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.””  

Orthodox Jews Are Digging Israel’s Grave

…It’s easy for Orthodox Jews to dig Israel’s grave: reading always the same book, many Orthodox Jews, feeling very elected, don’t have to do military service, or anything at all, as the state supports them. The computation is simple: as they breed like rabbits, they keep pace with the Palestinans who are also breeding like rabbits. Interesting in most other countries, demography is collapsing… Also pretty high only in places with no hope, like Niger (8+ children per woman, although there is neitehr rain nor trees and Muslim fundamentalists are roaming…)

Are Orthodox Jews and Palestinians fostering a hopeless situation so they can breed more?

Jewish fundamentalists (“ultra orthodox”) do not realize that the extremism they inherited has been injurious to the cause they defend… Over the centuries. Anti-Judaism tapped into what was perceived as the claimed exclusive relationship between a “chosen people” and a particular deity. Most people who have not been “chosen” feel excluded, alienated and thus endeavor to fix what they feel is wrong. So, to parody, since the all too Christian 380s, yes, when the Roman state started to collapse, fanatics dress in black and go out to eliminate the cause of discomfort. It started with Christian monks destroying libraries such as the Serapis.

There was always a contradiction between founding a theocracy, and pretending that it was a democracy. However, Israel, the reformation of a state which had been terminated more than 2,000 years prior, was essentially a religious act… At inception, 3,000 years ago, Israel justified its invasion on being the chosen people. Then the Roman tyrants waged war against revolted Israel, and dispersed it. Thereafter, the Romans adopted Catholic (universal) Judaism as their state theocracy, and kept a complementary but adverse relation thereafter with Jews. Finally Nazis demonized Jews to justify their own violence. 

But now Israel is well established. The basic fact remains that the Middle Earth led civilization for millennia before sinking into religious fanaticism to buttress hydraulic dictatorships which took over the region. Eliminating that extremism should be mission number one if one wants to avoid nuclear war. Human rights, democracy and obeying a god, tribal or not, are not compatible.  

This is a reconstitution of one of the libraries of Alexandria destroyed by “men in black”, fanatical Catholic monks at the end of the Fourth Century. This was the main contribution to the Dark Ages, when civilization collapsed.

***

The fanatic Theophilus was Patriarch of Alexandria from 385 to 412 AD. During his reign the Temple of the Greco-Egyptian deity Serapis was converted into a Christian Church (around 391 AD) and most books were destroyed. The Temple of Serapis held much of  the Library of Alexandria. Theophilus’ nephew Cyril became Patriarch. Shortly after that, riots broke out when Hierax, a Christian monk, was publicly killed by order of Orestes the city Prefect. Orestes was said, byn the Christian fanatics, to be under the influence of Hypatia, a female philosopher, mathematician and either daughter of the “last member of the Library of Alexandria”. Or herself the last Head Librarian. Hypatia was dragged in the streets, raped, tortured to death with oysters shells. Most books of antiquity were destroyed, especially in science.

The Serapeum in Alexandria, Egypt, was an ancient temple dedicated to the worship of the Greco-Egyptian deity Serapis. Serapis was a combination of Osiris (god of fertility) and Apis (a sacred bull) in humanized form, both accepted by the Ptolemaic Greeks of Alexandria as their protector.

Built by Ptolemy III in the 3rd century BC, the Serapeum also housed an important library which served as an annex of the Great Library of Alexandria… Itself destroyed further under Omar, second Caliph, great general, no friend of Aisha… and the Muslim conqueror of Egypt in the Seventh Century…

Fanaticism fosters intellectual fascism which buttresses in turn plain political fascism…

Patrice Ayme

Islamophilia: Voltaire’s “Fanaticism Or Mahomet” Can’t Be Played Anymore

The extremely wealthy and intrigue-prone Voltaire, friend and adviser to King Louis XV of France, was radical only in the minds of the most obdurate regressives and the Inquisition… In particular, Voltaire advised Louis to not defend the French settlements in America…. with the consequence that the genocidal, enslaving colonization of the enemy won. Yet Voltaire’s play on Muhammad and Intolerance is now banned…

Or, more exactly, to give it its exact title, “Fanaticism Or Muhammad the Prophet” cannot be played, lest the people crazed with god and tribal identifications go nuts once again! Islamophilia is a grave disease which, should it be not checked, would transmogrify into Catholicophilia, in other words, the Inquisition, when those who have power find pretexts in your minds to destroy your life for reasons you have.

Thus “god” fanaticism replaces all spiritual striving with blind obedience to whoever has the biggest sword. It is most convenient to tyrants who can then terrorize in the name of “God”. This is what went wrong with Oriental Rome, and its spiritual spawn, Islam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahomet_(play)

There is nothing unfair or inflammatory to calling those who go to churches, mosques or temples, fanatics: this is actually what “fanum”, temple, means… Fanaticism or Muhammad was first played in Lille, in… 1741.

“Where would Virgil and Homer be if people had bothered them about the details?” Voltaire asks. Voltaire’s Mahomet was presented to annoy the religious fanatics.

In a private letter to Frederick of Prussia, Voltaire acknowledged that he had made Muhammad worse than he was: “Mahomet did not exactly weave the type of treason that forms the subject of this tragedy.” Instead Muhammad was himself the object of one determined attempt on his life (on a trail, involving a rock avalanche, among other things; the ambush was not prosecuted because it involved individuals too close to Muhammad…)

Voltaire blackened Muhammad a bit, so he would get Papal approval to show the play which was actually anti-Christian even more fundamentally than anti-Muslim, as the root of Islam is Judeo-Christianism.

The great philosophe was clearly familiar with the more positive details of the Prophet’s life. Translations of the Qur’an and Hadiths were ancient in France, by Voltaire’s time. Two French biographies of Muhammad, Henri de Boulainvillier’s Vie de Mahomed (1730), and Jean Gagnier’s La Vie de Mahomet traduite et compilée de l’Alcoran (1732). As a passionate anti-cleric, Voltaire used Islam to attack the hypocritical religiosity and predation which underpinned France’s Ancien Régime. Voltaire was against against priests of every denomination who “rise from an incestuous bed, manufacture a hundred versions of God, then eat and drink God, then piss and shit God.” Voltaire weaponized Muhammad against Christianism.

In Zaire, an earlier play Voltaire has the Sultan observe:
My heart doesn’t know itself …Custom and law moulded my earliest years to the happy Muslim religion. I see only too clearly: the training that we are given as children shapes our feelings, our mores, our belief. On the banks of the Ganges, I would have been a slave to false gods; in Paris, a Christian; in this place, a Muslim.

Voltaire’s subsequent essay, De l’Alcoran et de Mahomet (1748), maintains his view that Muhammad exploited beliefs in the supernatural while having no such supernatural obsession himself. Naively, Voltaire regarded Islam as inferior to the Chinese religion because—unlike Muhammad— Confucius depended neither on revelation, nor on lies, nor on the sword for his teachings, but only on reason. Disputing the claim that Muhammad was illiterate—a theme he took up in Chapter VI of the Essai sur les moeurs—Voltaire makes some positive comments about the founder of Islam:

“How can one imagine that a man who had been a merchant, poet, legislator and sovereign was unable to write his name? If his book is unsuitable for our times and for ourselves, it was truly good for his contemporaries. His religion was even better. We should recognise that he virtually rescued the whole of Asia from idolatry. He taught the unity of God and forcefully denounced anyone claiming that God has partners. He banned the usurious exploitation of strangers, and enjoined the giving of alms. Prayer is an absolute requirement; acceptance of eternal decrees animates all. It is hardly surprising that a religion so simple and wise, taught by a man who was always victorious in the field took power in much of the world. In actuality the Muslims made as many converts by the word as by the sword, including Indians and many Negroes. Even the Turkish conquerors submitted themselves to Islam.”

Subtle was Voltaire.

Not so with our times.

Patrice Ayme

Islamism, same as Christianism, is all about fanaticism. No ifs and buts…

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’

To Preserve Civilization, Exterminate Fanaticism

Fanatic comes from the Roman “fanum”, the temple. Thus, a fanatic is one from the temple. I let fanatics comment on my site: it’s important to know how the minds of the deranged work. So one of those who thinks that they should fight for that weakling, god, claimed that: “… you said in your other articles you wanted to exterminate Muslims…”

I, of course, never said such a thing, be it only because this would be extremely against the law in many countries. This lie is an example of the old method of aggression known as “who wants to drown his dog accuses it of the rabies.”

I, of course, never said that I wanted to exterminate all Muslims, be it only because this would be extremely against the law in many countries. Saudi Arabia has decapitated people for much less than that. And Pakistan condemned individuals to death for just telling truths about the so-called “Prophet“. Moreover, I do not think such a thing: I had very close friends, and even teachers, who were Muslims, and so on. Somewhat observant Muslim friends watch over my little daughter (I don’t mind she can’t eat pork when they feed her…)

Thousands Of Mosques Are Among World’s Most Beautiful Art. Blue Mosque, Istanbul

This is simpler than the distinction between “state” and “particle” which has confused physicists. Islam is a system of thought. (Or, rather: various versions of Islam are systems of thought.) “Muslims” are individuals, and millions of them believe in god roughly as much as I do, that is, not at all.

Wanting to exterminate literal interpretations of “Islam” is, not just allowed, but honorable: that is what “Christians” did to hard core “Christianism”.

When fanatics claim others profer rabidly hateful, unlawful statements, they are actually trying to motivate, and justify, their own rabid rage.

***

The problem with Islam is simple:

the Qur’an has around 83,000 words. However, in the following post, the author has isolated hundreds of verses of the Qur’an, for a total of around 10,000 words, calling for violent acts, many of them most gruesome:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

I have quoted some of the verses in the Qur’an before, complete with all references, and the magazine “The Economist” then censored the posts, as it claimed they “violated guidelines“. That “The Economist” considers that the Qur’an ought to be censored, speaks volumes. Now “The Economist” pretends to have something to say on the subject: “First, Do No Harm” (it’s better than their old Politically Correct, insipid, anti-civilizational and despicable positions).

Similar calls to violence exists in the Bible, which inspired the Qur’an. However, around 400 CE, the so-called “Fathers of the Church” decided that such statements were allegorical, and metaphorical (still the question was debated for another 13 centuries, and many were burned alive, when the Church insisted that “scripture” had to be taken seriously!)

So what to do? Certainly shut down all religious establishments and preachers who do not present the material in the Qur’an as allegorical and metaphorical.

Tunisia took such measures today, closing scores of mosques where a literal interpretation of the Qur’an was made.

Another important point to be made is that it is the West itself, or more exactly its dark operators, all the way to the president of the USA in 1945, which encouraged violent, literal interpretations of the Qur’an, in the apparent hope of dividing Muslims, and manipulating them.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/great-bitter-lake/

An example is that the CIA and its colleagues pushed, financed and armed Khomeini and his Shias to revolt against the Iranian Parliament in 1953. The bloody coup enabled to institute there Reza Pahlavi ‘s absolute and torturous monarchy. No wonder Khomeini viewed the USA as the “Great Satan”.

Hence, if the (supposedly secular) West stopped flattering Islam obsequiously (as Obama did) to just then bomb its strictest adherents (as Obama does), that would constitute a measure of progress.

Secularism is the religion of doing our best now, according to the science, technology, and understanding we have. It is millions of year old. It is the attitude which propelled human evolution. It is the natural religion of man.

Islamism, like Christianism and Judaism which inspired it, is a fascist religion. It is focused on the myth of a (quasi) omnipotent, jealous and furious god in the sky, who is a murdeorous maniac. According to the Bible, in the so-called “Ancient Testament”, god is furious against King David of Israel, because the latter refused to exterminate an entire people. God had told David to exterminate that People, and David refused. So what does “god” do? God tortures to death David’s son, for a week, just to punish King David.

With a god like that, who needs rabid dogs?

Of course that ideology, Abrahamism, justifies all and any fascist method: if the Great Leader orders you to kill your child, you must immediately obey, and all Muslims are supposed to celebrate Abraham’s abject and murderous superstition, every year.

Justifying fascism of the worst type is the bottom line of Abrahamism. Abrahamism is an embarrassingly primitive religion. Make no mistake: sometimes, it’s optimal. It’s thanks to that crazed ideology, perfect for making armies of fanatics, that, in a few years, Muhammad and his followers, were able to carve the world’s largest empire. Neither the Romans, nor the Persians, were ready for seeing the wounded being exterminated on the battlefield (Arab women did this, accompanying the initial 40,000 men Islamist army). Rome and Persia were caught by complete surprise by the ferocity of Arab Muslim warriors, and that allowed the latter to succeed.

So today’s ferocity is nothing new. When three massive Islamist invasions of Francia happened between 712 CE and 745 CE, the Franks reciprocated in kind: after the battle of Poitier (732 CE), they let all their slain enemies, thousands of Muslims, rot in the sun, refusing them burial.

Ferocity can only be defeated by a greater ferocity: just ask the Nazis. Earth is now a village, and it has no place for maniacal fascism. Ignoring this fact all too long, will only make the situation worse.

Two days ago, a solitary student walking on the beach with a sun umbrella, revealed his weapons, and proceeded to kill and wound 80 people in seven minutes. (Videos showed he had been trained by the Islamist State.) The next day, the Tunisian government closed down 80 mosques teaching literal Islam.

In the Eight Century, the Franks, who, by then, called themselves the “Europeans”, responding to the Islamist invasions, nationalized the Catholic church, and then forced all and any religious establishment to teach secular knowledge; thus the West rests on secular intervention by the government. And that does not mean to put ; nice to see Tunisia emulating that example.

Literal interpretations of Islam ought to be made unlawful. As the Christian ones already, de facto, are.

As simple as that.

Patrice Ayme’

Joan Of Arc: Pet & Pest

National myths are the paradigms of the plebs. When all they do is exalt nationalism, for nationalism’s sake, they foster fascism. And only atavism, not justice, then justifies this sorry rage.

Joan of Arc incarnated Nazism without any Social pretense (the “z” in Nazism is for “socialism”). It’s even worse: D’Arc effectively turned a three way civil war in France into a religious war.

The French Front National uses Jeanne D’Arc as a front. That’s an affront, but not the way common wisdom would have it. Indeed, even under the worst scenarios, Marine Le Pen could never turn into as much a historical monster, as Joan of Arc was. D’Arc relaunched a civil war, that, thanks to her demonic efforts, lasted another four centuries.

Separatist Sister Souls In Fanatical Bigotry

Once Yolande’s pet, now recycled by Marine.

[By the way, in case Le Pen did not notice, Brussels used to be in Gallia and Francia, for more than 2,500 years. So Marine Le Pen, rendered mad by greed, wants to cut France in two.]

The president-elect in Ukraine just identified the separatists there to “Somali Pirates“. That’s exactly what Johanne was: a separatist, an outlaw.

Indeed what was the alleged work of Joan of Arc? A secession. Far from being a French heroine, Joan of Arc split France in two. Far from being a liberator, Johanne enslaved Western Europe to centuries of war. Her call to ethnic hatred against the “Anglois”does not help her modern philosophical depiction.

Indeed an accord had been found between the two feuding French governments, one in Paris, and illegitimate, the other in London, and legitimate. That was after nearly 90 years of (un)civil war. An accord reunited the government. After his death, the king in Paris, was to be succeeded by the king in London, Henry V of England, who was much younger.

Henry V appears in three Shakespeare plays, and is called the “Star of England”. grandson of Edward III of England. The latter being the one and only grandson of Philippe Iv Le Bel, of France. Edward III was the true king of France, being the son of Isabelle of France, queen of England, and legitimate (according to the Salic Law), queen of France (as the only child left of Philippe Le Bel).

So this 485 year war was all a Franco-French affair. To present it, as too much nationalist histories do,  as a national conflict, with the redeeming figure of 19 year old Johanne on top, is to put nationalism and a monster war on an altar, and worship them.

From the heights of wisdom, it is more judicious to put view them as garbage, and stomp on them.

The settlement with Henry V as king of the reunited kingdom, was infinitely better than the ferocious three way civil war between Anglois, Armagnac and Bourguignons. (At the time, all sorts of languages were spoken in “France”; even by 1900, only half of the population spoke “French” as a native language!)

After months of negotiation with Charles VI of France, the Treaty of Troyes (1420), agreed to by the queen of France Isabeau de Baviere, recognized the 34 year old Henry V as regent and heir-apparent to the French throne. This treaty deprived Isabeau’s own five sons of the throne. Henry was not just an invincible conqueror, he was the legitimate king.

Henry V, the victor of Agincourt, was subsequently married to Charles’s daughter, Catherine of Valois (1401 – 1437). However, following Henry V’s sudden and unexpected death in France two years later, two months before the sickly Charles VI did, Henry was succeeded by his infant son, who reigned as Henry VI (1421 – 1471). It was a case when lethal dysentery changed history.

When Jeanne said:”King of England, and you, duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the kingdom of France… settle your debt to the king of Heaven; return to the Maiden, who is envoy of the king of Heaven, the keys to all the good towns you took and violated in France,” she is actually a child addressing an even smaller child, the king, and the legitimate head of the state of France.

All this mythology was prompted by Yolande of Aragon, queen of four kingdoms, who did not want to be vassal to a super power in the north. Or just loved power, whatever (she was in power, and a power, for 43 years).

The bottom line is that the events that Joan of Arc came to symbolize are all wrong (and it’s no wonder the so called Front National embraced her). Prior to this triumph of bigotry, what’s now called France and England, had been part of the same polity of more than a millennium. To celebrate Joan of Arc is to celebrate religious fanaticism of Osama bin Laden’s intensity, and the 400 years of further strife the victory of Yollande and Charles VII brought.

More details can be found in:

Was JOAN OF ARC ROASTED TOO LATE?

Nowadays, common commentators remember only this of the period: the Agincourt victory by the “English”, and the martyrdom of Jehanne. In Anglo-Saxon countries, the first is often used to prove the French are worthless, cowardly, inferior militarily idiots. The second is evoked to prove the viciousness of the English. Never mind that the victors of Agincourt were annihilated in a battle later, and that the southern French army developed a new weapon, field artillery, that allowed to kick the “English” out.

“English” that were French truly. Never mind too, that the main accuser of Jehanne was bishop Cauchon, who was French, whichever way one wanted to look at him (his aggressive philosophy led him later to accusations of heresy).

Joan of Arc, national hero, was nothing but: ultimately the war between Paris and London was rather lost by Paris. Certainly, that spirit of division and conflict weakened France: remember Louis XIV, chasing millions of Protestants out of France (maybe because he had been rendered mad by a festering hole in his nether region, which lasted decades).

Thus, in a way, Joan of Arc is the perfect festering, fanatical symbol for would be simple minded fascists.

Writing a new, and more correct, history, means throwing a lot of old myths, and their accompanying deleterious illusions, into the fire.

Patrice Ayme

 

 

 

Joan of Arc

Beat Beast Eats Middle East?

“The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas could yet be an unlikely foundation for peace” (pontificates idiotically The Economist’s “Old battles, new Middle East“). More prosaically, anti-missile systems were tested.  Iron Dome intercepted 425+ Gaza missiles.

There cannot be peace in the Middle East, as long as Islam is the dominant system of mood. Islam started as an anti-Jewish machine: Muhammad turned against his hosts, who had inspired him, and massacred an entire tribe in mostly Jewish Yathrib (thereafter to be called Medina, the second most sacred city in Islam).

Faithfully following Roman and Roman Catholic genocidal fascism, Islam put its foot on Jerusalem’s bloodied face, insulting it as the third most sacred city in Islam:

Dome Of The Rock Mosque Squats Obnoxiously On Jewish Temple Mont

In 1217 CE, Spanish Rabbi Judah al-Harizi found the sight of the Muslim fortifications on the Jewish Temple Mount profoundly disturbing. “What torment to see our holy courts converted into an alien temple!”

Jerusalem had been the capital of various Jewish states for about 2,000 years. 2,000 years prior to the invention of Islam.

Islam has no less than two mosques on top of the most sacred place of Judaism. Those mosques were built (late 8th C), 13 (yes, thirteen) centuries after the destruction of the first Jewish temple by the Babylonians. It’s worse than rising mosques on top of a razed Notre Dame, while calling Paris the fourth most sacred city in Islam.

Muhammad is supposed to have taken flight from there, the Jewish Temple mount, in an apparent imitation of the thoroughly undocumented Christ (many turkeys fly from the same spot). The vampire gorged on blood takes flight from the neck of its victim.

Islam was also an anti-Western war machine, and, as long as it functions as a dominant mode of thinking of Middle Earth, and the West has not been defeated, there will be war. We have plenty of (sacred) statements in the Hadith about attacking the West deliberately. Bukhari is the second most authoritative source in Islam after the Qur’an:

“He heard the Prophet saying, ‘Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition.’ The Prophet then said, ‘The first army amongst my followers who will invade Caesar’s City will be forgiven their sins.'” [Bukhari:V4B52N175]

So much for Islam being a religion of peace. Muslims sieged Constantinople three times: 674-678 CE, 717-718 CE, and 1453 CE.

On August 28, 846 CE an Arab army invaded Rome by surprise, and took over the Vatican. Yes, the Muslims succeeded where Hannibal had failed. One never talks about it, prefering to call attention to Hannibal and the Crusades, always (an obvious bias in context building!). This attack on Rome was no joke: the Frankish army holding north-west Rome and the Vatican was killed to the last man. The Muslims in and around Rome were repelled after hard fighting over several months, by Frankish relief armies.

Arab invasions rolled over Europe for 1,000 years, coming not far from Paris more than once, sieging Vienna, twice, occupying Saint Tropez, much of Provence, Switzerland, Greece, much of Italy, for decades, sometimes centuries… Exerting their obnoxious oppression all along (non Muslims were strongly discriminated against, in many ways, and had to submit, lest they would be summarily executed; marks on clothing akin to the Nazis’ yellow star had to be worn by the non Muslims; Muslim warriors could grab maidens and decide that was a “battlefield marriage” [institutionalized rape] but non Muslims men could not marry a Muslim, something true to this day, etc.). 

“The Prophet said, ‘Khosrau will be ruined. There won’t be a Persian King after him. Caesar will be ruined. There will be no Caesar after him. You will spend their treasures in Allah’s Cause.’ He proclaimed, ‘War is deceit.’“ [Bukhari:V4B52N267] 

“Umar [the Second Caliph] sent Muslims to great countries to fight pagans. He said, ‘I intend to invade Persia and Rome.’ So, he ordered us to go to [the Persian King] Khosrau. When we reached the enemy, Khosrau’s representative came out with 40,000 warriors, saying, ‘Talk to me! Who are you?’ Mughira replied, ‘We are Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life. We used to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: ‘Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master.'” [Bukhari:V4B53N386] 

It’s all about the luxurious life: be a martyr, and luxury is yours, you greedy murderous ones! It’s not me parodying Islam saying this. It’s the most sacred texts of Islam defining Islam thus. Notice the quotes are long, their contexts clear. But we have to be careful: nowadays, just describing the Prophet, as he is described in the Qur’an and the Hadith, is viewed as a grave insult against the prophet, even if all and any Muslim scholars know these very things are the basics of the Islamist faith. In other words, Islamist “scholars” view Islam as an insult against islam, as long as it is described by non Muslims.

For all the pillow talk about peace in the Middle East, Islam is the pachyderm from hell breathing over the bed in the room above the whispering lovers. The Middle East has not yet been separated from its local, plutocratic friendly, superstition, Islam. Islam, as it is, truly, not as it is hoped to be by pseudo-progressives who have made a business model from mouthing wishful thinking, as a form of soft intellectual fascism.

Let’s all read the Qur’an, line by line. It’s only 80,000 words, everybody, even pseudo-progressives, with their tiny brains, could do it. Maybe too busy self caressing pseudo-progressives are?

What do we see in the Qur’an? A repetitive litany of lethal or abusive orders (from God, no less!) many victimizing people who are accused of misinterpreting God, such as the Jews, Christians, ill defined “unbelievers”, etc.

Apparently unsatisfied with murderously intolerant fanaticism, the Qur’an is clearly not friendly to democracy. Allah wants the faithful to obey whoever detains power: “O Ye Who Believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Sura 4; verse 59).”

Thus the Qur’an makes fascism part of worship. No wonder all leaders in Islamist countries become dictators (even Erdogan in Turkey is trying his best).

Thus Islam or democracy and peace? That is the question in the Middle East, still stuck in theocracy, 13 centuries and going strong.

***

WHEN EUROPE WAS UNDER THE SPELL OF WOULD BE CHILD ASSASSIN ABRAHAM, IT WAS NOT PRETTY EITHER: 

Superstition going crazy is not confined to the Middle East. Europe has know two phases of murderous insane superstitionism. The first religious madness put an end to Romanitas, an ill fated, all too restrictive society that could survive only by ever augmenting its fascism, while fragmenting into mini tyrannies from local plutocrats.

Diseased Romanitas was replaced by the more advanced Frankish philosophy which included in the power structure of society Jews, Pagans, women, all sorts of Germans, Romans, and even the ex-slaves.

The ugly oppression of the Abrahamic religion went into an eclipse that lasted six centuries. (Nothing symbolized it better than the nationalization of the church by Charles Martel around 730 CE!)

However, the Crusades allowed Abraham to rise its ugly snout again. The cult of a child molester does the plutocratic mood wonders. One Crusade, in France, killed one million. One million French. Or more. For five or six centuries plutocrats, hiding behind Abraham’s throat cutting ways, were at each others’ throats.

The Europe was torn by terrible religious wars over a century centered on 1600 CE. France had no less than eight religious wars at the end of the 16th Century.

Some of these wars caused the death of more than 30% of the population. Before weapons of mass destruction. Finally central governments won the struggle, and took over, re-birthing (re-naissance) the Roman style command and control.

The religious murderous madness was stopped when religion got defanged, and rigorously separated from the state, while the Republic became the ruling religion. Not yet the case in the Middle East… Except for Israel (paradoxically).

***

CLASH OF A SUPERSTITION WITH CIVILIZATION:

Make no mistake: between Israel and the Arabs, at this point, it is still a religious war. No peace is possible as long as temple based terrorism lurks above.

The Economist, in an orgasm of naivety, urges Obama to do something about Israel and Palestine. But what to do against superstition and fanaticism? It’s a philosopher’s task. The best one can expect from Obama is Machiavellism. And we are getting some.

Obama is right to not squander his time splitting superstitious hair in a finer way than the fanatical participants already do. Obama got involved, sure. Obama very wisely decided that the USA would finance most of the Iron Dome (in exchange for a technology transfer!). It was wise. Iron Dome, and the coming David Sling will do more to calm down fascism, than soothing words of debasing appeasement.

Once democracy, the people, rules, there will be peace. But the people has existed for a million years, and the Republic is its basic religion, its basic atavism. No objective observer can say it is compatible with burning people for all the litany of reasons found in the Qur’an.

Seven centuries ago, in Egypt, interpreting the Qur’an literally was punished with imprisonment. Time to reboot that, if peace is really what one is after.

***

QUR’AN BAD, BIBLE WORSE: SO?

The Economist published my comment above. The anonymous L6QjhvJGVk in reply to Tyranosopher Nov 23rd, came up with a number of interesting quotes of the Bible. Said he: “Although I am not religious (as an agnostic), the Koran is very mild compared to the Bible.”

Right, L6QjhvJGVk, but the Bible does not have more than a billion fanatical followers, today. Literal Bible reading is mostly a problem confined to places in Russia, the USA and Israel. One can spit all day long on the Bible, and burn it with gusto. All that will happen is that one will not be taken seriously. But in Muslim lands, it’s quite the opposite, one is taken all too seriously. Doing symbolic violence to the Qur’an hate book may get you executed. Once somebody was condemned to death, in a Muslim country, for having said something unbecoming about Jesus (!), a prophet of Islam.

Even in countries such as France, supposedly philosophically enlightened, there is a dangerous confusion between criticizing a religion, and racial hatred (are the somewhat Christianophobic, such as me, hating the Christian race?). This legal confusion has had very practical, very disastrous consequences. It enabled the growth of Muslim Fundamentalism of the lethal type, because criticizing the Qur’an, arguably a hate book if there ever has been one, has been equated to racism. Thus Quranic violence was made into something sacred.

It is a bit of a paradox that it is honorable to kill bin Laden, but not to trash his ideas! In contrast, I believe that the best way to kill inferior ideas is with superior ideas.

L6QjhvJGVk Bible and Jewish quotes are reproduced in the comments (however, within them L6QjhvJGVk exhibits plain anti-Judaism, Nazi style, as he evokes a word Hitler used, “genetic” in derogatory relation to the Jews, showing an emotional anti-Jew slant).

***

Left and Right. in reply to L6QjhvJGVk Nov 23rd, 09:23 observed:

“There is no comparison [between following the Bible and being submitted to the Qur’an]. The Bible is advisory and there are no penalties to deny or question it. Islam requires a total belief in the whole of the Koran as directly written by Allah. To question it or to deny it is apostasy the penalty for which is death. This can tend to remove the chance to discuss things rationally. The poor performance, educationally, socially and economically of Muslims is, I believe hindered by the absolving of personal responsibility with the need to suffix every statement with Inshallah, if God wills it, in my experience he seldom does. My Muslin dentist tells me the world in 6000 years old, as stated in the Koran – well this could explain the dearth of Nobel Scientific awards to Muslims. Oh for the enlightenment!”

I agree 100% with Left and Right. Except that the Roman emperors, even before Theodosius, imposed Catholic terror (loosely based on the New Testament).  

The reason for constant Muslim civil wars of the worst type is precisely that to question the other believer’s interpretation of the Qur’an or to deny it is apostasy, as far as the other believer is concerned, the penalty for which is death. Hence the total intolerance of Muslim: just draw a guy with a turban, call it Muhammad, see what happens. You may not have time to put it below foot. Thus the Dome of the Rock’s location is a well understood insult.

***

Attendant Lord in reply to L6QjhvJGVk Nov 23rd:

“You overlook that the portions of these religious books that reflect values from another time are dead as a doornail in Judaism and in Israel, a modern state with modern values, and alive and well under Islamist states, whose leadership believes that it should all be kept alive, just as it was written.”

***

Thank you L6QjhvJGVk, for rolling out barbarity from the Bible, there are never enough rivers of obnoxious data flowing to nourish the humanistic, progressive ocean!

The Abrahamic religion has to be crushed always. A state came up with the following law: “The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.” Those who disagree are to be sent to jail 12 months. That’s the law since before 2006, when the Supreme Court of that state refused to consider its constitutionality. So it is in Kentucky, USA.

If the Abrahamists, with their psycho god, are not crushed there, they will grow under the sign of the beast, and eat civilization up, as they did in the East. As when Bush brandished Qur’an and Bible to bring the true faith to Iraq (in his self described “crusade“).

Islamism is just a variant, an heresy of Judaism, somewhat desertified, somewhat Christianized, somewhat modernized. So if the Bible is really bad, it’s only natural that the Qur’an would be so too. Since the latter mostly apes the former.

(The holly Qur’an can be innovative, though: Apparently Muhammad conceived of stem cells, demonstrating how wise he was! Qur’an Surah 4, Verse 56: “Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment again. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise.”)

As a self declared follower of the Abrahamic religion, the Prophet venerated the Bible, and his beef with the Jews was that they did not follow the Bible rigorously enough.

That the Bible was grotesquely dangerous, and immoral, interpreted literally has been known since the birth of Christianity.

Wrote Augustine: Title of Book III, Chapter 5 of his famous City of God”. “It Is A Wretched Slavery Which Takes The Figurative Expressions of Scripture in A Literal Sense.”

In spite of this, Augustine was the first theoretician of the dispersal of the Jews out of Israel, thus causing their departure, followed by their subsequent return…

Of course Augustine (around 400 CE) was following emperor Hadrian’s decrees against the Jews, like the dog follows his master. After the second Jewish revolt, in 132 CE, the Romans defeated the Jewish army in 135 CE.

Thereupon, Jerusalem, the capital of he Jews, was turned into a Greco-Roman city called Aelia Capitolina. A temple of Jupiter was built on top of the Jewish Temple, razed by the Romans.

Thus the idea of putting the enormous Dome of the Rock in place of the Temple is a Roman fascist idea that has become sacred to Muslims! In other words, of Rome, Muslims worship the worst. Another troubling fact, is that the Temple Mount is also considered to be Mount Zion. does that mean that, by worshipping the Dome of the Rock (roughly the oldest mosque), Muslims are Zionists? In some sense?

Emperor Hadrian forbid to the Jews to live in Jerusalem. Hadrian changed the country’s name from Judea to Syria Palestina. United Nations, version 135 CE.

However, these atrocious facts over which the otherwise much esteemed Hadrian presided, got to be known, and taken for what they were, in the fullness of time: genocide.
By 1948 CE, the United Nations, a sort of modernized Rome (before the Roman Republic became an outright imperium), decided to undo the horror visited by Hadrian, and more or less enforced ever since.

Actually the UN followed a Roman precedent. Emperor Julian, philosopher and critique of the monstrosity of the rule of Catholicism, had ordered the RECONSTRUCTION of the Jewish Temple in 360 CE (earthquakes, and Christian fanaticism, including the assassination of Julian, prevented the work to proceed!)

So here we are. In the last seven years, the Palestinians have fired nearly 7,000 rockets at Israel, killing 51 Israelis, and losing nearly 3,200 of their own. “Israel is gaining time… cutting the grass“, as Israelis put it. The time Israel did not have in 132-135 CE.

History never dies. Only armies do.

Why don’t Muslims eat pigs?  The first order explanation, like for most things Muslim is that, so it was in the Bible, and Muslims follow the Bible, when in doubt. More sophisticated was Maimonides, the Jewish philosopher under the Caliphate, physician to Saladin in the Twelfth Century. He understood the dietary laws chiefly as keeping the body healthy. The meat of the forbidden animals, birds, and fish was indigestible, according to Maimonides. However this does not apply to pork, he observed. But pigs are more dirty than human latrines, so had to be avoided, he obviated.

A beauty of Islam is that it has no centralized authority as far as what it truly says. As the Qur’an is very small, it has been supplemented by all sorts of books and gossip, the Sunnah and Hadith being the most prominent. Muslims tend to kill each other, because they differ about the authors of Hadith who are viewed as reputable. Or by how seriously they take this and that gossip (= “reputable authority“, a frequently used notion in Islam scholarship).

On top of that, local traditions have their own little stories. Once I asked a knowledgeable woman in Africa, a Muslim religious authority, why Muslims did not eat pigs.

She told me a story I have never come across again. She told me that once Muhammad and his army, in a forest, got very thirsty. Then they saw a pig. They followed it until it reached water. Thereafter, a grateful Muhammad ordered his followers to give pigs a chance.

The surrealism of it all left me speechless. So some black Africans hold that Muslims follow the one who followed the pig? It’s unlikely that blindly following the One who followed the pig will give peace a chance, because he gave pigs a chance. The fascist instinct, that is, following The One, in this case a long dead analphabet raider, blindly, is exactly the opposite of peace, pigs or no pigs. 

Yesterday’s god, like yesterday’s history, is senile, incoherent, repetitive, and dangerous. Time to break the cycle. Otherwise, there is an Iron Dome to show you.
***

Patrice Ayme

Faith Crazed Raptors

FANATIC FASCISTS COME FROM THE TEMPLE:

Abstract: I will argue in an essay to come that faith and beliefs are fundamental to the genus Homo. They are something lesser animals neither posses, nor need.

However when murderous superstition is made the fundament of society (as in the Late Roman empire, Islam, or the Aztecs), this is savagery. Theocratic savagery is a cover for plutocracy unchained. That lethal disease is the surest way to kill a civilization.

For example, when the Mayas got struck by a prolonged, but mild drought, they did not get their religious priorities straight, and they killed each other, instead of sorting out the difference between their way of life, and ecological change. (Yes, it was not just “climate change”.)

When the Vice Leader of the USA covers himself with ashes, making a show of his superstitiously wrecked mind, supposedly to edify us, suspect the worst outcome.

Here below are a few historical examples of hijacking of the mental equipment of faith and belief by theocracy, plutocracy, and people who want to attack other .

People who want to invade other countries, such as Vice Biden, who, after all, attacked Afghans… for no good apparent reason, except the fact that, as he himself admits, is a self proclaimed abhorrent person.

I review the gathering primitivism of American politicians. Worse is Biden, who is trying to establish Catholicism as a religion, or the fanaticism of Christianity as an inspiration, using his official function to do so.

Then I explain why fanaticism came from the Temple, and the measures republican Rome took against that.

These measures were grossly violated by the Late Roman Catholic empire. (Is that what Biden wants to return to?) Islam imitated the whole Catholic disaster, just made it bigger (no separation of politics and religion, and law in Islam, differently from even Justinian’s Roman empire).

This brings us to Syria: no armed intervention there, as long as the West does not get secular guarantees, I say.

As I have argued in “Islam Against Civilization”, unreconstructed Islam is fundamentally an enemy of civilization (so my position on attacking the Syrian army is different from the one I had in Libya, where the situation was mostly secularist professionals and oppressed tribes versus a crazed gang of plutocrats; meanwhile in Egypt the Islamists, propped by the fortune of Saudis,  have been promoting their equation of their fanaticism with Egyptian citizenship).

But, should a united opposition around a secular program come to the fore, a bombing campaign as in Libya would be a good thing, if Assad keeps on massacring civilians, in his monstrous way.

This being said, as long as the USA, the leading nation, educates by promoting the return to superstitious savagery, it is difficult to teach Syrians or Iranians the secular state… The one endowed with the religious tolerance Rome at her imperial apogee was blessed with, 2,000 years ago.

***

RELIGIOUS FANATICISM: POLITICALLY CORRECT DECAY OF THE USA:

Markers and enforcers of civilization are going down in the USA, big time. A U. S. Supreme Court decree overruled plenty of laws, with “Citizen United“. The Supreme Court decided that money was free speech.

In other words: the USA is officially a plutocracy (Nancy Pelosi agreed, and she used the word “plutocracy“; I am not alone in using this concept anymore; I will argue here that plutocracy, fanaticism and fascism are words which go very well together).

When he was campaigning for president in 1960, John Kennedy called for the absolute separation of church and state. Rick Santorum, a young prominent presidential candidate in the USA, an ex Senator, lobbyist, and enormously financed by plutocrats, said in February 2012, that separation of church and state, and Kennedy’s discourse about it, made him want to vomit:

“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up… What kind of country do we live in that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?”

We don’t bet, Mr. Santorum, we think. You bet, because you are a money man.

The Economist intones that: …”the notion that any American politician could banish all but the faithless from the public square has become laughable. If anything, piety has become a prerequisite in politics. Thomas Jefferson may have been relaxed about such matters, but no modern candidate for the presidency would dare to profess no faith, or to question the existence of the Almighty. Barack Obama is a churchgoer. George Bush named Christ his favourite philosopher and started cabinet meetings with a prayer. Jimmy Carter prayed up to 25 times a day… Kennedy did call for the separation of church and state. So did Ronald Reagan—and, for that matter, John Locke a few centuries earlier.”

What Kennedy said was this: “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

Article Six of the Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

The First Amendment of the constitution of the USA states that:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

By “Congress” is meant the House of Representatives, plus the Senate. The Vice President presides over the Senate.

So what did Vice President Biden do? He promoted an establishment of religion. On his forehead, for all to see. He is, not just a fanatic, but a loud one.

***

ASH-AMED VICE-PRESIDENT:

Biden showed up with that large, dirty ugly smudge on his forehead. Is it because he does not wash? Yes, but that’s not the point.

Biden has a dirty forehead because he “abhors” himself. And he wants everybody to know. As simple as that. 

Biden was promoting an old tradition tied to his sect, Roman Catholicism. Said sect was inspired by the mythical Jesus (a prophet whose execution was not recorded by the Roman authorities, whereas several  others at the time were, throwing a cloud of suspicion over the whole thing as a montage by Roman authorities, much later).

Jesus insisted that he came to enforce “the law“, the superstitious ensemble of orders found in the Bible, a book written by some Jews in Babylon. Part of “the law” is that man is abhorrent. Presumably only god, and, in particular. His representative on earth (the emperor or caliph), is not abhorrent.

So what did these Jews write, 25 centuries ago, that impresses the unconstitutional Biden so much to this day? Multiple quotes are made in the Bible (just as in the Qur’an, 11 centuries later) to inflict contempt on those who do not follow orders. The following quote is typical:

Job 42:3–6. Job says to God: “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. The other eye wandereth of its own accord. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.“

The superstitious Biden, and his ilk, celebrate, and symbolically  re-enact this on “Ash Wednesday”, by covering themselves with ash.

Founding fathers, and first two presidents, Washington and Adams, had clearly signed a document, as presidents, specifying that “the USA is not a Christian nation“. But people such as Biden cling to superstition: it beats historical accuracy any day.

***

IS THE BIBLE THE WORK OF THE DEVIL?

The story of Job is fascinating: it starts when Allah (so called “God”) asks Satan for his advice about Job. God/Allah wonders if Job is as much of a believer as he appears to be. God is lost, Godd reaches to his friend for advice. So we see that the Bible tells us, not just that God is not omniscient. The Bible tells us that the god of Jews, Christians and Muslims is a clueless gossip who consults with…Satan.

This is an interrogation all sadists have, when facing their debased victims: how to make sure that their submission comes from the heart, and is thorough? How can the sadistic god make sure that he totally dominates his victim, Job?

To make sure, Satan suggests a course of action, making Job suffer in all possible ways, and see if he curses God. God (Allah) follows Satan’s advice. Satan advises to victimize and trash Job in all possible ways, and see if the tortured unfortunate still lauds God. In other words, God (Allah) does not just conspire with Satan, but appears to behave, on occasion, as Satan’s creature.

The same problem is repeated in the Qur’an: Allah conspire with Satan (and not just as he did in the Bible, but in new and different ways). In the Qur’an Allah Himself points out the difficulty, of witnessing the collaboration of Satan and Allah, before ominously declaring that whatever Allah does with the Prince of Darkness is none of the business of Believers. (As you can see, I have read the Qur’an well… and much better than the Bible, because it is much shorter! True, it’s just a 400 pages addendum…)  

This official congress between God and Satan explains why the Cathars came to think what they did, namely that Satan controlled the part of the universe in which Christians dwelled, and no wonder that the Catholic chiefs burned them all alive, including women and children.

As the Cathars no doubt remarked at the time, the pope and his agents were thus demonstrating, if need be,  that they were agents of Satan, just like the sadistic, murderous, torturing god they celebrate. The god Biden celebrates as Vice President, and head of the Senate, when he covers his ashamed self with ash. The god of relentless, torturous debasement.

Let’s observe in passing that there are 2.1 million Alawites in Syria (see below), but that there were perhaps 5 million Cathars, and that they were living in symbiosis with the even larger population of the south, all the way to the Balkans. Yet, nobody knows the Cathars now. Cathars were killed to the last, by the pope and his henchmen, the plutocrats in and around Paris.

***

WHAT IS SO ABHORRENT ABOUT BIDEN?

The “Catholic” president, Kennedy, was looking forward to secularism.

Secularism, that’s living in one’s own age. But Biden’s message is different. He looks forward living as people did seven centuries ago, in the age of Catholic terror in the West. With ashes on one’s forehead come the will to burn even more abhorrent people alive.

Burning miscreants is all over the Bible, it is another tradition: if you believe in ashes on your head, the next step is to turn people you are bound to like less than yourself, into ashes.

However, it is good to know that great leaders admit to be such scums, that they abhor themselves.

The immediate question is whether someone who “abhors himself” ought to be considered fit for the presidency of the world’s mightiest country. What’s next? Presidents who go around, advertizing that they are so abhorent to themselves that they ought to kill themselves?

If Biden abhors himself, that he covers himself with mud, should we abhor him too? Does Biden vote for somebody he abhors? If he cannot, should not vote for his abohrrent self, why should we vote for him?

***

WHY THE WISE IS NO FAN OF THE FANUM:

Against fanaticism, common decency itself, struggles in vain. Why so? Fanaticism, comes from the Latin, fanum, the temple. The Romans had already noticed that those coming out of there were not full human beings, but enraged, well, fanatics.

This is literally true: around 400 CE, ignorant monks, “men in black“, ravaged literature and thinkers, especially in the Oriental Part of the empire; this wanton destruction played no small role in the ultimate success of Islam, as most populations, from North Africa to Syria were deeply resentful of the tyranny of Constantinople’s theocracy. Thus they did not try to resist the Arabs too much in the initial invasion; for example Egypt revolted when it discovered that caliph Omar was even worse than the emperor in Constantinople. By then, it was too late!  

Why is the temple so conducive to, well, fanaticism?

Think about it: the temple is built, encouraged or tolerated by the state. It is part of the state, more or less, one way or another. The temple, as the Romans saw it, taught unbelievable things about the gods. However those who came out of there believed those things as if they were real. Things that those who manned the state, the powerful, wanted them to believe.

So the Roman republic made its religion not too serious a thing, and under the control of the People (the exact opposite of the Christian and Muslim theocracies, 7 to 10 centuries later, which were intimately tied to the state, especially Islam. Whereas in the Roman empire, law kept an independent existence).

Before soon all rites and religions were authorized in republican Rome, as long as they did not compromise public peace, or did not involve uncivilized behavior, such as human sacrifices (as the Celtic and Carthaginian religions did).

Moreover, the chief priest of the Roman republic’s religion (the Pontifex Maximus) was elected. Please inform the Ayatollahs in Iran of this.

***

TOO MUCH FANATICISM: THE SAD STORY OF THE JEWS:

Thus the state had interests that those unbelievable things would be believed. OK, sometimes the state is not really a state, it’s a pseudo state, a simulated state.

The arch example here comes from Judaism. The Jews (or people, or entire nations, such as around the sea of Azov, who had decided they were Jews) conspired very well among themselves, and with others, for millennia, using their religion as a pseudo state or conspiracy. Hence the importance for them of strange rituals such as sexual mutilation, to identify each other as a group, and a common sacrifice.

Jews often conspired with reigning plutocrats, in the generalized sense. Thus “anti-Semitic” eruptions often coincide with otherwise legitimate revolts. An example of this is when surprised Nazis found a thousands of Jews already massacred when they swept east in 1941: the Jews had collaborated with the occupying Russians, and were left behind to explain themselves with the natives.

In any case, the temple is the nexus of the state, and of the unbelievable stories the temple teaches. This incredible stories put minds to sleep, just as bed time stories do, with little children. And it’s not all innocent: the outrageous concept of “promised land” by “god” no less, caused untold misery. It also allowed Bible clutching Europeans to exterminate North Americans and enslave Africans.

The Jews are proud of their promised land notion. However, a huge proportion of the Roman empire was Jewish, and that means a huge proportion of the world was. then there was the absurd Judaica war. Josephus (its only reasonable Jewish rebel general), and others evaluate the number of death above one million. And there were more revolts. Ultimately the war of Jews against Jews and Romans resulted in Christians becoming just the same, and killing Jews, as Christ had more or less recommended.  

Nowadays there are not so many (“pure”) Jews. In absolute numbers less than under imperial Rome. But the European population (in the general sense, counting the Americas), plus the population descending of the ex-Roman empire (so called “Arabs”) is now well above 30 times Rome. In other words, Jews have become insignificant (all the more since many of these so called Jews happen to be blonde and the like, because their ancestors converted to Judaism under the Franks.

***

COMPARE THE FANATICISM OF THE JEWS WITH the Gallo-Roman integration:

All this because Jews went ballistic with their “promised land” fable. One can compare to the Gauls, who, had the same time got occupied by Caesar, at the end of a serious Gallo-Roman  war which lasted more than four centuries (both sides were imperialistic and viewed themselves as domineering, and they were). The Gauls occupied the city of Rome herself in 399 BCE. Yet, after Caesar had definitively defeated the Belgae, and crossed the Rhine into Germania, the Gauls never rebelled against their conquerors. Instead they gave up on their extremely plutocratic, primitive religion (only the elite could be admitted to reading, etc.), and worked at conquering the conquerors from inside (which was achieved thoroughly with the help of the Franks, five centuries later).

The astute will notice that about half of the Jewish population is now clustered to fulfill the promise on a small piece of land, clutching hundreds of nuclear weapons, while threatening Iran, the main surviving piece of an empire which often extended from Syria to India.

The Auschwitz death camp and its 100 (or so) satellite camps covered a region nearly as large as the habitated extent of present day Israel. This is not a reasoning: just an uncanny rapprochement. If wisdom did not come yesterday, will it come tomorrow?

OK, that’s my way of celebrating Netanyahu coming to Washington, to plot the war with Iran.

***

FAITH’S VERY PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES IN AFGHANISTAN:

In a few weeks, Afghan soldiers treacherously assassinated or wounded dozens of their NATO allies (in just one such attack, more than 20 unarmed, unarmored French soldiers training Afghan soldiers in a gym were chopped down by machine gun fire; Afghan president Karzai was summoned in Paris, but the attacks went on; in just one week the coalition suffered no deadly attack from the Taliban, but three separate attacks of Afghan soldiers killed six American troops, supposedly their brothers in arms).

By the way, let me say in passing that this illustrates the huge mistake arrogant Americans (think Bush and his advisers) by establishing an “ISLAMIST” republic in Afghanistan, and then proclaiming it an ally.

The essence of Western civilization, as imposed by imperator and consul Clovis and “his” Franks, has been the SECULAR republic (Frankish kings were elected, supposedly). Secular does not mean just that one does not believe in stories only toddlers ought to seriously believe.

Secular mainly means that one lives in one’s age. As determined by the science and technology at hand. (By the way, everything indicates that Muhammad would have agreed: one can see his highly secular personality through the lying representation caliph Uthman’s Qur’an made; yes, it’s possible to be both secular and superstitious.)

Afghan soldiers kill Europeans and Americans because those are “unbelievers”. This is directly traceable to the fact that Afghanistan is an ISLAMIST republic. The Qur’an is the Constitution of Afghanistan. So one would expect Afghan soldiers to enforce the Constitution, namely their interpretation of the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the word of Abraham’s god, as allegedly related in the desert to an epileptic analphabet who had married into wealth.

The Qur’an is not too clear about what to do with “unbelievers”. At some point it claims there should be no coercion in religion, but then il also orders that “unbelievers” should be ambushed, killed, at every turn, etc. And certainly “Pagans” are to be killed. And also Muslims who denounce, or renounce, Islam. Killed. (Or maybe the Qur’an did not say the latter for sure, but certainly commenters of the Qur’an, and those who related the life of Muhammad, certainly said this, and all this is viewed as sacred by the majority Sunni Muslims.)

***

ATTACK SYRIA? ONLY AFTER SERIOUS SECULAR GUARANTEES:

I was the earliest serious advocate of a military intervention in Libya. Bernard Henri-Levy (BHL) followed, more than three months later, and very efficiently. He was able to persuade French president Sarkozy and his advisers to do something, and they did: French war planes unilaterally intervened first, crushing the attack on Benghazi of Qaddafi’s tank army (thanks to the active stealth fighter-bomber Rafales, the word’s best fighter plane). The French also finished the war, when a few Rafales pulverized Qaddafi 200 vehicles strong escape convoy.  

Now BHL wants to attack in Syria. No doubt, twenty French state of the art jets based in Cyprus with Turkey’s benediction (ha ha ha) could stop dead in their tracks all Assad’s tanks in a city such as Homs.

However, if it’s to help the party of “god is great!“, it is out of the question. Horrible applications of (what are for some) Islam sacred texts orders to kill unbelievers, pagan, and whoever is hated. Thus some rebels in Syria have apparently killed civilians for religious reasons. God is not great is not the correct faith. God is bad id the correct faith. This situation did not happen in Libya (because there everybody is Sunni, although

Many Sunni scholars view the Alawites in Syria as Pagans. This means that, should they lose power there, the Alawites are fair game, as far as the Sunnis who carefully read the Qur’an are concerned. This murderous circus has been going on since 656 CE (at least). “Alawi”, is a French word, but the sect comes directly from Ali, cousin, son in law, companion of arms of the Prophet, even once masquerading in a bed as Muhammad himself (don’t ask, it was life and death!)

The real revolution the Middle East needs would consist into getting rid of the god of the Bible who pursues his reign of terror there. If one comes to think of it, it is a paradox that Muslims are claiming to know the god of the Jews better than the Jews themselves. Out-Jewing the Jews, really? Fanatical Islam has been an excellent cover-up, hiding that the West was never religiously Christian in the sense that (traditional) Islam give to religion.

The perception that traditional Islam is something one ought to improve on is why there was more than 100 variants of Islam, many of them not recognized as Muslim by the Sunnis! There are actually branches of Islam where women (used to) go bare-chested!

The present rise of religious fanaticism has been seen before. After all that it was what happened to the Roman empire around 300 CE. The emperor instituted a sun cult (“Sol Invictis“) with him as representative of god. Within two decades, the immensely brutal youth Constantine, son of an Augustus, and Caesar himself at a very young age, had realized that it was better to use the military like apparatus of the Christian church.

The Christian church came, complete with a fascist, imperial god who consults with Satan, as we saw above. Christianism also persuades the commons that they are “abhorrent”. And then the commons cover themselves with ashes, allowing the emperor all the more superbly.

As far as Constantine was concerned, the fanatical fascism of Christianism was perfect. As the self declared “13th apostle“, and a saint in the (Catholic-)Orthodox religion, he was free to impose his god on all. Starting with his nephew that he killed, his wife whom he steamed to death, and his son the Caesar Crispus, he was obviously jealous of (Constantine owed his status of Augustus from victories of Crispus!), and executed, thanks to judges as helpful to plutocracy as the Supreme Court of the USA reveals itself to be.

Superstitious savagery is the proximal reason why the Roman civilization went down. Confronted with the difficulty of the struggle between Senate based tax evading plutocracy and the military based plutocracy, the outcome was not a return to the republic, but a fall into savage superstitious theocracy. That, in turn, led to a blossoming of further stupidity, ignorance and anti-intellectualism. besides the destruction of philosophers, books, schools, and libraries.

Remember this, next time you look at images from Syria. And next time the ash covered Biden proposes to attack some Muslim country in his own special way.

***

Patrice Ayme