Archive for the ‘Abrahamism’ Category

Islamist Death Cult Propaganda: Destructive To Truth, Humanity

December 30, 2017

A university professor in Northern Ireland, historically a place of religious hatred, wrote an essay for Aeon which is pro-Islam in what supposed to be a smart way: Beyond Liberal Islam. Western liberalism is not the apex and terminus of human history, and it ought not to serve as the measure of Islam. Can Islam help to produce an appealing alternative to liberal societies? Is it time to look beyond the idea of liberal Islam?”

The author keeps sneaking in as obvious, enormously debatable, not to say deeply erroneous concepts. Such as: “The fallacious arguments of Islamophobes”, “the fact Muslim regimes are backwards for historical rather than metaphysical reasons”.

Of course not true. Islam is an extremely dangerous and reductive superstition. All too many people are ignorant of the fact the “West” was NOT Christian. The Frankish empire pretty much covered all of Europe, including Britain after 1066 CE… except for southern Spain.

The West was not just “Christian”. Whereas Islamist countries were just Islamist. More exactly, and differently from Islamist countries, where law and governance were Islamist, law and governance was not “Christian” in the West. The fundamental laws of Europe under the Franks were mostly Roman law plus (Latin written) Salic law. Both were secular laws. The leadership was also secular (although Charlemagne gave to the Pope some territories in Italy in 800 CE).

The superstition wants to kill or subject most of humanity:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

Islamist law, the Sharia, contradicts UN law, itself an extension of “Western” law. It is, literally, outlaw.

K Vora answered my preceding comment in Aeon. Before I get to that reply, let me add the following map:

548 invasion main battles by Islam Jihad in 250 years. Initially, the green area, Islamist by 900 CE, was Greco-Roman (or associated civilizations, Seleucid, Etruscan, Latin, and, or Punic) for more than a millennium. After the invasions, non-Muslims were the subjugated, oppressed majority for many centuries, causing what’s paradoxically, and misleadingly known as the “Golden Age of Islam“!

I listened to the following video, which is accurate on its main points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

(There were other crusades, against non-Muslims, such as cathars and Prussians, that’s the main inaccuracy of the video, which is irrelevant to its main message.)

***

K Vora

I appreciate your well reasoned comment. Unfortunately, it will be distorted by well known probably paid commenters (one can search the names and see how many well reasoned comments have been obfuscated by them). We must accept Islam for what it is: A tool for the rogue elements of humanity (mostly males) to subjugate all others, in person and in thought. I hope Aeon does not block this response because we must confront our genetics in our evolutions (many paths) and if we critically analyse the behaviors of islamic regimes and societies, we have to explore rogue genes, whether y, or x, or corrupted.

***

Thanks K Vora! Yes, those paid commenters are a problem, and not just with Islam, or religion.

Paid commenters are a problem all over the Internet. And not just the Internet: universities and governments too. Legislation needs to be drawn, because what we have now is a sort of Orwellian 1984 of greed, where “Big Brother” is a compendium of the worst demons of our nature, and rules our information system.

Yes, we must confront our genetics, or, more exactly, the misuse of our genetics by our massively changed circumstances, namely the rise of civilization. (The word “mass” is literal here: the mass of humanity has gone up by a factor of a thousand from what it was during the evolution of the genus Homo…)

The very rise of Islam was entangled with a military strategic observation. Muhammad considered that the tremendous war between the Greco-Roman and the Sassanids, which had just concluded, had weakened both civilizations so much, that, for the first time in 1,000 years, Arabs could hope to raid the Fertile Crescent. Again. The Prophet was right. Desert raiders went according to rougher morals. For example, they used to kill girls liberally. When not enslaving them crudely (for future sale). Muhammad condemned the practice of killing girls, and encouraged slavers to impregnate their girl captives. Both measures led to a population explosion of young males, who became the young, fanaticized warriors of the invading Muslim Arab armies.

So not all is negative about Fundamental Islam. But even the positive, inasmuch as it reinforces Islam, can be negative. Because, indeed, as you said, Islam is about making the rogue, or at least, hyper-violent side of humanity into a religion. The most intriguing part is that the individual devoted to Fundamentalist Islam doesn’t perceive that way. Instead what they perceive is a totally organized life, dawn to dusk. One should read “the final rituals” (and the full three parts description of travelling to Medina and Mecca):

“Hasan stopped me on my way to the lavatory carrying a roll of tissue; he explained with lively gestures – words not sufficing – that I should cleanse myself with water after defecation. Islamic toilet etiquette calls for pouring water with the right hand and wiping oneself with the left. I nodded to him in agreement and continued on my way, with the paper. It felt like a small victory for Western civilization.

On a related subject, Mina has the most appallingly inadequate sanitation facilities. They are plentiful but so filthy that most pilgrims prefer the outdoors. Mecca and Muna both being located on hills and in valleys, streams of urine and waste water flow across great distances at considerable speeds. The Grand Mosque, where some 75,000 pilgrims sleep each night of the hajj, has no public water facilities except the Zamzam well. While no one excretes in the mosque itself, many do so just outside it, even against its walls. I myself did this once; though feeling terribly conspicuous and expecting a reprimand, in fact no one paid me any attention. I found it strange that the Grand Mosque and the Hill of Mercy, Islam’s two holiest spots, also serve as lavatories for the faithful.”

The reason for that totally organized life in Fundamental Islam is exactly the reason why military life is totally organized: it is the most basic training for obedience, core of the ability of the warrior. It’s why some view the Foreign Legion as a death cult. https://aeon.co/essays/why-young-men-queue-up-to-die-in-the-french-foreign-legion

This being said, there are 100 variants of Islam. Many are well aware of the preceding and ended up as far removed as possible from Salafism (=Wahhabism = Fundamentalism). However, those types of Islam are unknown in the West, and oil money has done its best to suppress them. So now, when talking about “Islam” what the ignorant mean, especially in the West, is Salafism… A type of Fundamentalism thoroughly discredited in Egypt by 1200 CE (it was subjected to the death penalty), and de facto ignored in the best parts of the “Golden Age of Islam”.

(What happened next is that savage invaders, the Mongols and Turks, decapitated the Middle East and North Africa, as they massacred the elites, and took possession of the lands: Arabic speaking intellectual guidance was lost, only illiterate peasants survived.)

Another video, a sort of baby version of what I have long written (albeit with the major blemish of ignoring the ravages of fanatical Christianism in the Greco-Roman empire):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

The thesis that the islam and invasion caused the collapse of civilization is known as “Pirenne’s thesis”. Pirenne was a famous historian of the 1930s, who wrote “Mohammed and Charlemagne”.  

Henri Pirenne’s remarkable classic — published after his death — offers a revolutionary perspective on how Europe evolved as the Roman Empire centered in Constantinople evolved into the Europe of Charlemagne and the Middle Ages. I agree with most of what’s in it, but I do not view it as the end all, be all.

Departing from the standard view that Germanic invasions obliterated the Roman Empire, Pirenne advances the radical new thesis that “the cause of the break with the tradition of antiquity was the rapid and unexpected advance of Islam,” and event of historical proportions that prevented the western Mediterranean from being what it had always been: a thoroughfare of commerce and thought. It became instead what Pirenne refers to as “a Musulman lake,” thereby causing “the axis of life [to shift] northwards from the Mediterranean” for the first time in history.

The other standard view, as advocated by Gibbon, was that civilization collapsed because of Christianism.

My own version is more subtle: Christianism and the invasions were a consequence of the Roman Republic collapse and the subsequent political and intellectual fascism that resulted.

Islam itself an aftershock of all this (both the Persians and the Romans quasi-ruled Arabia; Rome traded with India for centuries through its control of the Red Sea).

Islamophilia, in the sense of the love of Salafism, is fundamentally lethal for, not just civilization, but human ethology, even intelligence.

Vigilance and subtlety should be our mantra. Today it was announced that MI5 (British “Intelligence”) tried to assassinate the Irish Prime Minister.

MI5 asked a loyalist paramilitary group to assassinate the Irish prime minister during the height of the conflict in Northern Ireland, according to claims in newly released government documents. The records show that in 1987, Prime Minister Charles Haughey was informed by a letter sent from the Protestant Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) that British Intelligence wanted him dead.

In it, they claimed to Haughey that “in 1985 we were approached by a MI5 officer attached to the NIO [Northern Ireland Office] and based in Lisburn, Alex Jones was his supposed name,” the UVF said. “He asked us to execute you.” The letter was among the Irish government archives released today. Unsatisfied with the refusal, MI5 then asked the UVF if they would accept the blame. UVF said they turned down the request, telling the Taoiseach: “We refused to do it. We were asked would we accept responsibility if you were killed. We refused.” 

Real history is more complicated in crucial ways than simpletons have it. One shouldn’t confuse the history of myths, with the history of facts. Look at Islam like you should look at MI5.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Is Philosophy Just About Death? Should Religion Be Mostly About Suffering? No! Such Moods Underlay Plutocracy!

December 27, 2017

Abstract: DEATH AND SUFFERING, THE FUNDAMENTAL PSYCHO DRIVERS inherited from Platonism, Stoicism, Abrahamism (Judeo-Christo-Islamism), Buddhism & Nihilism weaken minds and resolve. This is exactly why they have been imposed on the (clueless) masses.

Philosophy, especially the philosophy obsessed by death and suffering, drives politics. Death and suffering obsessed philosophies, and religions are Pluto friendly, and make it easier for plutocrats to govern us all.

Politics is practical philosophy. Plutocracy made sure that the ruling philosophies, and religions, would serve it well, by rejecting life and threatening the masses with pain and anxiety. The obsession they nourished with death and suffering, both of which have to be avoided at the cost of enjoying life in optimal honor and comfort, are the twin pillars of the sheep mentality they have imposed on most of humanity. Islam is a death cult, right: it’s all about Allah, who, in the end, throws nearly everybody “into the fire“. However the root of that disease are much deeper, they pervade the Greco-Roman West. The cult of Jesus Christ is basically a cosmetically improved version of Socrates’ Death Cult.

And no, Hinduism provides no relief. It is more of the same, from a different angle.

***

Plato, Or Philosophy As Fake News:

Some philosophers, to this day, claim that philosophy’s justification is to prepare for death (the same critters generally boast that philosophy is just “footnotes to Plato”, as if they should be proud of their lack of progress; notice in passing that philosophy as footnotes to Plato is an Anglo-Saxon notion, and it partakes to the general Anglo-Saxon plutocratic will to dismiss philosophy as a “worthy object of study”, to quote Bertrand Russell) .

The idea of reducing philosophy to a death rehearsal is presented by that old fascist, Plato, as an exposition from Socrates. Plato claims that life is all about making nice with the “Gods”. Life with the “Gods” will be better, so we may as well not be too attached to life.

Of course Plato and his savant parrot, Socrates were lying: their ives demonstrate it. They were actually party animals, depraved drinkers indulging in a life of wanton sex, luxury and commerce with all the dictators they could find or fabricate.

Even the judgment and execution of Socrates couldn’t stop them. The smartly vicious Aristotle was back with the same trick on steroids later, and when he fled Athens, made the self-aggrandizing statement that he wanted to save Athens from sinning against philosophy again. In truth, Aristotle was busy demolishing Greek democracy, and succeeded. 

Montaigne and his castle, as seen by Salvador Dali, 1947. Notice the “Hommage to France” at the bottom, by the Catalan Dali. The infuriating secret of Western Civilization, now world, is that it’s anchor has been France. Not sure it will be the case looking forward considering the results of children scholastic tests TIMMS, PIRLS, and PISA.!

***

The idea that life is nothing, and the “gods” everything, enabled the rule of the 1%:

The idea was recycled first by the Stoics, modest critters crawling by the feet of tyrants, while protesting of their soothing capacity to endure any abuse. The Christians five centuries later, were loud and clear that this world was nothing and making love to Jesus in the after world was all what matters. The Muslim ran away with the idea another half millennium after that. In the Qur’an the Jews are condemned because they “would like to live 1,000 years”, and nothing is more noble and richer in rewards to die for “God”..

Was Socrates the first Jihadist? Jihadists, apparently following Socrates, claim that life is nothing, while pleasing and obeying the “God(s)” everything. An Athenian jury thought so that Socrates’ advocated preference for death should be honored, and condemned him accordingly, for “perverting the youth” (long story; notice similarity with what should be done to Jihadism). Socrates was given an opportunity to escape, but as genuine Jihadist are won to do, he prefered to die for his Great Beyond, full of nice “Gods”.

This “lust for death”, the most acute form of nihilism, went so far that it was condemned by Seneca in “Moral Letters to Lucilius”:

“The grave and wise man should not beat a hasty retreat from life; he should make a becoming exit. And above all, he should avoid the weakness which has taken possession of so many, – the LUST FOR DEATH. For just as there is an unreflecting tendency of the mind towards other things, so, my dear Lucilius, there is an unreflecting tendency towards death; this often seizes upon the noblest and most spirited men, as well as upon the craven and the abject. The former despise life; the latter find it irksome.”

Seneca explains in other parts that the description of Socrates’s death was much meditated upon and emulated by many in the Roman elite, including Scipio, of the famous Scipio family, one of Cato’s generals, in the war against Pompey. A little example of how Plato inflected history… Christianism is the lust for death writ so large, with the brandishment of the nailed, writhing naked Jesus as its very grotesquely cruel and threatening symbol. It is astounding that Islam succeeded to lust for death even more than Christianism itself.

In some sense even the Aztecs were less lusting for death than the Christians were. The Aztecs tried to capture in war their enemies alive, so they could sacrificed on the top of magnificent pointy pyramids; that made the Aztec religion in a sense less bloody than Christianism, as the Aztecs discovered to their sorrow, too late! The Aztecs were in particular disgusted by the elaborated tortures the Conquistadores inflicted. Roasting Aztec nobility alive all night long was standard treatment, as far as the Spaniards were concerned. It no doubt reflected in their minds what their “Lord” had supposedly gone through, and had redeeming values.

As Nietzsche pointed out, European nobility’s operational morality was the opposite of Christianism. Yet, they were entangled: Christianism lust for death and suffering enabled the nobility to inflict maximal death and suffering, in the name of “religion”. When the commander of the crusade against the Cathars was told that one couldn’t tell who was Christian, and who was a Cathar, he famously replied:“Brulez-les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens” (Burn them all, Allah will recognize his own). That was not immediately cathartic. It should have been. This explains why Western Europe got rid of “God”. Now He is back in Arabic translation (“Allah”). And should be equally repulsed, lest Europe wants to end up like Syria.

***

Montaigne thought the obsession with death was poppycock:

Ever since they made a superficial reading of the Old Ones, simplistic “philosophers” have claimed that the aim of philosophy is to prepare for death. This reflects a lack of experience on the part of the beholders. Montaigne corrected this. Once, Montaigne was knocked of his horse by another horseman going at a full gallop. He described the incident in great detail in his “Essays”. He nearly died. His conclusion is that death can come unannounced, all of a sudden, and does not have to be painful. The whole experience was so disconcerting and weird, preparing for it would be completely impossible.

At this point he adds [free translation by yours truly, to make Montaigne more understandable]

“Nature herself assists and encourages us: if the death be sudden and violent, we don’t have the opportunity to fear; if otherwise, I perceive that as I engage further in my disease, I naturally enter into a certain loathing and disdain of life. I find I have much more difficulty to digest the perspective of dying, when I am well in health, than when languishing of a fever; and by how much I have less to do with the advantages of life, by reason that I begin to lose the use and pleasure of them, by so much I look upon death with less terror. Which makes me hope, that the further I remove from the life, and the nearer I approach to death, I shall the more easily exchange the one for the other.”

In case one does not get it, Montaigne hammers away:

“Not only the argument of reason invites us to it — for why should we fear to lose a thing [life], which being lost, cannot be lamented? — but, also, seeing we are threatened by so many sorts of death, is it not infinitely worse eternally to fear them all, than once to undergo one of them? … What a ridiculous thing it is to trouble ourselves about taking the only step that is to deliver us from all trouble! As our birth brought us the birth of all things, so in our death is the death of all things included. And therefore to lament that we shall not be alive a hundred years hence, is the same folly as to be sorry we were not alive a hundred years ago. … Long life, and short, are by death made all one; for there is no long, nor short, to things that are no more.”

It is of course not that simple: most painting of old famous men have a young girl, probably a granddaughter praying and crying on the death-bed (consider the deaths of Presidents Jackson and Washington). Desolate persons are always in attendance, crying. When we die, we live our loved ones behind. And if they loved us too, and they probably do, they will be deprived forever of our company. So, contrary to what Montaigne says, the loss of life can, and is, lamented. Simply, not by us. But what would we have been without the others?  

***

Is Buddhism A Pampered Caprice from The Wealthiest, For the Wealthiest??

The next prey we will devour today is the plump, jolly Buddha. Buddha, a pampered Prince (not just a plutocratic multi billionaire), naturally feared suffering more than anything. After all, he was not used to it. Suffering is something his class offered common people in abundance: if lower classes touched upper classes, they would be burned with a red-hot iron, where they touched, etc. From Buddha’s young perspective, as a princeling, suffering was not just something to fear, never having experienced it, but it was an humiliation, a descent to join the lower classes’ misery.

Make no mistake, suffering can be a horrendous thing, defying comprehension. Actually, it defies comprehension so much that, in its extreme forms, the brain just disconnects it. The brain probably does this with a massive release of endorphins, and other mechanisms not yet understood which block completely the pain pathways.  

Let notice in passing an important point here: the ultimate acceptance of pain, and its attendant dismissal is an evolutionary trait. But not an evolutionary trait to insure the survival of the individual (who, in the wild, when submitted to extreme pain can’t be far from death). Instead, the negation of pain profits the group, as a heroic defender will be free to concentrate on attacking the enemy, or then, counterintuitively, precisely not to hurt the predator during its dinner. This is a case where evolution acted at the level of groups and even ecosystems. (So much for the silly “selfish gene”! The real world is closer to the biosphere described in the movies “Avatar”!)

The brain is mostly in charge of ensuring survival of the individual, or the group. That’s why it evolved. Thus, in an ultimate struggle, this is the only thing the brain does. At least once, falling off a mountain in a rock avalanche in a mile high ice gully, my brain did just two things: finding an unlikely camming position between ice and granite, and mobilizing all the motor neurons, bringing hyper human strength. According to the usual mathematics of sportive performance, say at the Olympic Games, survival was impossible. But the usual parameters didn’t apply.

I had more than one close call, although another where survival was impossible. Each time, I have noticed that the brain blanks out all and any non sensory functions (in particular memorization). This happens during solo climbing: the brain shuts down unnecessary brain activity, immediately achieving what the great meditation masters are looking for (hey, it’s this, or death!) Once I was up a very pretty red and yellow, extremely exposed “Naked Edge” of Colorado front range rock, quasi-soloing the rope going straight down. I was laybacking, feet walking up close to my walking up hands holding a vertical edge. A gust of wind came, pushed and slowly turned me like a weather wane. I had to convert from laybacking position to lousy jamming. Then the wind blew the other way, and back I went. During this weird sequence, back and forth, fall forbidden, I was just making one with the rock and the wind. I clang to dear life.

Thus those who talk of death as if it were to be feared know little: as Montaigne more or less say, it will not come when our brain is in a normal state.

If one wants to embrace the future, where progress will hopefully shine, one has to dismiss the past. Contemplate for example that youthful, vigorous invigorating, open-minded vision of Palestine: young Palestinians dancing, some dressed like so-called Father Christmas, embracing modernity, life, the world, the future! The right direction for the embattled Middle Earth. (If Jesus is Socrates death cult v 2.0, Islam is Socrates death cult v. 3; and the fact Aristotle’s love of monarchy underlays the entire world political system is also something which has to be detected, understood, condemned and discarded.)

Giving an exaggerated mental space to death and suffering, while despising life, discourages rebellion against the established order. People besotted by common sense will think twice before fighting an established order whose symbol of goodness, brandished all around, is a squirming naked guy nailed on a cross.

Egyptian and Indian Plutocracies found another tricky metaphysics to discourage rebellion against the masters: the Eternal Return of the Same. That, too demonstrated the unworthiness of life, and how useless it was to try to change institutions: after all, everything will go back to what it was before.

In truth there is plenty of evidence that the “gods” were all in Socrates’ head (as he readily admits, when he talks about the “deamons” in his head; said “daemons” are so convenient an excuse, they are even found in the Qur’an!). There are no god(s), it’s all lunacy, but there are evolutions. On every sustainably habitable planet, life no doubt evolved (for indigenous life to survive, though, a long shot). And the universe also obviously evolves (although I am against the Big Bang theory, the evolution of the universe itself is in no doubt).

To be obsessed by death, suffering, and the eternal return of the same are ways to cast a maleficent spell on life, to make life, or, at least, rebellion, not worth living.  To claim that this is how to love wisdom, is equating philosophy with the love of what sustains plutocracy. Science, that means what is known with (more or less greater) certainty offered us plenty of proof for evolution. In particular evolution of our genus, the genus Homo, and of our genius, the genius of our culture, and what is now a worldwide civilization.

Rebellion against the established order is intrinsic to civilization: lack of appropriate evolution and revolution is why the Roman Republic collapsed. The Republic found itself hemmed by savage ideologies (some home-made) and tribes, while its industry became unsustainable (from a mix of social and ecological reasons). Rome had to turn back to the more total democracy it had known, and develop further coal combustion for energy production and the use of steam energized machines. Rome could have done it, it didn’t. Greatly because it was so inspired by the Socratic death cult (as we know from historiography). Lust for death? Rome itself died. Because the Greco-Roman empire didn’t embrace the future to get out of the predicament its very success had brought.

A few men, a few families took all the decisions in Rome, during the Principate and the Dominate. They were the worst, because excess select for the excessive (including Marcus Aurelius, the cruel and demented saint of the Stoics, who always sound so reasonable to the not-so-knowledgeable…)

Being completely penetrated by a death wish is exactly what the elites want their subjects to be driven by: death wish critters are easier to manipulate. If all one can look forward is death, hoping to foster a revolution against said elite is pointless. This is why death-wish superstitious religions are so frequent. A contributor to this site, SDM concurred: ‘Well said. Keep them worrying about unknowns such as an “afterlife” to accept the abuses inflicted in life.’

Indeed, yes, and even telling the low lives that, the more they suffer in real life, the greater their rewards in the famed “after life“. Thus, suffering is good, and the more suffering, the more of a gift of the elites is made to them, commoners.

In the Roman context, the death wish superstition was so-called Stoicism (not really started under a “Stoa”, but by Socrates, as I showed above). As it rejected emotions, thus full logic, Stoicism brought despair, and was a secularized prototype of Christianism (which it gave birth to, in mood space). The rise of Stoicism coincided with that of “Hellenistic” dictatorships (and contaminated the Roman Republic).

Verily, philosophy is not just to prepare death. and avoiding suffering. Philosophy is for life. And not just the life of bacteria, but the life of the mind, and the human spirit which extends it. Better philosophy is how to think better. And better is something we do, because, why not?

Patrice Ayme’

Islamophilia Causes Islam Terror

October 31, 2017

Islamophilia, a neologism, is the love of Islam, similar in the construction of the word, to the word pedophilia, the love of children (with the semantic twist, in the case of pedophilia, that it is meant to be the (implied) sexual love of children, a behavior presently unlawful). I use “Islamophilia” as an antidote to “Islamophobia“, also a word of recent manufacture, which is brandished for the purpose of demolishing civilization.

Pseudo-intellectuals supported Nazism. They had to be killed, before they killed us all (because killing us all, or so, is what they wanted). The necessity to kill millions of Nazis and Nazism itself was understood too late: dozen of millions of innocent bystanders got killed as a result. There are pseudo-intellectuals on the take, who, for decades, told everybody that to fear Islam (Islamophobia: phobia means fear in Greek) was “racism”. So I guess when I fear wasps, and vipers, I am racist, according to these vicious, venal idiots.

A Central Asian Islamist drove a truck down a special bike lane in New York. At least 8 killed. After nine blocks, at 40 mph, he burns a red light, and destroy his truck against a school bus full of screaming children. What was the name of that criminal (who should get the death penalty)” “Sword of Allah“, in Arabic. That is his name! And he was in the USA on a Green Card, an immigrant card!!! Better: that Uzbek came on a “Diversity Visa Program“. These are visas given by lottery to individuals from “under-represented countries” who apply, online, even if they have no skills, and no ties to the USA. Fifty thousands (50,000) are given a year (!) Al Qaeda and ISIS have used the program to implant “sleepers”. Obama judges love it (for their real motivation, read the end of this essay). (Trump has suggested to eliminate “Diversity Visas“, but was blocked by judges for being “anti-Muslim”.)

Of course, “Sword of Allah” was a “nice guy” (even though a Uber driver!) They are all “nice guys“, and that’s why they want to please their Aztec, or Islam god. The nicer they are, the more they want to please. God. Their God. That’s why they say always “God is Great”. Because it ain’t obvious: their “god”‘ rather seems to be a scum. The Uzbek scum, Sword of Allah, apparently killed or wounded children (some say up to 4 killed). It’s precisely because they are nice and want to be so nice to their scum dog of a god, that they are so dangerous. And tolerating their scum dog god, is the highest danger. It’s the scum dog god, who has to be destroyed, as an object of veneration.

The Qur’an is a 83,000 words book. It is a terror book, with hundreds of threats against all sorts of people: hypocrites, homosexuals, “polytheists”, apostates, individuals viewed as having denied or despised Islam, all sorts of believers in beliefs Islam does not believe in, etc. Also the Qur’an says those who die for Allah go to sit next to God, and then heavens, once all the Jews (!) have been killed.

Right, not much of Qur’an metaphysics is original, it would be unfair to single out Islam as a belief system: it’s not the worst that ever was. Close, but no cigars. (Because, first of all Islam by Muhammad was transformed within 20 years into a much more sexist version, thank to the third Caliph, Uthman. So what is, what should Islam really be?)

The ancient Viking religion,  3,000 year old (thus more than twice older than Islam), also rewarded warriors who had died in battle with heavens. (However, it was much more advanced, most of the time, in the role women played: some women had full rights with the Vikings, for example by being warriors, whereas this happened just once with Islam! In Egypt, when confronting France’s Saint Louis!) And, to a great extent, the Qur’an refers to the Bible with its Old Testament full of horrors.

Some will say:”Oh, but there is good stuff therein!” Sure, but, once you are dead, what good does good do to you? I personally despise those who follow in full the ancient Viking religion, the Bible, the Aztecs, or Catholicism as practiced in the Middle Ages. That does not make me racist, quite the opposite. That makes me civilized. More civilized. The same extends to Islam.

Islam believers, in black, killing Christian workers they captured, just because they are non Muslim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_kidnapping_and_beheading_of_Copts_in_Libya

“Oh people, recently you’ve seen us on the hills of Al-Sham [Greater Syria] and on Dabiq‘s Plain, chopping off the heads that had been carrying the cross delusion for a long time, filled with spite against Islam and Muslims, and today we… are sending another message: Oh crusaders, safety for you will be only wishes especially when you’re fighting us all together, therefore we will fight you all together until the war lays down its burdens and Jesus peace be upon him will descend, breaking the cross, killing the swine. The sea you’ve hidden Sheikh Osama bin Laden‘s body in, we swear to Allah we will mix it with your blood.

So how come the savagery of fundamental Islam, straight from 660 CE is back?

Since the 1930s, US oil men have made an alliance with the Saudi family which, itself, had made an alliance with Wahhab, someone who interpreted the basic texts of Islam literally. Thus, when a basic text seems to say that God wants someone killed, or tortured, for some reason, one should do so.

Literal Islam is incompatible with civilization. As a result, it was dropped by the Baghdad Caliphate, for centuries (“Golden Age of Islam”), and then Saladin (1117-1193), a Kurd who became Sultan of Egypt and Syria, and founder of the Ayyubid dynasty, made Literal Islam (= Salafism) unlawful. Practicing it brought the death penalty. Wahhab re-introduced it five centuries later.  

However, plutocrats (those who rule, kratos, according to evil, Pluto) have a symbiotic relation with deadly religions. This is why Roman emperors invented and imposed Catholicism, imposing the death penalty to those who chose otherwise (heresy in Greek; Fourth Century). Once a deadly religion is in place, the Plutos in power can accuse whoever they want of disrespecting the religion, and threaten to kill them, insuring their rule.

The universities have been active proselytizers of hard-core, fundamental Islam. Consider: “Philosophy Professor Tells Bisexual Student Who Criticized Islam ‘We’re Not Going to Let You Damage the Program'”. 

Read this surreal exchange below. “Browning is a pseudo-intellectual heading a philosophy department. MacDonald a student she terrorizes because he dared mention that he is to be killed by Islam law in at least ten countries.  Browning is trying her best to make the situation personal, instead of about Islam Law.

MACDONALD: I said that I was bothered that I could be killed in 10 Muslim countries. I’m bisexual. So they’d definitely do that in the 10 countries where I would be— you know.

BROWNING: Doesn’t that strike you as an inappropriate thing to say about someone’s fiance?

MACDONALD: I wasn’t talking about the fiance. The fiance could have whatever interpretation of the religion that they want. I said something like…(thinking) that I…yeah it wasn’t about the fiance, it was about the religious practices in those countries.

BROWNING: How is it appropriate to bring that up in connection with someone’s fiance?

MACDONALD: They brought it up. The Islam part.

BROWNING: And you brought up the threat to your life as posed by this fiance?

MACDONALD: No. We got to the subject of Islam, not the fiance.

BROWNING: Do you understand how someone would find that offensive?…

MACDONALD: Yeah, one of my good friends at the university is Muslim.

BROWNING: And do you tell him that you object to his religion because there are places on earth where gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are discriminated against, including your own country?

MACDONALD: Well, “her.” And my verbiage was “killed” not “discriminated against.” I mean, death penalty’s pretty severe.

BROWNING: What does that have to do with her being engaged to a Muslim?

MACDONALD: Nothing. I wasn’t talking about the engagement to the Muslim. I was talking about Islam in that particular moment.

BROWNING: Well, let me just say that kind of thing is not going to be tolerated in our department. We’re not going to tolerate graduate students trying to make other graduate students feel terrible for our emotional attachments.

MACDONALD: Um…all right.

BROWNING: And, if you don’t understand why that is, I can explain fully, or I can refer you to the Behavior Intervention Team on our campus, which consists of a counselor, faculty member, and person from student affairs who are trained on talking to people about what’s appropriate or what isn’t….

BROWNING: Those are things that would get you fired if you were working in my office. The Islam comment would get you fired.

MACDONALD: …Would it really get me fired to say that I could be killed somewhere?

BROWNING: In that situation as you’ve described it, absolutely yes.

MACDONALD: How?

BROWNING: Don’t even ask. It’s clear you’re not taking my word for it. I don’t care to convince you. If I can’t persuade you that it’s in your interest to behave in ways that other people don’t find offensive and objectionable, then at least I’ve done my job.

MACDONALD: Well I know that it’s in my interest. I’m just trying to understand the reasoning.

BROWNING: You don’t have to.

MACDONALD: Well, this is a truth-seeking discipline!”

Browning is not into truth, she is into getting paid, and oil yielding plutocrats faking fanaticism is where the money is.

As universities get money from those whose rule depends upon lethal interpretations of Islam, it’s only understandable that, from their point of view, any exposition of that Islam in the West is not kosher. It’s not just US universities, Oxford University employs as professor an “Islamologist” who has long been accused of rape, and various serious crimes, and whose grandfather founded the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization which worked with the Nazis. That organization’s motto: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

For years, Ramadan and his accomplices were all over French TV, teaching that any fear of Islam (“Islamophobia”) was racist. Ramadan, a racist, vicious, violent man, and a well-known rapist of women is professor in no less than two departments at Oxford University, because our leaders are on the take.

Glamour Magazine is owned by Advance Publishing, a privately (plutocratically) held company nearly a century old. The latest issue, named Linda Sarsour one of its Glamour 2017 Women of the Year. As a co-chair of the Women’s March, Sarsour has been honored by Time Magazine and defended by the New York Times as a target of “right-wing hate.” But no one among those who celebrate Sarsour has pointed out that Sarsour has actually promoted Sharia law as beneficial, and proclaimed “Jihad”  against American citizens. As  put it:

“What this scumbag did today is called Jihad. How he got there is through dawa: the process of indoctrination that poisons minds.” [2:46 PM – 31 Oct 2017]

Ayaan was born a Muslim in Somalia and thus was sexually mutilated when a girl. She escaped later to Europe, but then had to flee Europe when her collaborator Theo Van Gogh, a movie maker was savagely and repeatedly stabbed by a Moroccan who had read Van Gogh fit in one of these categories which God has ordered to be killed, as proven in the Qur’an. The entire police-justice system in Europe has been engineered to be soft on Muslim Fundamentalists: people such as Tariq Ramadan, who should be in prison, teach at Oxford instead.

Tariq Ramadan is part of a smirking and smiling group of well financed pseudo-intellectuals fostering Islamism, and it extends to an entire pseudo-left which was the forerunner of the same movement now in evidence in the USA. I agree with many of the theses of Edwy Plenel, founder of Mediapart: he actually follows some of what I have been saying publicly for decades. Yet, Edwy Plenel  is a judoka working for the establishment, in the guise of opposing it. That’s why they smile and smirk so much: they know something they believe their mesmerized audience does not suspect, the back of the establishment (same problem as with the Clintons, or Obama). Plenel pushes for Islamism, Sharia and Jihad even more efficiently than Ramadan (because he is less obvious). It should go without saying that, even the extreme right is not as anti-left than the partisans of Islamism, Sharia and Jihad. It should, but, amazingly, it does not: a Middle Age fanaticism Trojan Horse like Edwy Plenel is viewed as “left” and a genuine opponent of the establishment… when he is the exact opposite! He is an objective ally of Aramco, and Wall Street’s worst aspects.

The Jihadist from Tunisia who cut the throat and disembolled to death twenty year women in Marseilles had no right to be in the EU. He had given 7 different identities, and had not been expelled from the EU.

Mentally corrupt judges are the festering infection behind this epidemic. They will put free spirits in jail, for insulting Islam, an ideology, because those hare brained “judges” claim from their abyssal Perfectly Corrupt little minds, that depicting Islam for what it is, is “racism”. We would have the exact same situation if the Nazis had won: depicting Nazism for what it is would be called “racism”, and punished with prison.

The New York governor, two hours after the vicious attack in Manhattan, claimed it was the work of a “lone wolf“. Nevermind the allegiance of “Sword Of Allah” to ISIS, and its black flag in the truck. He said that because “Democrats” are supposed to say that. Of course, wolves are social animals.

They maybe lone wolves, but they are howling with Fundamental Islam.

For greater terror, let’s keep on singing the praises and pretend we are not afraid of an ideology, that wants to kill us. Our pro-wealth leaders want us to be terrorized and irrational. Once we are in that state of mind, hyper wealth can rule over us easily.

More generally, by making sure we fail to see we should not pay our respects to Fundamental Islam, our ideological leaders are making sure that we are unable to think clearly. Or, more exactly, they make sure that we keep on learning NOT to be able to think clearly.

Patrice Ayme’

 

University Professor Calls For Global Genocide

October 22, 2017

AT LEAST IT BRINGS THE GENOCIDAL SPIRIT TO THE SURFACE: “People should never, under any circumstance, procreate!” claims Benatar, a professor of “bioethics”. Right, we have heard of that position before, for example in Nazi Germany where thousands of descendants of French soldiers were forcibly neutered (when not killed). ‘Rhineland bastards’ – born to German mothers, but fathered by French-African soldiers stationed in Germany after World War One – were forcibly sterilised in a comprehensive campaign in 1937.

I often argue that the Anglo-Saxon mentality, author of the world’s greatest empire, has genocidal tendencies (because precisely, the ability to inflict genocide brought “Lebensraum“, vital space). This genocidal tendency was illustrated by a ridiculously offensive, and, demonstrably, criminal, article in Aeon “Having Children Is Not Life Affirming, It’s Immoral.” Aeon defines itself as a “magazine of ideas”. It’s nice to see it does not eschew enlightening controversies.

In Aeon David Benatar, professor of philosophy and HEAD of the department of philosophy at the University of Cape Town extolls genocide of the entire human race. David Benatar says in Aeon: “Kids? Just say no. You don’t have to dislike children to see the harms done by having them. There is a moral case against procreation. In 2006, I published a book called Better Never to Have Been. I argued that coming into existence is always a serious harm. People should never, under any circumstance, procreate – a position called ‘anti-natalism’.”

Benatar has actually made a successful career out of calling to global genocide (most probably because arguments for global genocide inure people to arguments for local genocide, thus those who have some potential genocide in mind can only love Benatar’s radical approach). Benatar is also the director of the BIOETHICS Centre (the Nazis, too, were heavily in bioethics and protecting animals, they did lots for the environment). Benatar’s latest book is Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, in which Benatar argues that coming into existence is a serious harm, regardless of the feelings of the existing being once brought into existence, and that, as a consequence, it is always morally wrong to create more sentient beings (2017).

There is those who cry wolf, and then there are those who say the wolf is a good thing, when it comes to eat everybody, as it was ordained by “god”. In truth, it’s a dirty trick, especially when found in a sacred text, to inure people to the worst infamies.

The Nazis didn’t know Benatar, they didn’t need to. This is exactly the argument they used against those they didn’t like: their coming into existence was a serious harm. One has to beware of the setting-up of a maximally toxic emotional context (as one can observe with the Catalonia question, or the Rohingyas question, right now). Inuring to the concept of holocaust and genocide is the most fundamental of these contextual traps. Because it’s a neurohormonal trap.

Right, let’s genocide those pesky humans. One could start with, Benatar, with Australian (Native) children, Canadian (Native) children, and all sorts of Native children all around. Oh, I forgot, these were the policies pursued in Australia, North America… With great success: those populations, once 100% dominant on their continents, have been, basically, brought out of existence.

Why is “Antinatalism” criminal, why such a heavy charge? Criminal, because the essay linked above gives an absolute argument to enact genocides, holocausts, etc.

The UN General Assembly 260 A, article 2, the convention on genocide, says, among other things, that it defines genocide as…

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Benatar inflicts serious mental harm by saying that our very existence is “serious harm”. Although he doesn’t have enough power to prevent births, he is given enough power (through mass publishing, and a prestigious university chair) to entice others to take measures to prevent births. (Or was he, a white man, just thinking of non-white African in a traditional racist way?)

The United Nation Law should be that ENTICING to commit genocide should itself be viewed as criminal. (That doesn’t mean one should stop reading the Bible, the Qur’an, “Mein Kampf”, or the Vedas, anymore… One can view all these as fiction. But if these are not taught as fiction, but as “bioethics”, a line is crossed!) 

Benatar’s basic argument is that pain is bad, life brings pain, thus life should be exterminated, bringing an end to pain.

He understood nothing. Verily, Pain Is Good, Genocides Are Bad.

I will come back to consider pain in another essay soon. The hurt pain causes is all too often much exaggerated. Pain is like salt: too much kills, but so does none.

A reader on Aeon, Fiona Sgurr, send me the following communication:

“You may wish to draw upon the reference that I did in response to a fervent follower of this life-denying philosophy that seeks to hoodwink the gullible and vengeful: Article 16 from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”

Impossible to make a case for a philosophy that is in direct contravention of the internationally recognized laws that state what is the basic level of decency for human relations. The fact that Benatar and his acolytes attempt to make this a moral argument would be laughable if it were not so malevolent.”

I agree with Fiona, and go even further that it is such a level of malevolence that legal action should be considered. Hitler wanted to exterminate some human groups. To so he was helped by philosophy professors such as Martin Heidegger and Alfred Rosenberg.  Alfred Rosenberg, was condemned to death during the Nuremberg trial. It was agreed that Rosenberg “had a decisive role in shaping Nazi philosophy and ideology”.
Philosophy can kill.

Professor Benatar suggest to exterminate not just a few human groups, as the Nazis did in secret, but all human groups, and in public. This is even worse than the worst the Islamist State ever publicly said. It shouldn’t be tolerated any more, in any sense.

Patrice Ayme’

Christianity’s Jesus Is Evil

September 17, 2017

All Religions Calling For Human Sacrifices Should Be Outlawed

The Romans believed so, under the Republic. However, after Rome degenerated into tyranny, Roman leaders from Constantine to Theodosius, embraced a religion which called, in semi-disguise, for the mass-killing of “unbelievers”. Thus “unbelievers” rather than “barbarians” became the enemy of civilization. (And right away, Roman emperors welcome all sorts of barbarians in the armies… even the Huns!) Here is Jesus allegedly speaking:

Luke 19:27: But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/luke-1927/

Islam copied all this New and Old Testament violence, on steroids (for example explicitly recalling in the Qur’an that the Bible Old Testament called for a “rain of stones” on homosexuals; so the Qur’an does not order to stone homosexuals, it just says that the Bible orders to do so).

By the way, when a professor from a prestigious US university pointed out, in 1961, that there were barely disguised cannibalistic elements in the Catholic mass, he was thrown out of the university. Yet, Jesus asks to eat his body and drink his blood, there is little ambiguity.

No greater love than loving the cross? Torture What You Love, Love What You Torture. That God has a rather tortured mind. Tortured, thus torturing. In any case, quite a nice religious symbol for tyrants to brandish!

Can we tolerate ideologies which celebrate mass violence and mass murder against classes of individuals who are what they are for biological reasons, or because they practice freedom of thought, or from non-ideological identity? No. Because mass murdering violence invites much more of the same as defense, and before you know it, one will have global mayhem.

***

Al Frommi, in a comment on Aeon, agreed in general with me about Islam, yet made a nuanced (all too kind) interpretation of the Bible. Then he objected to my use of Luke 19;27.

In the case of Islam we should remember most Muslim think they are holier than any body. They put themselves in God place, and proceed to judge and punish depriving people of their God giveen free will. [Part of this comment has been censored by Aeon for contravening Aeon’s community guidelines] They think we are not going to do research on the matter. God punishment of homosexual, is God’s to do not for humans to impose. And God punished them with homosexuality. Not for man to re-punish. The real sin is described in Romans 1: 18- 23 and also Read: Romans 1:26-32

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; ( who were those who didn’t accept the knowledge of God. The Romans & the Greeks & the Jews of that time.)

Now, Luke 19:27 is a quote from the Bible that is an illustration said in the form of a story which Jesus was telling his disciples & here is the complete illustrations: Luke 19:

12 So he said: “A man of noble birth traveled to a distant land to secure kingly power for himself and to return…

Dear Al Frommi: OK, my bad. I was reading Luke pretty fast, and I failed to notice, before Luke 19;11, that Jesus was telling a bedtime story about a king, and, although Jesus was speaking in the first person, it was supposed not to be him, talking, but that king. However, the fact one could make such an honest mistake is, per se, a problem. And the overall reason is that Jesus, as depicted by various Gospels, is viciously nasty of the murderous type, as the rest of this essay will make clear.

Indeed violent, extremely injurious and even lethal threats are found in the New Testament. The degree of violence is on a par with the Qur’an, written six centuries later, or the Old Testament, written five centuries earlier. Such a level of cruel, often lethal violence is plenty enough to instill the mood that the divinity (here Jesus) is murderously insane… Thus Jesus’ most significant teaching may not be “love”, but that it is OK, not to say real cool and holy, to be murderously insane in the name of religion.

Problem with tyrannical god: Love is a caress, death terminal. After all, everybody can love everybody everyday, all over again, but killing is done only once.

Here is a sample of Jesus murderous insanity, just in (some of) the gospel of Matthew:

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned “with unquenchable fire.” 3:10, 12

Jesus strongly approves of the Hebrew god law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old testament. 5:17

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any woman commits adultery. 5:29-30

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14. Those who fail to bear “good fruit” will be “hewn down, and cast into the fire.” 7:19

(If that reminds you of that constant admonition in the Qur’an, that’s no coincidence!)

“The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 8:12 Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: “Let the dead bury the dead.” 8:21.

Even the beasts are not exempt. Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

Cities that neither “receive” the disciples nor “hear” their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. (see Gen 19:24). 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few “prophecies” in the Bible that has actually came to be true, as Christians of various creeds killed each other, as early as the Fourth Century). “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” 10:21

Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and “able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” 10:28

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” 10:34-36

(This is a statement similar to Luke 19;27, but, this time, Jesus attributes it to himself!)

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. 11:20-24

Jesus will send his angels to gather up “all that offend” and they “shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” 13:41-42, 50

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7.

And so on. This was just an appetizer, in some of Matthew alone.

This mood of mayhem is why the Crusade against the Cathars killed 5 million (total, including one million in France alone). At the end of the Sixteenth Century, there was seven religious wars in France alone. The famous massacre of the Saint Barthelemy alone, which was just prior, in 1572 CE, killed up to 30,000 (most of them Protestants).

Oh, and during the First Crusade, Frankish writers and historians themselves, related that Muslim children were roasted and devoured, by the Franks themselves, as part of their holy Crusade (after all, Jesus asks his followers to do just that, to himself… So why not to third parties?)

But the worst was probably the systematic destruction of books, library, intellectuals and thinking which the Christian fanatic launched in 363 CE, with the explicit support of Roman emperor Jovian. That brought the near-collapse of civilization.

All preaching of a literal reading of Abrahamism should be outlawed. And believers should be remembered that the holy texts are just allegory, if not outright fiction.

This, by the way, is how to fundamentally handle Fundamental Islam, also known as “terrorism”. Just outlaw the preaching and public literal interpretations and applications. In particular, all countries with an official religion, especially when it influences the secular law, should be told by those who think, to cease and desist. (Tunisia 90-year-old president wants equality of man and woman in inheritance, contrarily to the present, Islamist Tunisian law, which makes man above woman.)

Jesus is a prophet of Islam. Some texts in Islam holy script say that those who insult prophet Jesus should be killed (the law of killing those who “insult” Jesus was applied in Pakistan, an Islamist State, in the last few years). Hence Fundamentalist Muslims order to kill those who dare to say that evil is evil. When will Western Intellectuals rise as one, and condemn those who condemn, to death, those who condemn evil?

And how could one condemn those who brandish thermonuclear fire, if evil is a protected notion?

Patrice Ayme

People Need Faith, Not Philosophy?

September 5, 2017

No, just the opposite:

PEOPLE NEED BETTER PHILOSOPHY TO BUILD BETTER FAITH(S):

Faith arises from philosophy. Saying one needs faith, not philosophy is as if one said one needs lungs, not air. I will defend a very different thesis: people need to have faith in philosophy, in the philosophical approach. Such an attitude is not very popular in the USA, where philosophy seems only second to Conspiracy Theory as a subject worth studying.

The word “faith” comes, through Old French as usual, from the Latin “fides”, trust. Anything we believe in, be it a physical law, or a historical fact, we have to trust it’s true. So trust, faith is at every corner, every step of the way.  

To have faith in philosophy never has been, and never will be, as long as the US population doesn’t make a deep analysis of the deliberate stupidity the USA used as a cover-up for 4 centuries of exploitative criminality and counting…

“People need faith, not philosophy” suggests a faithful commenter on Thoughts, Eugen R. The idea has been frequently brandished by intellectuals in the jungle of ideas out there. Some basic concepts cause problems here. “People”, and “Faith”. Their considerable, multidimensional bulk has to be examined. Moreover, I deplore the mood behind the entire aphorism: indeed, a correct, most appropriate faith can only be established by a more advanced philosophy. All and any faith is the fruit of a philosophical process. If not yours, then someone’s else (Zarathustra, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, etc.)

Contrarily to repute, “faith” is eminently practical. Because, in its most frequent form, it’s laic, not superstitious. “Faith” is necessary to operate: one has to have faith that, whatever one is engaging into, it will bring something good.

Take for example the plight of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, which used to be called Burma, and whose PM is An San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace prize laureate (who deserved it, unlike Obama!). One has to have faith that the abominable situation they are in can be mitigated, if one pays enough attention to it. Myanmar claims that of almost 400 people killed since Aug. 25, nearly all are insurgents. Apparently Rohingya toddlers are very rebellious, and deserve death. Myanmar officials have accused insurgents of burning Buddhist monasteries and statues.

Well, I have faith in the good nature, overall, of most people, and that good things come from exhibiting this faith. This is why mentioning infamy leads to fighting it. Or so I believe. Faith, you see?

***

As life, or any project, ends in death always, faith in the desirability of daily tasks, is a triumph over the prospect of death. It’s an act of the deepest faith. That doesn’t mean that faith should be blind: one has to desire to indulge in worthy pursuits.

But of course, by “faith”, Eugen R implicitly meant the sort of fanaticism Abrahamists are known for. Consider Catholic priests in Japan, refusing to put their foot on an image of Christ (as if Christ would feel the foot, which it deserved, anyway; see the book and movies “Silence”)

Assuming “People” need “faith” but rulers do not, is a perpetual stand-by, as long as there are rulers and they rule. The nature of the faith varies: to oppress and subjugate other people, one has to oppress and subjugate their minds.

***

Toyotomi Hideyoshi Or When Rulers Decide What The Faith Of The People Is:

Toyotomi Hideyoshi correctly perceived that Christianity, known and perceived as the cult of equalitarian Christ, would have revolutionary consequences in Japan. Toyotomi Hideyoshi unified a warring Japan, thanks to an extremely hierarchized society where peasants had been disarmed. Christianity, under the guise of generalized goodness, threatened to undo all of this. So it had to be extinguished, and this started by extinguishing its symbols.

 

A Given Faith Can Be Revolutionary There, Anti-Revolutionary Here:

Overall ruler Toyotomi Hideyoshi in Sixteenth Century Japan put an end to peasant revolts by making illegal for peasants to have swords (and a fortiori firearms). At the same time, he crucified 26 Franciscans in Nagasaki, and made Christianity illegal (although he had to embrace Christian traders). Toyotomi was a man of many strong faiths: for example he tried to conquer China (that involved conquering Korea first, and that he did; but next the Korean navy sank his fleet, a problem, considering that China had been pulled into the war…).

In 1600 CE Japanese society, Christianism was revolutionary (all men were equal in the eyes of Christ). Whereas in Fourth Century Rome, Christianism was debilitating, distracting and by 390 CE, a way to not just subjugate, by actually assassinating free spirits.

It’s actually fascinating that the same religion could be liberating in Japan, and subjugating in the Roman empire. The reasons are clear, albeit complex: Rome started as a republican democracy, Japan as a military ruled society (where Rome ended, yet not so well, because it didn’t start this way).

***

Constantine, Theodosius, & Other Roman Emperors Imposed Faith In Catholic Terror:

In all societies, religions of the rulers is different from that of those they rule: Charlemagne wanted the Saxons to submit to Christianism scrupulously, under the penalty of death, but he personally took king David of Israel as a model, and in his realm Christians were free to convert to Judaism, while he himself, like all the top Franks, lived with a harem.

Nietzsche spent much time exposing the hypocrisy of Christianism as practiced in Europe: the military hereditary class known as the “nobles” or “aristocrats”, similar to the one in Japan, had, in practice, a very different religion from the “People”.

(By the way, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who achieved immense power, even trying to invade China after invading all of Korea, was of unknown peasant stock, he rose through the military hierarchy, all by himself, a story not found in Rome, and Europe, because, there, those who reached ultimate command, were themselves children of individuals who had reached power by themselves: for example the uncle of emperor Justinian, or the parents of emperor Constantine, etc; most of the others were part of dynasties, some of them last centuries).

***

The Roman Republic Had Faith In Itself:

In other words the Roman PEOPLE, during the full Roman Republic, had faith in itself, and reason, not some fascistic, capricious, jealous Bible god.

Continual, overwhelming, astounding heroism, fortitude and obdurate will characterized the Roman Republic for centuries. Many times, the Republic should have perished, facing desperate military situations, as when the Gauls seized Rome, and a few geese saved the Capitol. These were the times, and they lasted for ever, when the religion of the Romans was the Republic.

That mood, that faith, was so strong, that it survived the collapse of the Roman government, and transmogrified into faith in what was called the “Christian Republic” (basically an early form of Liberté, égalité, fraternité “liberty, equality, fraternity”.

Actually the original motto of the French Republic was: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Or Death”.

“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”: a faith worth dying for. At least so have thought many Western societies in the last 26 centuries.

Liberty Or Death! The death part, which is very Roman Republican (and later, Roman Catholic), was dropped later, because it was too reminiscent of the “terror” of 1793-94… itself an answer to earlier terrors…). (Bibliothèque Nationale de France; republican poster from circa 1793.)

People don’t need “faith” in a superstitious religion as a motivation to rule; the fruits that exploiting others bring, are obvious enough. However, subjugated people do need faith, to justify their own subjugation (Abrahamism and Buddhist like faiths have proven highly suitable)…

That “people need faith, not philosophy”. That was an idea imposed sneakily in the PRINCIPATE period of the Roman empire, which lasted 3 centuries. It became clear when some dead rulers were proclaimed to be gods.

Then faith in superstitious faith was imposed loud and clear by emperor Diocletian with the cult of SOL, around 300 CE. (The Cult of Sol was similar to the Japanese one in some ways… Japan also had a military government, by its own admission, from the middle of the Middle Ages). At that point, the emperor started to be recognized as a living god, although Constantine backed that down to himself being only the 13th Apostle; Theodosius would further back down by recognizing the primacy of the bishop of Milan (Saint Ambrose) over himself (the secular leader, who had to beg public forgiveness to the bishop over some massacre, under the threat of excommunication).

A fully liberated people is emperor of its own realm. The realm is secular. Faith of the superstitious type, irrelevant.

Full democracy means no rulers, but for We The People themselves.

It’s no utopia, but increasingly, as pragmatic, no-nonsense Switzerland is governed. Athens, at her best, was governed that way.

***

Faith In Tyranny Is Requested By Tyrants:

Instead what we have nowadays, increasingly is structures like the Eurogroup, the government of the Euro Zone. The Eurogroup, made of finance ministers of the Euro Zone, has huge powers. However, its unelected, uncontrolled, and not even formally acknowledged by the European Constitution.

Common people are supposed to have faith in their in their European masters. So we see that faith in masters replaces democracy, people-power.

That was excusable to some extent in societies such as the Late Greco-Roman empire, where most of the country folks didn’t know how to read and write, whereas the aristocrats and top urban types did. At least this is what some will say.  

However, when people have power, and thus take the decisions, faith in masters is replaced by attention to detail.

Thus, and conversely, throughout history, the greatest rulers tended to be contributors to top intellectual debate. Darius, Alexander the Great, Caesar, Constantine, Saint Augustine, Clovis, even Genghis Khan, Saint Louis or Louis XIV have contributed heavily to the history of thought. They all understood that having faith in what they viewed as philosophy was at the core of their essence, as rulers.

***

To Rule Best, One Has To Be Ruled By The Highest Faiths

Education had been front and center with the Franks, for centuries, causing a strident conflict with the Papacy (for which knowing god was enough). Weirdly, Charlemagne’s father had not given a full literary education to his two sons. However, when he became ruler of what was in many ways, the most advanced empire, Charlemagne was fully aware of the necessity of knowledge. He was an admirable speaker in Frankish and Latin, his mother tongues, and also knew Greek. He surrounded himself with some of Europe’s top philosophers, making the British thinker Alcuin his Prime Minister. Charles spent hours in study to improve his writing.

Charlemagne had faith in knowledge. He knew that Augustus’ will to leave a undefendable frontier in Germany was absurd. So the last tribe had to be reduced into submission, the Saxons. He fought them for 32 years, including 18 main battles. Charlemagne had faith that this last corner in north-east Germany had to be civilized. His faith bore fruit: 150 years later, the Saxons had become the main force of the Renovated Roman empire.

We need faith in knowledge too. And faith in ourselves as we confront cannibalistic thermonuclear punks (Kim and his allies).

The higher faiths are grounded in the highest philosophy.

Proof?

Look at physics:

***

New Physics, New Philosophy:

Buridan proposed the heliocentric system around 1350 CE, from his new mechanics (the completion of which is now called “Newtonian Mechanics”). He observed that one didn’t have experimental means to make sure heliocentrism was true, directly (those would appear in the Seventeenth Century, a careful observation of the phases of Venus, the way the Sun was illuminating Sol). However Buridan ruefully scoffed that one may as well believe in geocentrism, because “Scripture” said so.

In 1350 CE, physics was thus philosophically decided. Should one believe the Bible, something written by some exiled Jews in Babylon, 19 centuries prior, or should one believe that the little, presumably less massive thing (the Earth) rotated around the giant thing (the Sun)? A philosophical choice said Buridan (and it was clear that the most rational thing was not to follow “Scripture”).

In the Twentieth Century, Einstein made a big deal that one should incorporate as fundamental laws in a theory only what one observed. Einstein was actually parroting Science and Hypothesis (La Science et l’Hypothèse) a book by French philosopher, physicist and mathematician Henri Poincaré, first published in 1902. When Quantum Mechanics, Copenhagen version, arose, a few years after De Broglie’s thesis, an incensed, hyper famous Einstein confronted the junior Werner Heisenberg about the craziness of Bohr-Heisenberg Quantum Mechanics. Calmly, Heisenberg replied he was just applying the philosophical insights Einstein himself had defended, and that he, Heisenberg, had learned by reading Einstein…

For example,  Poincaré had observed that light was always observed to be going at speed c, thus that had got to be a fundamental law. Bohr and Heisenberg similarly put in their theory of reality only ingredients which were observed (or, more exactly, observable). (Einstein chomping at the bit, tried for years to ruin the notion of reality of the Copenhagen school; ultimately, after a wise debate with the philosopher Popper, Einstein came out, in 1935, with the famous EPR paper revealing that Quantum mechanics was nonlocal… Amazingly nobody, aside from yours truly, seems to have noticed that this showed that a crucial part of Einstein 1905 Photoelectric Effect paper is nonsensical… This is an error which led to the absurd “Multiverse” Theory…)

Any significant, fundamental advance in physics, the nature of nature, is always accompanied with trusting new elements of reality, and less so, previous ones. As we change physics, we change faith.

Any cognition entails faith. We know, because we trust.

Patrice Ayme’    

Doctor Ordered: Roman Baths Alive Again

August 24, 2017

Roman baths were one the most striking features of Roman civilization. After the Roman state collapsed, so did the baths, bathing, and the will to bathe. This was partly due to the destruction of the Roman hydraulic system. But it was also due to Christianism, an artificial ideology, antinomic to humanity, which the Roman emperors imposed to turn We the People into We The Sheeple. It’s high time to become reunited to elements of Middle Earth Civilization, neglected ever since Christian derangement syndrome took over.

ASICS & The Dirt On Christianism:

Early Christians tended to cultivate dirt and inaction. Individuals, male or female, achieved sainthood, just because they stayed on top of a column, for years, or just because they never washed, nor washed their clothes, nor changed increasingly dirty clothing: they just waited for dirt to flake off. Not interfering with the will of god was viewed as a high achievement.

(Part of) Grand Bains in front, proud successor of their 2,500 year old Allobroge and then Roman predecessors. Two 1,000 year old churches behind. Roman Tradition & Divine Aspirations United in a multi-millennial embrace, in the middle of the Alps. In 2017, the French government minds the ecology fiercely, in its own special way, by assassinating wolves around this village, in full tourist season, and planning dams… (In complete and direct violation of European law protecting wolves, an endangered species, thus demonstrating that, when the French government favors plutocrats, under the pretext of European law, it’s because it wants to…)

Christianism despised the world, and, in particular, the human body. What is despicable shouldn’t rule! Thus Christianism made despising We The People, into a religion, debasing the masses into submission! Taking care, either of the world, or the human body, was to be condemned, such was the mood of early imperial Christianism. That was the reason of being of imperial Christianism.

Once the Christians took over the small emirate of Granada, they closed the 3,000 public baths of this Muslim enclave. (I hope foaming at the mouth Jihadists read this before attacking modern baths; knowing history has not been their forte).

Christianism’s mood of submitting to fate, by rejecting the existence of the real world, was the  exact opposite of the mood of the Roman Republic. And that was exactly Christianity’s main point: submit to fate in general, and the emperor in particular. Such is the will of god.

An important aspect of Roman mentality, ASICS: Anima Sana In Corpore Sano, a healthy soul in a healthy body, was particularly repugnant to Christian fanatics. (A variant from Juvenal’s “Mens sana, in corpore sano…”) After the collapse of the Roman State, Christians would spend much efforts, in the following millennium, trying to close baths, until public hygiene became abysmal.

***

The Christian anti-ASICS mood was also a completely degenerate mindset:

De-generate: what generates not, what undoes generation. What generate human beings in full was ASICS.

A portion of the exterior part of Monêtier-les-Bains Baths. Glaciers in the background High Alps are melting at a torrid pace. Entire glaciers are now fields of stones, after two decades of melting… I have computed that elevating the melt zone by 100 meters is roughly equivalent to shrinking the permafrost zone 100 kilometers to the north (or south…)

The destruction of the baths was actually progressive: early “Christian” civilization was not that “Christian”, and resisted Christianism for many centuries (Charlemagne was very Christian when Christianism was useful to conquer the Saxons and persuade them they were of an inferior moral sort, and intellectual primitives; however, in his personal life, and in his pushing of secular education and private fuming about the Pope, Charlemagne was not at all Christian, or then just Christian in a noble form…) It took many centuries for full Christian hatred of body, mind, health and world to take over. By then, even inside the “Church”, entire traditions of resistance to that sort of Christianization had risen. “Men in Black”, a sort of fanatical monks, destroyed books and libraries and intellectuals by 400 CE, but soon other monks were secretly saving around 93% of the texts of Antiquity which got preserved.

The hot, mineral laden baths have great curative properties, known probably already to Neanderthals (people used to have lots of skin disease). The destruction of bathing and basic hygiene in the Late Middle Ages, due to mass Christianization, brought massive epidemics. Proof? The nobility was often unaffected, because they bathed, and lived according to un-Christian morality, as Nietzsche, following Sade, forcefully pointed out…

Those texts were rediscovered in monasteries by the Late Middle Ages, including many by the secretary of several Popes, who detected the one and only copy of Lucretius’ De Natura Rerum, Of the Nature of Things, the only compendium of Greco-Roman science we have. Indeed the story of the Catholic Church was immensely complicated.  

***

Experiencing The Baths:

The Roman baths had many traditional sub-elements, such as the Tepidarium (tepid), the Frigidarium (frigid), the Calorarium (caliente! very hot). Going from the frigid bath to the super hot bath is really to be experienced: there is a variant where one walks through an even colder leg bath, before going back to warm water. One can feel nerves twinkle…

The high Alpine village of Monêtier-les-Bains has had baths, from natural hot water springs, for more than two thousand years. The Romans knew it well: the valley in which Monêtier-les-Bains sits had a major Roman road going through 150 miles of massive mountainous landscape, complete with passes above timberline and enormous canyons (in the flanks of which the Romans dug their roads, and their mines).  

One becomes more fully human by experiencing more and more significantly, as long as it’s rather innocuous. Experiencing the games one’s neurology plays from just changes in water, or air, temperature or the impact of powerful jets is instructive.

Les Grands Bains du Monêtier are strangely addictive. Maybe that’s the wrong adjective: why should it be strange to feel fully human? The Romans didn’t think so. But the Christians did, and that’s why Christianism put civilization in full reverse in crucial ways, and why it had to be wiped out as a ruling cult. Ruling out Christianism is what the Enlightenment did, but it took a while: teaching the theory of evolution was forbidden in English universities for most of the Nineteenth Century (although it was allowed, in Scotland, to teach the evolutionary theories of the French research professors of the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris: Buffon, Lamarck, Cuvier, etc…).

I am not the only one so addicted to Les Grands Bains: although the price is above 24 dollars for the shortest visit (including going through change of clothing, shower, etc.), I had to share the baths with at least one hundred other happy souls. However, the baths are very large, so it didn’t feel crowded. Although not as large by a very long shot, than the largest baths in the Roman empire, such as Caracalla’s Baths, the present baths have absolutely mesmerizing pools, such as the one where one can enjoy underwater music, while contemplating lighted wave patterns, made by underwater lights, on the domed ceiling, far above.

***

A whiff of pre-Christian religions, the religion of the baths, among others, is exactly what the doctor ordered, because it is a return to human sense, as evolved over millions of years, before the Abrahamism madness which devastated civilization, when the Middle Earth civilization nearly collapsed from a conjunction of factors where theocratic fanaticism, and rejection of reality, played an important part.

Right, it all originated from too few men having too much money, and then, power.

Nowadays, the stakes are higher: mad, yet powerful cretins play with, and brandish, thermonuclear bombs, and can throw them to the other side of the Earth. Ignore them to one’s own, and goodness’ peril. Antidote? Everyday I walk and take a long hot bath, reading in either case…

Patrice Ayme’

 

Islam, An Ideology of Murder Respected by Degenerates

August 18, 2017

Two attacks and one explosion in Catalonia last night, with deaths in Barcelona, Cambril, and Alcanar. There are at least 19 dead, and more than one hundred injured (including 17 French citizens in “urgence absolue”, that is extreme critical care). The attacks were claimed by the Islamist State. Apparently they were Moroccans. The next day, it was the turn of Finland.

A 18 year old “asylum seeking” Moroccan attempted to, and killed women. At least two Finnish women died, half a dozen others were stabbed. A few days later, it was the turn of Marseille, France, where a truck driver wounded and killed a number of people at bus stops. The cause of all this murdering, attempted and realized? The mythology of Fundamental Islam, or, more precisely, the respect it has enjoyed all too long, among civilized people.

Much could have been killed in Catalonia, if not for a single Catalan police woman who shot to death no less than FOUR drugged out Jihadists. In France the number of radicalized, dangerous known Jihadists, went from 13,000 to 18,500 (latest number, August 2017).

My nephew has close “Muslim” friends. At my urging, over the years, he recently read some of the Qur’an. He told me that the first impression is that “le Coran a été écrit par un fou” (the Qur’an was written by a madman).

Here we have a book which wants to “throw people into the fire”, every other page (the Bible does this more rarely).

As Surah 4, verse 56 has it, and this is the Muslim God allegedly speaking:

“Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise.”

Well, F your verses, Mr. God! Hopefully, we will grow thick enough a skin, one of these days. Western politicians go around, wondering how come so many Muslims get “radicalized”. Maybe they don’t how to read? “Radical” means from the root. Here we show some of the roots of Islam, they are vicious, by normal, decent, human standards.

The Qur’an is not just full of lethal threats, but also of rather funny insults.

So you want to end “terrorism”? End the literal preaching of this kind of hateful, lethal garbage.

And, especially stop telling us that throwing a critical look at this sort of lethal garbage is “racist”. Because all you will do, in the end, is to tell normal people that they are “racist” (the sort of reaction which brought the election of Trump, let alone the rule of plutocratic fascist rule which preceded it).

In Tunisia, a woman inherits only half of what a man inherits, and a Tunisian woman can’t marry a non-Muslim. And supposedly Tunisia is NOT an Islamist Republic. The 90-year-old Tunisian president want to change this anti-equality laws, but he is isolated, hated by the Jihadists, young and furious. Change requires physical courage. The chief of Islam in Tunisia came forward to support the president: no doubt he is high on the Jihadists’ list.

The “antifa” rage at the KKK and Neonazis, who are nowhere in power. Why don’t the “antifa” not rage at theocratic fascism? Instead some of the loudest of the opposition to Trump is theocratic fascist. Consider Linda Sarsour, who called for a “Jihad” against Trump.

Why did most “Western” “intellectuals” embrace (the respect of) Islam?

Because they were trying to please those who have the oil. Hint: not just the Saudis. We are enjoying the “Great Bitter Lake” conspiracy.   The Justice System followed: it gave right of asylum to Jihad criminals condemned to death in their own countries. That was confusing fascists and victims: laws which were made to accept genuine victims of fascism were turned into laws to protect the fascists themselves!

To fight Islam, in its fundamental version, one needs first to withdraw the respect it enjoys.

Withdrawing respect can, and should be, withdrawn to many infamous ideologies. This is the first step in fighting them. Know them, and then, when you know them well, and because you know them well, spite them.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

Why The Crusades Were Lost: Saint Louis’ Racism Against The Mongols!

July 9, 2017

Islam came to near annihilation in the Thirteenth Century as Franks and Mongols unified and took the Islamist capitals, Baghdad and Damascus. A little known episode. At the time, the overall Mongol Khan was a woman (another little known episode!) But she didn’t cause the problem. Instead Saint Louis’ jealous racism, and unbounded hatred of “infidels” made the difference.

Richard the Lionheart lived in France, where he was supposedly vassal to the king of France, Philip II Augustus his companion in arms (who left the so-called “Holy land” after a while, leaving his soul mate Richard, in charge). Richard may not have lost major battles. But, a century later, Saint Louis, Louis IX of France, did, and ruined France in the process.

It became clear nothing good was achieved by all this crusading. On top of that, the climate started to wobble. Instead, the French switched to the trading model with Islam (rendered possible by treaties consecutive to the Crusades). Immense fortunes were made (Jacques Coeur, born a commoner, became the richest man in France by trading with the Levant in the fifteenth century, and soon, master of the mint, and a most important European diplomat).

Arab chroniclers used the correct term, “Franki” (Franks) to qualify the Europeans trying to (re)conquer the Middle East from the religion of Islam, which had smothered it.

By the time the Crusades were launched, direct Muslim aggression against Europe has been continuous since 715 CE, a full four centuries (the word “Europe” was used first by the Franks in the context of the Muslim invasions). This continual Muslim attack was viewed, correctly, by all concerned, as the continuation of the war of Islam against Rome. (Naturally so, as the Franks so themselves as “Rome”. By 800 CE, the Franks had officially “renovated”, as they put it, the Roman empire…)

Painted in 1337 CE. Notice that the Franks are covered in armor, and the Muslims are not. Obvious technological superiority. The Romans already bought light steel helmets in Gaul! Muslim tech superiority is a lie. In plain view.

There is plenty of evidence that the Franks were more advanced than the Muslims in crucial military technology, as early as 715 CE. How could they not be? The Muslims were just coming out of savage Arabia, all the technology they had, was stolen, or, let’s say, adopted from others.

Four terracotta hand grenades, with “Greek Fire” inside, used by the defenders of Constantinople against the Turks. Greek Fire had many variants, some secret to this day. The Chinese developed dry versions, with salpeter, which turned into black powder later.

The Franks, who had been the crack troops of the Roman empire, as early as 311 CE, had better steel, better armor, better steel weapons, and giant war horses capable of wearing armor themselves. That’s why the Franks were able to defeat the Muslims, overall, in the first phase of the war with Islam, which was in Europe (711 CE, attack on Spain, until the counterattack on Jerusalem, 1099 CE).

This European technological superiority was obvious during the Spanish reconquista. An armored Spanish horse was like an intelligent, indomitable battle tank, which would charge again and again, rarely seriously wounded. By contrast, Muslim cavaliers wore little armor, their relatively small Arab horses were excellent but all too little (I used to ride my own very combative Arab stallion in Africa, which nobody else would, or could, ride… Its name, appropriately chosen, was Napoleon…).

Horse archers were not effective against heavily armored cavalry. They could bother it, but not defeat it. This is why the Mongols decided wisely not to attack the Franks again, after invading, suffering huge losses, Hungary, and Croatia. The Mongols debated what had happened to their ancestors the Huns, eight centuries earlier, in France (annihilation spared only political decision). The Mongols used rocket artillery.

Noah Smith wroteWhy Did Europe Lose the Crusades?“. Said he: “A little while ago, I started to wonder about a historical question: Why did Europe lose the Crusades? The conventional wisdom, at least as I’ve always understood it, is that Europe was simply weaker and less advanced than the Islamic Middle Eastern powers defending the Holy Land. Movies about the Crusades tend to feature the Islamic armies deploying fearsome weapons – titanic trebuchets, or even gunpowder. This is consistent with the broad historical narrative of a civilizational “reversal of fortunes” – the notion that Islamic civilization was much more highly advanced than Europe in the Middle Ages. Also, there’s the obvious fact that the Middle East is pretty far from France, Germany, and England, leading to the obvious suspicion that the Middle East was just too far away for medieval power projection.

Anyway, I decided to answer this question by…reading stuff about the Crusades. I read all the Wikipedia pages for the various crusades, and then read a book – Thomas Asbridge’s “The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land“. Given that even these basic histories contain tons of uncertainty, we’ll never really know why the Crusades turned out the way they did. But after reading up a bit, here are my takes on the main candidate explanations for why Europe ultimately lost.”

He pursue by fingering “lack of motivation” as the main cause of the loss of the Crusades. That is true, in part: Europe opened to the ocean. However, the Crusades won in important ways (opening up trade). But the Europeans also really lost, when it would have been easy to win.

Noah Smith’s analysis focuses only on the English (so to speak) aspect of the Crusades. He does not quite say that a rogue frankish army seized Constantinople in 1204 CE. And then he omits completely what happened in the Thirteenth Century (because Richard Lionhearted was then dead, and history is all about the Anglois?).

For politically correct reasons, some of them ten centuries old, some more voguish, allegations have been made of the superiority of Islam (or China, for that matter). These (often self-serving from racist self-declared anti-racists) assertions are not grounded in fact.

By 1000 CE, the Franks had the highest GDP per capita in the world, and its history. European technology was, overall, the most advanced. Europeans were stunned by how little the Chinese used machines and animals.  

The Arabic numbers were Greek numbers perfected in India, where the full zero was invented, and were reintroduced through central Asia. Out of the 160 major work of Antiquity we have, 150 survived in European monasteries, the universities of the time (and the ten remaining were saved by the Persians, initially).

The Middle East, long the cradle of most invention, has been clearly a shadow of its former self, ever since Islam established its dictator, intolerance and war friendly terrorizing culture of god obsession.

Crusades in the Middle east until 1204; The image Noah Smith uses, which misinforms the reality of what happened…

Europe didn’t “lose the Crusades”. Saint Louis did. Europe didn’t just decide the Middle East was hopeless, in all sorts of ways. Europe had got reopening of the Silk Roads from Saladin. Meanwhile in 1244, the Khwarezmians, recently pushed out by the advance of the Mongols, took Jerusalem on their way to ally with the Egyptian Mamluks. Europe shrugged (by then “Roman” emperors such as Frederick I Barbarossa had used a Muslim company of bodyguards… So there was strictly no anti-Muslim hatred and racism… contrarily to what happened with the Mongols, see below…) 

It is also true that Saint Louis, a weird mix of a dangerous religious fanatic of the worst type, and a modern, enlightened king, lost its entire army (to a woman, the only female leader Islam ever had!) in Egypt. Saint Louis was taken captive at the Battle of Fariskur where his army was annihilated. He nearly died, was saved from dysentery by an Arab physician (impressed Arabs offered for him to rule them). A huge ransom had to be paid, comparable to the French budget. Then Saint Louis died in front of Tunis, in another ridiculous crusade (1270 CE).  Louis fell ill with dysentery, and was cured by an Arab physician

The Seventh and Eight Crusades were disastrous military defeats

Saint Louis, a racist, was the direct cause of the survival of Islam. The Mongols, allied to local Franks had destroyed Baghdad (siege of the Abbasid Caliphate) and Damascus (siege of the Umayyad). The Mongols asked respectfully to make an official alliance with Christianity, and eradicate Islam.

Instead the Pope called Nestorian Christian Mongols heathens, and him and Saint Louis promised excommunication to all and any Frank joining the Mongols in war. Thus the Mongols attacked Egypt without Frankish help, and were defeated by the Mamluks Turks.

Dejected, the Mongols decided that they were Muslims (Islam has no pope, and the Caliphate had been destroyed by the Franco-Mongol alliance ) Under Timor Lame, they would carve a giant Mongol-Muslim empire all the way into India.

This is just a fraction of the common operations of the Franks and Mongols, when they were allied against the Muslims, destroying Baghdad, seizing Damascus. Saint Louis and his pet the Pope saved Islam by calling a halt to the cooperation. Mongols and Franks actually took Damascus together, and the commanders entered the conquered city, side by side…

The Spanish were more serious. They, Isabella, Ferdinand and their advisers, planned to pursue the reconquista by extirpating Islam from North Africa and the Middle East.

The extremely well-trained, battle hardened army was prepared, but then the Americas had just been discovered, and war with France for the control of the world in general and Italy in particular, became everything. Spain engaged in a war with France it took nearly two centuries to lose. The conquest of the Americas changed the world, though. The reconquest of the Christian empire from the Muslims was given up…

It could have been done: the Spanish occupied many cities of North Africa, including Algiers and Oran. Power was divided between Ottoman pirates (“Barbarossas”) and the kingdom of Tlemcen. In any case, in 1525 CE, while Cortez was conquering Central America, defeating among others, the Aztecs, pirates retook Algiers in the name of the Turk Selim 1. At the same time, Selim defeated the Egyptian Mamluks, taking control of the Levant, Mecca, and Egypt.

Islam, a pretty deleterious religion in its literal, Salafist form, survived. North Africa and the Middle East, previously long the world’s wealthiest place, is now the poorest and most war-ridden…

And the war goes on, the ideology of Salafist, literal Islam, being fundamentally antagonistic to civilization.

For the USA, the Iraq war has been an enormous victory: it boosted the price of oil for a decade, enabling the massive deployment of US fracking. Now the USA is again the world’s number one fossil fuel producer. Also French and US military forces are fighting from Mali to Afghanistan, maintaining economic and military control over an area still crucial for energy production (although it will soon become economically irrelevant, from renewable energy).  

All the regimes from Mali to Afghanistan, are, officially, friendly to civilization. So why does the war goes on? Because the ideology is islam is centered on Jihad, no holds barred. Thus Islam gives a ready ideology to those who want to make no holds barred. This is why the Turks converted to islam. Within a generation, they had invaded a huge swathe of Central Asia, and overran very old civilization: Georgia, Armenia, and the Oriental Romans (“Constantinople”).

Then Christian pilgrims going to Jerusalem were massacred (up to 10,000 at one time) by various Muslim potentates. Constantinople, having lost half of its territory, to the recently converted, ferociously invading Turks, asked the “Occidental” Roman empire to come to the rescue.   

In 1095 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in a sermon at the Council of Clermont. He encouraged military intervention for the so-called Byzantine Empire and its Emperor, Alexios I, who needed desperately to stop the westward invasion of the migrating Turks colonising Anatolia.

Morality of all this? What people think they know about history has little to do with what really happened. The forces presently in conflict have been in conflict ever since Islam exists, as Muhammad wanted it. The Quraish, in Mecca, the dominant tribe Muhammad belonged to, didn’t trust Muhammad: he was an analphabet and an epileptic. To boot, Muhammad succeeded in life by marrying a wealthy business woman, and then switching from caravan trading, to caravan raiding.

Just before he died, Muhammad led the first attack against the Romans (who had not attacked him, and refused combat). War is the great arbiter of human destiny. The enormous Roman field army, horrendously led erroneously, was annihilated on its third day of battle at Yarmouk against the Arab Muslim army. Emperor Heraclius, a great general had not been present, he was in Alexandria.

War is a great arbiter, but it is also extremely fickle. Crucial battles are won, and lost, which should never have been won, or lost. Sometimes by sheer happenstance, sometimes from hubris, sometimes by having top generals with top armies not considering the worst imaginable case (as happened to the Romans when fighting the Arabs at Yarmouk, or with Yamamoto at Midway, or the French mid May 1940…).

To learn from history, it has to be learned in full. Civilization missed a chance to eliminate the Islamist war ideology when it aborted the natural alliance with the Mongols. But it’s not very surprising: the overall leader of Europe, then, was Saint Louis. Saint Louis invented the modern justice system, and put his mother, Blanche de castille, in charge of France for many years. So he could be viewed as non-sexist and all for justice. He is represented to this day, rendering justice below an oak. However, Saint Louis was also a savage. He really believed that unbelievers should be killed painfully. Interestingly, Saint Louis came to believe that the Muslims were believers: his fanatical rage was oriented towards Jews and those who, in Christendom, did not believe. So it’s entirely natural that, by considering the Mongols heathens, and forbidding a further alliance with them, he would, in the end, save Islam!

It’s not just that Saint Louis burned 12,000 Jewish manuscripts in Paris, in 1243 CE (5 years before he led the disastrous Seventh Crusade). Saint Louis wrote abominable descriptions of the atrocious ways in which he would kill infidels (I read it in the original texts long ago; however, I was unable to find a source today…)

We have Jihadists around, ready to kill the innocent nowadays, because Saint Louis was actually one of them!

Patrice Ayme’

Islam – Religion of Peace or Totalitarian Ideology?

July 1, 2017

PRESENT DAY ISLAM IS A LIE, SAID AISHA:
I lived my childhood in Muslim countries, from the age of two weeks. Islam was then never a problem, it was a very tolerant and tolerable part of the landscape. I never had a problem with the call to prayer, anymore than I had with church bells. Both of them could be heard, as the places I grew up in enjoyed diverse version of “Sufi” Islam. “Sufism” is actually immensely varied. In West Africa it meant not only women didn’t wear a veil, but were going bare chested.

Now things have completely degenerated: Saudi and emirates’ wealth, discreetly propped by divisive Western plutocracy, have imposed a variant of Islam which was basically unknown when not outright outlawed eight centuries ago in the places of higher civilization (Sultanate of egypt, Abbasid Caliphate, Persia).

This unamusing version comes straight out of the Qur’an written by Uthman, Third Caliph, which Aisha, the child-bride wife of the Prophet, condemned and went to war about because, she said, it was a pack of lies and fake representations of what Muhammad thought. Interestingly, Aisha fought Ali at the Battle of the Camel, so she is hated by the Shia, too. Thus Aisha condemned both Sunni and Shia Islams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

Picard, named after the Star Trek character, for his humanitarian logic, is a frequent commenter on this site and the author of the site “Defense Issues” has produced his own critical essay on Salafist Islam. (We are all severely criticizing, following Aisha’s notoriously free spirit!). This breath of fresh air is reproduced below.

Defense Issues

“Truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”

  • Gloria Steinem

During times of universal deceit; telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

  • George Orwell

Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.

  • Potter Stewart

The worst form of inequality is to try make unequal things equal.

  • Aristotle

Political power comes from physical occupation: not historical rights, not title deeds, not moral rights – only occupation. Those people who occupy a territory determine the nature of the society in that region.

  • Arthur Kemp

There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.

  • Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi, Libyan Leader, March 2007

Western liberals (including the current Pope)…

View original post 39,601 more words