Islam A Clash of Civilization? Because Now Ordering To “Slay” Innocent Individuals Is “Civilized”?

Islamists say that reading and quoting Islam’s Quran is… Islamophobia… Except when they do it themselves! Curious ideology where just looking cause phobia in others… according to its own proponents!

All too many Western plutocratic media agree… with the Islamists! They decry reading Islam as a “clash of civilization”. So if one sends quotes of the Quran, one is described either as a hater of Muslims or an Islamist.

I know Islam, in part because I was raised, from the age of two weeks, in places where Islam was the local religion. Women showed their hair, their faces, and their unsupported naked breasts. They also fought back violently if they perceived the slightest abuse on the part of their fellow-men. Thus, Islam, in the places where I was raised, was really tolerant and non-sexist. These were also Islams of peace. I put it to the plural, because one of these Islam was from the desert (actually, more than one), the other from the Sahel. There is another Islam, the literal Islam found at the core of the dictatorship of the Middle East, which, propelled by petrodollars, is now viewed by Western Pluto media as the only Islam worth having.

***

The New York Times described in detail a case where Islam lethality seems to arise out of nowhere, complete with wealthy mothers blowing up their own children… reminiscent of Ms. Goebbels killing all her children, though they resisted (nota bene: Hitler esteemed Islam a lot).

A case like the Easter Islam bombing in Sri Lanka demonstrates that Islam’s love of murder has nothing to do with colonial oppression, the return of the Jews, or whatever other blame-the victims rationales come up readily in the accusatory schemes which have passed for scholarly reflection for all too long.

The New York Times report described . It offered no explanation whatsoever. It is as if the New York Times were a chicken without a head.

The explanation for both the bombings and the headless chicken is plain and visible: There are what, at face value, in the Qur’an, the strict word of God according to the presently most commonly propagandized of Islam, clear injunctions to kill plenty of humans whom secular law views as innocent. To kill gays Quran just quotes the Bible. Brunei faithfully follows.

The picture above is extracted from an Islamist site. Islamists now have to pretend the Qur’an is “misquoted” when verses ordering to kill are extracted from it. What they allege is that there was a context, and the context was forsaken. I have read the Qur’an more than 100 times, and I can tell you it’s the exact opposite. What Islamists don’t tell you is that the most violent verses, like the Sword Verse, are the most recent… Thus they “abrogate” gentle verses written when Prophet Muhammad was trying to persuade the government in Mecca that His new religion was kosher (literally!)

I sent a comment, to the New York Times on their article of the two super wealthy families, where the Muslim one killed the other. It was censored. A faithful reader of mine asked me:”Did you quote the Qur’an?” I replied:”Of course, yes, that’s the crux of the matter!” My reader replied:”Well then, they will accuse you to “blog” the Qur’an, you know that very well!” It’s true that “The Guardian” in London accused me of “blogging the Qur’an” specifically to justify, the fact they banned me (for life, apparently; “The Guardian” is a pseudo-left paper, secretly financed by Bill Gates, the 200 billion dollars “lover of man”)  

We are living in times so dumb that, when explaining why one is against an ideology, one is systematically accused of advocating it, whenever quoting it, even doing so to trash it. In other words we are living in the world of three words logic.

OK, here is the New York Times:

Two Super-Rich Families Ended Up on Opposite Sides of Easter Attacks

April 27, 2019 COLOMBO, Sri Lanka

“— A little before 9 a.m. on Easter Sunday, Anders Holch Povlsen, the richest man in Denmark, was having breakfast with his family at the Table One restaurant in the Shangri-La Hotel in Sri Lanka’s capital, Colombo.

The restaurant was decorated with crates of oranges, apples and large, uncut pineapples, and the Povlsens looked out on the ocean rollers crashing into a sea wall not far away.

At the same time, Ilham Ibrahim, the son of one of Sri Lanka’s wealthiest spice traders, was heading down to Table One in an elevator. Wearing a baseball cap and a large backpack, he stepped into the elevator with a friend wearing the same thing. Right before the doors opened, CCTV shows, Mr. Ibrahim’s friend flashed him a long, white smile.

The two families, the Povlsens and the Ibrahims, were about to intersect.

One was a billionaire in dollars. The other, a billionaire in rupees. One built a fortune through jeans, turtlenecks and all kinds of hip clothing. The other, through white pepper, black pepper and all kinds of spices.

They both were well-known and admired, part of wildly successful, close-knit business families from opposite ends of the world and perhaps opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.

In an instant, five of their children — Ilham, Inshaf, Alma, Agnes and Alfred — were blown to pieces, one side slaughtered by the other.

Two of the Ibrahim sons — Ilham and his older brother, Inshaf — were among the suicide bombers behind the series of devastating attacks around the country. Sri Lanka’s Muslims have been painfully perplexed by the question of why two of their most privileged sons would do this.”

***

“Painfully Perplexed” The “Muslims” were? Really? Those self-declared “Muslims” never read the Qur’an then? 

The beauty of Islam is that, to become a Muslim, none of these long instructions, and exams, so many other faiths favor. Becoming an Islamist is the simplest thing. One has to say: “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah.” (That’s Arabic for: super-baboon is super-baboon, and a Muha baboon is Messenger of super.) Then, to become that great Muslim “believer” in lame desert fables, one has also to:

 Believe that the Holy Quran is the literal word of God, revealed by Him.

– Believe that the Judgment Day (Resurrection Day) is true and will come. [Nota Bene: according to Hadith, that requires to kill ALL the Jews first!]

– Believe in the prophets that God sent and the books He revealed, and in His angels. [And the Djinns, and Satan… Not a question to ask Allah, the Qur’an points out!]

– Accept Islam as his/her religion.

– Not worship anything nor anyone except God. [Super is super!]

Thus one can easily see how one would become not just a Muslim, but a “perplexed Muslim”… because although one believes all what’s in the Qur’an, one doesn’t need to have ever read the Qur’an! (At least, Christians are supposed to learn their little fables!) But the problem, of course, is that some young people do read the Qur’an, under the leadership of mad men or exploiters… And then one calls them… Islamists! Islamists DID READ the Qur’an! The Qur’an basically says that the safest way to paradise is to go out, kill some miscreants! See below.

Islamists, caught their pants down with such violent verses, argue it ain’t what it looks like to the pseudo-intellectuals (paid by the fossil fuel plutocratic organization of the world, and its nice “universities”) infecting the Civilization. To suicide bombers, they tell them that God ordered them to slay whoever, whenever…

NYT again, pondering why nice Muslims suddenly decide to believe the Qur’an, and do as indicated therein, and kill all these people Allah has condemned to death… And many of these deaths are horrible: flaying people alive, burning them, making them drink molten lead…. Hey, it’s all in the Qur’an, have fun, read it. It’s not fifteen shades of grey, it’s fifteen shades of horror… NYT:

“Everybody keeps asking me that question,” [Sri Lanka’s Muslims have been painfully perplexed by the question of why two of their most privileged sons would do this] said Hilmy Ahmed, the vice president of the Muslim Council of Sri Lanka. “I don’t know if there ever will be an answer.”

… Perhaps the most striking is how the paths of the Ibrahims and Povlsens, two powerful families with so much to live for, crossed that day.”

Well, the answer in the Qur’an, Mr. Hilmy Ahmed. Free a few hours to read it, please! Understand what you claim to be your own religion, please!

***

Here is the comment of mine which was censored by the NYT:

It’s not very difficult to understand the fanaticism. Either ones believes in Islam, or one doesn’t. What does believing in Islam mean? It varies considerably according to people, individuals, places and history.

As a president of Senegal observed, Wahhabism, as practiced in Arabia, “is a different religion from Islam as practiced in Senegal”.  

The version of Islam financed by petrodollars has come to dominate, as money made it incomparably powerful.  It’s called “Salafism” or Wahhabism”, according to Wahhab, a eighteenth century cleric who took what is in the Qur’an literally. The Qur’an is a short book. Many calls to murder are found therein:

“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter… and fight them until struggle is no more, and religion is for Allah.“

— Quran 2:191

Thus: keep on killing until all have converted to Islam.

Quran 9:5 is the famous “Verse of the Sword”: …”fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem“… This verse, amongst the youngest of the Quran, abrogates older verses.

“Prophet! Rouse the believers to wage war…”

— Quran, [Quran 8:65]

“Those who believe, fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Satan. So fight you against the friends of Satan...”

— Quran, [Quran 4:76]

Another 100 verses in Quran order mayhem. Killers did as ordered. 

***

That was my comment, it was factual. But fact-based reality is not what Pluto media is all about.

Real fanatics kill in the name of their religion. Those who don’t kill, are amateurs:

The word “fanatic” comes from the Latin “Fanum”, which means temple, shrine, sacred place. Hence “fanaticus” meaning “mad, enthusiastic, inspired by a god”. By the 1520s, it came to also mean “insane person”. The eight religions wars of the end of the 16C quickly proved that the most enthusiastically inspired by God were truly insane. In this case Christians were killing each other, according to their interpretations of Allah, just as muslims do today. In the 17C, the (mostly) religious war in Germany killed a third of the population.

It’s obvious that, when people have decided they know enough to have figured out the universe, either we are mad, or they are. When those who have figured out the universe claim that killing others is essential to the interpretations of the universe they have, it’s clear their cognitions are out of order, and, for our safety, they should be prevented from imposing their fanatical ideologies.

So why is the Literal Islam madness allowed to go on? Because plutocracy gains from it.

Fanatical, literal interpretations of the Qur’an have enormous interests for the global plutocracy: it’s not just that they provide with oil, wealth, and control. They have also made its natural opponents short-circuit.

Tolerating literal interpretations of the  Qur’an brings one to tolerate calls to abusing (women) or even killing most people on Earth (gays, Jews, Christians, “Pagans”, “Polytheists”, “Unbelievers”, “Apostates”, etc…). Islamists kill Muslims in particular because they decide at some point that they have renounced Islam (“apostasy”). In recent years literally millions were killed that way. And then, when a US Representative preaches that sort of Islam, one is supposed to not criticize her, because if one did, one would be called “racist”.

***

OK, more New York Times, in another article on the Wahhabist take over in Sri Lanka:

“April 28, 2019 KATTANKUDY, Sri Lanka — When the Wahhabis came, with their austere ideology and abundant coffers, the town of Kattankudy yielded fertile ground.

In this part of Sri Lanka, faith was often the sole sustaining force during the civil war that raged for nearly three decades. Wahhabism — a hard-line strain of Islam blamed for breeding militancy — proposed a direct path to God, albeit one that aimed to return the religion to the time of the Prophet Muhammad.

It was here in Kattankudy’s warren of homes decorated with delicate swirls of Arabic calligraphy that Zaharan Hashim, the man accused of masterminding the Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka, grew up. And it was here that he preached his ideology, calling for the killing of nonbelievers in Islam and even other Muslims.….

The Sri Lankan police say that at least two of the suicide bombers involved in the attacks, which killed at least 250 people, were from Kattankudy. The Islamic State claimed responsibility.

Beginning on Friday evening, just down the coast from the town, a raid on a house linked to the Easter bombings turned violent, leaving 15 dead and wounding the wife and child of Mr. Zaharan. Some of the dead, thought to include Mr. Zaharan’s brother and other immediate family, blew themselves up as security forces closed in. The Islamic State also claimed a connection to this shootout.

It was in the 1980s that Kattankudy, one of the few almost exclusively Muslim towns in Buddhist-majority Sri Lanka, began blossoming into a center of Islamic life. The town was enriched by Saudi money for mosques and madrasas, work-abroad contracts and university scholarships.

But the advent of Wahhabism, with its isolating dogma, has also shaken this multifaith island where minority Muslims have traditionally practiced a more inclusive faith. Birthed in Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism’s stern intolerance denigrates not only those who don’t believe in Islam but other Muslim sects as well.

While Saudi Arabia insists the faith does not call for violence, critics have long blamed the kingdom’s mass export of its austere creed for fueling extremism and terrorism abroad. Al Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden, and most of the hijackers in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were from Saudi Arabia, and the Islamic State used Saudi religious textbooks inside its self-styled caliphate in Syria and Iraq.….

There are more than 60 mosques in Kattankudy for a population of 45,000, and most now subscribe to conservative strains of Islam, including Wahhabism. At the New Kattankudy Grand Jumma Mosque, designed as a replica of Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, one of Islam’s holiest sites, construction workers are laying intricate blue mosaics as part of the town’s mosque-building boom.

“After the age of 7, everyone must pray five times a day, so we always need more mosques,” said M.I.M. Irfan, the mosque’s secretary.

Saudi diplomats visited, too.

The Saudis and others from the gulf also supported a plan by M.L.A.M. Hizbullah, a Kattankudy native who is now governor of Eastern Province, to open an Islamic-inspired university campus in his hometown.

Mr. Hizbullah is against reversing regulations that allow Sri Lankan Muslim men to marry children and have multiple wives. …

Beginning in 2004, Wahhabi-influenced youth from Kattankudy began attacking Sufis, who practice a mystical form of Islam. Grenades were thrown and swords thrust. Hundreds of Sufis were forced from their homes.”

***

All the preceding was in the New York Times. Anybody sane would deduce that “Islam” is an insane religion… but it gets better than that: the Western Pluto media has a pro-Wahhabist bias.

“Sufism” is always described, by ignorant, and biased academics and their parrots such as those at the New York Times, as “mystical”. In truth Sufism is often clever, social, non-sexist, tolerant, low-key, rational, human, gentle and very far from the lethal madness in the Qur’an. Sufism is generally civilization compatible, Wahhabism is only plutocracy compatible, as it preaches ultimate violence..

New York Times goes on, in the same article, describing the evil of Wahhabists:

“Although Kattankudy’s Islamic organizations are horrified by Mr. Zaharan’s militancy and have eschewed violence, most have campaigned for years against Sufis.

“Those people, it is not Islam,” said M.L.M. Nassar, a member of the Federation of Kattankudy Mosques and Muslim Institutions. “It’s a deviation.”

… The talk of jihad emanating from some of Kattankudy’s hard-line clerics appalled him, he said.”

Indeed, those who deviate, according to Salafist tradition, or, more exactly, according to the Qur’an and the second most sacred book of Islam, have to be killed. Here we go with the little murder book:

“Quran (4:89) – “They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya’ (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya’ (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.”

You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.

— Quran 4:91

Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin.

— Quran 9:66

He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief– on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement.

— Quran 16:106]

The Hadith goes further:

In Sahih al-Bukhari, the most important book in Sunni Islam after the Qur’an, and Sahih Muslim punishments for apostasy are described as follows:[45][46]

Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17, see also Sahih Muslim, 16:4152, Sahih Muslim, 16:4154

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said… No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'”

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu’adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu’adh asked, “What is wrong with this (man)?” Abu Musa replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.” Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.”

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271

***

In 90 years, Islam made the most gigantic empire. Systematic massacres, violating all the laws of war as understood by Greco-Romans and Persians, were used to do so. However, killing, for example, all combat age men in Syria, had long-term social and economic, not to say cultural and psychological consequences… The wealth of Syria under the Late Greco-Roman empire in the 6C, never came back…

Islam makes excellent fiction, full of gore. I am all for it, as a piece of thrilling literature, as I am all for various fairy tales about ogres, murderous queens, etc. By all means keep it, for entertainment, bed time reading But when Islam is seriously preached and taught as reality, in its literal version, with super baboon is heavens giving real orders, it simply constitute the world’s most elaborated hate crime ideology. Hence its fantastic military success, in its first few decades, when it succeeded to annihilate the 27 centuries old Mesopotamian religion and civilization, and occupy more than half of the Sumero-Egypto-Creto-Greco-Roman empire and civilization… before being stopped by Constantinople’s Navy and annihilated and counterattacked by the Franks.

So why all the tolerance for the Wahhabists, and calling racist to frown on their invading, hating ways?

Just think a moment: Senator Sanders  is described as a “socialist”. However, all he advocates was the norm 60 years ago, in Europe: free education, free healthcare. Then, California had instituted free education too, even at the university level.

What is the difference now? Tolerance for the intolerable. The sheeple out there has learned to tolerate the intolerable. So why is Sanders now viewed as a “socialist”, although he would have been viewed mainstream way back? Why is that sort of extremism in appreciation not viewed as intolerable?One method? Corrupt women go out there and celebrate the subjugation of women by “Submission” (=”Islam”)… and all the self-declared “liberals” applaud how remarkable, admirable, and a stupendous advance it is, to cover women like tents, and subjugate them to men, just like 14 centuries ago, in the savage desert…

Indeed, what is the most intolerable? Calling tolerable an intolerable superstition. Once one has been trained to find intolerable those who do not to tolerate a religion which says all sorts of innocent individuals should be killed [1], one is trained to find tolerable all and any possible abuse. And trample on any reason.

So Sanders is a socialist, and US Rep Omar promotes peace and sexual equity, right. And the Earth is square like an orange, sure. Civilizational failure is generally preceded by cognitive failure.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

To be killed according to Hadith and Qur’an: Countless “unbelievers”, “pagans”. “polytheists”, “apostates”, gays, people having sex out-of-wedlock… except if they are raping soldiers of Allah, of course… See: https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/thought-crime/

Hadith 41;6985: ”Allah’s Messenger: The last hour would NOT COME UNLESS the Muslims will FIGHT AGAINST THE JEWS and the MUSLIMS WOULD KILL THEM…”

Quran (4:89) – “… if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them…”

The “apostasy” is in the eye of the beholder: there is no religious organization in Islam distinguished from the political organization: the religious chief, emir, is also the political, and war chief, a la Bin Laden. This is why Fundamentalist Muslims tend to kill Muslims they decide don’t believe anymore…

 

Want Human Development? Beware Religious Superstition

American God Is Also the One Roman Emperors Invented, For the Same Awful Reasons Which In US America Festered:

As US America is the mentally leading nation it matters to all what the USA thinks (yes, there are five times more Chinese, and soon, Indians, and Europe has thrice the population; however US institutions dominate world institutions… and it’s more than a habit; as I said, it’s instituted and people are “cool” with it, worldwide… Because they tend to distrust their neighbour more than the USA… Maybe Russia went back to disastrous, Putin friendly Orthodox Christianism, precisely because the USA’s propaganda was impelling the notion that Christ was “cool”, the indispensable and easiest way to gain respect…).

Observes The Economist in “Young Americans believe in a vengeful God”

“Their deity offers relatively little protection and plenty of punishment.

The more stupid one is metaphysically, the less developed in all other ways one tends to be.

FEW rich nations are as God-fearing as America. A global poll by Gallup in 2009 found that 69% of the country’s adults consider religion an important part of their daily life, more than twice the share in Britain, France or Japan. A new survey by the Pew Research Centre shows that young Americans, though less devout than their elders, are still much more so than their peers in Europe.

Five-sixths of those aged 18 to 29 believe in some kind of deity, but their generation is the least likely to worship God as described in the Bible (43%). This is not because they have switched en masse to another mainstream religion: only 8% of them follow non-Christian faiths, just slightly above the national average of 6%. Rather, a large share of young people profess to believe in another higher power (39%), whatever that may mean.

God, as young Americans see her, is a bit less likely to be all-knowing and all-powerful than the God their parents worship. However, compared with their elders, young people see God as less likely to protect them and more likely to punish them. Alas, there are no historical data to reveal whether youngsters have always felt so cursed—or if the current crop are experiencing an unusual amount of divine persecution.”

It is easier to believe in the Biblical or Islamist God, than to gather the motivation to learn history and geography… or just to acquire a sophisticated common sense. Instead, the common sense of the ambient rabble fits all, is ready to wear, and indispensable to arrivistes. This is why US common sense arrives so well, all over.

Also the US god, was, originally, not that of North America, but the plain old God of Europe, the God which presided over the destruction of Greco-Roman civilization. Believing in a God made in the image of the all-powerful, all-knowing masters of the Roman empire, who imposed and engineered Christianism, is highly compatible with The Empire, having been devised by those at the helm of The Empire.

Embracing Constantine’s terror god shows to all others that one respects authority, one is anxious to please it, and Constantine, and today’s replacement of Constantine, and one is endowed with proper naivety and anxiety to fit among one’s peers, and have a beautiful career. This is also why so many politicians in the West, including the revered Obama told us Islam was a religion of peace and Angelina Jolie, a movie star and UN ambassador tried to imprint on us, sotto voce, that “Islam is a beautiful religion“. (The rest of Jolie’s speech was commendable, of course, and indeed, that’s how manipulative politicians do it; at least since Adolf Hitler… Dilute lethal venom, in an appealing drink.) 

India is on the left…

These properties, the awe for plutocrats, wealth, fate, and the vengeful, jealous common deity, enable those immigrants or descendants of rather recent immigrants who constitute most of the US citizenry to fit with each other, a common way to empathy.

The problem is all this indeed, sets the same sort of mood which presided over the fall of the Roman empire, and one can expect the same results. Believing in the vengeful, all-everything Lord sets a belief in vengeance and justice in another world, not in the one at hand…. meanwhile, obey the boss! Faith in the Christo-Islamist god replaces the drive to progress with the patience of resentment. It makes the youth inclined to respect omnipotence (the NSA) and omniscience (Facebook) and the power of politicians, rather than to fight plutocracy, and for progress. After all, the biblical God is, at least symbolically, the ultimate plutocrat: owning everything, knowing everything and ready to use violence and ultimate cruelty to impose her glory and jealousy.

The biblical God is the perfect God for the rule of wealth and evil, and in America, this enormous (mostly) European colony stolen from the Natives, it justifies the very existence of the society: a precious gift.

SUPERSTITIOUS religion tends to make its practitioners believe that, whatever happens to be, was ordained by the organizer of the universe. So it is fundamentally friendly to the powers that be. That is tyrants, dictators, plutocrats… And force, and wealth. So this is what the USA preach.

And another point: China is imminently non-religious. In the last two millennia, China had disastrous experiences with state mandated Confucianism at one point, and state mandated Buddhism, at another. And entire dynasties or states were affected. In the end, the experienced of the state of Qin, first to unify China as the Qin dynasty, in the last three millennia, was that, it was better to depend upon secular law (like its contemporary, the Roman Republic).

Modern China is pretty much following the same model as Qin… or Rome: law and public works (the ascent of Qin culminated with the short-lived Qin dynasty, However the state of Qin itself had lasted centuries before that, and its model got launched by Lord Shang Yang, circa 361 BCE, advocating the philosophy of Legalism (also translatable as “rationalism”: Cartesianism, 20 centuries before Descartes…)

Secularism of China goes a long way to explain its spectacular development…  By the way, it goes without saying that, should one be a potentate, or a class of potentates anxious to prevent the human development of We The People, a most efficient way to do this is to foster religious superstition. So watch the construction of gigantic mosques and associated buildings in Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey… Algeria, flush with enormous oil and gas revenue, has one of the world’s worst educational level (127th in world rankings… although better than Morocco with 152th… Morocco has only 75% of the phosphate reserves of the world! Such countries do so poorly, because their elites do so well…)

Religion is not just the opium of the people, it is the politics of the soul.

And then, of course, superstitious religions foster a respect for mental ways friendly to losing a grip on reality. When one has no grip whatsoever, one offers oneself to be trampled by the powers that be. It’s hard to imagine carpets happy. Nor can they make their friends as happy as could be, either!

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note: Karl Marx: “religion in itself is without content, it owes its being not to heaven but to earth, and with the abolition of distorted reality of which it is the theory, it will collapse of itself” [The German-French Yearbooks, 1842.] In 1843, Marx in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: ”Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions”….

Thus, for example, US citizens withstand US plutocracy the easier, the more they embrace their belief in the vengeful deity… So it’s a self-feeding, vicious spiral… Fortunately, in Europe, the strong identification of fascism with superstitious religion damaged both (clearly in Spain, Italy, Germany with the SS’ “Gott Mit Uns!”… But even in Marxist fascist countries with living deities such as Stalin, Ceausescu, Tito, etc.)

Outlaw Islamist Face Coverings

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 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 Versus Reality

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

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’

France & USA Entangled From Inception, By Common Humanity

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…

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’

 

 

Commonly Accepted DELUSIONS: FOLLIES That BIND. Will To Infanticide. Example: ABRAHAMISM.

It is common to condemn the madness of the crowds, and to be mystified by all sorts of follies, conflicts, moods and ideas inciting to mayhem, which crowds engage in, with relish (just observe any sport stadium crowd getting hysterical about their team).

But why such an inclination to collective madness? Why so little wisdom in so many moods and thoughts systems? Why so much allure to collective sentiment? Is it an accident, a coincidence, an happenstance… Or is the mayhem not a consequence of the crowd, but, instead, what creates the crowd? Is the call to mayhem a method, a system, a deep, and perverse, logic at work, hidden from a first glance? This is what we will show here: the madness of crowds does not arise from the crowd as much as the crowd from the will to madness.
There is a fascist psychology underlying the madness of crowds, to make out of many minds one. Common crime, or common thought crime, helps.

Because, quite often, there is a higher sort of wisdom, a secret plot, a perverse mechanism, a nonlinear feedback, attached to the apparent blatant lack of wisdom. An apparent lack of wisdom can hide a deeper logic. The logic often has to stay hidden, because, if revealed, it would look rather perverse, and the opposite of what the mechanism it claims to achieve appears to be. 

For millions of years, the greatest enemy of man has been other men, the men of the alienated tribe, next door. Proper ecology serving the survival of all, required to find them repulsive, to reject them, to kill them. Such is the basic reason for the evil men commit: ecology. But there is even worse: there can be too many children, and the most atrocious crimes, are the most binding:

The atrocious delusion that the boSS is more important than the life of a child is the faith which Binds Judaism, and Its Ilk: Christianism, & Islamism. Should we use the neologism “pedocidal”?

Crime binding innocence to extinguish it. Should we call Abrahamism, the “Would-be Child Killer religion“? That would distinguish it from Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc.

DELUSION IS A SIGN THAT WE BELONG:

How does one recognize friend from foe? By a signal. It could be the color of a skin, the color of a badge, a flag, and other visual or auditory signal (an accent, say). However, the ultimate structure is a brain structure. They fall in two classes: ideas, and moods.

So, to recognize the friend, the one who has the signal, and the foe, the one who does not, it’s best to entertain a particularly strong signal.

One not seen in nature. That will be best, because no doubt very special.

But are not the most clever, and wisest ideas and moods, faithful reproductions of nature?

Yes.

So the best way to identify a friend, and thus foe, are most stupid and most unwise ideas, and moods.

This is why Judaism, Christianism and Islamism celebrate the would-be child killer, Abraham his name, as their founder. The idea of killing one’s child is assuredly unnatural, unwise, most cruel, and grotesquely inhuman. It’s the ultimate dumb atrocity: destroying the species, starting with one’s flesh and blood.

It’s abominable. Thus it’s best to identify friend (the one who expresses intense admiration for the same despicable madness) and foe (the one who has kept common decency, readily distinguishable as alien, therefore).

What do we see here?

The madness, the insanity which binds.

Thus many delusions are the cement that does not just unite the group, but even defines it.

No doubt delusions will also help to unite those scatterbrains (schizophrenic) minds some of us suffer from.

Delusion can be the crucible of the many, and the cement of the one.

Madness in crowds and madness of the one, thus spring from a common logic of human ethology.

Are all groups defined by delusions? No, the Directly Democratic Republic can define itself without a common madness (this is why Switzerland holds together, in spite of its four official languages and several religions). By insisting on the basic ideas and moods of our common humanity.

This is why the Republic can be enough of a religion, the one that works, without delusion.

Human nature is made to make one out of many (mental fascism). That’s how lions and hyenas were fought (just as baboons still do it: by making the troop into one giant superorganism). Making one of many was also what was necessary to stay competitive on the (human meat) market: if one did not want to become dinner for the other guys, one had to stay united.

Thus humans sharing a group have a strong instinct to think all the same. In two ways: to define the group, even if it means through a delusion, and to make the group fight as one.

(The more crowded the human population, the more delusions will have to define groups; this is why nationalism grows with the crowding… the latter being relative: considering its technology then, in 1900, Germany was relatively more crowded than now; hence the rise of German fascism, which went in parallel with the explosion of the German population, 1850-1914…)

Yet, human beings are truth machines. That’s an instinct going the other way. Because herd animals think all the same, they cannot think anew. Except to stampede, somewhere., or search for the simplest things: new grass, water.

Those who search for truth will avoid the group (all the more as it is all too often defined by a delusion).

Searching for truth is more human, and a way to reach for greater survivability.

Hence the one, the philosopher, will, by necessity, fight the group. Between the delusion which define the groups and the truths, which define the philosopher, it’s a fight to death. The spirit of philosophers always won over the madness of the crowds.

Yes, delusionists, and illusionists are fit for attack, especially when they engage in mass delusion. It’s a matter of collective safety, for the world community. The reason for this is that delusions feed aggression. Delusion is entertained to create the group, the troop, with aggressive purpose in mind.

In particular, theists. Especially of the would-be child sacrifice type (Abraham his name).

As I explained, the main reason for collective delusion, just as for individual delusion is to create a system of mind (moods plus thoughts) that binds.

Thus, the fundamental reason for the collective to bind through delusion is aggression. Either real, or potential. Exclusion and alienation are aggressions. Mass delusions enable them.

Mass delusions such as various sects of Abraham (the word ‘sect’ comes from cutting: chopping heads is what sects do best).

Mass delusions are obsessive about aggression. Be it supposedly for resisting aggression (real or imagined), or committing it, in any case, making it as the big thing in life, worth deluding one’s mind, just to identify as a group, and enjoy the pleasures thereof.

Delusion such as: ’I am the Elected People, not that’s me; I prove it, by exterminating you, etc.’

When a religious group goes around, exhibiting its religious appurtenance, it exhibits its delusion. Thus, implicitly, its aggression.

And size matters. Because the size of a threat matters: when groups of predators fight each other, say lions versus hyenas, generally the side with the greatest total mass wins.

This is why French public schools forbid religious symbols of more than such and such a size, or why schools in Britain impose uniforms (and that’s even better).

WE ARE ALL SCIENTISTS; “BELIEVERS” KNOW THEY ARE DELUDED:

Believers know they are deluded, deep down inside. That’s why they are so aggressive, when confronted to their incoherence.

In Copenhagen last week, an Islamist assassin shot at a Freedom of Expression meeting, killing and wounding, and then repeated the performance at a Synagogue, killing and wounding. In a freezing rain, 500 deluded fanatics came to the killer’s burial. Let’s hope the police and secret services took a lot of pictures.

Experience shows fanaticism makes a universe most pleasant to those who dominate it.

Experience is what gives us a ground for all our propositions. This is important, because it means, whether they know it, or not, all human beings are scientists.

This is why the notion of “believer” has been introduced. It, all by itself, is a delusion. A deliberate, collective delusion, to create the group (and then proceed with some crusade, jihad, ghetto).

“Believers” are precisely those who believe in NOT applying science, for the most important metaprinciples.

However, what they have to apply every day to function as animals, and full human beings, is based on what is called “the scientific method”, but which is simply common sense, systematized industrially.

Thus “believers” fundamentally, do not believe!

Patrice Ayme’

Mahomet Hebdo

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

{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’

Santa Claus A Good Superstition

We all need superstition, because by defining what is “super“, it helps to define the ground we stand on (the mathematical model is sheaf theory: reality id the base space, superstition, the sheaf).

We can teach Santa and a few other things to children, just so they know about lying, even from the most trusted, and that even lying, can have some positive aspects (although transparency is better).

The Santa Claus legend also teaches that there are innocent superstitions and magic… And the Santa Claus legend, or the like, imprints children upon a higher order of things, a just universe rewarding the good. And that point, a superstition, is a good superstition, which helps society, and which is even correct, evolutionary speaking.

Thus some superstitions, have got to be much less welcome. And it teaches to reject appearances, however nice.

To help children discover what is real, we have to teach them what is unreal and even lead them to gently believe, sort of, what is not. Discovering where reality lays, by discovering what is not true is not a science reserved to science. It’s something we discover in childhood. Santa Claus, and his ineluctable dismissal, teaches skepticism, a good thing. Learning the magic of giving and receiving is also a good thing.

This being said, I have not talked much about Santa Claus to my own 5 year old daughter. Why? Because I continually tell her about the many marvelous and magical things of the real world, such as wild life documentaries, or imagined versions of the real world (many cartoons, some of them prize winning Japanese, or movies, some Indian, some Chinese, some Star Wars, etc…)

Nevertheless the 25 centuries old tradition of the Solstice Tree and feast, and the gifts it brings ought to be most respected and important. And it’s also an occasion of learning about the Solstice, that is the heliocentric system and the magical ecliptic.

How do I reconcile my tolerance for Santa Claus with my crackdown on Christianism and Islamism? Well, Santa Claus is not a myth full grown men are supposed to believe in, and go kill people in his name. It’s a myth to grow out of, all the wiser.

Christianism, and Islamism’s moral systems, reduced to the parts compatible with human ethology, are fine with me. Actually I am ready to admire some of their practitioners.

Actually the present Pope just made an excellent blast against the diseases of the Church, which I totally approve. (And said blast can be generalized well beyond the Church.)

The Dark Side is strong, such is its main asset, the ability of doing what is necessary. And if it means using Christianism and Islamism, or the Pope, to advance correct human ethology against plutocracy, that’s all right with me.

The ends certainly justify the means, if they are incommensurate in the right way.

Patrice Ayme’

Why Christianism Fosters Demons

The Christo-Islamist god does not do with just Satan, but a whole army of demons, fallen angels, or “djinns”. This is not an accident, but its core strategy.

An excellent essay in Scientia Salon: an official guide for demon hunters with a helpful advice from philosophers and witch hunters illustrates this. History is how philosophy ought to be done. No history, no philosophy.

Why? Because philosophy is about the deepest reasons. The deepest reasons have to be hunted down in history always. (Yes, even in science, see note.)

I will explain why the extreme cruelty and terror found in several famous religions are not accidental by-products, but essential to the core of these superstitious systems.

Notre Dame Gargoyles Watch Over Paris To Make Sure Of Extirpating Whatever Needs Extirpation

Some have the religion of religions. They worship the idea. The idea of religion. Of course, they have an agenda; it could be Tibetan Buddhism (with its demons), or the Christo-Islamist god, who absolutely needs a fig leaf. And the name of that fig leaf was Satan (or Shatan, namely Hades, Pluto, or Ba’al, refurbished, with a fresh Dark Side coat).

There is a funny passage in the Qur’an where Allah (Arabic word for the Christo-Islamist Jewish god) warns about asking him questions about his business with Shatan and Djinns. He hints darkly that those who ask too many question will end in the fire (where they will be burned until their skin falls off; then their skin will grow back, and they will be thrown in the fire again; apparently the Qur’an anticipated stem cell treatments yet to come!)

There are religions, and religions. Generally, when talking to some primitive about religion, she or he assumes, naturally, that one talks about her, or his religion. But maybe 10,000 religions are known. 99.99% of them grossly violate human rights, and are criminal systems of thoughts and mood. Once again, that’s no accident: religion is all about plutocracy, and plutocracy all about the demonic side of man.

When religious people talk about “religion”, and request respect, they don’t mean that we should respect the Aztecs’ religion: they never heard of it. Or, if they did, they don’t realize what it means.

Religion’s idea comes from the Latin “religio”, itself contained in re-ligare: to bind together again. We The People, bound again together. To what? To whom? To us again?

Religions basically come under two variants: those which bind to rationality, and those which bind to irrationality, that is, to madness.

By “madness” here, I mean any altered state of consciousness. I am a mountaineer and a mountain runner. I have run very long, say in Iran, at 10,000 feet, in a one way solitary run I had to complete to save myself. The heat was great, blood was seeping through my running shoes. I felt nothing. This sort of altered state of consciousness, evolution given stoicism, is routine for tough mountain climbers, who are familiar with slipping out of cracks from blood seeping out of their bodies, while keeping a happy smirk on their faces.

Why would one bind to rationality? Because, without rationality, there is no survival. Homo has been mostly selected for increasing rational performance over the last 5 million years.

Civilization blossomed this in the idea of democracy. The republic is the fundamental religion, as it effectively was for the Romans, for centuries (in co-existence with superstitious cults, such as the original Roman one).

Why would one bind to irrationality? Because, once We The People has become irrational, in other words, dumb, it can easily be manipulated into subservience.

Hence superstition. “Superstitio” was used derisively by the Christians against Pagans as early as the Fourth Century. However, the concept is “what stands above”… the world. In other words, what cannot be objective.

Superstitious religions are there to terrify people, and force them into abject subjugation, so they all have demons, as the Punic religion did, or the Aztecs.

The Aztecs, thanks to tearing the hearts of their live prisoners out, had kept the nations around them in a state of fear of these “flower wars”.

Just as Islam is about peace, Christianity about love, the Aztecs’ gods were about… flowers. (Once, to inaugurate the greatest temple so far, they tore 80,000 hearts out, in five days, a remarkable pre-industrial feat.)

The Aztecs were horrified by the torture of the Christians. As far as they were concerned, Christianity was a torture religion, perfectly symbolized by the torture instrument the Christians brandished, the cross. Christians will be surprised to learn this. Of course. Gods, imagination, and machinations go very well together.

Christian minds have been well engineered together into the herd instinct.

Terrified people obey their masters well. And if that is not enough, the Christians, later imitated by the Muslims, would exert what (“Saint”) Augustine referred approvingly as “great violence”. By the time Augustine recommended “great violence”, the executions of those-who-had-chosen (= “heretics”) were routine.

This is how the Christians took an empire which was mostly Pagan and Neo-Platonic by storm: by killing millions. And this is also why, ever since, they speak of the persecutions they suffered before that: because the later were relatively puny: only 6 Christians were executed under Marcus Aurelius. Some emperors may have been closet Christians, well before Galerius executed 3,000 Christians, in the worst persecution, around 306 CE (which he rescinded later)..

Christianity and its parrot, Islam, have killed tens of millions, in their names.

Now they don’t want their names to be their names, a bit like homosexuals don’t want to not be called gays, otherwise they would be rather sad.

That’s why their sacred texts enshrine the power of ultimate violence, when they do not call to exert it, outright. That’s why they are, under the guise of fearing them, a cult of demons.

The Cathars said nothing else. So the Christians exterminated them, millions of them, down to the last one. And also all those who lived in the same cities, just to make sure:

“Dieu reconnaitra les siens!”: kill them all, God will recognize his own, the commander of the Crusade is alleged to have ordered. This most ferocious of all Crusades happened on French soil. Don’t expect the masters to remember that. Although not respected as much as Islamism, Christianism is still up there in the pantheon of values in the West (go ask people what they think of Saint Louis or Luther: they will express reverence for these master thinkers of Hitler.)

Superstitions such as Christianism and Islamism, who include divinely mighty demons are demoniac, it’s a fact. And that’s why Allah does not want to talk about it, lest we ponder his bloody hand, and the company he keeps.

We have seen demons. They helped the Caliphs kill those who did not believe. They helped emperors love the church demoniacally.

You don’t want demons? Bring back reason.

But not any reason. Before he decided to invade Ukraine, Putin’s approval rating was 65%. Now it’s 86%: Russia has become mad with war frenzy. One of the reasons why religions full of demons are popular, is that demonic behavior itself is popular: people with nothing better to do, will get on the warpath. Not just for the spoils (material riches, eternal life) but also because that’s the way people are.

All the way to viewing irrationality as a right. Right as a vacation from the human condition.

Patrice Ayme’

***

Note about history and philosophy: Many problems more or less scientifically solved recently have their roots in Ancient Philosophy, which first brandished them. An example is the incompleteness theorems in logic (they grew from the Cretan Liar paradox, as I have explained in the past). Zeno’s paradox is another. Or even Archimedes’ infinitesimal method.

I could make here a digression in physics. Physics, ultimately, is about history. The lab tests what has been determined, historically, as important. Roughly all of the physics system of thought, articulated around equations, superficially observed, is actually historical: even the axioms of Quantum physics have their ultimate justification in history, not experimentation as all too many naïve physicists… believe. Yes, believe, as a Jihadist believes: closing one’s mind is not the exclusive province of superstitious fanatics.

Tribes is where the power lays, and not just in the Middle East. Those who are viewed as brandishing the right ideas climb up the hierarchy of power.