Archive for the ‘Islam’ Category

Islamist Attacks Brussels

March 22, 2016

I heard there were two very powerful explosions at the airport. An unused explosive outfit was also found. An hour later the Maelbeek subway, 300 meters from the EC main building, exploded. More than 35 killed, 200 wounded, many very grievously. (Such coordination is achieved thanks to encrypted Apple I Phones, and the like; as we will see below, US plutocracy did not just bring you Islamism, it makes it safe, for terrorists; don’t worry for the Apple Plutos, they are also safe, in their private enclaves protected by their own private security forces.)

Recent policies played a role: four terrorists, at least, joined the refugee flow to make the attacks in Paris (two exploded themselves). They had nothing to do with France, aside from the explosive desire to kill human beings in France.

However, the greater problem is much deeper than that, as I have documented in countless essays. The gist of it is this: if one reads the Qur’an and the Hadith very carefully (as I have) one discovers that, from the very beginning, Islam was conceived as an ideology to attack the Greco-Roman West (and even then Zoroastrian Persia). The Prophet Muhammad explained that, after a tough and long war between Rome and Persia, it was time, the first time in a thousand years, when the Arabs will finally be able to raid the civilized world (the way they used to, before).

Those who have finished agonizing are at now peace, in Brussels airport, thanks to the religion of eternal peace

Those who have finished agonizing are at now peace, in Brussels airport, thanks to the religion of eternal peace

Thus, from the beginning, Islam was conceived as war ideology against civilization.

Thus, where does the notion that “Islamophobia is racism” come from?

In the 1930s, American plutocrats, fossil fuel magnates, made an alliance with Ibn Saud, who was in the process of finalizing his acquisition of Arabia by force. The Saud family had, since the 18C, made an alliance with Wahhab, a fanatic Salafist Fundamentalist.

Islam Fundamentalism had been made unlawful by the Kurd Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, in thle 12C. The penalty for preaching it was death.

Wahhab’s fanaticism gave a religious excuse for the Saudi to use divine violence.

In the 1930s, the Saudi dictatorship gave an excuse for the oil men to make Saudi Arabia into their thing, no question asked. In 1945, president Roosevelt made the alliance with Ibn Saud official; the Saudis would recycle their profits on Wall Street (and, later, London). (Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was getting Saudi financing and Nazi help.)

This very profitable system was quickly extended by US special services and the like: the CIA promoted the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Shia in Iran against Prime Minister Mossadegh. Mossadegh wanted to partly nationailze the big British and American companies in Iran. The CIA armed, financed and excited Ayatollah Khomeini and his subordinates.

At the same time, the USA pursued Roosevelt’s wilful and determined program to eject France (and thus Britain) from all its zones of influence (using the Muslim approach).

In Pakistan, the CIA pushed the state toward Islamization. Then Pakistani Islamists were used to destabilize Afghanistan where the government was keen to exploit its underground riches in cooperation with France and Russia.

That was not enough, so on July 3, 1979, president Jimmy carter gave the secret order to the CIA of attacking directly Afghanistan. The CIA and the SIA (Saudi Intelligence Agency) went to find Bin Laden, a young engineer and heir known for his Muslim Fundamentalism. He was put in charge of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, with Saudi and American financing. Algerians were also trained to fight there. They went back to Algeria to fight the government, and even society, constituting the GIA (Group Islamiste Arme’). France intervened discreetly (giving the green light for the army to block elections, and providing training and equipment). More than 200,000 were killed… in Algeria alone.

And so on.

As Picard says, we are confronted to a mess, a mix between a conspiracy satanic (Pluto!) between fossil fuel Western plutocrats and deeper feudal, and organized crime forces.

So where does the “Islamophobia is racism” slogan come from? Famous, but, fundamentally second-rate, philosophers in the West (and their even cheaper spiritual descendants).

After 1945, many of these thinkers for hire, who used to love the Nazis or Soviets a few years earlier, fell in love with all things American. Thus they produced a philosophical system which seduced Washington and Wall Street (when not Moscow).

Not that there was a contradiction between Soviet Moscow and Wall Street’s Washington: when Israel, France and Britain decided to attack Nasser (shortly before supported by the CIA), Moscow and Washington became allies: Moscow invaded Hungary, threatened to atom bomb Paris and London, while the USA, by acquiescing, implicitly threatened the same, while explicitly making other threats, and had France and Britain condemned by the United Nations General Assembly.

Thus, what we are confronting is not just terrorism, but a form of mental corruption which has undermined Western thought, intimately tied up with the powers that be. Preaching Islamist terror should be viewed as accessory to mass murder. Plutocracy and its mental conspiracies is an even deeper ill… which does not bring just financial crises, inequality and impoverishment. It brings a weakening of all mental faculties, including those of the heart.

The Islamist State said: “Islamic State fighters carried out a series of bombings with explosive belts and devices on Tuesday, targeting… the Belgian capital Brussels, a country participating in the coalition against the Islamic State… Islamic State fighters opened fire inside the Zaventem airport, before several of them detonated their explosive belts, as a martyrdom bomber detonated his explosive belt in the Maalbeek metro station.”

Why do these Muslim terrorists want to die as “martyrs” so much? Why not just to drop the explosives in a luggage? (As one of the bombers, the man with the hat, did?) It’s not all about the fact that the Qur’an said that Muslim martyrs dying for god will go to paradise (bypassing Final Judgment by god). It’s also about the fact these killers have had to live in the world. They have had to go through the crowds of women, children, old people, and they had to decided to kill, maim, and hurt them all. It’s hard, even for monsters. How to you decide to explode a three-year old child? Well, you distract yourself by your own death, and by deciding your cause is so worthy, not only it justifies killing three-year olds, but also, oneself. Besides, how could they live with themselves thereafter?

[This post will be modified eminently, with links added.]

Patrice Ayme’

Grand Ayatollah Obama, Islamist In Chief

February 4, 2016

Is Literal Christianism compatible with civilization? No. Not at all. “Literal” means, according to the mythical “Jesus” his “New Testament”, AND also the Old Testament (“Jesus” “said” this explicitly; Jesus insisted that the Old Testament was part of his message, maybe because he did not want to be condemned to death right away).

The Old Testament shows a jealous, mass-homicidal, cruel, non-sensical, sexist and demented God ruling the heavens. “Believers” are supposed to take order from that crazy monster in heavens. Literal Islam reveres the same exact God (and actually Islam reveres “The Book”, that is, The Bible, and whom he calls the “prophet” Jesus).

Literal Islam (by literal I mean straight out of Islamist texts) is NOT compatible with civilization, either. For the exact same overall reason as Literal Christianism is not compatible with civilization (that’s exactly why the Franks, and then later again, after it grew back, the Enlightenment, knocked Literal Christianism down). Literal Christianism’s implementation has been outlawed everywhere in the West. For the same reason, the same should be done for Literal Islam. Obama went to a mosque, and preached the world what Islam was, according to him, as if he were an authority in matter of Islam, to the point of telling us exactly what Islam is. I comment, you decide.

I Condemn Literal Abrahamism, But I Love Beautiful Mosque, & I Respect, Or Even Adopt, Whatever I Think Is Respectable In Islam

I Condemn Literal Abrahamism, But I Love Beautiful Mosque, & I Respect, Or Even Adopt, Whatever I Think Is Respectable In Islam

Obama: “…since 9/11, but more recently, since the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, you [The “Muslims”] ’ve seen too often people conflating the horrific acts of terrorism with the beliefs of an entire faith.”

All too often, what? Notice that Obama is here coming to the defense of “the beliefs of an entire faith“. However, the first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“. Is Obama establishing Islam, as president of the USA, by claiming that Islamist terrorism  has nothing to do with the beliefs of Islam?

The Qur’an (= The Recitation) consists in 80,000 words which are orders from “God”. Some, clearly, order to kill some categories of people. As far as I can see, the “terrorists” are implementing these orders, and this is also what the “terrorists” believe. The “terrorists” are, first of all, believers in an entire faith, warts and all. Missing that point, is missing how “terrorism” seduces disgruntled youth.

There are hundreds of beliefs in Islam which contradicts democracy, or even the simplest humanity. Consider Hadith 041; 6985: this Hadith, and several similar to this one, supposedly proffered by Muhammad, ask to kill all the Jews. Only then would God proceed with the Final Judgment. This is one of the central beliefs of Islam. By claiming, implicitly, that Hadith 041; 6985 has nothing to do with terrorism, is Obama saying that killing all the Jews has nothing to do with terrorism?

Obama sees a vast oppression against Muslims, all around the USA. Says Obama: “Around the country, women wearing the hijab — just like Sabah — have been targeted… Some of them are parents, and they talked about how their children were asking, are we going to be forced out of the country, or, are we going to be rounded up?  Why do people treat us like that?… I’ve had people write to me and say, I feel like I’m a second-class citizen.  I’ve had mothers write and say, “my heart cries every night,” thinking about how her daughter might be treated at school.”

Wow, wow, wow. Talk about hysteria. Whatever “targeted” means. Obama is depicting Muslim women “targeted around the country”, which is, as far as I can see, counterfactual anti-Americanism. It’s ironical that the President, who has condemned “anti-Americanism”, with truculence, where it is perfectly justified, engages in it, by inventing ‘facts’ trotting in his head.

I have seen pretend “women” wearing integral veils in the USA, and nobody bothered them, although it should be unlawful in the USA.  The integral veil is explicitly unlawful in more and more countries, because it’s used, as in Algeria in 1950s, to carry bombs. Several African countries made it unlawful recently. To boot, Africa is really hot, and when I lived for decades, I never saw an integral veil. The apparition of those is directly related to the inception of religious “Islamist” war.

Obama: “So let’s start with this fact:  For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace.  And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.”

This is not correct. First of all, Islam generally arrived in most places with dozens of thousands of slashing swords of vast moving cavalry armies. To pretend otherwise is either to be grossly ignorant of history, or a liar, or both (because one pretends to know what one does not know). I have explained this, many times. Just as I have explained many times that “Islam” means SUBMISSION, it does not mean peace, it means SUBMISSION. Obama should read me more carefully. Or then read Houellebecq who wrote the best-seller “Submission”.  Instead of quoting myself, I will quote Wikipedia:

‘Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, submission, safeness and peace.[23] In a religious context it means “voluntary submission to God”.[24][25] Islām is the verbal noun of Form IV of the root, and means “submission” or “surrender”.’

Obama knows this, and if he is following the gutter interpretation of the word “Islam”, it’s deliberate disinformation. (He is harping on the Common Misinformation that “Islam is the religion of peace”…)

Obama: …”like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity.  Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, “let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.”

All “faiths” have to be rooted in compassion, mercy, justice and charity, because so are human beings. One catches flies with honey, not by scaring them. Even Nazism caught its flies, its adherents, with honey. Lots of honey. Nazism was all about minority rights, justice, compassion (for those who deserved it). So compassion, mercy, justice and charity are a given in all religions. Aztec philosophers explained to the Conquistadores that the Aztec faith was much more charitable, human, merciful than Christianism (an irrelevant rejoinder, as the Conquistadores used Christianism as just another reason to massacre the Aztecs).

“Like so many faiths Islam is rooted in goodness?” Goodness is a Trojan Horse. Of around 10,000 “faiths” known, more than 99% encouraged human sacrifices (including the ancient Celtic, Punic, Aztec religions. Notice that religious barbarity does not mean primitivism in all ways: the Celts’ metallurgy was the world’s best, but they had the bad idea to burn Roman soldiers alive).

And “Islam”, Literal Islam, explicitly say, in hundreds of places, that those who kill in the name of God will go directly to Paradise (they will not have to go through the “Final Judgment”).

Obama: “Groups like al Qaeda and ISIL, they’re not the first extremists in history to misuse God’s name.  We’ve seen it before, across faiths.  But right now, there is a organized extremist element that draws selectively from Islamic texts, twists them in an attempt to justify their killing and their terror.”

“Draws selectively from Islamic Texts”? Tu quoque (And you too). The problem is that what they draw selectively are orders from God to kill categories of people (mostly, as one can see on TV everyday, other “Muslims”, who are “misinterpreting” the sacred texts, allegedly…) If you go see an organized crime boss, and he flatters you for half an hour, then to finally say:”Kill him!”, the important part of the discourse is “Kill him”. It’s actually why Obama is surrounded by a small army, wherever he goes. Because of this very short order, possibly floating around: “Kill him!”. Obama is well protected against this order of Islamist texts, ‘kill him’, he will have secret service protection for at least a decade. The rest of us? Who cares?

Then Obama draws selectively from the Qur’an, doing exactly what Al Qaeda and ISIL do, according to him. There are magnificent sentences, or even ideas, in the Qur’an (most of them not original). Says Obama:

“O mankind,” the Koran teaches, we have “made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another.”

Obama then says Jefferson was accused to be a “Muslim”. The generation of rebels just before the Founding Fathers in America, believed in “Nature’s God” and were anti-Christian (following Spinoza and the rest of the Enlightenment). Muslims, like Christians, are Abrahamists. They believe that a particular God who feels it’s cool to order parents to kill their children should be revered (and revered, just because of that particular trait: it’s spanking gone lethally insane, of the highest order of dementia). More civilized, or simply normal people, disagree strongly with finding the desire to order parents to kill their children admirable. Abrahamism could arise only in a land with too many children, prehistoric men, in the last 20 million years, would have considered that a religion which suggests to kill children is impossible, because defending children is mission number one of what defines humanity.

Jefferson, however admirable his discourses, was a great destroyer of Indians, and a pedophile who made pregnant children he had enslaved (in spite of the ultimatum of the French police in Paris).

Speaking of France, was Obama’s speech bad in all ways? No, he tried to make some medicine go down with the sugar coat:

Obama: “…there are Jews who’ve lived in places like France for centuries who now feel obliged to leave because they feel themselves under assault –sometimes by Muslims.  We have to be consistent in condemning hateful rhetoric and violence against everyone.(Applause.)  And that includes against Muslims here in the United States of America.  (Applause.)

    So none of us can be silent.  We can’t be bystanders to bigotry.  And together, we’ve got to show that America truly protects all faiths.”

Where is it in the Constitution that “America protects all faiths?” Certainly not: starting with Roman law more than 2,000 years ago, religions requiring human sacrifices are not protected, but, instead, outlawed. (The argument can be made that Literal Islam is a human sacrifice religion.)

After this flickering of the flame of truth, all too soon scorched by it, Obama gravely relapses through hopeless confusion:

“ Groups like ISIL are desperate for legitimacy.  They try to portray themselves as religious leaders and holy warriors who speak for Islam.  I refuse to give them legitimacy.  We must never give them that legitimacy.  (Applause.)  They’re not defending Islam.  They’re not defending Muslims.”

Grand Ayatollah Obama knows Islam better than the Muslims of the Islamist State, and refuses to “give them legitimacy”. And Obama sails away:

 The vast majority of the people they kill are innocent Muslim men, women and children.  (Applause.)

    And, by the way, the notion that America is at war with Islam ignores the fact that the world’s religions are a part of who we are.  We can’t be at war with any other religion because the world’s religions are a part of the very fabric of the United States, our national character.  (Applause.)

    So the best way for us to fight terrorism is to deny these organizations legitimacy and to show that here in the United States of America, we do not suppress Islam; we celebrate and lift up the success of Muslim Americans.  That’s how we show the lie that they’re trying to propagate.  (Applause.)  We shouldn’t play into terrorist propaganda.  And we can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem.  That betrays our values.”

Grand Ayatollah Obama knows that we “can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem.  That betrays our values.” Apparently, our core value have to do with sheer lunacy. Reading the Qur’an front to back, in a non-censored edition shows it to be as violent as the most violent book of the Marquis de Sade. Except Sade is meant to describe the activities of plutocrats, in a parodies, whereas, when the God of the Qur’an condemns people to atrocious torture to death, again and again and again, He is serious; it’s a religious order. And implicitly enjoins his followers to do the same. See “Violence in the Holy Qur’an“.

Once again, the question is: what is Islam? Islam according to Grand Ayatollah Obama, or Sufi Islam from West Africa, is completely different from Literal, Salafist, Wahhabist Islam. But only the latter is simple to describe, because it’s in the texts, and one can ferret it, armed with the Principle of Abrogation.

Then Obama’s discourse comes close to Orwellian double-speak:

“…across our country and around the world, Muslim leaders are roundly and repeatedly and consistently condemning terrorism.  And around the globe, Muslims who’ve dared to speak out have often been targeted and even killed.  So those voices are there; we just have to amplify them more.”

What? We want to amplify them more, so we can target and even kill them, more?

A French study on French Islamist terrorists is just out: there are more than 8,000 now, who are known to security agencies. That’s double the number of a year ago. 20% are children. 38% are converts. All together, they have generally been recruited by… professional recruiters, and other “Muslim” leaders.

Bearing on, Obama turns into pseudo-Islamist scholar:

“These are the voices of Muslim clerics who teach that Islam prohibits terrorism, for the Koran says whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind.  (Applause.)  These are the voices of Muslim scholars, some of whom join us today, who know Islam has a tradition of respect for other faiths; and Muslim teachers who point out that the first word revealed in the Koran — igra — means “read” — to seek knowledge, to question assumptions.  (Applause.)”

Absent an explicit denunciation of Taquiyah and the Principle of Abrogation, to describe the Qur’an that way,is all Taquiyah (lying to non-Muslims in matter of Islam).

Basically, there are statements to the contrary elsewhere in the Qur’an, and the Abrogation Principle and precise datation of the statements abrogate the preceding. All Muslim scholars know this, but Grand Ayatollah Obama behaves as if he did not. (In truth he does, of course, but an electable politician who can’t lie, can’t think.)

RULE & DIVIDE, SAY PLUTOCRATS:

Plutocrats, by defending implicitly Literal Islam, create an constant abscess, pain, and raging conflict which distracts the world from the fact it’s led by a few. I was talking to a Saudi friend yesterday, and she told me with the utmost assurance that the upper reaches of Saudi Arabia, the top Saudis were positively, absolutely totally, dedicated atheists, agnostics, etc. But, of course, only in safe private. In public, they are just the exact opposite.

Thus the Wahhabist Islam in Saudi Arabia is just a show. Interpreted literally, though, Islam is the perfect religion to get mental retards to explode themselves in suicide missions, because, if they believe in Literal Islam, doing this is the best way to go to paradise. And they believe, so they explode.

And it’s perfect for plutocrats, because, this way, everybody talks about interpretations of a religion which rose in the desert before the Middle Ages, instead of whom it is who really rules the USA (and thus the world).

Meanwhile a UN panel will conclude Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being “arbitrarily detained” in the UK, the Swedish foreign ministry said.

Assange leaked to the world internal documents which were top secret, showing US forces annihilating journalists and their would-be rescuers, among other things. One can imagine that Assange would have revealed a tape of Nazis shooting and killing, civilians and their would-be rescuers, and then having Sweden accused Assange of rape (Sweden was Nazi Germany’s most important willing collaborator in World War Two; it provided Hitler with its most important weapon, and its crucial high grade iron).

Who did Assange “rape”? Somebody who organized a party, for Assange, two days after the alleged “rape”… The rape was alleged later. And who is the accuser? She had been earlier arrested in Cuba as a CIA operative. (In a way the story is allegorically true: Assange “raped” the CIA!)

No wonder the Grand Ayatollah Obama cherry picks the Qur’an: anything but talking about what he is really responsible of. Like the witch hunt against WikiLeaks, for revealing American war crimes. OK, a little injection of “God” should help here.

Grand Ayatollah Obama ended thus his sacred discourse:

“May God’s peace be upon you.  May God bless the United States of America.  Thank you very much, everybody.”

That’s an improvement: I use to rail GAO (Grand Ayatollah Obama) for ordering “God” to bless the USA. But now GAO has sat on his rump long enough, and meditated upon that point, apparently. GAO has decided that, indeed, to order “God” to “Bless the USA” puts him, implicitly, above “God”. And that, somehow, was not “cool”. GAO wants to be “cool”. So now GAO suggests to God what to do. Progress. This is the sort of progress we have learned to expect from GAO. Changes we can believe in. Tini-tiny ridiculous little changes.

Patrice Ayme’

Embargo The Saudis

January 4, 2016

(And don’t forget Iran!)

Interpreting holy Muslim texts literally was made a capital crime under Saladin, eight centuries ago. (Meanwhile Iran and the Baghdad Caliphate had long ignored Literal Islam; however, they would fall to the Mongols shortly after.)

Wahhabism revived the literal reading, thus giving the Saudis the moral pretext and the fanaticism they needed to take control of Arabia. In 1945, the government of the USA concluded an alliance with Ibn Saud. Not because the USA needed it to survive: the USA was the world’s largest oil producer. The accord with the Saudis enabled American oil men to make huge profits, while the government of the USA enjoyed controlling most of the world’s oil.

Saudi Arabia had a good weekend: it executed 47 “terrorists”, including a prominent opponent, Shia cleric. Yes forty-seven.

Shia Cleric Decapitated, Iran Unamused. Diplomatic Relations Broken

Shia Cleric Decapitated, Iran Unamused. Diplomatic Relations Broken

This comes a few days after Iranian rockets landing within 1,500 meters of French and American warships in international water. Some Iranian officials claim that should be seen as a “warning”. Considering the USA bent over backwards for the accord with Iran, and France was skeptical, this is rather curious.

The cleric was “legally” assassinated for (verbal) offenses that included “breaking allegiance with the ruler” and “inciting sectarian strife.” Who made this “ruler” a ruler? Some horrendous war, less than a century ago, when the Saudi family stole most of Arabia, for its own exclusive enjoyment. Nothing said that plutocrats cannot capture entire countries. In Saudi Arabia, justice itself is intrinsically unjust, it’s just an “allegiance to the ruler”..

The Saudi and Iranian plutocracies, hiding behind god’s orders, know what they are doing: if they execute contradictors, they will be contradicted less, as potential contradictors will not look forward arrest, abuse, torture and execution, after being “judged” to be horrendous people.

The New York Times Editorial Board editorial could not resist to strike the usual compromised moral stance in “Saudi Arabia’s Barbaric Executions“. In that otherwise pretty good opinion piece, it squeaks that: “The tangled and volatile realities of the Middle East do not give the United States or the European Union the luxury of choosing or rejecting allies on moral criteria.”

Questions: 1) so are we going to choose or reject allies on which criteria? Greed only? This was tried with the Third Reich before. It made the Nazis’ Reich ever more aggressive, and strong.

Not entering morality in economics enables evil, so we become accomplices of it. The foundation of the Republic is moral. What others are doing (outside of the USA, Europe, and our close allies) is none of our business, however, our purchasing of Saudi oil makes their business our business.

2) who has no choice? With oil and gas lower than in a very long time, why do we need their oil? Who are the barbarians going to sell their black oil to? Russia? A direct oil embargo on Middle East oil would barely inconvenience us, but it would make it much harder for those who violate human rights. Indeed the world oil price would barely move, but the profits the human right violators make on it would collapse (they would have to use circuitous routes, and maybe the Black Market, if enough countries followed the West’s lead).

So what are we waiting for? Imperialism in the name of morality is a bad thing, but imperial morality is the only strategy for survival. As long as said morality is the best that can be devised.

What’s the best? Human ethology, including gender equality, what regimes such as the one in Saudi Arabia are firmly determined to destroy: see the all-out war of the Saudis against Sweden to defend their right to violate human rights, especially those of women.

Rhodesia, South Africa were embargoed for apartheid. The embargoes were highly successful.

Saudi Arabia certainly applies apartheid against females. So doing, it made its entire society not just unfair, but stupid (women instruct children until age 7 or so, traditionally). Now stupidity brings forth aggressivity. So Saudi sexism is a question which impugns upon the security of the West. And, indeed, Saudi Arabia has financed many terrorist networks over the last few decades, when not causing wars outright.

This little planet has room for only one morality, the one which insures humanity’s sustainability. That’s not imperialism, that’s reality.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Islam Versus Reality

December 16, 2015

Islam Versus Islam Cum Reality:

The Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, CERN, may have hit the jackpot with its mighty accelerator fed by French nuclear power plants: an apparent new particle, and one NOT predicted by the Standard Model. It could be a Heavy Higgs, or a Graviton…

Notice that the Islamist State has not attacked CERN, yet. However it should, just as a matter of coherence: after all, CERN is trying to define reality better. True Believers know that all the reality there is, is found in the Qur’an. Thus CERN, by exploring, and inventing a different version of reality, is a center of some reality based idolatry obviously adverse to the Qur’an.

Let’s hope CERN has good security (a very small bomb could cause billions of Euros of damage to the Large Hadron Collider, and stop it for years).

Some Of What’s In The Qur’an Can Be Reinterpreted Nicely

Some Of What’s In The Qur’an Can Be Reinterpreted Nicely

As I have tried to explain, Islamism has long been a manipulation which has adversely affected the enfolding of civilization, and that especially in the regions most affected. That Africa and the Middle East have contributed enormously to civilization and can still do so is beyond dispute. Be it only in music: listen to the Touareg group Imahran (the on-going turmoil in Libya is partly about freeing the Touareg). http://www.prospect.zone/imahran-nouveau-venu-sur-la-scene-rock-touareg-partage-les-visuels-de-tahabort/

Meanwhile The Guardian, which censored, as the New York Times does, anything I said vaguely related to Islam, decided to equip itself with a bit of balls and brains. So it published:

Muslims can reinterpret their faith: it’s the best answer to Isis: “Religion must evolve and change – and Islam is no exception. Hardline literalists are undermining the soul of a loving, universal creed.” by Hassan Radwan. (Never mind that the punishment for apostasy is death, no doubt a lasting effect of universal love, as some Saudi youth are discovering anew.)

Not just that, but, after informing me kindly that I was under surveillance, and thinking about it for a little while, The Guardian allowed some comments of mine to be published (which constitute part of what follows). That was a first in months.

Reinterpreting Islam is a solution I have insisted upon, for decades. It is true that most of the people who claim to be the faithful of a given religion have not read the sacred texts they claim to be obeying, and live accordingly. This enables very bad men, or youth, to hijack a religion to their own evil ends, by exploiting the bad quotes they can find, and living accordingly.

A detailed knowledge of history reveals much in the case of the Qur’an. It is not just that the Qur’an was written by people. The Qur’an claims to be the message from God, as transmitted by the Messenger, Muhammad. However, history itself says that this is not so.

The closest  people to Muhammad, his wife Aisha and his son in law, Ali, said that the Qur’an we have is not the Qur’an (Recitation) which Muhammad related. Aisha was as explicit as possible about this. She said that the people who knew Muhammad best knew obviously better what he said, than people who barely knew him. In particular she said that the Qur’an that was imposed by Uthman mistreated women (whereas Muhammad was very much for gender equality, and there is overwhelming historical evidence that this is completely true: Muhammad improved considerably the condition of women, and the effect was crucial in helping Islam forge a gigantic empire shortly before and after Muhammad’s unexpected death).

Aisha went to war about this, the atrocious sexism imposed by Uthman’s Qur’an. Unfortunately she lost the “Battle of the Camel” (named from the fact Aisha stood above the battlefield on a camel).

So what happened? The composition of a suitable Qur’an was ordered by the Fourth Caliph, the general Uthman.

Uthman set up a committee to write a Qur’an which suited him. Once that was done, he had all other versions of the Qur’an boiled, throughout the giant Muslim empire.

Thus history shows that the highest (religious) authorities, from the start, contested the validity of the existing Qur’an, that the Qur’an really represented faithfully what the Messenger related. It offers an explicit reason to modify it, by sticking closer to the more plausible version of what Muhammad said (follow Aisha!)

Christianism itself was heavily reinterpreted. The Christianism we tolerate now had all the naughty bits explicitly removed. Such as the Evangels’ Luke 27; 19 which is the predecessor of the Qur’an Sura 5, verse 9. Both verses enjoins to “slay” people who are considered to be “unbelievers“. Obviously, as Christ was ready to slay unbelievers, the Muslim version of God could not do anything else, just to keep up with the Jones (so the violence of the Qur’an partly originates from the violence of Christianism).

The problem with making the Qur’an we have compatible with civilization are very deep. The place of women (or inferior place thereof, what Aisha condemned) is in total contradiction with the United Nations Charter (in law, a woman is half a man, and a man can dissolve or enter marriage pretty much at will, his will; also “battlefield brides” are allowed, and that’s just condoning battlefield rape, as one can observe the Islamist State to practice).

Also the Qur’an is explicitly hostile to democracy (although it encourages charity and equality of all under God). It is actually explicitly friendly to dictators, as long as they are Muslim:

O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, Sura 4; verse 59). In other words, obey authority as a matter of religion. No wonder that, where the Qur’an rules, so do strongmen.

Saladin and his successors made the literal interpretation of the Qur’an subject to the death penalty. That started before 1200 CE.

In many places of the world, and sometimes very long ago, the fact that the Qur’an was incompatible with civilization was observed and the application of the Qur’an was modified in consequence by supplementary texts and practices. Such currents are often labelled  “Sufism”.

In recent decades, the monarchies of the Middle East were able to smother Sufism under their petrodollars, and replace it by the literalism that was expressly made unlawful in Egypt in the Twelfth Century.

By the 1930s, Literalist Islam had nearly disappeared from much of the “Muslim World”. However, the ascent of petro-monarchies after World War Two changed everything. The reason for their financing of Literalism (aka Salafism) was obvious: thus the dictatorships of the Middle East made the world more hospitable, and friendly, to them.

Meanwhile most opinion leaders in the West were too unfamiliar with Islam to understand that, as Abou Diouf of Senegal (ex-president and a Muslim himself) observed, the Islam of West Black Africa was a completely different religion from the Islam of Saudi Arabia. Thus they extended the respect some versions of Sufism richly deserved, to their fanatical antagonist, Literalist Islam.

In other words, Islamophobia is justified in some versions of Islam, and not at all in others. Justice is starting to understand this. In France Jihadist threats and “ordinary Islamism” brought more arrests in three weeks after the Paris attacks than in the rest of the year. 25% of the arrests were of adolescents. 66% resulted in jail condemnations.

This is obviously unsustainable. The solution is to advertise widely what forms of Islamist practices are available, and legal. And also to make Literal Islam explicitly unlawful. As it is, Literal Islam is unlawful only when it explicitly violate democratic law. Thus a great percentage of youth is imprinted on the notion and practices of Literal Islam, while not aware that they contradict the law. And that other versions of Islam exist, which are perfectly compatible with the Human Right Charter.

Meanwhile at CERN, the first team (those can have thousands of PhDs on board) who found the putative new particle said there was one chance out of 93 that this was a fluke. You have to understand that the usual standard is one out 3.5 million. Indeed, so many experiments are made, lots of flukes happen. So why the excitement? Because an independent team, with an independent experiment also found a bump at the same place.

Particles are all about bumps these days. Yet a bump on the road, such as Christianism in the Fourth Century, can be all it takes to send civilization packing.

Why? Because savagery is just below the surface. Humanity’s fate all too often holds just with a hair. Why? Because the savage, better connected as she, or he, is, with his, or her, emotional system, thinks more powerfully, in a sense best connected to war. That’s why Christian fanatics, who were savages, “men in black”, found so easy to go through civilization like a red hot knife through butter.

I savage, thus I think. Or not.

Patrice Ayme’

A Simple Request: That Legal Religions Do Not Call For Killing People

December 11, 2015

If The Romans Already Did It, Why Can’t We?

Indeed, the Romans outlawed any religion conducive to human sacrifice. Let’s heed their example. Each time someone preaches, in the name of god, dog, or the local camel messenger, to kill some category of people, let’s put them in jail for ten years. And if they keep on preaching there, makes that solitary confinement (hey, that’s what Sultan Saladin imposed in the Twelfth Century: I have the best advisers!)

We hear this, we hear that. Some people say we should not fear religions who want to kill us, or which want to kill entire categories of people we view as innocent. Out of respect. What? Respect for whom? The executioners? I have nothing against executioners, as long as they execute for good reasons.

We also hear that what is good for one, is bad for the other, and vice versa, so it all does not matter, everything is relative. Except, not everything is relative. Poincare’ named the “Principle of Relativity”, relativity of UNIFORM motion. Accelerated motion is something else entirely. It is not relative. Actually a twin accelerated close to light speed lives longer, because she is the one accelerating at some point. So physics does not say all is relative, far from it.

State of Islamists: Killing (Ethiopian) Christians, Just Because They Are Christians

State of Islamists: Killing (Ethiopian) Christians, Just Because They Are Christians

[Men straddling squirming men: cheap sexual thrill?]

Who is “we”? The Charter of the United Nations, in other words the Rights of Man and the Citizen. That, too, is not relative. The Rights of Man are anchored in human ethology, the Cult of Man.

I was watching a debate on German TV, brandishing approvingly considerations of Mr. Macron, the plutocratic French finance minister, claiming “Muslim violence” was related to poverty and exclusion.  I subscribe myself to this thesis, and have done so for ever. However, it’s getting to be so much yesterday.

Material poverty can be boosted by intellectual poverty. Ordering all of one’s life around “reciting” the same little book, makes for a very small brain.

Exclusion is no doubt facilitated by a literally religious urge, to kill one’s neighbors, and all sorts of them. I have provided with enough quotes to make it clear that so it is with the “Cult of Death’s” most sacred texts.

Here are quotes I did not use before, and found in the Hadith, the indispensable, loquacious companion to the all-too short Qur’an:

Muhammad Got His Critics Killed (Think Charlie Hebdo):

Hadith from Bukhari:V4B52N270 “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet proclaimed, ‘Yes.’

Hadith from Ishaq 551: “Another victim was Huwayrith. He used to insult Muhammad in Mecca. Huwayrith was put to death by Ali.

Ishaq:597 “When the Apostle returned to Medina after his raid on Ta’if, word spread that he had killed some of the men who had satirized and insulted him. The scared poets who were left, ran away in all directions.”

State of Islamists: Slicing Throats Of Egyptian Christians Just As Muhammad In The Hadith

State of Islamists: Slicing Throats Of Egyptian Christians Just As Muhammad In The Hadith

[Yes, gory again, and I don’t condone goriness; however those who avert their eyes, DO condone it, because they refuse their hearts to get agitated by horrors: that makes them anxious to live in good intelligence with horror. There again, Christians were assassinated just for being Christians who happened to be in Libya, a land which was Christian for six centuries, before being invaded by Islamists propelled by Muhammad’s Hadith and Qur’an; comment below the picture is a translation from the Islamist State; Egypt retaliated by bombing the Islamist State.]

Serious doctors and students of the Islamist Faith know that, interpreted textually, literally, as it is, the Faith is completely incompatible with civilization. For civilization to survive, this has to be understood in a timely manner. In a more timely manner than was understood with Christianism. (Which nearly destroyed civilization, especially around 400 CE.)

Muhammad Punished Well:

Ishaq 595 “The Apostle said, ‘Get him away from me and cut off his tongue.””

Ishaq:316 “Following Badr, Muhammad sent a number of raiders with orders to capture some of the Meccans and burn them alive.”

(A little horror is most persuasive!)

Muhammad Killed Refuseniks and Apostates:

Sunan Abu -Dawud,4390  “Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.”

Ishaq:551: “The Messenger [Muhammad] ordered Miqyas’ assassination because he became a renegade by rejecting Islam.”

Bukhari:V4B52N260: “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'”

Tabari VIII:143 ” He set out with fifteen men. He encountered a large force whom he summoned to Islam. They refused to respond so he killed all of them.”

Surprise Attacks on Villages Brings Booty and Captured Women:

Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer [Prayer of Fear] near Khaybar when it was still dark. He said, ‘Allahu-Akbar!’ [Allah is Greatest] ‘ Then the inhabitants came out running on their roads. The Prophet had their men killed; their children and woman were taken as captives.”
The Prophet enjoyed 17 year old Safia as his share of booty.

Bukhari vol 3,Book46, No. 717: “Narrated Ibn Aun: The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.” (Reference: Waqqidi, Tabari)

So why have we become weaker morally than the Romans? The Romans of the Republic?

Because, meanwhile, lethally minded, apocalyptically longing Christianism passed by, and Islamism is its mentally retarded desert progeny (although Judaism was the other participant of this hellish union). Because also, more recently, plutocrats have realized their colleagues in Saudi Arabia and the like, were their natural allies and collaborators. Thus, the more severe Islamism, natural enemy of civilization, was favored. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, thought plutocrats, and they control the media, so they could make it so, and program the public for its own destruction.

Plutocrats control not just the media , but also the politicians, and, also, all those who passed, all too long, for the wisest philosophers the world could produce. And were nothing of the sort: celebrity philosophers (Sartre, Camus, “French Theorists” etc.) who, in the end, just preached the destruction of the civilization which harbor them, should be abhorred, rather than harbored.

Meanwhile, in Paris, at the CO2 conference, the possibility of limiting warming to 1.5 degree Centigrade was seriously considered.
To do so, though, one will have to touch all forms of transportation, including air transport, which emits 12% of transport CO2. However the COP 21 Paris conference excluded air transportation from the talks.

It’s the same problem as with the Cult of Death: why to make exceptions? Why to exclude the Cult of Death from the spirit of the law? Why to exclude air transportation from the spirit of the law? Should not the law apply to all equally?

If one is a plutocrat, or an obsequious servant of plutocrats, one knows the answer to this: of course not. The very fundamental principle of plutocracy is inequality. Pain and evil are made to be applied by the masters, and the low lives’ existence is justified only as the indispensable servants and recipients of pain and evil.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

 

Charlie Manson & The Qur’an

December 4, 2015

Madness, A Mood, Can Be Contagious:

Madness is not just a disease, but also controlled, and impelled, to some extent, as a mood. Moreover, tolerance to madness is itself a contagious disease.

One modern proof? Some forms of madness in individuals can be mitigated by drugs. However, the patients’ state is improved if they undergo “Cognitive (Behavioral or not) Therapy”. They can learn that they are subject to madness (and when it’s coming), and learn to mitigate their crises..

Madness in individuals is not viewed as madness, in a mad society. Believing that the “Free Market” was a civilization, belongs to the same general tolerance to madness as the Qur’an is a civilization. A youngish French pundit (totally white and not at all Muslim, but a vague leftist) just boldly asserted on ONPC, one of the most popular show in France, that the Islamist State had nothing to do with the Qur’an. Clearly, he never read the Qur’an. I propose that he goes to Raqqa and teach the Qur’an to the Islamist State, this way, the world will be safer: what is more dangerous that unfathomable stupidity?

Smiling Manson: Thought Criminal Convicted To Nine Life Terms For Thought Crime Inducing Lethal Inclinations

Smiling Manson: Thought Criminal Convicted To Nine Life Terms For Thought Crime Inducing Lethal Inclinations

[The BBC published this photo, after erasing the Swastika, weirdly enough. That shows a drastic lack of culture on its part: just as Hitler found his “Fuererprinzip” in the Qur’an (see below), he found the Swastika in Indian religions: Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism(s). Hitler was apparently better read than (some at) the BBC.]

One ancient proof that madness arise from culture-wide moods?

Watch the Romans dissecting chickens before a potential battle, to see if it should be engaged. That was obviously idiotic. One of the first Roman admirals was told by the local Imam (‘augure”) that the sacred chickens would not drink, a bad omen, and thus that battle should not be engaged, according to the respected Roman state religion. Irritated, the admiral grabbed the chickens, and threw them in the sea:’Now they will drink!’ (He lost the battle.)

Ultimately, the superstitious Roman religion was put in doubt by the tolerance extended to all the non-human sacrificial religions: the Roman saw that religions could be anything. However emperors could also see that Monotheism, started by an Egyptian Pharaoh, then amplified by the Jews, would be most useful to their rule.

Monotheism extends the Fascist Principle to the universe: everybody has a chief, everybody obeys that chief absolutely. Adolf Hitler may well as found in the Qur’an (as Sura IV, Verse 59).

“O Ye Who Believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.

Charlie Manson was a Californian sect leader who was accused to have indoctrinated followers in such a way that they engaged in several deadly attacks (the eighth month pregnant wife of Roman Polanski, the actress Sharon tate, was butchered alive in one of these). Manson was condemned to death (commuted later to life).

The prosecution argued the triggering of “Helter Skelter” was Manson’s main motive. Manson had been impressed by a song in the Beatles’ White Album. References to that song were left (pig, rise, helter skelter). Manson predicted that the murders blacks would commit at the outset of Helter Skelter would involve the writing of “pigs” on walls in victims’ blood. Manson was viewed as responsible, although he was not at the crime scene, nor gave direct orders.

It was all completely insane. But human minds are fragile. As long as criminally insane discourses are held in books claiming to be orders from god, one should not be surprised that the unsatisfied and frustrated will find all the excuses they need there to get on a rampage.

This has now happened several times in the USA. The terrorism in San Bernardino, by a couple who pledged obedience to the Islamist State, is the latest example.

We are victims: everywhere an ambiance of terror is rising (schools, for example, have to prepare for the worst, a worst that was unimaginable in the 1960s: only the Nazis attacked schools). It brings up the police state.

And all this because a religion of hatred was preached. Several Imams in France and Switzerland, are, suddenly, under criminal investigation (at least three were financed by Saudi princes)… for preaching the sacred book, as it is. Why did it take so long? Because the mood was that Islamophilia was anti-racism?

What is the difference between a “sacred” book full of hatred and explicit orders to kill, with Charlie Manson’s  rambling, viciously aggressive discourses? Philosophers want to know. All right, I am unfair to Charlie Manson, who was not convicted for giving explicit orders to kill. The general mood Manson created was viewed as responsible enough, of the murders which happened.

The French president, last week, in stroke of Enlightenment, declared that the present war was not a clash of civilization:

“We are not committed to a war of civilizations, because these assassins don’t represent any civilization,” Hollande said. “We are in a war against terrorism, jihadism, which threatens the whole world.”

A religion was indeed never a civilization. At least in the West (be it only because, in the West, there were always several religions, Judaism one of them, in spite of centuries of frantic mass murdering by Christian fanatics.)

Christian Civilization” never existed: the law used in Europe, except in the most savage parts and times, was actually ROMAN LAW (or Frankish/Salian law… which had been written by Roman lawyers, in Latin). Saint Louis wanted to kill Jews and Unbelievers (!), but he recognized that was against the law, he wrote. Roman Law itself was pretty much independent from Roman Superstition (aka Roman Religion). When Roman emperor Justinian ordered a refurbishment of Roman Law around 540 CE, he explicitly ordered to separate the religious/superstitious aspects from SECULAR LAW.

So, indeed, “We are in a war against terrorism, Jihadism, which threatens the whole world.”

Yes, and please remind me who wrote, and where is written, the theory of Jihadism? And why is that theory of Jihadism, that those who kill as ordered by Allah go directly to Paradise, still preached? You want safety? Make it unlawful. Or, more precisely, just apply existing laws against hate crimes. And then punish it so hard, that it will stop.

Patrice Ayme’

No Assimilation: Racism & Destruction

November 29, 2015

We have to be guided by history. The present ecological, plutocratic, immigration and Islamist crises (in order of importance) are informed by history. However neither our delusional “leaders” nor the herds they guide know enough history to inform decisively the present crises. Verily, history is the best teacher.

The Ancient Greeks and Romans were also guided by history, but we are in a much more advantageous position than they were: history in Greco-Roman times was at most 1,000 year old. Now the history we know of, much of it from increasingly detailed archeological work, is more than 10,000 years old.

An example: detailed archeology, recently done, revealed that the Late Roman empire was much richer than previously believed. There was no evidence of economic decay, far from it. So the catastrophes which struck it in the Sixth Century were of a different nature than Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”.

Small Surviving Portion of Diocletian Baths (Circa 300 CE). Christian Hated Bathing, So They Destroyed Baths.

Small Surviving Portion of Diocletian Baths (Circa 300 CE). Christian Hated Bathing, So They Destroyed Baths.

Diocletian Baths

The Ancient Greeks, Romans, and Franks were stuck by the story of Troy, which was the limit of what they thought they knew for sure (modern archeology has not decisively determined the exact events of Troy’s adventures: it’s a work in progress). But they did not really know the truth: soon thereafter the “Greek Dark Ages” nearly obliterated history.

Something was learned though: the Franks (barely) avoided the total collapse which had struck the Greeks 15 centuries earlier. The Franks (like the Romans before them) claimed they descended from Troy. Whether that’s true or not, what they meant is that they knew how to avoid catastrophe.

And they did.

How did the Franks do it? By NOT doing what the Romans had done. Or, more exactly, by doing civilization in the spirit of Ancient Republican Rome, not the degenerated  self-obsessed imperial fascism of emperor Commodus and his successors.

I am a bit unfair to the successors here: Commodus perpetuated a mood actually launched by Augustus himself: Augustus, differently from his great uncle, Julius Caesar, had not understood the necessity to expand the empire. Augustus explicitly advised his successors to NOT conquer Germany. The advice was respected, and therein all the problems of Rome.

Had the Romans made a determined effort to conquer Germany, they would have had to reinstitute the Republic in full. If the Republic had been reconstituted, in full, Roman governance would have been much smarter, and capable of solving the problems thrown at Rome.

Thus, when speaking of war, and whining about it, the herd forgets that democracies make war best (as the Athenians demonstrated at Marathon, when they charged irresistibly the immense multitude of fascist imperial Persian storm troopers).

Thus, to push things a bit, to make war better, one has to make democracy better. Thus the army was an important factor of de-segregation in the USA.

Speaking of segregation, that was the problem which killed Rome the most. The Romans had basically renounced ASSIMILATING the Germans. Germans were viewed as hopeless, yet too strong, barbarians.

The analogy with what is going on today is total. The Germans came in with their own legal systems, their own Sharias. The Romans respected that. So states within the state grew (a bit as has been observed in France and especially Belgium, where at least one city should be de-Islamized).

And why were the Germans so strong? Because the state had grown weak, from not taxing the hyper-rich enough. Just like now. Lack of taxation of the hyper-rich has made Europe weak. Military weak. Germany is going to send 650 soldiers in Mali, to relieve the French Army there (which then will be able to attack the Islamist State). One is talking about pathetically small numbers here, for a country as large as today’s Germany. Meanwhile the French don’t have enough air refueling capacity to bomb as much as they could (Germany there is speaking to provide air refueling for the French Air Force).

When the Roman state decomposed in the “Occident”, very small numbers of warriors were involved, roughly equivalent to those the Islamist State and its various faction have.

Verdict: one has to forcefully assimilate, and make the Republic stronger, as needed to do so. Both phenomena are entangled.

And don’t try to assimilate Islam instead: that was tried before. Not just with Islam, but Christianism itself: to convert Germans to the empire, the Roman leaders (Constantine and his successors) used Christianism. Christianism is a sort of superstitious republicanism claiming all men are equal, under fascist god, etc…  Well, it did not work: Christianism devoured civilization, and did so, in particular, in the Orient. The Orient was suddenly destroyed, within a generation by the wars, and the weakness, physical, intellectual and moral, which fanatical Christianism brought. In particular it brought Islam (just read the Qur’an, Muhammad himself explains it very well!)

I am perfectly aware that the ignorant view assimilation as racism. This mentality was launched by a herd of European pseudo-philosophers who loved fascism (either Kaiser, see the deluded Bertrand Russell, Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin style). Loving fascism provided them with perks, including from American pluto-imperialism (which was delighted to see proper critique replaced by non-sense).

That assimilation was racism has been the main driving force to create racism and segregation in French society (against the very people those who denounced assimilation pretended to protect!) Same, and worse in Belgium, a state representing well the sort of degeneracy which affected Rome. Actually Belgium’s only justification, as I have explained many times, was to weaken France, by cutting off from it the fiercest part of Gaul (“Gallia”; reference on that: Julius Caesar). It’s working splendidly: France nearly lost the two world wars against fascist Germany thanks to the existence of Belgium as a mentally, and militarily tiny independent kingdom.

(For those who do not understand the preceding paragraph: all the recent terrorism in France was planned in Belgium, by pseudo, unassimilated “Belgians”, who were simply barbarians educated by the Sharia.)

Hollande seems to be taking his war against the Islamist State seriously; that’s a political U-turn: just as Rome needed to conquer Germany, the empire needs to reconquer the Orient . Because, indeed, before it got subjugated by Islam, with the results presently observed, the Orient was to Rome, and before that to the Macedonio-Greeks, and, even before, to the Zoroastrians (I don’t expect the admirers of the late Edward Said to understand any of this).

Philosophy has to guide. Philosophy which knows history, and thought about it, that is. But force is to observe that most so-called philosophers of the Twentieth Century knew no history, or then so little, that they could use it to justify their madness (this is an attack against Michel Foucault, Althusser, etc.). Simone de Beauvoir, who knew enough history to teach it to all of France under the fascist Vichy regime, was rightly infuriated by Foucault’s distortions of history. Now all these obnoxious, and cruel, self-obsessed dwarves are viewed as pinnacles of wisdom. No wonder our politicians went mad. Now they have to quit the Fourth Century Roman political line they have been repeating.

And be happy! Or the strength will not be found. One has to learn to be happy through the worst. Especially when it’s only bad news affecting others.

Patrice Ayme’   

Can A Religion Be Abject?

November 27, 2015

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

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).

Love Without Wisdom: Ruin of Humanity.

November 20, 2015

Love without wisdom is only ruin of humanity? Lying, too, is the ruin of humanity, which is truth, if nothing else.

Lying about Islam will not seduce youth. Just the opposite.

If there is no love of wisdom, there is no wisdom in love.

Attack of the day, this time Al Qaeda on Bamako’s most prestigious hotel. Ten Muslim Fundamentalists versus 200 guests and 30 employees. What could go wrong? “God is great!” screamed the gun totting Radicals. Therein were airline crews from Air France, Turkish Airways, and many Members of Parliament from many countries, including France (of course), Senegal, Quebec, etc.

Human Spirit Is Indomitable

Human Spirit Is Indomitable

Well what could go wrong is that there were 40 French gendarmes from GIGN (Groupe d’Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale) plus French and U.S. Special Forces in the immediate area. The siege got resolved very quickly with only two dozens killed.

The deepest problem we are facing is philosophical. There is the Islam we have, and then there is the Islam we wish to have. The Islam we have, is the one in the Qur’an. Nobody reads the Qur’an, everybody talks about it, as if they had. Well, nobody reads it, except for the Islamist State, and other Muslim Fundamentalists, or “Radicals”

The West says:”The Islamist State is not Islam, it’s terrorism”. The Islamist State, and other Muslim Fundamentalists reply:”Just read the Qur’an”. Young, dissatisfied people (rightly dissatisfied from austerity, discrimination, inequities, etc.) then decide to make a little experience for themselves: who is right? They read the Qur’an and discover that the Muslim Fundamentalists told the truth: the Islamist State is the Qur’an, unadultarated. As long as the leadership of the West (political and intellectual) lies in a blatant way, and is easily caught lying, it will have no credit, and will only enrage youth ever more. (Maybe that’s what they want? As war serves plutocracy well?)

Islamism Is Terrorism, Wisdom Is Love

It’s as simple as that. Don’t agree? Well read the Qur’an oh you silly ones who talk about books you never read and were mostly told lies about. Before reading comprehension, one needs reading. Right, normal people prefer reading novels than reality.

In the Qur’an it is famously said that who kills someone, kills all of humanity. Never mind that Muhammad himself killed more than 1,000, including an entire tribe of Yathrib (now Medina). Yet, the Qur’an says this. However that verse is ABROGATED by tens of later verses which order all sorts of people (remember that later verses take precedence over earlier ones):

Imams bemoan “Radicalism”. But “radical” means about roots, and in the case of Islam, it means the Qur’an. Radical is the Qur’an. The Qur’an itself is a fabrication of Uthman, not Muhammad, as Aisha pointed out. Entire pieces of it were removed (notably the famous “Satanic Verses”).

So why not rewrite the Qur’an in a new version, the “Real Message of God According to Muhammad, Which Uthman And Others Hid From You”?

That will allow to remove the verses in the Qur’an which are in conflict with civilization.

Meanwhile the comedy of stupidity unchained, keeps on unfolding. I showed an educated lady from California hyper-threatening verses from the Qur’an, which should be unlawful, just because they are hate crimes. She quietly told me: ”Oh, there is the same in the Bible.” She has been a professional woman earning her keep as an engineer for decades.

So the pan is hot?’ Say who pass nowadays for smart, well-balanced people. ‘No problem, the fire is hot too.” Surely, the argument that we should be happy with the Qur’an, because it is similar to the rule book of the Inquisition belongs to those who hope keenly to bring back the Inquisition.

If there is no love of wisdom, there is no wisdom in love. It’s not enough to love God. You have to check first it’s not the Devil, as the Cathars pointed out.

The Vatican had the King of Paris (also known as “France”) annihilate the Cathars, using a Bible Fundamentalist army. One million dead. And all the Cathars’ writings.

But not, as you can see, all their ideas.

Meanwhile in Algeria, the local dictator, Bouteflika, had cartoonist Tahar Djehiche imprisoned 6 months in jail for cartoons ‘insulting the president’ -https://t.co/nJ9tF5xafX”. When the mood is around that insulting the Prophet deserves death, surely insulting the president deserves 6 months. Islam is the bed of gory dictatorship.

Who is Bouteflika?  A terrorist who became a general. He is one of the original principals from the FNL, a terrorist group to whom the French dictator (the one who dictated), De Gaulle, gave power in… 1962. De Gaulle, a famous racist, thought that Bouteflika was perfect for Algeria. De Gaulle thought he could keep “Muslims” or North Africans at bay, and away, by giving them to the wolves. That mood persisted, although its racism had to morph a bit. So the children of the North Africans who fled to France, or Europe, were mistreated by austerity (no schools for you, Muslims, the Qur’an is good enough, and selling drugs, too). So here we are. (Fully describing the relationship between France and North Africa deserves 1,000 pages, I am myself a byproduct; this was just an appetizer…)

If there is no love of wisdom, there is no wisdom in love. People are born from love, and thus have a capacity, and a need to love whatever, including evil. Love is not enough. Love without wisdom is only ruin of humanity.

Patrice Ayme’

Qur’an Has Everything To Do With It

November 18, 2015

War scenes in Saint Denis, north of Paris. A seven hour battle, one Salafist woman exploded herself, another terrorist was shot dead, but seven were captured alive (police uses blinding stun grenades). The information about their location was obtained in diverse manners, including amateurs videos.

Dalil Boubakeur, head of Paris Grand Mosque, France’s most prominent Muslim, condemned in the strongest words Muslim terrorists. He claims he saw reports on 1,100 Muslim terrorists inside France, who, he insists, should be arrested immediately. I agree. I agree with all the measures he proposes like throwing out bad imams, closing bad mosques, and having all imams being taught French law, and instilling it, etc. However, the fundamental texts of Islam contain huge amounts of prescribed violence described as orders from God. (It gets even worse with the Hadith, which is much more explicit, even ordering to kill all Jews to have the final judgment: Hadith 41; 685 and the like.)

(There are 7,800 “Fiche S” Islamist terrorists in France. Most of them are not followed: following one individual takes tens of inspectors. There is only one solution: explusion.)

War Against Qur’an In Paris, Nov. 18, 2015

War Against Qur’an In Paris, Nov. 18, 2015

However, I do not agree with Boubakeur’s basic precept that: “The Islamist State is not Islam.”

This the fundamental error. The Islamist State is pure Islam.

If Boubakeur does not want pure Islam, that is, of course, perfect. legally, sociologically and politically necessary, and desirable in all ways. Certainly pure Islam should be condemned and discarded.

It is not just a question of sexism:

Quran 2:223 – “Men have authority over women because God has made the former superior to the latter, and because men spend their wealth to maintain women. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them up.”

No, it’s a question of basic security. God, as depicted in the Qur’an, is a maniac:

Quran 3:56 – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran 5:33 – “Crucify or amputate the hands and feet of those who make war against Allah and Muhammad. This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”

Quran 5:38 – “As for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah..”

Quran 8:12 – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

Great Britain under Tony Blair (a plutocrat often decried here) took drastic measures against Islam in 2005. Special services were enabled. The leading Islamist in London, long free to express his venom, in the guise of freedom of speech, was deported to the USA, where he was promptly condemned to life in prison.

Russia engaged long range supersonic bombers, and now totals one third of its entire strategic force.   France will ramp up with even more air force within a few days, double what she engaged in Libya. Putin ordered his forces to cooperate with the French, including at sea.

The Prime Minister of Qatar was received in Paris by the French PM. Discreetly (however, there was a red carpet). Qatar, at best, enables Muslim terrorist groups finances… And, at worst, finance them directly.

The most shocking sequence from the battle was a young Salfist woman who testified on TV about the battle. Only her eyes could be seen, the rest of her was covered by a black garb. How can that be legal?

It should not be.

First the United Nations recognizes that attacking a people culture’s on its own territory (here Salafists invading Europe) is a form of holocaust (more precisely, the Geneva Convention does).

Second, just as important, the French police gathered important information on the terrorists from videos, and the faces they saw. (The problem of women, or even men hiding bombs showed up during the Algerian War; paratroopers defeated it by using torture so quickly they got information which allowed to reveal the entire networks, and terminate them; that was completely different, though, from the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld sort of torture which was very wrong for many reasons.)

The established order is very bad, granted. Yet what the Qur’an proposes is way worse.

Why is the Qur’an so bad? Precisely because its very badness took the more civilized Greco-Romans and Persians completely flat footed. Before they knew it, their best warriors and potential draftees were all dead. It’s a long story; Persian and Romans expected slavery and war prisoners, negotiations. Instead they got an enemy who killed the wounded on battlefields, and sent assassins all over the land to kill every man who could bear arms.

Meanwhile in Marseilles three youths with ISIS clothing stabbed a Jewish teacher. Meanwhile WordPress promoted an entire set of essays on the Paris tragedy, in a mixture of  Politically Correct and New Age mood (what makes us sad is good, because we will find our true selves). I sent comments, they were censored. So was a quote from Voltaire. In other happy new, the New York Times has censored me 100% throughout this episode. What these outfits are doing is to, actually support Islamist terrorism (no I did not send such a comment to them, this is strictly between us). Methinks that the absolute censorship of any not just critique, but even quotes of the Qur’an, as above, is the real root of the problem. From what I figured out now looking at time stamps,  a quote in the Qur’an long agois probably why The Guardian censors me. This is an amazing state of affairs: if one quotes reality, one gets censored. No wonder Islamists are angry (in a way I am in the same boat as they are, just from the other side of the Styx).

If nothing else, this entire adventure should spawned a renewed interest in real history, and how it breeds moods.

Patrice Ayme’


SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism