Le Pen Is Not Racist, But European Leaders Have Been Evil

Le Pen is “deeply racist” paid media writers say all over France and the Anglosphere [1]. Proof? Why do you want proof like a quote? Are you racist? Proof by innuendo! Le Pen is racist because she fears some aspects of Islam… In a country where significant portion of the population has feared the fascist Abrahamist religion in its variously delirious variants for 20 centuries, that’s only natural, deeply “French”…

US citizens are fully unaware of the way foreigners can abuse the French health care system (that could include US citizens, by the way). Show up in a French hospital and treatment will be free… whereas law abiding French citizens from overseas will have to pay an arm and a leg (happened to me).

This method of crossing the French border at the last hour before giving birth is used systematically in some border areas (say around Briancon). I have seen it twice from my very eyes. Once it was an Albanian woman (Albania is not in the EU; she paid nothing for the birth, nor could she; next door I paid more than  10,000 Euros…). Another time, an African woman who seemed ready to explode was helped in the bus, a kilometer from the French border in Claviere. The gendarmerie got her out the bus and called an ambulance in Briançon…

The trick of giving birth in France has even been used by terrorists to rear “French” children who are trained in their primitive lands to hate France… But have a French passport, and thus abilitated to help out with terrorism inside France.

“Islamophobic” is a strange notion in France, where a law was passed in 1905 exists which limits the role of Catholicism, Protestantism and Judaism… But the 1905 law did not apply, nor limit Islam. (Yes Christian monks and priests at the time were furious and rebelled violently!)

The root of the 1905 separation of church and state law was centuries of religious wars, from the holocaust of millions of Cathars around 1200 to the Revocation of the Nantes Edict around 1700, which made two million, 10% of the population, flee France. In some families the fear of Christianism (Christianophobia), or anti-clericalism has run for centuries (half of my family was like that; they used to be protestant nobles, more than 5 centuries ago, and most were kicked out of France by the fanatical Catholic Louis XIV!).

Because Christian fanaticism has caused tremendous suffering, anti-Christianism and Christianophobia run deep in France: the Cathars are remembered, although all their writings were destroyed, and Louis XIV’s religious cleansing of Protestantism motivated the hatred of many Germans whose ancestors were French, centuries ago, before they were forced to emigrate by the tyrant Sun King.

. Cartoon from 1905, when the binding betwen Pope and France was cut (by the mighty fasces, notice!) Inspired by Voltaire (who also identified Islam to fanaticism), the pact between Napoelon and the Pope, dating from 1801, was abrogated in 1905. Inspiré par Voltaire, up in the cloud, Émile Combes, an ex-seminarist, s’apprête à trancher le nœud gordien entre l’Église (le pape) et l’État (Marianne) tandis qu’un moine cuve son vin. Notice drunk monk on the ground.

So, after five centuries and millions dead over five centuries in Christian religious wars, fear (phobia) of organized religions run deep in France and, far from being a form of racism, is a form of deeply enlightened humanism.

Islam has been basically respected and ignored by French authorities for 13 centuries (Islamist invasions were repelled thrice in the Eight Century with major battles in 721 CE, 732 CE, and 748 CE… And also in the Tenth Century; later Frankish and Normands armies freed Rome, Souther Italy, Sicily… However no restriction were ever taken under individual Muslims on religious grounds… A proof of this is the presence of Arab and North African genes in France, from more than a millennium ago. And historically speaking Muslim peasants left over were left alone, this is known: no forced conversions.

However now the situation is different because of a poisonous mix of anti-France rhetoric, anti-Enlightenment, anti-European, post-modernist hatred for civilization or even reason, and weaponized Muslim immigration… I am not saying all Muslim immigrants are bad: some are very good, and historically a lot of variants of Islam in Africa have little to do with Suni or Shia superstitions… However, propped by hydrocarbon money, just like Putin, many nasty ideologies have tried to carve their own empires, and have smothered advanced African Islams…

I am myself half African, so I have viewed the problems religions can cause (my first memories in life are from a charming oasis where most Muslims had been prevented to come for centuries: the local branch of Islam, older than any other, came under terrible repression from the tyrannical Shia and Sunni, thus defended itself by excluding them; I a pprove that sort of Islam, and many other sorts, just as I generally disapprove forms of Islam which treat women as lesser beings).

The hatred against Le Pen, resting on fighting words (accusing her groundlessly to be “deeply racist“) calls for a refusal of debate, and thus destruction of democracy. Unbalanced critique of otherwise honorable politicians and their demonization is not helpful to democracy [1]. It creates anger and even hatred. I was actually going to vote for Macron, with profond distaste, because I find Le Pen’s position on Russia even more friendly towards Putin than Macron’s (who has been all too friendly towards Putin over the years).

The way the French constitution is, the governmental program emanates from Parliament, not the President. le Pen could have Macron as Prime Minister… or even a real leftist: Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the far-left party La France Insoumise, who came third in the first round of the presidential election, just behind Le Pen, on April 10 with 22% of the vote (she got 23% and Macron 27%), has called on people in France to “elect him as prime minister”.

So let’s relax.

And let’s reflect; a lot of the proposition of Le Pen, such as Proportional Representation and Direct Democracy through referendums, would be definitively progress. Even the question of the supremacy of European law over National law is a legitimate question: if it doesn’t apply to Swiss Canton, why should it apply to a country, Republic and Democracy, France, which is 200 times more populous than the average Swiss canton?

All the more as, as it is, the European army is NATO… giving a precedence to US weapons over, say, French ones (which can be be of higher quality than US ones)… 

In any case, it was hilarious to see an investment banker, and double dipper (Macron, who leveraged his previous state employment as finance inspector) accuse Le Pen of depending upon her Russian banker. Macron said Putin was Le Pen’s banker… Le Pen shot back that her party had been prevented of borrowing from European banks, so it had to borrow from a Russian bank, and she pointed out that Macron invited Putin over, all over, Versailles, Cote d’Azur, etc…

Let’s reflect how much of the anti-Le Pen hysteria has to do with the fact that Marine Le Pen is a woman (and not in the skirts of her husband or the establishment, as Hillary Clinton).

Not to say I agree with her position on Putin (I want full embargo, she doesn’t want it on energy). But then, again, the present, outrageously pro-Russian tyranny policies were put in place in the last 23 years, in spite of Putin’s vile tyranny… and not by Le Pen, but by dozens of very honorable Western politicians.

Democracy doesn’t demand one has to agree with everybody on all things, and should not require to demonize individuals who just want more direct democracy (the referendum of initiative populaire already has existed in Switzerland and California for more than a century, and neither fell into the sea…)  

So let’s relax… But let’s also view with suspicion those who are keen to demonize democratic opposition: we saw what happened when that was done to Tiberius Gracchus…

Patrice Ayme

[1] The NYT had a title “Marine Le Pen has not changed, she is as dangerous as ever“… the latest in many strident anti-le Pen essays (where my comments were censored), After my comment (on this latest insult torrent against Le Pen) was published (finally!), the NYT, finally aware of how vicious it looked, changed the title to something completely different, but anti-French in a worse way.

Memories:

My first memories are from this place, Ghardaia, Mzab, Sahara (a tiny portion of the city)

Symmetry Breaking, Afghanistan, Islam, Psychology And Civilization: Steven Weinberg In Memoriam

Abstract: Symmetry Breaking, a key concept in modern physics, is actually useful all over the world of thought. Continually, thinkers grab inequivalent categories, say “Christian civilization” and “Islam”, proclaim them equivalent, when they are not, and then proceed with insane thoughts. Breaking a symmetry, and then reasoning by analogy, when the symmetry does not hold, is fraught.

Another example of groundless symmetry proclaimed, is to believe that, because history happened some way before, it always will. Of course, it will not, and the titanic climate calamity is an example. In truth, the breaking of symmetry is crucial, in all matters of analysis.

*** 

High minds call for high thoughts and instructive debates. As García Márquez noticed: “we are living in the age of vulgarity“… Better talk with a dead high mind than live creepy-crawlies. A top, unfortunately now defunct, physicist made an observation on civilization, which is particularly striking in light of those who claims there is a perfect symmetry between “Christian civilization” (something that is disqualified, because it never really happened, as Nietzsche pointed out) and Islam (a comically cosmic octopus, a superstition which pretends to be civilization itself). 

 

Steven Weinberg played a central part in formulating and establishing theoretical physics’ two standard models — the standard model of fundamental interactions and the standard model of cosmology. He was professor at Berkeley when he proposed the unified theory of electromagnetism and weak interactions, which is still in use, He would ultimately get the Nobel Prize for it in 1979. However, Berkeley did not deem that enough of an achievement, and did not give him tenure… 

Weinberg sometimes expressed strong views against religion, such as this: “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

By religion, what ties us together, Weinberg meant religious superstition, of course. (The religion of the Republic also exists… and it’s good!)

 

This is interesting in the light of Feynman, the most famous US born physicist, who tried to insinuate, idiotically, that philosophy was of no value… in physics (his son became a philosopher)… while in truth he made plenty of philosophy (including a bit with yours truly).  

 

Compare with Joe Biden’s assertion that “the US has no national interest in Afghanistan”. Whatever the usage of that present mode means! Does civilization have an interest in Afghanistan? Biden just gave Afghanistan, a country of 40 million, to the Taliban, a group of superstitious fanatics who contradict the naturally given religion of humanity, the cult of reason.

Some cynics will say, oh no, Biden just gave Afghanistan to Pakistan. Indeed, look at the map: they fit perfectly, and have in common the Pashtun country, the dominant ethnic group of Afghanistan… enemy of others… and with a traditional old moral system anterior to, and compatible with, Islam.

 

The weak minded make a symmetry between Afghanistan and Vietnam. Kissinger told Nixon that within two years nobody would care about Vietnam, and Vietnam would become a backwater. However the North Vietnamese military were, roughly, no less civilized than the South Vietnamese military. North and South were both corrupt, in different ways, there was a rough symmetry.

 

I know that specialists like Lewis claim that: “Why did the discoverers of America sail from Spain rather than from a Muslim Atlantic port, out of which such voyages were indeed attempted in earlier times? Why did the great scientific breakthrough occur in Europe and not, as one might reasonably have expected, in the richer, more advanced, and in most respects more enlightened realm of Islam?

A more sophisticated form of the blame game finds its targets inside, rather than outside, Islamic society. One such target is religion—for some, specifically Islam. But to blame Islam as such is usually hazardous and not often attempted. Nor is it very plausible. For most of the Middle Ages it was neither the older cultures of the Orient nor the newer cultures of the West that were the major centers of civilization and progress but the world of Islam.”

Is Lewis lying, or just ignorant, or fundamentally stupid? Or is he just earning his stipend as a friend of the ruling fossil fuel plutocracy of the West and its love of Islam (Fundamentalism)? “Islam” meant, literally, that slavery was an integral part of society. Only servants of plutocracy like Lewis would consider that slavery is “civilization and progress”. This is just one point. That escaped slaves were rewarded by impalement doesn’t even need to be mentioned… 

Also Lewis observes that: “to blame Islam as such is usually hazardous and not often attempted.” In other words “Islam” is a sadistic hyper violent regime as hazardous as… as what?… a rattlesnake?

Religious apologists of violently interpretable superstitions (RAVIS) always evoke contexts. Here one can see that, in context, Islam apologist Lewis says slavery is OK, and “hazardous” religious terror is OK. Similarly, Biden says nobody has been killed yet, while terrorized Afghans fall from the sky. 

Islam is what one should call a war religion, a war superstition. Just read an unexpunged version of the Qur’an. Now the Jewish Bible, root of Judeo-Christianism, and thus Islam, is also a war superstition, where God order the Jews to holocaust an athnicity at least once. Islam is just more so (although there are versions of Islam which have their own version of the Qur’an, it’s not the case of the Shia and Suni).

 

Just as with pandemic and global heating from the climate calamity, some will say it does not matter. But Afghanistan was held by only 2,500 US soldiers for a total of 9,582 soldiers from NATO nations. No US soldier got killed in 18 months in Afghanistan. The mission in Afghanistan cost nearly nothing, to the USA, relative to the danger of letting fanatics in command of an enormous country, subjugating twenty million females into slavery.. 

 

Now that superstition is hyper powerful, What if the Taliban and his allies were to seize power in Pakistan, get control of the enormous nuclear force there? The senile Biden will say whatever about it. But the possibility has augmented enormously now, because Biden has shown that obstinacy in matters of fanaticism can win over anything, not just the military, but reason itself.

 

It is hard to see, at this point, how the electro-weak theory will contribute to civilization… But it can be done. The electro-weak depends upon SYMMETRY BREAKING. 

 

In physics, symmetry breaking is a phenomenon in which (infinitesimally) small fluctuations acting on a system crossing a critical point decide the system’s fate, by determining which branch of a bifurcation is taken. To an outside observer unaware of the fluctuations (or “noise”), the choice will appear arbitrary. This process is called symmetry “breaking”, because such transitions usually bring the system from a symmetric but disorderly state into one or more definite states. Symmetry breaking is thought to play a major role in pattern formation.

 

In his 1972 Science paper titled “MORE IS DIFFERENT” Nobel laureate (and great physicist, a co-inventor of the Higgs, if not more) Philip.W. Anderson used the idea of symmetry breaking to show that even if reductionism is true, its converse, constructionism, which is the idea that scientists can easily predict complex phenomena given theories describing their components, is not. Symmetry Breaking creates indeterminacy. 

 

Giving Afghanistan to violent supertitionists broke the symmetry, pandemonium will ensue. That pandemonium always favors the USA is an historical truth, it has become subconsciously institutional… Hence the will of the US Deep State to give Afghanistan back to the Taliban, obvious since 2001… However, what has always happened for some good reasons, does not have to stay true once these reasons are removed. Contrarily to the preceding centuries, North America is now vulnerable to attack… In more ways than one. For example, North America depends upon China… next to Afghanistan. So say:”Oh, let the Chinese discipline the Taliban!”. Yes, well, next dictator Xi of China would then discipline much more. And so on. 

On August 1, 1914, the fascist racist disciplinarian imperialists of Germany decided to take control of the French Republic. It would take just a few days. Then it would be Russia’s turn, and Great Britain would then negotiate. In the real world, the French fought like demons and five weeks later nearly destroyed the entire German army which had to precipitously retreat. So even trusting disciplinarian dictatorship to bring order is no sure thing, in the way of order. A branch of the Taliban is actually fighting the Pakistani government, and the Taliban, or its allies, one could well imagined, could be in control of Pakistan and its nukes… next year.

How one got into that calamity, traditionally called World War One, has to do with the envoy of US president Wilson waxing lyrical on the racial inferiority of the French, in Berlin, June 1, 1914, two months earlier, in the Kaiser’s office (and proposing an alliance, no less: crafty war mongering by US “Democrats” is nothing new, just ask Lincoln…)

Psychology matters, it’s symmetry breaking. Mania in crowds, and insanity in the collectives are all examples of symmetry breaking, and making more, completely different from the symmetrical order it arose from.

Patrice Ayme

This is a picture of Bliss Park, above Lake Tahoe, California, at an altitude of 1900 meters (6,500 feet), August 22, 2021, today. The smoke is blatant, it’s coming from the Caldor Fire, located 50 kilometers way. But not just that: notice that some of the large tress are already dead. This is symmetry breaking in action: trees centuries old are already dead. The future will then not be as the past: the time symmetry has been broken. At the same time, millions of of centuries old trees, which were not already dead, are burning in other giant California fires. The smoke, often laden with half-burned industrial chemicals, is so vicious, there is evidence that it can kill trees directly…

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…

Islam Is What’s Wrong With Many Countries

The present Tunisian president, Kais Saied, was elected with 73% of the vote in 2019 (and 90% of the youth). A constitutional law professor, this independent candidate financed his campaign with $5000 (five thousand dollars). The president is often depicted as a so-called “populist”… He is in agreement with some Islamic laws Islamists love (penalizing homosexuality, and favoring men in inheritance). However he found impossible to govern with Ennahda, the Islamist Party, most prominent in Parliament.  

The president used his constitutional powers to suspend Parliament for 30 days on 26 July 2021. Some Western Do-Gooders West reflexively lamented that the last Arab speaking democracy, Tunisia, was now dead. Those Do-Gooders fail to understand that governance by Islamists, whether elected or not, is intrinsically dictatorial, abusive, and antinomic to progress. Practically this means that a dictatorial regime, as found say in Egypt, or even Saudi Arabia, may be more progressive in Muslim countries than an elected regime. Failing to understand this is demeaning to those cultures and a form of systemic racism [1].

The problem of Muslim countries is Islam, just as, should it still be the case, the problem of Western Europe and its colonies would be the Catholic Inquisition, should that abomination still endowed with power. As an aside, when English Lords wanted to burn Joan of Arc alive, they used the French arm of the Catholic Inquisition to prosecute her for heresy… And then got her burned alive for relapsing after taking an oath that she would never wear men’s clothing again… So in Joan’s horrible fate, we see many elements of the Catholic religion affecting its sister religion, Islam, today: a powerful Inquisition, the notion of heresy, rejecting and disrespecting the religion, political usage by terrorists (in Joan’s case, English plutocrats), and a woman thinking she is free to wear what she wants.   

Tunisian President Kais Saied after his election in 2019 with 72.71% of the vote. Obviously a constitutional law professor, not a young putschist

In areas conquered 13 centuries ago by Muslim armies, Islam occupies a dominant presence that Catholicism never acquired in the West. Catholicism was an instrument of control implemented by Roman emperors. Catholicism was a tool finely worked and named by emperor Constantine (“the Great”), in 323 CE, at Nicaea. Conveniently, laws against “heresy” enabled the state to punish those it did not like, whichever way the state decided to, by accusing them of… heresy. 

However secular law maintained a separate, and more fundamental existence in the Roman empire: Justinian’s Roman law refurbishment separated what was religious law from the bedrock of secular law. Published in 534 CE in Latin, it was promptly adopted by the Franks, the Imperium Francorum in the West, which had just incorporated mighty Burgundy, and viewed itself as the legitimate successor state of Rome. This Corpus Juris Civilis is used to this day by all secular states, and characterize them fundamentally.

Whereas, the main variants of Islam Sunni and Shia, condemn the secular state, and secular law. Sunni Islam imposes a violent sexist subjugation and infantilization of women. But the problem with Islam does not stop there: corrupt, powerful individuals can claim their opponents are not true believers, and then have a right and duty to kill them, at least so say the holy books. 

This deep mentality of arbitrary violence enables and fosters a tradition of corruption. The preceding secular dictator in Tunisia, although leading a corruptocracy, could order a modicum of economic realization. Not so with the Islamists anywhere who are more keen to impose their Sharia than anything else. In other words, Islamists are the root cause of autocracy, one can’t fix the latter with the former. 

Patrice Ayme

***

[The preceding was a comment of mine courageously published by New York Times. 7/26/2021]

[1] I do not approve of dictatorships in Turkey, Iran and Syria. The reason there is that the present dictators or would-be dictators represent a considerable aggravation of the former situation. Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan are rather stagnant, corrupt and flirting with fate; I disapprove, but not stridently.

Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait are arguably, works in progress. Egypt’s Sisi and Saud MBS have difficult situations to deal with… Sudan, Libya, Yemen are too conflicted to be commented upon…

In general, Europe has a moral duty with helping to develop North Africa, from more than three millennia of common existence… that Europe has neglected, preferring to develop the likes of Turkey and China, instead…

Catholicism, Islamism: Better Under Secularism’s Boot

Christianism and Islamism are not all bad. However, directly, or indirectly, those ideologies of hyper violent militarized oligarchies mightily contributed to bury civilization under hordes of bloody invaders, and then to kill innovation through lethal cretinization. Unfortunately, most people have no idea of the history, and mix their racist notions with imagined bias found mostly in their own brains rather than the reality of what happened.

Rachel Laudenslager Hunt wrote: …secular authorities trying to co-opt religion in order to increase their power. It’s a tale as old as time.

Patrice Ayme: Dear Rachel: Starting with Roman emperor Constantine following theological tricks of Diocletian, the Roman emperors INVENTED Catholicism (thus indirectly Islam) to rule theocratically…

The Roman Catholic emperors got the fascist theocratic ball rolling, especially Theodosius in 380-381 CE… Those murderous autocrats are the ones who invented the basic set-up embraced by the Islamists three centuries later… Little known, there were direct relations between Catholic authorities and Muhammad, including gifts of slaves from former to latter!

I was there. Isfahan, Iran. Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque (Persian: مسجد شیخ لطف الله‎). The dome is 32 meters high. One of the world’s most beautiful places (a giant place surrounded by superb mosques). The cretinous ban of some interpretation of Islam against representing any biological creations (lest that offend Allah for copyright infringement, apparently) has led to incredibly magnificent art, and even mathematical discoveries…)

Rachel Laudenslager Hunt Says:

“Wow. That’s fascinating. I didn’t know the specifics of the history, but the big picture seems pretty simple. Power hungry maniacs will do and say anything to solidify their control, and religion is an EASY way to do that.”

And didn’t Chinese and Egyptian Emperors also claim divine authority?

Patrice Ayme: All ruling classes have always claimed divine authority. The Indians did it, the Celts did it… But they did it with more or less ferocity. The Romans, who, under the Republic, had the highest moral authority anywhere, cancelled the Celtic and Punic religions, because those used human sacrifices…

The ruling classes are unnatural, anti-human by definition because humanity was created free by biology itself. So the ruling oligarchies invented religions, which tie together the people’s brains in knots. They have to: optimal rule requires to rule over minds, not just bodies. The slave without chains does not rust and is low maintenance, self-managed. Divinization of leaders will always start from secular regimes, as happened in Rome with the emperors.

Even in Venezuela right now, Chavez is becoming god, at least for the ruling class, although the country, society, health care, economy, standard of civilization are all collapsing….

Islam is an imitation of imperial Christianism, and very explicitly so. The archbishop of Alexandria sent two slaves to Muhammad, one of them, a highly educated woman he married and had the immense pleasure to get his first (and last) son with. Jews also promoted Muhammad initially… before he turned against them with a vengeance.

Roman emperors, starting around 70 CE, manufactured what they called, by 321 CE, “Orthodox Catholicism” (Common Opinion Universalism, in Greek). By the Nicaea Council, emperor (and “saint”) Constantine had established his theocracy, which became explicitly murderous against non-believers by 381 CE, under emperor Theodosius I. The empire collapsed by 395 CE, immediately after Theodosius crushed an anti-Christian civil war.

After the empire collapsed, the Franks rebuilt it with a TOLERANT variant of Catholicism, which tolerated all religions, in the old Roman style. However the Muslims imitated what enabled RAIDING (Muhammad said so explicitly, gloating they were going to raid into the rich empires to the north for the first time in 1,000 years…)

The end result was that what was for millennia the world’s wealthiest region, was durably turned into the poorest: remove the oil, what’s left?

Half of my family is from Algeria, BTW… It’s not as if I were talking from books alone. I was there and lived through it. Now, of course, the modern little plot with Fundamental Christianity is recent (1954) and the little plot with Fundamental Wahhabism a bit earlier, but from the same period (1945). This was all amplified by French intellectuals in charge of creating the system of thought of Global US Plutocracy. Yes, even Sartre, De Beauvoir (the latter was definitively a Nazi). A philosophical mood so-called “French Theory” led to the disintegration of the supremacy of mental superiority by claiming all cultures were equal (that mood got launched by the likes of anthropologist Levy-Strauss).

Out of it came Islamophilia, and the outrageous claim that Islamophobia was racism. My family (on both sides) had polite theologicophobia for generations, but is definitively not racist (various so-called “races” are found within)… catholicism ravaged Roman civilization in the Fourth Century, a deadly pandemic of mental degeneracy…

Partha, another reader originally from India pointed out: “Islam is quick to use any means available for warfare.” indeed. At least for the Sunni Islam, especially in its extreme version, Wahhabism, and for the Shia (“the Party”), Islam is a war religion. Anybody who spent three honnest hours reading the Qur’an will get to that conclusion:
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

Thus the mood of proper fundamental Islamists is violent. This is why there is more than 100 variants of Islam. I grew up exposed to thoroughly non-violent types of Islam… Which barred Wahhabists and their ilk of ANY ACCESS to the region since times immemorial…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibadi_Islam

***

I would turn things around. Catholicism tried to impose its partly demented moral code, killing dozens of millions in the process. During the European Middle Ages, having Catholicophobia was a sure ticket to assassination or execution. That was all the stranger, as the Secular Roman law was the only law of the civilized parts; Saint Louis, who admitted in writing that nothing would please him more than planting a knife in the belly of a Jew, or an Atheist… and then twist it… had to sadly admit he couldn’t do this, as it was against the LAW (the Roman Secular law, which by the time of Saint Louis was 19 centuries old…)

So here is my practical recommendation: any elected politician in the West who says that Sharia should be applied instead of Republican Secular law, should be immediately impeached. 

All and any religions have positive aspects. Secular Republican law enables to block their negative aspects and foster the positive ones: what is there not to like?

Patrice Ayme

BS BBC Wants You To Believe: King Of England Was Muslim

BBC published the following title: “KING HENRY II: THE MUSLIM MONARCH OF MEDIEVAL ENGLAND?

In the 12th century, furious with the archbishop of Canterbury, England’s King Henry II threatened to forsake Christianity for Islam.” 

This was obviously not the case. BBC has no sense of humor whatsoever. The absurdity of the BBC’s misleading title is immense, and reflects a total misreading of the mentality of Frankish leaders during the Middle Ages [1]. False news! BBC has little appreciation for the mood of the Franks… Henry was born in Le Mans, Maine, France, part of the “Roman empire”, in the part of the “Roman” empire known as “Francia”.  

The root for this absurdity? Henry II told, obviously in jest, his protege the Pope Alexander, then a refugee in Paris, that he “would sooner accept the errors of Nur al-Din [the Sultan of Aleppo] and become an infidel, than suffer Thomas [Becket] to hold sway in Canterbury Cathedral any longer”.

Henry II Plantagenet With His Daughter In Law Marguerite de France

Henry had raised his friend Thomas Becket high, appointing him to the position of chancellor soon after his accession. He was “considered second only to the king”. Henry had such faith in Thomas to do his bidding that after Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, died in 1161, he strong-armed a reluctant Becket into taking up the dual position of chancellor -archbishop, despite warnings from Henry’s mother, the “Roman” Empress Matilda, and from Thomas himself. Thomas thought it was ludicrous, protesting that Henry and he knew “for certain that if I am ever promoted to that dignity, I will have to forfeit either the king’s favour or… my service to God Almighty”. That should have been clear, and considering how nasty God is depicted in the Bible, not a good omen…

Indeed, to his horror, Henry discovered that he had installed a Catholic zealot, a soldier now for the eternal Christ instead of his temporal king. Henry was livid when Thomas resigned the chancellorship; king and archbishop soon became locked in a battle for supremacy between church and state… Something not seen since Theodosius I and the bishop of Milan, Ambrose, had a dust up in the Fourth Century. The balance of compromise – whereby the kings gave their archbishops dignity and in turn the archbishops sought to obey their kings’ every desire – was down and out, and that, for a Frank, was intolerable. The very rise of the Frankish civilization in the Fourth Century was propelled by putting back secular political power in command… as in the best times of Rome, but this time including most of Germany, Europe became a secular power again.

***

Frankly Cool About Religion:

The Franks were both cautious and relax about religion in general, and Islam in particular. Jokes were allowed. Emperors could employ Muslim bodyguards, and speak Arabic (as Barbarossa did)…. And then go on a Crusade. Even a Catholic fanatic such as Saint Louis toyed with the idea of becoming Sultan of Egypt. 

Being an “apostate” was not a crime under the Franks: the state was agnostics. When Clovis and thousands of his bodyguards  converted to Catholicism, that was not mandatory. 

The Franks had fought with Pope Gregory the Great, in the Sixth Century, when the Pope threatened to burn bishops who allowed secular teaching. Ultimately the Franks obliged all and any religious establishment (including monasteries, synagogues) to teach secularly the entire children population. The Franks sent spies to nascent Islam in the Seventh Century. They viewed the “Sons of Sara” (Saracens) as a Christian heresy, but most dangerous because most militarized. 

Ultimately, the Muslim invasion of Western Europe turned into a bloodbath: invading Muslims killed 25% of catholic Spain… Although their fight was against the ruling Visigoths. Then the Umayyad Caliphate launched three massive invasions of Francia but the “Europeans” (as the Franks called themselves then), rejected them and the caliphate fell (750 CE). In the following four centuries, the Franks led a reconquista of not just  Northern Spain, but Southern Italy and islands such as Sicily. 

One has to understand that, initially, the Franks took over a disintegrating Late Roman empire wrecked, and led, by “Catholic Orthodox” with did, or threatened to, kill everybody who was not considered to be a proper believer… others, emperor Theodosius I had decreed in 381CE,  were “madmen”. 

The Franks, led by king, imperator and consul Clovis, imposed a gentle form of Catholicism not adverse to Pagans or Jews… Or even, it turned out later, Muslims. This tolerant Catholicism ruled until 1026 CE… When the Catholic church bared its fangs again, and started to burn “heretics” again. What happened? Some European plutocrats (self described “nobles”) got the idea, coming from the Late Roman empire, to use Catholicism as a pretext to kill and oppress people. 

Born In Maine, France, Married His Vassal the King’s Wife, Eleanor d’Aquitaine, who had only daughters from the French King, proceeded to give him a son.

Thus Catholicism became more powerful, extremist and fanatical, just after 1000 CE, relaunching the Inquisition. In particular, the marriage of clerics was discouraged. Intellectuals, who had been church employees, technically, because of the three centuries old law pushed vigorously for independence from the church… that’s how the university system was born. And of course a battle started inside Catholicism between pacific tolerance and furious fanaticism. 

The most famous battle was that of the hyper famous philosopher and songwriter Abelard against Saint Bernard. Saint Bernard, more influential than the Pope, pushed for the Second Crusade. Excommunicated, exasperated, Abelard did threaten to go to Spain among the Muslims, claiming they looked more hospitable than fanatic Catholics. His sponsor and protector Peter the Venerable sojourned in Muslim controlled Spain to overview the translation of various Islamist text, including the Qur’an. 

The point of all this was that education, politics, the military, and the law were all independent of religion during the five centuries of Frankish control. Whereas in the Late Roman empire, Catholicism was the state religion, it was not the case under the Franks. In reconquered areas the Muslim had invaded, the Franks’ didn’t force-convert Muslims, nor were they ejected. 

The Franks were not against conversion out of Catholicism, they enabled Catholics to convert to Judaism. And sometimes entire villages did.

This is completely different from Islam. If you convert out of Islam, the holiest texts of Islam tell you, you die. Under Islam, education, politics, military, law are all one under God (“Allah”). Islam learned everything from the Late Roman empire. It’s quite similar, just worse: at least under the Roman empire, nominally, most of the law was independent of religion.   

Confronted to all this, the partisans of Islam bleat that Islam had a “Golden Age”. True, in appearance. But the reality is the exact opposite of what they believe. An immense empire had been conquered in a few years, and those huge populations found themselves mostly free, because of the Muslim conquest. 

The brutality of Muslim conquest (a few years), and its ferocity (killing all arm bearing males in Syria), followed by a hands-off policy (40,000 conquering Muslims left the millions they had conquered alone, as long as they paid taxes and let Muslims rule), paradoxically avoided destruction of cities, and freed the populations from the fanaticism of the precedingly ruling “Catholic” tyrants. So for a while the many millions living in the areas conquered by those 40,000 warriors found themselves to be much more free than before. They were still Christian and Jews. Many thinkers and their books had escaped earlier to Persia, just before the Arabic conquest. The appearance of Islam’s rich intellectual tradition won plenty of admirers in medieval Europe.

But this was secular, not religious admiration. The attitude of all leaders of parts of the Frankish empire was that the church could do its own thing, as long as it respected secular law. 

This is what happened with Henry II Plantagenet. He found himself confronted by a fanatic he had himself appointed, to the objections of many.   

Oppressed by their non-Muslim status, those populations converted to Islam over the next few centuries, and then it became clear, to the Muslim leaders themselves, that Literal Islam was adverse to civilizational progress. So many Muslim leaders took anti-fundamentalist measures. Saladin, for example passed a law rewarding those who interpreted I slam literally with the death penalty… Exactly what Wahhab did, five centuries later, enabling the Saud family to use Islam the way Late Roman emperors used that Catholicism they had invented… And the way early Muslim leaders did. 

***

Man was born free. Man thinks best, free. Democracy enables us to be as free as possible while enjoying civilization. All this is impossible following only what is in one 80,000 words book… especially when it’s full of orders to kill all sorts of people, many of them because of how they were born.  

Democracy makes people sufficiently intelligent to understand when people make jokes. But jokes are not tolerated by those who take Islam literally. Apparently the case of the BBC.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1]: Some will object to the adjective “Frankish”. How could a king of England be a Frank? Never heard of that! It’s not in Harvard textbooks! Well, until king Philippe Auguste, the king of Francia was “emperor (of the Romans) in his kingdom” and was king of the Franks. There had been complete state continuity since Clovis… Himself Roman Consul, and first king of France…

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, here is the New York Times:

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

April 27, 2019 COLOMBO, Sri Lanka

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

– Accept Islam as his/her religion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

— Quran 2:191

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

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

“Prophet! Rouse the believers to wage war…”

— Quran, [Quran 8:65]

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

— Quran, [Quran 4:76]

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saudi diplomats visited, too.

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Quran 4:91

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

— Quran 9:66

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

— Quran 16:106]

The Hadith goes further:

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

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

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

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

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

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

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme

***

***

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

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

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

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

 

Debate Islam Intellectually: That Means Don’t Massacre Muslims

There was an abominable attack against people inside mosques in New Zealand. The perpetrators explained they created violence, to lead Jihadists in turn to be more violent, amplifying the initial violence, until apartheid ensues, and all Muslims go back home (never mind that some of the “Muslims” went to the “West” precisely because they couldn’t stand Islam anymore; moreover many of the worst Jihadists are “Western” converts to Islam, as the final battles of the Islamist State showed).

The idea of the assassins in New Zealand then is that the “Great Replacement” of “whites” by “Muslims” would stop, once the violence level is high enough.

That there is a “Great Replacement” is a fact, but the cause is not Islam per se. We have seen that story before, namely when the plutocrats took power in the Roman Republic: the population of Italy collapsed. It doesn’t have thus to do with Islam, but with the replacement of democracy by plutocracy, and the discouragement which then possess the subjugated masses…

Bringing violence in, amplifying it, could work, it has worked many times before, except if everybody knows the game, because then everybody goes meta on the game, and the game changes to a meta form, another game. All the more that, in this case, this is the ultimate form of game, where people become game and get killed… thus motivating all participants (that’s all of grown-up humanity) to become much more involved and smarter.

I have been there. Magnificent. I recommend visiting Isfahan, one of the world’s most spectacular cities. An occasion to ponder the history of iran, at the time of Shah Abbas…. And why, ultimately, didn’t work… Thus why a more democratic society is intellectually, thus physically, superior…

Earlier in the week, the relevant authority in Pakistan called me all sorts of names and asked for my site to be shut down (supposedly that was partly one; I would be interested to know how many islamofascist countries obeyed…) Clearly, civilization is having a problem with debating ideas.

Some Mosques are among the world’s most beautiful buildings, and should be religiously preserved, just for that. In the name of the religion of the most beautiful art. Although Islam administered countries didn’t contribute to civilization as much as Islamophiles claim, they played a positive rle, be it only, irony of ironies, by preserving a significant part of the Greco-Roman inheritance found in the regions the Jihadists had invade.

The basic Islam ideology was the fruit of Muhammad’s life. Said life was entangled with Christianism and Judaism. Muhammad actually met his first wife thanks to some Christian whom he had met in Christian land, next to (then Christian administered and occupied) Jerusalem. Later, a cousin of theat first wife, who was one of the most famous  and proselytizing Muslims in Arabia, suggested to muhammad that his visions in the desert were those of the Archangel Gabriel, talking in the name of the (Judeo-Christian) god. As there were difference between what Muhammad thought he heard and the practice of Christians and Jews, he endeavored to set them right in a set of revelations, the Recitation, the Qur’an.

Muhammad had other agendas too, and became a confirmed caravan raider, after being a caravan trader for his wealthy business woman of a wife. He was well aware of the fragile state of Rome and Sassanid Persia after a long exhausting war between these two. He declared that was the best time to attack in 1,000 years, after 12 centuries of Greek and Persian domination. So attack he did: he led a huge army into Roman territory… but the Romans refused combat and withdrew. Muhammad went back to Mecca, and mysteriously died, traditionally age 62 (but his real age may have been very different).

At Muhammad’s death, the first two “Successors”, the first two “Caliphs”, Abu Bakr and Omar, conspired to tweak or select much of the Qur’an. Aisha, Muhammad’s child-bride was involved in this too: confronted by Omar about the disappearance of some verses in the Qur’an, she claimed that she had hidden them under a bed, but, unfortunately, a goat had found the verses, and eaten them. Omar was a notorious mysogenine, and Aisha was notoriously free-wheeling (with Muhammad’s benediction).

Muslim warriors (Jihhadists) were promised to sit next to god if they died fighting for Islam. Under Abu Bakr and Omar, in a few years, the Muslim army destroyed Persia, and conquered Syria, Palestine and Egypt. The military expansion of Islam took all by surprise, and, within a generation, Islam had the largest empire on Earth ever. Ultimately, the Greek Fire of the Roman Navy prevented the fall of Constantinople. A circumnavigation around the Mediterranean subdued North Africa after a long and terrible war. The conquest of Spain, though, was rapid.

Then three Muslim invasion of France in quick succession failed, with huge Muslim defeats in Toulouse (721 CE), Poitiers (732 CE), Narbonne (748 CE). its army annihilated, the Umayyad Caliphate in Damascus fell (750 CE), and was replaced by the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad… which, ultimate irony, was Iranian controlled…

The next irony: Baghdad fell to the Mongols, and their Frankish, Georgian and Armenian allies.  

In the following 13 centuries, more than 100 variant of Islam evolved. Some have really nothing in common: Black African Sunni Islam could have women not just with naked heads, but naked torsos, and free exhibitionist mentalities commensurate to their minimal clothing… While in some Arab countries, women could be killed, just for having interacted with a non-Muslim male.

My family is half from Africa, and I spent my childhood among “Muslims”. Except those Muslims had nothing to do with the bigots now presented as “Muslim”, who are anxious to impose their “Sharia”. Those a bit familiar with Muhammad know well that the Sharia, much of it established well after Muhammad’s death, doesn’t reflect Muhammad’s mentality. Although Muhammad had something against civilization as organized by Romans and Persians, he was not sexist, considering the circumstances: he apparently gave Aisha the discretion upon her sexual freedom, although they were married (she was still a teenager). When the bishop of Alexandria offered him a Christian female slave of great beauty, he loved her immensely, all the more as she gave him his only son (who died of disease, a few months before his father). Clearly, if one espouses Muhammad anti-sexist spirit, women shouldn’t be legally worth half of what men are worth, etc. Sometimes following the letter condemns the spirit. 

Greco-Roman polytheism didn’t force the masses to practice it. Christianism and Islamism (differently from their origin, Judaism) forced those who practiced other beliefs to become Christian, or Muslim, or then subjugated and exploited them. Hence Christians and Muslims eradicated all religions… except Judaism, which, being their root, proved harder to extricate…

Enough with all this cretinism. How do we mitigate it?

It is alarming that countries, such as Pakistan, which practice the enforcement of a particular superstitious religion, are allowed to be considered in good standing at the United Nations. Instead, they should be condemned and having various privileges removed. Democracies and the organizations and corporations originating from them should be forced to make cooperation with various fascisms increasingly difficult.  

Secularism is the way. The alternative is war. In the case of Pakistan, it means thermonuclear war. Before we come to that, we should debate.

Meanwhile, let’s protest against dictatorship, as millions of Algerians are presently doing. There the demonstrators don’t hesitate to tell the truth: the present FNL dictatorship was put in power by… France. More exactly what one should call the French presidential dictatorship of De Gaulle, then in power. Referendums had been conducted in Algeria, during the dusk of Paris colonial rule. The will of the Algerian people, long neglected, was then clearly expressed:Algeria wanted democracy, a Republic… And that will was violated by the powers that be, in power then in Paris (acting on behalf of the influences behind the French throne, and some came from the world of finance, Washington, Moscow…).

Paradoxically, the racist De Gaulle thought he could separate France and Algeria. Forever. That was naive on his part (or then his racism was out of rational control). Instead, we ended with the Great Replacement, because the same logic which exploited Algeria all too long, exploited France in turn… Whereas Algerians reacted with a demographic explosion, France, and Europe reacted with the opposite. That, again, is nothing new: we have many historical examples, of both effects, that’s how populations get replaced. And there is a logic underneath, it should be debated… because, nowadays, the weapons are bigger, and the going down, not as placid…

Patrice Ayme

Real Civilization Does Not Confuse Civilization and Superstition.

Another day, another Jihadist attack aimed at children. The Islamist State has long given instructions to kill children. Twenty-two killed, 60 maimed in Manchester at a concert for children. A 22 year old cultural Libyan exploded himself. The “multicultural” assassin was technically, but not culturally, a Brit. Time to face reality.

An eight year old little girl died, among others. Who is responsible? The  savage who exploded himself, according to Islam, or those who, misleadingly, call Islam a “civilization”? Excited, nihilistic maniacs, or those who, in the philosophical establishment, call their religion civilized?

Here is a Sword Verse, one of a great many in the Qur’an, Surah 9, verse 59:

“But when the forbidden months are past,

then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them,

and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)…”

[Partisan Muslims whine that this is out of context; actually the context is much more terrible than that: all sorts of people are supposed to be killed, according to Literal Islam, for example homosexuals, just because they are homosexual, following explicitly the Bible, are supposed to “rain stones on homosexuals”. By the way, that’s ironical, as Muslim societies are INTRINSICALLY homosexual!]

Islam is not a civilization, it’s a superstition, and it has been highly successful precisely because this superstition gives a lot of pretexts to kill all sorts of people, while claiming warriors will be pals with god. Islam is not a civilization. How can we take seriously those who confuse “civilization” and superstition? Instead, indeed, Islam is just a superstition. And a pretty nihilistic one at that. “Nihil” means nothing in Latin, it’s related to annihilation. Muhammad explained from the beginning that Islam aimed at annihilating the Greco-Roman and Sassanid (Persian) empires.

Islam orders that society and superstition should not be separated. Said otherwise, Islam orders society to become a “theocracy” (power of god).

Tenochtitlan, Sixteenth Century. This is a civilization. It separated governance and superstition, because a civilization has to separate reality from fancy.

This is primitive. Serious civilizations separated, and separate, superstition and political governance. In Japan the Shogun heading the government was no priest. Nor was the Chinese empire a theocracy. An even more enlightening civilization was the Mexican one. The (more or less central) Aztec government separated the religion and the government: the emperor had diverse titles (including “speaker”), but he had no religious title. The Aztec emperor was not a priest. The two top priests of Tenochtitlan were at the head of the Aztec Church, a completely distinct hierarchy from political governance (which comprised war, justice, commerce, finance).  

Make no mistake: I don’t mind the devil, if, and whenever, it serves civilization: for example, I do not condemn the massive bombing campaigns against the populations who had supported the mass murdering fascist regimes of Germany and Japan. It was the cheapest way, by a very long shot, cheapest not just economically and militarily, but also, overall, in human lives, to win the war.

The Aztecs distinguished completely their superstitious religion from governance, That reflects, and encourages, the ability to distinguish reality from a fiction “above” it. Governance has to be grounded in reality, thus divorced from fiction.

The “West” did this, and did it all along, under the Roman Republic. The separation of church and state was re-asserted formally when (all too Catholic!) emperor Justinian ordered a (“Pagan“!) law professor to head a commission to refurbish Roman Law (by then nearly 13 centuries old, and full of obsolete considerations). Justinian gave just one instruction: to separate secular from religious law. Justinian’s refurbished law was immediately made law in the empire of the Franks (Imperium Francorum), which held (most of) Western Europe.

Thus, both Aztecs and Western Europe separated superstitious church and reality-based state.

A real civilization does not confuse civilization and superstition.

A civilization is the ultimate achievement of humanity. A superstition is a butterfly’s dream. And when a superstition is just a dressing for nihilism, it’s nothing to be proud of. Nothing. Not that nihilism is nothing, far from it.

Where does nihilism comes from? Nihilism is a characteristic of human ethology. The greatest enemy of man is not just man, but the enormous destruction which man can bring to terrestrial ecology. Thus, the enemy of man is man, squared. Including oneself. To destroy that ecological destruction man brings, it’s best to destroy men. That’s where the nihilist instinct comes from. When there are more people than the ecology can stand, people have to die. Thus more so in the desert. Thus the nihilist essence of Islam! Thus the attachment of Islam to the regions with a difficult, unforgiving, ecology.

The civil war in Syria followed a spectacular drought which starved Syrians massively. War in Syria has displaced at least 25% of the population, solving the ecological problem in a way few will find amusing, soon all over reproducing, if the greenhouse keeps on getting worse, as it will.

Nihilism of Islamism: religions for a devastated and devastating future?

Patrice Ayme’

Trump: Deradicalize Islam. Good.

Remember that whereas an army marches on its stomach, a people is ruled by its mind, and minds can be fabricated industrially. Except for tiny soap boxes such as yours truly, the media in the West is controlled, or owned, by the world’s wealthiest people. And wealth is power.

Trump gave a speech in Saudi Arabia to an assembly comprising 50 “Muslim majority countries” heads of state. A Muslim friend of mine heard the beginning of the discourse and concluded:”He put some water in his wine!” Which is French for getting reasonable.

But I expected no less. Trump was not doing his first foreign trip, starting with Arabia, to call for a Muslim ban. But his message was nevertheless radical. Trump basically called to de-radicalize Islam. That may look innocuous, but de-radicalize means to tear of the roots. There are practical ways to do it, fast.

Flower Power! Oh My Terrifically Great Friends Again Thanks For These Gigantically Beautiful Blossoms! President Franklin Delano Roosevelt Radicalized Islam In 1945. At Great Bitter lake. Me, Trump Shall Deradicalize Islam Now. Saudi King Salman on the right. Real king Ibn Salman, his son, on the left. US Nuke Officer Hidden Behind Trump.

To understand the plot between plutocrat FDR, Wall Street, Oil Men, and Saudi Arabia Founder, the colossal warrior, Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, one needs to be aware of the Great Bitter Lake conspiracy:

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

(That plot was established days after FDR gave half of Europe to Stalin at Yalta, not so much to make Stalin strong, but rather to make Europe weak.)

A picture can teach a thousand ideas. Melania Trump and Ivanka Trump went all over the highest spheres of Saudi Arabia, glamorous hair all out. Here is Melania Trump visiting a school in Riyadh.

Three Americans Females Showing Hair  In This Picture. First Lady Melania Trump visits the American International School in the Saudi capital Riyadh on May 21, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / GIUSEPPE CACACE

Other essays reflecting some of my moods:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/perspective-islamophobia-is-not-racist/

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/god-here-dog-there/

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/how-plutocracy-fosters-islamism/

Obama gave a speech in Cairo, at the beginning of his eight years of service to the established order.Obama’s pseudo-intellectual claim::”Islam is great!”, a cosmetic change from “God is great!”, the rallying cry of the radical Muslims. Islam is great because Islam invented all this things which, actually came from Greece, Persia, India, etc. Obama insisted that he knew “as a student of history… civilization’s debt to Islam was great”. “Islam“, said Obama, “carried the light of learning through many centuries and paved the way for Europe’s Renaissance and the Enlightenment” These are basically lies: contrarily to what Obama claimed, Arabs did not “invent the order of algebra“. The (mostly) transmitter of that Greco-Indian knowledge was from Central Asia! The (part) inventor of the Zero AL KHWARIZMI was from present day Uzbekistan,  nearly 3,000 Kilometers from Saudi Arabia. Attributing algebra To “Islam” is even more stupid than attributing Analytic Geometry To Christianism!

Obama utterances were devised to sound educated, but they are conducive to a mood which is all lies. Basically Obama was trying to persuade us that religious obscurantism is conducive to intellectual enlightenment. It’s total poison, which has poisoned Western minds, ever since the Western plutocrats determined that there were few things better to make us all stupid…

From left to right, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, first lady Melania Trump, and U.S. President Donald Trump open the Global Center for Combating Extremist Absolutely Beautiful And Touching! Just One Caveat: All New And All Superior Thinking Always Starts Extreme!

Trump’s deradicalization proposition is more correct than Obama’s hypocritical professiorally professed admiration..

Christianism was deradicalized: this enabled civilization to take off again. Deradicalization did not happen in five minutes: it started when the Franks established a secularist emperor, a school teacher. That was well before the end of the Fourth Century.

Christian deradicalization is nearly complete.

Good.

Took 16 centuries.

High time to do Islam now.

What moral right do we have to? Well, our distant ancestors had a hand in Islam, because, if nothing else, Christianism mentored Islamism. Then, of course, Islam conquered half of the Greco-Roman empire in a few decades. Islam did so because it was so radical.

Four centuries later, the Turks converted to Islam. Islam, radical Qur’an version, says that if one dies, fighting for Islam God, one goes to sit next to Islam God thereafter (what’s the difference between that and a sort of denied homosexuality?). In any case, Islamized warriors are as dangerous as they can get (short of being clever, of course!). The Turks moved thousands of miles, and, in a few decades conquered all. Or, at least Armenia, Kurdistan, Anatolia. The rest of the Middle East, including Arabia, and then North Africa, followed.

All very good, but then the Qur’an Fascist Principle (S4; v59) says all dictators should be obeyed as if they were Muhammad (that gave an opening to Sufi, Philosophical, Islam, and, more prosaically, Islam as dictatorship).

Now, of course, with modern weapons, peace is not a choice, but a necessity.

Yes, time to de-radicalize.

And how to de-radicalize? First, top intellectuals have to realize that radical, literal, fundamental Islam is as much a catastrophe as radical, literal, fundamental Christianism, which is basically synonymous with the Dark Ages, of which it was part, cause and consequence. That will change the mood importantly. Arabia has to understand that fossil fuels are on their way out, and it may happen much faster than expected: desalination using massive energy from photovoltaics can keep Arabia livable, but then what to do? Well, become more intellectual, as Abu Dhabi is already trying to do. Clearly a superstitious obscurantist interpretation of a Dark Age religion is in the way.

Secondly, radicalization has proceeded from TV channels such as Al Jazeera. I have linked to Al Jazeera more than once on this site: it has some good articles. But it also has horrendous fundamentalist, knife between the teeth, preachers. Time to change this. All the Fundamentalist, Wahhabist, extreme Islamism transit through Western owned and launched telecommunications satellites, a vivid demonstration of Western plutocracy and Fundamental Islam of the worst type.

De-radicalization of Islam has to go through the domestication of many a Western plutocratic individual or institution. No doubt the media, owned by the same “moral” persons, will find therein another secret reason to hate Donald Trump even more…

Muslim potentates should mull all this carefully: they, too, are being manipulated!

Patrice Ayme’