Archive for the ‘Sexism’ Category

Fight Burkinis With Monokinis

August 26, 2016

Burkini, Bikini,  Monokini, Naked Truth!

For at least 2,000 years, and contrary to “postmodernist” repute, France has been at the mental helm of civilization. Francia pretty much invented the legal system which “renovated” (as the Franks themselves proclaimed in 800 CE) the Greco-Roman globalization, under a more sustainable form (no more slavery, replace it with education, science and tech). This is why today’s basic world globalization is along French lines through and through (a vague feeling that it may well be so infuriates American neo-imperialists, who are partial to slavery, in their own time-honored tradition, and feel, rightly, that the French equalitarian approach is the natural enemy of their own oligarchic drive… thus explaining their friendliness to Islam).

The term “bikini” and the two piece garment named accordingly, was the invention of a French engineer, and (concurrently!) a French fashion designer. “Bikini” was an allusion to the new, explosive world made manifest at the Bikini atoll (where nuclear fission bombs were tested). It used, craftily, the prefix “bi”, for “two”, as the bikini was indeed in two pieces.

The bikini was not really new: bikini representations are around 8,000 years old (the mother goddess, Cybele, appeared that way, sometimes). The bikini was a natural technology to invent. 

Roman Bikini Babes Frolicking In Gym, Centuries Before the Famous Rophet Married a Six Year Old

Roman Bikini Babes Frolicking In Gym, Centuries Before the Famous Sexist, Murderous Rophet Married a Six Year Old, Breeding With Her, When She Was Nine!

13 centuries ago, though, the fanatical, anti-civilizational ideology known as Islam, having been irrigated by Persia and the Greco-Romans, brutally arose in the desert. A key to its sudden military success against Greeks, Romans and Persians, was to treat women as breeders, rabidly, one should say, rabbitly, breeding immense hordes of fanaticized warriors, to make Arab armies large, numerous and completely relentless. To breed a fanaticized warrior, it helps that his mother knows little, and aspire only to obey… religiously. So the future warrior will not know enough to second guess his superiors when they order him to die for the “faith”.  

To keep women subjugated, those breeding machines have to learn to enjoy obeying absurd orders, and the more absurd, and the more gleefully obedient those culture deprived morons are, the better. Naturally, breeding machines will transmit the same love for absurd orders, and lack of critical culture, to their children. Don’t laugh: this is how Islam became the world’s top war ideology (this is so obvious that even Adolf Hitler understood this, and basically said it). In one generation, Arabia was overflowing with single-minded warriors, ready to take on the world (until they met terminally with Grecian fire and Frankish steel).

Thus, many Islamist sub-ideologies (or sects, as one should call them), decided that the bodies of women should be fully covered, all the time. The absurdity was irresistible, precisely because it was so absurd.

The “burkini” (contraction of burka-bikini) was created 12 years ago, by a Lebanese Australian who had watched her niece bathing in a burka. The burkini covers the entire (presumably) shameful body of the Muslim woman, except for her feet and face, sparing beach goers of this (presumably) awful exhibition. Thirty French communes forbade the burkinis, on the ground that it broke the principle of equality of genders. Islamists were delighted. Unsurprisingly, the French State Counsel (“Conseil d’ Etat”), the highest administrative court and legal adviser of the state, found those interdictions unlawful. Today, 8/26.16.

The New York Times, of course, was delighted to jump into the fray, and it concocted an anti-French, pro-Islamist piece written by an alleged pre-college teen (actually it sounds exactly like the sort of article written by the usual committee at the new York Times). The way the USA looks at Europe, for a century, is that the more divided, and confused, the better. I sent the following comment, it was immediately censored:

There is no “modesty” in the burkini. Quite the opposite: it’s insolence to believe one can improve on god’s perfection, by putting a garment over a body, especially when it makes no sense, as it imprisons a body in straps, ligatures, smothering adhesion, and dripping water.

Moreover, the psychological imposition of the burkini is a desire to impose on women the feeling that their bodies are horrible, so incredibly horrible, that one should absolutely hide them. Is not that a form of psychological abuse? And as this psycho abuse is imposed only on women, assuredly, it is blatantly sexist. How can one expect women so abused to think and feel straight?

No wonder the propagandist feels insecure while writing her anti-French piece. She has been made insecure by Islamist propaganda, which insists a female body is one of the world’s great horrors, to be hidden at all and any cost.’

My position on the burkini is subtle: the garment itself is ludicrous, as the piece in the New York Times itself illustrates. But being covered up in the sun is not. 

I am in a weird position: as a young child in Africa, I covered up most of the time (against sun, heat, mosquitoes, tse-tse flies…). That was from observation, and was criticized, even ridiculed, by quite a number of adults. Of course, I was right. So I am a friend of getting dressed in the sun, and view reddening Germanoid lobsters self-cooking on the beach, with undisguised contempt.

Still I consider hard-core Salafist Islam as a plutocratic ideology friendly to military dictators, an enemy of (most) progress. And I hate gender inequality, whenever not forced by genetics (in other words, I hate sexism, be it only because it makes humanity stupid).  

So what’s the way out?

The monokini. To start with.

Yes. Don’t fight fire with fire. Fight fire with water. If wherever burkinis are found, so are naked female chests, interest for burkinis will fade away. Burkinis don’t jiggle the right way.

Amusing? Not just that. You see, Islam and its Judeo-Christian inspiration are unnatural superstition (whereas a republic is as natural as possible). A burkini, on the face of it, is as unnatural as possible. To embrace the burkini is rather a contradiction for a religion which let beards grow, and refuses to depict reality, such as painting human beings or animals, on the ground that both are perfect works of god, that one cannot improve upon!

Whereas a monokini is much closer to god. Indeed, a bikini is much more natural, much closer to god’s perfection. A burkini is an ungodly artefact, Botticelli’s Venus, a better representation of reality, as god intended it to be.

One may want to go even further, and fight the unnatural ideology of Islam with full nudity. The Islamist emperor may be clothed, but it has no brains. Fight him with the naked truth. That’s what he fears most.

Patrice Ayme’

PLUTOCRACY IS MASS MASTER CRIME

February 1, 2016

American Racism & Slavery Originated With The Rule of Greed. This Is Just A Particular Case Of Plutocracy:

Atrocious pictures on TV: suffering infants with microcephaly in Brazil, victim of Zika. Most of their heads are missing. Below those nearly inexistent skulls, are eyes full of pain. They experience paralysis… This calamity was avoidable, with enough fundamental research, early enough. The governance of this biosphere tottering under our blows, is cruising to the apocalypse. The Zika virus was detected 2 years ago in French Polynesia, and now it’s all over. It is carried by an omnipresent mosquito which has learned to live in water-friendly human garbage. There is no vaccine. The immune system reaction often provokes paralysis (from the Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS))

The world is turning satanic. Pluto power, all over. This can be directly traced to the fact the worst are allowed to rule (directly, or through their teleprompter reading servants). The worst people (from the CIA, G. H. Bush, or KGB, V. Putin), the most glaringly corrupt (Clintons), the worst moods (the market, that is, greed, as an ubiquitous guide for what’s good), the worst lies (plutocrats are philanthropists), etc…

Some who support the plutocratic Clintons claim that electing a female will subdue an evil, sexism, which is as bad as plutocracy (Krugman). This is ill-informed, naive, unobservant, silly and erroneous in many ways. What is needed is the instructive perspective of history. First of all, there were many female rulers before. Even several “Muslim” countries elected female Prime Ministers (and those countries are still legally sexist). China, Rome, Russia, Britain, and especially France, had female rulers, at crucial points of their history.

Hatshepsut Was A Great Pharaoh. She Ruled From 1479 BCE To 1458 BCE. One Of Several Great Female Pharaohs. However, Just Being Female Does Not Make Someone Great. Some Female Rulers, From China, To France, To Yucatan, Were Nasty Civilization-Destroying Plutocrats

Hatshepsut Was A Great Pharaoh. She Ruled From 1479 BCE To 1458 BCE. One Of Several Great Female Pharaohs. However, Just Being Female Does Not Make Someone Great. Some Female Rulers, From China, To France, To Yucatan, Were Nasty Civilization-Destroying Plutocrats

[Hatshepsut, chief wife of Thutmose II, mother, when she came to rule, of one year old, Thutmose III, is generally regarded by Egyptologists as one of the most successful pharaohs. Hatshepsut ruled as the fifth pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Let it be said in passing that the famous Nefertiti apparently ruled on her own right. We know exactly what she looked like, as we have many detailed pictures of her.]

Egypt, the first massive civilization, had female rulers since the First Dynasty, 5,000 years ago. Queen Meryt-Neith or Merytneith or Merneith First Dynasty (~3000 BC) was listed among other, and her tomb is with the tombs of other Pharaohs. She was the wife of Djet, and the Mother of Den. Some of these queens played major roles: one founded the Fifth Dynasty.

Racism, sexism, religious intolerance are mass moods (which can be partly legislated, as in some so-called “Muslim” countries). Plutocracy is something else: a political regime. By controlling, and ruling society, plutocracy turns it into its own image: the rule of evil. Here is an example:

THE PLUTOCRATIC TEMPTATION BROUGHT SLAVERY TO AMERICA:

Take the case of slavery: the Franks made slavery unlawful in their vast empire, which comprised Gaul and most of Germany, in 655 CE. The situation was made even clearer in 800 CE: the Franks proclaimed the  “RENOVATION” (“RENOVATIO”) of the Roman Empire. And Constantinople agreed (Charlemagne, Carlus Magnus found himself sole emperor of the… Roman empire!)

How was the empire “RENOVATED”? Well, the one and only difference with the Roman Empire just prior was… SLAVERY. The Roman empire had been renovated by outlawing slavery! This is what the Franks said, and it caused a virtuous circle, as fundamental technology went where the Roman emperors had forbidden to go (Roman emperors, as good plutocrats, naturally detested change, and the Will to Knowledge which fosters it).

Four centuries later, in 1066 CE the Franks, led by the Duke of Normandy, re-conquered Britannia (England to start with), and outlawed slavery there too.

The American colons re-invented slavery in New England, starting in 1620 CE. Those colons were richer, by far, than European peasants (as evidence and letters from Pilgrims, flaunting their riches, show).The colons’ motivation in re-establishing slavery was not survival, but greed. Tobacco agriculture expanded greatly, very soon after, thanks to the import of massive numbers of slaves from Africa. Some American states were 90% African slaves.

Jesus Christ also thought that money was the root of much evil. Jesus did not mention racism as an evil (simply because the Greco-Roman empire was not racist: some emperors came from Africa, and at least one, from Arabia). In the USA racism appeared to justify slavery: it was OK to enslaves Africans, because they were just apes, or halfway there. (Sexism evolved along similar lines, thousands of years before; sexism cannot be found in small human groups, because it would make them dysfunctional.)

Paul Krugman pretends that sexism and racism are independent from plutocracy. Krugman claims sexism and racism stand on their own. It may be true in a sense, but they both originated from plutocracy, historically speaking. In a way, this is a debate about what the word “Pluto” means. “Pluto” was the new word for “Hades”, god of hell, after “Hades” got such a bad reputation, no decent Greek would dare evoke Him.

Whether one should fight plutocracy, or just say that just being ruled by a woman would dispel evil, is a debate about how evil works.

Anybody who knows a bit of history knows that such a debate is stupid: the last ruler of imperial China was an empress who ruled decades, and made a bad situation way worse… The mother of Louis XIV, a ruling queen, prevented, by a five-year civil war, the rise of a Parliamentary Republic in France. She was a significant malefactor of historical proportion. She also made her son all the devil he could be. She taught him, by example, that nastiness should rule (that’s another way to say “plutocracy”). Sure enough: Louis XIV threw the Protestants out of France, after mass torturing them for decades (the jerk is still respected in France, because he did a few good things, go figure this masochism in a boudoir… Naturally, Louis XIV established slavery overseas…)

“Pluto” is the god of the underground, thus Pluto is the god of hell, and fire, but also the god of gold, silver, precious stones, riches. The modern usage keeps only in mind the latter part, but Jesus disagreed (and so do I). “Pluto” has many of the characteristics we see in today’s plutocracy: for example, he could make itself invisible (like Dark Money, invisible to tax authorities and gullible voters alike).

Money it ultimately power, and ultimate money corrupts ultimately. And ultimate corruption means the affected individual becomes satanic, or, using the root of the concept of satan, plutocratic. Yes, plutocratic means satanic, it’s as simple as that.

Slavery, racism, sexism, are all consequences of plutocracy. Plutocracy is the master cause. Periodically, plutocracy runs out of control, and takes over. At best, it’s stopped by revolution (Britain, France and the USA had revolutions, and the former two, several, starting in 360 CE!) At worst, plutocracy brings annihilation of a civilization (as happened to the Mayas, or the Baghdad Caliphate, destroyed by a Mongol-Christian coalition in the Thirteenth Century).

A world is led by devils is intrinsically evil. Time to get rid of the whole idea.

Patrice Ayme’

When A Child Fights Evil Well

October 10, 2014

The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2014 peace prize on Friday to Malala Yousafzai of Pakistan and Kailash Satyarthi of India. Excellent. The teenage Pakistani known around the world for fighting sexist terror, and an Indian veteran of campaigns to save from slave labor  “tens of millions of children” were celebrated jointly.

A sober moment: only three countries or so do not recognize the right of children NOT to work (be it only so that they can concentrate on studying). The USA is one of them. One of the violators of this UN law. Obama, who can’t close Gitmo, a prison where people are held unlawfully, and force-fed as if they were geese, did not even have the force to evoke that gross violation, in the six years he spent being honored as a great leader.

Hey, otherwise the agriculture of the USA would not be as profitable!

Have You As Much Courage? As Much Brains? That's What The World Needs.

Have You As Much Courage? As Much Brains? That’s What The World Needs.

This 2014 Peace Nobel is obviously a good award. Not a half silly one as the BLUE LED award in physics (why did the inventor(s) of the green LED not get the Nobel, and even earlier, those who invented the RED LED? Oh, because the Nobel clowns don’t give more than three awards? Do you have any other superstitions to impose on us, Nobel guys, to educate us further in the irrational?)

Ms. Yousafzai, 17, the youngest recipient of the prize since it was created in 1901, got a bullet in the head, courtesy of the Islamist terrorist known as Taliban, for advocating secular schooling, rather the medieval superstitious stupidities they read in the Qur’an and the like.

To announce her award, she was taken out of a chemistry class, in Birmingham, where she was treated for her grave injuries and stayed, ever since. (There are probably Taliban foaming at the mouth in gleeful anticipation of pumping her with more bullets.)

The committee’s chairman said: “The Nobel Committee regards it as an important point for a Hindu and a Muslim, an Indian and a Pakistani, to join in a common struggle for education and against extremism…”

This is wishful thinking: troops from Pakistan and India exchanged artillery and machine-gun fire across their disputed Himalayan border in the last few days. The last duel killed 11 Pakistani and eight Indian villagers.

“Children must go to school and not be financially exploited,” Chair Jagland pursued. “It is a prerequisite for peaceful global development that the rights of children and young people be respected. In conflict-ridden areas in particular, the violation of children leads to the continuation of violence from generation to generation.”

That’s the problem of the Islamists: as women are maintained in a state of oppressive violence, subjugation, stupidity, torpor, and ignorance, they bestow these qualities to their children. That’s why the Muslim empires have been down and out for at least eight centuries (occupied by Franks, Mongols, ruled by Turks, liberated by the French, British… and now invaded by the Jews, in a supreme irony, considering the anti-Jewish character of the Islamists’ most sacred texts. All of this humiliation and degeneracy submitted constantly under indigenous plutocratic overlords.)

Malala has much more intelligence and courage than the many pseudo-intellectuals in the West who have imposed the wrong mood (“Islam is peace”) by sheer greediness (Political Correctness sells!), cowardice, and blatant ignorant stupidity. Some variants of Islam are peace (say West African Islam, circa 1950). But the Qur’an is not. Consider the (extreme, astounding) Violence In Holy Qur’an.

Patrice Ayme’

French PM: Vile, Sexist?

October 4, 2014

The regimes we have now all over the West are not what would have been called democracy in Antiquity. They are oligarchic republics with, arguably a lower democratic index than the anti-plutocratic Roman Republic in its heyday. They attract the most wretched race, to lead us all astray.

One of the failings of Rome was sexism. If women are poorly treated, they end up as mental retards. That no doubt sounds fine to ardent misogynists, grossest machos and unreconstructed Islamists. However, women are on the frontline of child rearing until the age of seven or so. So mental retardation, or, at least, cultural retardation, is transmitted from generation to generation, the more sexist the society.

This is why the less sexist a civilization, the more advanced it tends to get.. And why, contrarily to all the flattery from orientalists and various exploiters have tried to make us believe, Islamist countries have mightily stagnated (in depth inspection reveals that most discoveries attributed to “Islam” have nothing to do with it).

The defeat of the Romans at the hands of the Germans may have had to do with sexism. The involvement of German women in war augmented the punch of small German nations considerably.

The Catalan born and raised Manuel Valls, the French Prime Minister, said: « La France est opposée à la légalisation de la GPA. Une pratique intolérable de marchandisation du corps des femmes ». Translation: surrogate motherhood is intolerable merchantization.

A mentally towering lady, who wants to stay anonymous, read my preceding essay and denounced it privately for being too mild. She said: Most women who engage in surrogacy do not do so out of greed, but out of generosity, altruism. They want other people to enjoy parenthood.”

She pursued relentlessly: ”What does the French Prime Minister say to those who give a kidney? That they are intolerable merchants? And what of those who give blood, and are given a meal in exchange? Are they also engaged in intolerable merchantization?”

Another commenter, Gmax, piped in:”… Valls is a sexist, greed obsessed pig. Yes, pig…”

I stand corrected, and I agree. The problem of Valls is that he is from a system that finds normal to put Macron, an investment banker, the worst sort of bankster, in charge of the French economy. Valls lives, and has always lived, in a world of greed. As a youngster, he wanted already to lead people, tell them what to do, receive money from bankers (what else?), and make that his profession.

This is pretty much representative the sort of persons who make politics into their profession. All they can conceive of, is greed.

It does not help that Mr. Valls is a man. Men, by psychobiological definition, culturally boosted, tend to be more imbued by the Will To Power, grabbing, selling, possessing.

Generosity eludes them.

Generosity, altruism, giving, are more feminine qualities. They escape the French Prime Minster totally. All he knows is merchantization, so that’s what he talks about. He believes that, like himself, all women are for sale.

In general, the very way the present representative oligarchy works, the lowest motivation, greed, is how the representatives such as Mr. Valls are selected. We are selecting for ravenous scums, who cannot imagine any nobler emotions anymore than crocodiles can.

Nietzsche reconstituted it, conflating Sophocles, and a few others, into the wisdom of Silenus, the companion, and, some say, the mentor, of Dionysus, the god of loss of control (thus imaginative wisdom).

Says Nietzsche in the Birth of Tragedy:

”Wretched, ephemeral race, children of chance and tribulation, why do you force me to tell you the very thing which it would be most profitable for you not to hear? The very best thing is utterly beyond your reach: not to have been born, not to be, to be nothing. However, the second best thing for you is: to die soon.”

Did Nietzsche think of out great leaders? What better thing to tell to those who have the arrogance to believe they can lead us, as if we were living in the Chinese dictatorship?

At some point, it’s useless to negotiate with obsolete systems of thought: they should be bulldozed over. Lincoln did not negotiate with slavery, nor Martin Luther King with the racists.

By being unable to imagine a world without greed, as the one and only significant motivation, the French leadership shows that it does not conceive of anything different from what Thatcher or Reagan advocated.

Patrice Ayme’

Hysterically Bad Pseudo Feminism

July 5, 2011

BAD WOMEN EXIST.

REAL FEMINISM, YES, HYPOCRISY & GOLD DIGGING, NO.

***

FEMINISM IS NOT ABOUT CALLING MEN MONSTERS, AND WOMEN SAINTS:

Real feminism treats girls and boys, women and men, as equally as genetics allows it. And enjoys the differences of whatever cannot be reconciled.

Pseudo-feminism consists into taking advantages of some feminist appearances to further the same old sexist agenda, where women, instead of being the direct agents of power, manipulate men into what they want. Thus the viper is made to look like whatever it is crawling upon. Pseudo-feminism is not just an hindrance. It is outright hurtful to true feminism.

***

CHARGE FIRST, THINK LATER:

Dominique Strauss-Kahn (“DSK”) has been charged with seven felonies in New York. A plotting, organized crime character accused him of a sexual aggression. Implausibly, he is small, old, weak, overweight, she is big, young and strong, and the silent (!) deed took less than 20 minutes. The punishment for inventing it all is a misdemaneor (as small a crime as possible). How convenient.

Everything indicates that the lady was in the habit of servicing clients, on a very personal basis. However, in this particular case, she deviated from the usual script. “Don’t worry, I know what I am doing, this guy is full of money“, she would have told a boyfriend in jail in Arizona, the next day.

The aggression was completely implausible, and the IMF head was protected by his diplomatic immunity. The IMF head  is one of a handfull of world public servants elected worldwide, and protected that way, when on official business (which DSK was).

However, the DA in New York breathes together with the fat cats on Wall Street, and, like a well meaning housecat, was anxious to bring back an interesting catch for his masters, who, he knew (what are cocktails and dinner parties and fund raisers for?) had long suffered from the macho aggression of Dominique Strauss-Kahn as director of the IMF, and even before that, many times. A little known example: when the cruel DSK saved the Hungarian currency from the New York based speculators. The fat cats on Wall Street and their servants have to be dirty, or they would not be.

Let’s notice in passing that the IMF head is a public banker, not a private one, like the fat cats in the fat, for profit banks. True, the IMF used to be at the beck and call of private banks (as the U.S. Fed is). But that changed under Dominique Strauss-Kahn. That made him into a convict. Convicted to have crossed the plutocracy.

***

QUICK, PLUTOCRATS, LET’S ROLL OUT ANOTHER CRAZY:

Now the rumor has it that a French woman, another pseudo-feminist, will accuse DSK of attempted rape, nine years after the alleged (he-said-she-said) “facts”. As there is a quickly rising probability that DSK’s hostage situation in New York at the hands of the corrupt government will come to an end, it was possible that DSK could, after all, run for the French presidency.

Thus it was of the essence that this French woman, who writes for… Sarkozy, complains about DSK’s greedy, and magical hands (he unhooked her bra below her black “col roulé”, she claimed, while admitting that said turtle neck “turns on guys” and laughed!)  

That woman, who made a joke of the little fable she recounted, hilarious, on a TV show, is suing Strauss-Kahn for “attempted rape” (instead of just sexual aggression). More than eight years later. She looks anorexic, so not all is well with her. It’s pretty obvious she is affabulating and lying, listening to her various interviews.

For instance, just one of many, she gloats that she knew all about DSK’s reputation as a “chimp in rut“. Proof of that? According to her, only a “nearly 60, overweight secretary” could resist DSK (so Banon is not just gloating about turning men on, but she is ageist!) Then she goes to interview DSK, holding hands, then arms, etc., in a secluded apartment? Supposedly knowing very well what would happen, because she is writing a book, just about that?

In 2004, on another TV show, she accused somebody else of sexual aggression. And she forgot to mention DSK! OK, that was in Morocco, with a (male) maid of her mom. So many sex aggressions to remember, so many TV shows to be filmed because one is the youngster Tristane Banon, with nothing to show except being the daughter of Ms. Banon, another (financially) well endowed politician and, of course, that polo neck sweater which drives “mecs” crazy…

Verily, Banon is an example of the celebrity culture, famous for being famous, and well connected to TV show hosts, so she can be seen a lot on TV. Verily, there is not much to look at, another reasons to claim all the chimps are excited, I guess.

If that accuser of DSK is laughed out of court, what next? DSK sexually aggressing unwilling aliens, who, traumatized, fled to another galaxy, so we have no proof, as New York prosecutors cannot get there since Obama cut the space budget?

I am not particularly in love with DSK, but I am in contempt for outrageous stupidity and aggression masquerading as feminism. I lived in many countries, and saw the law being used for aggression, routinely. That is what happens in banana and baboon republics.

***

SORRY, HYSTERICAL PSEUDO FEMINISTS, BUT BAD WOMEN EXISTS:

 Even after the accuser against DSK had been exposed as a gold digger, and a liar who, at the very least, engaged in multiple criminal activities with the help of organized crime, enough to send her to the slammer, Maureen Dowd, one of the editors of the New York Times, called DSK a “predator” (“When a Predator Collides With a Fabricator“, July 2, 2011).

How does she know? Did she conduct a jury trial in her head? Is she a fellow predator in the know? Or does she, as racists do, know because of genetic factors tied to DSK? (DSK is a man, born in Africa as a French Jew, and Dowd always crow about her Irish origins.)

According to her colleague Nocera, a man, at the same through of Manhattan high finance as Dowd, and most of New York high society, the American justice system is right to ethnically discriminate against the French, as he explains in an article July 4, 2011. And he adds that “for the life of me” he sees nothing wrong with that. He patriotically concluded he much prefers to live in the USA, than in France. Indeed in France, he would be probably viewed as an overweight racist, eerily reminiscent of Goering, and his facile verve. Nobody would have anything to do with his craziness.

So it is with Wall Street and its mignons: racism is cool (another article in the New York Times, July 3, basically said that all French complaining about anti-French racism are anti-American, since apparently anti French racism is All-American). But let’s go back to the pseudo-feminists.

***

I SCREAM, THEREFORE I AM:

Some self declared feminists seem to consider that, when a woman screams, some man, somewhere, is a criminal. And that whenever a woman accuses a man, she is a victim. Well, that remains to be proven. Those who have studied in primary school know the difference between “accuser” and “victim”, even if New York Times editors do not.

I am an extreme feminist myself. Actually I know no one as extremely feminist as myself (this is a challenge!)

As Ms Parisot, the head of the larger employer union in France puts it: “Sexism is racism” (New York Times, July 2). Thus I know that this sort of absurd imbalance, where women are viewed at the outset as victims, and men as predators, can only hurt feminism. Actually it is sexist, thus racist. All those screaming after DSK, just because he was a man, and they were legions, were racist (and doubly so, when they added anti-French sentiment to that!)

There are criminals who are women. By telling everybody that, whatever a woman says about a man, he is a “predator”, and she is a “victim”, criminally minded women are encouraged to act up, and those who are into a quick and dirty buck are encouraged to follow suit. Hence pseudo feminism encourages the debasement of women, and prepares a backlash (which could be tremendous). One may guess that this is what the pseudo feminists want, as they prefer a sexist world. They are traitors to progress.

***

SOME OF THE GREATEST CRIMINALS IN HISTORY WERE WOMEN:

Pseudo feminists tell us that women are sheep, and men are wolves. Reality is nothing of the sort.

Countess Elizabeth Bathory of Transylvania, killed, with horrible tortures, more than 650. (OK, the king owed her lots of money, so things were a bit complex; she finished her life, imprisoned in a set of rooms; her closest accomplices, all women, were executed; two were burned alive.) I do not know of a man who tortured to death, one by one, 650 victims. Even emperor Tiberius, a notorious sadist, comes short.

Catherine Deshayes, “La Voisin”, a central figure of the “Affaire des Poisons” in France in the 17C, recognized the murder of at least 2,000 children. She was burned alive, and did not like it a bit, I am pleased to report.  She struggled so much on the way to the stake, and vituperated so foully during her fiery dissolution, that the public was stunned into silence by so much vindictive viciousness.

Nor did several of her wealthy female accomplices who jumped from one fire to the next liked it very much either (as the Marquise de Sévigné put it; 34 were executed, and the inquiry was stopped because many of the wealthiest and closest plutocrats to Louis XIV were involved, such as his lover, mother of four of his children, the Marquise de Montespan).

Amusingly the well deserved punishment of some of these criminals is sometimes presented as a proof that poor witches were victimized in 17C France, and it is alleged to be a sexist crime. It was nothing of the sort. Under Louis XIV, witchcraft was knocked out as a crime; I don’t like, and even often despise Louis XIV, but facts are facts; sometimes he acted well.

In truth, the main story of the “Affaire des Poisons” was mostly about young women who wanted to inherit the fortunes of their older husbands by sending them to Hades, ASAP. It turned out that there was a huge demand for these services, and La Voisin became very rich, while diversifying in other criminal activities, such as child killing witchcraft, the old fashion way (spilling the blood of the innocent during a “black mass“)..

Louis XIV would have acted better if he had let the inquiry of the Affaires des Poisons” proceed further, and charge La Montespan, and her extremely high class ring. A famous writer noticed at the time that:”The enormity of their crimes protected them from prosecution“. Too big to jail. The same can be said of the financial scam artists which control the USA nowadays. It’s useful to know history.

(Cynics will say that, if Louis XIV had allowed the inquiry to reach higher, the monarchy itself would have been wounded, maybe fatally. This is what happened with the “Affaire du Collier”, a century later. The People of France then realized how rich and corrupt the plutocracy was. Result: the revolution of 1789… which happened in the world’s most powerful country… Then.)

***

HORRIBLE ROMAN WOMEN:

Messalina was emperor Claudius’ wife. No outrage was high enough for her. She slept and conspired all over Rome. In the end, not content with living the life of a “august harlot” (Juvenal) by spending nights in brothels, “offering herself to all comers” (Juvenal), she led a conspiracy to kill and replace her husband.

Claudius was weak with women, so they were emboldened to abuse him: after Messalina’s decapitation by an army officer, he betrothed Agrippina the Younger, who poisoned him (with mushrooms, say the antique sources) so that her own previous son, Nero, could become emperor (instead of Britannicus,  Claudius and Messalina’s son).

Conniving, self pitying women have existed before. Shortly before her execution, Messalina was moaning and weeping, and her own mother had to tell her: “Your life is finished. All that remains is to make a decent end“.

Pseudo-feminists need to be told the same: you cannot live as you used to, playing damsels in distress, while asking for equality. Can’t have the cake, eat it, and throw it in the face of the cook. Too many wishes spoil the dish.

***

PSEUDO FEMINISTS & THEIR MESSALINA TRICKS:

Nowadays what we hear from pseudo-feminists everywhere is that, each time a woman screams: “rape!”, she is a victim. Well, maybe she is a victim: that remains to be proven. The only thing which is sure, is that she is an accuser. Being an accuser is not free of charge.

Pseudo-feminists always come and whine that rape is a most unreported rape. Well, reporting crime is never easy. For some reason, I appear to have well determined enemies, and I was several times the victim of crimes which I did not report to the best of my ability (including a near lethal attack in which my neck was partly broken from behind, and a bomb attack).

The reason is that I knew who my assailants were, and they were mighty; having a judicial fight is not as efficient as removing oneself from the area, if survival is the objective. In these cases, I could remove myself, so I did. Trying to involve the police and the judiciary, as much as one could, sometimes make things more difficult, or even backfires. I agree that this is not a very heroic attitude. But heroism is not always the most pacific way to resolve a conflict. (These crimes did not happen in the USA, by the way.)

Right now, for example, some nasty types seem to have taken control of my computer and use it to send what I suspect is unlawful material (I know this from MAIL DAEMON returns). I am in the mountains so replacing the computer, or cleaning it from the offensive virus inside, is not easy. However, if what is sent is child pornography, I could have trouble with the authorities (unlawful material planted in a computer is the 21C equivalent of planting drugs in someone’s luggage). But I don’t even know who to report the crime to. (So I will report it on the web to start with.)

With all due respect, pure rape, in the absence of any other violence, is not, in general,  the worst of crimes (although it is very severely repressed, in France or the USA). Pseudo feminists will howl, reading this. But it’s the truth. As Jack Lang pointed out in France (bringing howls, as intended):”Il n’y a pas mort d’homme” (“No human being got killed”… Not “No man got killed ” as it got mistranslated in the USA).

Pure neck breaking is incomparably worse than rape. One cannot put everything having to do with rape in the same bag. Crimes committed with weapons, or against children, ought to be repressed with the utmost ferocity. But injury-less, he says-she-says sexual scenarios between roughly equivalent adults, ought to be dismissed by justice, in the name of feminism, and privacy.

In the name of feminism? How so? Indeed, much of the hysteria about rape assumes that a fully grown woman is intrinsically an easy prey for a man, thus it assumes explicitly that women are inferior, helpless creatures who need to be defended by the authorities. People holding that sort of drift, ought to consider immigrating to Saudi Arabia, where men with guns will take care of them.

Rape hysteria cultivates the inferiority of woman, and even imposes it, as it says to all little girls: oh, if a male attacks you, don’t defend yourself, play victim, and then tell it all, people in black robes who take themselves very seriously will take care of you. Just like in Saudi Arabia.

When the mediocre Maureen Dowd (who had rushed to judgment against DSK, and insulted him gravely) interviewed Christine Lagarde (new IMF head, the French answer to the plot cum conspiracy against DSK), she asked her if she was ever assaulted by a man.

Lagarde answered she was too tall (5-10), too muscular, and too fierce. Any man taking liberties would be slapped or punched. And men knew that, so they left her alone. That was the correct answer. Dowd, in her stupidity, did not realize that Lagarde was implying that DSK did not do it, in view of the formidable physique of his accuser. If a towering Tyranosaurus Rex tells you that, in 15 minutes, it was forced to provide sexual service to a small overweight old panda, something is amiss. (Lagarde announced all along that she would meet with DSK, as new IMF director, whether he was in jail or not.)

As I just alluded to, I have a great expertise as victim: I lived around the world, and people come to readily hate me for my ideas. Some of the countries I lived in were official dictatorships at the time. I have a practical philosophy that assaults come readily in situations like that (I received some threats, on the phone, last week, and it bothered me for a few days; the threat was not of bodily harm, but of putting a number of people together who would accuse me of something; the threat did not originate in the USA, but in Europe.)

Looked at it another way, I am a mountain climber, and I had several close calls (once I survived in a way I do not understand to this day, and would never believe if someone else told me the story; it was the very definition of “miracle”). I lost many friends to the mountains.

However, I am not going to accuse the mountains. We got too much of what we played with. I like to play with fire, too. Once, over confident by a campfire, I got severe burns. A lot of “rape” is a bit like that. The Banon case is typical: from what she was saying, she was pretty sure that DSK (whom she had already met) would try something. And she wanted to put that in her book. That’s why they held hands, then arms, then… (She says.)

I face my music, as a philosopher at war, and all real feminists should face their own music too. One cannot want to be like men, and not be ready to assume the occasional bruise, or to engage in combat.

If rape, or sexual aggression or disrespect, is really a problem, then fight back, as Lagarde said. If he touches you, and you don’t want it, then slap back: the police will have something to look at. If one is too small, too weak, too sick, too old, then it’s something else. But, in the case of DSK, that was precisely the converse: the accuser is an enormous gorilla (for want of  a better word with a less racist connotation). However, she brought the DA to tears, we heard from Nocera, because, in his addled mind, the DA saw her as a tiny victim, just because she was female, instead of observing the towering inferno she is (later when she rolled on the floor, doubts appeared).

Or rather: the DA thought he could get away with pretending that an aggression was plausible, because of the gender of the alleged victim and tried to use that to ingratiate himself to the authorities on Wall Street who financed him. Instead, they are going to be embarrassed, and take a wide berth.

The fact remains that Americans do not see the problem of a racist justice financed by fat cats. (The DA is elected, thanks to Wall Street money, at least in New York, will I repeat slowly, to make it very clear.)

*** 

SEXUALIZING PURITANISM: AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY:

Screaming wolf, wolf, wolf, each time one sees a man acting as a man, is a mental disease. Moreover, it often turns out that, the louder individuals denounce a behavior, especially in sexual matters, the more they secretly engage in it. Reading Maureen Dowd’s violent obsessions of victimization, one gets the impression that she wants to be grabbed by men with big hands, thrown on the floor, and violated in ways she will find delicious, until she can complain about them in her next editorial.

Pseudo feminism tends to claim that men are always ready to metamorphose into “predators”. It vilifies male behavior, even when it is very healthy. So doing, pseudo feminism accentuates gender differences.

Real feminists, instead, would refuse to acknowledge the gender of people, except in privacy. Glorifying  male behavior, just as we glorify female behavior is OK. Nevertheless, anti-sexism will also require a dose of anti-sexualism. The systematic sexualization which has happened in recent decades, when lots of noise is done about sex and when groups claim that some sexual practices make them “gay”, whereas others, presumably are sad, is beyond grotesque; it is offensive, and promotes sexism. What to do with over active seducers (such as DSK allegedly is) is not clear.

I personally despise sexualism. Sexualism consists into viewing other people primarily as sex objects (it’s a neologism of mine). Thus sexualism tends to make the other gender into (sexual) objects, and goes hand in hand with sexism (which views the other gender as inferior). That’s why I don’t like it. 

In a similar vein, it is highly offensive that the depiction of nude cherubs, which was viewed as innocent for centuries, is now viewed as a sexual offense by those who presumably use this sort of distraction to avert their eyes from the delirium of the plutocracy. As a famous king of England (and France! It was Edward III) said:”Honni soit, qui mal y pense!” (“Shamed be who evil there think”).

The human eye sees a lot with what it sees inside. The evil eye mostly sees inside, and paints what it found there, onto others, as Edward said. Suspecting other people of evil, just because one imagined it, condemning them without proof, this was exactly what was so nefarious about the worst mass criminality of the Twentieth Century.

***

ANTI-SEXISM IS SUPERIOR, IDIOTS ARE INFERIOR:

Feminism is important: it repairs the injury that millennia of imperial civilization caused to the natural mental equivalence between males and females. Pushed too far, though, it will invite masculinism. A warning occurred when, under Nazism, women were suddenly subjugated back into baby factories. The irony is that there were a lot of fanatical Nazi women (remember Ms Goebbels assassinating her 6 children, so they will not have to live in a non Nazi world?)

Some will say that this is impossible. Well, the only thing that is impossible is the impossible. What has happened before, clearly is not. The subjugation of women would have sounded incomprehensible to paleolithic hunter-gatherers. But it happened, worldwide, in the Neolithic. And women became relatively stupid, from the subjugation they were submitted to.

The situation corrected to some extent, as the less sexist societies had more clever women, who educated smarter children. This was perhaps the main secret of the West: more equal, thus superior, women. This came from the German tradition rather than the Greco-Roman one (and the Franks nailed that point heavily).

A drastic example was the Dark Ages of Greece, when women carried the entire Greek civilization to the children they had with the invaders who had killed their husbands and raped them.

This phenomenon has been amplified recently: most countries know that the road to smarts go through smart mothers. Thus sexism is ever shrinking. But ongoing progress depends upon women rising to the occasion. Instead of using it to make a fool of themselves. As so many did in the DSK affair.

Scratch the surface, find the worst: so it is all too often with human beings (see the characters above, oozing with racism and villainy).  OK, maybe they did not examine themselves very carefully before (as Socrates would say). Or maybe, simply, they did not have mothers who were sharp enough. Feminism which wants us to be all stupid is just another form of prostitution serving the established order. Serious women, and there are many in close orbit around DSK (such as the head of the socialist party), will take a wide berth from hysteria.

Hysteria has its uses. However, hysteria is traditionally viewed as the major problem of females, as its etymology indicates. Thus hysteria is precisely the sort of behavior the modern female brain will be careful to use with parsimony.

***

Patrice Ayme

Dressing Islam For Western Exploitation

July 14, 2010

 

COLLABORATING WITH INFAMY TO GET OIL.

Abstract: As the French National Assembly passed at near unanimity a law against covering the face of women against their will, another pseudo intellectual, pseudo feminist, thought controller of the University of Chicago, goes off the deep end, with big words and hollow ideas, calling France “unworthy”.

Wildly misinterpreting history, actuality, European law, democracy, Islam, professor Nussbaum makes a fool of herself, defending mandatory face covering for women and girls.

But Nussbaum’s real aim was to remind common Americans that European democracy was bad… And thus, implicitly, that American plutocracy was more "liberal", and is the superior model of civilization. When the truth is that the thirst of the USA’s "intelligence” agencies for oil is behind the Literalist Fundamentalist mess that a lot of countries with Muslim majorities have become. Nussbaum says that the burqa is good, but all she knows is that it helps to get oil.

***

AMERICAN HOLIER-THAN-THOU:

Dr. Nussbaum, somebody paid and honored by the powers-that-be in the USA, is an American "philosopher" and professor of American style "ethics" at this temple of plutocracy, the University of Chicago. As a salaried thinker, paid for having the thoughts that please the higher ups, she wrote in the New York Times, in "The Stone" series, that: "The proposed bans of the Muslim burqa in Europe are unworthy of liberal democracies." Ah, Europe, such an unworthy democracy… And what is a "Liberal" democracy? By contradistinction to what? “Illiberal” democracy? Plutocratic "democracy"?

I hold, instead, that it is racist to hold women in bondage, on the pretext that they are Muslim, and that wrapping all and any women below a tent is a form of cruel bondage. By making women stupid, hiding every parcel of their skin makes children, even sons, who are educated by women, also made less intelligent and autonomous than they would be otherwise. Thus bondage of women makes entire Muslim societies easier to exploit.

[Why should I not do like Glen Beck and, instead, attack the previous head of the "Black Panthers", who ordered to kill the "blue eyed babies"? Because that very bad man, this Hitler, as Beck said correctly, is not writing major editorials in the New York Times, and is not a respected American intellectual, a master American thinker, as Nussbaum is.]

The niqab, or burqa, the integral "veil" is a tent put on women, leaving only some spaces or holes so that they can see where they are going. It is often forced onto women through various threats and coercions. People who are NOT familiar with Islam, such as the pontificating Doctor Nussbaum, believe that to put a tent upon women is a command of Islam. But it is not.

The Qur’an only admonishes the wives of the Prophet to dress modestly, which was probably a veiled attack against Aisha, beloved child bride, and widow of Muhammad, who contested the veracity of the Qur’an which had been unfaithfully invented (she said) 20 years after her husband death. In the end, she led an army against the Qur’an. She was very clear that the Qur’an was sexist, and Muhammad was not (she was married with him at 6, consumed at 9, but loved him tenderly… albeit with some very independent practices which would get her stoned right away by today’s fanatics).

The French national Assembly voted by 335 votes, against one, a measly one, a crushing unanimity, to outlaw the imposition of ambulatory tents on women.

More exactly the law made unlawful to hide one’s face without any good reason (150 Euros fine, if the contrevenant persists, after being told to remove her face mask). Much more severe penalties await those who force women to be integrally covered up.

Burqas have been used to kill hundreds of people throughout the Middle East, just in the last year, because terrorists can hide weapons below them; but of course Ms. Nussbaum, European critique beyond the call of reason, probably secretly applauds terrorist attacks in Europe…. Nussbaum advocates burqas in Paris, I don’t see her advocating them in Tel Aviv! Some people would call that blatant racism.

Only one French MP voted against the burqa ban, indeed (and more than 70% of the French population wants a ban). Most green, socialist and communist MPs abstained (but 20 joined the conservative majority, including one prominent socialist and one prominent communist). The text is now going to the French Senate. Then it will go to the president. Then the French Constitutional Court and various European institutions will have a look at it. Individual European citizens can always complain DIRECTLY to the French Council of State, or the European Supreme Court, if they don’t like it. Because so can French citizens directly complain, avenues which are not open to American citizens.

The USA has no Council of State, no Constitutional Court, and access to the Supreme Court is neither direct, nor guaranteed, (and it’s not really a constitutional court anyway).

So when Nussbaum talks grandly about "liberal democracy", maybe she should analyze the lack of PLAIN democracy in the USA first. The lack of recourse of citizens. Anyway, what is a "liberal democracy"? An euphemism for "plutocracy"? In California the republican candidate for governor spent 91 million dollars of her own plutocratic money to hypnotize the people in believing in her worthiness. And this, more than four months before the election, already!

The proposed French law against the burqa imposes up to one year in jail and 30,000 Euros fine for anyone forcing a woman to hide her face, and double of both, if the imposition is on a minor.

What is it not to like, except if one is a hater of France, Muslim women and girls?

In the rest of this essay, I systematically demolish Nussbaum’s unworthy, hypocritical considerations. Her arguments are so ridiculously weak that they can easily skipped by rushed readers (they are in italics). I accuse her of collaborating with the plutocratic way to oil and war. To spice things up a bit, I bring higher perspectives, here and there.

***

PLAYING WITH FIRE: LITERALIST ISLAM AS FUNDAMENTAL USA POLICY.

This put matters Islamist in American perspective. Ever since the extensive meeting between USA president Roosevelt and King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia, the USA has made a pact with the evil of Literalist, Fundamentalist Islam. Literalist Islam was the successor of fanatical fundamentalist Christianism, which devastated the Roman empire, and made it a place of anti-intellectualism, a sorry episode known as the Dark Ages (an aftershock of which was the Crusades).

The American government computation was simple: send us your oil, and we will control your population with obscurantism (in this case Literalist, Fundamentalist Islam). There was an opening, because France and Britain, which had controlled the Middle East, had been devastated by the war against Hitler (and were immensely indebted to their belated rescuer of sorts, the USA, which had timed it just right).

 

The plot thickens. Ibn Saud (center) meets with FDR (right) and American brass, for about a week on USS Quincy, after the Yalta Conference.

***

France and Britain had been leery of Islam, which they had pretty much left to its own devices (a major mistake). (P/S 1).

France, which had taken a very strong, forceful secular stance, finally expropriating the Christian Church in 1905, left Islam alone. France had incorporated Judeo-Christianism in a "Concordat" (churches are the property of the state in France, which then takes care of them). But not Islam. France is actually only now incorporating Islam on an equal basis with Judeo-Christianism (so many municipalities, including Strasbourg, are building mosques, and provide help to do so. The mayor of Strasbourg protested that the proposed minaret was too short; just to relax everybody, and on purely aesthetic grounds, let me point out that I also support the tallest minarets).

The manipulation of Literalist, Fundamentalist Islam by the USA government resulted in many coups (Iran, 1953), intolerable Muslim Fundamentalist dictatorships (Pakistan, 1961), and wars.

In particular, the Afghanistan war started in the 1970s at the instigation of Pakistani intelligence, supported by the American CIA, and brought the Soviet intervention of 1979; in turn the Americans brought in bin Laden and his rich boys, propelled by Saudi money; from an Afghan nationalist perspective, Pakistan and the USA have been waging war inside the country for 40 years.

It ought to have become obvious to all that supporting Fundamentalist Literalist Islam backfired on 9/11. But the American public opinion was made to believe other things, such as the ludicrous assertion that American policy had nothing to do with it.

In this governmental processes of making people believe that what is, is not, and what is not, is, American intellectuals play a crucial, supporting role (European intellectuals instead know that they pretty much will amount to nothing, historically speaking, if they agree with their governments, and they are taken seriously by the European populations as a check and balance for governmental power: Nazism and Stalinism, if nothing else, showed that intellectuals supporting the Party line are at best corrupt idiots).

Europe, long in denial, is finally understanding that it has a Muslim problem. French president De Gaulle tried to cut France off its Muslim link. Although Algerians had overwhelmingly voted for the new French secular constitution, many metropolitan French were closet racists, in leftist, social, human rights disguise, so they wanted nothing to do with Algeria, and de Gaulle dumped Algeria.

Unsurprisingly, that did not work, because Islam still occupies the half of the Roman empire it conquered in a few years (640 CE to 710 CE). That means that Islam is geographically glued to Europe.

The problem with Islam is that it is a superstition that wants to rule. Everything. Under "God". Serious Islam Fundamentalists divide the world in two pieces: THE "HOUSE OF SUBMISSION, AND THE HOUSE OF WAR". And that is why Islam was the best excuse and organizing principle to conquer by the sword about half of the accessible world in a few years. Unsurprisingly, ever since, Islam, a war theology, has run out of juice (not to say Christianity, the parent of Islam, was not a war theology either!) The Golden Age of Islam was mostly because of a number of accidental factors… first of which being that islam ruled over a Judeo-Christian majority freed from Roman religious oppression… and was killed by Literalist Islam itself.

Many intellectuals, and not all of them American, have subscribed to a Mickey-Mouse view of Islam, perfectly coherent with the view of American conservatives that the American Constitution is an implementation of the Bible. Actually implementing the bible was Muhammad’s fundamental program and call. So, fundamentally, American neo-conservatives are strict followers of Muhammad. Somebody ought to tell them.

The USA is at a strange juncture. Many Muslims have realized that Literalist, Fundamentalist Islam was used against them, by the USA and allied plutocrats such as the Saudi family princes. Bin Laden was, for two decades, the CIA’s most prominent collaborator. But no more. Bin Laden’s way out of that manipulation has been to call it for what it is, out-literalize it, and out-fundamentalize it. So the USA finds itself in a situation Rome had known many times, when a mercenary turns against the imperial hand that made him. More deeply, the very strategy of encouraging Islam, long the USA’s plutocracy preferred weapon against European colonialists and Middle Eastern progressives, has now become a weapon against the USA.

My overall opinion is that manipulating superstition is conduct unbecoming a powerful secularist civilization. Islam ought to be treated strictly identically to Judeo-Christianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism. Secularism is the religion, superstitions are tolerated within bounds.

To claim that outlawing the imposition of the Burqa is against democracy is grotesquely sexist, and aims at keeping obscurantism strong, so that plutocracy can be strong too.

***

LONG LIVE ISLAM, LONG LIVE WAR:

On one hand, Obama comes around, and lauds Islam. On the other hand, he bombs the heck out of Muslims, with robots, and supports with billions of subsidies Israel’ s intemperate policies of building all sorts of giant walls (emotional, conceptual, and physical). OK, Obama did not invent the last policy, and he seems to genuinely disagree with Israel’s excesses. But he went full out into Afghanistan, and this, even Bush was not stupid enough to do.

This is where it starts to make a weird sort of sense. Bush held back going full blast into Afghanistan. It is hard to attribute sophisticated reasons to Bush, but the fact that Afghanistan has a Fundamentalist, Literalist interpretation of Islam as the core of its constitution, may have given him pause: he had already got what the USA wanted.

In any case, if NATO is going to have an army of more than 150,000 in Afghanistan, supposedly to protect the Islamist constitution, one has to love Islamists and the constitutions they come up with.

***

DECONSTRUCTION OF NUSSBAUM’S UNWORTHY RAMBLE:

Nussbaum says in the New York Times online edition:

"a proposed ban on the Muslim burqa in all public places… may soon become national law in France and Belgium.  Even the headscarf often causes trouble.  In France, girls may not wear it in school.  In Germany (as in parts of Belgium and the Netherlands) some regions forbid public school teachers to wear it on the job, although nuns and priests are permitted to teach in full habit.  What does political philosophy have to say about these developments? "

Ms. Nussbaum, a paid "philosopher", should learn that WISDOM STARTS BY NOT FEEDING PEOPLE LIES. Disinformation, especially when blatant, is a lie. In France girls cannot wear the scarf as a religious symbol in PUBLIC schools.

The law is not anti-Muslim, it outlaws large symbols of appurtenance to a tribal group, sect, or superstitious religion. The law bans all religious/tribal symbols bigger than a square centimeter or so. France has learned a few things from 18 centuries of religious wars.

There are private Muslim schools, where girls could be made into tents, if their administrators so wished. Nuns and priests, just as Muslim scholars, are free to teach in religious garb of their own choosing, as long as they are not naked, and as long as they are teaching in private religious schools (or for peculiar religious teachings, but then Muslim priests can be dressed as Muslims, and so can Sikh).

Ms. Nussbaum is apparently unaware of the notion of SECULAR state. Public schools are schools of the secular state, which is religion neutral, so the teachers of public schools cannot loudly advocate a particular superstitious religion. The religion of the secular state is secularism, that is what the secular state PREACHES.

Nussbaum asks: "All human beings are equal bearers of human dignity.  It is widely agreed that government must treat that dignity with equal respect. But what is it to treat people with equal respect in areas touching on religious belief and observance?"

What of human sacrifices and anthropophagia, Nussbaum? Most known religions practiced them. Are we treating religious cannibals with equal respect and observance?

Then Nussbaum refers with reverence to the founders and framers of the American Constitution. All good American neo-conservatives engage in this funny exercise. The notorious Glen Beck, Fox news master of time travel (back to the past), spends years on the concept. I will explain another time why it is such a terrible thing. The French may as well refer all the time about Robespierre. Except Robespierre’s insanities are in plain sight, easy to demolish.

What USA framers and founders teach, instead, is, often (not always), a high level hypocrisy. The fundamental method of the framers and founders was about saying the opposite of what one is truly doing. Their words were stolen from philosophers, but the aim was the opposite. This goes on, to this day, from Wall Street to Iraq and Afghanistan. True, the USA became a temple of freedom, inside its white population. But there was no means in Washington to make it different. Where Washington could make different was the massacre of the Indians. But, instead of preventing it, it accelerated it. This puts Lincoln’s dreadful courage in opposing slavery in an even more imposing contrast.

But let’s launch Dr. Nussbaum, and her anti-European, befuddling discourse:

"…the recent European cases all involve discriminatory laws…  Let’s focus on the burqa; arguments made there can be adapted to other cases.

Five arguments are commonly made in favor of proposed bans.  Let’s see whether they treat all citizens with equal respect.  First, it is argued that security requires people to show their faces when appearing in public places.  A second, closely related, argument says that the kind of transparency and reciprocity proper to relations between citizens is impeded by covering part of the face.

What is wrong with both of these arguments is that they are applied inconsistently.

It gets very cold in Chicago – as, indeed, in many parts of Europe.  Along the streets we walk, hats pulled down over ears and brows, scarves wound tightly around noses and mouths.  No problem of either transparency or security is thought to exist, nor are we forbidden to enter public buildings so insulated.  Moreover, many beloved and trusted professionals cover their faces all year round: surgeons, dentists, (American) football players, skiers and skaters. What inspires fear and mistrust in Europe, clearly, is not covering per se, but Muslim covering."

No wonder Ms Nussbaum is paid such respect, and such compensation: it has got to be hard and painful to emit such absurdities with intellectual pretense. By the way, there are already laws in part of Europe, outlawing covering faces around violent demonstrations: French police can just grab people who wear clothing that hides them to check their identity. That anti-covering law was passed after violent demonstrations in Strasbourg (seat of the European Parliament, and of what was long the tallest monument in the world, the Strasbourg cathedral, object of a demolition project of Al Qaeda, which was stopped by Franco-German police). Some building were set on fire by professional thugs (many coming from other countries), hiding below hoods and masks.

Nussbaum; the intellectual mercenary, pursues her relentless descent in making fun of thinking: "A third argument, very prominent today, is that the burqa is a symbol of male domination … A Catalonian legislator recently called the burqa a “degrading prison.” … those who make that argument typically don’t know much about Islam and would have a hard time saying what symbolizes what in that religion.  But the more glaring flaw in the argument is that society is suffused with symbols of male supremacy … Sex magazines, nude photos, tight jeans — all of these products, arguably, treat women as objects, as do so many aspects of our media culture.  And what about the “degrading prison” of plastic surgery?…  Isn’t much of this done in order to conform to a male norm of female beauty that casts women as sex objects? Proponents of the burqa ban do not propose to ban all these objectifying practices.  Indeed, they often participate in them. And banning all such practices on a basis of equality would be an intolerable invasion of liberty. Once again, then, the opponents of the burqa are utterly inconsistent, betraying a fear of the different that is discriminatory and unworthy of a liberal democracy.  The way to deal with sexism, in this case as in all, is by persuasion and example, not by removing liberty."

OK, guilty nearly all of us are, we must confess, of letting "sex" come around. Instead we ought to be old fashion prudes: they apparently knew nothing of sex, never had it, and wore baggy clothing. Notice how many weasel words Nussbaum uses: "typically", "arguably", etc. Anybody can use "arguably" about anything whatsoever. Arguably, arguably is the world’s top weasel word. Notice also that Nussbaum seems unaware that laws are all about removing liberties that existed, and are outlawed thereafter. This is how the concept of law works, Nussbaum: by forbidding what was allowed before, removing liberties. In particular sexism has shrunk, because sexist practices have been increasingly outlawed in the West.

***

What’s beautiful about dreadful ignorance, is that it can be dressed under voluminous discourses:

Nussbaum tries to look informed and subtle: "When Turkey banned the veil long ago, there was a good reason in that specific context: because women who went unveiled were being subjected to harassment and violence.  The ban protected a space for the choice to be unveiled, and was legitimate so long as women did not have that choice.  We might think of this as a “substantial burden” justified (temporarily) by a “compelling state interest.”  But in today’s Europe women can dress more or less as they please; there is no reason for the burden to religious liberty that the ban involves."

Nussbaum does not allow for the possibility that, locally, the (forced) burqa wearers would become so thick on the ground that even women passing by would be violated too. Nussbaum obviously has not lived in a Muslim majority community.

What Nussbaum also does not know is that the anti-burqa laws amount to light fines for the wearers of the disguises, but heavy punishment, and jail time, for those who force women to wear the veil.

Nussbaum, as a good weasel, addresses the point: "A fourth argument holds that women wear the burqa only because they are coerced.  This is a rather implausible argument to make across the board, and it is typically made by people who have no idea what the circumstances of this or that individual woman are."

Well, Nussbaum, however implausible crimes and circumstances are, they happen, and the laws are there to dissuade them. There is plenty of evidence of women coerced to wear tents, all over the world, under Islamist pretense.

Nussbaum asserts that the burqa itself is not violence, in a sneaky way:"it seems at least plausible that observant Muslim families will turn out to have less [violence].

Suppose there were evidence that the burqa was strongly associated, statistically, with violence against women. Could government could legitimately ban it on those grounds?  The U. S. Supreme Court has held that nude dancing may be banned on account of its contingent association with crime, including crimes against women"…

Well, we did not expect anything else from the temple of prudery: nude dancing bad, burqa dancing good. The USA ought to allow only BURQA DANCING.

"Finally, says Nussbaum, I’ve heard the argument that the burqa is per se unhealthy, because it is hot and uncomfortable.  (Not surprisingly, this argument is made in Spain.)  This is perhaps the silliest of the arguments.  Clothing that covers the body can be comfortable or uncomfortable, depending on the fabric… It is surely far from clear that the amount of skin displayed in typical Spanish female dress would meet with a dermatologist’s approval.  But more pointedly, would the arguer really seek to ban all uncomfortable and possibly unhealthy female clothing?  Wouldn’t we have to begin with high heels, delicious as they are?  But no, high heels are associated with majority norms (and are a major Spanish export), so they draw no ire.

What about vitamin D, Nussbaum? Sun exposure can be good. It is surely very close to clear, to parody her devious rhetoric, that Nussbaum is grasping at straws. And Ms Nussbaum to resonate on her tin drum one more time:

All five arguments are discriminatory.  We don’t even need to reach the delicate issue of religiously grounded accommodation to see that they are utterly unacceptable in a society committed to equal liberty.  Equal respect for conscience requires us to reject them."

What we should reject is intellectual prostitution. Differently from sexual prostitution, it’s really lethal. Hitler got a huge lift from too many German intellectuals supporting him and his policies.

***

Conclusion: PLUTOCRACY, RIGHT OR WRONG, EUROPE, ALWAYS WRONG: Why does Nussbaum, supposedly a feminist, makes such a fool of herself? Because American intellectuals get bonus points when they say anything against Europe. It is the World Cup of intellectual supremacy, and the plutocracy of the USA has a lot to lose if European ideas progress in the USA.

Now Europe consists in more than three dozen cultures, 500 million people, and has a long tradition of solving problems through brainwork (for better or worse, learning in both cases). Whereas the solution, in the USA, to solve problem, often consisted simply in "GO WEST, YOUNG MAN". That has been both the advantage and the bane of the USA. It made for an easy life, and also a tradition of easy thinking.

Now, however, there is no West to go to, and free energy and land are on their way out. Actually, it seems that California, as west as one can go, is sinking in the ocean. Or at least an ocean of debt (as major cities go bankrupt, basic government functions are discontinued).

People such as Nussbaum talk about Islam, but never obviously never studied the Qur’an, a very short book (400 pages, about). That was the book Aisha went to war against. According to Islam Fundamentalists of the violent type, there are about 200 hundred very clear passages commanding extreme violence in the Qur’an. One can capture women in war ("those who you right hand possess") and "do whatever you please with them". Including enslaving them, and having sex with the girls (it’s completely explicit in the Qur’an). Anyway, I have put some of the violent quotes together, somewhere else on this site, no need to go read bin Laden himself (which I recommend doing).
So please consult the Qur’an itself as found in: https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

There is even worse violence in the Hadith (gossip about Muhammad). Let me say in passing that I was quasi born, and certainly raised, and educated in Muslim countries, and not just 4 years like Obama on the periphery of Islam, I know what I am talking about, and the quotes above are from best translations.

Apparently, Nussbaum has not read about unadulterated Islam for years. Here is an example: BERLIN, Sep 29, 2006 (IPS) – Amnesty International has issued an urgent appeal calling on its members to write letters to the Republic of Iran asking them not to stone seven women. The women have been sentenced to die by stoning for adultery. There are cases such as these all the time. In July 2010, a woman was sentenced for death by stoning, because she, allegedly, had sex with two men, well after her husband death from natural circumstances. That is adultery, as far as Islamist law is concerned. Oh, yes, because Islam, being everything, is also a judicial system.

That is why French Muslims and others are anxious to define an "Islam de France" : there are instructions, in the Qur’an to give precedence to local traditions, when the situation is not too clear. By the way, although a professor of divinity, Nussbaum, has not done her homework: strict Quranic scholarship makes it very clear that the burqa ought to be forbidden in France, because it is not the tradition there, and the Qur’an actually does not order it. But of course Nussbaum’s true aim is to call Europeans names. As usual, Islam is just a weapon of choice for America’s best.

Nussbaum uses her naivety as a weapon. It is impossible that she is that stupid. To serve her masters, those who use religious strife to reign, divide, steal, kill, she is ready to debase her mental faculties publicly.

When one hears Obama talks about Jesus, and God, and then one sees him throwing civilization out of the window in Afghanistan, in ways reminiscent of Terminator movies, superior European minds who learned lessons from history know how it relates: this sort of tricks, of talking peace while killing indiscriminately, was used by the imposer of Christianity, Constantine, 17 centuries ago (Hitler was one of the recent practitioners, of the exact same method, complete with loud and obnoxious calls to God and peace).

It does not come to the minds of the apologists of the burqa that most Muslims move to Europe, precisely to flee Literalist Islam. The laws white pontificator Nussbaum complains about are supported by Muslims in Europe (most of them: there are always extremists who live from their extremism).

Differently from the Ms. "Philosopher"-who-has-not-studied-enough-history, Europeans know very well that religions caused enormous miseries in Europe in the last 2 millennia.

The Romans had banned the old Celtic religion, because of its religious sacrifices. Too bad they did not ban Christianity in time, too. The ravages of Christianity in the Late Roman empire caused the Dark Ages. When the Franks dominated Europe, they did, because they operated a fundamentally secular civilization, tolerant to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and Agnostics. The Church was forced to rebuild what it had destroyed, public education.

The author accuses Europeans of racism, which is not deprived of a hefty dose of irony, coming from someone who writes from such a racist country. In France, there are more than 6 million Muslims (and more, if one counts all those of part Muslim and, a fortiori, Jewish, ancestry). Several powerful French women politicians are (practicing, they claim!) Muslims, some are in the government, and they strongly support, and push for, laws to keep Literalist Islam in check, including laws against women-as-tents.

Practicing and preaching Literalist Islam used to be a capital crime in Egypt in 1,300 CE. This is actually the birth, not of Islam, but of fundamentalist Islam: the founder was condemned to perpetual detention, and died in jail. This is the Islam Nussbaum celebrates, and the Saudis supposedly practice, and the Islam advocated by Al Qaeda.

A valid objections could be that Great Britain, with less than a fourth of the number of Muslims that France has, is tolerant of the niqab/burqa. Well, we will see how long that last. There were terrible terrorist attacks from British born Muslim against other Brits, something France has not known. So the "Londonistan" policy, of not integrating Islam, seems to have come short, and the USA is showing the same symptoms; with a Muslim population not greater than France, scores of USA born Muslims were arrested for terrorism related to their interpretation of Islam, recently.

Ms Nussbaum became famous for "The Fragility of Goodness", in which she argues that individuals strongly committed to justice are vulnerable to external factors that may deeply compromise or even negate their initial aims, an observation about as deep as her lipstick (should she wear lipstick, by the way? Does not she self degrade herself into a "sex object", by doing so?). In other words: hey guys, we are all corrupt, so let’s splurge, now that we know we were good, but fragile. ‘I lost my goodness, me Nussbaum, and I am one more damsel in distress!’

We all know that Ms. Nussbaum will be the first to howl with the wolves to suspend the constitution of the USA once a Muslim terrorist has detonated a dirty nuclear bomb on Times Square. She seems less about principle, rather than about opportunity in the termite mound. Real philosophers are made of sturdier stuff, and do not worry about fragility of others’ minds. Otherwise they would not get any sleep. Termites are just food for thought.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S 1: France and Britain had been leery of Islam, which was plain ignored, and left to its own devices, in the 19C and 20 C. (There is a long tradition of this, because when the Franks reconquered the half of France Muslim invaders had occupied, the Muslims were left alone, and got discreetly reabsorbed in the Frankish state which viewed itself as secular… only the African, Berber, and Arab genes were left behind; this tolerance made France very different from what would happen in Spain five centuries later, when Jews and Muslims were thrown out… but, of course, Spaniards had good reasons to be extremely bitter, whereas the Franks destroyed the Muslims, fair, square, and hard, so an intolerable occupation did not happen too long).

***

P/S 2: Nussbaum is obsessed by women as “sex objects”, as you can see:

clip_image001

clip_image002

Nussbaum in 2004. Notice the discretely feminine attire, and big seductive smile, forms of the "objectification" of woman that Nussbaum fustigates in her opinions; Nussbaum converted to Judaism as an adult, and has been loudly involved in that superstition. Embracing Dog is a must for serious people in the USA. Nussbaum is generally viewed as a major feminist and intellectual, not the minor insect I morphed her into for the "Veiled Threats" essay.

Nussbaum, though not a lawyer, is currently "Ernst Freund" Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, a chair that includes appointments in the Philosophy Department, the Law School, and the Divinity School. She also holds associate appointments in Classics and Political Science, is a member of the Committee on Southern Asian Studies, and is a Board Member of the Human Rights Program. She previously taught at Harvard and Brown, where she held the rank of university professor. With these sort of arrogantlynaive propagandists, the American universities are crammed with.

Nussbaum is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Science (elected 1988), the American Philosophical Society, and was elected a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. She is a Founding President of the Human Development and Capability Association and a Past President of the American Philosophical Association. She has 33 honorary degrees from colleges and universities in North America, Europe, and Asia. In February 2009 she received the A.SK Social Science Award for contributions to "social system reform" from the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). In September 2005 Nussbaum was listed among the world’s Top 100 intellectuals by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines. She was similarly listed by Foreign Policy in 2008. In spring 2009, she won the American Philosophical Society‘s Henry M. Phillips Prize in Jurisprudence. Anyway, she is the big enchilada, hence fair game.

***

KORAN’S SEXISM EXHIBITED, NATO DECRIED.

April 23, 2009

THE QUR’AN IS OUTRAGEOUSLY SEXIST.
ITS INCOMPATIBILITY WITH WESTERN CIVILIZATION RUNS DEEP.

***

I extracted ALL the significant sentences in the Qur’an having to do with women, and put them below. When philosophy goes to war, it can be as simple as pointing to the naked truth. But old remnants tremble and shatter.

***

Warning: Extracting from the Qur’an all verses relative to women was widely viewed by some simple minds, apparently replacing mental activity by pseudo political correctness, or simple cowardice, as “moronic”, “racist” and “neofascist”.

It’s of course none of the sort. Quite the opposite. Publishing parts of a religious text is neither racist, nor stupid, nor neofascist. Various dictators have been trying to hide behind religion at the United Nations, true, by equating secularism with racism. But civilization should not surrender to them.

***

OLD RELIGIONS, OLD AND OUTRAGEOUS SEXISM: IS THIS WHAT NATO IS FIGHTING FOR?

In previous versions of this essay, the Qur’an was quoted directly, right at the start of the essay. An argument was then made, though, that I did not refer to the Bible and Hinduism while I mentioned the Qur’an, and that I thus exhibited this way my fanatical pro-Bible, pro-Eight Sacred texts of Hinduism disposition. So let me correct that by being very clear.

Both the Bible and old time Hinduism are sexist, true. The Bible being, moreover, a direct source for the Qur’an (see below). Hinduism was much more murderous than the Qur’an against women, no comparison (widows would be burned alive, sometimes, as in the Old Scandinavian religion).

OK, now that these greetings are out of the way, and before quoting the Qur’an’s abusive disposition against women, let me get to the crux of the matter as far as the point of it all, another bone of contention, some having accused me of ‘Historicism’, being obsessed by old texts, out of context.

Neither the Bible nor Hinduism are the law anywhere nowadays. Instead the Qur’an is officially the law in many so called “Muslim” countries. NATO supports many of them.

In particular, soldiers from secular NATO are supposed to fight in Afghanistan, to defend Afghan law against insurgents. But Afghan law’s core is the Qur’an. Thus secular countries are supposed to die in the name of the Qur’an.

But I present a thorough and handy demonstration that those who apply the Qur’an to the letter are in drastic violation with Human Rights as defined by the Charter of the United Nations.

Differently from Nazi law, or the Shariah, the Charter of the United Nations imposes at the outset the fundamental doctrine of Western Civilization, namely equality of all to the law. It’s fundamental to Athenian law, and Roman law, and the doctrine of the State Of Law made explicit by a Roman empress, 16 centuries ago.

Using NATO troops to support Islamist regimes, like the one in Afghanistan, is an intrinsic contradiction, and actually in violation of international law. This drastic observation ought to have major consequences on the present Western strategy, which is therefore not just illegal, but unwise, besides being inhuman.

(I use occasionally the older word “Koran” instead of the apparently more correct “Qur’an”, to the benefit of older readers; Only a few technical administrative verses about details on how to manage those pesky women have been omitted.)

***

 

THE QUR’AN SAYS THAT RAPING WOMEN IS RIGHT BECAUSE THEY ARE PASSIVE “FIELDS IN WHICH TO PLOW”:
After general salutations in Surah 1, and the introduction of Allah, and His “Messenger”, Muhammad, the Qur’an starts for real with Surah 2, by far the longest in the Qur’an. It is called “The Cow”. The Cow has five verses on women. Two are innocuous, three are abusive.

“It’s OK to have sex with your wives on the night of the fast.” [Surah 2; verse 187]. “Menstruation is a sickness. Don’t have sex with menstruating women.” [S. 2; v. 222]. “WOMEN ARE YOUR FIELDS SO GO THEN INTO YOUR FIELDS AS YOU WANT. [S.2: v. 223]. “Women have rights that are similar to men, but men have a status above them.” 2:228. “A woman is worth one-half a man.” 2:282.

Thus it can be perceived, as soon as The Cow, early in the Koran, that once a woman is in the possession of a man (it could be a wife, or a “slave girl”, a concept ubiquitous in the Qur’an, not just in Southern American plantations of the eighteen century), she has no right in refusing sex.

The Afghan law article 132 just states this fact. But Obama finds this article 132 “abhorrent” . Thus it would seem that Obama, although “not at war with Islam”, finds it “abhorrent”. In other words, apparently without being conscious of it, Obama is self contradicting. That is the exact Achilles’ heel of NATO’s Afghan and Pakistan strategy. It has been fighting the wrong enemy, and has allied itself with the wrong friend, who, verily not a friend, but the West’s enemy of old.
***

QUR’AN: WOMEN ARE SEX WIDGETS:
“Marry the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four.” 4:3.

“And if ye wish to exchange one wife for another and ye have given unto one of them a sum of money (however great), take nothing from it. Would you take it by the way of calumny and open wrong ?” [4:20.]

(Nothing wrong with exchanging wives, something wrong about adding “open wrong”.)

“All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” [4:24.]

(You can’t have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war, with whom you may rape or do whatever you like.)

And those who are not able to afford to marry free , believing women, let them marry from their believing slaves…  [4; 25.]

“And leave the wives your Lord created for you ?” [S. 26; v. 166]

(Women were created by Allah for the enjoyment of men.)

***

QUR’AN: DON’T FORGET TO PUNISH WOMEN:
Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15.

You may not forcibly inherit women, unless they are flagrantly lewd. 4:19. “All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess (slaves).” 4.24.

…”And if when they are honorably married they commit lewdness they shall incur the half of the punishment (prescribed) for free women (in that case). This is for those among you who fear to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” [4; 25.]

MEN ARE IN CHARGE OF WOMEN, BECAUSE ALLAH MADE MEN TO BE BETTER THAN WOMEN. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and BEAT THEM UP. [4:34].

Men are guardians over women because Allah has made some of them excel others, and because men spend on them of their wealth. So virtuous women are obedient… [4: 35].

Lot offers his daughters to a MOB of ANGEL RAPERS. 11:78. (This is actually Genesis [19; 7-8], one of the many extract of the Qur’an, cut and paste from the Bible.)

When the doom of Allah comes, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, nursing mothers with forget their babies. 22:1-2.

The wives of Muhammad will be punished double for lewdness. (And that is easy for Allah.) 33:30. The wives of Muhammad are not like other women. They must not leave their houses. 33:32-33.

Those who “did wrong” will go to hell, and their wives will go to HELL with them (no matter how well the wives behaved). [37:22-23]

The wives of Noah and Lot (who were both righteous) betrayed their husbands and are now in the FIRE. [66:10.]

Muhammad’s wives need to be careful. If they criticize their husband, Allah will replace them with better ones. 66:5.    
***

QUR’AN: WOMEN ARE PLAIN DISGUSTING:
Don’t pray if you are drunk, dirty, or have touched a woman lately. 4:43. When it’s time to pray and you have just used the toilet or touched a woman, be sure to wash up. If you can’t find any water, just rub some dirt on yourself. 5:6.

“The GUILE OF YOU WOMEN… IS VERY GREAT.” 12:28.
Those who disbelieve in the afterlife give female names to angels. 53:27.

YOUR WIVES AND CHILDREN ARE YOUR ENEMIES. They are to you only a temptation. 64:14-15 [That idea comes straight from Jesus, a prophet of Islam. A relative of Muhammad was a professional Christian, and told Muhammad was he saw in the desert.]  
***

QUR’AN: the WOMEN, and the children ARE FEEBLE MINDED AND ARE UNABLE TO DEVISE A PLAN. [Surah 4; verse 98].

***

QUR’AN: STEAL WOMEN:
There is no blame on you if you divorce women when you have not… appointed for them a portion, and make provision for them… (this is) a duty on the doers of good (to others).[2.236]. Males are to inherit TWICE AS MUCH as females. 4:11. “Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females.” 4:176.
***

QUR’AN: SEXISM IS GOOD:
A man cannot treat his wives fairly. [4:129].

MEN AND WOMEN ARE ENEMIES! [Surah 7: verse 24].

If you value your parents, wives, and children more than Allah and Muhammad, then just wait and see what Allah will do to you after you die. [9; 24.]

If you accuse an honorable women of adultery, be sure to bring four witness. Otherwise you will receive 80 lashes. 24:4. A husband can accuse his wife of adultery with only one witness. 24:6 .
You don’t have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls “that your right hand possess.” 23:6.

Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves. 24:31.

(That was the verse believed to justify Hijab.)

Prophet, enjoin your wives, your daughters and the wives of true believers to draw their veils close around them. 33:59.
*** 

MUHAMMAD HANKY PANKY:
Allah gave Zeyd to Muhammad in marriage. This was so that all Muslims would know that it’s OK to marry your adopted son’s ex-wife. 33:37.

Allah says it is lawful for Muhammad to marry any women he wants. 33:50-51.

When Allah or Muhammad decide that a man and a woman should marry, they must marry. 33:36.

If men must speak to Muhammad’s wives they must speak from behind a curtain. And no one must ever marry one of his wives. 33:53.
But it’s OK for Muhammad’s wives to talk with certain people. 33:55 If Muhammad’s wives are good, Allah will give them “an immense reward.”

33:28-29. O Prophet! Why bannest Thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives?”
Allah says it’s OK for Muhammad to have sex with any of his wives whenever he wants. 66:1. (Article 132 of Afghan law again!)

Muhammad’s wives need to be careful. If they criticize their husband, Allah will replace them with better ones. 66:5  
***

APPRECIATION FOR HUMAN FEMALES:
Virgins await those who enter paradise. 4:57.
But the single-minded slaves of Allah will enjoy a Garden filled with lovely-eyed virgins. 37:40-48
Female companions await those who enter the Gardens of Eden on the Day of Reckoning. 38:52 
Allah will reward faithful Muslims after they die with “fair ones with wide, lovely eyes.” 44.54

Allah will give those in the Garden women of modest gaze whom neither man nor jinn have touched. [56. 17-23.] (Jinn = Evil spirits, or genies, created from fire.)

Allah will reward believing men with “fair ones” (beautiful women) in heaven, “close guarded in pavilions”. [55:71 & 72.] (Lest they escape?) Allah made virgins to be lovers and friends to those on his right hand. [s. 56; 36 & 37.]

The preceding appreciation for women, in conjunction with other verses calling for killing unbelievers, to go to paradise, entice young men to die for Allah.
***

NOT TO SAY MUHAMMAD WAS NOT A COURAGEOUS PROGRESSIST:
The parts of the Arabian desert that neither the Greco-Romans nor the Christians or Jews had penetrated yet were savage and cruel. Muhammad fought a lot of that successfully. For example, it was traditional to bury alive infant girls. The Qur’an condemns this:
“And when the one buried alive it is asked for what sin she was killed,” (81:8-9).

In truth, the Qur’an as we know it was ordered by Uthman, the third successor of Muhammad, the greatest emperor of his time. This was extremely opposed at the time: a coup developed against Uthman, and he was assassinated, or executed for it. The situation degenerated into a civil war that last to this day. So Obama’s statement that:” “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country,” on the face of it, means nothing.

The literal interpretation of the Qur’an was long unlawful, centuries ago. In modern times, it was pushed by oil wealth and the Saudis, long with the full approval of the CIA, which was delighted to have an issue to divide everybody (Pushing Quranism was especially useful to fight, France, Britain or the USSR, or divide South Asia).

There are excellent reasons to believe that Muhammad would have been seriously irate about the Qur’an we have presently. There are plenty of aspects of His personality in the Hadith, which, concurrently with known fact of His life (“Sunna”), depict Him as very advanced, especially about the condition of women.

That puts the rest of the Qur’an under suspicion.  Aisha, Muhammad beloved child-bride went to war about the sexism in the Qur’an. As she said: “It is not good that you people have made us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys.” [Hadith, Volume 1, Book 9, Number 498.]
***

THE UN CHARTER CONTRADICTS THE QUR’AN:

The United Nations Charter, is an overgrowth of the “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. The Quranic instructions above, which, once again are ALL instructions in the Koran relative to women, form a clear picture of complete violation of all the first seven articles of the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations.

“Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
***

THUS, THE QUR’AN IS AN ANTI WESTERN CIVILIZATION RECIPE BOOK:
The Qur’an explicitly contradicts the STATE OF LAW. The State of Law has been central to Western civilization for more than two millennia.

That principle is that all adults, even the monarch (if any) are equivalent in the eyes of the law. It is central to the present civilization (See Galla Placidia, Roman empress, in the conclusion).

On the contrary, the fascist principle, the Fuehrerprinzip, is verse 59 of Surah 4 of the Qur’an (and that maybe where Hitler found it). It says that the leader should be viewed as God, as long as he is a Muslim. Hitler modified that in: “The leader ist Gott, as long as he is a German.”

Now true, from Justinian to Hitler, including Henry VIII and countless others, including G.W. Bush, the principle of the State Of Law was violated by many. But Bush may still be brought to justice by the independent judicial system of the USA.

The preceding should put to rest the issue of violation of the rights of women by the Qur’an. 

The Qur’an does not treat married women equally, and expect women in general to often be “slave girls”, or “those that your right hand possess”. A woman captured in war, even if married, is totally owned and has no human rights whatsoever. Women should be covered, beaten and confined, as soon as found morally short. In which case one can seize their property. Sometimes women are only allowed to speak behind a ‘curtain”, and are forbidden to leave the house. Why not? Women are “enemies”, it’s that simple. Why should enemies go school? When Obama says he loves Islam, shortly after saying that he wants girls to go to school, he is obviously contradicting himself.

Now, true, not all Muslims follow the Qur’an literally. Many of the outlying areas (Senegal, Indonesia) long had their own interpretations that used to avoid a literal interpretation of the Qur’an. These much more modern and compatible interpretations should be the only allies the West can trust.

Unfortunately, oil money and its clout, plus CIA pro-religious extremist machinations, have increasingly brought a renaissance of the literal interpretation of the Qur’an. The bombing campaign of the USA, all the way to Pakistan, can only make the situation worse.

People should not be bombed. What needs to be bombed is many ideas in the sexist and fascist Koran that Uthman contrived, obviously contradicting Muhammad, at least as far as the treatment of women is concerned.
***

Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.com/

***

Remarks: 1) Publishing the preceding on various sites I have (DK, ET, CD), I got lots of hate mail, and insults. I found this interesting, because those critics called my quotes above hateful, hating me for them, although, since I was just quoting the Qur’an, what they are truly hating, unbeknownst to them, is not me, but the Qur’an itself.

…The way of the hate monger is long, difficult, and full of traps.

2) Some people asked, in their naivety: what is the point of exhibiting all that sexism? Well, it’s part of an immense reasoning the subtlety of which escapes those who decided the strategy of the USA in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Some, of course, ask: what is the point of exhibiting the tortures, the crimes, even the holocausts?

What was demonstrated here, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that the Qur’an, as it exists, is extremely sexist. This does not say other religions are not sexist. Some are. Judeo-Christo-Islamism is  not the worst. And, Christianism and Islam, are variants of  sexist Judaism. The Bible is full of outrageous sexism, and some sexism in the Qur’an is straight from the Bible.

3) Some argue that of these things one should never talk. According to this emotional logic, if something is inconvenient, it should not be mentioned. This was tried before: one did not want to mention the massacre of the Jews, that was too politically incorrect, so one ended with Auschwitz.

4) An objection from the Internet:

“When Patrice said: “Now, true, not all Muslims follow the Qur’an”, it showed her ignorance in a major and extremely surprising way. The simple fact is that one cannot be Muslim and not follow the Qur’an – all of it. To suggest that “not all Muslims follow the Qur’an” is completely off the mark. This is truly one of those “either/or” situations: You either believe in the revelations of the Qur’an and follow what it says, or you’re not a Muslim. Period.”

Patrice’s amused answer to this: Sometimes, “extreme surprise” is a major warning, not just a simple fact. Ignorance can masquerade as knowledge.

Your culture is smaller than you think. Check for example Senegal and the Mourides… Among many others… It’s not because you are ignorant that others are too. Oh, check the Druses, too, Hashashins (“Everything is false” as ultimate meta principle) and many Salafists. Right from the start, the Qur’an was not believed by many people who viewed themselves as Muslim, especially the closest family members of Muhammad. Far from feeling the Qur’an was everything, some looked at it as trash. Sexist trash, said Aischa.

Hence the ongoing Muslim civil war, as I said above. Many naive Americans think Wahhabism is everything, because oil is everything. But Wahhabism is not everything, because oil is not everything.

5) Much of the Qur’an comes from the Bible. The idea that woman is worth half a man is there. Oops, not quite:

Leviticus 27:1-7 … “The Lord set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel, and if it is a female, set her value at thirty shekels.”

6) GALLA PLACIDIA & THE STATE OF LAW: On 11 June 429 CE, Roman empress Galla Placidia had a law passed, with the following remarkable passage: “it’s an admission worthy of the majesty of a prince to confess when obliged by the law: because Our authority results from that of justice. A prince who submits his dignity to the laws is more respectable from this than from his power. By the present edict We deprive others of what We forbid to ourselves.”

That law was incorporated in the refurbishment of Roman law under emperor Justinian, a century later.

Now of course, the Muslims never had an empress (there was a sultaness once, in Egypt, among the Mameluks confronting Saint Louis; it did not last long.) How could the Muslims have an empress? What, with a half wit? A creature worth half a man? Something in which to plow? A fortiori not an empress extending the theory of the secular state. Compare the nobility of the preceding passage to the grossness of the Qur’an fascist principle: “O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Quran’s fascist principle, S.4; v. 59).

Nor was Galla Placidia alone. She was not the only “Augusta”. When the Franks established their empire in the north west quadrant of the ex Roman empire, they had around 7 reigning queens in 150 years. One of those queens was Bathilde. She had been captured as a slave in England, and, once reigning queen, abrogated slavery. That was at the exact time that Uthman ordered the writing of his pro-slavery document, the Qur’an. 

7) As soon as one mentions the Qur’an, in a way that is not thoroughly respectful and apologetic, the Politically Correct and Intrinsically Stupid generally screams that it is racist and xenophobic, and, in the USA they often deduce one is pro-Bible. 

The problem with holding onto such hysteria, is that the Qur’an is pretty much a desert version of the Bible light. A demonstration of this is that one finds some of the preceding outrages in the Bible first. The Bible was written, in Babylon, 11 centuries before the Qur’an.

Here it is:

Deuteronomy 22:20-1: If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

Leviticus 20-9: If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

Exodus 35:2:  For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

***