the world (until they met terminally with Grecian fire and Frankish steel).

Thus, many Islamist sub-ideologies (or sects, as one should call them), decided that the bodies of women should be fully covered, all the time. The absurdity was irresistible, precisely because it was so absurd.

The “burkini” (contraction of burka-bikini) was created 12 years ago, by a Lebanese Australian who had watched her niece bathing in a burka. The burkini covers the entire (presumably) shameful body of the Muslim woman, except for her feet and face, sparing beach goers of this (presumably) awful exhibition. Thirty French communes forbade the burkinis, on the ground that it broke the principle of equality of genders. Islamists were delighted. Unsurprisingly, the French State Counsel (“Conseil d’ Etat”), the highest administrative court and legal adviser of the state, found those interdictions unlawful. Today, 8/26.16.

The New York Times, of course, was delighted to jump into the fray, and it concocted an anti-French, pro-Islamist piece written by an alleged pre-college teen (actually it sounds exactly like the sort of article written by the usual committee at the new York Times). The way the USA looks at Europe, for a century, is that the more divided, and confused, the better. I sent the following comment, it was immediately censored:

There is no “modesty” in the burkini. Quite the opposite: it’s insolence to believe one can improve on god’s perfection, by putting a garment over a body, especially when it makes no sense, as it imprisons a body in straps, ligatures, smothering adhesion, and dripping water.

Moreover, the psychological imposition of the burkini is a desire to impose on women the feeling that their bodies are horrible, so incredibly horrible, that one should absolutely hide them. Is not that a form of psychological abuse? And as this psycho abuse is imposed only on women, assuredly, it is blatantly sexist. How can one expect women so abused to think and feel straight?

No wonder the propagandist feels insecure while writing her anti-French piece. She has been made insecure by Islamist propaganda, which insists a female body is one of the world’s great horrors, to be hidden at all and any cost.’

My position on the burkini is subtle: the garment itself is ludicrous, as the piece in the New York Times itself illustrates. But being covered up in the sun is not. 

I am in a weird position: as a young child in Africa, I covered up most of the time (against sun, heat, mosquitoes, tse-tse flies…). That was from observation, and was criticized, even ridiculed, by quite a number of adults. Of course, I was right. So I am a friend of getting dressed in the sun, and view reddening Germanoid lobsters self-cooking on the beach, with undisguised contempt.

Still I consider hard-core Salafist Islam as a plutocratic ideology friendly to military dictators, an enemy of (most) progress. And I hate gender inequality, whenever not forced by genetics (in other words, I hate sexism, be it only because it makes humanity stupid).  

So what’s the way out?

The monokini. To start with.

Yes. Don’t fight fire with fire. Fight fire with water. If wherever burkinis are found, so are naked female chests, interest for burkinis will fade away. Burkinis don’t jiggle the right way.

Amusing? Not just that. You see, Islam and its Judeo-Christian inspiration are unnatural superstition (whereas a republic is as natural as possible). A burkini, on the face of it, is as unnatural as possible. To embrace the burkini is rather a contradiction for a religion which let beards grow, and refuses to depict reality, such as painting human beings or animals, on the ground that both are perfect works of god, that one cannot improve upon!

Whereas a monokini is much closer to god. Indeed, a bikini is much more natural, much closer to god’s perfection. A burkini is an ungodly artefact, Botticelli’s Venus, a better representation of reality, as god intended it to be.

One may want to go even further, and fight the unnatural ideology of Islam with full nudity. The Islamist emperor may be clothed, but it has no brains. Fight him with the naked truth. That’s what he fears most.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , ,

28 Responses to “Fight Burkinis With Monokinis”

  1. dominique deux Says:

    Lederhosen are a sensible, sturdy garment with no ideological connotations.

    Yet there was a time when wearing them in France would have led to much unrest and opposition, for perfectly understandable, if illogical, reasons.

    Body-shielding beachwear may be sensible and called for under a strong sun, or to shield an aged or misshapen body from perceived ridicule, and it can even be tailored to be elegant, colorful and adding to the beach’s overall beauty, rather than cluttering it with beached whales. I used to swim in Africa wearing matched long shorts and shirt, to avoid severe sunburn from UV rays diving vertically through crystal-clear seawater.

    Wearing a red cape is one’s choice; wearing one in a Spanish arena will expose you to trampling and goring from local four-legged residents.

    And of course the burkini is no innocent beachwear, it is a statement of defiance to other beach users, of contempt for the males’ assumed lustful gazes (it really screams “you’re all pigs!”), and the feedback to defiance, contempt and insult cannot be friendly. The hypocrisy France is smugly accused of by the usual Anglo MSM is theirs: the Australian lady could have chosen any name for her invention and marketed it worldwide, but she chose a reference to the private fabric jail forced upon some women in the Indian sub-continent (way before Islam came there in fact; purdah was the alternative to suttee…).

    Still, the ban is a stupid response which was rightly struck out (right wing mayors pandering to right wing voters cannot be expected to act intelligently, and are easy prey to ISIS’ overarching goal of civil strife). Your suggestion has much more merit (I had thought of something on these lines): surrounding our unfortunate beached whales with gaggles of half-naked women, pretty or not, with no attempt at confrontation, would be the right answer.

    As an aside: there was a handful of demonstrators outside the French Embassy in Londonistan. The reporting on French radio news was interesting: among the usual PC-speak of the well-meaning ladies, there was the furious voice of a young French woman who seethed at the backwardness and women’s hatred conveyed by the burkini. She was courageous, being alone in her views, and of Algerian descent. I know quite a lot of Algerians, both French and non-French, and they feel no PC qualms at expressing their views of Islamists: they want them dead, full stop. One wonders why?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Indeed, Dominique, indeed. Many people came from Africa to France, precisely because they loathed some of the old ways of Africa. One forgets that a war was lost, the Franco-Algerian war, by the side of potimal goodness and wisdom. Right, some, and even much, of the colonial situation was insufferable. But that could have been fixed, with much more local autonomy. In truth, though, Paris did not want to let go of centralism, dirigisme. Worse: there were darker forces at work, including Islam.

      When Islam took over in the Middle East and North Africa, in the period 632 CE until 700 CE, it took over what then, with the technology then existing, the world’s richest area. This is hard to believe, but this is what archaeology has confirmed, in contradiction with much of well established, but fantasist, historiography. So Islam has been a socioeconomic disaster.

      Unfortunately, after generations of Islam is beautiful, Islam is anti-racist propaganda, civilization owes Islam, all too many third generation immigrant youth have been indoctrinated by this message, which, originally, came from Anglo-Saxon MSM, to undermine French Republicanism. So they undermine. It looks like they work for ISIS, but, in truth, they work for Manhattan’s lofty towers…

  2. Kevin Berger Says:

    Re this “burkini” fiasco, I’ll once again refer you to JP Immarigeon’s appropriate posts (and comments, even more) https://www.facebook.com/jeanphilippe.immarigeon
    Nothing to add worthwhile to it, really, just that :

    – the cloth itself is a great display of different “integration” dynamics between Anglo countries & France (in Australia, a “positive”, “Us along them” item in reaction to the Cronulla IIRC beach riots, allowing Muslim women to mingle with others at the beach; in France, a “provocative”, “Us vs. Them” identity-affirming flag).

    – the French controversy itself is ridiculous and self-serving to all sides (the Nice “unclothing” pictures, a set-up, or at least an out-of-context manipulation by an “anti-Empire” internet warrior?), but deadly serious still – coming on the wheels, heh, of the Nice massacre, not to mention all the blood since January 2015.

    – the coverage of this controversy by the international press (meaning here English-language) has been just as expected, awful and an another layer of insult. Nothing to save from that, really, save the notion that one shouldn’t care about that (how is that Saddam Hussein WMD search going, btw? Peachy, I guess?).
    As an aside, one might add that for all the holier-than-you, “Freedom” BS about the French “ban”, doing what you suggest and going topless, may not be a wise option… on a random US beach! The hypocrisy goes deep here. Anyhow.

    – And, when you go tongue-in-cheek and talk about opposing the competing burkini and topless options, you probably hit close to a very trivial truth. All that endless encroachment, all those “socio-religious” demands, no pork, the veil, dressing “modestly”, not discussing islam, not teaching say, the holocaust, no non-halal meals, no naked showering in sport clubs under salafist influence,… It all boils down to dogs pissing to mark their territories. Or, as you’d put it, competing “moods”.
    And this competition goes on many different levels, from the very physical and actual “territories” (the street, the work place, and… the beach), to the identity markers (food…), and is fought using ideas as well as action (the Sisco beach brawl and subsequent riot = a family of North-African thugs trying to apply their own little apartheid against White people/kuffars, to put it bluntly, and ready to push up to and including armed confrontation; that it was “just” a family of “normal” thugs, with a coat of muslim identity maybe re-affirmed by the very successful and inspiring Nice attack, makes it even more worrying).
    Again, this is the model of last 40 years+ coming apart at the seams, simply because what was already wrong and unworkable then, but swipeable under the rug, still is wrong and unworkable now, but isn’t so readily deniable, due to sheer numbers (plus the odd Charlie curbing).

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I trace the problem all the way back to the Franco-Algerian war. In the period after May 8 1945, the French “left” (not including the likes of initially dirt-poor Camus) took the side of “national liberation” and Islam against so-called “colonialism”. Reality was much more complex. At that point the “pieds noirs” and the rest of the Algerians were betrayed by being offered to the FNL.
      The real mistake was committed when the forced secularization was not extended to Islam, but only to Judeo-Christianism (decret Cremieux, in the 19 C).

      The Anglo-Saxon plutocrats are pursuing their dishonest campaign against the (French) Republic. To wit the fact I am censored in places such as the New York Times.

      The best way to fight back is with counter provocation. Beyond sheer naked flesh, quoting bloodthirsty verses of the Qur’an on T shirts would be a good start. What are they (the authorities) going to do? Arrest the faithful?

  3. dominique deux Says:

    To add an ironic note. Le Canard Enchainé searched through French-language Islamic sites (not the terrorist kind, the Quranic advisory kind) for their stance. The learned “savants” (that’s how they call themselves) all said that the burqini was immodest (clung to the body), that for a Muslim woman to even share a beach with men was debauchery, and so on.

    So in a way the convoluted view that the burqini IS a way of escaping purdah has some merit.

    My oh my.

    • Kevin Berger Says:

      Yes, as noted above, the “burkini” is an “aussie” invention – a multiculturally-compliant way for muslim women (usually from Middle-eastern background, IE with ME cultural norms) to insert themselves into the Australian “beach culture”; said “beach culture” being then one of the “friction points” between muslim immigrants & the locals, culmination in a notable beach mass-brawl paralleling the recent Corsican one (IIRC a muslim group trying to muscle its way into ownership of a beach, reaction by the locals, calls to arms by the group, violence spilling into the neighbouring town).
      In an Australian context, it is a positive “identitary” device, “Us along with Them”, that certainly isn’t one with salafist thinking; in a French context, it means just the opposite, “Us vs. Them”, a direct frontal assault on the (completely hollow and fictitious by now, let’s be honest about it) notion of a “French Nation”.

      • dominique deux Says:

        I beg to differ with the idea that the notion of a “French Nation” is “completely” hollow and fictitious; it certainly changed a lot and will go on changing, as all living things do. But many, including myself, feel a provincial (I’m Breton), national (I’m French) and European identities, based on a wealth of historical, cultural and other traits. What has been discredited and is disappearing is the notion of a “superior” Nation. Brexit in that regard is a death spasm.

        Which is why, even if I don’t like much the eyesores that most burqini-wearing women unfortunately are, I don’t feel any threat from them. Hostility from them, possibly yes, but so what? only insecure cultures need to be liked. Removing all eyesores from our beaches and natural landscapes is an impossible task. And it would be a very poor and weak national identity which would be vulnerable to swimwear.

        By and large the Aussie approach looks the most promising. It’s “completely” hypocritical but hypocrisy has its uses.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Today, up in the Alps and in the woods, I saw a number of big fat veiled Muslim women. On a very hot day. It was incongruous. 200 meters away, there was a concert attended by hundreds of lightly dressed people.
          My personal offensive is to make literal Islam dishonorable. That’s why I advise direct quotes from Qur’an and Hadith on T shirts.

          • hazxan Says:

            “Today, up in the Alps and in the woods, I saw a number of big fat veiled Muslim women. On a very hot day. ”

            My grandparents, white, western atheists, dressed exactly like that all of about 25 years ago. My grandmothers despised bikinis, thought they were the sign of the decadence and fall of civilisation. They also wore headscarves whenever outside of the house. This was common for women in the UK in the 1970’s, 1980’s even, so we’re not talking some remote backward wilderness.

            The UK was also institutionally totally homophobic at that time.

            Strange how fast things change and it seems to me we are reinventing our history as a nation with a long history of freedom and tolerance that is actually a total distortion of the reality.

            I’m reminded of the saying that ex-smokers are the most violently anti-smoking. Having only just barely escaped our hang ups, we point the fingers at those who were just like us not so long ago, Perhaps this is how we cast off our guilt and shame at our treatment of the likes of Alan Turing.

            As you say, nudity is the only totally natural way to dress on a summer day, The fact that it will get you arrested here shows we are still full of neuroses and subconscious systems of social control.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              The homosexual obsession was an Anglo-Saxon thing, inherited from the Bible. France code civil decriminalized homosexuality in the fifteenth century (under the very blatantly homosexual Henri III). This difference explains a lot, in lots of dimensions.

          • Kevin Berger Says:

            Amusingly enough, and at least for now, that is the exact opposite happening : political islam on the move, this time through a new manufactured (in its “buzz” at the very least, the movers behind that seem to be the usual suspects, the PIR racists and their awesomely brazen semantic inversion, and the CCIF salafists) scandal in Tremblay-en-France. Developing, as they say, though it’s shaping up to be yet one more “coup” (the restaurant owner has seemingly gone into hiding, FWIW, out of fear for his physical well-being, for some reason). And, again, all this in the psychological shadow of 2015 and 2016’s massacres, with the French authorities unwilling (unable?) to signal the end of the recess.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              PIR, CCIF (Conseil Islam de France?)…. The pro-Islam positioning is not just racist, sexist, etc., but it is also a treason to the basics of the Frankish state of 600 CE (when the uneducated prophet was experiencing his visions). In 600 CE, Francia was ruled by queens, who were not just head of state, but of government… Just when Mahomet was ruled by his own first wife…

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Indeed. Sometimes, another name for hypocrisy is politeness.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          It’s the Franks who introduced the word and notion of “EUROPEAN”… in connection with the wave of Muslim invasions of 715 CE to 748 CE… By then the Franks controlled most of Germany and two-thirds of Italy. Within 50 years, it all of Germany, Catalonia, Arago, and northern Spain, plus all of Eastern Europe, would be added….
          P

        • Kevin Berger Says:

          ” And it would be a very poor and weak national identity which would be vulnerable to swimwear.”
          Except one is not talking about a piece of cloth, here, but a flag, for all purpose, and what is behind that flag : allegiance to an another set of values (another civilization, really), that wish to compete, if not to replace, the ones from the “host country”. It’s the same overall process, through other actors, other means, other contexts,… than the creeping dietary demands (no pork, no potential pork, halal food, only halal food), the creeping “modesty” demands (no male doctors for my wife, crap like that), the creeping occupation of the public space (dress in your “flag”, to show your strength),… it’s an endless encroachment, simply because it is a political process, that is fed and mirrored in an identity process enabled by growing sub-communities that feel little to no allegiance to the French Nation (cue in the Algerian flags, waved around by “French” supporters in riotous demonstrations of joy upon some football team victories, the sea of foreign flags in the crowd when Chirac won against Lepen – *that* was a defining historical moment/symbol, IMHO, and I can assure you that I never voted nor even intended to vote for the FN -, several riots over the last few years where the Tricolour was ripped off from some city hall flagpole and replaced by a foreign flag,…).

          As for the “very poor and weak national identity”, well, that pretty much define today’s France, doesn’t it? And this very much on purpose, through decided efforts from traitorous French elites, bought and/or seduced by what our host calls the Plutos.
          Maybe it is “just” a transit phase, but I have deep, deep and unanswered, interrogations about France being still a “living” Nation, instead of an empty husk.
          And the fact that I am writing this in the language of Benny Hill, the mother tongue of the Master Race, with its weirdly neurotical, penis envy-like resentment against its progenitor, only add to the irony. I mean, if the fate of the French is to join the ranks of the “anglo-saxons” fodder and to serve along them (minus the soothing racism/supremacism!), then, there is little point in not calling it quit, is there?

          • dominique deux Says:

            … But a substantial part of the French army, including the units deployed against jihadis, is made up of Muslims, and AFAIK there have been no rogue Islamist killing sprees like those in the US Army.

            You choose to see a defeated France, I see a dispirited one, under cross attack from the Jihadi and Wall Street pincers of the Pluto emperors, yet it seems to hold pretty much together.

            The general mood is supportive of the military response to jihad; the French well know that jihadi attacks well preceded that response, contrary to the frequent Anglo MSM PC claim that the strikes provoked the terrorist attacks; and as Patrice often recalls, the French are no pacifists at all, and they’re not under the trauma of the stupid and greedy Iraq invasion; which to this day reduces the Brits to quivering jellyfish. In that respect the Daesh strategy of dividing to conquer is not working at all, despite the efforts of its dumb allies in the Riviera town halls.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              The Jihadism itself is a weapon of the Pluto power in Washington, to subjugate Europe and the Middle Earth, so far working as intended (a strategy started by US oilmen in the early 1930s, and Lawrence of Arabia, even earlier). This is why Saddam’s secular regime was destroyed. And why the Sultan was put in place in Turkey, and why Pakistan was made into an Islamist republic, etc.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              The Islamists invaded Francia out of the blue in 715 CE, four centuries before the first crusade

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            I am writing from the (ex-) republic of the Escartons, which lasted 5 centuries and is now cut between France and Italy… The kingdom of France was often reduced to not much through the Middle Ages. Philipe Auguste conquered the super giant county of Toulouse, which was republic in disguise. Philipe Auguste used a crusade which killed more than one million (“Cathars”). The Eastern part of present day “France” and Provence, were not even in “France” for 1,000 years…
            So what’s “France”?

            … FRANCIA, the France of the Merovingian and Carolingian Franks. And all their descendant regimes (that makes Germany French… And Germany NOW is very much French: see the declarations of Sigmar Gabriel yesterday about the USA:””We mustn’t submit to [ANY] American proposals,” – SPD’s Gabriel, German Vice Chancellor, speaking about Obama’s Trans Atlantic Partnership!”

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Sigmar Gabriel, continuing: Germany’s economy minister and vice-chancellor has defended flicking the middle finger to a group of right-wing protesters earlier this month.
            Sigmar Gabriel, who is Angela Merkel’s second-in-command, said his only mistake was not using both hands.
            He said his critics should think about what they would do if faced with 12 “young, aggressive, swearing and ready-for-violence Nazis“.
            Mr Gabriel was confronted by the hecklers in northern Germany.
            They called him a traitor of the people and mentioned his father’s Nazi past.
            Mr Gabriel has spoken openly of his father Walter, who he says was a supporter of Hitler’s Nazi party and denied the Holocaust until his death in 2012.
            In a video released on social media of the incident, one of the protesters can be heard shouting: “Your father loved his country. And what are you doing? You’re ruining it.”
            Germany HAS changed.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        The civilization we presently enjoy is, first of all, a French derived civilization: Germany, Italy, Spain, Britain, and the Netherlands, in this precise chronological order, over 1,100 years, are all French military creations.

        • hazxan Says:

          “The civilization we presently enjoy is, first of all, a French derived civilization: ”

          As climate change driven by that civilization makes human existence increasingly hellish, will you still want to be taking credit for it? When you have a flawed, rapacious species that destroys all others in its wake, is the acceleration of its elimination is a good thing for the system as a whole? Or would it be better for it just to cease reframing destruction of nature as “civilised”?

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Neanderthals, living in present-day France, were apparently the first to use fossil fuels, the most dirty form of coal called “lignite”, 80,000 years ago. That was great, fully appropriate, progress towards civilization.

            Fossil fuels were indispensable until nuclear energy appeared in the 1960s. And now the latter can be replaced on most of the planet by solar energy (a Frenchman, by the way, discovered the photoelectric effect, around 1830; another Frenchman, Becquerel, discovered radioactivity, later in the same century).

            Fossil fuels made possible a civilization with billions of thinking creatures, generating ever more ideas.

            A city is not natural. A city is human. Civilization is a human artefact.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Nature has to make way for civilization. Yet civilization needs and owns nature. Progress is the result of a delicate dynamic balance between both.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Very interesting. And logical. The Islamist savants have a point: I saw real life pictures of opulent Muslim women covered with burkinis which looked more obscene than if they had been in bikinis. Somehow, the burkini made them even more opulent.

      As I said, one should use the burkini fury to allow ANY dress on French beaches. Including total lack thereof.

  4. hazxan Says:

    ““Bikini” was an allusion to the new, explosive world made manifest at the Bikini atoll (where nuclear fission bombs were tested).”

    A celebration of the destructive aims and death wish of our civilisation. The cover up of the radiation was far more complete than the cover up of a typical bikini! Our destruction = good. Their destruction = bad.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      According to some studies, hundreds of thousands of US citizens died from exploding bombs’ radioactivity. Yet, there was no terror at the time. Only retrospectively.
      The Islamists killed much fewer in the West, so far. Yet their impact, throughout the West, has been much greater, thanks to the terror they exert and the counter-measures which had, and have, to be taken.

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: