Archive for the ‘Abrahamism’ Category

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’

 

Advertisements

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

Why This Site Shouldn’t Interest Most Americans

June 26, 2017

Very few Americans don’t believe in a God, or Life Force, Spirits and other Superstition (according to many polls, one of them reproduced below). I of course believe that all those who believe in superstition or divination are victims of a lack of introspection, resulting in a regrettable submission of (their) perception to domination. This the foundation of their political subjugation. It’s also the royal road to subjugation. Thus countries friendly to superstition and the religions attached to it, are typically submissive to mighty plutocracies.

And thus, as we see inequality rising around the world, it can be tracked to the imposition of the American “neoliberal” model, a modern ideology to impose the grossest traditional plutocracy!  Only 2% of North Americans do not believe in the supernatural: a god, life-force, spirits. This means that most North Americans are superstitious. In comparison, 11% of South-East Asians do not believe, in a god, life force, or spirit. One could say South-east Asia is five times less superstitious…. In France, a whopping one-third of the population don’t believe in a god, life force, or spirit. Thus the French are less ready to believe that plutocrats are benevolent, philanthropic spirits, under a merciful god… (The Market?)

The cult of all things religious has been reinforced top down in the USA since 1954, date of enthronement of “In God We Trust” (which displaced the Republican “E Pluribus Unum”).

For example, Americans are taught to venerate Pastor Martin Luther King. To esteem MLK is honorable, but his cult, at the exclusion of the cult of others, and not learning what exactly happened, arguably even more meritorious, is dubious. After all, President Eisenhower, an ex-general, and Earl Warren, head of the US Supreme Court, did the the heavy lift and courageous combat against segregation in the 1950s.  

***

Forget God and its “Pastors”: Presidents, Generals and Judges are who Order Progress:

Here is Earl Warren:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group…Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
—Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Much clearer than “I have a dream!”. To desegregate schools, Eisenhower sent the army. Conclusion: if you want to fight injustice, clear legal, republican thinking and the army, in other words, force, is what is needed.

This Is Why The French Revolution, Core to the United Nations’ Charter, Happened in France, and Not America!

MLK was made into a living god, a sort of Muslim-like “Messenger”. In truth he was part, and rather at the end, of a much more powerful wave he surfed on. Heroes may be useful, but the cult of the providential man prepares that of the “philanthropist” as plutocrats call themselves. (Just as in the Middle Ages plutocrats modestly called themselves, the “best”.)

Thus, when I criticize Islam, many Americans feel I defend the Bible (which is actually the source of Islam, something i know, but they don’t…)

The entire left of the world, not just the USA, suffers from searching for heroes, rather than clear thinking on the Republic. But this is precisely what the plutocratically owned media and the masters of public opinion, wanted. It’s the result of meta teaching, inculcating impotent forms of thought.

I should speak only to the French agnostics (but they don’t generally read English well enough to understand me, as a French professional philosopher once told me, thus he asked me to translate my thoughts in… French; a full-time job I couldn’t possibly do. Actually, I have no time to write a book. As Socrates implicitly pointed out, thinking per se is a full-time job… Socrates, going overboard, famously called writing “the semblance of truth”; that would make all of math, physics and now biology the “semblance of truth”… Although I do agree for Plato…)

***

Cult Of God, One & Only, Came From the Hydraulic Dictatorship Zone:

Verily, much of the roots civilization we use today appeared in what I call the Middle Earth (earliest writing is from there; although it was completely independently evolved in Mesoamerica). Egyptian civilization appeared 6,000 years ago, and the first city known in Anatolia, a few millennia before that.

However, the Middle East, central to the Middle Earth, suffered desiccation of the land, and then the minds, as it veered into . Thus it is natural that this physically sick region came up with a sick metaphysics. It is also of some import: it’s no coincidence that the Roman empire collapsed when Christianism was imposed to it, and countries such as Syria collapsed when Islamism was imposed to it (in the Seventh Century already!)

Some have noticed an analogy between “Ra” as in the theology of Egypt, AbRAhamism, and BRAhamism. This is not as ludicrous as it sounds. First, Abrahamism clearly arose in Egypt (as the Bible recognizes sneakily). Secondly Brahamanism, which gave rise to Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism itself came from the old Vedic religion, which, in turn, comes from the Middle East. Wikipedia says:

According to Anthony: “Many of the qualities of Indo-Iranian god of might/victory, Verethraghna, were transferred to the adopted god Indra, who became the central deity of the developing Old Indic culture. Indra was the subject of 250 hymns, a quarter of the Rig Veda. He was associated more than any other deity with Soma, a stimulant drug (perhaps derived from Ephedra) probably borrowed from the BMAC religion. His rise to prominence was a peculiar trait of the Old Indic speakers.[27]

The oldest inscriptions in Old Indic, the language of the Rig Veda, are found not in northwestern India and Pakistan, but in northern Syria, the location of the Mitanni kingdom.[40] The Mitanni kings took Old Indic throne names, and Old Indic technical terms were used for horse-riding and chariot-driving.[40] The Old Indic term r’ta, meaning “cosmic order and truth”, the central concept of the Rig Veda, was also employed in the Mitanni kingdom.[40] Old Indic gods, including Indra, were also known in the Mitanni kingdom.[41][42][43]

The preceding illustrates well the concept of the Middle Earth. It also means that 72% of the world’s population derives its metaphysics from Egypt, or thereabout). More or less (the Egyptian empire often encroached deep on the so-called Fertile Crescent, which is anchored in the West by Israel, Lebanon, Syria…

Ultimately, Egypt, soon after a remarkable attempt at monotheism (which promptly spawned Abrahamism), decayed. Why? Some will point at the invasion of the “Peoples of the Sea”, which Egypt, alone among the Great Powers, was able to defeat (at considerable cost).

***

Egypt’s Government Model Was So Obsolete, Its Civilization Became Senile:

However, shortly after, Egypt exhibited a lack of animal spirits and was durably overrun by Libyans, and then Assyrians, Persians…  Tellingly, it’s the very fierce Greeks and their uncouth students, the Macedonians, who freed Egypt.

What happened to Egypt? Long drawn out dictatorship, when the rise of new technology called for start-ups, basically Greece was full of startups. Startup city states…

True, Egypt got invaded by vast empires, modernized versions of itself. When the Persians came around and colonized Egypt, so they did because Achaemenid Persia was a multinational empire, ultramodern in many ways.

However, ultimately the tiny Athenian startup defeated Persia at Marathon, and then insolently landed an army to free Egypt (its mental benefactor) from Persia!

***

Puritanism Does Not The Best Minds Make, Deep Thinking Is Dirty:

Last week I went out with a number of friends of the Anglo-Saxon persuasion, aggravated by reactive vegetarian ethics. I was retrospectively surprised by the lack of animal spirits. How can one have artful, constructive mental intercourse without the blossoming of passion? It certainly can’t happen when all conversations are guarded. After all, that’s why the divinity was imposed: the divinity imposed a subdued mentality, a submissive morality, and, definitively, a lack of inquiry.  

Thus it’s no accident that the French, long at the forefront of the battle of ideas against the obscurity of stupor, are the ones most aware that all past superstition is just that, superstition without foundation, as reckoned by its own definition.

And these are not words without foundation: in the Twelfth century, Pierre Abelard reinvented Classical logic (and went further). In the Fourteenth century, another Parisian, Jean buridan (Johannes Buridanus), went even further with the Cretan Paradox (rendered famous by Kurt Godel). Buridan also invented the hard part of Newton’s laws (three century before Newton). Actually Buridan anticipated not just Newton, but also Riemann’s force theory (used by Einstein and Al. in the Theory of Gravitation aka “General Relativity”!)

Both Abelard and Buridan were involved in colossal struggles, fights to death, with the catholic Church. Buridan had refused to enter the faculty of theology, so that he would not have to take an oath to the god of Abraham. Abelard fought Saint Bernard to death. Saint Bernard was then the most important, and most fanatical Catholic. At the time, it looked as if Saint Bernard sort of won. But history showed he lost. Buridan’s work were outlawed by the church, under the penalty of death, except in far eastern Europe, where they were taught to the young Copernicus.  

During the period 1100 CE to 1700 CE, Christianism caused an unending succession of terror, major wars, crusades, holocausts and massacres throughout Europe, and from there, the world. How come Europe didn’t collapsed as Rome did? First Europe was governed mostly by a plutocracy which was severely related and intermarried. They killed the poor a lot, themselves, much less. And actually that plutocracy was firmly in command, in secular command.

For example a fanatical Catholic such as Saint Louis put his mother, Blanche de Castille, ex-ruling queen, in charge several times as he made war through the Middle East (and letting himself be made a prisoner by the one and only female ruler that Islam ever had, in Egypt!). So he let a woman in charge, but he also had organized a modern justice system, now copied everywhere, including the USA.

Rome collapsed, because emperor Theodosius, around 390 CE unleashed the office of “Inquisitor” he had just created, against the “Heretics” (“those who made a choice”). Inquisitor, heretics: two terms, dripping with blood and terror, bathing in fire, imposed by Roman Catholic emperor Theodosius. By 400 CE, the empire was collapsing so much that the bishops put the Franks in charge of three provinces.

The Franks were Pagans

Hopefully, they still are!

And will stay that way! Maybe Americans could join their forefathers the Franks, and realize that, if they want paradise, they can get it only on Earth. Let me rephrase this a bit: If one wants paradise, one has to work hard, because one can get it only on Earth! It means in particular that on eschews the seductions of the rule of hell (plutocracy), and better start with free universal healthcare, as those who believe it’s their task to create and make a really Good God!

Patrice Ayme’

Abuse of Muslim Women Ignored By Western Leadership, and Why

June 22, 2017

The tolerance of inhuman, hard core Islam is symptomatic of the venality of elites and their “elected” servants, who we have to endure, all around the world. That’s not very surprising: the very principle of letting a few thousand people (“elected” or not) decide the fate of the biosphere, and, in particular more than seven billion people, is intrinsically demented and immoral.

Pseudo progressives claim “all religions have to be respected”, but then why not religions ordering human sacrifices? Answer: they do, because hard-core Islam does order human sacrifices of the many types of people the Qur’an orders to kill.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (@ayaan) and Asra Q. Nomani (@asranomani), are authors (and in the case of Ayaan, an ex-Member of the Dutch Parliament) who were born into Islam, and got mutilated and abused as a result. The New York Times allowed them to write an “Op-Ed” (a vicious notion, as if the usual editorials of the New York Times had no opinion!))  Ms. Nomani is a co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, once a Dutch MP, was hunted out of Europe by murderous Islamists and various lethal fatwas. Authorities there proved unable and unwilling to protect hurt from rabid Islamists. Whereas there are very few Muslim from most fanatical Islamist region in the USA (yet!), where she took refuge, there are orders of magnitude more in Europe.

The New York Times blocked my comment on this excellent editorial (showing its duplicity: it claims that my comments are blocked by editors at the New York Times, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a friend and does not block me in social networks, far from it!). The true reason for the NYT blocking me? Because those posing as “liberals”, who are part of the elite, are more often than not, not “liberal” at all, but simply, venal, corrupt, greedy!

Gender equality is a fundamental human trait. Any ideology ordering otherwise should be unlawful to preach, especially to the youth. Not all variant of Islam are sexist: they are outliers in the “Sufi” tradition, for example in West Africa. However mainstream Islam is deeply sexist, women being literally at best only a fraction of men.

That present day “liberals” refuse to see this means that they are just taking orders from the powers that be (the ones which got them elected to start with). A basic triangular conspiracy exists between oil-producing monarchies, international finance and elected politicians. It was set in stone when president Roosevelt met with Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, king of Saudi Arabia, in 1945.

The attitude of present day “liberal” leaders relative to Islam is revealing of their general attitude relative to the elites and the mighty: they join them rather than contradict them. Their positions arise from greed for their personal power, rather than principle for humanity.

****

(Part of) Text from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani below:

The so-called “left”, or self-described “liberal” elite, verily, an elite of leeches, has never read Voltaire, or Montaigne. All it read is that Wall Street and Saudi Arabia have all the money. Compare Ayaan’s saying with Voltaire’s own:”One must crush infamy!”

June 22, 2017

… “Senator Harris took her seat in front of us as a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We were there to testify about the ideology of political Islam, or Islamism.

… just moments before the hearing began, a man wearing a Muslim prayer cap had stood up and heckled us, putting Capitol police officers on high alert. We were girding ourselves for tough questions.

But they never came. The Democrats on the panel, including Senator Harris and three other Democratic female senators — North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill — did not ask either of us a single question.

This wasn’t a case of benign neglect. At one point, Senator McCaskill said that she took issue with the theme of the hearing itself. “Anyone who twists or distorts religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule,” she said. “We should not focus on religion,” she said, adding that she was “worried” that the hearing, organized by Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, would “underline that.” In the end, the only questions asked of us about Islamist ideologies came from Senator Johnson and his Republican colleague, Senator Steve Daines from Montana.

Just as we are invisible to the mullahs at the mosque, we were invisible to the Democratic women in the Senate.

How to explain this experience? Perhaps Senators Heitkamp, Harris, Hassan and McCaskill are simply uninterested in sexism and misogyny. But obviously, given their outspoken support of critical women’s issues, such as the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria and campus sexual assault, that’s far from the case.

No, what happened that day was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives when it comes to confronting the brutal reality of Islamist extremism and what it means for women in many Muslim communities here at home and around the world. When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation.

Sitting before the senators that day were two women of color: Ayaan is from Somalia; Asra is from India. Both of us were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Shariah by having a baby while unmarried. And we have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things we have said and done. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards.

In other words, when we speak about Islamist oppression, we bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise.

Yet the feminist mantra so popular when it comes to victims of sexual assault — believe women first — isn’t extended to us. Neither is the notion that the personal is political. Our political conclusions are dismissed as personal; our personal experiences dismissed as political.

That’s because in the rubric of identity politics, our status as women of color is canceled out by our ideas, which are labeled “conservative” — as if opposition to violent jihad, sex slavery, genital mutilation or child marriage were a matter of left or right. This not only silences us, it also puts beyond the pale of liberalism a basic concern for human rights and the individual rights of women abused in the name of Islam.

There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism. Partly they fear offending members of a “minority” religion and being labeled racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. There is also the idea, which has tremendous strength on the left, that non-Western women don’t need “saving” — and that the suggestion that they do is patronizing at best. After all, the thinking goes, if women in America still earn less than men for equivalent work, who are we to criticize other cultures?

This is extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity. And it leads good people to make excuses for the inexcusable. The silence of the Democratic senators is a reflection of contemporary cultural pressures. Call it identity politics, moral relativism or political correctness — it is shortsighted, dangerous and, ultimately, a betrayal of liberal values.

The hard truth is that there are fundamental conflicts between universal human rights and the principle of Shariah, or Islamic law, which holds that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; between freedom of religion and the Islamist idea that artists, writers, poets and bloggers should be subject to blasphemy laws; between secular governance and the Islamist goal of a caliphate; between United States law and Islamist promotion of polygamy, child marriage and marital rape; and between freedom of thought and the methods of indoctrination, or dawa, with which Islamists propagate their ideas.

Defending universal principles against Islamist ideology, not denying that these conflicts exist, is surely the first step in a fight whose natural leaders in Washington should be women like Kamala Harris and Claire McCaskill — both outspoken advocates for American women.

We believe feminism is for everyone. Our goals — not least the equality of the sexes — are deeply liberal. We know these are values that the Democratic senators at our hearing share. Will they find their voices and join us in opposing Islamist extremism and its war on women?”

According to Aischa, child-bride of Prophet Muhammad, the Qur’an as written by the Third Caliph, Uthman, was extremely sexist. Less sexist version of Muhammad’s message were destroyed under the order of Uthman, who ended assassinated as a result. Aischa fought with an army for her anti-sexist views, but, differently from European women, she was defeated at the famous “Battle of the Camel”.

***

Straight out of Qur’an and Hadith:

To divorce a wife, a Muslim man can just say “Talaq, talaq, talaq” That’s called the instant divorce law. It was controversial even in Muhammad’s times, and Muhammad criticized it. However, according to the Hadith, the Prophet practiced it. Even the New York Times recognizes this instant divorce law is a problem today, all the way to India.

All the more as, according to Hadith, “irrevocable divorce” does not allow for any sort of allowance or remittance.

The Qur’an Surah An-Nisa, 34 defines the relations between husbands and wives. Quran 4:34 reads:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

— Qur’an 4:34, [5]

Some of the relation of Islam with sexism is nearly hilarious. Here is a Hadith showing how much of lala land Islam is: Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Zam’a: The Prophet said, “None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.”

However, a bit of discipline is good for the ladies:

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:132 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:73:68

In Sunni Hadith, violent sexism rules, and is reiterated ad nauseam. here is an example: Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife. — Sunan Abu Dawood, 11:2142

The unending litany of verbal and “Sharia legal” abuse hurled at women in Islam sacred texts is properly astounding. It goes against human nature so deeply that any civilization submitting to it can only fail.

***

We Already Knew This, But A Slightly Different Angle Is Instructive:

Making women uneducated and submissive make them stupid, and thus, so for their children, and the grown-ups who follow, insuring a vicious circle of less than optimal intelligence and culture. Thus Islam’s sexism is self-reproducing, and self-defeating.

Islam is not just in contradiction with the present (“Western”) civilization, and the United Nations Charter (whose foundation is basically:”All Persons Are Created Equal”). Any preaching otherwise should be outlawed. Islam is also in contradiction with human ethology itself, the core of human strength, as human sexual equality is a genetic given.

But so, of course, is plutocracy. In Islam, plutocracy sees an enemy of its enemy, humanity. So they are friends!

Patrice Ayme’

[The integral version of the text above from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Arsa Nomani was published first in the New York Times under the title:“Kamala Harris, Speak Up. Don’t Be Silent on Women’s Rights.” I spent an hour trying to persuade the New York Times to publish my comment, it replied by interfering with my computer, erasing text. Then the New York Times changed the title to “They Brushed off Kamala Harris, Then She Brushed Us Off.” So, according to the New York Times, the text of the two ladies above is not about women’s rights anymore, but all about ladies “brushing off” each other.

A fight for human rights oppressed by a misogynistic ideology has been replaced, in its title, according to the New York Times, by cat ladies fighting for supremacy. Thus the New York Times manipulate minds, one moody detail at a time… All the comments are also doctored, selected, to present a biased view of what We The People are thinking. British tabloids have used that method for decade, hence Brexit. The New York Times is ever more brazen in its practice of it.]