Posts Tagged ‘Secularism’

To Preserve Civilization, Exterminate Fanaticism

June 28, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

The problem with Islam is simple:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With a god like that, who needs rabid dogs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As simple as that.

Patrice Ayme’

If Magnanimity Does Not Work, Extermination Will

May 15, 2015

Against Christianity, all too long, magnanimity was extended. All too long, Christianism was viewed as a force for good. After the disaster of the First Crusade, Saint Bernard, a still all too revered monster, tried his best to launch the Second Crusade. He was opposed fiercely by the university (“Cathedra”) professor, philosopher (and pop star!) Abelard and his many students, followers and appreciative colleagues… In the Church (many were bishops, cardinals).

The party of Abelard lost, short term. But just as the defeat of France and Britain in May 1940 led to the extermination of the Nazis five years later, Abelard’s defeat led to the demolition of Christianism seven centuries later.

"Charb", Communist Editor In Chief Of Charlie Hebdo With Ms. Bougrab His Partner Of Muslim Culture

“Charb”, Communist Editor In Chief Of Charlie Hebdo With Ms. Bougrab His Partner Of Muslim Culture

[Fascists, especially in the Anglo-American anti-French, anti-intellectual propaganda sphere, have disingenuously claimed that Charlie Hebdo was anti-Muslim racist. Here is another proof to the contrary. Let alone the fact two assassinated at Charlie Hebdo were Muslims. Charlie Hebdo, the martyr French satirical magazine made around 100 covers poking fun at the Catholic Church, but only 5 poking fun at Islam…]

The first Crusade had launched massacres of Jews in Alsace and further east, as the crazed Christian fanatics progressed, the way Christianism at its most excited, progresses. Roasting native children when hungry was part of the First Crusade. So was the siege and massacre of Jerusalem, with equal opportunity to go to heavens extended to Muslims, Jews and Middle Eastern and Coptic Christians.

According to the Gesta Francorum (of the Acts of the Franks), speaking only of the Temple Mount area, “…[our men] were killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles…” According to Raymond of Aguilers, also writing solely of the Temple Mount area, “…in the Temple and porch of Solomon men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.” 10,000, including women and children, died there.

This sort of Christian behavior was discouraged later, thanks to no less than six centuries of religious wars wrecking Europe back and forth. The grand conclusion was that priests were required by the French Revolution to take an oath to the Republic. Those who did not were punished in various ways.

Fast forward to the Twentieth-First Century:

Murderous Child Killing Islamist Fanatic Condemned to Death:

Tsarnaev, the Boston Bomber, 21 year old, was convicted of all 30 charges against him, 17 of which carry the death penalty. Unsurprisingly, he was unanimously condemned to death, by the seven women, five men jury (death requires unanimity). A crime that could, and did, bring the assassination of a child, falls under specially tough laws. calling for execution

Some philosophers were quick to call this “vengeance”. However, can a law designed to discourage the assassination of children be considered a “vengeance”?

Some Europeans are bound to come, and whine. However they do not understand that the law, in the USA, is a very strong glue. With the accent on “strong”. Differently from, say, the French, all the ancestors of Americans cannot be claimed to be Gauls. (Wait…)

***

Cool It; Not Drawing Muslims Is Not About You, It’s All About Killing Muslims:

There are 100 variants of Islam. Most of them compatible with secularism, and the Republic. However, Salafism, especially Wahhabism, propped by huge plutocratic money and the USA’s somber machinations, has come to dominate.

They are the one with the drawing-is-murder insanity.

When Salafists say we should not draw prophets, human beings, animals and other alleged creations of “God”, what they truly say, in practice, is that they want an excuse for killing 200 million Shias (Shias have very beautiful paintings of prophets for sale in the Bazaar; I was there).

So they want a pretext to kill 200 million Shias, to start with. Meanwhile reigning over Europe and America through unabashed terror will do. Next they will ask us to wear a yellow star as they did to Jews and Christians in the Muslim Middle-Ages.

***

Editor Of Charlie Was Muslim Lover:

Charlie Hebdo, the martyr French satirical magazine made around 100 covers poking fun at the Catholic Church, but only 5 poking fun at Islam. It turns out that the editor in chief, Charb, lived with Ms. Bougrab, a French “Muslim” of renown. So much for Charb’s alleged racism against Muslims.

Ms. Bougrab just published a book “Maudites” (“The Damned and Cursed”) exposing the mistreatment of women under Islam. Including a whole panoply of little girls being married to big, bad, old, nasty dirty old Muslim men. “Is it blasphemy to say we should move away from the archaic practices of seventh century Arabia?,” she asked, referring to the PBUH Prophet Mohammed’s marriage to [SIX YEARS OLD] Aisha, adding that she has no intention to stop fighting for secularism and women’s rights.

OK, sorry for my seemingly virulent anti-Muhammedism, apparently implicitly implying that Muhammed, the revered prophet and friend of Archangel Gabriel, had sex with Aisha at age six. This is simply not true, and I beg forgiveness to any Muslim I may have so offended.

Muhammed, Peace Be Upon Him, He Needs It, patiently waited, what a great man, to have sex with Aisha, until she was nine (9). Educating children, especially little girls, is very important in Islam, as Islam fanatics often point out, indeed. From these sort of little details, we can realize what a great man Muhammed was. PBUH.

On paper, Christianism is nowhere as bad as Islamism. It does not have as many strident, gross, repetitive calls to kill “unbelievers”, and “heretics”. Islam to boot targets explicitly “apostates”, “Jews” and whatnot.

However, Christianism killed millions before getting definitively defanged when the French republic, having freed Rome, stripped the Pope of most of his worldly possessions (1801). For the Franks, in the Seventh Century, Islamists were simply the latest Christian sect. They got ready for domesticating them as they had done with the Pope. As it turned out being ready was not enough, three whole extermination of three successive Muslim invasions in 30 years were necessary.

At this point, Islamists are in the suburbs of Palmyra, one of the world’s most important archeological sites. Palmyra was not just Greco-Roman, it was also its own civilization, and was led by a queen at the apex of its splendor. Destroying humanity’s inheritance is a casus belli, as far as I am concerned.

So what do we want exterminated? Palmyra? Or the Islamists? This is not a choice we chose. This is the choice we are presented with.

Patrice Ayme’

State Religion Unavoidable. Now Republican Secularism. Or Die

December 2, 2014

Give Me A State, I Will Show You A Religion:

Any state needs a way to tie up its citizens together again, after whatever trials and divisions they have been through. Trials and divisions there always are.

Said otherwise: having a state means having a religion. As the regime changes, so will the religion.

A clear example is Rome. In the five centuries of continual regime change, from the collapse of the Republic, to the establishment of the Frankish Empire in 507 (defeat of the Goths), Rome continually changed religions. There was the Imperial Cult, and later the cult around “Sol Invictus”. The Nicene Faith of Constantine (325 CE) was not the “Christian Republic” of the Franks (although both were outwardly “Catholic”).

Real Revolutions Need, And Are, New Religions.

Real Revolutions Need, And Are, New Religions.

[Demachy, Fete de L’Etre Supreme.]

In the USA, the de facto religion has been a mix of secularism and obsequious reverence to “Jesus Christ”, a guy supposed to say good things, whom one is supposed to love, to prove one is so good, one can go shoot the Indian heathens in full good conscience, and religious justification. Amen.

Thus, not believing in “god”, or Jesus-love, in the USA, tends to show one is not looking for justification to dispose of Indians and the like (Saddam Hussein), and thus one is treacherous to the nation.

The necessity of a state to have a religion is why, after a revolution, or serious change of regime, any really new state that fought a previous state (of things) dominated by a previous religion, establish a new religion.

An example is Henry VIII, establishing the Anglican Church, or what happened throughout German speaking lands after Luther appeared, and many local lords opted to play a game with the new religion, Reform, to further their own power. Even the French Revolution introduced the “Culte de l’Être suprême “.

This is why all significantly new regime, such as the “Socialist/Communist” regimes establish “Personality Cults”, which are religions by another name.

The vanishing of the old religions in Europe is directly related to the progressive political changes there: the Nazis hid behind “Gott”: “Gott Mit Uns” (God with us) was the motto of the SS. All other old regimes were tied to Christianism. As the regimes lost power, because of the rise of the European Union, if not outright apocalypse (Germany, Austro-Hungary, Italian monarchy, and countless smaller empires… in the “imperare” sense), the old religion lost its reason for being.

It has been replaced by a mild version of the Republican religion, which was very strong in France, ever since 1789.

The Republican religion was actually strong before that, throughout the centuries, simmering below the surface. Thus, even during the Middle Ages, republics were allowed within the Renovated (Roman) Empire. Venice was the most famous, and Charlemagne let it be (although Venice had a gigantic fleet, and the Franks very little).

This underground Republicanism is why King Louis the XVI decided to create the American republic. Yes, create: without massive French support the pathetically weak American Revolution would have failed. Louis was told by his advisers, his cabinet members, and his own brother, that he was creating a Republic, and that he would be next. He was explicitly told that he had lost his head, and that this decapitation would be made public all too soon. His brother kindly hanged the famous painting of the decapitation of the English monarch, upon Parliamentary vote (the exact same mechanism that would cost Louis his head). Louis shrugged.

Why? Louis, a deeply religious man, deep down inside himself, having tried everything else, had clearly deduced, subconsciously, that it was time for a new religion. A new way to tie the People together again. So Louis convoked the “General Estates”. The “Third Estate” (namely not the aristocracy and the Catholic Church) promptly proclaimed itself to be a Constituent Assembly (similar to the one then sieging in the USA).

Louis indeed lost his head. But he went to death very calmly, in full respect, in full faith, of the new Republic that he had contributed to create. Louis was a sort of real Jesus Christ, dying from his own mechanism.

A lot of the trouble of the European Union have to do with not having enough of a common Republic, to have faith in it. Let’s have enough faith in the Republic, for the European Union to become a new religion. Otherwise, it will fail.

And this true, worldwide.

Secularism, living in one’s age, is not new: it has been around for millions of years, for the most successful, precisely our ancestors: others died off. Secularism, living in one’s age, is part of human ethology. Fighting secularism is fighting the essence of what it means to be human.

Secularism is another word for accepting science and technology. Those have never changed faster. States which don’t adopt and create them swiftly will be left behind: China has understood this very well.

Yet, to create significantly new science and technology one needs intelligence, thus enough democracy to be called a Republic. Absent the preceding, states who are not Secular and Republican enough, will have a higher probability to lose the next big war (when push comes to shove, and the seas rise big time).

We are in the age of Republican Secularism. This is all the religion we need. But we need it bad.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S: To broach a subject I generally avoid: does the preceding mean Israel will die, as the Crusader States did? Well, any regime comparison is relative to its environment. But it sure means that “Orthodox Judaism” is a deadly danger for Israel. It certainly means the EU will die, lest it accelerates progress and democracy enough to look better than the alternative.

Secular Egypt, Civilized Egypt

August 18, 2013

OUTLAW MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

The public, live, worldwide, could see Muslim Brotherhood fanatics shooting at security forces from the gigantic, beautiful minaret of the Al Fatah Mosque in Cairo. Policemen returned fire. So it was, all over.

Colossal hypocrisy blossomed among the West’s political leaders: suddenly here they were, siding with Al Qaeda, whining about the security coup in Egypt. The leader of Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Doctor Al Zawahiri became their spokesman. Was then Al Qaeda just a way to get big budgets for otherwise indefensible activities?

Do our vertiginously hypocritical chiefs ignore that Secularism is the secret of the West? Secularism means: living in one’s own age. This enables the rule of the following values, symbolized in one neat coat of arms:

Ruling the West: Ferocity, Justice, Republic, Unity, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

Ruling the West: Ferocity, Justice, Republic, Unity, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

Notice the oak for strength, and the olive, for peace. The Republican Roman Fasces, represent the power of justice, to cut infamy in two; the law as the ultimate ruler, made strong by the unity of the People, bound around the idea of justice; fundamentally the entangled letters “RF”, superficially “Respublica Francia” (in Latin) fundamentally mean “Free Republic”, republic and freedom entangled, something for the People Republic of China to meditate. This coat of arms ought to be that of the world, including Egypt!

Do our double-faced, plutophile Western propagandists, suddenly in love with Al Qaeda, want us to forget that all the countries of the West were founded by the military? Generally the military was fighting plutocrats covered by a sacred religion. Why can’t  the same courtesy be extended to Egypt?

It’s sick to see the emissary (emirssary?) of Qatar, an extreme, hereditary plutocracy, a financial support of the Muslim Brotherhood, go around Europe seduce plutophile servants of the established order (for which Qatar is a core value), who then stand by his side (as just happened with the West German foreign minister: should not Germany be cured from siding with racist plutocrats, already?).

No part of the West ever lived free under an Islamist regime: the fundamental reason is the extreme violence within much of the Qur’an.

Moreover, Salafist Islam implements a racist distinction between believers and non believers (the later being punished all the time). The multicentennial reign of Islamists, from Portugal to Rumania, was a quasi-continuous subjugation, oppression, demolition, ruination and depredation. The pleasures public slavery and impalement provided with were not to Western taste, which had evolved.

Salafist Islam is the Islam of the Ancients (that’s what Salafist means). Contrarily to bien pensant repute, it’s an extremely violent ideology, read direct from the Qur’an. Therein a crucial difference with Christianism.

After Greco-Roman philosophers complained that the Old Testament (basic to Islam) was full of atrocious lessons in barbarity, the “Founding Fathers of the Church” (Saint Jerome and company), around 400CE, admitted that the Bible was metaphorical, and not to be taken literally.

Twice something related happened in Islam: around 850 CE the Caliph in Baghdad, declared unlawful future (re)interpretations of Islam’s sacred texts. More interestingly, Saladin and his successors, in Egypt around 1200 CE, outright outlawed the literal interpretation of Islam, and they cracked down with a ferocity that I would welcome in Egypt today. (If Nazism is unlawful, why not Salafism? They are not similar by accident: Hitler had more than a passing familiarity with Islam, and sang its praises on many occasions; Hitler loved all that Biblical stuff, especially the holocausts.)

Literal interpretations of Islam reappeared in the Eighteenth Century in the wilds of Arabia, when a fanatic called Wahhab presented the ancestors of the present Saudis with a coy plot to come to power: pretend to serve the true god. So here we are: we see the enlightened leaders of the European Union calling for the return of Wahhab, side by side with Qatar and Al Qaeda.

Plutocrats of the world, Unite! How touching!

The reason why Muslims spend much time killing other Muslims, is that disagreements naturally arise about who is, or who is not, a genuine believer (the distinction is left unclear in the very short Qur’an). While the call to kill, or, at least, to abuse non-believers is unambiguous. Hence the circus in Syria. There, too, secularism is the only way out not involving a holocaust.

Why do the leaders of the West want Islam to rule Egypt? Because it was so great when Christianism ruled?

Christianism’s rule in the West, 16 centuries ago, brought a sudden apocalypse (not by accident: Christianist imbeciles had read in their sacred texts that the apocalypse was supposed to bring back Jesus!… So they did their best to bring an apocalypse, by taking countless bad decisions).

Christianism brought the end of any semblance of republic, the reign of superstition, decerebration, crusades, the Inquisition, Sharia, religious wars, the institutionalization of racism (against intellectuals, secularists, Jews, Pagans and countless exterminated minorities). All non believers were exterminated (except the Jews, because Jesus had been one; with uncharacteristic Christian generosity, the extermination of the Jews was contemplated, and half carried out).

Christianist rule has a name: the Dark Ages.

How did the West get out of the apocalypse? Through military force. The military is intrinsically fascist, because that’s best for fighting. However, the best performing military, to achieve higher performance, also needs to be up to date in its weapons and thinking. In one word: secular.

The Franks became the shock troops of the Roman empire, because they were highly multicultural (living in present day Netherlands, between sea and land, Germania, Gallia and Roma), and ended up with the best weapons (the Celts had the best metallurgy, and equipped the Roman army since its inception!)

As the Franks helped Constantine conquer the empire, they knew how Constantine’s Christian sausage had been made. They refused to join, as the threat to secularism (on which, as I just said, the Franks’ supremacy rested) was clear to them.

Similarly, the Egyptian military is an excellent position to know how the Muslim sausage has been made (and the double faced role the Euro-Americans are playing with the Islam game).

After trying several times over 150 years, the Franks finally took control of the (North Western) Roman empire and subjugated apocalyptic Christianism.

Christianism devastation went on elsewhere, for another 150 years. That led to a systematic destruction of reason, wisdom and knowledge. Roman intellectuals, and their books fled to Persia, followed by a terrible war between the Oriental Roman empire and Persia. Constantinople had to agree to be nicer to its own intellectuals, at some point. But won the war.

Muhammad pointed out to his Arab followers that the time had come to attack the Romans and the Persians. The Arabs were hungry, ferocious, and, at the time, their women followed them in battle, preventing them to flee (!) and finishing wounded enemies. (Then the Arab army got lucky, twice, but that’s another story.)

So it’s fanatical Christianism and the resulting mental degeneracy it entailed, that enabled the sudden take-over by Arab raiders known as “Muslims”, of most of the Roman empire, and all of Persia.

Tellingly, the one place where the Arab armies would be annihilated three times in a row was the place where fanatic Christianism had long been turned into a force for (secular) education. The Franks had completely defeated the viciousness of the Pope Gregory the Great (usually celebrated as “great” in conventional historiography). The Gregory the Villainous threatened to burn alive bishops who allowed “grammar” to be taught (that meant secular knowledge). But the bishop of Dignes (south east France), so threatened, was protected by the Frankish army. Gregory had no army (the Roman emperor Charlemagne created the Vatican state, more than two centuries later).

So Christianism made the bed of Islamism. Better: the Copts, that is, the Egyptians, did not believe in the Trinity (because of a 4C bishop of Alexandria, Arianus, had a problem with a triple god who was nevertheless one; he had refused the subtle balance between Jesus, Zeus, and the Logos). That’s why the Muslims do not, because the relative of Muhammad who told him what he saw in the desert (some Archangel), was a professional Christian Copt monk.

The idea of superstition is to find an idea that stands above the world. That may be appropriate sometimes, to save a civilization. However, civilization exists to create ideas, and so any civilization resting on a superstition comes quickly into contradiction with itself. No doubt the Romans came to that conclusion, and, well before the end of the Republic, had embraced all religions. As long as they did not call for human sacrifices (those where completely eradicated), or as long as they behaved (after a major scandal, the Egyptian cult of Isis was outlawed for a while). Thus:

Sustainable civilization means secularization. If a civilization is not secular, it is, or becomes obsolete.

Putin ought to meditate this, as he gave Christian Orthodoxy with a Russian sauce a quasi state religion status; Peter the Great viewed Orthodoxy as the major problem of Russia, and took shattering measures to break its grip (an inside joke, as Peter broke himself the limbs of some religious fanatics on the wheel, just to have the pleasure to hear them plead for their lives).

To deny secularization to some countries, because of their Oriental origins, as many political leaders in the West just did, is sheer racism.

Secular Salic Law. Civilization Without Secularization A Degeneration.

Secular Salic Law. Civilization Without Secularization A Degeneration.

[This is a tiny part of the Salic Law; it had 65 chapters to start with, and underwent constant changes and augmentation; by 600 CE the law made all inhabitants of the enormous empire a Frank, without consideration of origins or religions; a Jewish Syrian selling camels in Paris (!) could have Frankish children.]

The West was not founded by Islamists, or Christianists, or other deluded Superstitionists. The West was founded by Secularists, firmly grounded in reason. The West was founded by the Salian Franks. Those “Salted” Dutch ruled through the secular Pactus Legis Salicae (Pact of the Salic Law).

The main difference between Salian Law and republican Roman Law was the replacement of many death penalties cases by more humanitarian fines.

Greater humanism was the main difference between old Greco-Roman civilization and the “RENOVATED” version the Franks imposed, and celebrated.

Aristotle had contemptuously pontificated that civilization needed slaves, so that people like him could sit on their haunches and think of higher things.

The Franks contradicted Aristotle: let there be machines, beasts and bioengineering to serve us.

The Far East (China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia) also practiced bioengineering: new varieties of rice were developed, that produced twice a year; around 1000 CE. This is one of the reason why the population of the Far East exploded. Another, of course is that the Far East was secular: Confucianism, Taoism, and (original) Buddhism have a very low superstition index. Thus the Far East developed a lot of science and technology on its own, and that advanced civilization. The Middle Kingdom and its neighbors thrived for the same exact reasons as the West.

In the end, the West dominated more because, starting with the Franks, and the abolition of slavery, it was less oriented towards using people as machines or animals. But it was a close call, as the Christianists and Islamists nearly annihilated civilization (Western books were saved mostly through Zoroastrians, and the regard most Caliphs of the 8C and 9C had for… Greek culture… there again following another twist in the Qur’an…).

Written in Latin, the Salian Law was purely secular.

Just by imposing secular law, the Franks, more than 15 centuries ago, got rid of aggressive Christianism. The Franks literally founded the West with precautionary Christianophobia. It was high time. True, the Franks claimed to be “Catholics”, but the Catholicism they imposed had nothing to do with the religious terror that brought Rome to its knees.

Even before the Qur’an had been written down, the Imperium Francorum sent spies to find out who these Islamists were. A case of precautionary Islamophobia, right from the start. The Franks long viewed Islam as a form of particularly aggressive militarized Christianism. They were familiar with the problem: hordes of black dressed monks, especially in Egypt, had laid civilization to waste, three centuries before.

France has been at war with invasive, aggressive Islamists ever since. 60 generations of hostility.

Why can’t Egyptian security forces be given the same liberty?

Or do Western leaders whine because time is up on their ravenous instrumentalization of Islamization, their counterfactual, perfidiously manipulative, identification of Islamization with civilization? Are they afraid that their oil supply is threatened, or that they will have to start treating Arab speaking people not just as Muslims, but as full human beings?

An organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood, operating inside the French or American republics as it did in Egypt  would be outlawed overnight, and lethal force would be used. So why not the same in Egypt?

When Western leaders talk as if the Muslim Brotherhood was holy, a case of human rights, they are just hypocritical, lethally vicious and racist. The Muslim Brotherhood ought to be outlawed in Egypt as it would be in the American or French Republic.

It is easy to understand why corrupt leaders in the West would want Egypt to stay under the oppression of an ideology invented in the desert by analphabets, 14 centuries ago: this way, 85 millions Egyptians, and 35 millions of inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula, where the oil comes from, and much money, would stay subjugated, ruled by their pseudo-god fearing masters.

But for those who really care about the well-being of Egyptians, there is no doubt that getting rid of 1650 years of delirious, somewhat satanic variants of the religion of Abraham, will help. Abraham? The despicable character who wanted to please a satanic boss (known as “god”) to the point of killing his innocent child.

Where, in the entire history of humankind, can we find something as condemnable as a foundation of elevation? Notice it’s the boss himself who stopped the servile crazed psychopath would-be child killer’s hand. So bosses are the fount of humanism! Especially after they order to kill children?

It certainly makes sense that the despicable Barroso, head of the European Commission, another living incarnation of Star Wars’ Jabba the Hut, who does not mind 50% unemployment rates in part of the European Union, according to his plutocratic god, would threaten Egypt (with cutting aid to starving people). The barbarian Baroso embraces the Muslim Brotherhood, as a new trick to make the youth suffer more afield.

The ancient Republican Romans knew what to do with a thought system that had turned wanting to kill children into a religion: annihilate it.  They face it with Carthage. No doubt that, if Carthage had not sacrificed children, it would not have been annihilated by Rome.

The inhuman pulsion to kill children inherent to Abrahamism was probably copied from Carthage and Moloch. Abrahamism was adopted by Rome, later, but, by then the Republic was in pieces (in a telling detail, Constantine, the self described “13th apostle”, inventor of Christianism, killed his adult son and nephew; he also steamed his wife).

To rejoin the forefront of civilization, it long occupied, Egypt needs to become secular. Those who, from their heavenly secular fortresses, think otherwise are just Twentieth First Century racists. Let them join Al Qaeda. Sorry, they already have.

Polls show more than 80% of Egyptians support the security crack-down against the Islamists. “Moderate” Islamists have no more than 15% support. Faced with the determination of the 500,000 strong Egyptian military, the plutophile cowards who lead the West will no doubt back-off.

The fact remains, in that fatidic week, when Egypt plunged in a remedial civil war, our money loving Western leaders showed their face, and that was the face of Al Qaeda. I do not doubt that they are going to put some new mask on, and change the subject real quick. Yet, it was a very revealing moment.

***

Patrice Ayme

French War In Mali

January 11, 2013

Finally! Friday January 11, 2013, Paris, Élysée: “Mali is confronting an aggression of terrorist elements coming from the North, with a brutality and fanaticism that the entire world knows” said the French president “I have therefore, in the name of France answered the demand of help from the Mali president, which is supported by the Western African countries. In consequence, the French armed forces have brought this afternoon their support to Malian units to fight against those terrorist elements.”

And, presto, France is at war again. This is the second military intervention of France in Africa, in one week. (The preceding one stopped an insurrection in the Central African Republic.)
And at least the FOURTH major French combat intervention in two years (Ivory Coast, Libya).

French Strike Mali [From Terrorist Video]

French Strike Mali [From Terrorist Video]

For those who are naive in these matters, historically, in the fullness of time, France is the primary military interventionist in the world. Ever. This started when the Roman empire put the Franks in charge of defending Germania and Gallia in 400 CE. After some initial difficulties that caused the fall of the Occidental part of the empire, the Franks annhilated the Huns, the Goths, the Lombards and various other critters. (The Franks also intervened in Britannia for centuries afterwards, before conquering the whole thing in 1066 CE).

The nations French military intervention created constitute the essential of the West: Germany (starting in 500 CE), much of Europe (by 800 CE), all the way to Eastern Europe, and including Catalonia and the reconquista of Spain (Charlemagne), England (1066), the reconquest of much of the Mediterranean from the Muslim invaders (South Italy, Sicily, etc.)… even the Netherlands is, to a great extent, a French creation (a 75 year war part of a 120 year French war against Spain)… And finally, of course, the USA.

Without gigantic French help, and even… incitation, the American rebels would have all been hanged by the authorities, end of the story. Nearly all their cartridges were even made in France. Even while being created, the USA defaulted, and refused to pay back even a cent to the French Treasury for the enormously expensive war that had given birth to it. Thus default presided at the birth of the USA. (Louis XVI was advised to follow suit, and default too; but he refused, as he was hell bent on making nobles pay taxes, something that the National Assembly of 1789 finally imposed!)

That’s one problem with war. When made out of principle, it can only pay back with principle. But that does not mean it should not be made.

It’s not just that the Franks (or the Gauls before them) are slightly demented supermen in search of somebody to fight. The very position of France at the crossroads of the three main trade routes of Western Europe, since the Neolithic, condemned any people thriving there to be pretty aggressive and open minded. That is why the occupants of France may have changed quite a bit, but the mentality persists.

Frankish intervention led to the unification of Western Europe under the body of Roman law and the Roman language, and a version of civilization (and weaponization!) that they called Christianity. Achieving what they called in 800 CE “the Renovation of the Roman Empire”. The Franks, were Germans who civilized Rome, while learning the proper way of making war, a state, and a melting pot, from the Romans.

War is inseparable from democracy, be it just because plutocracy hates democracy. Plutocracy tends to blossom all over, all the time, and one of its main variant is “theocracy”, where (mass) criminal acts are ordered by god(s).

The French government declared that the invaders of Mali are “terrorist” and “criminal”. Differently from December 31, 406 CE, when the Vandals, Alans and various others crossed the frozen Rhine by surprise, France was not surprised that the terrorists decided to invade the rest of Mali, in the hope that the international community would take months to get organized after Susan Rice lifted her veto against France at the UN, and the Security Council voted to allow armed intervention as needed.

The French Air Force has already conducted bombing missions. This is excellent. In the West Africa of my childhood, one had to fear only spiders, horribly poisonous snakes, crocodiles and furry predators. The danger presented by man was inexistent.

Western Africa was way safer than Europe. Shockingly, once, a taxicab driver got killed for his money. That had never happened before. It turned out, and it was pretty telling that, a young French tourist had done it.

Black Muslim faith was not distinguishable from Western secularism in most ways, and was distinctly more progressive in some important ways (having to do with socialism, nudity, and… even the position of women in society).

The “Muslim” faith of the fanatics in the middle of the Middle Earth is a “different religion from mine” declared Abou Diouf, a Wolof Muslim, ex-president of Senegal (and General Secretary of the 70 nations strong francophonie).

Of course such a version of Islam, islam with a progressive, human, civilized face, is intolerable to a lot of bad actors.

Wahhabism, the faith of Saudi Arabia, is perfectly compatible with terrorism, gangsterism, drug trafficking, and, first of all, extreme concentration of wealth (in other words, the exact opposite of Senegalese style Islam). Thus extremely well financed bad actors, armed by the feudal oil powers, tightly connected to Wall Street, of Arabia, keep on financing it. This constant war agaisnt a self made enemy, serves as a justification for the feudal, fascist regimes in the Middle East. That’s why they keep on secreting what we are supposed to fight.

The usual professional pseudo-leftist whiners are sure to surface and accuse France of having interests in Africa. Well, there is something to the notion of empire. Originally, it simply meant command, order.

Under the British Raj, there was no danger that the Muslim dominated regions would engage into a thermonuclear war with the rest of the subcontinent. Had the British Raj evolved as Canada, that would still be an impossibility.

Whereas, as it is, after Gandhi’s pathetic circus, the existence of that Pakistani theocracy (see the connection with plutocracy, above) which he contributed so much to create, does not just threaten India with a few hundreds of millions of dead, but also could ignite a world war.

The old argument of the French in Algeria was that they were back, as the successor state of Rome, after a hiatus imposed by Arab Muslim invaders. This was also the basic argument of Napoleon in Egypt. And there is something to it.

After all, Rome had African, and even Arab, emperors.

So how does this compare with Libya, Syria and Afghanistan?

Well Qaddafi was a horrible dictator, who even raped young girls industrially. he had a deal with those plutocrats, Blair and G.W. Bush. As long as he was in place, an atrocious plutocratic symbol was in place. The difference with North Korea is that, as Qaddafi found out, Libya was only an hour flight out of European bases. Similar reasons brought JFK to a tough line about nuclear capable missiles in Cuba.

Syria is a mess. The only correct line of the West is to draw lines for Assad not to cross, and support the secularist opposition (even with weapons)… while trying not to help the genuine Islamists supported by the feudal regimes.

I have been opposed to the war in Afghanistan for, among other things, strategic reasons. The first one is that, when democracy fights, democracy ought to be pure. In Afghanistan the USA has been as impure as possible, and that had direct strategic consequences leading to the unavoidable defeat we are now experiencing.

During its great war with Sparta, Athens was not ethically pure, far from it, and that is why she was ultimately defeated by a coalition of enraged city states (led by Sparta, financed by Persia). Athens was impure because Athens used the defense funds of the Delian League to build itself pretty buildings still observable today, because Athens destroyed an entire island, Milo, just to show it was a superpower, and because Athens attacked Syracuse, there again, just because she could, as an undefeatable superpower. Athens aggravated her case by boasting of her great democracy and Open Society, while practicing the opposite for all to see.

(Analogies with the present USA, while regrettable, are not a coincidence, and fully intended.)

When the French Republic gave an ultimatum to Hitler, on September 1, 1939, the Republic had been ethically pure (Britain, that France dragged behind, had been much less pure, and its compromising with Hitler had a direct effect on its military preparedness, which was so insufficient, as to leave mostly France fighting, by a ratio of 1 to 20 in soldiers deployed!)

The first big mistake in Afghanistan is actually that the USA attacked the REPUBLIC of Afghanistan in the 1970s. It would seem that the USA (or some influential people in the USA) were after the mineral wealth that the republic of Afghanistan intended to develop with French (and probably Soviet) help.

A dirty war resulted, with the likes of the CIA instrumentalizing the likes of Bin Laden. Then there was 9/11. The West invaded Afghanistan, as was its right.

But then a tragic, and strategic mistake was done: that one of NOT enforcing a SECULARIST state in Afghanistan. Instead the west did what it should never do, put a theocratic republic, Iranian style, in power. Hence NATO fought for Wahhabism light. Thus the Afghans, including those in the army and police, got completely confused, and felt NATO ought to be supporting Fundamentalist Islam, and became crazy, observing otherwise.

Hence the famous “green on blue” and “green on green” attacks. It’s a hopeless situation, and too late to fix it. Better next time we invade Afghanistan from scratch.

Mali is completely different. Mali is a secularist republic. A natural ally of Western civilization, an emanation of it. Not supporting Mali would have extremely adverse consequences, because not just of its location, but because it would be not supporting civilization.

Fortunately precision bombing on armed columns have happened on Friday January 11. There is no doubt the terrorists were taken by surprise. Moderation in the support of civilization is no solution.
Patrice Ayme

Crush Infamy!

October 19, 2010

 

OUTLAWING BAD RELIGIONS = CIVILIZATIONAL PROGRESS.

***

Abstract:  Secularism is the master religion of civilization. Superstitions can be tolerated, by civilization, as long as they are obedient and house trained. Anything else is not just immoral, it invites disaster.

***

WHEN FRANS DE WAAL HIMSELF GETS CONFUSED:

In an otherwise naturally excellent essay, the esteemed ethologist, Frans De Waal, one of the planet’s breakthrough scientists, deplores the ferocity with which some have recently attacked established religion. Make no mistake: I approve of Frans De Waal. But on this particular subject, he is far removed from his usually iconoclastic self, and his blind embrace of political correctness is erroneous.

Here is an extensive quote of Frans De Waal with the link http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/. It exhibits several typical mistakes.

“Over the past few years, we have gotten used to a strident atheism arguing that God is not great (Christopher Hitchens) or a delusion (Richard Dawkins). The new atheists call themselves “brights,” thus hinting that believers are not so bright. They urge trust in science, and want to root ethics in a naturalistic worldview.

While I do consider religious institutions and their representatives — popes, bishops, mega-preachers, ayatollahs, and rabbis — fair game for criticism, what good could come from insulting individuals who find value in religion? And more pertinently, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch.

Even the staunchest atheist growing up in Western society cannot avoid having absorbed the basic tenets of Christian morality. Our societies are steeped in it: everything we have accomplished over the centuries, even science, developed either hand in hand with or in opposition to religion, but never separately. It is impossible to know what morality would look like without religion. It would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause.”

***

DID CHRISTIANITY INVENT ANYTHING GOOD?

The first mistake De Waal makes is to assume that Western European based morality originated purely through Christianity. Most of the Western European morality is vastly anterior to Christianity. Specifically Christian additions are hard to identify. What is taken for Christian adjunctions is generally nothing of the sort. What is specifically Christian is called the DARK AGES.

The famous "welfare state" that American "neoconservatives" (aka neofascists) love to denigrate, sounds all too Christian. However, the "welfare state" is actually a ROMAN invention, anterior to the deployment of Christianity by a degenerated version of the imperial Roman state. It is anterior by a full three centuries. If anything, Christianity is a Roman invention. Indeed the first Christian known to have existed, Saul, a Jew with Roman citizenship, aka "Saint Paul", was a Roman prosecutor. Condemned to death by the Jewish theocracy, he was whisked away to Rome by the imperial authorities, and it is not known what happened of him. Besides writing about Jesus, who he found in his head, he said, his other passions were a hatred for philosophy, and delighting in book burning.

The outlawing of slavery was not a Christian idea, either. It was an anti-Christian gesture: bishops, and their families were the greatest slave owners. It is the FRANKS, following Frankish tradition, which imposed it. "Frank" means free. The Germans had no slaves (and elected their occasional kings), and were no friends to Roman style fascism.

So Christianity embraced non Christian goodness. Why? Because the Merovingian and Carolingian empires forced Christian potentates to do so. Nothing very "Christian" about any of this. the Carolingian forced by law the Christian establishments, all of them, to teach secularism. That was after having nationalized the entire Christian Church (to rise considerable resources for a giant anti-Islam army, the largest since the heydays of Rome).

Even the cross was widely used, before the Christians consented to use it. This too the Christians carbon copied!

clip_image002clip_image001

clip_image003

The Celtic cross, a pre-Christian symbol which was later amalgamated with the Christian crucifix. For many centuries, the Christians refused to use the cross, as it was a "Pagan" symbol, said the notorious "Church Fathers". The same holds with the Swastika, a very old, Bronze Age cross, which was known from Norway to India, even before Homer’s Greeks. On the right above: sacred cross from Knossos, 36 centuries old (22 centuries before the Christians adopted the cross for their religion!)

***

WANT JESUS? DON’T FORGET TO BRING ENOUGH WATER!

So what is specifically "Christian"? The Apocalypse, and eternal fire. That, the Christians promoted heavily, and it was definitively a regression form the Roman republican morality. OK, the Celts attached a great importance to fire before, as they used to burn, alive, a lot of prisoners together in various containers. (It was definitively a bad idea to burn alive Roman officers.)

Maybe the inventors of the "Evangels" got their obsession with fire from the Celts indeed (so it is a testimony to cultural trade that the idea percolated all the way to Medina and Mecca!). Here is a piece of the so called "New Testament", as a typical example. From Thessalonians 1:7-10 (New American Standard Bible):

7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in FLAMING FIRE,

8 TAKING VENGEANCE on those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

9 These will pay the penalty of ETERNAL DESTRUCTION, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed–for our testimony to you was believed.


The obsession of Jesus with fire is all over: See Matthew 25:41:


41 "Then Jesus will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, INTO THE ETERNAL FIRE which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Jesus, is loud and clear in his desire to burn in "vengeance" those who "know" him not. Don’t ever expect forgiveness from that maniac! Forget all too human forgiveness, Jesus is all about eternal punishment. That is the thing he can do that no human can.

Christian criminal irrational, superstition based insanity caused directly the Dark Ages, by burning all those who did not "know" Jesus, burning all the libraries, all the books, and even destroying public works. Laws themselves were destroyed, by refusing to apply them, since they had been given by man, not jealous god and his maniacal son. Such as the laws against highway bandits, while plutocrats refused to pay any taxes, and sheltered behind their walls, manned by private armies.

***

IL FAUT ECRASER L’INFAME!

… As Voltaire put it. "One must crush infamy!". By "infamy", Voltaire meant Christianity, and Islam.

The ferocity of the attacks against VICIOUS SUPERSTITIONS is justified. A small example is the Afghanistan war. Besides enormous treasure and more than 600 NATO soldiers killed there in 2010, alone, this war, started in the 1970s by Washington’s White House (which often seems to be correctly painted the way a mental asylum should be), deliberately used religion, or more exactly superstition, as a ploy.

Voltaire did not insist on how that infamy arose. As Critias, a plutocratic philosopher, associated to Socrates, uncle of Plato, one of the "Thirty Tyrants" (and one of the most violent), asserted: "religion was a deliberate imposture devised by some cunning man for political ends."[C]

Note that this was written more than 24 centuries ago. That most educated people in the USA behave as if they did not understand this, while their country has soldiers in nearly all countries, and thousands of thermonuclear weapons, while whining louder and louder about China, ought to be worrisome. Question: are the plutocrats of the USA cunning enough?

***

RELIGION IS A LOGICAL NECESSITY, BUT SUPERSTITION IS NOT:

Religion, from re-ligare, to tie people together again, is not, in general, bad. Religion plays, for the ensemble of society, the sort of "META" arena that any discourse needs. Such meta background are found all over logic, mathematics, or mathematical logic. Even category theory (invented by Aristotle, and now a backbone of contemporary mathematics) has it.

Thus the Romans of the Respublica, as pragmatic and practical a people as there ever was, made a quasi religion of the law:"Dura Lex, Sed Lex". ("Law Hard, But Law".) However above and beyond the cult of the Lex, they had an entire religion and ancestors’ cult. The increasing prominence of the law made the Romans invent SECULARISM. It comes from the concept of "age".

Secularism is a religion. Secularism means: to live in one’s own age. As Rome became a world empire, Romans tolerated all religions equally… With the exception of those allowing human sacrifices, which were outlawed, and disappeared from history. Some of these annihilated religions were enormously powerful, before Rome DESTROYED them.

If practitioners of a religion violated the secular law, though, they would be punished. Under Tiberius, after an enormous sexual scandal involving the top priests of Isis, the Egyptian religion, the perpetrators were made to savor their last days on the cross. However, Caligula legitimized the religion, which then became enormous popular, with temples everywhere and there is evidence some emperors were initiates (Commodus, Caracalla). Thus SECULARISM ACTED IN ROME AS A META RELIGION.

Secularism was very strong in the late 19 C in the USA, or in France. France went further, and nationalized the Churches (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish… but unfortunately, not Islam, a oversight only now being rectified). The USA has been backsliding into superstition ever since 1954, when God was pushed onto the People.

***

SECULARISM WINS BATTLES:

There were more Celts than Romans, and the Celtic world extended from Ireland to Anatolia in "Asia", where the Celts refused to obey Alexander, arguing that the only fear they knew was that "the sky would fall onto their heads". Alexander moved on to tackle the Persians, easier preys. The Celtic world included Northern Italy: Gallia Transalpina.

However, human progress is a strong notion, and by allying themselves to it, by rejecting the more primitive, violent Celtic religion, the Romans were able to replace the Celtic civilization by the more advanced Greco-Roman civilization. There was an educational component to the equation too, as the Celts refused general education, reserving it to their elite.

This Celtic episode, and the equivalent one with the Punic civilization, have an enormous bearing to the difficulties the West is encountering presently with Islam (and, in particular, in Afghanistan). But, of course, to see the connection, one would need to know more than basketball… Thus the present policy there neglects the leverage which superseding Islam would provide with, which proves that either the USA are really stupid, or that they have another agenda.

***

SECULARISM WILL CRUSH SUPERSTITION ALWAYS:

Superstition is about unjustifications from the past, secularism is about the present, in general more clever. When the Muslim armies fought the Franks in Francia (721 CE to 740 CE, and then again in the 10C), they were confronted to superior determination and superior technology (contrarily to legend: the Franks had evolved better steel and giant percheron, tank like horses covered with heavy armor in the 8C, Grecian Fire in the 10C).

The Franks, when they opposed Islam, opposed it by calling themselves "Europeans". After all, the Franks had united (most of) Europe. The notion was secularist. The Franks were very clever. As they repelled the Muslim invasion, they did not fight a war about superstition, superstition against superstition, Christian against Christian, Islam against Islam, Abraham against Abraham, as Obama is doing in Islam (his Karzai based Islam against the Taliban based Islam).

The Franks fought superstition, from the secularist point of view, as they had for 4 centuries. They fought, as secularists against superstitious hysterics. The Franks viewed the Muslims as out-of control Christians. Reasonably opposing Christianity had made the Franks their fortune, by rescuing humankind from Jesus’ incendiary rage. When confronting Islam, the Franks invented nationalism. European nationalism.

***

ARE THOSE WHO RESPECT NAZISM, NAZI COLLABORATORS? THAT IS THE QUESTION.

Secularism is to live in one’s own age. Rather than the times of desert primitives who lived from banditry, crime, and various horrors, and could neither write nor read.

What we faced with the Abrahamic, or Aztec religions are religions made to justify, encourage, and force lethal violence, through the teaching of blood thirsty gods.

The god of Abraham asks him to kill his son, just because he says so, thus placing fascist command, and absolute obedience, above the most basic, most fundamental love. I think there is a problem both with the texts that admire this as the ultimate of goodness (Bible, Qur’an) and those who happily goose step behind those texts. At least they could look grim (as Iranian Shiites do).

Goose-stepping behind a god who apparently likes to test his followers by asking them to kill their innocent children, is a moral horror that all free primates would do anything to avoid.

Thus, those religions are made to create deadly homicidal robots out of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. What is there, that is not our duty, to hate? Especially now that they could arm themselves with nuclear bombs.

Hating infamy, hating those who put fascism above love, every day that the sun makes, is not just a moral choice anymore, as it was in the time of Voltaire (in a case Voltaire addressed, Jewish children were burned in Portugal at the time, just because they were Jewish). Now, it is a question of survival. And it is why Pakistan a Muslim Fundamentalist state, a state whose official superstition adulates a pedocidal god (like the god of Carthagenese, who loved to kill male children less than 5 years old) has to be removed access to thermonuclear weapons (it has at least 100, maybe 200, on the ground it needs them to fight India, a secularist democracy, a past time that could well end up with one or two billion dead).

A last point: it is fashionable among American semi primitive a la Glenn Beck to rant for ages against what they call “progress”.

But civilization, for ecological reasons, has never been sustainable without adaptation, also known as progress. This progress can only come from secularism, adapting to the age.

Thus secularism is also where imperial anti-republican Rome failed, because imperial, plutocratic Rome was increasingly conservative and fascist. The plutocrats at the top blocked progress in so many mental areas that even better technology became its enemy. As it has been of Wahhabists,  and for the same reasons. And as it seems to be increasingly the case now in the USA, with its resistance to electric trains, nuclear plants, modern health care, and education, modern democracy, modern unit systems, modern housing, efficient economy, etc.

Those who do not learn from history, maybe incinerated by it pretty soon. It is no coincidence that this is exactly what Jesus wanted.

Patrice Ayme