May Day (“Mayday”, “M’Aider”)

To put progress in a bad light, no trick is base enough:

Fabre d’Églantine was a left-wing (“Montagnard”, Danton’s secretary) revolutionary. As a member of the National Convention, he was elected as a Member of Parliament of the Republic by universal voting, in 1792. In 1793, in his report on the calendar presented to the Convention, Fabre d’Églantine established a public holiday, to celebrate work and workers, with Saint-Just later setting a date, 1st pluviôse (fifth month of the French Republican calendar, in other words, May First). In 1848, the provisional government of the Second Republic abolished slavery in the Colonies, (27th April) and established May First a public holiday in the Colonies.

The International Labor Day, May First, date was chosen by a pan-national organization of socialist and communist political parties to commemorate the Haymarket massacre, which occurred in Chicago, USA, on 4 May 1886. That protest had asked for the eight-hour day. On 1st May 1886, under union pressure, 200,000 American workers had won the right to work an eight-hour day. But this battle was not won by all workers, and riots broke out in Chicago, to generalize the right. The protest was repressed in blood: eight were killed, and later four workers were hanged (plus another who committed suicide rather than letting himself be hanged).

The date had its origins at the 1885 convention of the American Federation of Labor, which passed a resolution calling for adoption of the eight-hour day effective May 1, 1886. Conservative “Democratic” President Grover Cleveland , concerned that a labor holiday on May 1 would tend to become a commemoration of the Haymarket Affair, imposed the September date. The rest of the world celebrates Labor Day on May First an old European festival, and to remember the revolt in Chicago and its bloody repression.

Technology offers ever more ways to exploit people, and, lest we slide into regression, the forces of progress have to stay vigilant. MSFT, Microsoft, wants what you own. Bill Gates’ mother was an official do-gooder, all the more as her hubby the top lawyer in Washington State. So she was made a director of IBM, which then gave control to young Bill on the software public universities had invented. This brought us Microsoft, and now they own the world, or, at least, how to steer it. Watch ex-presidents lick their toes. Besides they own, or control, all the US media, one way, or the other… And yes, they are max do-gooders, a family tradition, and watch the cash, and the GMOs, flow…

Labor studies professor William J. Adelman wrote:

“No single event has influenced the history of labor in Illinois, the United States, and even the world, more than the Chicago Haymarket Affair. It began with a rally on May 4, 1886, but the consequences are still being felt today. Although the rally is included in American history textbooks, very few present the event accurately or point out its significance.”

Few countries bathe minds in as much deliberate propaganda as the USA. In the US, even entertainment is propaganda: watch full grown men, transfixed by hulks in tights grabbing each other on TV, or seven feet giants casually pushing a ball through a hoop. It looks innocent, but we have seen it all before: the Roman Plebs was kept quiet, for six centuries with “bread and circuses”, as Roman author Juvenal already observed, 19 centuries ago. Couch potatoes fascinated by steroid laden multi-millionaires put on a pedestal as much, most admired values: wealth, physique enhancing drugs, and the couch potato status, plus dead minds.

Roman Emperor Constantine decided that no free Roman citizen should work on Sunday. The usage was followed throughout the Middle Ages. However, up to the Nineteenth Century, with the invention of cheap artificial lighting, and industrial plutocracy, the situation of workers became reminiscent of slavery in Roman times. The laws which had to be passed are revealing:

In 1840 CE, a law was passed in France, making it illegal to make children less than eight years old, work in mines. In 1842, making it illegal to make women work in mines. Again in 1842, making children less than 12 years old work more than ten hours a day became unlawful!

New technology had enabled a degree of exploitation not seen before.

***

We sell your souls, and do it electronically, just smile, they say, and they chuckle:

It is the same today: our minds are for sale and traded, by the likes of Facebook. It could not have been done before. New tech enabled this new exploitation. New tech enabled this new exploitation. Nonlinearly, as we allowed Facebook & its ilk to acquire this sort of power, they amplified it even further, with considerable wealth, buying politicians, all the way to the president, who used to go there twice a month, to beg for crumbs like an overgrown, sick pigeon, anxious to please, drifting in a sea of greed, with no moral anchor…

US citizens can have Labor Day, as long as it isolates the USA, doesn’t mean much, and encourages to forget history… Especially US history! Well, the Gates will take charge of your education, so you are saved!

Beyond exploitation, there is sheer outrage. Microsoft made it so that a recycler got 15 months in jail. For restoring restore disks of used computers (which Microsoft depicts as theft!) Meanwhile Bill and Melinda Gates are all over TV (such as “60 Minutes”) because they helped finance 300 students, and they present this as the way to support high education. The Gates control more than 150 billion dollars (besides the likes of Obama and his ilk…)

In the 1960s, “60 Minutes” fought the establishment with truths about the Vietnam War. Nowadays, “60 Minutes” has becomes the Gates’ organ of aggrandizement. And so is the “Justice” system. For years, now, “60 Minutes” has been hard at work, opening wide the “Gates of Hell”. Gates of Hell, indeed!

And more is coming:When is a robot homeless? When it can’t get power.

Patrice Aymé

Note: Mayday! Is the call in aviation when needing help in an emergency. Sounds silly, but it is actually the French for “M’aider” (Help me), which is pronounced exactly the same. The French didn’t just fly the first three motorized planes (Avion I, II, III), but also named the field (Ader, who was the engineer who built the first, steam-powered, planes, named planes, “avions” from the Latin “Avis” for bird, and then thus, “aviation” and caused an aviation boom in France in the early 1900s. That’s why most basic aviation vocabulary is French… Including “Mayday”…)

Abuse of Muslim Women Ignored By Western Leadership, and Why

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.]

Can A Religion Be Abject?

Are there abject religions? Yes, of course. Their annihilation, or transformation into higher forms, describe the progress of civilization. Nineteen-nine percent, 99% at least, of the known superstitious religions or sects were rejected, or outlawed, and buried in the night of aeons passed, because, precisely, they were abject. (Some non-superstitious religions, such as militarism, or Marxism, or even Stoicism, in excess, can be abject too. But this essay will focus on superstitious religions… which are generally what people have been trained to recognize as “religious”.)

Is there an objective criterion to find out if a religion is abject? Of course. The Romans, who launched our civilization, or, at least, our legal system, taught us that a religion is abject, and should be made unlawful, when it practices human sacrifices. Let’s outlaw religions clamoring for human sacrifices! Our ancestors did it, let’s heed their example!

Rome, invaded and occupied by a Gallic tribe, or others, sacrificed a couple or two… of human beings. The Romans, though, were ashamed by what they had done. Human sacrifice was formally outlawed by senatorial decree in 97 BCE under the consulship of P. Licinius Crassus.

The Romans accused Carthage of killing children. Thus Romans acquired moral superiority on Carthage which created a mood conducive to the annihilation of that Punic civilization. (Whether Carthage sacrificed children is still researched; archeological evidence points increasingly to the correctness of the Roman descriptions.)

Aztecs’ Description Of Paris, November 13, 2015: Jihadist Sacrificing Gourmet

[Codex Laud, folio 8.]

The Romans prohibited human sacrifices by the peoples they conquered (and used human sacrifices as a justification to conquer them). Romans advertised human sacrifices  as barbaric.

Outlawing human sacrifices distinguished civilization from barbarity, said Rome. Rome was also critical of Greek mythology for celebrating human sacrifices in disguise, and that refined intellectual critique helped promote the switch to Christianism…

The same mood, of revulsion to human sacrifices, presided over the annihilation of the Aztecs. Criticized for their deliberate annihilation of Mesoamerican states (not just the Aztecs), some violently invasive conquistadores claimed they had to do it to clean thoroughly the evil mood of human sacrifices…

The mood of being horrified by human sacrifices originated in Rome. However, human sacrifices were practiced in disguise for centuries (by gladiators’ deaths and the occasional sacrificed Vestal as happened once under emperor Domitian, because the chief Vestal engaged in sexual activity).

Our civilization is Rome Renovated (as the Franks proclaimed in 800 CE). And the next question naturally is: is there any religion today which practices human sacrifices?

Some have tried to deny that any religion practiced human sacrifices. Maybe because of the natural question: Does Islam Practices Human Sacrifices In Disguise?

When a religion organizes human sacrifices, it orders to kill some particular individuals, under some circumstances. As Wikipedia says: “Human sacrifice is the act of killing one or more human beings, usually as an offering to a deity, as part of a religious ritual. Human sacrifice has been practiced in various cultures throughout history.”

Is there, today, a religion which orders to kill other people and claims that those who kill other people go to paradise? Of course there is.

A religion which orders to kill “apostates”, “unbelievers”, “pagans”, “idolaters” of food, music and the good life in general, consists in practicing human sacrifices in disguise. Or, actually, come to think of it, not in disguise at all, but full view. The emperor wear no clothes, He is just drenched in blood. Islam also punishes homosexuals by stoning, to death (on the ground that this is the punishment in the Bible), “Adulterous” women get the same treatment: stoning by a crowd practicing human sacrifice.

LOL, Muslims of the Fundamental sort, why don’t you call all your stoning, stoning, crucifixion, and whipping to death, human sacrifices? Because it does not sound good? Because it sounds all too true? [1]

So why is Fundamentalist Islam lawful? Maybe I should ask the question in reverse: is (Literal, Salafist, Wahhabist) Islam lawful because it was not pointed out that all its most troubling practices amount to human sacrifices? Let’s point out, that’s what thinking is all about. And a last question: are those who promote Islam, thus the Qur’an, as Obama had done, promoting what is inside the Qur’an, namely the orders from God detailing when and when the believers are to engage in human sacrifices? And if not, why not?

Tip for anti-terrorism: stop calling them monsters “suicide bombers” or “Jihadists”. Call them what they are: human sacrificers.

But then, of course, one will have to overcome first the mood that simply describing the Qur’an in its own words is racism, as the Common (Plutocratic, Democracy-Destroying) Mood has it. Can reality be racist? This whiff of realism could well end up with the wealthiest paying 93% tax, as they did under Republican president Eisenhower, lest the realistic mood takes over, and various superstitions squirm back to the unspeakable shadows they should have never left.

Patrice Ayme’

***

***

[1] The Shia and Sunni sects of Islam are favorable to the violent, hence human sacrificing aspects of Islam. Others, like the older sect known as the Ibadis, were not, and insisted that the Qur’an was indicative and allegoric, not to be interpreted literally. The point became more saillant after the Fourth Caliph, Uthman, selected what he wanted to see in the Qur’an, and boiled alternative Qur’ans (this started the Muslim religious wars which go on to this day).

Pantheon Pathos

CHOOSE ALL YOUR GODS WELL.

Today, the French government inducted another four resistance fighters to the Pantheon. Good point: they could keep on doing this for a million years. Bad point: Why should most resistance fighters and their descendants would have to wait thousands of years to be recognized as equally worthy?

Worse: this shows that the French republic is (mis)guided, to this day, by (what I call) celebritism and arbitrariness (what makes those four resistance fighters more valuable than others? That they were connected to a general, De Gaulle, one of them by genes)? And even worse: but I better reserve this for the punch line.

Diminishing French President Dwarfed By Pantheon

Pan-Theon: All Gods. Choose your gods well, don’t just pick up a few, and make others angry.  Yes, silly and erroneous decisions diminish civilization. Be it indirectly giving weapons to the so-called Islamist State (as Obama worried he would, and then did!), or just pointing at a few, as they were Muhammad, worthy of a discriminatory cult.

Why to worry so much about France, some will sneer? One of my USA friends recently, slightly infuriated as she was (thanks, in no small measure to my finely tuned devilish ways), told me “Nobody cares about France anymore, the place has become so irrelevant. Look at me, I learned French, and my children are learning Spanish.”

Most people do not know why France is so important, but a hint is that France gave birth to both England as we know it, and gave enough of a shove to England in America, to give birth to the USA (something finalized at Yorktown, when the three French commanders, La Fayette, Rochambeau, De Grasse, and the American commander, Washington brought the rendition of the British Army and its German troops). The USA itself, at this point, is just an addendum to Frankish history. That’s not just a slight, but a heavy duty.

The truth, and the French are the first to forget it, is that the Imperium Francorum (“Empire of the Franks”) was the successor state of the Roman Empire, SPQR, the Senātus PopulusQue Rōmānus, or more directly, of the Imperium Romanum (Roman Empire). After four centuries of Frankish recovery (including stopping and reversing the Islamist invasion), the Roman Empire was officially re-launched at Christmas 800 CE, when Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope one and only Roman Emperor in Rome (to Constantinople’s rage).

So all of Western Europe is actually the set of Frankish successor states.

Thus it matters what France is doing today. It was good that the Frankish Franco-German leaders, Hollande (because, as the Franks, is ancestors came from there) and Merkel proposed greater unification for the Eurozone. (Ahead, and because of, Cameron hair brained des-unifying proposals.)

So today, the French government decided to install four resistance fighters to the Pantheon.

Coffins representing the two women and two men — Genevieve de Gaulle-Anthonioz, Germaine Tillion, Pierre Brossolette and Jean Zay — were escorted through Paris streets to be interred Thursday after a sound-and-light show Wednesday night.

The women’s coffins contain only soil from their gravesites: their families didn’t want the bodies exhumed. Maybe they knew, deep down inside, that the ceremony is unfair, and that it is just political exploitation.

Indeed, why not to honor all resistance fighters? And these two women did not die under torture, actually, they did not die at all. Others died under torture from the Gestapo and its minions. At the very least, those who died under torture ought to get to the Pantheon too. The point is that, although these two women resisted, they did not resist to such a degree that they would have been worth of the torture chambers, right away.

Many others were; including British female agents, parachuted in France to conduct sabotage; many were tortured to death by the Nazis. We know this, for example from SS Commander Barbie’s Memoirs. Those girls who parachuted over France knew the risk: to be caught, and tortured to death. But why are they not parachuted, as they deserve, in the Pantheon? And don’t try to tell me they were not French: the moment they parachuted into Nazi occupied France with weapons, they became French, as far as I am concerned.

Hollande apologists will point at rising anti-Judaism (euphemistically, and grotesquely called “anti-Semitism”), and that celebrating resistance to Nazism helps to fight it. Yes, agreed, but my objection stands: why those four, and only those four. Because they were favored? De Gaulle’s niece was carefully not killed, because Heinrich Himmler thought she could be exchanged. She was also from some small French nobility.

So what’s truly celebrated here? Celebritism? At least, in part, and, as far as I am concerned, too much. Celebritism ought to be condemned, it’s something for civilization to leave behind. Celebritism is exactly why we have to choose between Clinton and Bush, as usual. And why Bush’s grandfather was one of Hitler’s most precious collaborators. Celebritism is also why income and wealth inequality has reached much higher level than during the Late Imperium Romanum (which did die, fundamentally, from said inequality… Or, at least, so I claim).

Celebritism supports oligarchy, which supports plutocracy, which supports intellectual fascism, which supports stupidity. Turtles all the way down to hell. Kill celebritism, and, ultimately, you will kill the cult of stupidity. It should not require much brains to realize that being obsessed by those who are famous for being famous is rather hare brained.

The French Republic has a duty to do better, because, historically, it guided civilization. The clowns presently in charge ought to be reminded of their shortcomings. (But, naturally, if too stupid, they can’t understand any of the preceding.)

Patrice Ayme’

Note 1: So far there were only 71 persons in the French Pantheon, including one woman (Ms. Curie; why her Nobel Laureate, and discoverer of nuclear energy, daughter, Irene, is not there is another mystery to me). All the “just”, those who harbored Jews at the risk of their lives, as my grandparents did, are there. So there is a precedent for admitting a CLASS, at the Pantheon.

Note 2: The original Pantheon still stands in Rome. To this day, it’s the tallest free standing (purely) concrete structure in the world. (That’s probably why the Christians did not destroy it: too tough, and no stone to steal to build their Vatican and what not…)

French God No Surrogate For Rights

French Prime Minister Valls just declared that surrogate motherhood (in French: GPA, “Gestation Pour Autrui”) is to be condemned so vigorously that the world ought to draw legislation against it. Greedy banksters are OK, and welcome in the French (or American) government, but those criminally pregnant women ought to be outlawed, and these innocent children ought to have no rights.

Who needs Marine Le Pen, when France has already worse?

Why is pregnancy criminal? Because surrogate motherhood, during which a woman brings to term somebody’s else child is “intolerable commercialization of human beings and merchantization of women’s bodies” (“merchandisation”).

Is the PM saying that there is such a thing as tolerable commercialization and merchantization of human bodies? Bad-breaking work is tolerable, but carrying someone’s else child, a crime? And these children are criminals under punishment for their existence, without having ever been convicted in a court of law?

Some will pontificate that PM Valls had to say that, because 500,000 Christianoid fanatics of the hateful persuasion, having learned nothing since the massacre of Saint Bartholomew, were going to demonstrate.

The cause of the fury of these half-wits? The European Court of Human Rights has condemned France for not recognizing the relationship parents and children, if surrogacy was involved.

How does that differ from recognizing as non-human people of color? Same idea, no? The way they were born!

So, forced by European Justice, France will recognize those relationships… But only those, and will keep on with its criminal behavior denying other human rights. France will affect to consider that even those children whose parents the European Court forced France to recognize, will have no right to nationality, or to inheritance, etc.

This atrocious French behavior relative to some children is a warning to those who affect to believe that the European Union has no merit. For years, the European Union judicial system forced Great Britain to recognize it was violating human rights in Northern Ireland, and finally the UK relented (so, lo and behold, peace came). Now it’s France and its God-enraged fanatics, which violate human rights.

Prior to the European decision, the French government had recognized the parents-child relationship in the case of the USA alone (that means, not with, say, Ukraine).

This fanaticism of Catholics given free rein, of course, undermines the struggle against Jihadism. Indeed, if the craziness of Catholic extremists has to be respected, why not that of Muslim extremists?

The fundamental reasoning of the Catholics is that, if a couple wants children, but cannot get any without surrogacy, it’s evidence that God did not want it. God, in Arabic, that’s Allah. So, in other words, surrogacy contradicts Allah.

Same story if a couple of lesbians want a child.

That reasoning about Allah is itself contradictory, in a meta way. Indeed, if God is almighty, that is, all-mighty, He (it’s never a “She”) has obviously created surrogacy. So, by denying surrogacy, one denies God’s work to God.

Moreover, by the same token, if the fanatics consider that any human technology is the work of Satan, and an effort to undermine Allah, then the fanatics should refuse all medical treatment, modern transportation, starting with using the wheel, etc. They should study this more carefully, and act accordingly.

However, chimpanzees, and even baboons, use technology: the ways of God are impenetrable.

In Japan in the Nineteenth Century, Emperor Meiji insisted on dramatic modernization. Some of the Samurai class resisted, and Meiji used massive bloody force to effect the change. He had to: Japan had to modernize if it wanted to survive. As I always say, survival is the primary moral imperative, and all what the concept of morality boils down to.

France, to some extent, and all of Europe, even the entire planet, is engaged in a similar situation: inappropriate morals have to be swept away, to be replaced by the fresh, new, and more sustainable.

Sometimes a clash of forces is all it takes. This is the sense of the bombing campaign against the so-called “Caliphate” in Mesopotamia (but it will not be complete if it cannot come to agreeable terms with progressive Sunis).

This is what both Thatcher and Reagan did to implement their long lasting counter-revolutions, and the triumph of greed: Thatcher broke the miners, Reagan put the air controllers in chains. Both destroyed the unions thus.

Great force has always to be used against great difficulties. It could be pure mental force (as intellectual Jihadists would point out). Still, one has to start somewhere. One may as well start with a cause that goes with progress.

Clearly, denying the right for some adults to have a child, if they are prevented to do so, for, say, medical reasons, is a human right violation.

Tolerating the right to violate other people’s rights  is all it takes to go down the road of infamy. The Catholics insist that they have it. They are an easier nut to break than hard core Wahhabists, so they should be done first, as a warm-up.

It is pretty pathetic to see that today’s France is on the wrong side of human rights in an Union she was long the main conceptual motor of.

Now this is no surprise: the better human rights are enforced in a nation, the higher its mental, hence economic, performance. Thus the economic weakening of France (blatant in comparison to the, in many-ways-comparable Switzerland) is entangled with increasing violation of the spirit of human rights there. I am sure that many a Jihadist will feel just that way. And correctly, however perversely, so.

Patrice Ayme’