Archive for the ‘religion’ Category

Outlaw Islamist Face Coverings

December 9, 2016

Islam is founded first on the Qur’an the word of God, as related by Archangel Gabriel to the Messenger, Muhammad. Islam is deeply anti-woman. Don’t insult me, you the ignorant ones: read the Qur’an, or then plenty of quotes from the Qur’an, in context, such as “Islam’s Shame: Lifting the Veil of Tears”. (Astoundingly, Muhammad’s prescriptions for girls and women, was progressive in Seventh Century central Arabia.)

Niqab in Arabic: نِقاب‎‎ niqāb , means “veil”.

The French Republic (Parliament, Senate, President) banned the integral Niqab (= Burqa, Hijab), on the ground of public safety (face coverings are unlawful in France, except for excellent secular reasons, such as bike riding, skiing, etc.) Islamist organizations went, screaming incoherently, to the French Constitutional Court, which approved the law. Other European countries are following France. Angela Merkel just suggested to ban the niqab.

The Economist, a plutocratic newspaper, plutocratically owned, complete with tax avoidance through Luxembourg, and other tax havens, pontificated that banning the niqab was a “mistake”. I agree that The Economist should say that: if you are a plutocratic entity or person, anything that decreases the rule of Pluto, decreases the plutocracy, and thus is an act adverse to the owners of The Economist, and, thus to the little scribes at The Economist who earn their lives by pleasing their wealthy masters. 

Covering Women With Drapse As If They Were Garbage Is A Terrible Thing For Children. It Tells Children A Woman's Face Is A Terrible Thing, & It Prevents Children To Learn The First Language Of Man, Facial Expression

Covering Women With Black Junk As If They Were Garbage Is A Terrible Thing, and Message, For Children. It Tells Children A Woman’s Face Is A Terrible Thing, & It Deprives Children From Learning The First Language Of Man, Facial Expression

Not only are faceless women terrible for children. A problem with Islam is that stupid women brought up stupid children, making for stupid adults we now have to try to make intelligent, a hopeless tasks, when the networks and synapses are plain not there…

What is The Economist going to suggest next? That those who want to be treated as slaves in public, chains, whips and al. be allowed to do so? That we conduct public auctions to sell people if some want to take part in these? Just because some people feel so “modest” that they don’t want to be free, anymore

Literal Islam as found in the Qur’an is sexist (women are worth half of men in court, etc.) Aisha, who married the middle age Prophet, when she was just six insisted that the version of the Qur’an which the Third Caliph, Uthman, imposed was sexist, and not at all what her husband, the Messenger of God had said the message of God was. From what we know of the life of Muhammad, she was right (she herself had great freedom, even by contemporary modern standards).

Uthman imposed a Qur’an which was so controversial, a Muslim religious war started, which is still going on, and explains why Islam is divided in 100 Islams keen to kill each other.

Uthman’s Qur’an, the one we have now, is actually full of lethal orders (read the Qur’an or:

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

Uthman’s Qur’an has to be outlawed, just as the Aztec or the Celtic religions were, and for the same overall reason: calls to murder of various categories of people cannot be tolerated. The god in Uthman’s Quran orders to kill unbelievers, apostates, pagans, homosexuals, those who disagree with “Allah” or his “Messengers”, and, in remote places of the book, even Christians and Jews (the Hadith says all Jews have to be killed so that the Last Judgment can happen).

The calls to murder of Literal Islam are insults and attacks against human ethology (that is, normal human behavior).

Not only the Qur’an says nothing about women being covered like pestilential garbage, but forbidding the showing of human female faces was explicitly forbidden by Muhammad!

Some Hadith clearly state that women must not veil (niqab) their face and hands/ It was taught by the Prophet Muhammad himself to his companion Abu Bakr’s daughter Asma’ bint Abu Bakr:

“O Asma’, when a woman reaches the age of puberty, nothing should be seen of her except for this and this; the hands and the face.” [ Prophet Muhammad, (Narrated by Sunan Abu Dawood]

Another Hadith which forbids (haraam) for women to veil (niqab) their face during Hajj and Umrah that was taught by the Prophet himself in accordance to his Sunnah: “It is forbidden for a woman who is in the state of Ihram to cover her face.”

— Prophet Muhammad, (Narrated by Sahih al-Bukhari)

So why has it become so important for the proponent of today’s Literal Islam? Because veiling the face of women is an attack against human ethology, thus civilization, and advantages the demonic side. Indeed, in normal human behavior, there is little difference between males and females (that’s called low sexual dimorphism).

By pretending that there is a huge difference between human females and males, a religious difference, the partisans of Literal Islam, including The Economist, are asserting that human nature is wrong, and that there is a religious reason for violating said nature.

Let me rephrase this slowly: partisans of Literal Islam are making a religion of violating human nature.

In a way, it makes sense: the dozens of categories of people which the Qur’an orders to murder occur naturally. Paganism, homosexuality, not believing in Islam, or not believing in Islam anymore, and all sorts of religions, some much older than Islam by dozens of centuries, all occur naturally. They are part of what humanity naturally is, or gravitates towards. Literal Islam orders to kill them all: that’s an extreme violation of human ethology. The fundamentals of human ethology are indeed love, care and solidarity (say, against wild beasts).

Murdering other people because of what they believe is not just un-natural to humans, it is an attack against the need, for humans, to think better. To think better, one has to tolerate different beliefs, and one has to tolerate debating these beliefs, that means, one has to tolerate, and even enjoy debate between contradictory beliefs.

However the dictators that Literal Islam enables with its Fascist Principle want to violate human nature. O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, Sura 4; verse 59)

Civilization is itself a balance act between freedom, human creativity, and the sacrifices and duties that living in cities constrain us to enjoy.

Literal Islam is financed by dictators and plutocrats. They want to violate human nature. But they know they have to start small. So they start by covering women’s faces, as if women had to be modest, ashamed of themselves, and objects of revulsion so great, they have to be hidden.

Covering female faces is a foot in the door, or rather a foot in the face of civilization and the face of woman.

It looks innocent, to the unintelligent, but it is a Trojan horse against humanity.

Literal Islam has rendered what used to be the world’s richest area, the cradle of civilization, into one of the poorest, most conflict laden zones, where civilization goes backwards.

Let’s start by refusing its Trojan horses. I have called to outlaw Literal Islam completely: anybody preaching it, or defending it, should be condemned under anti-hatred laws.

All religions justify a particular self-elected elite’s evil ways. This is why 99.9% of religions are now outlawed. Civilizational progress is pretty much identical with outlawing obsolete systems of thought, including evil religions tied to ways that progress came to consider evil.

And why are so many in the West pushing on us this anti-human, anti-civilizational religion? Precisely because that is what it does: the Main Stream Media in the West are held by plutocrats who fear both civilization, and its bedrock, humanity.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S: 1) In other news, Hillary Clinton condemned “Fake News”. That’s amusing, as her and Obama claimed for years, that the companies which profited from TARP reimbursed all of it. Right. But also FAKE NEWS: the companies, mostly banks and their ilk, got much more money, from Quantitative Easing, courtesy of the Federal Reserve, another branch of the government. Those recipients of QE then used QE money to pay TARP. Fake news, yes, and important ones (only me has ever noticed that little detail, it seems…)

2) The South Korean president. Park, was impeached. Daughter of a Korean dictator, she was into Shamanism and corruption. When that came out, her popularity, once towering, collapsed to less than 5%… After the French president Hollande announced he will not be candidate to his succession, and Renzi, the Italian PM, a piece of establishment trash, was thrown out.

Islam Against Civilization? Hillary “Member ISIS”? Clinton Trashes “Awful” Obama?

March 24, 2016

I have an overall conspiracy theory of the contemporary rise of Extremely Violent IsLam (EVIL): the petrol plutocrats from the US promoted it, because it was an ideology antagonistic to Europe. The petrol men from the USA wanted to push the French and the British out of the Middle East, just as if they were a bunch of Indians, and get the oil. It worked. The US petrol men breathed with (con-spirare) Ibn Saud, and soon President Roosevelt, a deep hater of French influence, gave them his complete governmental support (it made sense as FDR was a blue blood plutocrat, so he could only hate France, why loving to grab other nations’ resources).

So the mentality I foster is that this Wahhabist inspired modern terrorism has extremely deep roots found in the USA (and it’s demonstrated by the CIA’s instrumentalization of the Shia in its coup against Mossadegh). A mood can spread far. And it’s spreading. The mood that authorities in the USA have been sneakily behind the rise of Extremely Violent IsLam, is spreading. Even among Very Serious People. Consider:

Rudolf Guliani, ex-mayor of New York, just declared: “[Hillary Clinton] had her chance to (rally people against ISIS) — she helped create ISIS. Hillary Clinton could be considered a founding member of ISIS… her DNA is all over it.”

Inventor Of Zero: Uzbekistan Is nearly 3,000 Kilometers from Saudi Arabia. Attributing Algebra To Islam Is Even More Stupid Than Attributing Analytic Geometry To Christianism

Inventor Of Zero: Uzbekistan Is nearly 3,000 Kilometers from Saudi Arabia. Attributing Algebra To Islam Is Even More Stupid Than Attributing Analytic Geometry To Christianism

AL KHWARIZMI

The point is that Rene’ Descartes was the inventor of analytic geometry. Nobody says that Christianism invented analytic geometry (all modern mathematics rest on it, including differential calculus). Actually, Descartes, a nominal Catholic, fled to the Netherlands, to be out of reach of the Roman Inquisition. Most great thinkers under Islam got into trouble with authorities, and some were killed. Overall, top thinkers fared less well under Islam than under nominal Christianism, and this is exactly why most breakthroughs thinkers of the Middle Ages were under nominal Christianism.

A reason was that the European leaders were only nominally Christian. With the exception of occasional clowns like Saint Louis, they viewed themselves as descendants of Roman emperors (legally, they were: long story, told in other essays). Thus they did not need to justify themselves with the most fanatical application of religion, they were above it.

Another reason: in 400 CE, the fathers of the “Catholic Orthodox” church decided that the Bible and Evangels should not be interpreted literally. (Although many did interpret them literally later, for selfish reasons.)

Similarly, the great distance between Khwarizmi, depicted above, and Mecca, is no coincidence. “Islam” was at its highest, intellectually speaking, the furthest it was from Literal Islam (“Salafism, Wahhabism, EVIL, etc.). Geographically, or practically (see the “House of Wisdom” in Baghdad; or the Spanish Caliphate founded by a tall guy with red hair).

Luis questions the following quote of mine: “Thus, from the beginning, Islam was conceived as war ideology against civilization.” (The idea behind the quote cannot be really contested, because The Prophet himself, PBUH, said so…)

Luis: “Why do you equate “civilisation” per se as the “Roman-Greco West”? Used in this way, “civilisation” becomes simply a loaded word which can be wielded to produce whatever meaning one wants. But didn’t Islamic civilisations exist? Weren’t they, indeed, ahead of Europe for a long time in terms of science?”

No, “they” were not. That is a… racist myth. Yes, racist. Inverted racism is still racism. Identifying “Muslim” and “Arab” is a form of racism. So is identifying anybody living in the Muslim Imperium as a “Muslim” foremost. One does not define Abelard, Fibonacci, Buridan, Leonardo Da Vinci, or even Oresme, as “Christian” thinkers (although Oresme became a bishop!) They are defined by what they contributed to humanity: new ideas. Everybody with a modicum of culture knows that their work imperiled the fascist religious establishment.

It’s of great import: in a few decades, the Arabs conquered the world’s largest empire.

I am not saying that Muhammad was against science. Actually, the exact opposite is pretty much certain. The Prophet was smart, observant, progressive, and, according to him, poisoned by jackals, who claimed he was delirious, and prevented him to write his will, as they claimed the Qur’an was enough (see below).

In the Muslim imperium, people who were not Muslim had to wear special marks on their clothing, were condemned to special taxes, and were subject to many indignities, vexation, and denial of basic human rights. Those who did not want their children to be submitted to this, superficially embraced Islam during the long centuries of Islam occupation.

The Prophet mentioned not just the “Romans”, as a civilization to raid, but also the Persians. (He considered only the Romans to be following God, Allah, but to be doing so poorly; later some Muslim authorities reluctantly deigned to consider Zoroastrians “people of the the book”).

The conventional point of view claims that Arab science was more advanced than Europe’s. This is conventional, but convention does not truth make. Studying the situation carefully reveals otherwise. See my “Shocking Arabophilia”:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/shocking-arabophilia/

That “Arabic science was more advanced” than that of Europe, is much repeated, but a form of racism. Indeed, not everybody inside the Muslim Imperia, the Caliphate(s) was an Arab. Actually “Arabs” were always a small minority inside the empire they created (so, in particular, North Africans are not “Arabs”).

“Arabic numerals” are actually Indian (mostly, although the Ancient Greeks initiated the notation a bit). The ZERO was created by an Uzbek. Faced with this complex situation, please don’t despair, please read Al-Khwarizmi‘s On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals (ca. 825). The author, a famous thinker and mathematician, was born in Eastern Greater Iran, now called Uzbekistan.

Many of the “Arab” superior thinkers were… Jewish. In any case the breakthroughs in philosophy and science were made in Europe

***

Islam As An Homicidal Software Program:

Hela Ouardi, a Tunisian researcher (digging inside the texts) points out the many assassination attempts against the Prophet Muhammad. And the fact he was very officially abused by his companions on his death bed. They forbade him to write the testament he wanted to write (Muhammad’s son had died a few months prior). Muhammad believed he was being poisoned. Not just as he died, but in previous circumstances. At one point he was given a remedy. He forced everyone to drink it, to make sure it was not poison.  Two days to bury him, unusual.

Fatima, the daughter of the prophet, mom of the grandsons whom the Prophet beloved, was assassinated within weeks of her father’s death.

Hela Ouardi says that this is the initial flaw of Islam, the recourse to violence, right from the start, comparable to a programmatic mistake in a computer, right from the start.

What’s her sources? Ms. Ouardi went through all the sacred texts (Sunni or Shia). Up to very recently, most of these texts had not even been read, let alone, studied.

***

The Mood That “OBAMA LEGACY IS AWFUL” Is Spreading;

I have been hyper critical Of Obama, as soon as he approached the presidency. (I had supported his campaign to the point i got invited to the inaugural, and he is a personal friend.)

Obama, unfortunately, turned into G W Bush’s little bum wiper boy: Obama became president, and applied more Reagonomics, more subsidies for the rich, and more colossal layers of misleading hypocrisy than ever before. (Obama was reluctant in doing so, but the entire leadership of the democratic party as closet right wing Pluto republicans!)

I said that the price to be paid would be Obama’s place in history. Now that mood is spreading too:

Bill Clinton (March 21, 2016):“If you believe we can rise together, if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics, then you should vote for her,” the former president said about his wife.

Wow.

That was my old hope about Hillary: that she would turn against her, and her husband’s sponsors. So far, she had nixed this hope. However, this declaration changes everything. It is a serious turn against Obama’s (and Cruz’s) puppet masters (Cornell West, the famous black author, who made 65 speeches for Obama in 2008, but was not invited to the inaugural, called Obama a “black puppet”, March 20, 2016: the rats are leaving the plutocratic ship).

This is all getting very interesting. Moods are everything.

Patrice Ayme’

Islam Versus Reality

December 16, 2015

Islam Versus Islam Cum Reality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I savage, thus I think. Or not.

Patrice Ayme’

Christian Civilization Never Existed

December 10, 2015

Many fanatics, Christian or Muslim, insist that there was a “Christian Civilization”. Well, no. It’s not because people with vested interest repeat always the same thing, that it is decisively supported by the facts. It is not because some aspects of a civilization are of such and such a nature, that one particular aspect defines the whole thing. The philosophical, legal and behavioral foundations of the West were not “Christian”. Christianism was the fig leaf thrown, by the Roman plutocracy, over the apocalypse it preferred to the taxing continuance of civilization.

Although something called “Christianity” contributed to civilization considerably, the Christianism of bishop (Saint) Jerome, a “Founding Father of the Church“, in 400 CE Milan, was very different from the idiosyncratic Pagano-Christianism of Consul (and king of the Franks) Clovis in 500 CE (who re-invented Christianism thoroughly).

As so-called “Christmas” approaches, it’s good to remember that the Winter Solstice feast was Greco-Roman, and preceded the displacement of “Jesus” birth to the Winter Solstice, by more than a millennium.

“Christian” Hatred Of The Body Was Rejected By The Popes Themselves

“Christian” Hatred Of The Body Was Rejected By The Popes Themselves

[“What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble than the shoe, and skin more beautiful than the garment with which it is clothed?” Michelangelo.]

Christianism initially hated the body, in opposition to Greco-Roman civilization: love the body, and soon you will love the mind, and will want one of your own.

So Christianism closed and destroyed the baths (thus promoting devastating, civilization destroying, epidemics among the 99%) and longed for the Apocalypse (generously provided by the telling collaboration of Roman plutocrats and invading barbarians: the analogy with Islamism now is uncomfortable! Our plutocrats have been busy plotting with Islamists ever since before the Great Bitter Lake Conspiracy!)

Although some lunatics tried to force an authentic Christian civilization, it became, literally, a Non Sequitur: it’s now called the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”. When one wishes for the Apocalypse as Christians and later Muslims, wished, it should be considered synonymous to the decline and fall of civilization, society, population, reading skills, security, economics, and all and any standards of sophistication.

See Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen… (And yes, Somalia, Sudan, and more specifically Yemen, can be compared to say, Ethiopia, which is doing incomparably better.)

What do I mean by the non-existence of “Christian Civilization”? Consider the tyrannical, self-obsessed, much adulated cretin, Louis XIV of France, the self-described, self-adoring “Sun-King” (a bloody dictator much celebrated in France this year, as he croaked 300 years ago, justly covered by gangrene, from his toes, to the top of his head. Louis’ painful and disgusting three weeks of gangrene is the only indication from his reign, which I can discern, that there may be, after all, a God).

Louis XIV tried to make France into a Catholic society, by revoking the Edict of Nantes of his excellent grandfather, Henri IV. That was more than weird: a century earlier, under Catherine of Medici, queen of France, a similar episode had been launched, the Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy. Not only did that surprise assault in the middle of the night, killed immediately 30,000, and most of France’s intellectual elite (which could only condemn and despise Catholicism), but it launched no less than seven religious wars in 36 years, bleeding France, killing up to more than 20% of the population (so Syria has a way to go! By the way, those who wonder where the French hostility to Abraham’s god comes from, should study this).

I repeat: in less than 40 years, wars among Christians in France, killed more than 4 million people (and terrorized everybody).  Nor was it the first time: more tan a million Cathars, and all their works were annihilated by Christians around 1200 CE. And, in the Fifteenth Century, Protestants were hunted like wild beasts by Catholics (to the point Louis XI had to intervene, reminding all that killing people for religious reasons was against the law, and sending the army!)

How civilized is all that Christianism? When Rome was far removed from Christianism, no such massacre ever happened.

So here was that bloody imbecile, Louis the Blood King, trying the same trick all over again, all by himself (and his fanatical wife). It is still a great disease that such a creep is revered abjectly, by the French elite.

Thus Louis The Pervert threw out and abominably abused millions of Protestants. Many Protestants fled (that’s why there is winemaking in South Africa, and why so many Germans have French names). As protestants tended to be smarter, their flight made France much more idiotic, and thus more hospitable to Louis the Pervert and his vicious entourage of ill disguised monsters. Thus obnoxious critters make an environment hospitable to themselves

There is something in common between that so-called “Sun King” and the unfortunate fiction of Camus, Mr. Meursault, who kills an Arab, just because he can, and got too much sun, and could not care less. Louis XIV was the real life Meursault, and Camus channeling unconsciously that abomination of French history. Louis XIV killed the Protestants, just because he could, could not care less, and had too much sun.

Too bad Meursault and the Sun-King are still revered: it’s a sickness of the mood.

Christian propagandists always insisted that there was such a thing as “Christian Civilization”. But there was not.

The West was NOT A CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION. It looked like one twice: around 400 CE, and around 1400 CE. But, in either case, although an attempt was made, the basic law was NOT Christian, but Roman (or the Salic law of the Franks, which was Roman written).

The attempt around 400 CE, a government of bishops, petered out right away. True Milan’s Saint Jerome, the most prominent “Founding Father of the Church”, had emperor Theodosius begging forgiveness (for some massacre). But then the Roman State, short in cash, put the Franks in charge of defending the North West “Limes” (frontier).

A century later, having established a huge “Imperium” (= Roman military command), the Franks sort of converted to Catholicism, modifying it extensively in the process, and submitting the Popes, for centuries to come.

The Franks re-established Roman (Late) Republican tolerance for ALL religions.

In other words, the empire of the Franks, the “Imperium Francorum” of 600 CE, was much more civilized than today’s Saudi Arabia. Arguably Arabia of 600 CE was more civilized than today’s Arabia, in the sense that Christianism, Judaism and the Cult of the Moon in Mecca, were all practiced without known religious massacre (the first religious holocaust was Muhammad’s personal annihilation of a Jewish tribe, a bit later; Muhammad is on the record as of the opinion that whoever insulted him should die, a tradition Muslims are keen, to this day, to carry forward, in the name of their Rophet; don’t ask me what a Rophet is).

The tolerance was extended to much more than Jews, Pagans (the Franks were de facto Christianized Pagans for centuries), Muslims, etc. By 800 CE, the “Renovated Roman Empire” led by Charlemagne, was at peace and the world’s richest

The “Final Solution” was Nazi (although I have accused many times Christianism to have inspired it). The “Manifest Destiny” was not particularly Christian (Founding Fathers and their preceding generation were very anti-Christian, and for “Nature’s God”). The Crusades were, mostly, a counter-attack (although I am very anti-crusades, that’s what they were in first order).

The annihilation of the Natives did not have to be a consequence from the Christian nature of the invaders. A very good example is the French, who never eradicated a population of Natives (and that’s why they lost America!)

“Secular ideologies” may have been by far the biggest mass killers…. Because they suppress everything else. In primitive societies the kill ratio is more like 50% (or at least 25%), whereas the two World Wars killed rather around 2% to 4% (at most, directly and indirectly, through famines and diseases they contributed to)

The preceding has to be kept in mind when inanities about Islam, and an “Islamist Civilization” are proffered, just because people are conditioned to mouth them, and believe it’s the truth, because everybody says it. It’s not because all the sheep bleat the same, that bleating is the truth.

This being said, because of the insistence of raw Islam to apply Islamist Law, instead of secular law, made “Islamist Civilization” much more of a reality. Islam wants to be everything, leaving no space for anything else. Islam wants to be all of society, and even to occupy visual space. Islam wants to be more than a civilization, it wants to be an obsession.

However, an inspection of history shows that all period of really shining civilization under “Islam” seemed to have involved see through dresses more than niqab, chador, and other attempts to make women into something that should be hidden.he vast body). Contributions by non-Muslims (Jews and Christian) tend to dominate (they were the majority for centuries).

Regimes which interpreted the Qur’an literally were highly successful, especially initially, thanks to ruthless surprise: initial conquest, from Spain to Central Asia, assaults of India, Indonesia, conquest of Anatolia by the just Islamized Turks, and a reconquest of Spanish Caliphate by savage, Fundamentalist Muslims from the desert. It ultimately backfired (except in the case of the Turks, arguably). For example the re-reconquest of Spain, made the “Reconquista” by the Catholics much more savage and thorough…

Many supposed “characteristics” of “Christianism” were established centuries before Christianism was imposed on the Greco-Roman world by emperors from Constantine to Theodosius, in the fateful Fourth Century. For example welfare and scholarship for worthy students was established by 100 CE (under emperor Trajan).

The Roman world kept on going, even, and especially after the Decline and Fall of the Roman imperial state. When Saint Louis, a Christian Fundamentalist and Jihadist (“Crusader”) of the Twelfth Century expressed, in writing his burning desire to “plant a knife in the belly of a Jew or Unbeliever” (“nothing would please me more”) he recognized he could not do it, because, well the (Salic and Roman) Law forbid him to do so.

Sharia Christian, or not never ruled the West very long (although, sometimes, it made sparks: see Bruno being burned alive). We are not going to start now.

Patrice Ayme’

Can A Religion Be Abject?

November 27, 2015

Are there abject religions? Yes, of course. Their annihilation, or domestication, describe the progress of civilization. 99% of the known religion were rejected, or outlawed, because, precisely, they were abject. Is there an objective criterion to find out if a religion is abject? Of course. The Romans, who launched our civilization, or, at least, our legal system, taught us that a religion is abject, and should be made unlawful, when it practices human sacrifices. Let’s outlaw religions clamoring for human sacrifices! Our ancestors did, let’s heed their example!

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

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

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

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

[Codex Laud, folio 8.]

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

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

The same mood, of revulsion to human sacrifices, presided over the annihilation of the Aztecs.

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

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

Some have tried to deny that any religion practiced human sacrifices. Maybe because of the natural question:

Does Islam Practices Human Sacrifices In Disguise?

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

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

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

LOL, Muslims, why don’t you call all your stoning, stoning, crucifixion, and whipping to death, human sacrifices?

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

France & USA Entangled From Inception, By Common Humanity

November 14, 2015

Statement by the President of the USA on the Situation in Paris,

November 13, 2015, 5:45 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  ‘Good evening, everybody.  I just want to make a few brief comments about the attacks across Paris tonight.  Once again, we’ve seen an outrageous attempt to terrorize innocent civilians.  This is an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share…”We are reminded in this time of tragedy that the bonds of ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’ are not only values that the French people care so deeply about, but they are values that we share. And those values are going to endure far beyond any act of terrorism or the hateful vision of those who perpetrated the crimes this evening…

We stand prepared and ready to provide whatever assistance that the government and the people of France need to respond.  France is our oldest ally.’

[Other statements by the White House insisted upon the fact that France was the USA’s oldest friend.]

Paris Massacre Observed All Around the World, Including Sydney, San Francisco, Warsaw...

Paris Massacre Observed All Around the World, Including Sydney, San Francisco, Warsaw…

Patrice Ayme’’s Comment: The fact, that France is the USA’s oldest ally, is not pointed out enough. It is not possible to understand France, the USA, Europe, the history of the world, and the genesis of the United Nations and the present world system, without that prominent fact.

The two republics were born completely entangled, through a process which lasted many generations, culminating in the basic constitutions of 1789 (a few weeks apart). Although the French Constitution was clearer (Liberte’, Egalite’, Fraternite’), the gist of both constitutions was the same. As Obama pointed out, “Liberte’, Egalite’, Fraternite'” is as American as it is French. And it started there, in both places. The men who wrote the American and French constitutions knew each other, which is telling in times when crossing the Atlantic was a dangerous journey which took months.

France can be legitimately seen as the mother of the USA. The war of independence was partly instigated by France, through agents roaming Philadelphia, and then heavily financed to the tune of five trillion 2015 dollars. When told by advisers that he was fostering a republic, Louis XVI brushed it off. Louis himself was busily fighting plutocrats inside France, and wanted to tax them. Taxing the plutocrats in London was a logical continuation of the same effort.

The fascination which North America, the place and continent with its incredible forests and its fascinating Natives, exerted on the French was 250 years old, by the time France fought for an independent America. It’s a curious thing, as France, and especially the French Monarchy, would have profited more by not supporting the rebellion. But many a mother would have profited more, by not giving birth to the child who caused her death. Still, a good mother won’t have it another way, preferring to die for her progeny. Thus the species goes on.

After helping in the various conspiracies that led to the Revolution of 1776, France ramped up its help to the American rebels: most American ammunition was made in France (more than 90%). Later France went in all out war, and, in an unusual feat, even defeat the Royal Navy at Chesapeake Bay. The resulting hopeless siege of Cornwallis forced him to surrender his army to the French commander who politely redirected him to formally surrender to General Washington.

A full generation later, Britain and the USA would again have a war, the war of 1812, at a time when France was also at war with Britain. Then the city of Washington and the White House were burned.

It’s indeed an attack on all of humanity. It’s pretty clear, on reading the entire Qur’an, that Allah’s relationship to humanity is, at best, ambivalent. Allah will, in the end reward those who he is happy with material wealth, but the rest will suffer terrible, unending punishment.

***

So what to do?

The UN already has structures, especially the United Nation Security Council (UNSC), to determine what’s terrorism, what’s not, and what to do about it. It legalized the intervention in Libya. The French interventions in Mali, Niger, CAR were also legal according to the UN.

More generally, it is high time to become philosophically coherent. Attacking the Islamist State is excellent, but it leads to madness, when the Islamist State is attacked for exactly the same reasons which are in plain sight in Saudi Arabia, or Qatar. No less an authority as Bachar El Assad just pointed this out with relish. This is completely correct. One cannot feed the Saudis, in particular with weapons, while they fight Shiites in Yemen, massively, and finance Salafism, worldwide, massively.

Similarly, one cannot tolerate Salafist preaching anymore. It is a crime. Potentially the worst crime: mass murdering hate crime. An anti-Semite in the USA was just condemned to death for attacking three Jews in light of his Nazism. As he heard the verdict, he screamed: “Heil Hitler!” In human beings, hatred can know no bounds Not even the survival instinct is a bound for hatred. In the worst cases, the only solution is annihilation. Just as civilization did to Nazism (OK, still a few crumbs to clean here and there).

Nazi engineers, to force their way through the French fortifications above the Meuse river, made kamikaze attack with explosive backpacks. At the Stade de France November 13 2015,  three terrorists tried to get in the giant stadium. But security was extreme as the French president was inside, watching the first period of a friendly match France-Germany. They could not get in and had to activate their explosive vests outside the security perimeter (only one civilian died). Our lords are well protected. Yet they don’t have a clue. About the philosophical problem at hand. Not that they used to truly care. Maybe now they will have to.

Oh, by the way, the soccer match between France and Germany was not stopped. The three bombs detonated in the first period, shaking the fortress like stadium. The French president and a German minister were exfiltrated, but the second period proceeded in front of the perplexed spectators and their 80,000 smart phones. France won over the world champions, and the crowd went calmly onto the field, for further instructions.  As Obama (implicitly) said, France knows war. For 13 centuries, France was at war with Islam. Peace with Islam, paradoxically happened only in the few decades at the end of the nineteenth century when it occupied Algeria, and a peace treaty had been made with Abdelkader. This is no accident, and a missed occasion, not to say a grave error, but also another story.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

Armenian Holocaust Versus The Empire of Goodness

April 23, 2015

If the empire of goodness does not rule, the empire of badness will.

If children have been exposed, when young, to the empire of badness, the habit is hard to kick.

If acts of mass murdering horror are not punished, but, instead, make a state live long and posper, it is to be feared that the horror will be emulated.

It is no accident that the Armenian genocide happened in the presence of German officers. It is likely that the Armenian genocide (1.5 million dead, just for the 1914-1918 period), inspired the Nazis.

At some period of its history, Turkey became a so-called “Caliphate”, a type of dictatorship justified by a reading of Islam (Caliph means successor… of Muhammad, a famous war chieftain).

Turks Crucified Thousands Of Armenian Women. Here Arab Bedouins Are Rescuing Some Crucified Armenian Women

Turks Crucified Thousands Of Armenian Women. Here Arab Bedouins Are Rescuing Some Crucified Armenian Women

[In interviews, Turkish soldiers justified at the time the crucifixions of women and girls as young as 16, by claiming they had not been “submissive”. An inside joke on Islam (“Submission”)]

The full story of the state called “Turkey” is amusing, and instructive: the Turks are from Central Asia, not far from Mongolia. They are old Indo-European stock. Peoples from Central Asia always find reproduction easier to achieve than production: the steppe is deprived of much resources.

Thus Central Asian populations tend to explode (as those of several other deserts). Should such a population grow beyond the land carrying capacity, should the natives stop killing each other (as the Mongols, under Genghis Khan’s firm hand, or the Arabs of Muhammad, for that matter), then they have to invade (or die in the attempt).

So the Turkish army, 300,000 strong, decided to invade richer areas, as Central Asian peoples periodically do: just ask those who decided to build the Great Wall of China. They equipped themselves with the deadliest weapon: Islam, literally interpreted.

Within a generation, the Turks reached the Mediterranean, and had the Oriental Roman empire on the ropes (this empire was the so-called Byzantium; however the people from Constantinople called themselves “Romans”, and they were, although they spoke Greek… As did Julius Caesar as a baby).

The Romans of Constantinople called the Franks to the rescue.

The Romans had helped the Franks to throw out the Saracens terrifying Europe from their basis in Provence during the Tenth Century, a century earlier. The Romans dispatched a fleet with Grecian Fire spitting ships at the battle of Saint Tropez.

The cry for help from Constantinople launched the Crusades. After all, both the Franks and the Romans in the Orient were all part of the Roman Empire (although the French King asserted his superiority by claiming to be “emperor in his own kingdom“).

Fast forward eight centuries.

By 1900 CE, the Caliphate had long become a disaster, because, not just a dictatorship, it fought ideas and terribly destabilizing high tech such as printing.

The “Young Turks” decided to seize power. They had some great and modern ideas. Enough to hate Islam. But still, Islam is what they had learned young. Islamist logic may not have ruled their minds, but Islamist emotions still did.

Whatever their reasons, the Young Turks conducted a xenophobic policy.

The Young Turks dared to finish what the Turkish invaders had started, centuries earlier: the Young Turks kicked out, and otherwise destroyed, Greeks and Armenians.

The Greeks had lived in Anatolia for more than three millennia. The Armenians had founded the first Christian state (yes, two generations before the Roman Empire became de facto Christian under emperor Theodosius).

At the hands of the “Young Turks” several millions died or were thrown out of their country. Sometimes full war was used, sieging Greek cities for months, burning them to a crisp.

The “Young Turks” proclaimed a republic in “Turkey”.

The “Young Turks” said they committed no genocide, no holocaust, no ethnic cleansing. They were lying, and their successors (Caliphs?) are lying. Not just that, but their successors profit from, and still exploit the Holocausts against Armenians (and Greeks).

Barack Obama, when he ran for president, pretended that he would recognize the Armenian genocide. Now Obama does not use the word “genocide” about Armenia.

What is Obama afraid of?

Obama is not just afraid of making accusations. Obama is afraid of Turkey.

Tomorrow one remembers the 100th anniversary of Armenian genocide, a holocaust at the hands of Turks, and an emotional interpretation of the Islamist ideology.

The Turks, most Turks, say such a thing, the Armenian holocaust, did not happen. When the Pope mentioned it a few days ago, Turkey recalled its ambassador. (I doubt Turkey will recall the ambassador to France, though… France has more Special Forces than the Pope.)

A substantial part of present Turkey rests on Armenian territory. Turkey would have to regurgitate the land it stole, should Turkey recognize history for what it is.

Don’t bet on it.

Tomorrow president Francois Hollande of France and his homologue Vladimir Putin of Russia travel to Armenia, to express the importance they attach to reality and holocaust. This is unusually courageous for Putin, who wants to make nice with Turkey’s semi-dictator, Erdogan (a question of fossil fuels in part as major pipe-lines are being built, to avoid Ukraine).

Putin and Hollande will be very much alone in Armenia, commemorating. No other significant heads of state are coming. Hollande announced they will talk about Ukraine (while Obama hides from reality on golf courses; worrying even China, which is starting to get worried by North Korea’ s huge nuclear arsenal: soon 40 nukes, says the PRC, and capable to reach the USA ).

Why are France and Russia less afraid of Turkey than the USA?

Maybe, and certainly just a question of character of the leaders.

And how does one fight an empire of badness?

By an empire of goodness.

Time for Europe to man up, and stop the causes of the massive unlawful immigration into Europe.

Last year, Italy caught more than 171,000 unlawful immigrants from Africa. And more than 50,000, from the Middle East. Thousands died at sea.

If nobody uses force for goodness, if goodness has no force, evil will win.

Time for force. Even be it just the force of ideas and representation. So kudos to the French and Russian Presidents tomorrow in Yerevan, Armenia. And shame onto the others. Those despicable characters are not just cowards. They are accomplices. And not just of what happened in Armenia, or under the Nazis. The cowards are accomplices of holocausts to come.

If Obama cannot confront Turkey, how can he confront North Korea and its 40 nuclear weapons?

Patrice Ayme’

Note: 43 states of the USA have recognized the Armenian genocide (Obama is “leading from behind”). 20 nations recognize the Armenian genocide. The German president just used the word. On April 25, while Putin and Hollande were presenting their respects in Yerevan, Armenia, front and center, the German parliament overwhelmingly approved on Friday a resolution branding the mass killings of up to 1.5 million Armenians by Young Turkish forces a century ago as “genocide”. The Austrian Republic did so a few days ago, and received the appropriate threats from Ankara in return.

Putin’s Mad Revenge

March 1, 2015

100,000 persons marched in Moscow in honor of Boris Nemtsov. Nemtsov was once seen as Yeltsin’s heir apparent (when Putin was still an obscure KGB officer).

Now the top opposition to Putin is either assassinated, or in prison (see Navaltny). What did Putin think when he learned that his main opponent on the invasion of Ukraine had been shot below his windows, in full view of high definition video surveillance, in a Red Square area crammed with security and secret service?

(The excellent videos kept secret means that Putin knows who did it; only a very bad quality tape was revealed, with action blocked by a lonely truck, another insolence of the tyrant?)

Michel Eltchaninoff, a French philosopher specialist of the Russian Soul, just wrote a book about Putin (after one on Dostoyevsky). “Dans la tête de Vladimir Poutine“. Eltchaninoff believes that the fundamental problem is indeed all about the Russian Soul (just as I exposed in the preceding essay, and that philsophers, including of the pernicious type, are leading the dance, just as I said).

Fanatically nationalist Russian ideologues, not even translated in the West, guide Putin.

Some Of Nemtsov Memorial Banners: We Are Not Afraid! Heroes Never Die! We’ll Not Forget, We’ll Never Forgive!

Some Of Nemtsov Memorial Banners: We Are Not Afraid! Heroes Never Die! We’ll Not Forget, We’ll Never Forgive!

Eltchaninoff believes that Putin was immensely pleased to be rid of Boris Nemtsov, the chief of the opposition with the greatest freedom of speech. The opponent called Putin a liar. He was getting ready to reveal documentation showing that it was the Russian army who invaded Ukraine, and how Putin hid it. Nemtsov had revealed corruption of Putin and his inner circle. Revealed them to be plutocrats second to none.

In 2012, running for his third presidency of Russia, Putin, in an interview with young people, answering questions, called those who opposed him TRAITORS… They want the destruction of Russia. It is a national betrayal.

Eltchaninoff: “The aim of the assassination of Nemtsov is to terrorize the opposition. Opponents, and their families will now have to think twice, as one can die from opposing Putin. This political assassination means that the war in Ukraine has been transported inside Russia. “

Boris Nemtsov, on Radio Echo of Moscow, 27/02/2015, a few hours before his death:Putin is the specialist of lying. I am telling you the truth, I can only tell you the truth. The crisis we are confronting is caused by this aggressive, insane, murderous war that Putin is leading in Ukraine. When power is controlled by just one person, as it is now in Russia, it leads only to catastrophe.”

Eltchaninoff: “Nemtsov was publishing documents revealing corruption, that was extremely dangerous for Putin. The aim of the assassination is to prove that someone who has free speech can be eliminated.”

Eltchaninoff: “Putin is not an intellectual, he prefers sports. However, his advisers tell him to quote a lot of Russian hyper nationalist philosophers. Ivan Illin, invented the concept of “democratic dictatorship”. Constantin Leontief is even worse.

They are now very well known in Russia. Putin call them conservative, however I call them ARCHEO-CONSERVATIVES, as the brand of conservatism they advocate is very hard. It is obsessed by homosexuality, and is obsessed by hating the Occident. It is on the margin of a Russian fascism. The Leader is then perpetually re-elected, according to Benito Mussolini’s model.”

[Nota Bene: 1) Mussolini, an ex-socialist, got to power a decade before Hitler; the “fascismo” which he created under the guidance of dedicated fascist philosophers then inspired the Nazis in detail. Hitler himself insisted that Mussolini was the embodiment of fascism as the Nazis practiced it.

2) Putin is financing archeo-conservatives throughout Europe, including the French Front National, to the tone of dozens of million of Euros, just in the FN case!]

Eltchaninoff: “For Putin, philosophers such as Leontieff represent the future of Europe.

For Putin, the Occident is in decadence. The Occident forgot its Christian roots. Putin is all about vengeance. Putin has suffered enormously as the Soviet Union fell. Putin started as a servant of the USSR, in the KGB. All he knew until he was 40 years old. Putin has wished to re-unite White Russia and Red Russia.

Annexing Crimea is the symbol of this. It is the first act of the Russian revenge.

Putin wants to be unpredictable. However he is less and less hard to forecast, as he created an ideology of vengeance, anti-Western. He is becoming prisoner of it.

A democratic alternative to Putin exists but its nearly impossible. Opponents are either put in jail, or assassinated. Political parties are forbidden.

Corruption: Russia is 136 out of 175 from Transparency International.

Some day, the Russians will realize that the Imperial dream which Putin offers to them does not replace a decent way of life.”

Someday…

But we could run out of time. When a gang of criminals such as those who confiscated power in Russia, is in command, it has no proximate interest to let go. The only way to get them put out of order peacefully is by making them an offer they cannot refuse, because otherwise they would get exterminated. Thus the cannibalistic (and human flesh gourmet) Idi Amin Dada was enticed to flee to Saudi Arabia, and then Syria. That method works well with the leaders of small powers (typically African).

In the case of super powers, such as the Third Reich or today’s Russia, the leaders do not believe that they face extermination.

And they observe that, the more war they bring, the more in power they are.

So watch Putin. He may try Estonia next. Yes, Estonia is in the European Union, and in NATO. Because of NATO Article V and an equivalent article hidden inside the European Union Constitution, that would mean war with the West.

But is the West ready?

Not that much.

So Putin may feel he can push a bit more, and then another bit, as he pursue his frantic armament program. Yes, the USA spends seven times more in defense. However, USA planes are obsolete. Moreover, we have seen this before: on paper, Hitler did not have a chance to win militarily against France, let alone France allied with Britain. Still, one thing led to another.

And then, for a week, or so, the French and British military piled up an impressive series of blunders, and Hitler got very lucky. The result? 70 million dead, about 3% of the world population.

Dictators in peril, like the cornered rats they are, will try anything, especially Lady Luck. Witness the explanations floated by the authorities to explain Nemtsov’s death: either a love story gone wrong (after all he died with a 25 year old Ukrainian model), or the opposition himself having killed Nemtsov, to relaunch protests against the Dear Leader.

So, don’t corner him, say the young and naïve, or old and cowardly. However, like all prime tyrants, Putin is self-cornering. Don’t pass below his fortress: he is ready to shoot.

Patrice Ayme’

Mahomet Hebdo

January 14, 2015

OK, it’s rather Muhammad Daily. Al Qaeda took credit for the attack against Charlie Hebdo, in a 12 minute video. Five million copies of Charlie Hebdo are printed and sold. That’s nearly three times that miserable Islamist terrorist aiding and abetting newspaper, the New York Times (I sent a comment to that effect, and they later took down the article I attacked; it quoted criminals approvingly; I did not make a copy in a timely manner).

Vast weasel and lying propaganda in the USA, indeed, against Charlie Hebdo and Freedom of Expression in a sort of crusade against “blasphemy”. Those behind it are often paid propagandists attached to plutocratic universities (as Stanford’s “Director of Diversity” deconstructed yesterday).

Infuriating some More Real Fanatics: They Hate Forgiveness

Infuriating some More Real Fanatics: They Hate Forgiveness

{Banner translation: All Is Forgiven… The Christian approach… ;-)}

Another tac of anti-French hypocritical American “intellectuals”: “one does not make fun of minorities”. There are probably more practicing Muslims in France than practicing Christians (let alone Jews). In the world, there is 1.6 billion Muslims. We are talking about operative majorities, here. People get condemned for “Atheism”, or “Insults Against Islam” in Egypt, every week.

As the end of this essay will make clear, that pseudo-holly, PC American “intellectual” position equates to lethal racism against Muslims (the main victims of Islamist violence). So now a few armed fanatics sent, managed, helped and equipped by the unholy alliance of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State make a minority one should not make fun of? According to American philosophers?

What’s the correct approach? The Mayor of Rotterdam a Muslim born in Morocco, son of an Imam, told the Muslim extremists to “rot toch op” (“fuck-off”)

https://news.vice.com/article/mayor-of-rotterdam-tells-muslim-extremists-in-the-netherlands-to-fuck-off

Ahmed Aboutaleb, who arrived in the Netherlands aged 15, spoke out in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris. Mayor Aboutaleb said Muslims who ‘do not like freedom can pack your bags and leave’.

“It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom,” he said on the Dutch program “Nieuwsuur (Newshour).” “But if you don’t like freedom, for heaven’s sake, pack your bags and leave… If you do not like it here because some humorists you don’t like are making a newspaper, may I then say you can f– off,” Mr. Aboutaleb added. “Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here.”

London Mayor Boris Johnson lauded his Dutch colleague as his “hero,” saying his comments were “straight to the point…. That is the voice of the Enlightenment, of Voltaire,” Mr. Johnson wrote for The Telegraph. He added: “If we are going to win the struggle for the minds of these young people, then that is the kind of voice we need to hear — and it needs above all to be a Muslim voice.”

SATYR INTERVIEWED:

I went to the woods, and met a happy satyr. I talked to him thus: ”What’s up with satire, satyr? Why the happy face? Are you not sad that so many thinkers and cartoonists got killed because they practiced Freedom of Expression?”

The satyr laughed: “You now, I was sad when even Voltaire got censored. But now there are printing 5 million copies of Charlie Hebdo. Maybe they read you too, some day.”

Me: ”You mean, when Voltaire’s play on the Prophet was censored in Europe?

Satyr: “Exactly, that was the Nadir. Voltaire’s play was entitled: “Le FANATISME Ou MAHOMET Le Prophete“. Yes, the capital letters are in the original. Theater that made people laugh 262 years ago, in 1753, became not “Politically Correct” and got censored in the name of Islamophilia. In the Twentieth-First Century.

Me: “You exaggerate. Voltaire called it a ‘tragedy’”.

Satyr: “OK, so Islam is fanaticism, according to Voltaire, but fanaticism to that extent, not being able to draw a guy with a beard, that’s funny. We, satyrs and satirists, have been at the core of civilization for 3,000 years! Dionysus, remember? The festivals, the cut-conifers, offering the gifts for the Winter Solstice, the orgies, the drinking, happiness, jokes, the outrages, the craziness, the generalized irreverence? Ah, readers are going to understand that we can’t even f the rophet, only because he is thoroughly decomposed.”

“F the rophet?” I fled in horror, terrified by what American propagandists would call “puerile”. Most Academic American philosophers would condemn me for talking to a Satyr. It’s much better to read the New York Times, which expressed all the racism there was in making cartoons of bearded men, by quoting genuine terrorists calling to kill all those who draw (drawing people is actually forbidden in Islam).

American (paid) philosophers are not amused by Molière’s satirical caricature of religion in Tartuffe, a satire that is exactly 350 years old (and which even the very Catholic Louis XIV liked).

Let’s analyze the latest cover from Charlie Hebdo. A bearded man is crying, he looks sad, dismayed. He wears a cover on his head. He says: ”Je Suis Charlie.” Above it’s written: ”All Is Forgiven.” From this, fanatics, those who come out of the Fanum, the Temple, deduce that Muhammad, somebody dead for nearly 13 centuries, has been gravely “slandered”. Who told them it was that particular person, and how can one insult somebody dead 13 centuries?

Since when is ”All Is Forgiven” a call to hatred? To confuse forgiveness and hatred is a perversion not just of all values, but of vocabulary itself. Since when should serious media quote individuals so inarticulate that they confuse “forgiven” and “hateful”?

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/je-suis-charlie/

Fanatics whose business is extremism of course pounce on the worst interpretations, so that they can advise to augment the nastiness (as it is their business). By taking their delirium seriously, one advertise, and aid and abet the worst aspects, the most demonic side of human beings.

Letting those who call for hatred claim that forgiving is hateful is giving up on reason. There are actually death threats against Jews (among others) in Islam’s most sacred texts. Is this offending material? Is quoting Islam sacred texts unacceptable? Is it what the PC calls “content that is deemed offensive and gratuitous”? Have a look at:

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/041-smt.php

Here is such a well-known Hadith, that it is part of the Charter of Hamas. Book 041, Number 6985:

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”

Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim. See also from Sahih Muslim: Hadith: 41:6981, , 41:6982, 41:6983, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791, and 4:52:177. All this is readily available on Islamist sites. Can one get clearer than that?

Qur’an Sura 2, verse 190: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits… Sura2, v.191: And slay them wherever ye catch them… tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter… slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.”

These are quotes out of hundreds. See:

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

The New York Times actually quoted that verse, S2, v 191. But it quoted exactly what I did not quote: ”Do not transgress limits”. So am I as dishonest as the New York Times? No. “Do not transgress limits” is vague, but innocuous. By quoting that, the New York Times is deliberately distorting the main message of this verse, while claiming they quote what I quote, and it comes out different. It’s always hard to argue with stupidity… By definition of stupidity, which is the inability to understand arguments.

The main message of Sura 2, The Cow, is verse 191. And that is that those who believe in the Qur’an should “…slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

If somebody says: ”Hello, good morning, I have to kill you,” Islamophile intellectuals, and the New York Times, will quote: ”Hello, good morning.” Those who want to survive, and who believe in natural goodness, will worry about the rest of the message: I have to kill you, my religion says so.

So who is a disbeliever? The main problem of those who want to survive Islam is exactly here. That’s why millions of Syrians are refugees in other countries, and hundreds of thousands have been killed: who is a disbeliever? When the religious order is to kill “disbelievers”, “disbelief” is the most important question.

Solution? Forget the fiscal deficit imposed by plutophiles in Brussels. The French Republic is at war, and should spend, if need be 5% of its GDP on defense, completely paid out of thin air. And if that brings the Euro down, so much the better. (Actually a currency is defense by other means, so a country with a strong defense has always a strong currency.)

It’s all about power, ladies, gentlemen, and satyrs. And the power starts with the mind.

Patrice Ayme’

Was Jesus Christ Immoral?

December 25, 2014

‘TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK’ MEANS COLLABORATING WITH EVIL.

Instead, Forget Abraham, Resist, Crush Infamy, and Save the Little Children.

Jesus is an imperial Roman fabrication. Not only his mythology was cut and pasted from pre-existing religions, but even His birthday was displaced from one side of the Sun to the other. This 6 months translation made it coincide with the Winter Solstice and the Saturnials, the feast and celebration of the Greco-Roman empire which lasted weeks.

No philosopher of note has considered Jesus since Nietzsche noticed that the crucifix was a sex symbol for frustrated Christians. So why do I bother? Well, the USA is pervaded by God, and Jesus is his son. That would be OK, except that the GDP of the USA is growing at an annual rate of 5%, whereas Europe, and even Germany, has been stagnating with zero percent growth since 2008.

Both facts are related, but I will not get into that for this essay. Another point is that a version of the remarks on Jesus’ morality was censored on a philosophy website, because the moderator, a professional philosopher, and self-declared atheist, viewed it as “unduly offensive”.

Real philosophers offend the baffled and uncomprehending masses with true ideas they cannot swallow yet.

In the West, for more than a millennium, “Jesus” was viewed as the paragon of morality. Instead I will propose the exact opposite, by analyzing carefully what may be Jesus’ most famous saying. It made “Jesus” into the whetstone on which Nazism, among other evils, was sharpened.

I already pointed out that Jesus had homicidal tendencies: not only did this rabbi make explicit threats, but he said he came to impose the “Law” the Old Testament.

Said Old Testament depicts a God drunk on power, mass homicides, and a passion for torturing to death little children, so as to humiliate or punish their parents. It is hard to find a more despicable character in the history of ideas. The Biblical god can do whatever He pleases and call that divine.

The local plutocrat, our local lord, made in God’s image, was then morally justified to behave just as he wished all along. Hence the dealing and pushing of Christianism onto the mystified masses by plutocrats, from Constantine to Putin.

Jesus said: [those who] serve other gods … thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” [Bible New Testament; Dt.13:6-10]

A Christian, Elizabeth Carter, was not thrilled with the unconventional picture of Jesus I gave. She commented (Dec 5, 2014):

“Christ taught us not to resist evil but to turn the other cheek.

He said that if you choose to live by the law of Moses you will be judged by the law of Moses…

Jesus was crucified and did not resist the evil that was being done to him at all. Christians were told to follow Him.”

The statement “Christ taught us not to resist evil but to turn the other cheek,” is the epitome of immorality.

Jesus, even if he existed, was a savage of 2,000 years ago who repeated like a parrot what rabbi Hillel The Elder said a century before. Even the conservative Edmund Burke, 250 years ago, came to realize that Jesus was morally evil. Said Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Ironically this idea is central to the French Revolution, which Burke hated. In the French revolution, good men decided to do something about plutocracy… And the struggle is not over. Voltaire’s “IL FAUT ECRASER L’INFAME” got it right, and got the whole world rolling in the correct direction.

What did Chris thought he was achieving with turning the other cheek? Looking somewhere else? Indicating that punishment, cheek slapping, should be pursued, until morale improve, or one passes out?

Or was Christ, by turning the other cheek to evil, teaching us to collaborate with evil? Or, to put it more crudely, and to the point, to collaborate with Auschwitz? Let Him get to the oven first. With my most sincere contempt.

The hundreds of extermination camps the Nazis set-up all over Germany could function only because, like Jesus, the average Christian German decided to turn the other cheek and look somewhere else. Some extermination hells, such as Dachau, were in full view, a few kilometers from Munich. An outraged American general forced the whole local population of good Christian Germans to visit this place of extermination. The honorable German citizens put their finest clothes, and grimly contemplated what their hellish culture of cheek turning allowed to happen.

Jesus is distinctly less popular in Germany now. He had told the Germans to avert their eyes, and not fight evil. Jesus was wrong as wrong could be. All over Europe, he does not cut the saintly figure he used to.

Christians were told to follow their love boy, Jesus, and his dad. Germans were told to follow their “Guide” (Fuhrer).

Evil’s face could be that of a hungry lion, or that of a thug, or a rampaging dictator. Turning the other cheek only encourages it. The mythical Jesus Himself, when confronted with a few merchants in the Temple, not really an outrage in my opinion, got very angry, and physically violent, as he threw them out.

Thus the alleged acts of the mythical Jesus make no emotional sense: if some fast buck artists soil the Temple with their wares, He attacks them, but if some dictator puts a child in the oven, He turns the other cheek? Insignificant is outrageous, and outrageous, is insignificant?

Is it this perverse logic which allowed hungry Crusaders to roast and eat little Muslim Children?

(This evil culinary fact is well documented through direct eyewitnesses and participants; one would assume that, as good Christians, the Crusaders just turned the other cheek, so they could munch better…)

Essential to Jesus’ “teaching” is that one should not resist infamy. The very fact lover boy Jesus did not resist his own crucifixion, as Christians say, is the very proof that, either he deserved it, or he was of the lowest moral sort.

Or maybe he was a masochist who wanted to be crucified, because that gave him a sexual kick, to rub his buns on rough wood.

And his followers are even worse. I mean what are these creeps going to do when some monsters come to torture a child? Turn the other cheek? Not resist? Celebrate Abraham, who bound his own son, to slit his throat, because he was in love with his boss? That’s clearly worse than gay marriage, it’s gay murder.

How much more despicable can one be?

Those “Christian” ideas ought to be buried in the mental rot to which they belong. They are precious only in the sense that they laud the exact sort of systems of thought and moods we should avoid like the mental plague they are: lethal and contagious.

To have made a religion out of collaboration with infamy, is not just inhuman, absurd, demented, and an insult to our true creator, biological evolution. It should outright be made unlawful to teach it as non-fiction. And frowned upon, submitted to the severe punishment, as non-assistance to children in danger. Some demons will laugh: ‘No wonder Christians love the cross so much: deep down inside they know they all deserve it, being the lowest of the low’.

Amen.

Happy Birthday, Christ. Should you have truly existed, as the Good Lord, no doubt you taught the exact opposite of many of the words plutocrats such as emperor Constantine put in your mouth.

Patrice Ayme’