Islam Is Islamism, And Oil Is Its Modern Prophet!

Judaism, Christianism, Islamism: Ordered By Increasing Enslavement And Violence

Abstract And Significance: Plutocrats, those who exert the power of wealth and evil, always rule sustainably through a cult. The basic methodology of crafty, sustainable class abuse is to deny not just human dignity, but respect for reason itself. So the oppressive cults tend to be violent and really stupid, by design (an example is Putinism).

Violent and really stupid, such as brandishing somebody crucified, one of the worst tortures ever devised… in the name of love and safety (this is what Christianism, does, to be clear). Christianism has been thoroughly dismissed in the advanced circles of thought… However, the plutocrats found a loophole. Christianism is now progressively replaced by a cult of mythical Islam, all good and glorious, or so the upper ones say (they use a so-called “Glorious Qur’an” which omits ALL the bad stuff from the REAL Qur’an). Although Islam adopted the symbol of the Moon from old Byzanthium, Islam is even more violent and discriminatory than Christianism and more of an insult to reason and dignity… And Christianism put the bar real high… The reason, as usual, is local plutocratic control, aggravated by the global need for oil.

Real intellectuals who want the Islamized areas to progress, be it only in the name of planetary security will point out that Islam needs to be restrained, just as Christianism was. The fanatics of the first Crusades are the brothers of Islamist Brotherhood, and for the same reason: violence in the name of a violent god (it’s the same god!) is no violence… in fanatical eyes.

So-called Islamists practicing Islamism are the true Muslims: they do according to the Qur’an, which informs us that Jews descend from apes and pigs [1]. Although Christianism, one could argue, was perverted by the Roman emperors which reconstructed it their brutal, self-serving way over three centuries, Islam was born that way, as an imperial ideology: Muhammad led an attack against the Roman empire. His friend and successor Abu Bakr ruled for only two years and two months, but thoroughly defeated both Romans and Persians…  

***  

Christianism, the religion of turning the other cheek, so one can get more of a concussion, is a slave religion imposed by latter day saints and emperors. It’s not obsolete in the sense that it gave birth to Islam, a superstition imposed by present day emperors. 

Christianism was a lie and a manipulation by the inherited plutocracy during the 16 centuries during which it dominated Europe. Something similar is affecting the area, with more than a billion people, where Islam dominates presently… And much of the exploitation actually comes from the same sort of plutocracy which terrorized and abused Europe during the Middle Ages. First let’s recapitulate the Christian situation, as Christianism was the forerunner and even promoter of early Islam.

Starting in December 380, Roman emperor Theodosius I invented the concept of heresy, a form of madness, he declares in his decrees, passible of any punishment. Theodosius said that the (Roman imperial) authorities could administer any punishment, including expropriation and death from horrendous tortures. 

When it surfaced that this so-called “Catholic Orthodoxy” was mostly an instrument of plutocrats to impose their rule of terror, revolutions and reforms were attempted, starting in the Tenth Century. The struggle against the terror church became more determined immediately after the crimes of the first crusade came to light… in the Twelfth Century.. However, thanks to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, himself a plutocrat by inheritance and de facto leader of the Catholic church, and in spite of ferocious resistance by the philosopher Abelard and his powerful network of influencers, a second crusade was launched, and then many others… 

The struggle between reformers and the Catholic church turned into a succession of religious wars, crusades, genocides and massacres, all the way to the eighteenth century. Most notable was the annihilation of all the Cathars, five millions of them, and all their books and thoughts.

By the time of Henry VIII and even more so of the French revolution, it became clear to intellectuals that the progress of civilization demanded the extinction of the Christian church’s hold on the minds of the rabble (evolution couldn’t be taught in England until Darwin, because of the Church). That was implemented the hard way in France, where many priests were executed.

The Christian mindset made a last victim, one it had wished to do for a very long time, European Jewry… Luther hated Jews in a lethal fashion, and wrote an entire book glorifying his murderous hate. Judaism, the original form of Christianism, was Europe’s oldest surviving religion, and fell prey to the Nazis… Just because Catholicism always wanted to get rid of Judaism, but was held back at the last moment by secular authorities… When the latter became Nazi, there was no holding back. . 

***

After the French and a century later, the Brits ejected the Ottomans from their occupation of North Africa and the Middle East, Arab regimes imitated their protectors and turned secular and progressive. That was called the Nahda… the Renaissance. It lasted from the beginning of the 19th until the mid twentieth century. What caused it? Well the US, France and the UK intervened. The US to recover hostages, launching the US Marines by so doing, then Napoleon tried to emulate Alexander the Great, but was sabotaged by the UK, yet freed Egypt, and finally France conquered Algeria, a den of pirates, at least in Algiers,, arguing that it owned it all along as the successor state of Rome. By the 1930s, Egyptian women in bathing suits were a common sight. But then Islamism returned.

What happened? I have argued that oil happened. As soon as the early 1920s, Ibn Saud, by then king of Saudi Arabia, which he had conquered from the Ottomans and thanks to an alliance with Muslim Fundamentalists, an old family tradition… Ibn Saud got rid of his ardent Jihadists by revealing to the Brits their incoming attack on Jerusalem… The UK massacred them. By the 1930s, US oil men showed up, and by 1945, a deal Ibn Saud couldn’t refuse was made with the dying FDR….In a few days of military communion on the Great Bitter Lake… Give us your oil, recycle your money on Wall Street, and we will condone your religious style dictatorship… That enabled the Muslim Brotherhood, more or less founded by the Nazis, to survive and prosper…In symbiosis with the Great Bitter Lake scheme. Modern Islamism prevented the rise of modern states in North Africa and the Middle East. That was not an accident but the reason why it was activated. 

Isphahan. The main square of Isphahan is one of the world’s most beautiful places. It’s gigantic and full of fabulous mosques, I was there, and it should never be bombed, being one of the world’s greatest art extravaganza.

***

***

***

Razika Adnani is a woman which is a formal education in philosophy of Franco-Algerian nationality who specialize in Islam. She gave a long interview in the Figaro, much of it specific with Algeria and France. Here is the conclusion in a more general vein:

Why do today’s Muslim youth seem more radical than previous generations? How do we explain it?

It is certain that we are witnessing a rise in conservatism and radicalism among young Muslims in the West. This is a continuation of what happened in Muslim countries. This is explained by the fact that we are moving further and further away from the fabulous period called the nahda (often translated as rebirth), which took place in the Muslim world between the beginning of the 19th century and the mid-20th century.

The nahda is a movement of major reforms and a process of modernization which affected all areas including that of religion. Under pressure from conservatives and Islamists who knew how to take advantage of the political and geopolitical events of the time, the nahda failed.

[Patrice Ayme’s thesis is that this failure was not an accident, just as the promotion of Christianism by Roman emperors in the Fourth Century, which was a sinister plot at the highest level, starting with son killing and wife steaming Constantine.]

Conservatives and Islamists, notably the Wahhabis and Muslim Brotherhood, then mobilized to ensure that Muslim societies renounce the gains of this period of modernization, that is to say, go back to the past. , which they gradually achieved. As a result, the more the years separate us from the period of the nahda, the more conservatism and Islamism are expressed and imposed, and the more young people are more religious and conservative than their elders.

How can we fight against the radical ideas shared by young Muslims, which take shape thanks to disinformation and social networks?

The fight must take place on several levels. First of all, that of the State which must be firmer and more determined in its fight against Islamic radicalism to stop the Islamist ideology which is on the march in France. The State must find a solution to this phenomenon of indoctrination by social networks. It cannot fight against fundamentalism and Islamism and leave young people at the mercy of social networks.

It must act at school level by providing training to teachers, enabling them to have intellectual elements of defense against fundamentalist discourse among young people. I myself was a teacher in Algeria at a time when the Islamist wave was invading the country. It was only with these elements of defense that I was able to face the fundamentalism that was affecting certain students. To instill the values of humanism and critical thinking in young people, teachers must stop wanting to spare the sensitivity of Muslims, which is on the one hand discrimination and on the other hand does not help them to emancipate themselves. intellectually.

Then, we must put an end to the idea that “Islamism is not Islam”, which specialists in Islamism like to repeat since the 1970s. It has created the nest of conservatism and radicalism in sheltering Islam from any criticism. This has prevented Muslims from critically looking at their religion and religious discourse. On the contrary, this expression has reassured them in their certainties and their practices which date back to the first centuries of Islam and which are not in agreement with the values of our time and with the culture of France.

Finally, religious discourse must be honest with Muslims and non-Muslims, that is to say, we must put an end to the phrase: “It is not Islam but only Muslims” . A phrase which is itself at the origin of the academics’ phrase: “It is not Islam, but Islamism”. Muslim intellectuals or intellectuals of Muslim culture must get to work to offer Muslims a new Islam, compatible with the values of humanism and the modalities of social and political organization of our time by explaining to them why it is necessary to change and how it is possible to change. Without this work within Islam, without this reform of Islam, radicalism and Islamism will continue to advance. Whatever political measures are taken against these phenomena, they will resurface as long as Islam does not change from within.

How did supporters of political Islam in France manage to impose the concept of “Islamophobia”?

[Patrice Ayme: In many countries including supposedly religiously enlightened France, “Islamophobia”, the JUSTIFIED fear of Islam, is mistranslated into the “hate of Islam”, and viewed as a form of… racism. Whereas, in truth, any religion which threatens to kill people for innocent beliefs and practices, calling them criminal, should be feared, and as the Republican Romans did, extinguished.] 

Islamophobia is a concept that aims to prevent thoughts from being expressed. It is therefore added to the list of concepts and theories that Muslim fundamentalists and literalists put in place, between the 8th century and the 10th century, to block thought and reason and prevent them from expressing themselves. in the field of religion. Among these theories are that of the uncreated Quran, the theory of salaf (or predecessor), the theory of naql (or literalism) and among the concepts there is that which states that “religion is a matter of the heart and not of reason”. Islamophobia therefore easily finds its place in the consciousness of a large part of Muslims who think that Islam, the perfect religion of God transmitted by the predecessors who have held the absolute truth, cannot be criticized.

The Muslim Brotherhood used it in the Muslim world as a weapon against progressives who had a different narrative about the Muslim religion, and in the West to make Muslims feel like victims because criticism about their religion is issued. The idea that Islam does not admit any critical spirit is also nourished by academics, who have repeated for more than 50 years that Islam is not responsible for the problems that arise, but only Islamism which is not Islam.

We therefore reinforced this conviction which existed among a large proportion of Muslims from cultures where Islam is not criticized. For them, anyone who criticizes it has no reason to do so other than out of fear or hatred of this religion. They perceive this as an injustice towards them. Prohibiting critical thinking in the field of Islam is obviously not in the interest of Islam or Muslims.

***

***

[1]

Quran in Surah Al Ma’idah that says:

“Say, “Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah ? [It is that of] those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs (swine) and slaves of Taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way.””  

OK, I Will Turn My Cheek, But Take Out Your Cheek In Return… Savage is not what savage does. Savage is what savage can’t do. App: Israel!

Call that Christianism revised… Into something more sustainable.

Turning the other cheek, once one has been slapped, is a masochistic slave mentality. Granted, that’s what the masters wanted us to have. And we must please the Masters. But where does it stop? How hard is the slap? This appeasement strategy ended in Auschwitz. It should have ended for good at Auschwitz.

What was the alternative? 

***

Besides turning the cheeks over, another mentality is that of the basic predator: given a meal of cheeks, they will ask for more, once they are hungry again. The advice used to be, with predators, to play dead and they were supposed to flee. That was in complete contradiction with my experiences in Africa. As a child I perceived that behaving like a prey incited the predator to attack. Instead, one had to behave like the crown of creation, face down the predator with the famous Ecce Homo… Here is the human, you must behave. That worked well with panthers, lions, lionesses, entire lion prides, hyenas and even gigantic African wild dogs… In the latter case I cheated a bit, by throwing up in the air sugar cubes, which enabled them to exhibit astounding vertical jumping capabilities. The method even works with highly venomous snakes: once the snake has figured out you are in the way, it will generally go away. However it failed twice and I had to kill the snake, once a viper in Europe and another time a rattlesnake in California, both cases in narrow mountain paths. Once, charged by a black bear in the Sierra Nevada, I hit the furious creature with a large rock. He changed his mind and fled. Three weeks later he severely injured a grandmother, and was killed by rangers in Yosemite National Park.

The latest recommendation in California after two adult brothers got attacked by a mountain lion, and one was killed, is to fight like hell. Experienced predators fear injuries. I personally charged mountain lions twice. Both times accidentally, but once engaged I persisted to show to the predator he was prey (both were large males).

Some will whine: but what has all this to do with us, the advanced ones, the modern, the civilized, the woke, pacific and anti-racist? It has to with the fact, that, under your varnish of pwerlessness, you are still super predators full of hate. In the case of the Jews that means they get exterminated, if not defended by an army. As surely as Europe will get domesticated by the Kremlin into oblivion, if not defended by nuclear weapons.

So what was to be done with Auschwitz? What should have been done to prevent Auschwitz?

Fight like hell.

If the Jews had fought the Nazis like hell in the 1930s, they would have got more allies later. In particular it is likely that France (which was led by a Jew in 1936) would have gone to war at the latest by 1938… And the earlier the war, the less ready the Nazis were. In 1940, half of the Nazi tanks, and most of their best tanks had been captured in Czechkoslovakia (surrendered without combat because of the Munich betrayal… By France).

This is why Israel was created again in 1948: to provide the Jews with an army… which could fight like hell.

An army which projects the attitude that it will never fight like hell is not an army: it can’t exert dissuasion. 

The safety of humans in the wilderness, for millions of years, has rested on dissuasion. A pride of saber tooth tigers would watch a human wearily, but probably would not engage: poisoned arrows helped predators develop the appropriate culture.

Arabs will respect Israel more once it has crushed Hamas… And may even respect Israel so much that a permanent peace, with a prominent place for the IDF, the Israeli Defense Force, Tzahal, will be found. As it must, the military aspect must be prominent… And that means, to the chagrin of Jew haters, that Tzahal will have to rule over the Greater Israel of David Solomon, etc… Solomon was a just king. So was his father… And God hated David for it.  

***

Savage is not what savage does. Savage is what savage can’t do. What savage does not understand. Namely civilization is greater when the capabilities are greater. Because having more capabilities comes from having a more nuanced, hence more powerful understanding of nature... including of human nature. Israel can be a very good catalyzer for fostering understanding in the area. Enjoy.  

Patrice Ayme   

  

“CRETIN” Comes From “CHRISTIAN”. A Deep & Revealing Truth From The European Middle Ages

Créstin From Chréstien. Calling Cretins Cretins, Starting With Christians, Made Europe Smart, Thus Strong. 

European supremacy (now quickly vanishing) rested on mental supremacy, and that, in turn demanded, and demands, a colossal contempt for superstitious religion [1].

Colossal contempt for superstition is why the word Chréstien became a pejorative, Créstin, now simplified as cretin (just as the Latin hospitale became modern French hopital).

Europe has been vastly misunderstood. It is usually viewed as “Christian”. Nietzsche correctly thought that the naive vision of Christianism ruling Europe, was just propaganda by the true masters of Europe (the “Lords” who were in plain sight, but, thanks to Christianism succeeded to make the Commons believe in the virtue of enslavement).

Christianism was just the superstition the slaves were supposed to be guided by, to “believe” in. Jesus urged his followers to act like slaves, implementing a slave morality… Meanwhile, in truth the nobles followed a morality more akin to that of the “blonde beast” (the lion), as Nietzsche put it. Indeed nothing stopped the aristocracy. Aristocrats, if hungry, would roast children (this happened during some Crusades, for nourishment of the hungry Frankish warriors… No, this is not a piece of Islamist propaganda: the Crusaders themselves related the facts, read Jean de Joinville and his friends…) 

Here I will present a further datapoint supporting the perspective that the literary class of the Middle Ages was perfectly aware of, despised and rejected Christianism, which they perceived as hypocrisy, exploitation and mental retardation combined. We owe those critics of Christianism a convenient concept and word, cretin. Amusingly Nietzsche, a French speaking philologist (i.e., linguist) did not think of this argument.

Incontrovertible! Thank You, Professor! Paris University Professor Bernard Cerquiglini, a top linguist, former director of the National Institute for the French language, confirms my long held interpretation.

In the early Middle Ages (500 CE to 1,000 CE), Europe was devastated. Population had collapsed, or was collapsing, well in excess of 50%. Say from perhaps 80 millions to just 18 millions (here is a link with some data and erroneous albeit interesting logic).    

I am aware of the explanation of crétin as a depiction of hypothyroidism and enthusiastic prolonged interbreeding… but medical science does not explain where the word came from.  

The usual, and true, and yet fake, story is that cretin comes from 1779, from French crétin (18c.), from Alpine dialect crestin, “a dwarfed and deformed idiot” of a type formerly often found in families in the Alpine lands, a condition caused by a congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones, and lack of iodine. After brandishing that medical description from the Nineteenth Century, the Christian apologists pretend that the word is of uncertain origin. They are trying to hide the auditory evidence: in Old French, “créstin” and Chréstien (christian) have the exact same pronunciation.

Indeed defining “cretin” as a mental condition, does not explain where the word  comes from. I am a native French speaker (learned in Black Africa as a child, indeed). I also studied the question in depth, because, well, that’s what I do. “Cretin” comes from chréstien… “Christian” in English. In Vulgar Latin *christianus “a Christian” had generally the sense of poor fellow… or, in context, poor idiotic fellow. Throughout the Middle Ages, “Christianus” had a connotation of simpleton or mental retard. Here is a French specialists’ abstract confirming that observation:

“Plusieurs spécialistes contemporains de l’étymologie du français, tels Alain Reya ou Walther von Wartburg, estiment que l’explication la plus vraisemblable est de faire dériver crétin de chrétien, par euphémisation, un crétin étant considéré comme un innocent, un bienheureux 3,4,5,6, ou parce que les arriérés étaient recueillis dans les monastères au Moyen Age.“

(Several specialists of French etymology, such as Ar or WvW, ascertain that the most likely explanation is to make cretin derive from christian, by euphemization, a cretin being considered an innocent, a happy person, or because mental retards were welcome in the monasteries of the Middle Ages.)

Well, and if it was not just an euphemization? A look at the factual history and historiography of the middle Middle Ages shows that it is not just those in command who despised and did not obey Christianism. Those who wrote also loudly shared in the rejection and contempt of the religion which supposedly ruled the souls.

***

Below the Word Cretin, What Saved Europe; Hateful Contempt For the Fanatics:

So the origin of the word “Cretin” adds a new dimension to… the understanding of Europe. Indeed, here is another explanation, this one with full semantic dimensionality: the hatred and utter contempt with which priests and their ilk were viewed in the middle Middle Ages by most of the population, and, in particular, by the intellectuals who depicted the situation then.

Remember: late Middle Aged Christianism was a killing machine (just go ask Middle Easterners). The priests and their military allies ended up killing many millions, as the Middle Ages progressed. Burning at the stake for heresy reappeared in 1026 CE, after a Frankish imposed hiatus of more than five centuries. The full Christian insanity got unleashed with the First Crusade: as the Crusade started, so did the mass killing of European Jews (who were probably, at least in part, European by ancestry, and Jewish by conversion of said ancestor… so the conventional terminology of “anti-Semitism”, to qualify anti-Judaism, is misleading).

How do I know this of this hatred against the theocrats? It was a sane reaction to Christianism as war and genocide, the vision promoted by Saint Bernard (personal enemy of the great philosopher cum songwriter Abelard). The hatred against Christianism a la Saint Bernard was more than justified. Just an example: the (Fourth) Crusade against the Cathars killed as much if not more, in percentage terms, as the Nazis did… But the Christian leaders were themselves unhinged. To look at the Cathars again, Catharism was thoroughly annihilated, over several generations of relentless persecution. From Turkey to Spain. Not one book survived. Five millions Cathars died (at least).

I have next to my bed all the oldest French literature surviving, including the famed “Fabliaux”, in the original 9 centuries old French.

In these books, priests, chaplains and author church authorities are central. They are depicted engaging in relentless sexual adventures and fornication, murders, tortures, rape and castration, in the most comical way… It’s all roaring comical. A priest, surprised by the incoming husband, disguises himself in a statue. The enraged husband sees the statue, which reminds him of the priest, so he cuts its appendages. The fake statue says nothing to save his life, while losing wiener and jewels.

And so on. Most devious wives have a lecherous priest in their beds. Priests are depicted as terminally cretinous. This approach to religion was not new. Although (bishop) Gregory of Tours’ book on the history of the Franks, written six centuries earlier, is full of martyrs and saints, a robust reading shows many of the admirable characters, even saints, engaged in depredation… And some priests are represented in the worst light imaginable, killing for greed in extensive conspiracies. 

What is the conclusion? We The People of the Middle Ages had a robustly correct view of the theocrats. One has to realize that those writing horrors about people of the church belong to the most intellectual part of the population. Also we know that church summities as Beranger, an abbot basically said that the entire Christian religion worked only if one realized that reason should be divine. Beranger had a powerful ally: the conquering Duke of Normandy. Beranger fought the Pope… and was not defeated. 

The literal roasting of nobles during the “jacqueries’ of the Fourteenth Century (which extended to England) proves the point that there was tremendous opposition to the establishment throughout the Middle Ages (the existence of the Cathars, and the strike of the University of Paris for a full year around 1200 CE to be taught Aristotle, demonstrates the same point). After the jacqueries, which extended to England, the nobles lived in fear of a popular revolt until the final retribution of 1789… 

It took that long, because, just as in the Late Roman empire, cretinism was a method of governance. The more cretinous the people, the easier it is to rule over them.

So we see that the middle Middle Age society was such that intellectual positioning highly critical of Christianism was, de facto, tolerated, and pervasive. Calling cretins cretins and Christians, cretins, was missing in the Fourth and Fifth Century Rome: doing so after 380 CE, under the Roman emperors Theodosius I, Gratian and Valentinian was a capital crime. 

In France, the core of Western Europe, in the middle Middle Ages, a healthy contempt for superstitious religion flourished. This was a return to an old spirit. 

The Romans of the Republic often exhibited a critical distanciation for their own original Roman religion. The examples abound: an admiral, furious that the sacred chicken will not eat, a bad auguri, threw them in the sea, observing they would be forced to drink now. Caesar, invading Africa, stumbles and falls during disembarkment, a bad omen. So he grabs the sand, and says: now I hold you, Africa. Or Cicero, having become a supreme augur, in charge of interpreting the signs, observes that this is the most powerful position of the Roman Republic… As, for example, it enables the augur to validate, or not, the elections.  

When the Roman dictatorship became a Roman Catholic Orthodoxy, all distanciation from religion was gone: only Catholicism was the state religion (and the status of Judaism was unclear).  Everybody was supposed to subscribe to that superstition and its absurd orders (such as you shall not execute murderous highway robbers). The prompt result (it took only months, starting in 395 CE) was the collapse of the Roman state and civilization, led by the collapse of secularism. 

A mind freed of superstition is freer to observe the world. China and its satellites, the only center of civilization rivalling the Indo-European ensemble, was also never too subjected to terroristic superstition. So, whereas cannibalism ruled the Americas, under a superstitious umbrella, Eastern Asians did not eat their fellow man. Foot binding was enough to satisfy the sadistic instincts. 

So what happened, starting in 1026 CE, when burning people for heresy was re-engaged? The feudal order, a plutocratic system, was fundamentally resting on inequality. It needed a fascist god to justify itself. The more fascist the god, the more fascist the plutocracy could get. Hence the Cathar insurrection… and that was broken by plutocracy, for example, the king of France who had interest in breaking the super powerful county of Toulouse, a de facto parliamentary power… And Catharism was an excellent reason to do so, once its annihilation became the object of an official crusade.

However, there is something called CULTURAL INERTIA. Once contempt had been heaped on religion, for centuries, it could not be dispelled with the magic of terror. Resistance to Catholicism, obvious by the Eleventh Century, soon became frantic, and millions were killed. After four centuries of Protestantism, potentates in Western Europe (following some in North-Eastern Europe, see the Hus affair and consequences) promoted Calvin and Luther… This time reform worked enough, to cause centuries of religious wars… instead of the simple extermination by Catholic terror of its opponents.

Resistance to superstition and authority made Europe culturally smarter. It also probably made Europe EPIGENETICALLY smarter. Because there is no doubt that stupidity can be epigenetically imposed.

Oh, by the way, Christianism, as practiced by Roman tyrants, was theocratic fascism. A particular case of intellectual fascism. Now social network monopolies are imposing their own intellectual fascism… a particular case of which being what a growing group of contemporary French intellectuals call “Pensée unique“… The single thought, supported by the single emotion, hatred against The Malicious One… a characteristic of the Middle Ages. 

Calling cretins cretins is at the core of making the advancement of civilization possible. Yes, it’s not Politically Correct, or, more exactly, plutocratically correct, of calling cretins cretin, but it is philosophically correct. If one cannot call idiocy idiotic, there is no wisdom.

Idiocy is not just to be avoided, it is a teacher. Thinkers, in particular mathematicians, learn that error is a friend, a teacher. Only those who want to protect idiocy, cover it up.

Ah, and why is European supremacy vanishing? Because, precisely, Europe had increasingly learned to tolerate, or even revere cretinism. But the US President got blocked on “social media”, when all sorts of monstrosities and threats are not, and, suddenly struck by an epiphany, many leaders of European  cultural descent, worldwide, condemned the censorship. This is an encouraging sign, as censorship is the first step towards cretinism.

Our species is defined by wisdom. Cretinism is not just the religion of error embraced, it is as inhuman as one gets. This point of view carries real humanistic power. Take for example Nazism. Not too many whined that it looked cruel. But of course the Nazis got elected by pretending that they were good people, keen to resurrect Germany (defending minorities, of all things). So to counteract the nazis by claiming they were bad, when they claimed to be good, was not a powerful argument. Instead the very powerful argument was to point out that Nazism was a form of cretinism. Why? Because it did not have a snowball chance in hell to defeat the entente cordiale of France and Great Britain… all the more as their progeny, the USA, could not be really too far behind helping its parents. To this the Nazis replied with the cretinous argument that France and England, the two most aggressive, and deeply entangled nations of the last millennium, were actually degenerate, unwilling and unable, all of a sudden, to make war… although they had the largest empires the world had ever seen, and France spent 15 centuries at war, and counting… And this was just one aspect of Nazi cretinism, there were many others, like killing off intellectuals (in particular Jews), or depending upon US plutocracy to have an economy…

Fighting cretinism is most humanitarian, and most useful, in to achieve a more human civilization. One has to realize that Christianism was a slave religion, and taught this, not just by teaching to be slapped all day long, which was already cretinous, but by an entire arsenal of stupidities which were already denounced 18 centuries ago by Celsus… If one is dumb like an ass, one can be used like an ass. In these end of times times, it is high time to give cretins their marching orders towards a more meaningful future.

Cretinism is not just a secondary effect of Christianism. It is its principal raison d’être.

Demolishing cretinism has to start by not being afraid to search for, identify, and denounce stupid ideas. That’s where much of the learning is.

Patrice Ayme

***

[1] Some Americans knowing vaguely the history of English America, will object that it was founded by Pilgrims…. Who were full of respect for Christianism. That’s only SC, Superficially Correct. In truth the Pilgrims were integrated in military-plutocratic investment venture. Once the first Pilgrims landed (not to well, and not where the army had sent them), they wrote back to their fellows in Europe to boast of the immense riches of the continent. Simultaneously, the Pilgrims discovered some English heathens who had intermarried with Native women. Revolted by these sins, they massacred them all. The same reasoning was then extended to the entire continent. Thus Christianism was used to give the good conscience necessary to massacre enthusiastically anybody who was in the way of greater riches. This was what the Late Roman and Feudal systems had done, by using the Inquisition, but on a much greater scale.

Where is the contempt for Christianism in the behavior of the English colonizers? Well, by using Christianism mostly as a sword. If one extracts the best of Christianism, all the talk about love, pardoning, mercifulness, etc… One obtains positive Christianism, so to speak, and one can do the same with other religions. However, the weaponization of Christianism, by using its Dark Side, is what the Pilgrims and their descendants human, or institutional, did. That shows contempt for the positive side of Christ.

Considering what the European colonizers did with Christianism demonstrates the point that Christianism was an instrument of subjugation. Lethal, if need be, as symbolized by the cult object of the Christians, torture to death by crucifixion. If one is greedy enough, that’s not cretinous.

Forgiveness, A Virtue Which Christianism Got Right

Catholicism teaches many things. To We The People, it teaches first sheepness. Jesus is supposed to be our shepherd, we are supposed to be his flock. Or does it? Actually the Lord’s Prayer/Pater Noster gives prime of place to forgiveness, not sheepness. We are supposed to forgive. The notion is thus most important to Christ and company. 

The subject itself is fascinating, and very telling of the corruption in which the Anglo-Saxon plutocracy led the world. Indeed the “King James” version of the Bible published in 1611 makes Jesus into an investment banker! Indeed it asks the “Lord” to “forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” Debts? Really? Crist? Obsessed by “debts”?

King James was the lead investor in the foundation of the militarized English North American colony. He and other “West Country men” set up a system of white slavery (indentured servitude). Escaped white “servants” would be quartered alive (to encourage the other low lives to obey “the Lord”) A few years later the slave masters discovered it was more efficient to enslave Africans and to send the Native Americans as slaves to the Caribbean.

King James, who became king of Scotland as a baby, was big on torturing and killing witches. He then founded the mood of the sort of America that Black Lives Matter correctly hates… But that mood is written down in King James Bible, and celebrated in black churches, all over America. See the problem?… There at last an excellent monument to throw into the fire of furious criticism…

Did you read all this, Black Lives Matter? That the enslaving mentality originated with the debt obsessed mentality of King James? So please then give a thought to burning your “King James” Bibles, and replacing it with something less fake.

But let’s back up to the original version of the Catholic main prayer (my translation, from way before filthy enslaving plutocrat King James). Here it is:

“Our Father who is is heavens,

Let it be that you name be sanctified,

That your reign arrives,

That your will be done on Earth as in Heavens.

Forgive us,

As we forgive those who offended us.

Do not let us be tempted by sin,

And free us from evil.

Amen.”

Much of this prayer has been subject to debate: the first written version was in Greek, but, except if it was a complete fake concocted by imperial plotters (as some hold it to be, and they have good refined historical arguments), the original has got to have been in Aramaic (the mythical Jesus didn’t talk Greek, although many in Judea did). So, to establish my version, I kept in mind the supposed mentality of Jesus (I don’t think Jesus worried about financial investments). My version is nearly identical to the Catholic original from before Theodosius I.

In any case, forgiveness is central in Christianism… and it’s a keeper. 

What does forgiveness do? It enables to establish peace more easily, by deciding to turn an offense one suffered into a gift one offers. So forgiveness transforms offenses into gifts.  

But not just this. When we reason, be it from heart and, or, cold blooded logic, we can make mistakes. Forgiveness can take care of these mistakes. Maybe, after all, some of these offenses were not what they seemed: maybe we helped them along, or imagined them, a bit. Hence those offenses we forgive, may have originated in our minds, all too much.

Thus, by forgiving others, we may be actually forgiving ourselves. Forgiving others turns out to be nicely self-serving, if we look at it in depth.

Christianism, in full, is not compatible with civilization… But that does mean there are no pieces we can make our own… It doesn’t mean, either, that we should hesitate to eradicate our enemies… But when they surrender, as Allah indicates often in the Qur’an, we may as well be merciful…

Patrice Ayme

On The Stabbing Of Civilization By Pseudo-Thinkers And Those Who Religiously Abuse

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) just decreed that calling “pedophilia” a 53-year-old man having sex with a nine-year girl is…. punishable by law. Yes, calling it pedophilia is a crime. Yes, you read that twisted train of thought from maniacal so-called “judges”, right: if admirers of the 53-year-old make a religion out of this pedophilia, and they did, you can’t call it pedophilia, without breaking European law. A unanimous decision by fanatics (fanatics from the fanum, what comes out of the temple). The lunatics judge, and took command of, the asylum.

Soon we will have to go to jail, if we insinuate that Mary was not really a virgin, you know… Hey, why not burn us alive for insinuating that Mary was a slut? European judges were all into it for many centuries.

Or is there more? Did European history see this before? The pedophiles in command? The terrorists sitting as judges? Could it be an evil treachery, a mass conspiracy? Such as, for example, Christianism? (I use the word “Christianism”, in deliberate parallelism with Judaism, Buddhism, and, especially its sister soul, Islamism…)

The Plutocratic Party has no bounds, never had any: the inception of the Dark Ages, facilitated by the imposition of obscurantist Christianism, is a case in point. All books were destroyed, and intellectuals shredded, because the emperor and his Christian bishops, said so.

Does one need to be conscious of it, to take part in a conspiracy?

Surely not: quite the opposite. Conspiracies work best when they stay conspiratorial to those who engage in them. Conspiracies are about together-breathing, not together-thinking. Con-spirare, not con-cogitare!

This is demonstrated in the easiest way, by the Holocaust of the Jews and others in World War Two: most cogs of the Nazi extermination machine were not conscious of the full extent of the conspiracy… and its final solution, and how really terminally final it was: they tried very hard, not to be conscious. Lack of carefully construed awareness made them even more lethal, by giving them good conscience! 

(For a more contemporary example, watch Obama fanatics studiously ignore his drone attacks on weddings, and the increasing inequality under his reign…)

***

What is the difference between conspiracy and community? Sometimes, not much: many offshoots of Islam keep their doctrine secret, for example (Islam Kurdish way, Alevis, Alawites; so it is within Christianism).

Not only I believe in conspiracies, as the backbone of progress, I believe that treachery is another great engine of historical creation, of creation of history. Treachery can go very far: Christianism is a system of thought treacherous to the human condition. No less.

Both conspiracies and treachery are propelled by Evil-Power. More of this below.

Catholicism, for example, was an act of treachery of that superlative goon and saint of the Catholic and Orthodox religions, revered Roman tyrant Constantine. Constantine betrayed civilization. Both his son and Caesar Crispus and the future emperor Julian believed this. So Constantine killed Crispus, because Constantine had only one god, himself.

A theory of mine is that a country like France has been undermined by treachery from people and systems. Just as there are fake news, there are fake intellectuals. Most French intellectuals of the Twentieth Century were fake: when they stopped loving Stalin, that was to embrace Adolf and his goons, and then Uncle Sam, of course, with another dose of Sovietism, then Castrism, Maoism, etc… Just look at Sartre (for example).

Gian Francesco POGGIO BRACCIOLINI (1380-1459) umanista italiano. Autore di lavori di filosofia, storia, nonché orazioni e poesie, scrisse ‘Historia florentina.. Treacherous Destroyer of Catholicism Sitting Pretty In the Highest Position At the Vatican. He discovered, among other things, Lucretius De Natura Rerum, a 7.500 verses poem, which demolished Christianism.

***

Traitors All:

France is the case I know best with its child and descendant, the USA. Francia, and then France were most influential on the evolution of civilization in the last 17 centuries, and not just due to its construction of Europe under the Francs, and then of England, Netherlands, USA, etc… The Merovingian Francs stopped fanatical Christianism, more exactly, Catholic Orthodoxy, as it was called, dead in its tracks.  Then the Carolingian Francs stopped the invading Islamists dead in their tracks, by crushing three successive massive invasions of Francia by the Arab Caliphate (721 CE-748 CE). In the following centuries, the Francs would reconquer Northern Spain, Rome, Provence, Southern Italy, various Mediterranean islands and Sicily from the Muslim invaders.

It is abysmal that no severe critic of French history exists (but for yours truly). Great abominations such as Joan of Arc, Louis XIV, Napoleon are revered, while nobody seems to have heard of the solitary Bathilde, keeping an eye on the French Senate from 50 meters away (SHE outlawed slavery around 655 CE). Recent history’s ethics is all upside down, including on hot subjects such as “colonialism”, the Franco-Algerian civil war, etc. (By the way, many French youth descending from Algerians, as yours truly half-way, are discovering Algeria, and heading back there… France and Algerian can’t be separated, just saying…)

Both conspiracies and treachery are propelled by Evil-Power: Pluto-Kratia, plutocracy. History is pretty much the history of conspiracies. Edward Gibbon, the famous historian said:

“History is, indeed, little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind.”

[The decline and fall of the Roman Empire. 1 page 72.]

***

Obviously, if one has evil-power, one can subjugate the sheep. And that evil-power subjugates sheep best:

Subjugating sheep? Not so easy, yet necessary to their owners. Sheep can be huge, and have obdurate minds of their own. Once I was on a narrow mountain path, facing this huge sheep, firmly occupying the path. It was clearly more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds) and surrounded by fluffy wool. It was looking at me with beady eyes, and showing no intent to make way. I was wondering what its game was, and why he didn’t get off the path, going either up or down. OK, the terrain was not easy. But I was the Genus Homo, Lord of the Universe, and all and any sheep, in particular. Well not master of this one, apparently. He suddenly surged, headed towards me, and brushed by me, nearly throwing me into the high altitude jungle below.

Shepherds need to have at least one mean dog which will occasionally bite the sheep. Otherwise, the sheep won’t fear, and thus won’t obey the dogs (even then, some of them try to cheat).   

Sheep refusing to obey, facing the enemy. Although less intelligent than dogs, sheep have enough character to know what they want, to have a will and find ways. Once I herded down a mountain an injured sheep. Once she spotted a nice rock shelter, she hobbled there, laid down, and refused to go any further. I had to leave her to vultures, lynxes and wolves…

Some will object that I am erring, humans are not sheep. Right, humans are not just subjugated by terror. Humans are most humanly subjugated by the rationality debate brings forth. However, when plutocracy has progressed enough, debate is not possible: inequality makes it impossible. As when Macedonia, Rome took over… or now again? . Representative Democracy as we have it consists into billions led by a few well rewarded greedy fools with a high opinion of themselves, while being informed by the venal employees of the wealthiest individuals in the world (who own or influence all media).

Edward Gibbon identified part of the problem: “As long as  mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than on their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters.”

[The decline and fall of the Roman Empire. 1 p. 21.]

Yes, as long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on its destroyers than on its benefactors, the thirst for glory and inequality will ever be the ultimate vice of the most exalted characters.

An example of exalted vice has been “Catholic Orthodoxy” (as Constantine called it), that is Christianism as defined by Constantine. Out of it arose Islam and also the so-called “Reform”. (Some may object that Islam returned to Mosaic Law, etc. However Muslim scholars themselves view Christianism as a halfway house from Judaism…)

Catholicism destroyed Greco-Roman civilization, or at least, nearly all its books and documents, targeting in particular thinking incompatible with Christianism (and that was most of it). The atomic theory was saved by just one book (which had belonged to Charlemagne, and was lost again after being found in 1417 CE, and thankfully copied, by the secretary to many Popes who, strangely enough, was all into saving Ancient Civilization from the claws of… Christianism. Indeed, what a better position in the entire Middle Age to undermine all of Christianism than being at its head?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poggio_Bracciolini

Gibbon again: “The influence of the clergy, in an age of superstition, might be usefully employed to assert the rights of mankind; but so intimate is the connection between the throne and the altar, that the banner of the church has very seldom been seen on the side of the people.”

[The decline and fall of the Roman Empire. 1 p. 59.].

Well, the key is that those greedy for power want either the throne, or the altar or both: watch Obama going to Cairo to preach to mankind what Islam was… And don’t get me started on Putin…

And what of these French pseudo-intellectuals? Well, a long, very long story. In the end European pseudo-thinkers vomiting Europe could only be popular with Europe’s enemies. Most of them loved tyranny, or US and USSR theses about the nastiness of Europe (mostly targeting, how convenient, European “colonialism”). They posed as leftists, but they were just facilitating the system of thought of the occupiers, and managers of Europe,

And now it’s more of the same: Islam brings oil and slaves, so Islam is good, and all the more as it divides European will and thinking, letting the USA in charge.

By the way, European mental decrepitude doesn’t help the USA. The USA needs serious thinking, not traitors posing as thinkers, and the mother ship, European civilization, intellectually decaying.

The Pogge found many ancient books besides De Natura Rerum. Poggius Bracciolinus was a traitor to Catholicism, an ally to civilization. What was Sartre? An ally to the Nazi Heidegger, Stalin, Nazi officers watching his theater, Castro, Mao? And De Beauvoir? Besides being a Vichy propagandist? Yes, the Second Sex. But I am dubious: there had been arguably 13 centuries of extreme feminism in France, before De Beauvoir quit her Nazi propaganda to write her book… And embrace (literally) the USA…

No to attack those two and their ilk with particular rancor: like pigeons, they looked for crumbs. What’s wrong is that many revere those pigeons as pure lights of the spirit… Traitors to civilization like pretty much all the founders and “fathers” of Christianism are also revered, although they demolished civilization for more than a millennium, ushered Auschwitz… So, then, indeed, having revered obvious criminals, why not revere Mohammad? Well, that seems to be what European so-called “judges” also judge.

And this is why we end down, glaring at the bottom of the abyss, ordered by obviously Islamist pedophiles, so-called European human rights judges, to revere Islam, or face time in jail. Time to judge them.

Patrice Ayme

 

Doctor Ordered: Roman Baths Alive Again

Roman baths were one the most striking features of Roman civilization. After the Roman state collapsed, so did the baths, bathing, and the will to bathe. This was partly due to the destruction of the Roman hydraulic system. But it was also due to Christianism, an artificial ideology, antinomic to humanity, which the Roman emperors imposed to turn We the People into We The Sheeple. It’s high time to become reunited to elements of Middle Earth Civilization, neglected ever since Christian derangement syndrome took over.

ASICS & The Dirt On Christianism:

Early Christians tended to cultivate dirt and inaction. Individuals, male or female, achieved sainthood, just because they stayed on top of a column, for years, or just because they never washed, nor washed their clothes, nor changed increasingly dirty clothing: they just waited for dirt to flake off. Not interfering with the will of god was viewed as a high achievement.

(Part of) Grand Bains in front, proud successor of their 2,500 year old Allobroge and then Roman predecessors. Two 1,000 year old churches behind. Roman Tradition & Divine Aspirations United in a multi-millennial embrace, in the middle of the Alps. In 2017, the French government minds the ecology fiercely, in its own special way, by assassinating wolves around this village, in full tourist season, and planning dams… (In complete and direct violation of European law protecting wolves, an endangered species, thus demonstrating that, when the French government favors plutocrats, under the pretext of European law, it’s because it wants to…)

Christianism despised the world, and, in particular, the human body. What is despicable shouldn’t rule! Thus Christianism made despising We The People, into a religion, debasing the masses into submission! Taking care, either of the world, or the human body, was to be condemned, such was the mood of early imperial Christianism. That was the reason of being of imperial Christianism.

Once the Christians took over the small emirate of Granada, they closed the 3,000 public baths of this Muslim enclave. (I hope foaming at the mouth Jihadists read this before attacking modern baths; knowing history has not been their forte).

Christianism’s mood of submitting to fate, by rejecting the existence of the real world, was the  exact opposite of the mood of the Roman Republic. And that was exactly Christianity’s main point: submit to fate in general, and the emperor in particular. Such is the will of god.

An important aspect of Roman mentality, ASICS: Anima Sana In Corpore Sano, a healthy soul in a healthy body, was particularly repugnant to Christian fanatics. (A variant from Juvenal’s “Mens sana, in corpore sano…”) After the collapse of the Roman State, Christians would spend much efforts, in the following millennium, trying to close baths, until public hygiene became abysmal.

***

The Christian anti-ASICS mood was also a completely degenerate mindset:

De-generate: what generates not, what undoes generation. What generate human beings in full was ASICS.

A portion of the exterior part of Monêtier-les-Bains Baths. Glaciers in the background High Alps are melting at a torrid pace. Entire glaciers are now fields of stones, after two decades of melting… I have computed that elevating the melt zone by 100 meters is roughly equivalent to shrinking the permafrost zone 100 kilometers to the north (or south…)

The destruction of the baths was actually progressive: early “Christian” civilization was not that “Christian”, and resisted Christianism for many centuries (Charlemagne was very Christian when Christianism was useful to conquer the Saxons and persuade them they were of an inferior moral sort, and intellectual primitives; however, in his personal life, and in his pushing of secular education and private fuming about the Pope, Charlemagne was not at all Christian, or then just Christian in a noble form…) It took many centuries for full Christian hatred of body, mind, health and world to take over. By then, even inside the “Church”, entire traditions of resistance to that sort of Christianization had risen. “Men in Black”, a sort of fanatical monks, destroyed books and libraries and intellectuals by 400 CE, but soon other monks were secretly saving around 93% of the texts of Antiquity which got preserved.

The hot, mineral laden baths have great curative properties, known probably already to Neanderthals (people used to have lots of skin disease). The destruction of bathing and basic hygiene in the Late Middle Ages, due to mass Christianization, brought massive epidemics. Proof? The nobility was often unaffected, because they bathed, and lived according to un-Christian morality, as Nietzsche, following Sade, forcefully pointed out…

Those texts were rediscovered in monasteries by the Late Middle Ages, including many by the secretary of several Popes, who detected the one and only copy of Lucretius’ De Natura Rerum, Of the Nature of Things, the only compendium of Greco-Roman science we have. Indeed the story of the Catholic Church was immensely complicated.  

***

Experiencing The Baths:

The Roman baths had many traditional sub-elements, such as the Tepidarium (tepid), the Frigidarium (frigid), the Calorarium (caliente! very hot). Going from the frigid bath to the super hot bath is really to be experienced: there is a variant where one walks through an even colder leg bath, before going back to warm water. One can feel nerves twinkle…

The high Alpine village of Monêtier-les-Bains has had baths, from natural hot water springs, for more than two thousand years. The Romans knew it well: the valley in which Monêtier-les-Bains sits had a major Roman road going through 150 miles of massive mountainous landscape, complete with passes above timberline and enormous canyons (in the flanks of which the Romans dug their roads, and their mines).  

One becomes more fully human by experiencing more and more significantly, as long as it’s rather innocuous. Experiencing the games one’s neurology plays from just changes in water, or air, temperature or the impact of powerful jets is instructive.

Les Grands Bains du Monêtier are strangely addictive. Maybe that’s the wrong adjective: why should it be strange to feel fully human? The Romans didn’t think so. But the Christians did, and that’s why Christianism put civilization in full reverse in crucial ways, and why it had to be wiped out as a ruling cult. Ruling out Christianism is what the Enlightenment did, but it took a while: teaching the theory of evolution was forbidden in English universities for most of the Nineteenth Century (although it was allowed, in Scotland, to teach the evolutionary theories of the French research professors of the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris: Buffon, Lamarck, Cuvier, etc…).

I am not the only one so addicted to Les Grands Bains: although the price is above 24 dollars for the shortest visit (including going through change of clothing, shower, etc.), I had to share the baths with at least one hundred other happy souls. However, the baths are very large, so it didn’t feel crowded. Although not as large by a very long shot, than the largest baths in the Roman empire, such as Caracalla’s Baths, the present baths have absolutely mesmerizing pools, such as the one where one can enjoy underwater music, while contemplating lighted wave patterns, made by underwater lights, on the domed ceiling, far above.

***

A whiff of pre-Christian religions, the religion of the baths, among others, is exactly what the doctor ordered, because it is a return to human sense, as evolved over millions of years, before the Abrahamism madness which devastated civilization, when the Middle Earth civilization nearly collapsed from a conjunction of factors where theocratic fanaticism, and rejection of reality, played an important part.

Right, it all originated from too few men having too much money, and then, power.

Nowadays, the stakes are higher: mad, yet powerful cretins play with, and brandish, thermonuclear bombs, and can throw them to the other side of the Earth. Ignore them to one’s own, and goodness’ peril. Antidote? Everyday I walk and take a long hot bath, reading in either case…

Patrice Ayme’

 

Torture To Death: Christ’s Crux

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

[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

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’

Christian Civilization Never Existed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

How & Why The West Causes Submission

The very wealthy people who have long dominated the world, the plutocrats, want Submission (in Arabic, “Submission” is “Islam”). They want us to be submitted to them. Oil Barons made tremendous money from their satanic deal with the Devil, Ibn Saud, where Islam (= Submission) and Wall Street were central. Ibn Saud was the head of the most successful Islamist State of the Twentieth Century. That Islamist State was successful, because it made friends with the British plutocrats, before switching to the American ones in 1945.

How is it possible that young women and men want so much to kill other people that, for them, dying in the process is just a detail? Many ask this question, and roll out many complicated explanations to avoid giving the simple answer. That simple answer is in their face, in four words: just read the Qur’an. If you believe the Qur’an, killing yourself and others will send you directly to paradise (Qur’an (3:169-170), among others). Allah is merciful and very efficient to kill enemies.

This inability to read the Qur’an in turn comes from the mood that reading the Qur’an may reveal the truth. And that mood would contradict what politicians say all over: radical Islam is a pathology of Islam (I was listening to Raffarin, an ex-Prime Minister of France, who used these exact words). So doing they are blind to their own stupidity: radical means “roots”. Saying that the “roots” of something are a pathology of that something is a contradiction: the genes cannot be a pathology of what they generate.

Thus what is being imposed here is the mood that truth is not Politically Correct. This is not the only crazy, self-destroying mood imposed: another is that love wins all (just listen to John Lennon in this matter, he was a specialist of that delirious attitude, until that moment when he was made into Swiss cheese).

And When That Does Not Work, Extermination Will. Nazis Were Not Loved To Death, But Bombed To Death. And Ike Brought to Bear the National Guard, That Is, Force, to Integrate Schools. MLK Did Not.

It goes without saying that the mood that truth is immoral is most profitable to the powers that be. The superstition habit (Christianism, Islamism) is a good way to kill respect for truth, by extending instead respect for collective hallucinations, as long as they are crazy enough.

Deeper than ideas are moods. Talking about ideas is not enough, one has to talk about what underlays them, moods.

Submission is a religion more known under its Arabic name, Islam.

I exposed its nature. Normal media, censors me, in particular when I quote from Submission’s most sacred text, the Qur’an. And when I quote Voltaire about it, it’s Voltaire’s turn to be censored. What does that say about civilization when truth is viewed as a racist crime?

A reminder for all these suicide bombers: they are going straight to paradise:

Qur’an (3:169-170) – “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve.”  Martyrs go directly from life to paradise, and should rejoice for them.

From the Hadith:

Muslim (20:4678) – …a man said: “Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], where shall I be if I am killed?” He replied: “In Paradise.“…

So Submission (= Islam) is a problem, but the meta attitude relative to submission, even more so. That meta attitude is that, if you read Islam’s sacred texts, you are a racist. Killing and wounding 500 people in Paris because they listened to music and went to restaurants, doing what ISIS called their idolatry cannot be explained by those who have no read Islam, the set of orders from Allah, the bloody dictator supposed to rule over all Muslims’ hearts… and souls.

In Europe, for example Germany, Salafists are free to preach, and it’s a full time job. This is lawful, under the pretext of “tolerance”, “freedom of expression”, “freedom of religion”. However strict Islam, teaching the Qur’an, in full is teaching hatred, maximally (see quotes in other essays). In particular, preaching the Sharia.

All this should be unlawful, and punishments should be applied. certainly if people can go to prison for possession of illegal drugs, which only injure themselves, those who preach violence should be punished much more.

This is common sense. That this common sense was not enabled by legislators is certainly a form of complicity, just as pontificating about islam without having read the Qur’an is also a form of complicity with the madness.

The ultimate red herring to divert attention from gathering inequality in the world: focus on this Islamism we have incited to grow in your midst.

Is that all very twisted? Maybe, but straightforward logic is not good at manipulating people; twists are required. But, behind these twists there are laws, psycho-historical laws, immutable.

Because, indeed, this is how the Greco-Roman empire went down. A religion was imposed from the top (Christianism), just as now Islamism is imposed from the top (by calling those who fear Islamism “racist”, and by NOT applying hate crime laws against Salafists). Simultaneously schooling and the army were hugely weakened, under the guise of austerity (so that Roman plutocrats would not have to pay taxes so high that they will not be able to become ever richer).

The analogies are strict. Meanwhile Rome suffered a broad resource crisis… which only greater education could have solved. Instead the world fell in exactly the same superstition which is now called Islam. Yes, Islam existed before Islam. And in particular with the most important love of death and the apocalypse, which is the underlying deepest theme of the Qur’an.

When god is a creep, creeps are gods. Thus creeps want creepy god to be great. “God is great!” they scream, meaning: we are great! Yes, indeed, great, very great creeps

The Islamist crisis we have is very similar to the Christian crisis of the Fourth century, and the fundamental cause is the same, namely the oligarchic crisis having gone so bad, that it hated, and ate, the brains

Patrice Ayme’

What If God Is Nuts?

A Moroccan Jihadist climbs on a High Speed European train in Brussels. It is easy to get weapons in Belgium, less so in France. He is armed with a full automatic machine gun, a Kalashnikov, AK 47, nine magazines for the AK47, a handgun, a knife. He has been told, and believes, that, as the faithful, he should obey god’s writ. And even more than that, he will fight racism.

How come?
If Islamophobia, the fear of Islam, is racist, does not that mean that Islamophilia, the love of Islam, is anti-racist? Thus by believing Islam to death, are not Jihadists fighting racism? Jihadists believe that, to the bottom of their all consuming hearts. When god is nuts, nuts are gods.

And What If God Is A Crazy Homicidal Maniac?

Notice that France is the most atheist country (thus number one targets for Jihadists). From my point of view, France’s healthy skepticism about the morality of god, is directly traceable, not just to Clovis and his Franks, but to the election, in Paris, more than a century before that, of Julian as “Augustus“ (supreme Roman emperor, in 360 CE). The Catholic bishops hated the all too moderate and philosophical Julian, who was derided as “the Apostate”. The Franks organized a flurry of anti-Christian coups, during the Fourth Century.

The High Speed train enters France. The Jihadist goes to the toilet to equip himself (for a slightly different version, see the New York Times). He comes out, a Frenchman in his fifties confronts him, grabs the Kalashnikov AK47, and runs away with it. The Jihadist shoots the Frenchman, the bullet enters next to the spine on the left side, in the lumbar area, through the entire left lung, and comes out through the clavicle. Alerted, two young American soldiers, and a friend, an Afro-American, plus a British businessman, and a French conductor, jump the killer. The lead American hero, Spencer, loses his thumb to the killer’s cutter (it got re-attached in a French hospital, right away). Everybody survives, because the would-be assassin’s gun jams. As related in the Times:

“Mr. Norman [UK Consultant] and Mr. Sadler [Afro-American student] had joined in the efforts to subdue the gunman, who “put up quite a bit of a fight,” Mr. Norman recalled at the news conference in Arras on Saturday. “My thought was, ‘I’m probably going to die anyway, so let’s go.’ Once you start moving, you’re not afraid anymore.”

Mr. Stone [large Martial Arts expert, Air Force First Class] wounded and bleeding, kept the suspect in a chokehold. “Spencer Stone is a very strong guy,” Mr. Norman said. The suspect passed out. Mr. Norman busied himself binding him up with a tie.

Mr. Skarlatos [22 year old Oregon National Guard soldier, back from Afghanistan, friend with Sadler and Stone] , the AK-47 in hand, began to patrol through the carriages, looking for other gunmen. He made a series of startling discoveries: The suspect’s guns had malfunctioned, and he had not had the competence to fix them.

“He had pulled the trigger on the AK. The primer was just faulty, so the gun didn’t go off, luckily,” Mr. Skarlatos said. “And he didn’t know how to fix it, which is also very lucky.” In addition, the gunman had not been able to load his own handgun: “There was no magazine in it, so he either dropped it accidentally or didn’t load it properly, so he was only able to get what appeared to be one shot off,” Mr. Skarlatos said.”

In the fifties, George Orwell wrote excellent books where he introduced, and condemned, the notion of “thought crime”. Actually he had invented nothing, the USSR had condemned people to death for “Thought Crimes” before.

Roman law itself distinguished the notion of “Mens Rea” (mental act). To be culprit of voluntary homicide, it’s not enough to kill somebody, one has to have thought about it (mental action). Orwell may have thought too fast, and too superficially: fast and shallow thought crime.

We live in a world where human thoughts are increasingly capable of enormous amplification. So what people think about matters.

Legislators recognized this after the Nazi fiasco. Nazism was an ideology of hatred. Once allowed to rule, it programmed tens of millions of Germans into exterminating others. Ideally, such hate ideologies ought to be outlawed. But the lines are hard to draw between fantasy and thought meant to program people into killing robots.

So legislators, starting in France and the USA, decided that hatred of an ideological character, if one could legally prove that it was present, would be an aggravating factor in the commission of a crime.

Another approach was tried earlier. With Christianism. In the Middle Ages, Christianism played an horrendous role. It started with the Fall of Rome to which it contributed heavily (said Gibbon, and I  agree, in part). Then Clovis and his Franks mitigated the Jesus superstition, and things went well, until the rise of nationalism, tribalism, plutocracy and Crusades in the late Eleventh Century (also the time of the break between Rome and Constantinople: all those phenomena are related). After that, Christianism became a force for the worst… Until the last execution for heresy in Spain in the Nineteenth Century, if not the Spanish Civil War and its aftermath, where the Church and its Opus Dei, were on the side of fascism (Franco, Hitler, Mussolini).

In the New Testament, Jesus orders to kill unbelievers: Luke 19-27. Thus Islamism is just a parrot, if not a parody, a parroty, of Christianism.

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.”

Please compare with the Qur’an “Verse of the Sword” (Sura 9, v5):

“9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.”

Islamophiles, like pedophiles, are hard pressed to explain that one away. Muslim terrorists revolve around this verse, doing what it orders. The Qur’an, a very short book (83,000 words, I counted) contains many other verses, to the same effect.

Christianism, obeying Christ, killed millions, if not tens of millions. Still, in the end, it was made to submit: any priest teaching Luke 19:27, the core of Christianism in the Middle Ages, would now be fired. So how was Christianism forced to submit? Asking Louis XI, Henry VIII, or the French Revolution, brings the same answer: Christianism was FORCED to submit.

Forcing Christianism is not new: the Franks forced Christianism to submit to their state, most notably in the Sixth and Eight Centuries. In the former case, the Vatican had to submit to the nomination of Frankish bishops, and when the Pope threatened to have them burned for teaching secularly, the Frankish authorities pointed out that Pope “Gregory The Great” had no army. In the Eight Century, the Church underwent nationalization, to pay for the war against Islamism. Then the Popes, on their knees, begged the Franks to come subdue the Lombards (Charlemagne did so, once the Church agreed to recognize him as Roman Emperor). (And I am not even mentioning Philippe Le Bel’s accidental execution of the Pope in the Fourteenth Century, followed by the incarceration of the Papacy in Avignon, among many similar exploits of anti-clerical type…)

There is one religion, always: that of the state (in the generalized sense of religion I use). Superstitions can be tolerated, as long as they are compatible with the state. So make Islam compatible. And that means some Islamist texts ought to be viewed as the Thought Crimes they are, and being ignored as well as Luke 19;27 (and other statements of Jesus to the same effect) are ignored.

If we, who believe in an ever wiser civilization, could submit the fury of Catholicism (“universalism”), we can certainly submit the meekness of submission (what “Islam” means)… Civilization is rising: time for the savages to realize that the gods must be crazy.

Patrice Ayme’