Posts Tagged ‘Ayaan Hirsi Ali’

Abuse of Muslim Women Ignored By Western Leadership, and Why

June 22, 2017

The tolerance of inhuman, hard core Islam is symptomatic of the venality of elites and their “elected” servants, who we have to endure, all around the world. That’s not very surprising: the very principle of letting a few thousand people (“elected” or not) decide the fate of the biosphere, and, in particular more than seven billion people, is intrinsically demented and immoral.

Pseudo progressives claim “all religions have to be respected”, but then why not religions ordering human sacrifices? Answer: they do, because hard-core Islam does order human sacrifices of the many types of people the Qur’an orders to kill.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (@ayaan) and Asra Q. Nomani (@asranomani), are authors (and in the case of Ayaan, an ex-Member of the Dutch Parliament) who were born into Islam, and got mutilated and abused as a result. The New York Times allowed them to write an “Op-Ed” (a vicious notion, as if the usual editorials of the New York Times had no opinion!))  Ms. Nomani is a co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, once a Dutch MP, was hunted out of Europe by murderous Islamists and various lethal fatwas. Authorities there proved unable and unwilling to protect hurt from rabid Islamists. Whereas there are very few Muslim from most fanatical Islamist region in the USA (yet!), where she took refuge, there are orders of magnitude more in Europe.

The New York Times blocked my comment on this excellent editorial (showing its duplicity: it claims that my comments are blocked by editors at the New York Times, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a friend and does not block me in social networks, far from it!). The true reason for the NYT blocking me? Because those posing as “liberals”, who are part of the elite, are more often than not, not “liberal” at all, but simply, venal, corrupt, greedy!

Gender equality is a fundamental human trait. Any ideology ordering otherwise should be unlawful to preach, especially to the youth. Not all variant of Islam are sexist: they are outliers in the “Sufi” tradition, for example in West Africa. However mainstream Islam is deeply sexist, women being literally at best only a fraction of men.

That present day “liberals” refuse to see this means that they are just taking orders from the powers that be (the ones which got them elected to start with). A basic triangular conspiracy exists between oil-producing monarchies, international finance and elected politicians. It was set in stone when president Roosevelt met with Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, king of Saudi Arabia, in 1945.

The attitude of present day “liberal” leaders relative to Islam is revealing of their general attitude relative to the elites and the mighty: they join them rather than contradict them. Their positions arise from greed for their personal power, rather than principle for humanity.

****

(Part of) Text from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani below:

The so-called “left”, or self-described “liberal” elite, verily, an elite of leeches, has never read Voltaire, or Montaigne. All it read is that Wall Street and Saudi Arabia have all the money. Compare Ayaan’s saying with Voltaire’s own:”One must crush infamy!”

June 22, 2017

… “Senator Harris took her seat in front of us as a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We were there to testify about the ideology of political Islam, or Islamism.

… just moments before the hearing began, a man wearing a Muslim prayer cap had stood up and heckled us, putting Capitol police officers on high alert. We were girding ourselves for tough questions.

But they never came. The Democrats on the panel, including Senator Harris and three other Democratic female senators — North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill — did not ask either of us a single question.

This wasn’t a case of benign neglect. At one point, Senator McCaskill said that she took issue with the theme of the hearing itself. “Anyone who twists or distorts religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule,” she said. “We should not focus on religion,” she said, adding that she was “worried” that the hearing, organized by Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, would “underline that.” In the end, the only questions asked of us about Islamist ideologies came from Senator Johnson and his Republican colleague, Senator Steve Daines from Montana.

Just as we are invisible to the mullahs at the mosque, we were invisible to the Democratic women in the Senate.

How to explain this experience? Perhaps Senators Heitkamp, Harris, Hassan and McCaskill are simply uninterested in sexism and misogyny. But obviously, given their outspoken support of critical women’s issues, such as the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria and campus sexual assault, that’s far from the case.

No, what happened that day was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives when it comes to confronting the brutal reality of Islamist extremism and what it means for women in many Muslim communities here at home and around the world. When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation.

Sitting before the senators that day were two women of color: Ayaan is from Somalia; Asra is from India. Both of us were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Shariah by having a baby while unmarried. And we have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things we have said and done. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards.

In other words, when we speak about Islamist oppression, we bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise.

Yet the feminist mantra so popular when it comes to victims of sexual assault — believe women first — isn’t extended to us. Neither is the notion that the personal is political. Our political conclusions are dismissed as personal; our personal experiences dismissed as political.

That’s because in the rubric of identity politics, our status as women of color is canceled out by our ideas, which are labeled “conservative” — as if opposition to violent jihad, sex slavery, genital mutilation or child marriage were a matter of left or right. This not only silences us, it also puts beyond the pale of liberalism a basic concern for human rights and the individual rights of women abused in the name of Islam.

There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism. Partly they fear offending members of a “minority” religion and being labeled racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. There is also the idea, which has tremendous strength on the left, that non-Western women don’t need “saving” — and that the suggestion that they do is patronizing at best. After all, the thinking goes, if women in America still earn less than men for equivalent work, who are we to criticize other cultures?

This is extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity. And it leads good people to make excuses for the inexcusable. The silence of the Democratic senators is a reflection of contemporary cultural pressures. Call it identity politics, moral relativism or political correctness — it is shortsighted, dangerous and, ultimately, a betrayal of liberal values.

The hard truth is that there are fundamental conflicts between universal human rights and the principle of Shariah, or Islamic law, which holds that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; between freedom of religion and the Islamist idea that artists, writers, poets and bloggers should be subject to blasphemy laws; between secular governance and the Islamist goal of a caliphate; between United States law and Islamist promotion of polygamy, child marriage and marital rape; and between freedom of thought and the methods of indoctrination, or dawa, with which Islamists propagate their ideas.

Defending universal principles against Islamist ideology, not denying that these conflicts exist, is surely the first step in a fight whose natural leaders in Washington should be women like Kamala Harris and Claire McCaskill — both outspoken advocates for American women.

We believe feminism is for everyone. Our goals — not least the equality of the sexes — are deeply liberal. We know these are values that the Democratic senators at our hearing share. Will they find their voices and join us in opposing Islamist extremism and its war on women?”

According to Aischa, child-bride of Prophet Muhammad, the Qur’an as written by the Third Caliph, Uthman, was extremely sexist. Less sexist version of Muhammad’s message were destroyed under the order of Uthman, who ended assassinated as a result. Aischa fought with an army for her anti-sexist views, but, differently from European women, she was defeated at the famous “Battle of the Camel”.

***

Straight out of Qur’an and Hadith:

To divorce a wife, a Muslim man can just say “Talaq, talaq, talaq” That’s called the instant divorce law. It was controversial even in Muhammad’s times, and Muhammad criticized it. However, according to the Hadith, the Prophet practiced it. Even the New York Times recognizes this instant divorce law is a problem today, all the way to India.

All the more as, according to Hadith, “irrevocable divorce” does not allow for any sort of allowance or remittance.

The Qur’an Surah An-Nisa, 34 defines the relations between husbands and wives. Quran 4:34 reads:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

— Qur’an 4:34, [5]

Some of the relation of Islam with sexism is nearly hilarious. Here is a Hadith showing how much of lala land Islam is: Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Zam’a: The Prophet said, “None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.”

However, a bit of discipline is good for the ladies:

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:132 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:73:68

In Sunni Hadith, violent sexism rules, and is reiterated ad nauseam. here is an example: Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife. — Sunan Abu Dawood, 11:2142

The unending litany of verbal and “Sharia legal” abuse hurled at women in Islam sacred texts is properly astounding. It goes against human nature so deeply that any civilization submitting to it can only fail.

***

We Already Knew This, But A Slightly Different Angle Is Instructive:

Making women uneducated and submissive make them stupid, and thus, so for their children, and the grown-ups who follow, insuring a vicious circle of less than optimal intelligence and culture. Thus Islam’s sexism is self-reproducing, and self-defeating.

Islam is not just in contradiction with the present (“Western”) civilization, and the United Nations Charter (whose foundation is basically:”All Persons Are Created Equal”). Any preaching otherwise should be outlawed. Islam is also in contradiction with human ethology itself, the core of human strength, as human sexual equality is a genetic given.

But so, of course, is plutocracy. In Islam, plutocracy sees an enemy of its enemy, humanity. So they are friends!

Patrice Ayme’

[The integral version of the text above from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Arsa Nomani was published first in the New York Times under the title:“Kamala Harris, Speak Up. Don’t Be Silent on Women’s Rights.” I spent an hour trying to persuade the New York Times to publish my comment, it replied by interfering with my computer, erasing text. Then the New York Times changed the title to “They Brushed off Kamala Harris, Then She Brushed Us Off.” So, according to the New York Times, the text of the two ladies above is not about women’s rights anymore, but all about ladies “brushing off” each other.

A fight for human rights oppressed by a misogynistic ideology has been replaced, in its title, according to the New York Times, by cat ladies fighting for supremacy. Thus the New York Times manipulate minds, one moody detail at a time… All the comments are also doctored, selected, to present a biased view of what We The People are thinking. British tabloids have used that method for decade, hence Brexit. The New York Times is ever more brazen in its practice of it.]

Advertisements

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’

PM Trudeau’ s Satanic Philosophy

September 19, 2016

Tolerance For Those Who Violate Humanity Is The Lowest Of the Low:

Homo is the philosophical animal. Philosophy is about choice. Philosophy is the set of hard choices of the most optimal ideas, emotions. Unfortunately, in our so-called representative democracy, a few minds infused by greed and self-important delusion, elected politicians, posture as gutter philosophers (gutterosophers?) Thanks to their command of giant propaganda and means at their disposal, they inflict on us their primary school minds (as all their minds can do is getting elected, they are otherwise little developed!)

Homo Sapiens can be translated as the Latin-Greek hybrid, Homo Sophis (Wise Homo). Yet loving wisdom does not mean one finds it always, nor what the highest wisdom is. Values which are wise in some ways, may come in conflict with each other (as we will see in the present essay). Wisdom is always evolving, adapting, as circumstances and one’s knowledge base change (their lack of adaptation is a good reason to be against “revealed” superstitious religions…)

Intelligence is the ability to discern subtle nuances which entail massive differences. Example: occurrences of obvious electrical activity in nature are extremely subtle. For the Ancient Greeks, there was only the mystery of static electricity, rubbing some types of fur (that lightning was about the same writ large would have been more philosophy than physics). However, in our present world, electricity is everywhere, thanks to the application of subtle logic and delicate observations.

What's Wrong With His Head?

What’s Wrong With His Head?

We will analyze an example here of how subtlety  : the Prime Minister of Canada obliterates the struggle against sexism under the guise of respect for diversity. This is a violation of the genus Homo. Life is diversity. Homo does not respect all and any life. Some life, Homo obliterated, some it obliterate, some it plans to obliterate (various diseases, for example).

Advancing wisdom is a necessity, for the species to survive: as human domination changes the world, human adaptation to the world has to change.

Politicians are important only when, as Solon and Pericles, they implement new wisdom, more advanced than previous wisdom. New, correct philosophy moves history. Those, who, like the despicable PM of Canada, Trudeau, on the ground of “multiculturalism” meet in gender segregated societies, deserve not just our contempt, but our loud reprobation. He evokes “the sisters up there” [sic]. Look at: https://twitter.com/LaloDagach/status/776548267479994368

Make no mistake: i would like to like Trudeau 100%, and I have spoken highly of him in the past (because Trudeau knows enough about the Quantum puzzle to sound intelligent on the subject). However Trudeau preaches to tolerate the intolerable, and that is intolerable.

However, on the most important subject, multiculturalism versus civilization, PM Trudeau brays like a common donkey.

So-called “multiculturalism” is cultural apartheid instituted as a new morality. Thus it is a particularly deep form of racism. Somalia’s famous Ayaan Hirsi Ali is in full agreement with me:Multiculturalism is moral racism, disguised as broad-mindedness.”

Trudeau: “In casual conversation, I’d even use the word barbaric to describe female circumcision, for example, but in an official Government of Canada publication, there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.” You are the irresponsible one, Trudeau! This statement, per se, makes you an enemy of humanity, let alone civilization, and disqualifies you for sitting on a throne and pontificating. Here we go for 9/11 and the Boston bombing:

It Is Our Fault That There Is A Barbaric, Savage, Ideology At War With Civilization For 13 Centuries

It Is Our Fault That There Is A Barbaric, Savage, Ideology At War With Civilization For 13 Centuries. Yeah, Right. Should We Excuse Ourselves For Nazism Too?

I am no idiot and was not born yesterday either. Why does the Prime Minister of Canada advocate “multiculturalism” and “diversity” right or wrong, sexist or not? It is important to understand this fully. Trudeau is not an idiot either, far from it, although it looks as if he were born yesterday.

Opposing opinion and finding it wrong in a way that even those who hold it have to admit it is wrong is never enough. One has also to determine if the erroneous opinion was a sincere mistake, or whether it was itself caused by a higher, hidden reason.  

In the case of Canada, the situation is clear. Canada is even larger than the USA, and yet has a smaller population than California. And a much smaller GDP. So it is a strategic decision to swell the Canadian population, come hell and high water. Canada has long opted for the strategy Merkel tried to adopt (and which is rejected by the German electorate).

Several Muslim attacks happened yesterday in the USA (remember; the Qur’an orders to commit such attacks against categories of people which cover more than 90% of the population of the West). Right the attacks (mostly) failed, but that was happenstance: one bomb did not go off, another went off in a huge, immensely strong steel garbage container, and the pipe bomb in New Jersey exploded in a void, because the US Marines race had been delayed.  Finally the attacker in Minnesota, screaming “God Is Great!”, and asking victims if they were Muslims was shot by an off-duty police officer (the Islamist State claimed the attack was conducted by one of its “soldiers”). 

Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada advocates hypocritical racism disguised as worldly tolerance:”diversity is a source of strength, not a source of weakness”, he bleats. Yes. except when “diversity” embraces Nazis and, or Salafists (is there a difference?) Trudeau does not realize that fighting sexism is also a core issue of civilization. Embracing a part of Islam which is antagonistic to both civilization and human nature, as he does, makes him an enemy of civilization. One cannot benignly tolerate this sort of maniacal intolerance.

Now, all right, one can go to some Trump rallies, and, I am sure one can come across intolerables who are really intolerable (as Hillary Clinton said). However racist supporters of Trump are not in power. Trudeau is. So Trudeau’s racist utterances, and sexist policies, should be absolutely condemned.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. But what is wisdom? The set of relationships between ideas and moods which work, including how to establish such relationships. Islamist ideology works in some ways: it allows to win wars for a peculiar elite (in the desert). But it does not work in most other ways. Real wisdom works in a universal way.

Why are so many Muslims attracted by the Literal Islam of the Qur’an? Precisely because of the pro-Islamist propaganda of the Main Stream media and our oil-dependent leaders. By making “Islamophobia”, the fear of Islam, a symptom of racism (whereas the fear of Catholicism, catholicophobia, is not racist…), a victimology was offered: claim you are a victim of that racism, and the authorities will come to your help, be it by lip service alone. Sure enough, the parents of the Afghan naturalized US citizen in New York and New Jersey claimed to be victim of that “racism”. They own a restaurant. Their son planted seven bombs over the weekend. Two exploded (injuring 29 people and one robot). Ultimately, it is those who planted the notion that to fear an anti-humanist ideology is racism, who are to blame. And what was these sycophants’ ultimate motivation? Pleasing the powers that be, who got the oil, thanks to those who rule, thanks to Islam. A lot of thanks to go around, in those hall of power and academe.

This system of thought and moods is a powerful generator of extremism. A recent study in France showed that 46% of French “Muslims” are totally secularized (good!) However, and that’s horrifying, 28% of “Muslims” are “ultras”, in other words, Salafists. This is mostly attributable to the Islamophilia of leading politics.

Tolerance for racist and sexist actions is a form of tolerance for the most satanic instinct, that of destroying the many in the name of the few. Va de retro, Satanas.

Patrice Ayme’