The Franks, Mohammed, Charlemagne, Pirenne & Moi & Moi & Moi

As a part and parcel of the devious scheme for admiring the system of thought of hard core Islam, a superstition which buried the Middle East alive, we are supposed to admire the alleged secular achievements of this obscurantist cult. This baffles the mind: since when did a superstition make great secular achievements? It is roughly as clever as celebrating the Catholic Church for its contributions in biology, physics and astronomy (Catholicism roasted astronomers alive, censored physics for three centuries, and forbade the teaching of evolution theory in England until Darwin).

Actually, if anything, the historical record shows that the Islamist religion was even more effective than Catholicism at killing intellectuals. And the reason is obvious: whereas Islam had the Sharia, a superstitious jurisdiction over the gigantic Islamist empire, and then various Caliphates it split into, the Catholic Church had superstitious jurisdiction only in the Papal territories, a small part of Italy that Charlemagne had offered to the Pope (now thankfully reduced to the Vatican). Elsewhere in Western Europe, secular law ruled (“Le Bras Seculier”. The secular arm, as the French used to say). At least, most of the time.  

There is a vast gap between reality, and the widespread propaganda perception that Islam was a superior civilization, in the Middle Ages:

CIVILIZATION ILLUSION: Shocking Arabophilia?

This feeds on another confusion, that of civilization and superstition. Thus, one speaks commonly of “Christian civilization”. When, actually, a close inspection shows that the Occidental civilization owes nearly nothing to Christianism, besides threatening people with a cross.

Picard 578, a much appreciated writer in this vast effort to understand ever more, replied: indeed. BTW, have you read of Henri Pirenne? Yes. Pirenne, a Belgian university professor of history died in 1936. His famous book got published afterwards, and then his “thesis” became famous.

There Is A Lot Of Truth In Pirenne’s Thesis. But the Full Truth Is Much More General, Reducing Islam To An Irritating, Enfeebling Sideshow Which Handicapped Europe, To This Day, But No More Than That. Or So I say.

I own Pirenne’s book. “Charlemagne and Mahomet”.

And I know (some of) his thesis: Islam created Charlemagne.

Much of Pirenne’s thesis is mostly right, and archaeology confirms it… And it seems to be a very attractive thesis, as long as one realizes the Franks sent spies to Arabia, 150 years before Charlemagne…Actually we know, and I can demonstrate (future essay!) that the breakdown of the Oriental trade happened then. And the reasoning is elementary: when the Arab army annihilated the Roman army, the Arabs were in total war with the Romans, thus the Franks.

Indeed, the Franks were Roman power in the Pars Occidentalis. Formally, practically, de facto, etc. There was no other. At that point economic war was total, and the Franks had to learn to write on animal skin, rather than papyrus (they became pretty good at it). And then forget Chinese silk.  

Thus, Pirenne’s thesis is not the whole story. By a long shot. Actually, Pirenne twists and collapses together many generations. Pirenne has a point: the total war with Islam impoverished enormously the Occident. One would have to wait Richard the Lion Heart and the Treaty he made with Saladin, to reopen the trade routes. By then, advancing European technology had made much of what Islam had to offer not that important.

I am a sort of meta-Pirenne. I explain what happened, the rise of Islam. It was mostly an accident, as Muhammad himself pointed out. An accident Muhammad saw, and made sure it happened some more.

Roman plutocracy and theocratic fascism came first in this civilizational smash-up. That degeneracy caused a mental weakening of the entire Roman state. It started with Constantine steaming his wife, assassinating his glorious son (that son, Caesar Crispus, thought Christianism was going to destroy the empire, so Constantine got him killed… Ok, maybe he slept with the empress, his mother-in-law…). Constantine also killed his nephew, all great feats which make him a Christian orthodox saint…

Roman stupidity became so intense that it brought the disaster of Valens, at Hadrianopolis in 376 CE, when the Oriental Roman field army was annihilated…

But Roman stupidity could only increase ever more, thanks to a combination of political, intellectual and theocratic fascism. All the way to an idiotic, lethal war with Persia (in defense of Roman intellectuals, and their books!)….

That war, won by Rome in the end, not without great upsets, as Persia got to the Mediterranean before Roman counterattacks, exhausted both Persia and Rome. Something which Muhammad pounced on.

This makes all the easier to hate Islam as a system of thought. Indeed, what the preceding shows is that a very similar system of thought, Christo-fascism, actually the system of thought which contributed most to Islam, caused, and was the proximal cause, of the collapse of the Roman State.

In the end, only the Frankish piece survived, barely so, during the ferocious counter-attacks by the Franks against the Islamists, inside France (first in the period 715 CE to 748 CE).

Pirenne talks about Charlemagne a lot. However, Charlemagne was the crown jewel. He did not invent the big stuff he was the crown jewel of His father and grandfather were more innovative civilizationally.

And, even before that, the Merovingians conquered most of Germany. But the Merovingians did much more. They were very innovative civilizationally: after all, they domesticated the Church, forcing it to teach… secularly. Then the Merovingians outlawed slavery. The latter was done, 12 (twelve) centuries before president Lincoln did the same in the USA…

Patrice Ayme’

 

Islamist Attacks Brussels

I heard there were two very powerful explosions at the airport. An unused explosive outfit was also found. An hour later the Maelbeek subway, 300 meters from the EC main building, exploded. More than 35 killed, 200 wounded, many very grievously. (Such coordination is achieved thanks to encrypted Apple I Phones, and the like; as we will see below, US plutocracy did not just bring you Islamism, it makes it safe, for terrorists; don’t worry for the Apple Plutos, they are also safe, in their private enclaves protected by their own private security forces.)

Recent policies played a role: four terrorists, at least, joined the refugee flow to make the attacks in Paris (two exploded themselves). They had nothing to do with France, aside from the explosive desire to kill human beings in France.

However, the greater problem is much deeper than that, as I have documented in countless essays. The gist of it is this: if one reads the Qur’an and the Hadith very carefully (as I have) one discovers that, from the very beginning, Islam was conceived as an ideology to attack the Greco-Roman West (and even then Zoroastrian Persia). The Prophet Muhammad explained that, after a tough and long war between Rome and Persia, it was time, the first time in a thousand years, when the Arabs will finally be able to raid the civilized world (the way they used to, before).

Those who have finished agonizing are at now peace, in Brussels airport, thanks to the religion of eternal peace

Thus, from the beginning, Islam was conceived as war ideology against civilization.

Thus, where does the notion that “Islamophobia is racism” come from?

In the 1930s, American plutocrats, fossil fuel magnates, made an alliance with Ibn Saud, who was in the process of finalizing his acquisition of Arabia by force. The Saud family had, since the 18C, made an alliance with Wahhab, a fanatic Salafist Fundamentalist.

Islam Fundamentalism had been made unlawful by the Kurd Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, in thle 12C. The penalty for preaching it was death.

Wahhab’s fanaticism gave a religious excuse for the Saudi to use divine violence.

In the 1930s, the Saudi dictatorship gave an excuse for the oil men to make Saudi Arabia into their thing, no question asked. In 1945, president Roosevelt made the alliance with Ibn Saud official; the Saudis would recycle their profits on Wall Street (and, later, London). (Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was getting Saudi financing and Nazi help.)

This very profitable system was quickly extended by US special services and the like: the CIA promoted the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Shia in Iran against Prime Minister Mossadegh. Mossadegh wanted to partly nationailze the big British and American companies in Iran. The CIA armed, financed and excited Ayatollah Khomeini and his subordinates.

At the same time, the USA pursued Roosevelt’s wilful and determined program to eject France (and thus Britain) from all its zones of influence (using the Muslim approach).

In Pakistan, the CIA pushed the state toward Islamization. Then Pakistani Islamists were used to destabilize Afghanistan where the government was keen to exploit its underground riches in cooperation with France and Russia.

That was not enough, so on July 3, 1979, president Jimmy carter gave the secret order to the CIA of attacking directly Afghanistan. The CIA and the SIA (Saudi Intelligence Agency) went to find Bin Laden, a young engineer and heir known for his Muslim Fundamentalism. He was put in charge of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, with Saudi and American financing. Algerians were also trained to fight there. They went back to Algeria to fight the government, and even society, constituting the GIA (Group Islamiste Arme’). France intervened discreetly (giving the green light for the army to block elections, and providing training and equipment). More than 200,000 were killed… in Algeria alone.

And so on.

As Picard says, we are confronted to a mess, a mix between a conspiracy satanic (Pluto!) between fossil fuel Western plutocrats and deeper feudal, and organized crime forces.

So where does the “Islamophobia is racism” slogan come from? Famous, but, fundamentally second-rate, philosophers in the West (and their even cheaper spiritual descendants).

After 1945, many of these thinkers for hire, who used to love the Nazis or Soviets a few years earlier, fell in love with all things American. Thus they produced a philosophical system which seduced Washington and Wall Street (when not Moscow).

Not that there was a contradiction between Soviet Moscow and Wall Street’s Washington: when Israel, France and Britain decided to attack Nasser (shortly before supported by the CIA), Moscow and Washington became allies: Moscow invaded Hungary, threatened to atom bomb Paris and London, while the USA, by acquiescing, implicitly threatened the same, while explicitly making other threats, and had France and Britain condemned by the United Nations General Assembly.

Thus, what we are confronting is not just terrorism, but a form of mental corruption which has undermined Western thought, intimately tied up with the powers that be. Preaching Islamist terror should be viewed as accessory to mass murder. Plutocracy and its mental conspiracies is an even deeper ill… which does not bring just financial crises, inequality and impoverishment. It brings a weakening of all mental faculties, including those of the heart.

The Islamist State said: “Islamic State fighters carried out a series of bombings with explosive belts and devices on Tuesday, targeting… the Belgian capital Brussels, a country participating in the coalition against the Islamic State… Islamic State fighters opened fire inside the Zaventem airport, before several of them detonated their explosive belts, as a martyrdom bomber detonated his explosive belt in the Maalbeek metro station.”

Why do these Muslim terrorists want to die as “martyrs” so much? Why not just to drop the explosives in a luggage? (As one of the bombers, the man with the hat, did?) It’s not all about the fact that the Qur’an said that Muslim martyrs dying for god will go to paradise (bypassing Final Judgment by god). It’s also about the fact these killers have had to live in the world. They have had to go through the crowds of women, children, old people, and they had to decided to kill, maim, and hurt them all. It’s hard, even for monsters. How to you decide to explode a three-year old child? Well, you distract yourself by your own death, and by deciding your cause is so worthy, not only it justifies killing three-year olds, but also, oneself. Besides, how could they live with themselves thereafter?

[This post will be modified eminently, with links added.]

Patrice Ayme’

Islam Rape Kit

Islam contains an ideological rape kit. Sacred texts of Islam clearly state that “those that your right hand possess” (that is, slaves) can be sexually exploited. Slaves are obtained in battle. Devout Muslims are enjoined to practice as the Qur’an enjoins to do. The New York Times, in an harrowing description of systematic raping of children by Muslim warriors, is finally waking up to these facts. See:

Just As The Moon, A Pre-Islamist Religion, Rules Over Islam, So Does Abominable Sexism

Qur’an (33:50) – “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee”
This is one of several verses “from Allah” which say that the limit of four wives to have sex with does NOT apply to slaves:

Qur’an (23:5-6) – “… abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…”
The Qur’an is a small book (only 83,000 words, including much repetitive salutations to god), thus, if Allah wasted valuable space to make the same point four times, sex slavery has got to be a great value to him.
Qur’an (4:24) – “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) except those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” Sex with married slaves is authorized.

It is often said that Islam promotes equality: nothing is further from the truth. Christians and Jews, where and when tolerated had to pay a tax, wear distinct marks on their clothing, and to be killed if having sex with Muslim women. “Non-believers” and “apostates” have to be killed too.

However, even among Muslims, there is no equality:
Qur’an (2:178) – “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.”
S0 all human beings are not equal, even among Muslims: freemen, slaves and females are three categories.

Plenty of Hadith relate that Muhammad enjoined his men to practice rape after battles (see for example Hadiths from Bukhari, say Bukhari (62:137), Bukhari (34:432), etc.).

The apologists of Islam scoff that this is all irrelevant: there are bigger predators out there, please stop worrying about Islam. Certainly so. And, as I have argued, modern vicious, fundamentalist Islam was promoted by American plutocrats and their servants.

But there is a much larger problem: Islamist ideology has obviously vicious, prominent aspects which explain what went wrong in the territories it conquered. That’s granted. The larger problem is that it ought to have been obvious all along. And the question is:

If Western intellectuals could not see what an abysmal superstitious, vicious ideology Islam represented, which other superstitious, obviously vicious ideologies do they not see? And even more pertinent, which ones do they have interest not to see?

The political and financial systems are obviously vicious and pernicious ideologies it’s best not to look at. Or then to look at in such a way that the critiques are too mild, and, or, too off base (thus ineffective).

Here are some extracts from the Times’ article… and not even the worst ones:

***

QADIYA, Iraq — In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old girl, the Islamic State fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted.

He bound her hands and gagged her. Then he knelt beside the bed and prostrated himself in prayer before getting on top of her.

When it was over, he knelt to pray again, bookending the rape with acts of religious devotion.

“I kept telling him it hurts — please stop,” said the girl, whose body is so small an adult could circle her waist with two hands. “He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to God,” she said in an interview alongside her family in a refugee camp here, to which she escaped after 11 months of captivity.

The systematic rape of women and girls from the Yazidi religious minority has become deeply enmeshed in the organization and the radical theology of the Islamic State in the year since the group announced it was reviving slavery as an institution. Interviews with 21 women and girls who recently escaped the Islamic State, as well as an examination of the group’s official communications, illuminate how the practice has been enshrined in the group’s core tenets.

The trade in Yazidi women and girls has created a persistent infrastructure, with a network of warehouses where the victims are held, viewing rooms where they are inspected and marketed, and a dedicated fleet of buses used to transport them.

A total of 5,270 Yazidis were abducted last year… To handle them, the Islamic State has developed a detailed bureaucracy of sex slavery, including sales contracts notarized by the ISIS-run Islamic courts. And the practice has become an established recruiting tool to lure men from deeply conservative Muslim societies, where casual sex is taboo and dating is forbidden.

A growing body of internal policy memos and theological discussions has established guidelines for slavery, including a lengthy how-to manual issued by the Islamic State Research and Fatwa Department just last month. Repeatedly, the ISIS leadership has
emphasized a narrow and selective reading of the Quran and other religious rulings to not only justify violence, but also to elevate and celebrate each sexual assault as spiritually beneficial, even virtuous.

“Every time that he came to rape me, he would pray,” said F, a 15-year-old girl who was captured on the shoulder of Mount Sinjar one year ago and was sold to an Iraqi fighter in his 20s. Like some others interviewed by The New York Times, she wanted to be identified only by her first initial because of the shame associated with rape.

“He kept telling me this is ibadah,” she said, using a term from Islamic scripture meaning worship. “He said that raping me is his prayer to God. I said to him, ‘What you’re doing to me is wrong, and it will not bring you closer to God.’ And he said, ‘No, it’s allowed. It’s halal,’ ” said the teenager, who escaped in April with the help of smugglers after being enslaved for nearly nine months.
…“They laughed and jeered at us, saying ‘You are our sabaya.’ I didn’t know what that word meant,” she said. Later on, the local Islamic State leader explained it meant slave.

“He told us that Taus Malik” — one of seven angels to whom the Yazidis pray — “is not God. He said that Taus Malik is the devil and that because you worship the devil, you belong to us. We can sell you and use you as we see fit.”

Here is a last Hadith, for the road. It’s often asserted that Islam promotes, and protects women. Apparently rather unsuccessfully:

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 126:Narrated Imran:

The Prophet said, “I looked at Paradise and saw that the majority of its residents were the poor; and I looked at the (Hell) Fire and saw that the majority of its residents were women.”

Patrice Ayme’

Mahomet Hebdo

OK, it’s rather Muhammad Daily. Al Qaeda took credit for the attack against Charlie Hebdo, in a 12 minute video. Five million copies of Charlie Hebdo are printed and sold. That’s nearly three times that miserable Islamist terrorist aiding and abetting newspaper, the New York Times (I sent a comment to that effect, and they later took down the article I attacked; it quoted criminals approvingly; I did not make a copy in a timely manner).

Vast weasel and lying propaganda in the USA, indeed, against Charlie Hebdo and Freedom of Expression in a sort of crusade against “blasphemy”. Those behind it are often paid propagandists attached to plutocratic universities (as Stanford’s “Director of Diversity” deconstructed yesterday).

Infuriating some More Real Fanatics: They Hate Forgiveness

{Banner translation: All Is Forgiven… The Christian approach… ;-)}

Another tac of anti-French hypocritical American “intellectuals”: “one does not make fun of minorities”. There are probably more practicing Muslims in France than practicing Christians (let alone Jews). In the world, there is 1.6 billion Muslims. We are talking about operative majorities, here. People get condemned for “Atheism”, or “Insults Against Islam” in Egypt, every week.

As the end of this essay will make clear, that pseudo-holly, PC American “intellectual” position equates to lethal racism against Muslims (the main victims of Islamist violence). So now a few armed fanatics sent, managed, helped and equipped by the unholy alliance of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State make a minority one should not make fun of? According to American philosophers?

What’s the correct approach? The Mayor of Rotterdam a Muslim born in Morocco, son of an Imam, told the Muslim extremists to “rot toch op” (“fuck-off”)

https://news.vice.com/article/mayor-of-rotterdam-tells-muslim-extremists-in-the-netherlands-to-fuck-off

Ahmed Aboutaleb, who arrived in the Netherlands aged 15, spoke out in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris. Mayor Aboutaleb said Muslims who ‘do not like freedom can pack your bags and leave’.

“It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom,” he said on the Dutch program “Nieuwsuur (Newshour).” “But if you don’t like freedom, for heaven’s sake, pack your bags and leave… If you do not like it here because some humorists you don’t like are making a newspaper, may I then say you can f– off,” Mr. Aboutaleb added. “Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here.”

London Mayor Boris Johnson lauded his Dutch colleague as his “hero,” saying his comments were “straight to the point…. That is the voice of the Enlightenment, of Voltaire,” Mr. Johnson wrote for The Telegraph. He added: “If we are going to win the struggle for the minds of these young people, then that is the kind of voice we need to hear — and it needs above all to be a Muslim voice.”

SATYR INTERVIEWED:

I went to the woods, and met a happy satyr. I talked to him thus: ”What’s up with satire, satyr? Why the happy face? Are you not sad that so many thinkers and cartoonists got killed because they practiced Freedom of Expression?”

The satyr laughed: “You now, I was sad when even Voltaire got censored. But now there are printing 5 million copies of Charlie Hebdo. Maybe they read you too, some day.”

Me: ”You mean, when Voltaire’s play on the Prophet was censored in Europe?”

Satyr: “Exactly, that was the Nadir. Voltaire’s play was entitled: “Le FANATISME Ou MAHOMET Le Prophete“. Yes, the capital letters are in the original. Theater that made people laugh 262 years ago, in 1753, became not “Politically Correct” and got censored in the name of Islamophilia. In the Twentieth-First Century.”

Me: “You exaggerate. Voltaire called it a ‘tragedy’”.

Satyr: “OK, so Islam is fanaticism, according to Voltaire, but fanaticism to that extent, not being able to draw a guy with a beard, that’s funny. We, satyrs and satirists, have been at the core of civilization for 3,000 years! Dionysus, remember? The festivals, the cut-conifers, offering the gifts for the Winter Solstice, the orgies, the drinking, happiness, jokes, the outrages, the craziness, the generalized irreverence? Ah, readers are going to understand that we can’t even f the rophet, only because he is thoroughly decomposed.”

“F the rophet?” I fled in horror, terrified by what American propagandists would call “puerile”. Most Academic American philosophers would condemn me for talking to a Satyr. It’s much better to read the New York Times, which expressed all the racism there was in making cartoons of bearded men, by quoting genuine terrorists calling to kill all those who draw (drawing people is actually forbidden in Islam).

American (paid) philosophers are not amused by Molière’s satirical caricature of religion in Tartuffe, a satire that is exactly 350 years old (and which even the very Catholic Louis XIV liked).

Let’s analyze the latest cover from Charlie Hebdo. A bearded man is crying, he looks sad, dismayed. He wears a cover on his head. He says: ”Je Suis Charlie.” Above it’s written: ”All Is Forgiven.” From this, fanatics, those who come out of the Fanum, the Temple, deduce that Muhammad, somebody dead for nearly 13 centuries, has been gravely “slandered”. Who told them it was that particular person, and how can one insult somebody dead 13 centuries?

Since when is ”All Is Forgiven” a call to hatred? To confuse forgiveness and hatred is a perversion not just of all values, but of vocabulary itself. Since when should serious media quote individuals so inarticulate that they confuse “forgiven” and “hateful”?

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/je-suis-charlie/

Fanatics whose business is extremism of course pounce on the worst interpretations, so that they can advise to augment the nastiness (as it is their business). By taking their delirium seriously, one advertise, and aid and abet the worst aspects, the most demonic side of human beings.

Letting those who call for hatred claim that forgiving is hateful is giving up on reason. There are actually death threats against Jews (among others) in Islam’s most sacred texts. Is this offending material? Is quoting Islam sacred texts unacceptable? Is it what the PC calls “content that is deemed offensive and gratuitous”? Have a look at:

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/041-smt.php

Here is such a well-known Hadith, that it is part of the Charter of Hamas. Book 041, Number 6985:

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”

Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim. See also from Sahih Muslim: Hadith: 41:6981, , 41:6982, 41:6983, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791, and 4:52:177. All this is readily available on Islamist sites. Can one get clearer than that?

Qur’an Sura 2, verse 190: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits… Sura2, v.191: And slay them wherever ye catch them… tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter… slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.”

These are quotes out of hundreds. See:

VIOLENCE IN “HOLY QUR’AN”.

The New York Times actually quoted that verse, S2, v 191. But it quoted exactly what I did not quote: ”Do not transgress limits”. So am I as dishonest as the New York Times? No. “Do not transgress limits” is vague, but innocuous. By quoting that, the New York Times is deliberately distorting the main message of this verse, while claiming they quote what I quote, and it comes out different. It’s always hard to argue with stupidity… By definition of stupidity, which is the inability to understand arguments.

The main message of Sura 2, The Cow, is verse 191. And that is that those who believe in the Qur’an should “…slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.”

If somebody says: ”Hello, good morning, I have to kill you,” Islamophile intellectuals, and the New York Times, will quote: ”Hello, good morning.” Those who want to survive, and who believe in natural goodness, will worry about the rest of the message: I have to kill you, my religion says so.

So who is a disbeliever? The main problem of those who want to survive Islam is exactly here. That’s why millions of Syrians are refugees in other countries, and hundreds of thousands have been killed: who is a disbeliever? When the religious order is to kill “disbelievers”, “disbelief” is the most important question.

Solution? Forget the fiscal deficit imposed by plutophiles in Brussels. The French Republic is at war, and should spend, if need be 5% of its GDP on defense, completely paid out of thin air. And if that brings the Euro down, so much the better. (Actually a currency is defense by other means, so a country with a strong defense has always a strong currency.)

It’s all about power, ladies, gentlemen, and satyrs. And the power starts with the mind.

Patrice Ayme’

“JE SUIS CHARLIE”

PARIS — Masked, military trained gunmen in heavy bullet proof military garb, expertly using fully automatic Kalashnikovs, and a bazooka (RPG), burst into the Paris offices of a French satirical newspaper on Wednesday and methodically killed 12 people, including top journalists and two police officers, before fleeing in cars. The gunmen are still at large 12 hours later, as police operations extended all over a traumatized France.

The French president declared that several mass terrorist attacks were blocked in the last few weeks.

Islamists Assassinating Wounded Cop in Paris 1/7/2015.

[Dialogue:”Je vais le tuer!”… ”C’est bon chef!”. “I’m going to kill him!” says one terrorist, as the other covered the street with its AK-47. The wounded police officer, hit by the AK47 in the groin, showed he was unarmed, raised his hands, and added:”It’s good, chief!”… Then the terrorist killed him.]

Five very famous cartoonists and authors were killed. Among their countless satirical activities, they had lampooned Islamic terrorists and the Prophet Muhammad. The gunmen screamed various Islamist slogans:

“Allah Akbar! On a venge’ le prophet Mahomet! On a tue’ Charlie Hebdo! (“We avenged the Prophet Muhammad! We killed Charlie Hebdo!”).

Apparently one journalist, facing the muzzle of an AK-47, was spared by an assassin, when she recited verses from the Qur’an. Another woman, a psychoanalyst, was assassinated.

An hour earlier, Charlie Hebdo had published a (quite innocent) cartoon on the Islamist State, where the founder was represented, wishing a happy new year, and good health.

A few weeks ago, the magazine “The Economist“, to which I have been a subscriber for many years, wrote an article on radical Islam. “The Economist” pontificated that “Islam” had nothing in common with “radical Islam”.

Salman Rushdie produced a statement, originally posted on English Pen:

“Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.”

Rushdie had been condemned to death by Ayatollah Khomeini, and was protected for years by Western Secret Services. His crime? He had called attention to the “Satanic Verses”. This was a part of the Qur’an which was deemed “Satanic”, generations after it was published. (The passage mentioned too favorably the old Moon-centered polytheist religion of Mecca. So a later “Caliph”, or religious dictator, had it removed.)

Original Danish Cartoons Offending The Prophet (Who Died 13 Centuries Ago).

I begged to differ with the good Islam/Bad Radicals of The Economist. I wrote a comment which consisted in four verses from the (official Saudi Arabian translation) of the Qur’an. “The Economist” removed it, and sent an email threatening to ban me forever.

“The Economist” Hates The Qur’an

The question then is this: if mainstream media censors “the Qur’an“, while bemoaning “Islamophobia”, is not that a contradiction? And why this contradiction?

Radical Christianism was dealt with during the Enlightenment: it was stridently pointed out that it was highly immoral, and illegal to implement all what was in the Bible. Yet, nobody accused the “Enlightenment” of “Christianophobia”.

Christianism and Islamism are closely related religions: they both derived from Judaism, and the former contains lethal statements, later duplicated, and multiplied, in the sacred texts of Islam. Around 400 CE, the so-called “Founding Fathers” of the Church admitted that the Bible was not to be taken literally.

By contrast, around 850CE, the Caliph decided, under the threat of death, that the Qur’an ought to be interpreted literally.

This is all the more striking that a war about the Qur’an, started immediately after the Qur’an was written by another Caliph, 20 years after Muhammad’s death. This war is still going on, all over the Middle East (between Shiah, Suni, Druze, Kurds, Sufis, and all of the 100 sects of Islam).

Muhammad, the Prophet, or “Messenger” himself had broad, open, progressive, anti-sexist views (we know this from his life). Muhammad was made to understand that his wife Aisha was sleeping around. He shrugged. As if it were her business: a very modern attitude.

The progressive attitude of Muhammad was grotesquely trampled when Uthman’s Qur’an was written, said Aisha, Muhammad child bride. She pointed out that Muhammad’s family members, such as herself, and Ali, knew the Prophet better than those who had decided what the Qur’an was. She led a war against what she viewed as a travesty of Muhammad’s message. Unfortunately she lost the “Battle of the Camel”.

Solution? No more tolerance for intolerance.

(And no, I don’t hate “Muslims” on a personal basis: I spent most of my babyhood, childhood and youth surrounded by very nice Sufi Muslims… And to this day, the people watching over my 5 year old daughter the most, are, you guessed it… “Muslim” friends… And they were not spared my observations about Abraham.)

The ideology in the Qur’an, as it is, fosters lethal terror and intolerance. For a full version:

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

This has to be addressed, as it was addressed with the (related) Nazi ideology. The Qur’an, a short book, has more than 109 context-free passages calling for deadly violence, as deadly violence was an intrinsic good. Here is the first such verses of lethal violence in the second Sura of the Qur’an.

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)”

The failure to address this since Voltaire, has caused much mayhem.

Patrice Ayme’

USA & France Do NOT Respect Religion

UNHOLY ALLIANCE OF ISLAMISM WITH DARK HOUSE CLUELESS ON FREEDOM, The Essence Of The West:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reading a prepared statement: “We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this… We know these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.”

Muha Bad, or Muha Mad? Neither! White House suggests ‘figure resembles prophet Muhammad’!

This is the cartoon that the (fanatically Islamist?) White House views as “deeply offensive“. What about deeply offending the USA Constitution and the Founding Fathers? [Caption translates as: The movie that inflames the Muslim World; then the “figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad” according to the White House, says: “And my buns, do you like my buns?”.] 

“Deeply offensive to many“? Many what? Grand inquisitors? Salafists? Did the White House see the picture of the burned ambassador, not quite completely dead? They have been shown in France. Atrocious pictures. That’s what “deeply offensive” means, burning alive innocent people, good people.

***

“We are aware… we know… obviously…questions… judgment…figure resembling the prophet Muhammad…deeply offensive”. In any discourse, one can gather a lot by the context the key words describe. (Those knowing combinatorial topology will recognize keys words describe a simplicial complex the faces of which define higher concepts…)

The USA administration’s  hostility to the famous French magazine Charlie Hebdo follows the administration’s September 14 effort to persuade Google to take down a short, cheap satirical video on YouTube that also angered a few fanatical Islamists. Thank god, for once Google lived up to its slogan:”Don’t be evil!”

What basically the administration is doing is the following. Some Christian fundamentalists have killed doctors, because,  they said, they were offended by abortion. Suppose a cartoon came out, suggesting that the assassins are narcistic, and obsessed by whether they looked good. Would the White House have declared that such a cartoon was “deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory“? So why the pandering to fanatic criminals? A few days after an American ambassador and three other employees of the State Department got assassinated?

The State Department has been incredibly incompetent: incapable of defending a “mission” against 70 guys armed with diesel fuel. The USA ambassador and another US citizen died in the fire. The attack was on 9/11. In a second attack, a bit later, some of the attackers were carrying weapons bigger than Obama himself. Two ex Navy seals got killed.

The video describing the major contents of the Qur’an, made by an Egyptian, had been out for 6 months. Accusing it was untenable. Still, that is what the White House did, following the discourse of Islamist fanatics. Who is better at determining what insults Islam than Islamist fanatics? Nobody in the world, proposes the White House! No doubt the majority of Muslims, who are deeply hostile to Islamist fanatics, will thus find a new reason to dislike the White House, and to suspect that it’s there mostly to add fuel (diesel or not) to the fire.

Did the administration read the Qur’an? What’s in that video that is not in the Qur’an? I read one and watched the other, and I fail to see in which sense the video is not deeply respctful of the Innocence of Muslims, as revealed by scripture.

By insisting that the attack was caused by “Innocence of Muslims“, the administration made a joint statement with Al Qaeda: trailer kills ambassador. Same thing about condemning Muhammad’s sketches; so doing, the White House is insisting that the Wahhabist interpretation of Islam is the correct one.

Finally the administration recognized the obvious. Yes, it was a terrorist attack. After all. Al Qaeda.

***

USA DOES NOT RESPECT RELIGION, SAY CONSTITUTION, FOUNDING FATHERS:  

Does the administration know the Constitution? Apparently not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution starts with: “Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion…

In an astounding contrast, the White House orders us to respect sketches of naked guys worrying about whether their buns look good, because, well, some crazed fanatics, somewhere, have it that’s against their superstition. Not just against their superstion, but their heavens high indignation gives them the right to kill whoever has displeased them. And the present White House approves? Why should we abhor sketches of naked guys? Why should we obsess about naked guys?

Jefferson, Third President of the USA, wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion…thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Calling the clowns in the white House “apes” (as the Qur’an does, speaking of Jews and Christians) would be too mild, because apes ape, and the White House boys can’t even do this.

In the Treaty Of Tripoli, worked on by all the Founding Fathers, and signed on by the first two presidents of the USA, George Washington, and John Adams we find this:

 As the Government of the United States of America is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from RELIGIOUS OPINIONS shall EVER produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

“Not in any sense, no pretext ever from religious opinion“: get it, Obama? Learn. A corollary, obviously, is that the USA is not, in any sense, founded on the MUSLIM religion. So Muhammad’s buns, if any, are none of the USA’s official business.

Another corollary is that all the god stuff brandished since 1954 CE in the USA about Allah is unconstitutional. The present period will be viewed in history as the times when the presidents of the USA thought they were Caliphs!

On the whole planet, the total number of demonstrators against “Innocence of Muslims” and the French caricatures, so far, including government organized demonstrations in Sudan and Iran, is 150,000… out of 1.5 billion Muslims, that’s .1%. A tenth of one percent. Yet, when the White House, in the name of the American People, denounces free speech, as Carney did, that’s 310 million speaking, and a major democracy falling for the Dark Side of god.

The Administration insisted, initially that the lethal attack against the USA ambassador and other government officials, had everything to do with “Innocence of Muslims“. In other words, people  supposedly “denigrating” Islam caused the attack.

The White House and others kept on describing the trailer as “denigrating“, but they forgot to tell us why, and how, exactly. Wild accusations without explicit foundation are just devolutions of reason.

Here, watch me go explicit. The trailer was accused to represent Muhammad as a pedophile polygamist who got involved in combat with a bloody sword, and whose ideas came from a Christian monk, cousin to his wife. The trailer mostly follows impeccably the Qur’an and Hadith, as I explained in “Progress kills Killer Religions“.

Yes, Muhammad married a 6 year old girl. Yes he had many “wives” some from the battlefield, some Jewish, some from a irate subordinate. Yes, Muhammad was a raider of caravans, and led battles personally, resulting in the death of thousands. Including an entire Jewish tribe, annihilated. This is all in the sacred texts of Islam.

***

FRANCE’S UNCOMPROMISING STANCE ON ISLAM:

In 721 CE, the greatest army Islam ever had, invaded “Francia”. The Franks of the Dux of Aquitania retreated, setting a trap for the charging Islamist horde, which was annihilated. Two further invasions followed, with the same result, bold Muslim penetrations, followed by encirclement, entrapment and annihilation, hammered by Charles Martel, a Carolingian, grandfather of Charlemagne. Militarily decapitated, the Arab caliphate fell by 750 CE, and was never seen again (other Islamized nations became dominant, such as Iranian, Mongols and Turks)  

The White house kept on debasing itself. A somewhat haggard Clinton read a statement on Friday claiming the USA had nothing to do with the “Innocence of Muslims”. Meanwhile, in the center of civilization, Charlie Hebdo made another massive printing of its Muhammad cartoons. Disingenuously, USA media claimed the French government had condemned the cartoons “swiftly”. It was not ‘swift”, and it did not happen.(The New York Times just misrepresented what French foreign minister Fabius (a “Jew”) had said.)

Quite the opposite. Several days before Charlie Hebdo went on the attack, the French president, Hollande, inaugurating the magnificent museum of Islamic Arts in the Louvres, Paris, condemned religious fanaticism: “Les meilleures armes pour lutter contre le fanatisme qui se reclame de l’Islam se trouve dans l’Islam lui meme. Quand le patrimoine est saccage’, ceux sont toutes les civilisations qui sont attaquees…[ce qu’il faut condamner c’est] L’insondable betise qui rend chaque civilisation vulnerable. “

(Best weapons against the Islamist fanaticism are found in Islam itself. When patrimony is devastated, it’s all of civilization which is attacked… What one needs to condemn is the unfathomable stupidity that makes each civilization vulnerable )

The issue of Charlie Hebdo condemned by the White House had only 2 or 3 cartoons that could be religiously interpreted out of 30 or so in the issue. The weekly comments on the events of the week, it comes out on Wednesday. However, it proved so successful that it quickly ran out, and it was reprinted exceptionally for Friday, the day of the great prayer. So much for the French being terrorized by Muhammad’s buns.

The director of publishing at Charlie Hebdo pointed out that the great religions live out of the fear they inspire. Instead, most people publishing Charlie Hebdo  don’t want to live in fear, they want to live in fun and good humor, lightly. 

One thing the White House should pay more attention to is that to live lightly has to do with light and the enlightenment. Why should those who want to live in the light, by the light, and lightly, care about what master terrorists expert in the mania of crowds claim to worry idiotically about?

***

Patrice Ayme