Archive for the ‘Islam’ Category

Islam: Religion Of Fighting, Says Caliph!

June 10, 2017

[Those who are tired of my all too learned discourses, should go directly to the smart, yet simple, video linked below; and suffer through the first minute of half deserved “conservative” rant, before the interesting part.]

Strange Disease Of Islamophilia Condemned By Youth, At Last!

The admiration for, and lies about, Literal Islam, is the miracle which keeps on giving. To world plutocrats.

Islam took over what had been, for millennia, the richest, most innovative and most civilized part of the world, and turned it into the poorest, dumbest, and most war-torn wastes, until oil was found. Any question?

Well, some had questions. As the president of Senegal, Abu Diouf, said, Saudi style, Salafist Wahhabi Islam is “not my religion”. This is why 100 severely different versions of Islam were created. In opposition to Salafist Islam. However, Salafist Islam is now propelled by Arabian oil (and Wall Street, and Washington power standing behind since the 1930s: the swamp Trump talks about is full of oil…) 

The Caliph has spoken. In Some Ways, The “Islamist State” Is More Honest Than Main Stream Intellectuals In The West

A young and slick Utuber looked into ‘Avallone Hunter’,  looked into Islam, and made a good job at it. He particularly got it right on “moderate Muslims”, who, according to the Qur’an are hypocrites, thus to be killed. Anyway, the video is good, once you pass the gratuitous attack and passing conflation of “progressives” with their opposites, at the beginning of the work (I am a progressive, so I didn’t appreciate that!)

Do not despair of youth: they learn. Showing in great numbers, contrarily to habit, and expectations, the less than 24 years old just helped Theresa May, the plutocratic fanatic UK PM, lose her majority in the UK Parliament. The youth in the UK is pro-Europe and anti-xenophobic. They know more, and have a more appropriate mood than their elders. Alleluia! Terrorism will go away, once the youth is aware of why it appeared in the first place.

The “West” by the way, is the descendant, in more ways than one, some cultural, some genetics, of that richest, most innovative, and most civilized part of the world, which I call not the Middle East, but the Middle Earth, because it is what it is.

Italians are partly, genetically, Iraqis: Mesopotamians migrated over to the north shore of the Mediterranean, with their bio-engineered grain and know-how, bringing themselves and agriculture. 5,000 years before Greek civilization. This migration was recently genetically traced through the islands of the Aegean. Much “Greek” math was Egyptian, Sumer cities, 5,000 years ago, started the alphabet, and “Europa” was a Phoenician Princess (who travelled over to present day Europe; actually she would have been kidnapped…)

Considering the logic of Islam, it’s easy to see why all the gold it touches turns to poisonous mercury. Islam is an essentially hypocritical faith, saying science has to be pursued, but then “disbelievers” have to be killed. That’s, at best, absurd: how can one develop science without disbelief? How can want to develop science without feeling that creation, as it happened, is not perfect, but, instead, requires thorough explanation?Doesn’t Islam say we should stick to revelation, as transmitted by Mr. Messenger, an epileptic analphabet hallucinating in the desert?

Islam seems to have aimed at making into a capital offense all and any behavior that would not make Muslims reproduce like rabbits, to feed those vast armies of conquerors and jihadists. So women are supposed to be baby machines, and any man not inclined to engross them, within strict guidelines, is a traitor.

This all happened in the lifetime of one person. The Ferocity Of Islam Insured Fast, Gigantic Conquests, Before Resistance Could Be Mustered. After the tremendous defeats of Islam at the hands of the Franks, Islam was broken, never to grow again until very recently… (Except for the conquest of Turkey, and the slow drip into Africa…)

Islam is the war religion par excellence, and Adolf Hitler admired it for that.

The irony, of course, is that the Islam superstition, by separating men and women, is intrinsically homosexual: after, men are supposed to be with men, and women, with women. Actually, it’s even better than that:  women are supposed to be out of sight. So Muslim men intrinsically only love to have around other men, they have androphilia (men loving men).

The ferocity with which homosexuals are killed in Islam is precisely because Islam is so homosexual. It’s both a lie and a lifeline. An attempt to disguise what is going while avoiding the accusation of sodomy by the West which helped to destroy the Aztecs.

Violence in Islam is no accident, coincidence or consequence. It’s intrinsic. Violence, the violence of armies, is what made Islam possible. In a few years, Islam conquered the largest empire the world had ever known. Precisely because those who (claim to) die for Allah are promised paradise.

The question then becomes: why did such a monster superstition become an object of adoration on the part of so many intellectuals in the West?

Because many intellectuals in the West developed a hatred for civilization, shortly before or coincident and causally related to Stalinism, Nazism, Fascism and Maoism… Much of the anti-colonialist struggle, however justified, resorted to hating civilization all together… Although it’s civilization which had made it possible in the first place!

Many intellectuals became rich, powerful and influential this way. Hating civilization became their business model. And in Islam they found an ideology which had been created to hate the “West”, the Greco-Roman empire, and also the other civilization, the Persian Sassanid empire. Muhammad led the first attack against Rome. Within ten years, Persia was destroyed and the richest parts of the Roman empire had been conquered by the Islamists.

Muhammad didn’t see it: he died by surprise, in great pain, screaming on his deathbed in Mecca, for days, that he had been poisoned. By fellow Muslims.

That’s the drawback of a lethal, dictator friendly religion: it kills a lot.

So many Western intellectuals loved Islam, because Islam hated the “West”, and they, themselves, made a (dishonest) profession of hating the “West” (which fed them so well). The hater of my enemy is my friend, some say, forgetting about crocodiles, which show that the eater of their enemy is not really friendly. So did Hitler love Islam, and hate the “West”. In general, plutocrats hate civilization, so they are natural enemies of Islam.

The Qur’an orders to follow dictators as if they were god, as long as they are Muslims… Consider:

US oilmen and sneaky British imperialists saw, as early as the 1930s, that they would gain by instrumentalizing Islam. So here we are. All Islam propaganda goes through Western fibers and satellites.

The problem of Islam is thus way larger than just Islam. Yes, Islam is the religion of desert raiding, it was established that way by a caravan raider. Yes, Islam is ideal for brutal military conquerors, and dictators, thus many of these, from the Turks to the Mongols, adopted it. But Islam is more than that. Islam is an ideology, one of many, of the sort which serve a much bigger species of monsters, always devouring civilizations. Islam is the tool of something maximally monstrous: unchained, free ranging plutocracy.  

Let’s finish on a lighter, enlightening note on how public opinion gets durably molded. I just saw a Suisse Romande report on what happened in 1971, when six high level reporters and producers were fired from TSR (called RTS now), the state (and only) French-speaking TV in Switzerland.

The present Swiss TV, RTS was able to access the documentation of the time, and interviewed both the leftists and the police officers, or their superiors, involved at the time. Basically what happened is that there was a “political police” in Switzerland (it was secret that there was a political police). So important TV personalities and producers were followed by the secret police and information was gathered anonymously (as Google, Facebook and company are doing now). Patterns were established: some were living with someone else while not married, some were heard saying things which were deemed to be revolutionary. In the end the secret police sent a list of six persons, asking them to be fired. The TV TSR did so. TSR accused the six of “subversion and sabotage“. It was alleged that they had relations with foreign powers (Cuba).

The six fired alleged defamation (in truth they were simple middle class, with nearly no rebellious spirit about them, and no connection with organizations or foreign powers). There was a trial for defamation; the chief of the federal police (equivalent to the FBI) came and said the TSR was justified, so the judges sided with the TV channel. All of this happened because those six wrote TV shows disturbing to the political class. (They more or less won in appeal, because the Federal police chief was unwilling to reveal a secret police was spying on the citizenry). However those six and others connected to them were excluded from TV, and thus wide influence, for the next thirty years… These sorts of manipulations is happening all over the world, making sure that We The People think and feels just what the ascending plutocracy cares about (like sport teams scores).

To this day, one of two principals in this affair, Rene’ Schenker, says that he cannot tell what happened, because if he did, justice would have to re-open an inquiry. The other principal obeying orders from above says that: “Yes, we fired with canon at flies“.  This is still happening. Look at the New York Times: it bans all my comments, one of many media to do so. The idea is that my ideas and observations should not be known. Probably thousands of others are in the same situation (interesting commenters have disappeared at the NYT). However, the New York Times enjoys privileges (say sits in attendance at the White House). Thus a propaganda system is established: Islamophobia is racism, Obama is a great progressive, etc… If Islamophobia is racist, any analysis of why Islam, that enemy of the Middle Earth, re-appeared, coincident with the supremacy of oil and Wall Street, and the discussion of the deal with Abdulaziz Ibn Saud in 1945, is excluded. And so on.

Last week, I read some extracts of the Qur’an to good, left, progressive, socialist, rabidly pro-Clinton voters, sensitive souls who cried when Trump got elected instead. It was a little experiment, but I was surprised by their overwhelming incredulity. They were astounded, they were aghast, they couldn’t believe it, their gaping mouths went into huge Os. They were so astounded, they thought I was making it up, and they came over to read the Qur’an by themselves. They had never did it before, but they though they knew Islam… Strange times, indeed… All too many people do not even know what it is to know. They feel they know, what they couldn’t possibly know… except if they believed fully whatever the authorities want them to believe.

Patrice Ayme’

Orders To Kill Non Muslims Are Found Early In Qur’an

June 5, 2017

One can’t understand Islamist fanaticism, without understanding Christianism, its prologue and paradigm. On the face of it, Islamophilia is the sort of mood we didn’t have since Roman Emperor Constantine, under the skeptical eye of his Frankish shock troops, imposed his Christianophilia on the gigantic empire. How? Christianism has it that non-believers should be killed. That was made into law by Roman emperor Theodosius in 390 CE.

See: Luke 19:27: Don’t Ask What God Can Do For You, Ask Who You Can Kill In His Name?

From this, this lethal stupidification, the empire would collapse within a generation (by 400 CE). Later, the Franks would acquire full power, re-impose tolerance. Christianofascism would return to the core of the (Franco-Germano-Roman) empire only in 1026 CE, when, for the first time in five centuries or so, half a dozen people got executed for heresy. Soon the Christians would kill millions, probably dozens of millions, from Ireland to Jerusalem. Now the Islamists execute non-believers (a sort even the Christians would not kill; heretics and non-believers were two different notions!) Islamists execute Islamists all over Western Europe. Whereas it started with six or so in 1026 CE, the Islamists have killed and wounded thousands in two years, in Europe:

Extermination of civilians for all to see…

Why do (some) Muslims kill non-Muslims with so much gusto? Because they read the Qur’an, and this is what is ordered there. And it’s not restricted to the Verse of the Sword (Surah 9, verse 5). A Palestinian friend, Lalo Dagach, who believes that Islam is a huge problem, for so-called “Muslims”, and progress in general, took three pictures from just the first, and most pacific, chapter of the Qur’an. I reproduce those pictures below. For a full complement, consider “Violence In Holy Qur’an“. (You will see that homosexuals should be stoned; And remember the Hadith is much more violent, even observing that all Jews have to be called before Last Judgement!)

There are orders to kill non-Muslims as early as the first chapter of the Qur’an, the Surah 2, called “The Cow”:

Need I say More?

Those who disbelieve will have great torment“. It’s also possible to disbelieve while believing one believes, by deceiving God, the believers, and oneself. God has put disease in their hearts. “Agonizing torment awaits for them“… This is in page 5 of the Holy Qur’an… It’s not like it’s hidden somewhere obscure…

More of the same

“Fire is prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is men…” This is in page 6 of the super Holy Qur’an…

This on page 7 of the Holy Qur’an…

By the way, The Cow, which we are quoting here, is considered to be a very pacific, innocuous and docile part of the Qur’an, and it is…

What of this calling to cull all Jews? Hadith 41;685: …”Allah’s Messenger… : The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will FIGHT against the Jews and the Muslims would KILL them…”

Teaching, preaching, presenting all this as the ultimate reality should be viewed as thought crime. When directed at children, it should be viewed as the worst corruption, bar none. Amen. That does not mean that it should be proscribed as fiction. No, not at all, quite the opposite. As fiction it should prescribed, not proscribed.

Make no mistake: I love the Qur’an. I also love the original movie “Alien”, where a space monster eats astronauts. I love the Qur’an more, because it’s substance is much richer. More things happen: Allah gets advice from Djinns, debate with Shatan (Satan = Pluto = Hades). We humans, Allah tells us, “should not ponder these sort of things because Allah knows, and you do not.” Allah also makes those who talk too much drink molten lead, and enjoys deluding humanity. Apparently, once enough humanity has been deluded, there will be plenty to “skin alive, and then regrow their skins, to be able to skin them again”…

There have been problem gods before: contemplate the Aztecs Huichilobos. Huichilobos encouraged Montezuma and his successor to resist Cortez forcefully. At some point 66 Spaniards captured in battle were sacrificed on top of the tallest cue of Mexico, in full view of the Spanish army. There, on top of that double headed giant extremly tall pyramids, the Spaniards were forced to dance, before their living, beating hearts were torn out. The destruction of Mexico (that was the name of the city) was caused by the belief in Huichilobos (and the priest who were the Messengers of his orders). Cortes and his captains insisted that Mexico was being destroyed, stone house by stone house, canal by canal, just because the Aztecs kept on listening to that devil of Huichilobos.

The Spaniards filled the canals with the house debris, so that they had fields of fire and flat ground for the armored cavalry. Civilization can’t be denied, especially when enraged.

The annihilation of Mexico itself created a precedent of annihilation which enabled (some of) the Spaniards, later to annihilate other nations of Mesoamerica which had not been aggressive towards the Spaniards (that was viewed as a war crime at the time in Spain). Violence breeds violence.

Five Arabic speaking nations are starting tomorrow a sort of economic blockade of Qatar, accusing it to foster terrorism through financing of terrorist networks, including Al Qaeda and the Islamist State. The nations taking sanctions are Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen…

The blockade is total: Saudi Arabia revoked the licence of Qatar Airways, Qatar citizens have two weeks to leave Saudi Arabia. People in Qatar are rushing supermarkets to store food. Most Qatar food comes through Saudi Arabia. (Amusingly, and tellingly, Qatar has huge investments in France, something long harshly criticized therein…)

Very good, and a good consequence from Trump’s visit. However, as I have pointed out forever and a day, for many years,  the present Islamist resurrection was a tool deployed initially by British imperialists and especially US oilmen and their Wall Street accomplices. To this day, most of this propaganda passes through media (fibers and satellites) exclusively controlled by western plutocracy. There is the choice, and thus the Achilles Heel…

But first the Western thinkers need to understand that Islamophilia is an attempt to make us all brutish and stupid… (Not to say that British, or Western plutocracy is not insufferable and brutish; but please notice that plutocrats are not those being assassinated…)

Patrice Ayme’

Hirsi Ali: Fight Violent, Post-622 CE Islam.

April 9, 2017

Voltaire: Crush Infamy!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Islam’s Most Eloquent Apostate, Warns That West Is Wrong About The Nature Of Islam’s Threat. The West’s obsession with ‘terror’ has been a mistake, she argues. Dawah, the ideology behind Islam Terror, is the broader, and truly fundamental threat. (This is the position I held for more than a decade.)


Ever More Muslim Crazies Are Embracing Ever More Hardcore Islam:

Anybody who reads the basic “Recitation” (Qur’an) of Islam in full, unabridged, unmanipulated edition, knows that it apparently very explicitly said there that those who fight, or kill (otherwise undefined) “unbelievers” and “pagans” will go to “paradise”. More and more angry Muslims are discovering this truth about Islam, long occulted by those who sciolistically pretended that Islam was just “a religion of peace”. Hence the continual attacks, which, themselves are just a symptom of a deeper problem (consider Turkey’s drift towards crazed tyranny, one political manipulation at a time, to see what I mean…)

Just in the first two weeks of Spring 2017, there were deadly or potentially lethal Muslim plots and attacks in England, Belgium, France, Sweden, Norway, Egypt (excluding the war theaters of Iraq and Syria). Attacks killed or gravely wounded dozens (more than 45 Christians in, or in front, of churches, were killed in Egypt alone on April 9, 2017; one attack aimed at killing the Coptic Pope, was thwarted by police, massacring eleven dead, and much more gravely wounded). It does not have to do with an ideology called “terror”: there is no such a thing, whatever the Kenyan thought. On the other hand, there is something called “Islam”, and it has everything to do with those attacks. Ms. Ali now explains this with a detail similar to the one I have used for more than a decade (I am a partisan of the original Islam found in Senegal). 

The Fifth Person Killed In The London Fanatic Muslim Attack Of March 2017. Romanian Architect Andreea Cristea Fell In the Thames (behind her) Thrown There By the SUV Driven By English Born On Muslim Jihad Against Unbelievers. She Died After More Than A Week’s Agony In A London Hospital. A Similar Attack Followed In Stockholm Within Days


Ayaan Hirsi Ali, born a Muslim in Somalia in 1969, is Islam’s most eloquent apostate: As a Somali Muslim woman she was submitted to extreme abuse, including genital mutilation. She escaped to civilization, and was accepted as a refugee there, later to be elected as a MP. However, European authorities did not take her security as well as necessary. Famous Dutch citizens and intellectuals (Leo Van Gogh, an example) were cruelly assassinated by Muslims, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to flee to the USA (there are at least ten times more Muslims in Western Europe than in North America).

Ms. Hirsi Ali is a research fellow in Stanford and was interviewed there for the Wall Street Journal by another researcher, Mr. Varadarajan, a research fellow in journalism at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. I liberally quoted Hirsi Ali’s answers in what follows.


Watch Your Tongue: Islam May Fatwa You To Death:

Ayaan can’t go anywhere, at any time of day, without a bodyguard. Indeed, Ali is soft-spoken, perfectly logical, cogent, she is the most dangerous foe of Islamism in the Occident.

Hirsi Ali has multiple fatwas on her head.

Fatwa is one of the greatest beauty of Islam. A fatwa is a decree by a Muslim, any Muslim. A fatwa can even be proffered by a Muslim, in the name of Islam, proclaiming that someone has to be killed: no need to be a Muslim priest or something like that, because Islam proclaims it has no priests (avert your eyes from Mullahs, Ayatollahs, Muftis, Marabouts, Imams, etc.). Fatwa literally meanshe gave a formal legal opinion on“. Thus anyone who believes he has Islamist legal training can proclaim a fatwa.

Thanks to the Fatwa Principle, any Muslim low life can hope to get anybody killed. Islam is the great equalizer: any sharp critique standing above can be destroyed (this effective capability to exterminate all and any serious intellectual is why, although the greatest empire ever for a millennium, in possession of all the Greco-Roman inheritance it had stolen, and most of india, Islam  generated nearly no discovery on its own). 

Theo van Gogh (1957–2004), a relative of the world-famous painter Vincent van Gogh, was a famous Dutch film director who collaborated with Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the short film Submission (2004). Theo was assassinated the same year by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Moroccan-Dutch Muslim, in a particularly gory murder. The assassin planted a knife in the dying Theo’s chest, pinning this way a letter explaining that Ayaan Hirsi Ali was next.


Reform Islam Thoroughly; Senegal Did It:

Ali used to declare Islam to be incapable of reform,while also calling on Muslims to convert or abandon religion altogether. That was incorrect: some need the crutches of superstition. Moreover, and more importantly, Islam, as practiced in West Africa, especially Senegal, was fully compatible with the Twentieth-First Century, even more so than the most advanced Christianism (I was raised in the middle of that completely open-minded Islam)

Now Ali believes that Islam can indeed be reformed.

Ali has been trying to introduce notions such as “Mecca Muslims.” These are the faithful who prefer the gentler version of Islam “originally promoted by Muhammad” before 622 CE. That was the year Muhammad fled to Medina and his religion took a militant and unlovely turn towards violence.

At the same time, Ms. Hirsi Ali urges the World to look at Islam with new eyes. She says Islam is “not just a religion, but also as a political ideology”. To regard Islam merely as a faith, “as we would Christianity or Buddhism, is to run the risk of ignoring dawa, the activities carried out by Islamists to keep Muslims energized by a campaign to impose Shariah law on all societies—including countries of the West.” 

Islam Terror Not Subjugating Ayaan Hirsi Ali Yet. Genitally Mutilated As A Child, But Mentally Unbowed, Blossoming Above The Abusive Brutes


Dawah, the Propaganda Of Hard Core Islam,

Ms. Hirsi Ali explains, Dawah is “conducted right under our noses in Europe, and in America. It aims to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and also to push existing Muslims in a more extreme direction.” The ultimate goal of Dawah is “to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with Shariah,  a never-ending process. It ends when an Islamic utopia is achieved. Shariah everywhere!

Up to 622 CE, Muhammad had to be nice: he was living in Mecca, and the dominant tribe of the Quraish (to which he belonged!) was not amused by his antics of epileptic analphabetic under the influence of a Christian monk, his cousin, threatening Mecca’s religious tourism with his home-made religion. So in 622 CE the self-described “Messenger of God” fled to Yattrib (now Medina), and spent the next decade living off war and raids on Meccan caravans, or the Roman empire.

As a result all the Qur’an written after 622 CE is mostly about the virtues of the morality of a hard-core desert raider: lie, kill, terrorize, go to heavens. And also proclaim these virtues to be the highest, thus introducing the notion of “abrogation” of the earlier Meccan verses by the post-622 CE verses. So, for example the famous Verse of the Sword (Surah 5, verse 59), which orders to kill apostates (like Ms. Hirsi Ali), unbelievers, pagans, abrogates (renders moot, overrides) the pacific verses about tolerance, not imposing religion, etc.

Here it is, just as a reminder:

“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

That verse is accompanied by an entire flotilla of similar verses, supporting it. The Verse of the Sword, had it be written when Muhammad was in Mecca, would have brought Muhammad’s immediate execution (as dangerous terrorist). As it were, Muhammad was condemned to home arrest, under the penalty of death. He escaped by having his son-in-law and cousin Ali put on Muhammad’s characteristic mantle, and go to Muhammad’s bed disguised that way.

In the end, Muhammad’s tyranny did not escape punishment. At least so thought Muhammad. The self-described “Messenger of God” fell ill by surprise, at the age of 62. In bed for days, he died, screaming he had been poisoned.


Focus On Islam, not Terror, Says Ali; Comparing Algeria and Senegal:

Ms. Hirsi Ali observes that the West made a colossal mistake by obsessing with “terror” since 9/11.

In focusing only on acts of violence, we’ve ignored the Islamist ideology underlying those acts. By not fighting a war of ideas against political Islam—or ‘Islamism’—and against those who spread that ideology in our midst, we’ve committed a blunder.

Actually the mistake was made much earlier than that, and, like all deep mistakes, it was made by the French. Full stop, let’s back up? That would take us back, deep in history. During the Franco Algerian civil war, everybody focused on the violence (of both sides). Nobody focused on the problem of Islam itself. Indeed, how come the Jews of North Africa had become perfect French and the Muslims not?

The fundamental mistake was made by the French who honored an agreement made with Abdel Kader, early in the context of the conquest of Algeria: Abdel Kader surrendered, but only if the French state agree to never touch Islam.

No such an accord was signed in Senegal (where the French state interfered massively with Islam).


“What the Islamists call jihad is what we call terrorism,”

Adds Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “and our preoccupation with it is, I think, a form of overconfidence. ‘Terrorism is the way of the weak,’ we tell ourselves, ‘and if we can just take out the leaders and bring down al Qaeda or ISIS, then surely the followers will stop their jihad.’ But we’re wrong. Every time Western leaders take down a particular organization, you see a different one emerge, or the same one take on a different shape. And that’s because we’ve been ignoring dawa.”

As Mr. Varadarajan it in the WSJ:

Ms. Hirsi Ali wants the world to get away from this game of jihadi Whac-A-Mole and confront “the enemy that is in plain sight—the activists, the Islamists, who have access to all the Western institutions of socialization.” She chuckles here: “That’s a horrible phrase . . . ‘institutions of socialization’ . . . but they’re there, in families, in schools, in universities, prisons, in the military as chaplains. And we can’t allow them to pursue their aims unchecked.”

America needs to be on full alert against political Islam because “its program is fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution”—with religious pluralism, the equality of men and women, and other fundamental rights, including the toleration of different sexual orientations. “When we say the Islamists are homophobic,” she observes, “we don’t mean that they don’t like gay marriage. We mean that they want gays put to death.”

Islam the religion, in Ms. Hirsi Ali’s view, is a Trojan horse that conceals Islamism the political movement. Since dawa is, ostensibly, a religious missionary activity, its proponents “enjoy a much greater protection by the law in free societies than Marxists or fascists did in the past.” Ms. Hirsi Ali is not afraid to call these groups out. Her book names five including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which asserts—and in turn receives in the mainstream media—the status of a moderate Muslim organization. But groups like CAIR, Ms. Hirsi Ali says, “take advantage of the focus on ‘inclusiveness’ by progressive political bodies in democratic societies, and then force these societies to bow to Islamist demands in the name of peaceful coexistence.”


Multiculturalism Is The Useful Idiocy Islamism Uses:

Ali’s strategy to fight dawah evokes parallels with the fight against Stalinism. Islamism has the help of “useful idiots”—Lenin’s concept—such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has denounced Ms. Hirsi Ali as an “extremist.” She sees that smear as a success for dawah: “They go to people like the SPLC and say, ‘Can we partner with you, because we also want to talk about what you guys talk about, which is civil rights. And Muslims are a minority, just like you.’ So, they play this victim card, and the SPLC swallows it. And it’s not just them, it’s also the ACLU. The Islamists are infiltrating all these institutions that were historic and fought for rights. It’s a liberal blind spot.”

Western liberals, she says, are also complicit in Islamist cultural segregation. She recalls a multiculturalist catchphrase from her years as a Somali refugee in Amsterdam in the early 1990s: “ ‘Integrate with your own identity,’ they used to tell us—Integratie met eigen identiteit. Of course, that resulted in no integration at all.”


Use The Same Methods Against Islamism As Against Stalinism:

Ms. Hirsi Ali wants the Trump administration—and the West more broadly—to counter the dawa brigade “just as we countered both the Red Army and the ideology of communism in the Cold War.” She is alarmed by the ease with which, as she sees it, “the agents of dawa hide behind constitutional protections they themselves would dismantle were they in power.” She invokes Karl Popper, the great Austrian-British philosopher who wrote of “the paradox of tolerance.” Her book quotes Popper writing in 1945: “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

I ask Ms. Hirsi Ali what her solution might be, and she leans once more on Popper, who proposed a right not to tolerate the intolerant. “Congress must give the president—this year, because there’s no time to lose—the tools he needs to dismantle the infrastructure of dawa in the U.S.” Dawah has become an existential menace to the West, she adds, because its practitioners are “working overtime to prevent the assimilation of Muslims into Western societies. It is assimilation versus dawa. There is a notion of ‘cocooning,’ by which Islamists tell Muslim families to cocoon their children from Western society. This can’t be allowed to happen.”


Force Islam To Respect The Right Of Children Not To Suffer Brainwashing:

Mr. Varadarajan asked whether Ms. Hirsi Ali is proposing to give Washington enhanced powers to supervise parenting? “Yes,” she says. “We want these children to be exposed to critical thinking, freedom, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the rights of women.” She also suggests subjecting immigrants and refugees to ideological scrutiny, so as to deny entry, residence and naturalization to those “involved with, or supportive of, Islamism.”

Ironically, Ms. Hirsi Ali would modernize the “communism test” that still applies to those seeking naturalization. “I had to answer questions when I applied for US citizenship in 2013: ‘Are you, or have you ever been, a communist?’ And I remember thinking, ‘God, that was the war back then. We’re supposed to update this stuff!Potential immigrants from Pakistan or Bangladesh, for instance, should have to answer questions—‘Are you a member of the Jamat?’ and so on. If they’re from the Middle East you ask them about the Muslim Brotherhood, ‘or any other similar group,’ so there’s no loophole.”


Comparing Defanging Violent Fascist Islam To  21st-Century McCarthyism,

“Is just a display of intellectual laziness,” Ms. Hirsi Ali replies. “We’re dealing here with a lethal ideological movement and all we are using is surveillance and military means? We have to grasp the gravity of dawa. Jihad is an extension of dawa. For some, in fact, it is dawa by other means.

The U.S., Hirsi Ali believes, is in a “much weaker position to combat the various forms of nonviolent extremism known as dawa because of the way that the courts have interpreted the First Amendment”—a situation where American exceptionalism turns into what she calls an “exceptional handicap.” Convincing Americans of this may be the hardest part of Ms. Hirsi Ali’s campaign, and she knows it. Yet she asks whether the judicial attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s—themselves a reaction to the excesses of Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s—might have left the U.S. ill-equipped to suppress threats from groups that act in the name of religion.

Mr. Varadarajan asked Ms. Hirsi Ali if there’s any one thing she would wish for. “I would like to be present at a conversation between Popper and Muhammad,” she says. “Popper wrote about open society and its enemies, and subjected everyone from Plato to Marx to his critical scrutiny. I’d have liked him to subject Muhammad’s legacy to the same analysis.

“But he skipped Muhammad, alas. He skipped Muhammad.”


Sharia is mental fascism so grotesque it enforces sciolism most efficiently, just as the plutocracy needs it:

Popper “skipped” Muhammad, because he was not a first-rate philosopher in these matters. He was greatly paid and honored by the powers that be to agitate against Communism, Socialism, and all these horrors which could ambush plutocracy.

Actually the notion of “open society” was discovered not by Popper (as I long thought, having read just Popper) but by Pericles’ second wife, the philosopher Aspasia.  Voltaire was not second-rate. He wrote a play called “Muhammad or Intolerance”. The play was an attack against Christianism disguised as one against islamism. Guess what? The play cannot be played anymore, lest it offends so-called “Muslims”.

Behind Muslims are hidden the Feudal arrangements of Arabia.

Behind the Feudal arrangements of Arabia are those of Wall Street, US plutocracy, and its Deep State entanglement .

The Gold Man government, Government Sachs…


Plutocracy Was Discombobulated by The Betrayal Of Trump, But It’s Regaining Control Fast. Promoting More Puppets:

And now look at the Trump administration: Goldman Sachs is crawling all over it. Not just this, but the Assistant National Security adviser is an agent of Goldman Sachs, for all to see. She didn’t make formal studies beyond college, giving her a suitable inferiority complex, but she used to earn millions a year at Goldman Sachs, having served well politicians in Washington:  Dina Powell after her first political internship concluded, took a job with Dick Armey, the Republican Majority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives. Armey later said, “We immediately recognized her brains and her ability, and then her charm, and finally, I think somebody noticed she was gorgeous, too. Armey’s was one among a number of remarks that various governmental officials have made regarding not just her professional abilities (out of nowhere) but also her physical attractiveness (undisputable). OK, Dina speaks Arabic. Somebody speaking Arabic earning millions a year at Goldman Sachs: it looks good, in this system, this wonderfully vicious loop, this spiral down the abyss, where Arabia is a province of New York financiers…

It’s not just Obama who got selected for his looks and sciolistic brains…

Respecting literal Islam is a way to sciolism, superficial knowledge, superficial wisdom, superficial everything. All the virtues we need to enjoy plutocracy. That’s why we have so much of it. Once again, for all to see.

Instead, here is the optimal way: let’s do as the Senegalese used to do: forget the bad teaching of Muhammad which are many, and keep only the good ones, the ones oriented towards progress.

Patrice Ayme’

Islamophobia Is Historically Justified

February 16, 2017

With Islam, As With All: No Maximal Context, No Maximally Wise Truth:

Christianism, whatever its merit, was a horrendous system of ideas. Getting rid of its rule is how we should define the end of the Middle Ages. However, all along, Christianism was rarely the master. Roman secular law, was the basic organizing principle (at least for the Franks, and their paraconsistent Salic law, written by Roman lawyers; it’s this legal superiority which empowered the imperial supremacy of the Franks, ultimately.)

When Muhammad took control of Mecca, he had to concede that Mecca’s main industry, religion, would be preserved. That required him to preserve some element of the Pagan religion prior, with its 360 deities, presided by the Moon. Hence the symbolic role of the Moon in Islam. We of course love the Moon, mosques, and even a few ideas of Islam...

When Muhammad took control of Mecca, he had to concede that Mecca’s main industry, religion, would be preserved. That required him to preserve some element of the Pagan religion prior, with its 360 deities, presided by the Moon. Hence the symbolic role of the Moon in Islam. We of course love the Moon, mosques, and even a few ideas of Islam…

Recently, the self-contradicting haters of the self-adulating, self-described “left” organized an enormous march in Washington, to trump Trump (they hoped in their naivety). The organizer (one of two) was a fanatical Sharia woman, and all the pseudo-left loved the message, which is basically to subjugate women in the name of tolerance (next we will tolerate cannibalism, because it satisfies the masochistic urges of a few loud mouths paid by plutocrats, as the Sharia woman is!)

That Islamist ideas are gaining in the West means that Islam is winning the war. Time to wake up. The very latest polls in Europe show that We The People is starting to understand there has been enough tolerance for the enemies of civilization. It is time to remember that an Islamist army attacked and sacked Rome starting on 21 August, 850 CE (one of countless attacks by Islamists on the heartland of Europe from the Seventh Century until the Nineteenth Century)…


Why All The Islamophilia? Because One Hates The Enlightenment?

 Islam-love has been increasing over the last few generations. Voltaire wrote a play called “Muhammad ou L’Intolerance” (Muhammad or Intolerance), even before the American war of Independence. The anti-Muhammad play was played. It was, rightly felt to be an attack not just against Islam, but its ilk, Christianism.

Recently, the play could not be played anymore: Intolerance has become a religion. The grotesque violence ordered in the Qur’an is viewed as sacred, objecting to it, is called racism.

What happened? Well, short story, the USA and oil happened. Long story, a subtle, extensive, multigenerational conspiracy by the Deep State. When you, children, read novels, even science fiction novels, you will not encounter a tale so devious. Machiavelli is left far in the dust.

Public opinion was brain-washed, and brain-constructed, to play along.

Fortunately, public opinion in Occident is finally understanding that feeling that Islamophobia (fear of Islam) is racism is part of a racist plot to destroy civilization and create a new rule-of-the-best (that is what aristo-cracy means). A majority of Europeans are now of the opinion that Muslim immigration has to stop.

The pseudo-intellectuals will scoff. But they don’t know history. The Roman empire collapsed under immigration waves (Later German immigration waves came armed and did not take no for an answer).  

The functional equivalent of Islamophilia and Sanctuary Cities for aliens existed in the Late Roman Empire (Fourth Century). Namely the progenitor of Islam, Christianism, imposed the view that the death penalty and other severe punishments should be discontinued, and they were. Crime shot up, highways (the Via Romana) could not be used anymore, trade collapsed, plutocrats thrived (protected by their slaves, their private armies, in their vast villas and the bishop seats they owned; they did fine as immigrants terrorized other places; actually, the more terrorized We The People, the better Plutos do).

Maximally organized civilization (that is, empire, Roman, or Persian, or Chinese), progress, have been at war with a peculiar ideology for centuries. That ideology is Islam. Weirdly many who claim to be “on the left” (left of what? George Bush?) have embraced that system of thoughts (order from God, actually) which embraces most of the pitfalls civilizations should be careful not to fall into (superstition, one-man rule, sexism, war, lethal alienations of all sorts)


Truth is always relative to context. Full truth requires full facts:

Picard in Defense Issues: [There is] “a danger of knowing facts without context. It is a fact that Israel is bombing Palestine: but context is that they are only doing it in self-defense. It is a fact that Europe had colonized Islamic world: but context is that said colonialism was merely an act of self-defense against Islamic aggression. It was very successful self-defense as well, forcing Islam to fight against infidels on its own home turf, instead of coming over to fight in Europe.”

The full context, with Israel, goes back 3,200 years or so. This is also the full context of Islam, as Muhammad’s fundamental justification for Islam is that Jews and Christians were not respecting “the Book” (that is, “the Bible”, as Byblos means Book).

Another justification for Islam was given by Muhammad himself: the huge war between Rome (capital Constantinople) and Persia has left both empires at their weakest in more than 1,200 year, and the Arabs have thus their best shot at starting large-scale raids upon the rich Greco-Romans. I am not making this up: it’s in Islam’s most sacred books (Qur’an, Hadith).

Islam then proceeded to destroy Persian civilization, eradicating its 2,700 old religion, and 3,700 years of secular laws and proto-democratic systems (Sumer cities invented the bicameral system, 5,000 years ago), replacing civilization with sexist tyranny of the “Successor” (“that is what “Caliph” means).

Thus it is progress itself, not just Israel, which has been under Islamist aggression, ever since there was Islam and it thrived.

Islamists quickly destroyed the whole adult male population of Syria  in the 730s. In the following decades, Persia was annihilated as an independent civilization. However Constantinople, protected by its walls and its Grecian fire equipped Navy, was able to resist. The Islamists then conceived the plan of seizing North Africa, and then Europe from the West (ultimately, the plan was implemented somewhat accidentally, as Visigothic defenses proved weak). Spain was conquered in a few years, 20%, or more of the Catholic population was killed (although the war was between Arian Visigoths and Muslims).

By 715 CE, Muslim spearheads were fighting inside Francia (Imperium Francorum, Western Rome). In 721 CE, the Franco-Roman Dux, Eudes, fled next to Toulouse from a huge Muslim army, then caught the stretched out enemy between pincers, and annihilated it (killing around 100,000 Islamists).


Defending Against Islam, starting in the Eighth Century, Made the West Smarter, More Progressive, More Powerful, Civilized:

The Franks completely changed the nature of their society to oppose Muslim aggression. The Eighth Century was crowned by the coronation of Charlemagne as Roman emperor (with the agreement of Constantinople, then ruled by a regent). However, that was just the crown for generations of spectacular progress: the Franks nationalized the church, thus paid for the largest professional field army since the apogee of the Roman Republic. The Franks also forced the church to implement mandatory, universal education (creating the school and university systems).  

Islamists lost giant armies at Poitiers (732 CE), Narbonne (748 CE), and many smaller battles. Devoid of its dead “martyrs”, the Damascus Caliphate fell  (and was replaced by the Abbasids, Arabs who fronted for vengeful Iranians).  

Centuries of Islamist attacks against Europe and the Mediterranean were followed by centuries of counterattacks. Islamist raids, for centuries came all over France, Italy, even Switzerland. Ultimately, the Franks threw Muslims out of Italy, Sicily, while the Reconquista in Spain took 8 centuries. Vienna was besieged twice, saved at the last minute. Athens got freed from the Islamists only in 1834.

Not coincidentally, the Franks also known as the French, had just reconquered Algeria (the French authorities actually argued to the baffled, ahistorical natives, that they were reconquering in the name of Rome).

Islamist aggression against Europe would last… to this day.   


Islamophilia: A Modern Disease of the West, with a modern cause:

So how come so many in the European intellectual class are Islamophiliacs (Islam lovers, my neologism, found in undisguised analogy with hemophiliacs)?

It has to do with whom has profited from Islamophilia.  

[Hint: That crowd is not too hard to find. It’s the same one which holds the media, worldwide. It’s also two generations removed from its ancestors, who organized and nurtured fascism, and its accomplices, in so many places during the 1930s. The Deep State from way back, ancestral to the profiteers and Deep State we enjoy today.]

Islamophilia is not an accident, but an ancient mode of oppression. It works so well, it keeps on being recycled. A washing machine for brains, always handy for oppressors.

Indeed, the fear of Islam is not just historically justified. It’s also geographically justified: the region Islam has made so poor and full of strife, was the world’s richest, just prior.

It is no wonder, when one analyzes Islam: among other problems, such as a tendency to order to kill most of humanity, Islam makes, through its fascist principle, Sura 4, v 59, the apology of tyranny.

But may one should revert the logic: it is precisely because it got dessicated that the world’s richest region became most prone to a tyrannical thought system from the primitive desert.

Patrice Ayme’


April 11, 2016

Ruling Classes Subjugate Opposition With Irrationality, Not Just Human Sacrifices (And Their Variants: Killings, Jihad, Signature Strikes).

Say you are a tyrant, You want Your rule as absolute as possible. You may have ecological problems, and you may need to decimate your subjects, or make them work harder. What is the best way to do this? Controlling your subjects’ minds, and not just with fear. Notice the sheep: they follow the pastor who milks them, and occasionally, cut their throats. What is the difference between flock and pastor? The pastor is much more clever, much more rational. The pastor is endowed with reason. Actually more than one. The pastor is full of reasons. The sheep is deprived of reason. Irrational. So, as a tyrant, irrationality you shall preach.

So how are you going to turn simple folks into a flock deprived of reason? Well, human sacrifices are a way to do this. Notice the king in the drawing below, sitting under an umbrella, just like a US president under his White House. A study published in Nature, in April 2016, explains that “Ritual human sacrifice promoted and sustained the evolution of stratified societies”.

Sacrifice Of The Annual Customs At Dahomey. Drawing By Foulquier, 1776. Engraving In “Le Tour Du Monde, 1865.”

Sacrifice Of The Annual Customs At Dahomey. Drawing By Foulquier, 1776. Engraving In “Le Tour Du Monde, 1865.”

The “Annual Customs” in Dahomey were also tax day for the free citizens of Dahomey (only war captives and criminals were sacrificed). The massive (several thousands) sacrifices stopped when the slave trade became too irresistibly profitable (the empire of Dahomey provided roughly 20% of the transatlantic slaves).

Honored European guests were allowed to attend the Annual Customs, as Dahomey had guns made locally, a professional army, and was perfectly capable of defending itself against the white man (as the British army found out, in Ashanti next door, suffering a terrible defeat where all soldiers were killed, but two, and the Anglo-Saxon commander was eaten, cooked like Cook).

But the outrages of superstitious religion go well beyond just roasting people alive, and are otherwise subtle in their deepest forms. The Bible evokes the Golden Calf, and rejects its cult. But that may have been a red herring. What upper classes need to rule best is for the lower classes to:


Adore irrationality, reject reason. Rejecting reason, makes one the master’s slave, because one becomes so stupid, one gets feeble-minded. Thus all enslaving religions trample reason, as reason is the weapon which could destroy them most. Reason, not love.

This is why all religions which help enforce plutocracy train their followers to obey senseless orders, such as not eating pig, crustacean, and only eating animals who were agitated by spasms, while experiencing anxiety and suffering as their throats were slit, etc.

Jared Diamond gives more examples in his book “The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn From Traditional Societies?”:

Virtually all religions hold some supernatural beliefs specific to that religion. That is, a religion’s adherents firmly hold beliefs that conflict with and cannot be confirmed by our experience of the natural world, and that appear implausible to people other than the adherents of that particular religion. For example, Hindus believe there is a monkey god who travels thousands of kilometers at a single somersault. Catholics believe a woman who had not yet been fertilized by a man became pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy, whose body eventually after his death was carried up to a place called heaven, often represented as being located in the sky. The Jewish faith believes that a supernatural being gave a chunk of desert in the Middle East to the being’s favorite people, as their home forever.”

One should not forget a Prophet who flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse, before ascending to heavens, just like that other guy had done before.

Superstitious religions sound very stupid, but the cult of unreason has its reasons that only the masters understand. Some of these orders are not just irrational, they are lethal: if they can claim you insult(ed) their little godly doggie god in the sky the excellent Judeo-Christiano-Muslim authorities could, or would outright order you killed.

Hence irrationality did not just rule, it killed, and demanded the utmost respect, doing so, lest it would have another irrational reason to kill you.

Let me insist: the very irrationality of religious commands enables the authorities to exert power whimsically. So it is the reign of Sharia, not Human Ethology (the later been approached by Roman law).

In the third century BCE, Chinese administrator Li Bing eliminated the sacrifice of young maidens to a river god during the conquest of Sichuan by the First Emperor. He called the bluff of a local racket in which families rid themselves of unwanted daughters while getting rich on the compensation they received. Thus “irrational” rituals bring all too rational, very prosaic gain.

Jared Diamond observes that embracing irrationality is the greatest divide between the fanatics and the rest (fanatics means: coming out of the FANUM, the temple):

“No other feature of religion creates a bigger divide between religious believers and modern secular people, to whom it staggers the imagination that anyone could entertain such beliefs. No other feature creates a bigger divide between believers in two different religions, each of whom firmly believes its own beliefs but considers it absurd that the other religion’s believers believe those other beliefs. Why, nevertheless, are supernatural beliefs such universal features of religions?”

As we just saw, “irrational” beliefs are something else reason to get ahead. Pure irrationality is rare. Searching the reasons behind apparent irrationality, what’s hiding in the Dark, oft reveals causality in full.

Jared Diamond rejects the explanation that believing in irrational things is just due to ignorance. Instead he views it as necessary for identifying in groups. There is no doubt that this is a factor. But one does not need sheer absurdities to identify in a group. Middle Age Muslims for example requested Jews and Christians to wear clothing which could identify them. So dressing in a special way can work.

In conclusion, Jared Diamond claims that “it’s irrational to be religious. Supernatural beliefs might not make sense, but they endure because they’re so emotionally satisfying.”

Well, sorry Jared, that’s mostly missing the point. There is a higher reason for imposing (the religion of) irrationality. The point is that irrationality makes people brainless, and thus easy to rule.

However, humans are naturally rational. So irrationality has to be taught, and preached. Some may sneer and ponder what’s in it for We The People. Why would We The People be so easily seduced by their own subjugation?

It is not as if the subjugation was a secret: Christianism brandishes “The Lord”, and compare people to “sheep” to be led (to slaughter?). Islam literally means: “submission”, from root of aslama “he resigned, he surrendered, he submitted.”

So what We The People get in exchange is… irrationality, a rest from the human condition. And just like the Lords themselves, brandishing irrationality to generate fear, cruelty, submission… We The People can do the same.

In almost all societies, killing “legally” within a tribe or clan is granted only to those with great authority. Thus ritual human sacrifice serves power structures—who sits at the top of the social hierarchy.

In a study published in Nature, Joseph Watts, a specialist in cultural evolution at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, and colleagues analysed 93 traditional cultures in Austronesia (the region that embraces dozens of thousands of islands in the Pacific and Indonesia). The key was to analyze them before they were influenced by colonization and major world religions (generally in the late 19th and early 20th centuries).

Ethnographic records, show that the prevalence of sacrifice increased with increased social stratification: it occurred in 25% of cultures with little or no stratification, 37% of those with moderately stratified societies, and 67% of those with a pronounced hierarchy.

Mapping the evolutionary relationships between cultures, the researchers found that human sacrifice and social hierarchy co-evolved. Social stratification can change over time. However,  societies that practised human sacrifice were less apt to revert to milder degrees of stratification.

In other words, human sacrifice seems to bolster stratification: it helped to stabilize hierarchy, and conceivably, therefore, had a common role in the development of highly stratified societies that generally persist even today.

I hold that extremely lethal Jihadism is a form of human sacrifice, so this analysis carries to Literal Shia or Salafist Wahhabist Islam directly, and explained why these Muslim societies were unable to progress.

Human sacrifice is the privilege of priests or those who claim religious authority. Watts and colleagues say that this discloses a “Dark Side” to the social role of religion. (They have previously shown that belief in supernatural punishing agencies in Austronesian cultures encouraged moral observance, and thereby promoted the emergence of stratified, complex social structures).

Watts’s team reveals that human sacrifice wasn’t conducted for ostensibly religious reasons alone. Taboo violations, demoralization the underclasses, imposing class boundaries and instil fear of social elites, all build and maintain social control. In India, Untouchable touching higher caste individuals could suffer what are nowadays unimaginable punishments such as amputation, sitting in a red hot metal seat, etc.

Here is the conclusion of Watts and colleagues:

“Religion has long been proposed to play a functional role in society and is commonly claimed to underpin morality. Recent evolutionary theories of religion have focused on the potential of pro-social and moral religious beliefs to increase cooperation. Our findings suggest that religious rituals also played a darker role in the evolution of modern complex societies. In traditional Austronesian cultures there was substantial religious and political overlap, and ritualised human sacrifice may have been co-opted by elites as a

divinely sanctioned means of social control. The approach adopted in this paper demonstrates the way causal hypotheses about major transitions in human social organization can be tested by combining computational models and language phylogenies with a wealth of cultural and historical data. Unpalatable as it might be, our results suggest that ritual killing helped humans transition from the small egalitarian groups of our ancestors, to the large stratified societies we live in today.”

Say You are a tyrant, You want all to understand that Your rule is absolute, global as the plutocracy you lead with relish. So You order “Signature Strikes”, thus telling the world that any wedding You can kill, if such is Your good pleasure, as long as it happens in a far away land.

Were the killing by drones in “signature strikes” personally ordered by president Obama for all to see a form of ritual killing, of human sacrifices for all to see? Certainly. The scariest part is that ordering kills for all to see is something that even Chancellor-President Hitler, a solid reference for human sacrifices, was careful not to be associated to! This means that the Obama administration developed momentum to change the public’s mind about human sacrifice.

Human sacrifices violate human ethology, the evolution-given morality humans come equipped with. In the small groups in which humanity evolved for millions of years, human life was most precious, because the life of others was necessary to pursue one’s life.

So this means that the rise of civilization and its accompanying religions comprised a violation of human ethology.

The main theme of this essay is even more general: it considers not just the violation of evolution given morality, by “stratified societies”, but the violation of reason itself. Violating reason itself compounds the preceding moral problem: human ethology does not come just from “instincts” (whatever that means), but also from the usage of rationality (within a culture, or the individual).

The superstitious religions associated to the rise of demonic upper classes, plutocracy, have attacked reason itself. They are as inhuman as one can get, and survive. They enabled war maximally, annihilating their competition fully (although secular Rome and Literal Islam have unfinished business). Superstitious religions come short, for the future. Their carefully engineered irrationality and willingness to kill at the drop of a hat, will decapitate us, if we do not decapitate them first.

Make no mistake: irrationality has its uses, it allows to jump out of mental boxes. However, irrationality in a religion is different; it creates a common box, and create common, shared respect for irrational elements. Adoration for the Golden Calf is itself a particular case of irrationality. Making irrationality itself an object of adoration is a generalization of the cult of the Golden Calf, to the point of adoring the whims of the satanic masters themselves.

Collective adoration of senseless ways is collective adoration for the mania of the crowd, intellectual fascism at its worst. It’s a moral duty, moral from the ways of Homo, moral to go back to the free ways of our genus, which have made us what we are, the crown of the creation of reason, by enforcing reason, and not its exact opposite.

Patrice Ayme’

Torture To Death: Christ’s Crux

January 24, 2016

Patrice Ayme’: The angry, cruel, somewhat demented, child murdering, jealous, holocaust-prone god of Judaism-Christianism-Islamism justifies bloody despots. (So does Literal Islam, and even much more so, but that’s besides the point here. What is interrogated here is the origin of Christianism’s, and thus Islamism’s, hyper-violence)

Chris Snuggs: “Christianism does not belong in the same basket as Islam. Disregard how men have perverted both; just compare what they ARE, what their fundamental message is.”

PA: Agreed… If one forget that they are not at the same stage of development, and if one uses a stochastic filter. Stochastic comes from the word for “aim” in Greek. It’s used to mean “probability theory”. So the idea is to look at the New Testament, and take, so to speak, the average statement, ignoring those where (the mythical) “Christ” speaks about swords and all that… Sword, as an instrument to foster faith. Force, the Sword, is what made Christianism seductive to Constantine. He was a forceful man. He steamed his wife, alive, killed his nephew, and had his meritorious, accomplished, most famous general and admiral of a son, executed.

Force & the Sword, Justified & Practiced by God, Is The Christian Mood Which Seduced Constantine, Because So Was His Calling

Force & the Sword, Justified & Practiced by God, Is The Christian Mood Which Seduced Constantine, Because So Was His Calling

[Roman Emperor Constantine’s statue at York Minster, Britannia, his birth place.]

Here is a sample I have often used:

Luke 19:27: But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.

Some will play it down: ‘Oh, it’s just one sentence!’ Others turn this around, and sneer, when one criticizes Islam’s violence:’Oh, there are also violent statements in Christianism!’. Both COUNTER-IDEAS miss the point: just as one horrible scream can create a terrible mood, so can a horrible statement. PPP Torture Is Intrinsic To Christ’s Business Model [Final Judgment.]

And, by the way, there are actually multiple statements of the greatest of horror, and an insistence that horror was prescribed, ordered, glorified, organized, instituted by god himself. It’s not by accident that the very symbol of Christianism is the worse torture known to man. Even Christ could not figure it out. Well, my child, lonely nailed on your cross, I did: “VIOLENCE IS THE PRICE OF LOVE’. And it was fun to figure it out.

Judaism, its child, Christianism, and its grandchild, Islamism were all war religions. Judaism appears shortly before King David, the enlightened founder of the Greater Israel. (At least so says the Bible written by captives in Babylon, more than half a millennium later.) Christianism, or more exactly what he called “Orthodox Catholicism” (= “Orthodox Universalism”) was imposed by Roman emperor Constantine, who was one of the greatest warriors in history, second to none. As a teenager, the special force like, privileged youth Constantine already terrified the imperial court. Emperor Galerius, the “animalistic, semi-barbarian” persecutor of Christians, tried to get rid of Constantine with a number of dangerous challenges, including suicidal cavalry charge, and fighting a lion in single combat.

Constantine became the single emperor of the entire empire, after many decades of multiple emperors governing in a more or less collegial manner (there were up to 6 emperors at a time, mostly because of the problem of distance in the far-flung empire!).

Christianism is a system of thoughts. But it’s also a system of moods. Systems of thought can be subtle: Islam, for example comes equipped with two meta-principles: Taquiyah (lying to unbelievers as religious principle) and the Abrogation Principle.

Christianism did not have Taquiyah: early Christians obstinately refused to lie, and diminish their god, or their faith, in any way, to the bafflement and anger of other Romans. But Christianism definitively has the Abrogation Principle; when god feels it is good medicine to torture to death his own son, who did nothing wrong, definitively the message that it is good to torture to death people who have done nothing much.

Systems of moods are even more subtle than systems of ideas, because they do not say things directly and explicitly. The mood in Christianism is, basically, that it’s OK to kill, horribly, for no good reason: after all, man is created in the image of god.

Now is there anything more significant to torture to death the innocent? Should we call torturing to death the innocent the most prominent, the most significant, the most particular, the most peculiar, and marking art of the Christian god?

As I insisted, most human beings have known and practiced love. Human beings don’t need lessons on love, as if it were an alien planet never seen before.

But human beings have not known, and, or, practiced, nor justified, excused and become familiar with, torture to death. Christianism not only justified torture to death of the innocent, but made it the crux of its entire system of mood. Torture to death is the clé de voûte, the keystone, the part without which the entire edifice of Christianism collapses.

Judgment And Torture Constitute Christ's Business Model

Judgment And Torture Constitute Christ’s Business Model

And indeed, the last executions and torture to death of Christianism in Western Europe happened during the Nineteenth Century. In the preceding century, Voltaire had railed against the execution by “slow fire” of quite a few people, from a senile Jesuit to an eighteen year old a Jewish girl. The People was upset because of the Lisbon quake cum tsunami, which caused massive, irreparable damage. The girl was burned slowly just because she was Jewish.

Literal Christianism set up the mood which Literal Islamism inherited. Both originated with the guy who steamed his wife (and is a saint of the Orthodox branch of Christianism. Yes, this had deep consequences, including economic.

In the preceding, torture to death was vilified as Christianism’s ugliest mood. However, it does not stop there. The mythical Jesus, a rabbi, approved of the entire Old Testament. And that includes the mood of being willing to kill one’s own child to please one’s boss (“god”).

Yet, it does not stop there. Just as the cross is an add-on not found in old Judaism, Christianism is full of would-be cannibalism (“drink, because this is my blood”, “eat, because this is my flesh”). Would be cannibalism? Well, no wonder the Crusaders roasted children when they got hungry. History is not just an exacting teacher. Like the Christian god, history has no qualms, it just is.

And history is not just about facts and ideas. It is also about moods. Christianism went hand in hand with plutocracy, because it was all the excuse plutocracy needed to reign by the sword. And love was the screen behind which it hid its vicious rule.

How and why Christianism became supreme, as Constantine’s Catholicism, goes a long way to explain, and excuse, Literal Islam. This is the main reason to consider this agonizing corpse.

Patrice Ayme’

Bowie Knife Gut Naivety

January 11, 2016

So David Bowie is dead from cancer in 18 months. His latest album was highly original, as usual. What I view as Bowie’s best piece of music, “Heroes” (with Brian Eno) was recorded in Berlin, where Bowie lived before of the fall of the Wall. The State of Germany noticed:

Patrice Ayme Retweeted from:

Germany Officially Thankful To David Bowie. Rock Rocked The Wall

Germany Officially Thankful To David Bowie. Rock Rocked The Wall

GermanForeignOffice ‏@GermanyDiplo : Good-bye, David Bowie. You are now among #Heroes. Thank you for helping to bring down the #wall.  #RIPDavidBowie

Bowie had rigged speakers during concerts in Berlin, so that they directed music over the Wall. But the connections with Germany are deeper than that: Friedrich Nietzsche inspired Bowie:

Nietzsche Said He "Made Philosophy With A hammer". Bowie Also Cut Through The Crap

Nietzsche Said He “Made Philosophy With A hammer”. Bowie Also Cut Through The Crap

We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once.” (Friedrich Nietzsche.)

Rock rocked the Wall, because it changed the mood. It changed the mood by breaking down a lot of conventions in the West. So rock installed a rocky mood: if convictions could be brought down that easily there, why not here?

The first rock artists to have played on the other side of the Iron Curtain where the Rolling Stones, in Poland, 1967 (just before Bowie started his career). Tickets to the concerts were given out by the Communist Party, much to the bands’ dismay. An unamused Keith Richard complained about it during a concert. Visiting Soviet officials were not pleased. “They thought the show was so awful, so decadent, that they said this would never happen in Moscow,”— Mick Jagger.

Bowie, an English native, was also a formal Canton de Vaud resident, for more than 5 years, and married (Somali top model Iman) in Switzerland in 1992 (they have a daughter, and Iman became foster mother to Bowie’s son from his previous marriage).

Asked why he kept on innovating, David Bowie said:”Elitism”.

“I always had a repulsive need to be something more than human.

I felt very puny as a human. I thought,

“Fuck that. I want to be a superhuman.”

-David Bowie

Nietzsche had written this earlier, and Bowie had read him. But, of course, this is the metaprinicple of humanity. Humanity would never have evolved, if our (pre) human ancestors had not said: Fuck that. I want to be a superhuman.

Some say the generations have to flow, because youth and creativity will replace the old gizzards. But David Bowie said he stayed stuck at the age of twenty, and, one day, was told he was in his fifties. Relative to the flow of centuries, a human life, whether destroyed after four years, or eight decades, is just a flick of time.

A 15-year-old refugee just attacked a Jewish professor in France: youth does not have necessarily more brains than the elders. The son of Turkish refugees of Kurdish origin, the adolescent youth was a good student in high school. He attacked the teacher in the street in Marseilles, with a 50 centimeter hatchet.

The victim protected himself with the Torah, which got cut up badly. Witnesses intervened and a biker pursued the attacker until a police patrol could nab him. He was found with still another lethal knife hidden on him (something unlawful in France). The crazily vicious youth declared to the police that the knife was to kill police officers. He also declared he self-radicalized on the Internet, by reading about the Islamist State, and he engaged in all these murderous rampage for Allah (as if Allah, should He exist, needed help from demoniac morons!)

This is one more potentially lethal attack by Muslim refugee rendered insane by the Qur’an. The preceding one was on David Bowie’s birthday, last Friday, an assault against police. French detectives found a German chip in the phone of the assaillant, and the (now safely dead) “refugee” was tracked down to Germany, where he had taken refuge, indeed.

Our ancestors were humans. It did not matter if their wisdom was only human: what could they do that would go really wrong? Eat each others? Well, the cooks would survive, and they did. It was the eternal return of the same old evolution. But now evolution has been all too successful: it has evolved god.

No, not the one in the Bible and Qur’an. Not just a figment of the imaginations of some primitives, 3,000 years ago. No, real gods, this time, and they are not kidding. Some are even insane, dedicated to the Cult of Death.

We, now, are not simple cannibals. We can cause a lot of damage. We are gods: we propose and dispose upon the greatest gift in the Universe: life on Earth.

Indeed, the greatest gift: I argued that not only Earth is in the habitable, water rich zone, it’s also equipped with a powerful radioactive core, which enables very long-term life evolution, hence the rise of sentience.

Earlier philosophers, starting with G. Bruno, following Buridan, argued conscious life was all around the cosmos; nowadays, forsaken physicists argue universes full of conscious life are all over; I disagree. Although habitable planets are obviously in the hundreds of billions, in this galaxy alone, sentience may well be on this planet alone.

Now we have the powers of the gods. We can use it to construct and improve, ad vitam eternam, again and again. We can also use it for utter destruction. Just once.

And there would be no tomorrow. We thus need huge intelligence to move forward and progress, the intelligence of the gods, just as we have the power of the gods.

Intelligence, creative intelligence is rare. Not as rare as live on Earth, of course, but still, it cannot be replaced by the hordes and the herds. Replacing David Bowie will be difficult, for civilization itself, and one more reason to push for life extension.

To extend intelligence, we need to extend life, it’s a simple as that. Just contemplate the lives of cephalopods: they are very clever, but cannot establish a culture: they live too short for that. Do we live long enough to establish a sustainable culture?

The jury is out, and it does not look good.

As we mourn David Bowie, we have to remember that intelligence is not just about being kind. Intelligence is also about cutting through naivety, not to say the crap. Following his elders the Who, Stones, Beatles, Bowie pushed a bit further to stab the beast. Yet the beast, and the mark of the beast, are more vigorous than ever. Don’t ask who brandishes the knife, ask why it is brandished. This is as far as pacifism can realistically go.

Patrice Ayme’


Shakespeare Versus Sade

January 7, 2016

Why were the English, or even the Spanish and the Portuguese so much more successful in establishing a world empire than the French? On the face of obvious facts, it’s curious that France did not do better. Nowadays Latin America speaks Spanish or Portuguese, entire continents are English-speaking. Only some of the wastes of Africa speak French. How come? Why did France not grab a continent for herself? Was France… too civilized? Is too much civilization an infection?

France was the most powerful, most populous, most innovative, most central, not to say most belligerent, of the European countries, for about 13 centuries… Besides being the creator of Europe since 360 CE (election of Julian). France led a healthy reaction against Christian terrorism, and became the center of military and imperial power which made Western Europe one (rather united, “Christian”) civilization.

Too Much Civilization Goes To The Wolves

Too Much Civilization Goes To The Wolves

And, precisely, more civilization and more centralization may have been the problems. If one is too civilized, one may respect the Natives so much, that one may forget to take their place. This is clearly what happened to the French in Canada. The French civilized and settled the Hurons. Then the Iroquois Confederacy came down from the mountains, and exterminated the pacified Hurons. And so on. Turkeys cannot built a civilization under the watchful eyes of lions.

If one is more centralized, while civilized, one will be unable to exploit the Natives as required for a successful settlement, in a timely manner.

True, Louis XIV, the famous Sun-Tyrant, made “legalized” slavery in the French West Indies, with the “Code Noir”. However, there was no slavery in French Canada and Louisiana, while slavery was lawful in English colonies, starting with Massachusetts…to immense economic success: some English American states were mostly people by African slaves cultivating tobacco, under the white whip, terrorized by their white masters. Tobacco had made English America profitable.

So what the difference in the imperial patterns of various European powers? Moods. Basically, the French had too little too late, of the … Dark Side. I mean real Dark: the king of Portugal harassed the Pope to obtain a Papal authorization to enslave Africans (Frankish law forbid to enslave Europeans explicitly, and Charlemagne had created the Papal state). Their Catholic Majesties, Isabella and Ferdinand harassed Borgia, a fellow Spaniard and Pope to authorize the Inquisition (then used to exterminate Judaism and Islam in the Iberian peninsula). Portugal and Spain were then ready to lash out. A planned crusade to exterminate Islam, was redirected more profitably towards the conquest of the Americas.

How come the greater friendliness of the English government to the Dark Side? Not coincidentally,  the rise of Shakespeare and of the West Country Men was simultaneous in England. And they were entangled: the (ex-Scottish) King James I, one of the West Country Men (basically) supported Shakespeare. (As Dominique Deux said) the success of Shakespeare comes from his parade of monsters.

Shakespeare, just as Allah in the Qur’an (following Yahweh in the Bible), made monstrosity honorable. Thus monstrosity became a strategy at the ready, something normal to do.

One may object that it’s not clear why monstrosity worked so well for the English and not so well for the Muslims.

Well, as a metaphysics of war, Islam was superb: the initial Muslim empire went from France, through Spain, North Africa, all the way to Central Asia and India, within 89 years of its launch in 732 CE. On the way it defeated the two most powerful empires outside of China, annihilating one, eating more than half of the other.

The feat was renewed later: in the Eleventh Century, the Turks, a decade or two after converting to Islam, defeated three large empires in West Central Asia, including a mauling of the Roman empire (which called the Franks to the rescue, launching the crusades).

So Islam’s monstrous side is excellent to motivate primitives for war.

This is proven as we speak: yesterday and today, January 7 2016, two Jihadist attacks in France (some terrorists tried a car attack against soldiers, no doubt inspired by happenings in Israel, and another attacked policemen with a meat cleaver, screaming “Allah Akbar”, and carrying a fake explosive belt, he was shot to death).

However, fanaticism does not rise to the motivation and power of free, knowledgeable men, as Islam’s crushing defeats at the hands of the Franks (starting in 721-732-748 CE), would prove in the next 13 centuries). Or the reconquest of Ramadi from the Islamist State by the Iraqi army and Sunni tribes.

So how come the English were so successful: it’s simple: in the case of the English, monstrosity was an adjuvant. I was listening to the Queen’s 2016 message the other day. She charmingly, succeeded to quietly claim that her family invented Christmas (a 4,000 year old tradition). She was completely unfazed by the monstrosity of her claims. (One could easily imagine her claiming Macbeth invented Christmas, just as unfazed.)

Monstrosity worked well as an adjuvant to other, more democratic structures in society, such as Common Law, Parliament, the Monarchy, with the oath to it that all males had to take at 14 of faithfulness to the King. In the case of the Qur’an, the Qur’an was all there was. Interpreted literally, the Qur’an is unbalanced monstrosity 100% of the time (with the major inconvenience that everybody can be suspected of apostasy, something punished by death).

Admiring Macbeth’s statement that life… is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, is a perfect slogan to go kill Irishmen (as the West Country Men did). And then American Natives (as the colonies founded by the West Country Men in America soon did).

Make no mistake: the Bible is full of genocides. Just as the Qur’an, which it inspired, it enables major monsters, bent on holocaust, to claim they are doing God’s will. Shakespeare is a secular version of the same mood with which to handle the world.

In the USA, many a school children spent an entire year studying Shakespeare shaking his spears all over human society (Shakespeare himself made jokes about the spear in his name, wanting it as his coat of arms).

Some could sneer that Sade wrote worse things. True. And actually I do think that writing terrible things is not just good, and instructive, but fights boredom, and feeds the mind. However, the obsessive exposition of Anglo-Saxon children to Shakespeare (or the Queen and her grotesque lies), while presenting that author as the epitome of classical humanism is deeply wrong.

Sade did not claim to extol classical humanism as he described horrors with relish. He was actually highly critical. Differently from Shakespeare the bard, about whom we know little, we know very well that Sade played a major role in the 1789 Revolution (including instigating the attack against the Bastille). Not just that, but he personally saved thousands (and got nearly executed for his troubles, escaping at the last moment thanks to the coup against Robespierre).

Sade’s main theme is that man is (potentially) immensely cruel, and politicians even more so, as they need cruelty, just to relax.

Power is cruelty, and absolute power is absolute cruelty.

A society where spears are shaken all the time, does not just shoots itself in the foot, or the head, very much. It also shoots everything that is in the way, all too readily. Shakespeare is viewed by the Anglo-Saxons as classical, while some of what is viewed as his most classical parts is just as bad, if not worse, than the worse in Sade (who, at least, was conscious of cruelty, while extolling it). The same objection can be made, and should be made, against the devout followers of the Bible, the Qur’an, and other various books of horrors. They say it’s classical, and should be respected.

No. Those books are classical, they should be known, but then they should be debated, fiercely, and dragged in the mud, as needed. Identify, condemn, and cut off the gangrene, the gangrene of the mind, as needed.

The West Country Men, powerful plutocrats as they were, sent soldiers and “endured servants” (white slaves) to America to make a profit. The French founded Canada for the “Mission Civilisatrice” (mostly). The West Country Men, operating in connivence with Justice, sent derelicts and miscreants to America. The French government carefully selected a moral elite to go to America, help the Natives.

However, in the real world, the sheep, however clever and cultivated, does not vanquish the lion. The former eats grass, the latter, sheep. It’s as simple as that. One lesson? Instead of just criminally prosecuting Africans, the International Court of Justice in La Hague should think about engaging a procedure against ex-president G. W. Bush, for instigating so many war crimes in iraq. Then, logically, the ICJ should move against the Saudis and all those businessmen doing business with them.

Indeed. Think about it. Culture without claws and fangs, and the will to use them, is only a betrayal of civilization.

In the Sixteenth Century, the Conquistadores enslaved the Indians, made them dig for oil, grow food for them. After they exterminated the Indians this way, they brought African slaves. When, finally the Frenchman Charles Quint, Spanish king and Roman emperor was forcefully appraised of the extent of the Holocaust by men of conscience (Bartolome Las Casas, etc.), the emperor autocratically ordered a halt to the Conquista (after a supreme tribunal got hung up). Otherwise all the Americas would be speaking Spanish.

Then Charles V retired. His son, Philip II, was less French. When Philip learned of French (Protestant) colonies along the “Carolina” coast, he sent an armada to exterminate them to the last French baby. A French relief fleet was dispersed by a hurricane (showing that god, were it to exist, is not friend of goodness). The French babies got killed, down to the last one (although some may have been rescued by Indians).

Not defending goodness with fang and claw surrenders it to the wolves. The good human is not an inert human. Goodness cannot just be lauded, it needs to be defended. Being inert, is inhuman.

Patrice Ayme’

Embargo The Saudis

January 4, 2016

(And don’t forget Iran!)

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

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

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

Shia Cleric Decapitated, Iran Unamused. Diplomatic Relations Broken

Shia Cleric Decapitated, Iran Unamused. Diplomatic Relations Broken

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’


How Was Auschwitz Possible? Ignorance!

December 17, 2015

Secrecy Is Atrocity’s Best Friend:

By this question I do not mean how it was technically possible for the Nazis to massacre deliberately more than fifteen million innocent civilians whom they had arrested for no reason but hatred. Modern technology is the obvious answer: government propaganda to mislead people, firearms to herd the innocent, trains to transport them, gas to kill them efficiently.

What I mean is how come the Holocaust of millions of “Jews”, and an even greater number of millions of other innocent civilians falling under other categories, was possible, in the name of the German nation? How come the Germans went along? Was not Germany the country in the world which was the most literate, the one with the most readers in 1900? How could such a country sink so low?

"Children, What Do You Want From the Guide?" The Guide Loved Children, Children Loved the Guide

“Children, What Do You Want From the Guide?” The Guide Loved Children, Children Loved the Guide

Obviously, reading is not everything: one has to read Philosophically Correct material (PhC material). The Germans read a lot of materialistic, fascist, imperialistic, militaristic and hyper nationalistic propaganda. That brought their wisdom in the gutter, made them forget the human nature of humanity, and made them much less human than even a simple illiterate fisherman in any other country (say). One thing Germans were not short of, was kolossal naivety.

Still, how come the German nation went so rabid? The answer is simple. Another technology was at work: propaganda, combined with modern means to achieve secrecy and disinformation. One can see this by a closer look at history, a page in the history of moods.

By early 1945, the Great Reich still existed, and fought for survival, attacked on all fronts by all its enemies, including Poles, French, Brits, Canadians, Soviets, Americans, etc. As the Soviets penetrated old Prussia, they submitted cities to horrendous bombardment, and when they found Germans alive, chances were that those Germans were women and children (as the men had died in combat). I am not aware of mass exactions against children (so many were dead already), but certain women were put to what Soviet troops saw as very good use, hundreds of times a day.

The Nazis related with relish to their own population, the total, and barbarous extermination of the German East, the murdering of centuries of civilization, and warned the masses that so would be the fate of all of Germany. Therefore, the German population had to fight with the energy of despair, and the natural enmity between Soviets and democracies would do the rest.

The fanatical discourses and orders of the hysterically vicious Nazi leadership was not heeded. Instead, many Germans and local authorities produced white flags, and tried to surrender. In spite of the fact the Nazis viewed that as treason, and the penalty for this was immediate execution.

Most Germans knew Germany was being destroyed in the East, civilians were submitted to unspeakable treatment, tens of thousands of german civilians were dying every few days, and still, deep down, they felt it was deserved.

Now remember that in May 1940, the German Panzer army had been able to break through the French fortifications on the Meuse by using suicide bombers.

So why were Germans so much less keen to die for the Great Reich in 1945 than in 1940?

Why did the the mood change in Germany?

Auschwitz, the Holocaust.

By 1945, average Germans knew intimately that the Nazis, we the Germans, had did a terrible thing, the most terrible thing to “those poor people”, the Jews.

The mood in Germany was that Germany had sinned, and was punished for the unspeakable horror it had visited on the Jews. (Among others.)

Why did that revelation not happen earlier?

Because the Nazis kept the Holocaust secret enough to be able to deny it.

What would have had happened if, by January 1941, say, when the Holocaust had already been launched, average Germans had known what was going on? That the Great Reich had deliberately killed millions of Poles?

Well, quickly enough, the military would have revolted and decapitated the Nazi power structure (as it is there was a huge conspiracy to do so, but it mostly failed because not enough in the military were in the know of the extent of the exactions, or suffering from pressure at home condemning said exactions). The German military had the means to kill the Nazis, but lacked enough motivation. Only the exhibition of enough Nazi atrocities atrocious enough, would have provided that motivation.

If average Germans had known how atrocious their government was, how much atrocities they had visited on innocent civilians, if they had know their government bombed flour mills to starve millions of Poles to death, in 1939, let alone create an extermination camp at Auschwitz, to kill Polish civilians, and then started to kill innocent Jews, even innocent German Jews, then average Germans would have been revolted by Nazism… As most of them were by 1945.

So it is secrecy which made the Holocaust possible. And this has important lessons for today, and the freedom and wisdom of the Internet.

Fast Forward To France 2015:

Poor Marine Le Pen! My heart swells for her, and not just just a bit of self-interested worry, too. Marine just thought she could do like yours truly, and post on the Internet some of the Islamist State propaganda (just to show the horror, and condemn it! However, the French State has now decided that the messenger was culprit of the message).

Last August, the Islamist State released a video of its assassination of James Foley, a journalist who went missing in Syria in 2012. Ms. Le Pen posted images of his killing, and those of others, in reply to a well known French pundit who had compared her party, the Front National, to the Islamist State. Bourdin the Cretin, paid propagandist on RMC et BFMTV, Wednesday 16 December evoked a “une communauté d’esprit” between two “formes de repli identitaire” (identity grouping), the rise of the National Front and the rise of Jihadism. Bourdin’s guest insisted that the Islamist State and the Front National “resemble each other” (by the same token, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are also Islamist State! And actually so are all those who prefer the natives to strangers: patriotism has become an absolute evil, according to anti-“populist” propaganda!)

This was weird in many ways: first there are only 4,000 Jihadists in France, whereas nearly seven millions voted for the National Front last Sunday. Second, the National Front, and Marine le Pen in particular, are precisely against all what the Islamist State stands for. But the “French Theory” sort of “philosophy” has induced a mood of sheer madness where everything is mashed up: call black, white, white, black, and then chuckle all is grey, so it does not matter.

Naturally enough, Ms. Le Pen put on her twitter accounts pictures of Islamist State executions, pointing out that the National Front did not do that, and had always been against that.

The Foley family whined that: “We are deeply disturbed by the unsolicited use of Jim for le Pen’s political gain… the tweets “add to the family’s pain”. Really? Is it this, or are you feeling the urge to milk your fame? Why would that disturb you that someone remind us of your son’s martyrdom? Because your son is best forgotten?

I guess we better forget that Jim Foley was assassinated atrociously, according to his parents, that’s the best way to ignore honor him. Those foolish follies seem to show a healthy disregard for Jim Foley’s calling. Jim’s calling was to inform people. Inform them of what? The most significant events. And what’s more significant than atrocities committed in the name of a religion? (The Foley family added Le Pen’s “actions” were against what their son stood for, that’s why they were indignant. So I guess, according to them, their son was all for Islamism, since Marine Le Pen is against it?)

Le Pen said she did not know it was a picture of James Foley, and took it down immediately after she became aware of the foolish family disingenuous protest (as the family’s little PC political plug against Le Pen demonstrates). (Notas Bene: if terrorists kill me, as extreme right wing terrorists tried this once already, I am for putting on the Internet pictures of my gory assassination, which will thence demonstrate further one of my points, post mortem.)

Plutocratic media immediately jumped on the occasion to scream after Marine Le Pen. One propagandist went on Le Pen’s twitter account to report her indignation, feeling “deeply violated” by the “grotesque pictures”… As if Le Pen herself had cut the throats of the victims of Islamism.

I guess, the same person would have been “deeply violated” by being shown “grotesques pictures” of Nazi assassinations, and would have asked authorities to hide them, and justice to strike those who showed pictures of Nazi atrocities. Actually, this is exactly what is presently happening in France.

The French Interior Minister went further. At the National Assembly, Bernard Cazeneuve, reacted to the tweets of Marine Le Pen : “They are the photos of Islamist State propaganda, and, thus, an abjection, an abomination, and a real insult for all victims of terrorism, for all those who fell under the fire and barbarity of the Islamist State” [“Elles sont les photos de la propagande de Daech et ces photos sont, à ce titre, une abjection, une abomination et une véritable insulte pour toutes les victimes du terrorisme, pour toutes celles et tous ceux qui sont tombés sous le feu et la barbarie de Daech. (…) J’ai demandé que la plate-forme Pharos puisse se saisir de cette affaire.”]

In other words, all those who published pictures of the collapsing World Trade Center are abominable, abject accomplices of Al Qaeda, and those who published pictures of Nazi mass executions are abominable, abject accomplices of Nazism, and so on.

What is clear is that the French Interior minister is such an idiot, that he makes even Dr, Goebbels sound like a genius. Or then the French Interior Minister is keen to go beyond the worst caricature of dictatorship and misinformation found in Orwell’s “1984”. Even the minutes of Joan of Arc’s trial don’t exhibit a similar madness on the part of her obviously biased accusers (and no, I am not in love with Joan of Arc).

I reacted to this by deciding to follow Joan of Arc Marine Le Pen on Twitter (she has 10,000 more followers than 12 hours ago).

The real problem is that the French Socialist government machine has decided to attack what feeds reason itself. Information, data, knowledge, cognition. (Why? The polls are so bad for the Socialists, they are going to be wiped out in the next elections, in 18 months. As they deserved, since they are Socialist in name only: remember Hitler’s “National-Socialists”)

So you want no more Auschwitz? Let knowledge flow. “Social networks” should not ban violence for the sake of banning violence.

Indeed, as we saw with the Nazis, banning the knowledge of the true extent of abominable, abject violence is what made the Holocaust of 2% of humanity in the Second World (because the Nazis and their imperial Jap allies did not stop with killing more than 60 million innocent civilian; they also conducted official wars of aggressions).

So, if one wants morality, one has to exhibit violence, be it only to condemn and eliminate it.

Those who claim to not understand that, as the French Interior Minister, are just abject, abominable cretins.

Then “Social Networks” should consider why the violence is shown. If I show an execution by the Islamist State to condemn it, that is not only OK, it is morally perfect. If the Islamist State shows the same picture for its propaganda, it’s an abject abomination, and it should be censored.

It’s not difficult. One has to exert judgment in light of absolute morality, the one given by 100 million years of evolution, human ethology. Apparently, Twitter is already doing this (Facebook is another matter: it views the female breast as an abject abomination, and blocks it fiercely; it seems the leadership of Facebook hate mammals: “mamma” means breast in Latin).

We humans have to exert meta-judgments. Both on moods and ideas. If Germans had realized how vicious and atrocious the real mood of the Nazi leadership was, they would have recoiled in horror, and withdraw support, as they finally did in 1945. French government’s Foleys follies misrepresenting the State of Islamism, to the point of accusing the national front of Islamism, are of a related vein, and explain the rise of Islamism there.

Ignorance is not just a matter of ignoring some data points. Ignorance is also ignoring shocks to the emotional systems which are intrinsic to the situation being ignored. This is what the leadership of a country like France has ignored all too long. And here, by leadership, I do not mean lesser minds such as the present clowns who gather every week at the presidential palace in Paris to plot the dismal course for 70 millions and most of Europe.

By “leadership” I mean mostly what passes for the intellectual class, those who thought the Eurosterity (= Euro + Austerity) would be a good regime, and Islamophobiaphobia all the philosophy they needed, by praying to the mighty gods of the “markets”, those who thought colonialism was terrible, if from Europe, but the way to go, if from any other power, and so on.

Civilization without information is only malformation of reason.

Patrice Ayme’