Posts Tagged ‘Religion’

Why Christianism Fosters Demons

October 11, 2014

The Christo-Islamist god does not do with just Satan, but a whole army of demons, fallen angels, or “djinns”. This is not an accident, but its core strategy.

An excellent essay in Scientia Salon: an official guide for demon hunters with a helpful advice from philosophers and witch hunters illustrates this. History is how philosophy ought to be done. No history, no philosophy.

Why? Because philosophy is about the deepest reasons. The deepest reasons have to be hunted down in history always. (Yes, even in science, see note.)

I will explain why the extreme cruelty and terror found in several famous religions are not accidental by-products, but essential to the core of these superstitious systems.

Notre Dame Gargoyles Watch Over Paris To Make Sure Of Extirpating Whatever Needs Extirpation

Notre Dame Gargoyles Watch Over Paris To Make Sure Of Extirpating Whatever Needs Extirpation

Some have the religion of religions. They worship the idea. The idea of religion. Of course, they have an agenda; it could be Tibetan Buddhism (with its demons), or the Christo-Islamist god, who absolutely needs a fig leaf. And the name of that fig leaf was Satan (or Shatan, namely Hades, Pluto, or Ba’al, refurbished, with a fresh Dark Side coat).

There is a funny passage in the Qur’an where Allah (Arabic word for the Christo-Islamist Jewish god) warns about asking him questions about his business with Shatan and Djinns. He hints darkly that those who ask too many question will end in the fire (where they will be burned until their skin falls off; then their skin will grow back, and they will be thrown in the fire again; apparently the Qur’an anticipated stem cell treatments yet to come!)

There are religions, and religions. Generally, when talking to some primitive about religion, she or he assumes, naturally, that one talks about her, or his religion. But maybe 10,000 religions are known. 99.99% of them grossly violate human rights, and are criminal systems of thoughts and mood. Once again, that’s no accident: religion is all about plutocracy, and plutocracy all about the demonic side of man.

When religious people talk about “religion”, and request respect, they don’t mean that we should respect the Aztecs’ religion: they never heard of it. Or, if they did, they don’t realize what it means.

Religion’s idea comes from the Latin “religio”, itself contained in re-ligare: to bind together again. We The People, bound again together. To what? To whom? To us again?

Religions basically come under two variants: those which bind to rationality, and those which bind to irrationality, that is, to madness.

By “madness” here, I mean any altered state of consciousness. I am a mountaineer and a mountain runner. I have run very long, say in Iran, at 10,000 feet, in a one way solitary run I had to complete to save myself. The heat was great, blood was seeping through my running shoes. I felt nothing. This sort of altered state of consciousness, evolution given stoicism, is routine for tough mountain climbers, who are familiar with slipping out of cracks from blood seeping out of their bodies, while keeping a happy smirk on their faces.

Why would one bind to rationality? Because, without rationality, there is no survival. Homo has been mostly selected for increasing rational performance over the last 5 million years.

Civilization blossomed this in the idea of democracy. The republic is the fundamental religion, as it effectively was for the Romans, for centuries (in co-existence with superstitious cults, such as the original Roman one).

Why would one bind to irrationality? Because, once We The People has become irrational, in other words, dumb, it can easily be manipulated into subservience.

Hence superstition. “Superstitio” was used derisively by the Christians against Pagans as early as the Fourth Century. However, the concept is “what stands above”… the world. In other words, what cannot be objective.

Superstitious religions are there to terrify people, and force them into abject subjugation, so they all have demons, as the Punic religion did, or the Aztecs.

The Aztecs, thanks to tearing the hearts of their live prisoners out, had kept the nations around them in a state of fear of these “flower wars”.

Just as Islam is about peace, Christianity about love, the Aztecs’ gods were about… flowers. (Once, to inaugurate the greatest temple so far, they tore 80,000 hearts out, in five days, a remarkable pre-industrial feat.)

The Aztecs were horrified by the torture of the Christians. As far as they were concerned, Christianity was a torture religion, perfectly symbolized by the torture instrument the Christians brandished, the cross. Christians will be surprised to learn this. Of course. Gods, imagination, and machinations go very well together.

Christian minds have been well engineered together into the herd instinct.

Terrified people obey their masters well. And if that is not enough, the Christians, later imitated by the Muslims, would exert what (“Saint”) Augustine referred approvingly as “great violence”. By the time Augustine recommended “great violence”, the executions of those-who-had-chosen (= “heretics”) were routine.

This is how the Christians took an empire which was mostly Pagan and Neo-Platonic by storm: by killing millions. And this is also why, ever since, they speak of the persecutions they suffered before that: because the later were relatively puny: only 6 Christians were executed under Marcus Aurelius. Some emperors may have been closet Christians, well before Galerius executed 3,000 Christians, in the worst persecution, around 306 CE (which he rescinded later)..

Christianity and its parrot, Islam, have killed tens of millions, in their names.

Now they don’t want their names to be their names, a bit like homosexuals don’t want to not be called gays, otherwise they would be rather sad.

That’s why their sacred texts enshrine the power of ultimate violence, when they do not call to exert it, outright. That’s why they are, under the guise of fearing them, a cult of demons.

The Cathars said nothing else. So the Christians exterminated them, millions of them, down to the last one. And also all those who lived in the same cities, just to make sure:

Dieu reconnaitra les siens!”: kill them all, God will recognize his own, the commander of the Crusade is alleged to have ordered. This most ferocious of all Crusades happened on French soil. Don’t expect the masters to remember that. Although not respected as much as Islamism, Christianism is still up there in the pantheon of values in the West (go ask people what they think of Saint Louis or Luther: they will express reverence for these master thinkers of Hitler.)

Superstitions such as Christianism and Islamism, who include divinely mighty demons are demoniac, it’s a fact. And that’s why Allah does not want to talk about it, lest we ponder his bloody hand, and the company he keeps.

We have seen demons. They helped the Caliphs kill those who did not believe. They helped emperors love the church demoniacally.

You don’t want demons? Bring back reason.

But not any reason. Before he decided to invade Ukraine, Putin’s approval rating was 65%. Now it’s 86%: Russia has become mad with war frenzy. One of the reasons why religions full of demons are popular, is that demonic behavior itself is popular: people with nothing better to do, will get on the warpath. Not just for the spoils (material riches, eternal life) but also because that’s the way people are.

All the way to viewing irrationality as a right. Right as a vacation from the human condition.

Patrice Ayme’


Note about history and philosophy: Many problems more or less scientifically solved recently have their roots in Ancient Philosophy, which first brandished them. An example is the incompleteness theorems in logic (they grew from the Cretan Liar paradox, as I have explained in the past). Zeno’s paradox is another. Or even Archimedes’ infinitesimal method.

I could make here a digression in physics. Physics, ultimately, is about history. The lab tests what has been determined, historically, as important. Roughly all of the physics system of thought, articulated around equations, superficially observed, is actually historical: even the axioms of Quantum physics have their ultimate justification in history, not experimentation as all too many naïve physicists… believe. Yes, believe, as a Jihadist believes: closing one’s mind is not the exclusive province of superstitious fanatics.

Tribes is where the power lays, and not just in the Middle East. Those who are viewed as brandishing the right ideas climb up the hierarchy of power.


Unbelievable Comfort: NO BRAIN, NO PAIN

June 1, 2014

Madness Of The Crowds: Comfortable, Cuddly, Yet Also Experimentally Useful.

In brief: Why do people “believe”? Superstitious religions are tools of oppression. They impose the unbelievable, making the masses stupid and gullible. If so why do they still seduce people? The charitable explanation, is that they offer hope: be nice to Moloch, and Moloch shall give you everything.

But is that all? No. The main reason (for higher-ups) to believe the unbelievable, is that it introduces a simplification of the mental system. It forces a hierarchy of causality that denies whatever contradicts the religion. That means, of course, that it denies most of the world. So the world goes poof. Is not that great?

Baal Temple, Syria: Yesterday’s God, Today’s Lord Of The Flies

Baal Temple, Syria: Yesterday’s God, Today’s Lord Of The Flies

[Ba‘al dhubaab: in Arabic, “Lord of the Flies”, that is, Lord of Dung, a rich idea coming from the Jews, two millennia earlier! Someday soon the Abrahamic religion will also be seen as a pile of dung to join Beelzebub.]

Superstitious systems of thought occupy a double-faced position in the jungle of ideas. On one end of the spectrum, they are a simplification, a laziness, a creature’s comfort, a herd phenomenon.

On the other end, being a simplification, precisely, they allow to experiment more cleanly with new systems of thought. For example, Christianism imposed murderous altruism: an interesting experiment.



A young mother, who does not even look Sudanese, was raised an Orthodox Christian (her Muslim father was in absentia). Later she married a Christian Sudanese. Some Muslim then accused her of adultery (if a Muslim woman has sex with a non-Muslim, she is committing adultery, says that religion).

While she was waiting for another child, Sudanese authorities decided that she had renounced Islam.

Renouncing Islam is a capital crime in Sharia, a set of “laws” (of the jungle) invented by Muslims a few generations after the Qur’an, the book of eternal peace, 5 feet under.

Sharia is the law in Sudan. So the 27 year old mother was condemned by a so called “judge”, to be whipped 100 times, before being hanged to death. No doubt the “judge” had some prurient interest. (Sudan’s president there is under an international arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court. I propose to arrest the “judge” too.)

Chris Snuggs a rather fierce participant to this site wrote: “Islam in many countries is a hideous barbarity, the ultimate manifestation of unhinged minds. Perverted “religions” of this kind are the most staggering example of mass-hysteria the world has ever seen, and peculiar to Homo Sapiens. No “ordinary” animals suffer from this kind of mass simultaneous mental illness. Three billion people need psychiatric help. Astonishing. Why are we prone to mass-hysteria and irrationality on this scale? The French people regularly voting socialist is another example, and of course reminds us of the definition of a lunatic: someone who does the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.”

Renounce Islam, Die: Does Sharia Hate Islam?

Renounce Islam, Die: Does Sharia Hate Islam?

[This is the wedding picture of the woman who got condemned to death for marrying the Christian on the left. Is Islamophobia truly Homophilia?]

By “belief, and believers” one commonly means “deciding to believe in the unbelievable, because it’s so convenient”. “Belief” is commonly believed to be an acquired taste at best, an imposed violence at worst.

Nietzsche pointed out about Christianism, Voltaire, about Islam, or Marx, in general, that religion is the opium of the people, or something to make the people into a herd.

More generally, theocracy has been used as a weapon of terror, for the oppression of all sorts of peoples.  The Aztecs captured their enemies alive, and then sacrificed them, opening them up, and tearing out their beating hearts. Before cutting them up, and throwing the proteins down the steep pyramids.

This robust religion kept peoples subjected. However, when Cortez showed up with 2,000 super warriors, those the Aztecs terrorized were enthusiastic to levee huge armies to help the Spaniards with the Hummingbird God.

Christianism and Islam do not basically differ from the Aztec gig. The Aztecs brought death through cannibalism. But it was a rather quick death. The Aztecs were horrified by the tortures of the Spaniards. Those knew no bounds. If Spanish tortures were so advanced that was, no doubt, to keep up with the Muslims, and beat them on their own torturous ground.

In Islam, slavery is kosher. All men are viewed as slaves of dog (typo, sorry!) god. A standard punishment for Muslim slaves who had tried to escape was impalement. As the patient could take several days to jerk about, all transpierced, that procedure had an educative effect on the otherwise ignorant masses.

Violence is intrinsic to the Abrahamic religion. It all started with the Bible, a compendium of holocausts, praising an holocaust driven god. Getting advice and example from the Bible allowed Europeans, clutching their bibles, to massacre the Americas, and much of Eurasia and Oceania.

Now religious fanaticism is less of a problem than a distraction, as the secular, republican spirit mostly rules, except in a few places: Israel, some places in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, where old fashion Islam is gaining ground.

Does that mean we are getting rid of the COMFORTABLY UNBELIEVABLE?

No. Why?



Because having unbelievable beliefs brings mental economy, and ties that bind. What could go wrong?

Let me explain a bit more: intelligence is highly profitable, but it’s also costly. To become intelligent, one has to create lots of neurons and synapses. And the environment does it: studies on rats have proven this. Long ago.

All these neurons and synapses require a lot of energy to build. That’s exhausting: one has to go hunt and gather a lot. Also, once built, all this awareness brings pain: many a religion and philosophy have moaned about extinction (“nirvana”) of consciousness as the solution to the problem of pain (how that differs from Hitler’s solution beats me).

From there springs the opium of the people effect: opium creates an absence of mind by putting many neurons to sleep, but it’s the same result, even more efficiently, by making sure none of these neurons is ever born.

Finally, last, but not least, as the religion simplifies the system of thought, it creates a simple system of thought, and a simple brain. A simple type of a specific brain. Those are easy to match to each other. All those who believe some guy is the son of dog, chose to be crucified for man, and taught us love, are, clearly, made for each other. They have an insanity to share.

There is nothing more reassuring than the herd. And a crazy herd, charging all along, is the ultimate symbol of force, thus, safety.



My spouse had a friend for a few years, and even travelled overseas with her. She was, superficially well educated. As all would-be shock philosopher, I tend to stay apart. Yet, in the end, we met. It was rather brief.

She was from Morocco. I know Morocco, first time I was there I was two years old. I mentioned in passing that this beautiful country was graced with Roman monuments. She mumbled something to the effect that Europeans could never resist invading Muslim countries. I pointed out that the Romans were in Morocco nine centuries before the Muslims ever invaded the place. Her face went white. She told us Morocco had always been Muslim.  We were basically insulting her country.

I said: not so. I told the truth. Her world, her simple world full of simplifying lies that bind, was shattered.  I was not just demolishing her world view, but her social fabric, made of victimized conservative Muslims invaded by greedy Romans.

She did not contact us ever again.

I am never the one to interrupt relationships, because I view even the worst relationships as interesting experiments in my philosophical laboratory… That has led me to harrowing situations, because insuring the integrity of their mental systems brings up the greatest ferocity in human beings.

Such is the human condition.


That ferocity in things mental may look baffling. But it is of the essence. Homo is the intellectual animal. Human ideas compete, and they compete to death. Inferior ideas get killed. Superior ideas thrive, munching the bones of past guesses.

Lovers of the free market gloat that it can produce superior product. Bu there is no product higher than an idea. And the ideas do not just constitute a market. They constitute a jungle, where pain, greed, anger, rage, ecstasy and lust are just ways to achieve a healthy jungle.



Although I focused mainly on the Abrahamic religion above, the situation is general. Stupidity binds.

An example is indeed presently provided by socialism, the old fashioned way, complete with a plethora of useless civil servants and assisted ones (as Chris fulminates).

An other excellent mania of the crowds is found in physics, where completely insane theories have progressed in recent years ( for example the Multiverse madness).

By this, I mean more than physics became more insane than any of the preceding. Yet, precisely because it presents the neurological advantages of insanity, the insanity in physics has been progressing. A delicate moment.

That’s progress, how progress works.

When physicists have gone completely insane, hopefully someone will point out reason, and be believed (it took more than a millennium, between Ptolemy and Buridan, though!)

Folly expands, occupies all space, reason follows, and sweeps behind. That’s how intelligence progresses: even the mania of crowds can be put to work.

Whether it’s painful or not, is irrelevant. The fundamental constructive naturally occurring software, the fundamental principle, of man is not pain, but intelligence.

Patrice Aymé

When Religion Makes People Crazy

October 21, 2010


One of my readers, Mark, suggests that: "Maybe you should focus on whether religion makes people go bad, or whether already bad people use religion in a bad way?"

Religion is often causative of bad behavior, as Critias said, 24 centuries ago, and for the reason he said (see the preceding essay). But there is more. Sharp distinctions exist among religions: some are innocuous, and indispensable, some are black mambas, and ought to be disposed of, as such. Or admired from a distance, as such.

I define religion as an inescapable background to the human discourse. Religion is the context that allows the logical, and emotional discourse. So the basic idea of religion, is neither good or bad. Not anymore than the brain is good or bad. Having a brain implies having a religion: this is already true of the most basic logical systems (starting with first order logic).

Clearly, though, if the context, the religion, is full of viciousness, anger, resentment, it will make people bad. Contexts can clearly make people bad; see traditions of vendetta and blood feuds (which constitute a sort of meta religion, as horrendous blood feuds traditions in Albania, in "Islam", were nearly identical to those in Greece, in "Orthodox Christianity", or in Catholic Italy, next door).

Then I distinguish superstitious religions from the rest. Pretty much the rest means secularism (most forms of Buddhism having also superstitious elements). In secularism, only real facts from the real world, as determined by the science of the age ("Secula"), are admitted to build the metaphysical universe. (No, no contradiction; for example, physics and mathematics cannot function without their meta-elements.)

In a religion dominated by superstition, overarching metaphysical elements are introduced which "above-stand" (= super-stare). "Superstition" has come to have a pejorative meaning, an invention of the Christian-In-Chief, the self described "13th Apostle", emperor Constantine Himself. Constantine defined those following other religions than the one he had chosen personally, as "superstitiosus". That was meant to be an insult.

According to emperor Constantine, the other religions had elements which stood above the real world, thus they were unreal. But of course the same can be said about Christianity, with its woman who stuck to her story (Mary), its Holy Spirit which is also the Logos, the son, and the Father, while being one, and that God who claims to suffer for you, and you better believe it, or Jesus will throw you in the fire forever, being all about love and jealousy as He is, with His sword, His threats, and his countless "miracles". The Abrahamic religion, with its ethical admiration for a God who orders the death of the young male child is a particularly incoherent superstition (killing the young male child, most love, was an old fancy of the superstitions of the area).

Superstition is intrinsically friendly to madness, and gives a justification to irrationality, because it venerates so called "miracles", which are known not to be of this world; they stand above it (the Pope just determined that so called "miracles" happened with six new people, so he called them "saints").

An aggravating factor is that those miracles, those inventions known to be false, are supposed to be the most important "facts" of the universe. Thus the Big Lie is venerated (in Hitler’s approach to the universe, the Big Lie is a master concept, and rightly so for those who venerate holocausts).

Moreover people who are used to be officially mad about something innocuous, may well turned just as mad about something much less innocuous (such as Jesus’ obsession with setting people aflame).

There is no doubt that the shrieks of Jesus to burn people forever and ever were, and are, bad. Not only civilization nearly collapsed, but they caused the deaths of dozens of millions. There is no doubt Jesus’ cold rage led to the burning of philosophers and common citizens, as soon as the Fourth Century. There is no doubt that Jesus’ pyromaniacal ranting enabled the Dark Ages, as the fascist Roman emperors found in Jesus’ teachings the moral excuse to burn alive their enemies, and the knowledge that had made them possible.

And there is no doubt that the pyromaniacal violence, and obsession of the Qur’an with burning alive the enemies of God originated with the incendiary homicidal bleating from the "Agnus Dei".

Ali, originator of Shiah, wanted to burn his enemies alive, and did so (before being assassinated). If the teachings of Jesus had been as non violent as those of Buddha, I doubt Ali would have had such ideas, or, having them, would have been taken seriously, that he could put them in force.

So bad, violent superstitions create bad people, or make bad people worse. Another example of hyper violent superstition is Nazism, a racial superstition, which created millions of bad people, who, surely, had Hitler been Gandhi, would not have been as bad.

Hitler was conscious of this, and deplored that Christianity was not as war-like as Islam. Although Islam and European Middle Age Christianity both derived from the pyromaniac Jesus, their genesis and evolutions were very different.

Christianity, or more exactly ‘Orthodox Catholicism" was imposed by fascist power, from the top. Islam was an insurrection led by an analphabetic, but very smart reject. Soon Islam was captured by top generals, who wrote the Qur’an, accentuating Jesus’ pyromania, turning Islam into the world’s greatest war machine, which annihilated Persia, and devoured a few years more than half of the Roman empire. In Occident, it was the opposite; the Franks took control of the Roman empire, and that meant taking control of the bishops who controlled the Imperium Romanum, Pars Occidentalis.

Middle Age Christianity, a milder form, was created when the Franks defanged the old Roman Catholicism, which had caused the Dark Ages, and converted it to a civilization helping form. This was done, after several false starts, when the Franks took control of the "Occidental Roman empire", and domesticated it, starting around 480 CE, a process Saladin did ephemerally to Islam in the 13C (but now greatly forgotten).

Still another example of the viciousness of some superstitions: the Aztec religion, which promoted anthropophagia, to an extend so great that it revolted its neighbors (who were themselves prone to serve human flesh for dinner). This is how Cortez was able to rise an 80,000 men army to boost his own 2,000 Castillans. The Aztec superstition, clearly, had made a group of men prone to eat men to an extend insufferable to other men eating men.

Definitively religion can make men bad, and then, even worse. Nazism was a religion. There were plans to turn Nazism into a full blown religion. It was already clearly a cult.

Nazism was a hybrid of Catholicism (Hitler’s initial religion, and strong support), its strong anti-Judaism, and Germanic tribalism a la Herder, and a mish-mash of selection of the fittest, racial pride, lower class resentment, with militarism and plutocracy pulling the conceptual strings. The result was definitively a powerful , albeit insane, religion, which was on a collision course with French secularism. Nazism was rudely interrupted by France, and her empire, Britain, the Commonwealth, and their subsequent involuntary allies (USSR, USA).

Suicidal charges by engineers is how the Nazis broke the French lines at Sedan in May 1940. Those fanatics believed they were the superior race, and that metaphysics made their sacrifice easy to bear. On the positive side, after that, those peculiar fanatics were dead, never to be seen again, and were soon joined by another 50,000 prime elite dedicated Nazis who died in May-June of 1940 during the Battle of France. They were sorely missed by Hitler, in the following years, as Nazism, a racist superstition, having run out of the fanatics who made its early victories possible, bit the dust.

As they campaigned (in appearance) successfully in Russia, the intensity of Nazi losses came to be nearly as great as in France, 18 months earlier. Finally, Nazism ran out of Nazis, just as the Syrian and Arab Baghdad-based Caliphate collapsed after its armies got annihilated in France during three successive invasions (721 CE-741 CE). Some religions are best at war, but not necessarily best at surviving.

Being better for the age of war does not mean better, for the age of mind. Having a better mind does a superior civilization make. Survival of the fittest does not apply to species of animals, but also to civilizations, and the religions they rest on.

Patrice Ayme


January 9, 2009




Abstract: When Christianism (grandiosely self described at the time as “Orthodox Catholicism”, namely Common Opinion Universalism) became officially the one and only religion of the fascist Roman empire, Judaism, the tribal source of Christianism, was programmed for extinction. This is the basic source of the Arab-Israeli conflict. To fix it, religions (and not just Hamas, as Israel’s foreign minister Tzipi Livni has it) have to be removed from the “equation”. And that will mean mental, legal, economic and if need be, physical force: if Gaza can be blockaded, so can others (including Israel).

Fortunately, after enough secularization, a solution exists to the entire mess: the establishment of a powerful Mediterranean Union.



Roger Cohen wrote an excellent essay on the Arab-Israeli conflict, in light of Israel’s assault on Gaza and Hamas [“Dominion of the Dead”, NYT and IHT, January 7, 2008]. In it Cohen argues, among other things, that the weight of dead history rules the conflict: “History is relentless. Sometimes its destructive gyre gets overcome: France and Germany freed themselves after 1945 from war’s cycle. So did Poland and Germany. China and Japan scarcely love each other but do business. Only in the Middle East do the dead rule.”

It may be rather the dominion of religions that is generating the hatred. From way back. (In P/S 6 below, we suggest the only viable long term solution, but religion will have to be defanged first.) 

It is highly politically incorrect to attack religion, because a superficial reading of the republican constitution in Western secular states calls for tolerance. But TOLERANCE, IMPLICITLY, REQUIRES GOOD BEHAVIOR: the secular republic, a religion of its own, rules and just tolerates religious superstitions; it just tolerates them, no more, they have to behave.

Nevertheless, out of control religion obviously dominates the rest in the Middle East. It’s faiths over reason, and faiths rule. As faiths hate each other, and try to exterminate each other, it’s war for ever, as long as the final solution has not imposed itself.

Comparisons with past strife in Europe, and the present unification of Europe, have to be used very carefully, when talking about Israel and the Arabs. But they are revealing. Roger Cohen does not get into what made the European conflicts different from the Arab-Israeli conflict. We will do this presently, and it suggests how to get out of it.

One has first to look at the religious problem straight in the eye: Christianism and Islam are heresies of Judaism. Judaism is tribal. The God of Judaism is not nice (Jehovah obviously inspired the semi demented and certainly atrociously lethal, civilization shattering emperor Constantine). Christianism and Islam are universal (so Judaism is their natural enemy, except that they clearly originate from it, hence a self contradiction.)

Heresies hate each other all the more since the Bible, New and Old Testament, and Christian governmental practice, under the Roman empire, made clear that heretics should be executed (if possible by fire). Islam came after centuries of imperial Roman Catholic terror (which involved a “war against the philosophers”, book burning, mass murders and other civilization devolving atrocities; intellectuals and books had to flee to Persia!). Islam was fully inspired by them all.

(Meanwhile, in the West, the Franks had defanged Catholicism by 496 CE; the entire “Oriental Part” of the Roman empire, including Palestine and Arab lands missed that secular turn, and this is the root of the different fates of the “Pars Occidentalis” and the “Pars Orientalis”: the West became dominated by secular law and common sense, whereas the Orient slowly sunk under superstition and religious law, in spite of all those good books saved from Catholic burning.) 

The Arab-Israeli conflict was built in the version of the Qur’an given to us by Caliph Uthman. In the Qur’an Jews are insulted, threatened, and apparently, threatened with death (whatever apologists of Islam who do not seem to have read the Qur’an in depth say). Interestingly, the Muslims inherited the hatred of Jews from the Christians (some are not going to like the word “hatred”; again, they should go back to the Qur’an, and read it, to learn that many pigs and monkeys are actually… Jews, put into this dismal state by God Himself). Threatened with death (once again!), the Jews/Israelis are in no mood to let their guard down.

So we cannot get out of the Arab-Israeli conflict as long as the religions are left to speak. Hamas, or Hezbollah, and most Arab states, and to a significant extent Israel, are all religious. To make matters worse, Hamas and Israel’s government have been democratically elected (that does not mean they are full democracies; they are not, because democracy requires full democratic institutions, and obedience to Universal Human Rights).

Let’s compare with Europe. Although sometimes there were extensive religious conflicts in Europe, they were not baked into the fundamental European conflict mix. Religions were incidental, incidental to, an excuse for, the fundamental power plays in Europe. On the grandest historical scheme, France, Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain belonged, sometimes for centuries, to the same country.

France, Germany and Poland were part of the same polity. Here are pell-mell samples of past facts: a lot of Germania was Roman, and all of Germany belonged to the Merovingian, and then Carolingian empires (which extended all the way to Poland); a British slave became empress of the Franks, a king of France married an Ukrainian princess, another a Danish princess, still another was elected king of Poland; France and Britain are actually the same country, more or less divided in two to this day (same with Germany), France was all involved in the Thirty Year war in Germany, Napoleon not only united Germany, but its Grand Army was greatly made of Germans, etc… So the fighting in Europe was inside a single civilizational system.  Europeans all shared the same laws, religions and even language for centuries, or even millennia. They may have different languages now (again unified by Anglo-Normand, (aka “English”)), but they have the same cultural roots, they are all variants of the same civilization. The Greco-Romano-Frankish civilization.

In the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, the wars between France and Germany had clear rights and wrongs. For example the German universal health care system was clearly the best in the world, an inspiration for France. Germany had also the highest literacy rate in the world (about 100%).

But then, France was a democracy and a republic, with universal human rights, whereas Germany was not a republic, not a democracy, but a mild fascist system, a “Reich”. The “Reich”, then, not restrained by democratic checks and balances, became ever more fascist, and attacked all of Europe (August 1914). That did not work too well, so, propped by rogue American plutocrats, persisting in its erroneous ways, Germany became ever more fascist, racist and demented, until France and Britain declared war to it on September 3, 1939, to save democracy. By then many Germans had a feeling of doom, as they perceived they were not on the right side of right. Fascism in Germany was terminated in 1945, and many of the Nazis had come to realize, even before this, that they could not go on like that. There was a clash of civilization, and the good civilization won. 

It’s politically correct to proclaim that there is no clash of civilization between Islam and the rest. But Islam was initially constructed as a war machine against Christianity and Judaism, just like Christianity was constructed as a war machine against all other religions (and exterminated them all, except Judaism, although it came close in the fifth century). Right now, there is at least a clash of religions.

Some of the wrongs between Israel and Islam are from way back: Christianity was built by oppressing the Jews (allusion to what Constantine and his successors did). Christians ejected Jews from Israel, and built a church on the great Jewish temple. Islam inherited this, but cranked it up to the next level, by making the oppression of the Jews not just official, but legal. They also built several Muslim mosques and “shrines”on the Jewish Temple Mount, perhaps to show they were several times as bad as the Christians. (By then the Franks were applying full Roman law again and had given the Jews their full rights back, in equality with Catholics.)

Islam is antidemocratic (it’s not just a religion but a system of government that loudly proclaim what Hitler called the “Fuehrerprinzip”, i.e., the Chief is always endowed by God with absolute right). Israel is also fundamentally anti democratic: to say that people from a particular religion (Judaism) have particular rights on a piece of land is an offensive tribal imposition.

And so on. Both sides are very wrong. If they keep on persisting in their erroneous ways, Weapons of Mass Destruction will set them right, or whatever dust is left. If one wants to help them out, one has to tell them their thousands truths mighty soon, in no uncertain terms, and apply enough carrots and sticks to change their behavior. Being just nice will not do it. They cannot be treated as adults. It is extremely clear in the case of Hamas, but, unfortunately, this applies to Israel too. Democracy can go wrong when its institutional roots are not deep enough: consider the Weimar republic.

To come back to the democracy-turned-fascist that misgoverned Germany with the anxious approval of the German people: democracy was imposed by force there in 1945, after killing more than 11% of the German population, and destroying the country (unfortunately). If France and Great Britain had attacked earlier, the outcome would have been better (but Great Britain, as the USA, had no army, and no inclination to treat Germany, or the Nazis,  severely). In other words, force can work as a last resort. To break the rule of Islam and Judaism in the Middle East as political system is a necessity, and will happen, either by polite force, or massive destruction.

Patrice Ayme

P/S 1: To the European historical entanglement corresponded psychological entanglements. The Roman aggression, or, let’s say, civilizational push, made the rather pacific Germans ever more aggressive and militarized in return (we know this from archeological studies). In turn Rome became ever more fascist (as generals such as Marius became larger than previously authorized life). Thus, historically and ironically, in the great and long confrontation between Roma and Germania, Rome was advanced, but fascist, and Germania was primitive, but democratic and anti-sexist. After a millennium of this, the Germans (in the person of the elected king of the Franks Clovis) learned to become fascist (Clovis became Consul and exerted Roman imperator powers demonstrated in the summary execution of a follower during the “Vase de Soisson” incident, when Clovis imposed his Roman imperator power for all Franks to see). Meanwhile, transmogrified by German influence, the Romans became less sexist (they had at least one fully ruling and civilization forging empress, an “Augusta”).


P/S 2: Thus conflict creates mental entanglement, and right now, that means entanglement with hatred. And hatred plenty there will be, because Israel has already killed hundreds of apparently innocent small children in Gaza in the present offensive. Differently from the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto by the Nazis, and in spite of Israeli efforts to hide it all, this is in full sight of the entire planet.

Now the entire planet, differently from the populace of Nazi Germany (from which the Nazi crimes against civilians were rather hidden, thanks to an undeniable Will to Ignorance of the German population, and heavy censorship), is confronted with having to decide to protest this, or not, and do something about it, or not. When children are dying, the weight is heavy. The whole planer is watching, and it is not deep in a jungle in Congo somewhere, out of sight, out of mind. There is only so much that the entire planet’s moral sense can take. At some point, only force will bring relief. But that means enforcing no more attacks, from any side. Neither from bulldozers, rockets, nor hate inspired documents, such as the literal, Uthman inspired Qur’an, or literal interpretations of tribal Judaism.

Listening to Israeli civilians watching a city being bombed, approving loudly, and insisting they would love to see it razed, and they don’t mind, because they feel “fascist” [sic! from a woman with reddish hair], shows, clearly that the human impulses that led to the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto are not restricted to Nazism. Israel is entering there an extreme danger zone, because it exists strictly at the goodwill of the EU and USA. It is hubris to feel otherwise.


P/S 3: Massively lethal force was used to remove religion from the political equation in Europe, all over Europe, killing millions [part of the process included the horrible religious wars of the 16-17 C].

By the time the US Constitution rolled out, the removal by force of religion from the equation was a given (so the USA does not have as much memory of the struggle to eliminate religion from politics). The first two US presidents put it thus in a joint document:”… As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion…”[1796-97]. (The recent re-imposition of religion in the USA, is very recent, indeed, dating from 1956, and is, of course, an ominous decline, in part at the root of the present socioeconomic crisis, and Warren is its prophet. Amen.)


P/S 4: The British government accepted that France was not part of its dominion only in 1815 CE. So the “100 year war” (officially 1337-1453 or 1337-1558, when Calais fell back in official French hands) lasted nearly 500 years. It was originally a French civil war between the Plantagenet and the Valois (with right being on the British side). In 1940, the Prime Minister, Churchill proposed the (re-)unification of France and Britain as one country, but the idiotic French PM declined. Nowadays, British and French are European Union citizens, and are getting quickly more unified than ever.


P/S 5: The European Middle Ages has bad reputation as a period of strife, and it’s entirely unjustified. It is the rise of religious hatred in Europe that caused the strife, and that was at the end of the Middle Ages (and it was inaugurated by the Crusade against the Toulouse County). The religious wars of the fifteenth and sixteenth century had a base in political power struggles, but the mobs got really driven mad by various variants of the Judeo-Christian faith. This went on for two centuries, and killing children or infants was standard. Although religion got clamped down in the end, some of the losses were so high that hatred kept on going. A tradition of hating France appeared in Germany in no small reason because of the massive French intervention in the “Thirty Year War” of the seventeenth century, which was a religious war, probably the worst of them all. This is clear from the writings of the German philosopher Herder [the anti-Goethe], that had a great nationalistic, homicidal influence [all the way to Hitler]. Thus the huge wars that happened later (mostly propelled by Napoleonic and Prussian fascisms) were, at least partially, consequences of, and echoes from, the period of religious wars earlier on.   



Is a long term peaceful solution possible to the question of Israel? Sure. But one has to get the religions back in their cages underground first, and throw away the key.

Second, the solution will have to be imposed by force, say by the future imperial might of the (inchoating) Euro-Mediterranean Union. The idea would be to recreate basically the Roman empire (minus the crazy homicidal Christian rule of the late empire), with Israel as a precious asset, a larger version of the United Arab Emirates, a rich province profitable to its neighbors. By force, we mean legal force (preferably), a more muscular version of the force used in the EU construction.  

The EU construction is made to make local antagonisms irrelevant, and local democracy, with full democratic institutions, a necessity. Turkey has been trying, for half a century to satisfy the EU requirements; several of the Latin and Mediterranean dictatorships (Greece, Spain, Portugal) became democracies to gain EU access. A full Mediterranean Union could duplicate the process, making the Israeli-Arab conflict irrelevant and obsolete. Fundamentally the Jews are just a tribe that was pushed out of Arabia, so, please grow up, and forget about your personal direct access to God, each of you.

It has been in the interest of the USA to support the European Union construction (because the EU extends to all of Europe the Franco-British democratic core, genitor to the USA, and, if nothing else, the USA will not have to come to the military rescue of France and Britain once again). For similar reasons, it is in the interest of the USA to push for the Mediterranean Union (a Sarkozy idea that has been mollified at this point). Ultimately, and naturally, the Mediterranean Union would get incorporated within the EU.

Cynics will wonder how many divisions the future Mediterranean Union has. Well, just wait. As it is, about half of the NATO force in Afghanistan is not American (there are even some Arab forces). NATO may be better used, negotiating and retreating in Afghanistan while redeploying around Israel to enforce the secular law (there is already an important UN force in Lebanon doing just that; first headed by the French, then the Italians, it has more than 12,000 soldiers, plus an important naval arm). enough of the utopia of two states peacefully side by side: the time of a greater force has come.