Archive for the ‘Christianism’ Category

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


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”:

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.


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).

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’

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.”


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’

Was Jesus Christ Immoral?

December 25, 2014


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’.


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’


October 2, 2008


Pakistan has a new “President”, Benazir Bhutto’s widower. Afghanistan has a “President” too. But what does that mean? During the Roman empire, for centuries, citizens could embrace whatever religion they pleased (before the rather short lived Christian dictatorship). In today’s Afghanistan the “law” has it that if a “Muslim” becomes a “Christian”, he shall be executed. What happened to civilization? Is it supposed to be going backwards? Are Western powers helping those vicious superstitions, and thus undermining themselves?

Pakistan is an Islamic Republic (since 1956, reviewed in 1973). This causes an insurmountable problem because Islam is not compatible with democracy. Although Benazir and her husband seem noble and extremely courageous, the task they gave themselves is hopeless. Islam was designed as a war machine against the West. That is why it succeeded, and only ultimate force stopped it (in Francia in the West).

Benazir Bhutto, in her posthumous book, “Reconciliation” observes that “a discussion of Jihad is critical to the world“. She presents what she calls a “thesis”, that “democracy and Islam are compatible“. But she admits that this is true only if Jihad is not “about religious war against other religions and Muslim sects“. But she is not sure. Maybe, maybe not. Hope is her only logic. And hope is not a logic, just wishful thinking.

Whatever. What part of the word “Jihad” did Benazir not understand? During that last bomb explosion, that killed her, did she see the light? The blazing light? Well, we sure saw it on TV. Islam is strictly not compatible with democracy, and I will show this below, quoting from the highest authority in Islam, namely the message of Allah Himself, the “Recitation” (Qur’an). Those who deny this are either ignorant, or liars, or both. Those who believe ignorant liars come, unsurprisingly, to bad ends.

Muslim fundamentalists have (correctly) counted nearly 200 passages containing calls to extreme murderous violence in the Qur’an. The Fundamentalists know best: they use those precise passages to justify their own murderous violence, including killing little girls that go to school, and women who go to work. Threatening to kill those who insulted “the prophet” is a particularly appreciated delicacy.

But the violence of the Qur’an against Western civilization is not restricted to calls for maximum and lethal physical violence. First, there is the fact that “Jihad” replaces all and any of the activities connected to democracy. Islam is about one man, one jihad, not one man, one vote. Moreover the Qur’an is full of statements such as: “And those who disbelieve in our communications, they are the people of the left hand. On them fire closes over.”  (S 90; v. 19-20). the left hand is used for the rest room, in the desert, you know. (Wash with dirt, recommends ‘the prophet”, always very practical!)

There is also a fundamental violence of the Qur’an against the very principle of democracy. The Qur’an enjoins that:

“O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, S.4; v. 59).

In other words, Islam orders to obey authority as a matter of religion. Islam is a dictator’s best friend. Dictatorship and Islam live in symbiosis.

Hitler, who admired Islam as a war religion, used to call this the Fuehrerprinzip, and it was the central functioning principle of his Nazi Reich. All Germans had to obey any authority as a matter of religion. The fascist principle makes Islam incompatible with democracy. (Of course, the entire point of Islam is that dictatorship is religion, so it’s no accident!)

Some will say: “Wait a minute! What about Christianity? Europe is Christian, and still became democratic! Indeed, Islam is the bastard child of some type of Judaism and Christianism, marinated in a pungent desert sauce. And indeed the West became democratic. But the West had been democratic before (republican Rome, many Greek City states). Even at the worst of the Roman Christian Imperial theocracy (fourth and fifth centuries), the law was mostly secular, and its own power, independent of religion. Even at the top of the Roman Christian Imperial theocracy, a woman, an Augusta, reigned (fifth century). She invented the theory of the STATE OF LAW: “The law shall apply to us just as much as it applies to our subjects.”

When the Franks took control in the West, they did not establish a Christian dictatorship. Quite to the contrary, they progressively transformed Christianity in an instrument for the advancement of civilization. The Franks, as good Germans, were more democratic and less sexist than the Greco-Roman. As good Germans admiring Greco-Roman civilization, they were dismayed by what Christianity had done to it. All in all, the Franks imposed on Christianity much higher ethics. They forced the Christian establishments to teach secular knowledge.

Saint Augustine and his accomplices, the Founding fathers of the Church, had justified slavery as a punishment from God (as the Quranic parrots would later do). The Franks just outlawed slavery. By 800, the Pope was the Franks’ pet, and the Carolingians (who had crushed Islamic invasions earlier) took a great dislike of the Eastern Christian Roman empire. In 1204 the Franks conquered Constantinople, smashing for good the remaining Roman imperial Christian power. the anti Christian humor of the franks could be tasteless: during some crusade, a bit short of food, they made fun of Christ’s recommendation to eat (his) flesh, by actually eating some of the (Muslim) natives.

Even as dedicated a Christian as the formidable Roman emperor Justinian, when he ordered a refurbishment of the entire Roman legal system, nominated a pagan law professor to head the commission, and the emperor instructed him to separate the huge body of secular law from the laws of a Christian nature. That secular body of law the entire world use nowadays, except for the Islamic states.

The secret of the success of the West is not Christ, it’s the Pagan Franks masquerading as Christians (proof: when they smashed the three Muslim invasions of the eight century, the Franks, after having nationalized the Christian Church to draft the entire economy, called themselves “Europeans”; they viewed Muslims as a new Christian sect).

During the later Middle Ages, the Frankish empire was breaking down in national powers. A Christian fanatic such as (Saint) Louis IX, hated the Jews. Still he could not do much against them: centuries earlier Frankish law, following Roman secular law, had recognized Jews as full citizens. In the end the holocaust of the Jews had to wait for the replacement of secular Roman law by Nazi garbage.

In Pakistan, according to the Islamic Constitution, only a Muslim can become President or Prime Minister. No law repugnant to Islam shall be enacted and the present laws shall also be Islamized. Injunctions of Islam as found in Qur’an and the Sunnah have to be obeyed. The 1973 (and current) Constitution of Pakistan gave a definition of a Muslim which states: ‘Muslim’ means a person who believes in the unity and oneness of Almighty Allah, in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Mohammed [PBUH: Peace Be Upon Him], the last of the prophets, and who does not believe in, nor recognize as a prophet or religious reformer, any person who claimed or claims to be a prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Mohammed.”

In other words, sheer superstition. Well, Poo Be Upon It [PBUI].

Islam has got a long way to go, before it can join Christianity, and be put to sleep…

The West may want to reconsider its attitude relative to all Islamic regimes, including “republics” such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Obama suggested this: next time bin Laden is in the crosshairs of the West, if Pakistan refuses to act, the West will; France, more directly, suggested that a French 9/11 may be rewarded with nukes for the host country.)

For a long time, Islamic dictatorships (a pleonasm, sorry) were the best friends of the oil thirsty USA. Oil was good, so dictatorships were good, so the dictatorship friendly Qur’an was good. Well, that was before Islamic Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now all these discourses about fire from the sky and holocausts, in the Qur’an, after 9/11, do not seem such a good idea anymore, even to the USA. It maybe time to encourage forced de-Islamization programs, somewhat similar to those implemented by the Franks against Christianity.

It’s better to put the Qur’an to sleep that way, rather than the alternative…

Patrice Ayme

P/S: Under the Hanafi jurisprudence of Afghanistan’s Sunni majority, favored by the Afghan Constitution, apostasy -abandoning Islam for another religion- is a crime punishable by death. it’s all about whether it’s the sovereignty of the people (democracy) or the sovereignty of God (a figment of the imagination and tradition of cavemen). It should not be tolerated anymore that Western soldiers die for this.

P/S 2: “In reality, the monotheist texts preach neither peace, love nor tolerance. They are texts of hate.” (Michel Houellebecq.)