Real Civilization Does Not Confuse Civilization and Superstition.

Another day, another Jihadist attack aimed at children. The Islamist State has long given instructions to kill children. Twenty-two killed, 60 maimed in Manchester at a concert for children. A 22 year old cultural Libyan exploded himself. The “multicultural” assassin was technically, but not culturally, a Brit. Time to face reality.

An eight year old little girl died, among others. Who is responsible? The  savage who exploded himself, according to Islam, or those who, misleadingly, call Islam a “civilization”? Excited, nihilistic maniacs, or those who, in the philosophical establishment, call their religion civilized?

Here is a Sword Verse, one of a great many in the Qur’an, Surah 9, verse 59:

“But when the forbidden months are past,

then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them,

and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)…”

[Partisan Muslims whine that this is out of context; actually the context is much more terrible than that: all sorts of people are supposed to be killed, according to Literal Islam, for example homosexuals, just because they are homosexual, following explicitly the Bible, are supposed to “rain stones on homosexuals”. By the way, that’s ironical, as Muslim societies are INTRINSICALLY homosexual!]

Islam is not a civilization, it’s a superstition, and it has been highly successful precisely because this superstition gives a lot of pretexts to kill all sorts of people, while claiming warriors will be pals with god. Islam is not a civilization. How can we take seriously those who confuse “civilization” and superstition? Instead, indeed, Islam is just a superstition. And a pretty nihilistic one at that. “Nihil” means nothing in Latin, it’s related to annihilation. Muhammad explained from the beginning that Islam aimed at annihilating the Greco-Roman and Sassanid (Persian) empires.

Islam orders that society and superstition should not be separated. Said otherwise, Islam orders society to become a “theocracy” (power of god).

Tenochtitlan, Sixteenth Century. This is a civilization. It separated governance and superstition, because a civilization has to separate reality from fancy.

This is primitive. Serious civilizations separated, and separate, superstition and political governance. In Japan the Shogun heading the government was no priest. Nor was the Chinese empire a theocracy. An even more enlightening civilization was the Mexican one. The (more or less central) Aztec government separated the religion and the government: the emperor had diverse titles (including “speaker”), but he had no religious title. The Aztec emperor was not a priest. The two top priests of Tenochtitlan were at the head of the Aztec Church, a completely distinct hierarchy from political governance (which comprised war, justice, commerce, finance).  

Make no mistake: I don’t mind the devil, if, and whenever, it serves civilization: for example, I do not condemn the massive bombing campaigns against the populations who had supported the mass murdering fascist regimes of Germany and Japan. It was the cheapest way, by a very long shot, cheapest not just economically and militarily, but also, overall, in human lives, to win the war.

The Aztecs distinguished completely their superstitious religion from governance, That reflects, and encourages, the ability to distinguish reality from a fiction “above” it. Governance has to be grounded in reality, thus divorced from fiction.

The “West” did this, and did it all along, under the Roman Republic. The separation of church and state was re-asserted formally when (all too Catholic!) emperor Justinian ordered a (“Pagan“!) law professor to head a commission to refurbish Roman Law (by then nearly 13 centuries old, and full of obsolete considerations). Justinian gave just one instruction: to separate secular from religious law. Justinian’s refurbished law was immediately made law in the empire of the Franks (Imperium Francorum), which held (most of) Western Europe.

Thus, both Aztecs and Western Europe separated superstitious church and reality-based state.

A real civilization does not confuse civilization and superstition.

A civilization is the ultimate achievement of humanity. A superstition is a butterfly’s dream. And when a superstition is just a dressing for nihilism, it’s nothing to be proud of. Nothing. Not that nihilism is nothing, far from it.

Where does nihilism comes from? Nihilism is a characteristic of human ethology. The greatest enemy of man is not just man, but the enormous destruction which man can bring to terrestrial ecology. Thus, the enemy of man is man, squared. Including oneself. To destroy that ecological destruction man brings, it’s best to destroy men. That’s where the nihilist instinct comes from. When there are more people than the ecology can stand, people have to die. Thus more so in the desert. Thus the nihilist essence of Islam! Thus the attachment of Islam to the regions with a difficult, unforgiving, ecology.

The civil war in Syria followed a spectacular drought which starved Syrians massively. War in Syria has displaced at least 25% of the population, solving the ecological problem in a way few will find amusing, soon all over reproducing, if the greenhouse keeps on getting worse, as it will.

Nihilism of Islamism: religions for a devastated and devastating future?

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

25 Responses to “Real Civilization Does Not Confuse Civilization and Superstition.”

  1. Gmax Says:

    Excellent and to the point. Surprising about Aztecs. I thought they had an obsession about religion.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Religion was everywhere in Aztec society, and it was very different of any found in Eurasia (there were not enough wars, hence the human sacrifices!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) HOWEVER, Church and State were, amazingly enough, separated. Also they have devil like Gods, but also plenty of other types of gods, and especially Quetzalcoatl, a god mostly centered initially on Cholula, who was much much nicer than the Bible God…. Even some of the Christian religious hierarchy admitted that…

  2. Aussie Conservative Says:

    Conservative Blog
    Yes and until Islam can separate religious doctrine from its political ideology, it will remain exactly that: primitive.

  3. Nathan Daniel Curry Says:

    ‘Real civilization does not confuse civilization and superstition’
    But luck also still happens 😉

  4. Shaking The Spear Says:

    SHAKING THE SPEAR:
    I don’t know that calling Islam a superstition is appropriate; to some any religion could be called a superstition. What is important to recognise is that there is no separation of church and state in the Islamic world. Fittingly, the totalitarian aspect of Islam makes for suitable partnership with progressive secularists who long to destroy the West as well; to the spoils will go one swath all church and the other all state.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      There are two types of religion: secular religion (say obedience to a Republic), and religion with a superstitious character. “Superstition” consists in making assertions standing-above reality. Like Muhammad, the so-called “Prophet” or “Messenger” riding a winged horse all the way to Jerusalem. And the Muslims even have a name for the horse! If that’s not a superstition, I don’t know what superstition is. And Islam is full of them, like kneeling 5 times a day towards the winged horse guy’s birthplace…

  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    @ Aussie, Shaking: Aussie Conservative

    In my essay I pointed out that the Aztecs distinguished completely their superstitious religion from governance, That reflects, and encourages, the ability to distinguish reality from a fiction “above” it. Governance has to be grounded in reality, thus divorced from fiction.

    By the way, the “West” did this, and did it formally after emperor Justinian ordered a (Pagan!) law professor to head a commission to refurbish Roman Law (by then nearly 13 centuries old. He gave just one instruction: to separate secular from religious law. Justinian’s refurbished law was immediately made law in the empire of the Franks (Imperium Francorum), which held (most of) Western Europe.

    Thus, both Aztecs and Western Europe separated superstitious church and reality-based state.

    • Aussie Conservative Says:

      Yes precisely, a separation between church and state is what Islam needs. And while I would encourage Muslims to seek this, I maintain some doubts over whether this is achievable.

  6. Paul Handover Says:

    It’s taken me a couple of days to get across to your latest post, that I have just read. Powerful messages that get to the nub of the matter. I’m normally a pretty positive person but there are times when I think these are the end days of our species!

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for reading Paul! I am not always the lightest fare, I must admit…I am optimistic, and I think it should be, instead, the end days of some forms of pseudo-intellectuality…

  7. Paul Handover Says:

    Oh, forgot to say that in your penultimate paragraph you write “The civil war if Syria” when I think the ‘if’ was meant to be an ‘in’.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Certainly, Paul, and thanks. Often spell checkers (I have at least 2 layers of them) have minds of their own… “F” is in no way close to “N”, so this smacks of a spellchecker problem, as when “from” becomes “form”…

  8. Paul Handover Says:

    The system of American Governance clearly separates State and Church. Yet the State also proclaims: “In God we trust.”

    Isn’t that a muddying of the waters of the straights between State and Church?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      “In God We Trust” certainly violates separation of Church and State. It was imposed by Congress in 1954, and replaced “E Pluribus Unum”, the historic secular slogan (From Many, One). Separation of church and state is relative: Charlemagne was secular by the standards of the Eight Century, but a cynical Christian fellow traveller, by modern standards.
      “In God We Trust” for all I can see was picked up from “Gott Mit Uns” (God with us), the slogan of the… SS…

  9. Croatian Conservative Says:

    Islam is a war ideology, developed specifically for combat and conquest. Nihilism, thus, is not surprising, and neither is cruelty. It was given divinity in order to make it easier for illiterate, superstitious Arabs of 7th century to accept it.

    In Islam, religion is nothing but a tool to achieve political goal of world domination. Thus, religious and political domination are one and the same for Islam, and separating religion from state is impossible.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, indeed. And actually Adolf Hitler analyzed it just that way, and, I must admit, correctly enough. Hitler regretted that the West had been conquered by Christianism, instead of Islamism. The great Mufti of Jerusalem had lent him several thousands fighters…

  10. picard578 Says:

    You are quoting Qur’an, but fact is that Qur’an is relatively tame, benign and peaceful compared to Hadith. It is also a fact that in Islam, Hadith is more important than Qur’an.

    Problem is that civilization is complex, and thus hard to maintain and prone to collapse. Insanity is easy. That is why Islam has been, and is, so successful. Insanity feels good when other people around are also insane.

    I would also go even further than you, and suggest that real civilization controls superstition. Superstition can be used, in a controlled way, to advance civilization and make it more resillient. Common european identity provided by Christianity enabled it to survive onslaught of Islam (Vienna, 1683). But superstition has to be kept strictly under control by the civilization (which is to say, the state). This is why Roman emperors held authority over religious leaders – state and religion were nominally separate, but state held authority over religious structures.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Picard! Your point about the Qur’an versus the Hadith is extremely cogent, and I am aware of it. That’s why I quote the Hadith occasionally. But the Hadith is so extreme, one gets accused of being insane, murderously so, just for quoting it! Many Hadiths say all the Jews have to be killed before Final Judgment. I am sure most people are well aware of it in Israel, directly or not. Hence their votes for Netanyahu, and the invasion of the West Bank… I will self search later with ; Patrice Ayme Hadith Kill All Jews (I wrote more than one essay on it!)

      • picard578 Says:

        But Hadith is the basis of Islam; Qur’an is actually a secondary source, because it simply does not offer enough to even understand, let alone practice, Islam.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          That’s an interesting point of view! Qur’an is generally viewed as the basic text. However it was written by a commission, under orders of Caliph Uthman, and it was discredited by Muhammad’s closest family members… This view has lots of merit, I didn’t think about it… And didn’t come across it before, either. So thanks!
          It can be explored further…
          I actually bought, a few years ago, a modern rendition of the essence of the full Sunnah, by specialists who had just finished this work, but didn’t go into it in depth. The Hadith is part of it (purported direct sayings of Muhammad)

          • picard578 Says:

            Yes… and while Qur’an is largely a religious text, Hadith reveals Islam to be a political doctrine. Religious aspects are there merely to legitimize social and political prescriptions.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Most readers are already at the limit of their PC leash when one quotes and comments only just the Qur’an. If one quotes the Hadith, or the Sunnah, one is going to be accused in the most extreme ways, in ways so extreme most people will stop reading. This has happened to me, industrially recently… I have lost many “”friends””…. There was a whole campaign on the Internet claiming I was a “racist troll”, and universities sites should block me, etc. I am blocked from several sites, including the New York Times…

              Some will say truth trumps nastiness, but that’s not true. My readership, more than ten years ago, was growing fast, then the growth got basically blocked, using tricks. For example I was blocked from several search engines (including BING, Gates apparently hates me secretly…)
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah

            • picard578 Says:

              That is the problem with modern society. Even grown people have become spoiled brats as feelings become more important than facts. We are raising kids inside a bubble, teaching them that insulting somebody is the greatest crime there is, that tolerance is the greatest value. Meanwhile truth lies forgotten. That is a problem with ideologies in general, and liberalism (and Islam) in particular. People are literally trained – like dogs – to think in a certain way and to apriori reject anything that does not fit with that way of thinking. In fact, that is the purpose of political ideology. But I have also found that, in many cases, one has to be a bit nasty in order to capture people’s attention. Because people today have no discipline and are disinterested in many things, having been raised on a media soup of “shocking news”, and in some cases only a shock can throw them off balance and force them to reevalualuate their ideology. Of course, in other cases it just forces them further inside the ideological shell they use to protect themselves from reality.

              Situation today is rather problematic in more ways than one. I get funny looks when I suggest that we do not live in a democratic society. Again, people confuse appearance for substance, not understanding that presence of democratic institutions does not make for a democratic society. Instead, a democratic mind is necessary, one that is open to discussion. I think it was Voltaire who said it, “I do not agree with you but I will defend your right to speak”. That is the basis of democracy, and that is precisely why such a mindset has been relentlessly attacked by the ruling plutocracy. We live in what I call a “dictatorship of human rights”, where plutocracy uses “human rights” to force whatever then want upon the people, and whoever opposes them becomes branded a Nazi or something similar, no matter how valid the opposition is. Apparently, it is a human right to force women to wear tents and to blow up people who insult you, yet telling the truth is not a human right. At least if you’d believe the “progressives” and their plutocractic backers (George Soros, Rockefeller family etc).

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              That was replied to in part by the essay suggesting to complement representative democracy with direct democracy:
              https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2017/05/27/counterbalance-representative-democracy-by-direct-democracy/

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: