Posts Tagged ‘Martin Luther’

Islamist State Phobia Is Civilized

December 21, 2014

Two police officers assassinated in New York, just because they sat in their cars, in uniform. The assassin had expressed his plan on the Internet (“They killed one of us, we will kill two of them”).

Simultaneously, in Tours, France, where the second invasion of France by the Islamist State was stopped in 732 CE, an agitated youth screaming “Alluha Akbar” entered a police station and stabbed gravely two officers. A third, also stabbed, shot four times, and killed the assailant, who found out that bullets are greater than his god.

The next day, a driver in djellaba, screaming “Alluha Akbar” plowed into French crowds, in four places of the city of Dijon, injuring thirteen, some grievously. He was arrested, his passengers fled. A similar attack happened in Nantes the day after into a Christmas, making eleven wounded, including 5 grievously.

In case people don’t know, these attacks are recommended by the Islamist State.

Civilization is about systems of thought. Civilization progresses in power and understanding, as it elaborates more and more sophisticated systems of thought.
What about old systems of thought, like, say, the Bible?

There are sick, demented, obsolete, idiotic, wrong, criminal, systems of thought. Actually, pretty much any system of thought practiced anywhere to guide any society, anywhere, more than a few centuries ago, is sick, demented, obsolete, idiotic, wrong and criminal.

So is the case of the original Christianism. Rabbi Jesus said that he “did not come to contradict the Law“. The Law, the Old Testament, approves of God torturing to death King David’s son, because David had refused to make a genocide that God had ordered.

The Fundamental Principle of the Abrahamic religions is that, whenever “God” (whatever that is), or when you feel that “God”, is ordering you to bind up your son, and slit his throat, it is immoral to object.

In other words, the fundamental principle of Abrahamism is that criminal insanity of the worst type (slitting the throat of an innocent, bound child, say) is of the essence, whenever “God” orders you to.

To this day the throat of animals is cut while they are fully conscious, by the Muslims, to celebrate the idea that Abraham was going to cut the throat of his live and conscious son. And meat can only be consumed, which was killed that way (does that mean Abraham was a cannibal? The mind reels with intriguing possibilities; in a slightly more distant past, cannibalism was ubiquitous; it went on, on a massive scale, in Pacific Islands, until the Nineteenth Century; just ask the ominously named Captain Cook, who got cooked, indeed).

Abrahamic religions are as violent as one can get. What is more violent, indeed, than celebrating the will to slit the throat of one’s bound, yet, conscious son? I am just asking a question, please don’t get offended, oh, you, primitives. We respect you, and especially in light of your obsession with throat slitting.

Does it really matter what the Abrahamists say to justify their will to slit children’s throats? Do they say anything? They say they have to obey “The Lord”.

This is an obvious reasoning to hold, if one comes from non-Abrahamist background, say, from a Zoroastrian background (much older by at least a millennium than Judaism; thrice the age of Islam). To counter this sort of critique, the Islamists call Yazidis “Devil Worshippers”, and have engaged in their systematic genocide.

Nobody in the West takes the calls to violence, or violent indifference, of Jesus Christ, Saint Louis, or Saint Thomas seriously anymore. Nobody is advocating anymore the hatred for Jews that Martin Luther advocated, and the indefinite torture of Jewish families he depicted with relish. Hitler’s bold endeavor to do as Luther said, brought universal condemnation.

The case of Islam is similar to that of the raw Bible. Within the 83,000 words of the Qur’an, the following compilation found around 10,000 words of calls to violence, some of it of the worst type. https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

Nazism was clearly a criminal system of thought. Its Bible, “Mein Kampf”, however lethal it proved to be, and full of lies, including the apology of lying itself (which is also found in the Qur’an), is, on the face of it, much less violent. “Mein Kampf” does not have explicit death threats, whereas the Qur’an (like the New Testament) has them (and crawls with dozens of them, differently from the NT).

Around 400 CE, the Founding Fathers of the Christian Church got together, and decided that the Bible was allegorical, metaphorical, not to be taken literally. The Caliph, in 850 CE took the exact opposite decision. Ever since, what used to be the world’s most advanced region, has got ever more degenerate.

And now in the West, while being a bigot was an insult philosophers used to hurl at Christians, Politically Correct naïve and dishonest pseudo-intellectuals, accuse free thinkers of bigotry, when they suffer from so-called “Islamophobia“. It is the world upside down, the inversion of all values.

Imagine a free thinker from the Enlightenment accused of “Christianophobia”. She, or he, would have laughed to no end, pointing out that was the whole point. Voltaire used Islamophobia against Christianism in his “Mahomet”. This theater was played in Europe, 250 years ago. Now, it is forbidden, even where it was written, Switzerland.

Enlightenment has turned to darkness, in all too many minds. Do the Islamophiles want to turn the West into Afghanistan? Or back to Saint Louis’ Middle Ages, with that holy Christian writing how much he would love to stab unbelievers in the belly?

The Crusade against the Albigienses (=Cathars) killed, officially, one million, the victorious Christians said.

Cathars were exterminated to the last, all their books destroyed. And this Crusade, the most murderous of them all, happened in France, under the order of the Pope and his mass murdering, genocidal associates. To this day, monsters such as Saint Louis, or Thomas, or Luther, are admired, yet, their ideas, once implemented, killed millions and terrorized the West for six centuries.

Such was the second genocidal eruption of Christianism. The first one had put an end to the Roman state (reconstituted by the Franks later, under a tolerant, secular LEX).

Many underestimate the horror that Christianism, the founder of Islamism. Why? Because “The Lord” is right. “The Lord” being the plutocrat in chief, and his subordinates, those who decide what one should believe in.

On the same matter of principle, horrors of Islam are underestimated.

Why is “The Lord” so anxious about us admiring Islam?

We got rid of Islamism Senior (= Christianism). Is it not racist that people in the Middle East ought to be living under a criminal system of thought, whereas we can do without?

A system of thought saying the following is indeed criminal:

Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

There are hundreds more verses like that in the Qur’an, and some are even worse, as they describe horrific tortures in details (making unbelievers swallow molten metal, or skinning them alive, etc…).

Why do authorities such as “The Economist” censor the Qur’an? It is an educative story by itself.

And it proves my point: plutocrats in the West use respect for Islam as a way to subjugate the Natives (and extract their oil). Subjugation by decerebration: the ultimate.

Our civilization is not Christian. It’s much older, much wiser, knowledgeable, charitable and tolerant than that. Let’s extent the courtesy of civilization to other peoples, instead of encouraging their minds to live in a small superstitious jail.

Patrice Ayme’

Plutocracy, Slavery, Martin Luther Reigns

January 20, 2014

Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, celebrating the one who had a dream of racial equality. Yeah, sure. What if the racial problem was mostly a smokescreen? A distraction?

Indeed, where did this racial inequality come from? Partly, as I have explained, it arose from the original Martin Luther, and his reference bible, the Bible. Let’s not forget that, because King David refused to massacre an innocent tribe, the Jewish God then tortured David’s son to death over a week or so. To punish his dad. How come Auschwitz is a big surprise to those who revere this sort of monstrosities? It’s just more of the same stuff, on a grander scale.

In the  1620s, English agents of the West Country Men-financed companies like the Virginia Company found that slavery  was a profit enhancer. Endured servitude for whites was not enough: to make an entire race of self-reproducing robots was best.

Tobacco was the obvious thing to grow. This was all very expensive, but with lots of capital, it could be done very profitably, thanks to slavery. Some American states were mostly inhabited with black slaves in the 1700s. By then the top people in the future USA were living much better than anybody but the top aristocrats in Europe.

So what brought slavery? Plutocracy. Slavery arose from greed unchained, and blossoming plutocracy. The Bible comforted the righteous, as it celebrated tribal hatred as religion.

Thus race was just a convenient marker. The real genesis of slavery was not racial hatred, but greed.

In November 1938, on Martin Luther’s birthday, the Nazi leadership ordered an attack on all businesses in Germany held by Jews. Some buildings were completely destroyed (such as the great Synagogue in Berlin). There was glass all over the street, and it came to be known as “Kristallnacht”.

A poll conducted afterwards showed that two-thirds of the Nazi rank and file disapproved of the violence. Somewhat similarly, when Germans learned that Nazis were exterminating mental retards, public protests terminated the program (not before a relative of Hitler got eliminated, logically enough).

Hence, when the Nazi leadership engaged in massive extermination, that was kept secret. This secrecy was facilitated by the German goose stepping mentality. However a question surfaces: if so many people disapproved of Nazism in its heartland, how come Nazism got so empowered?

My main thesis (imparted to me early on my an uncle who was not just an astronomer, but also the son-in law of Molkte) is that the “plutocrats”, who Hitler and company officially vilipended, were actually the Dei In Machina (gods animating the machine) of Nazism.

The connection with plutocracy central, the USA, was, naturally, most important. Why is the USA plutocracy central? The USA became a superpower sometimes in the Nineteenth Century, but, because of the size of that nation-continent, American plutocrats, and the organizations they led, were made of bigger stuff than their homologues anywhere else.

USA plutocrats were indeed huge. JP Morgan, a banker, all by himself, stopped the Wall Street crash of 1907. What does that have to do with our story? Morgan became friend and mentor to Herr Doktor Schacht, later to invent German hyperinflation in 1923, and, being the most important banker in Germany, a crucial promoter of Hitler. Don’t be surprised that banks from the USA were massive supporters of Hitler, too.

Most people do not know any of these facts: the cognitive landscape they see is reduced to a small room. And not by accident: Albert Ballin was a Jew, friend of the Kaiser, managing director of the Hamburg American Line, the world’s largest shipping company, and involved in the complicated negotiations about a possible joint ownership of the world by Britain, Germany and the USA (something Colonel House, right arm of USA president Wilson pursued in person on June 1, 1914).

After Germany was defeated in 1918, the USA confiscated a lot of German property. Much of it, including the Hamburg-Amerika Linie, the world’s largest shipping company, at some point found itself in private American plutocratic hands. How one went from public seizure to private-plutocratic will never be documented: the building where the documentation of these transactions were stored, fortunately burned in 1923.

This quick recycling from public seizure to Anglo-Saxon plutocratic control made the German economy a strange hybrid pretty much controlled by American plutocracy in the 1920s and 1930s.

In general, all these horrors were made possible by never talking about them. A Deus In Machina can only operate well when it is not seen as part of the machine.

Instead of whining about slavery, and pretend that it is all about shades of skin, it may be more reverential to ponder how it arose. And whether it’s not rising again, for the same reason: inequality of wealth and power.

Patrice Ayme