Decelebrating Decerebrating Ramadan

A real philosopher pushes wisdom where it has not been before. That includes demolishing erroneous ideologies. Today Ramadan starts and many Muslims are all excited. Ramadan does not corresponds to an astronomical event… whereas many other feasts do, such as the Winter or Summer Solstices, or calendar dates corresponding to Spring, as in the more than 3,000 years old Persian Nowruz, or harvesting in the northern hemisphere, etc.

Respecting religions is fashionable, but it’s all about respecting the religions in power and the mental retardation they inflict. Older religions such as that of the Aztecs, Nazism or Marxism-Leninism are not fashionable anymore. But Islam, which is so primitive that it follows a lunar calendar, like the Romans at some point well before Julius Caesar, is among the respectable religions in part because the powers that be are in bed with the likes of Aramco, the most powerful national oil company that provides oil and rules with Islam. One of several doing this. And reinvesting their money, thus power, on Wall Street. Also the powers that be like to replace creative, but rebellious Euro-Americans with submissives who kneel five times a day… And have only a passion for enforcing what they have embraced, submission…

Muslims, by faith are supposed to not know the most basic astronomy: they believe their big guy in the sky moves the Moon as he sees fit: 

Following the sighting of the crescent by the moon-sighting committee, Saudi Arabia has announced that the first day of fasting will be Monday, March 11, 2024. Ramadan from Arabic Ramadan (Turkish and Persian ramazan), originally meant “the hot month,” from ramida “be burnt, scorched”… It makes sense not to eat during the hot month, but then the moon moved the month around, a full cycle in 33 years… The idea obviously came from the 40 days of fasting in Lent… Old French quaresme 

Islam is one of the twists of Abrahamism, itself a cocktail of Middle East superstitions and tall tales in support of hydraulic dictatorships. There are about 1.9 billion Muslims around the world, approximately 25 percent of the world population. If they follow wacko and have nukes, it should matter to all… Submission-Islam concerns all, and shall be feared. It’s not just about women being told they are half of men and should be beaten:

This is all from Uthman’s Quran… which most people close to Muhammad hated and rose in revolt against…A Muslim friend, who pretends to be interested by science, astronomy and the future, alerted the Internet: “Tomorrow is Ramadan Mubarak. I am ready to fast. Ramadan Mubarak to all Muslims around the world.“

Patrice Ayme replied: Ramadan mubarak? Blessed Ramadan? Celebrating the rites of primitive savages religions as if they were worth respecting, does not have a future.

The friend, MBT from Algeria in turn retorted that: Sorry, the post is not a celebration of religions. I have Muslim friends, and I live in a Muslim country, and here comes the month of Ramadan, and fasting is very important for health. What does this comment have to do with this post?

All right, this called for a broadside against one of the world’s most tyranical superstitions, here it is: I fast too, all the time. I don’t pretend it’s to satisfy primitives because they are all around, and I desperately want to please them so I can have friends. I prefer no friends to friendship with savages. It’s a moral principle: savagery should be discouraged, and the privilege of my friendship withdrawn, so as not to encourage mental retardation. Actually, not being a savage, friendship with savages is impossible. 

The word “cretin” comes from Christian, because to believe in love and cannibalism and god nailed on a cross while omnipotent, yet whining about love and touting the cross as excellent for mental health… One has to be, indeed, a colossal cretin… Am I going to drink the blood of cretinous Christ and eat his flesh because I happen to have cretinous Christians all around? To hell with them! Let them at least feel what they deserve…

40 years ago in the USA, cretinous christians were all around… They actually evoked the lord before eating. Now much less so since my friend Obama became president and obviously didn’t believe in christian sadomasochism… To start with Submission (“Islam”) is even more sexist than cretinism, I mean christianism… with god perched on a cross to make us all feel bad…

No way to build an auspicious future for humanity by celebrating superstitions which killed millions, and set civilization back by centuries (when the discoverer of blood circulation was burned alive over a few hours with his books in Geneva, the publication of the discovery was set back by a full century, and is now attributed to some Englishman… Because the English, second only to Christ, discovered the word…) 

Islam has been a disaster for what used to be the world’s wealthiest and more advanced place. What kind of god is it who can’t take offense from a lowly human? Verily Islam is an excuse for dictatorship… Just as Theodosius I’s catholicism was such an excuse in 380 CE: that’s where the parrot known as Islam comes from: Roman imperial tyrannic terror justified by fascist unhinged Allah in the sky with shards of sadistic diamonds…

Mental retards are OK, if it’s genetic: not their fault, let’s be generous and merciful. But the imposition of cultural mental retardation is something else entirely. The Marxists tried that, the Nazis did, the Putinists do… And of course Christianity tried to impose as much mental retardation as possible as long as possible… Because only then could the mental retards at the head of Catholicism go on with their corruption and self-service…

The amount of violence prescribed in the Quran is astounding… and certainly to be feared, if interpreted literally: VIOLENCE IN “HOLY QUR’AN”. (https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/…/some-violence-in…/) To tell us we are racist when we fear Islam aims to make us all more stupid than we already are… Meanwhile the fascist Catholic in chief, anxious to please his Czar in Moscow, asked Ukraine to surrender to the worst tyrant humanity has ever seen… potentially.

“I think that the strongest one is the one who looks at the situation, thinks about the people and has the courage of the white flag, and negotiates,” Pope Francis said… Right, this is worse, way worse than anything Islam can do short term or even medium term. But it’s Catholicism which got Islam started… in several ways: his cousin, the chief missionary Catholic in Arabia, told Muhammad that he had seen Archangel Gabriel in the desert… Then the archbishop of Alexandria offered Muhammad priceles slaves… including the woman Muhammad got his only son from, and Muhammad was extremely attached to the child who unfortunately died shortly before his father…

The worst irony into all this is that Muhammad was very woman’s lib: he did much for the lives of girls and he refused to admit to his beloved wife Aisha’s infidelities and modified the Quran so that she couldn’t be accused (requiring four witnesses, etc.)

Also, more generally Muhammad was not rigid: he started with massacring the Jews of Medina, but later came to consider not just Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians as people of the book, but also Sabeans, etc… Extending protection to them. And there are more than 100 types of Islam, so… Those with a superstitious approach to Islam miss the point… The point Muhammad tried to make…

Patrice Ayme

Sexism Promotes Inequality, Feudalism, War: Why Cuomo Must Go

Work relationships have to be just that, work relationships. In the human species, males and females are not very different in physical capabilities, and not at all in mental capability. Thus societies run by men only is a phenomenon tied to the sort of war-like societies which have characterized civilizations for the last few millennia.

Now, just as war should take a neglectable position, so should demonic males who refine their brutal skills by predation and raw dominance of females. Up to the Middle Ages, women have always been the prime status symbols of domineering males. Fighting for Helen (who had willingly followed a prince of Troy) launched a thousand ships. 

Keeping women in a submissive and subjugated role is a form of training for a society full of inequality and war. 

Beyond the sexual harassment and the gender discrimination looms the principle of the demonic male in command, instituting inequality. Thus, it is not just direct sexual attacks of the grossest sort which was to be proscribed, but also the light and subtle sort. To try to run civilization without females participating is worse than just oppressing half of humanity, and it is even worse than cutting humanity in half. Indeed mothers are on the frontline with infants and an oppressed mother will transmit to a child a submissive epigenetic, thus abating the creativity and freedom of the human species. So this is not just about one man, Cuomo. It is about freeing humanity from a feudal past.

Patrice Ayme

***

[Submitted to NYT as a comment to a Cuomo article; published 24 hours later, after 1,500 more presumably more worthy comments, after making sure nobody would read it.]

Serena Williams Not Serene. Sometimes it’s more moral to get very angry. Serena knew very well she was treated rough because she is a woman

Serena Willams: It’s the final of the US Open, and I’m competing to win my 24th Grand Slam against Naomi Osaka. It’s the beginning of the second set, and the umpire thinks he spots my coach signaling me from the stands. He issues a violation—a warning. I approach him and emphatically state the truth: that I wasn’t looking at my coach. “I don’t cheat to win. I’d rather lose,” I said. I walk back to the court and lose the next point. I smash my racket in frustration; he issues another violation and gives a point to my opponent. I feel passionately compelled to stand up for myself. I call him a thief; I again demand an apology. I tell him he is penalizing me for being a woman. He responds by issuing a third violation and takes a game from me. In the end, my opponent simply played better than me that day and ended up winning her first Grand Slam title. I could not have been happier for her. As for me, I felt defeated and disrespected…

“What could I have done better? Was I wrong to stand up? Why is it that when women get passionate, they’re labeled emotional, crazy, and irrational, but when men do they’re seen as passionate and strong?”

So often, in situations similar to mine, when men fight back against the referees, they’re met with a smile or even a laugh from the umpire, as if they’re sharing an inside joke. I’m not asking to avoid being penalized. I am asking to be treated the same way as everyone else. Sadly, that’s simply not the world we currently live in…

This incident—though excruciating for us to endure—exemplified how thousands of women in every area of the workforce are treated every day. We are not allowed to have emotions, we are not allowed to be passionate. We are told to sit down and be quiet, which frankly is just not something I’m okay with. It’s shameful that our society penalizes women just for being themselves.

Ever since I was a little girl, I’ve felt a need to voice my opinion and be heard. Some may not like it, and to be honest, that’s their prerogative. I respect it. Growing up as the youngest of five girls, I learned that I had to fight for everything I wanted. And I won’t ever stop raising my voice against injustice.

As a teenager, I was booed by an entire stadium (I took the high road and even thanked those who didn’t want to see me win). I’ve been called every name in the book. I’ve been shamed because of my body shape. I’ve been paid unequally because of my sex. I’ve been penalized a game in the final of a major because I expressed my opinion or grunted too loudly. I’ve been blatantly cheated against to the point where the Hawk-Eye rules were introduced so that something like that would not happen again. And these are only the things that are seen by the public. In short, it’s never been easy. But then I think of the next girl who is going to come along who looks like me, and I hope, “Maybe, just maybe, my voice will help her.”

From: https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a28209579/serena-williams-us-open-2018-essay/

Sexism Leverages Psychobiology Perfidiously. Go Legal to Correct

Fighting discrimination against women requires more than unions, thundering rhetoric, and empty hopes. It requires understanding how present day sexism has subtly leveraged some real differences in psychobiology.  

Even absent gross gender discrimination, women tend to be more self-effacing, less loudly ambitious, while doing the steady hard work. Whereas men are more inspirational rather than dedicated to what needs to be done [1]. So men basically tend to have women working for them. There is evidence the difference is grounded in psychobiology [2]. This needs to be so well understood that it could be remedied, as it means that women tend to find glass ceilings in their way…  

Why is the wage gap between males and females not shrinking anymore? Because, the author asserts, the very qualities which make women better workers make them more exploitable. Legal remedies, fiercely applied, is the way out to break that psychobiological-civilizational logjam. Once through it, we can relax…

The habit of women to tend to make less waves consign them to be more easily victims of gender discrimination, as they complain less, and are less feared. And thus more easily ganged up on. In other words, the qualities of women which tend to make them better team players make them more manageable victims. This creates a paradox: the more competent the women, the more they play along, the more they work hard, thus the more they work hard for male exploiters, who advance more, and hence the more blocked and victimized they get.  

The way out of this requires to understand why male characteristic behavior tends to be more domineering, and why the women tend to be more cooperative. The difference is not much… but in a sexist society, it causes feedback amplifying the existing sexism, in a vicious circle. A way out will be to compensate for a while by legally hounding down male excesses… until those can be well exposed, thus socially counteracted…  

Some may ponder why we need to fight sexism. The answer, as usual, has to do with augmenting the species’ intelligence. Removing half of humanity by forcing it into menial tasks makes it more stupid than need be. As women are tighter with the youngest children than men, they tend to have more influence on mental genesis. So, if they are themselves not as smart as they could be, they will get children not as smart as they could be. Not just this, but as half of the competition is removed, especially the half they tend to be most excited about, men’s competitive instincts in intellectual matters are lowered to the basest considerations.  

In these times which are most propitious, and most cataclysmic, intelligence is more needed than ever. So the problem of fighting against sexism is not just about equity, but about something even more fundamental, the justification of equity, the reason why equity is best, for the species. And the justification for equity, from the evolutionary point of view, is that it optimizes the rise of intelligence in the species. 

By the way, this is also true at the level on nations. The more sexist the nation, the more stupid. As observed.

Patrice Ayme

[1] Who was the chief ranger to Yosemite National Park got a PhD in ecology for studying chimpanzees. He wrote the classic book on fatalities in Yosemite over more than 160 years and remarked: “Revealingly, every one of these fatal mistakes was made by a male–no woman in Yosemite is known to have shortcutted and paid for it with her life.”

***

[2] Psychobiological differences between male and female humans are subtle. Paleoanthropology seems to reveal that women brought in more calories than men. Men do best what male lions and wolves do best: patrol the territory. It was found recently that women in some South American prehistoric society did a lot of hunting. The reason why sexual diffeomorphism between humans is small has probably to do with weaponry: a woman armed with poisoned arrows will be, on average, roughly as deadly as a man to predators. Human beings have certainly used weapons for three millions years… Coincidental with the vanishing of major sexual diffeomorphism in humans.

***

Right now, it’s the wild West with sexual harassment and discrimination. A top Google executive, Rubin, was accused of it. Google organized its departure, paying him ninety (90) million dollars. As the New York Times put it in “How Google Protected Andy Rubin, the ‘Father of Android’:

“What Google did not make public was that an employee had accused Mr. Rubin of sexual misconduct. The woman, with whom Mr. Rubin had been having an extramarital relationship, said he coerced her into performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013, according to two company executives with knowledge of the episode. Google investigated and concluded her claim was credible…Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. Instead, the company handed him a $90 million exit package, paid in installments of about $2 million a month for four years, said two people with knowledge of the terms.

Mr. Rubin was one of three executives that Google protected over the past decade after they were accused of sexual misconduct. In two instances, it ousted senior executives, but softened the blow by paying them millions of dollars as they departed, even though it had no legal obligation to do so. In a third, the executive remained in a highly compensated post at the company. Each time Google stayed silent about the accusations against the men…

The transgressions varied in severity. Mr. Rubin’s case stood out for how much Google paid him and its silence on the circumstances of his departure. After Mr. Rubin left, the company invested millions of dollars in his next venture.”

This all suspiciously look like gang-rape, virtual or not… Basically Google condones rape, on the face of it, and rewards rapists with 90 million dollars. Does that mean Mr. Page, one of the two main plutocrats owning think accused rapists, even if they do not get in legal trouble, should be consoled?

Civilization, hence the law, should not tolerate this sort of behavior.

KILL SEXISM, And Why. The Next US President Should Be A Woman: A Question Of Smarts And Equity

Women as political leaders have played crucial roles in the past. One, in particular, ought to be the most famous political leader, ever. I mean: more important than Justinian, Julius Caesar, Pericles, Solon or Ramesses III (who defeated the “Sea Peoples”)… Or George Washington. Washington was just a British colonel, the French could have found others to agitate terminally (Philadelphia was crawling with French agents).

It is telling that nearly no one with “culture” knows of her, this woman who was the most important political leader, ever. No, she was not Chinese, or Egyptian.

Notice that China and Egypt were with the Creto-Greco-Romano-Celtico-Frankish civilization, and India the four most important civilizational zones. I don’t know much about India, but in the case of the first three, the place of women was at the very top, or next to it. Egypt had divinized and feminized Truth, Ma’at. In contrast, Islam had one, just one female leader, out of all these places, countries, histories and centuries… that was immediately after Louis IX of France’s invasion of Egypt: not perhaps a coincidence, his mom was in charge in France…  

Egypt had several female pharaohs, including the ferocious monotheist proponent Neferti, who went a few concepts too far, bringing her demise… and the famous Hatshepsut. Tang empress Wu Zetian is remembered today as one of the greatest rulers of China (Seventh Century).

Empress of the Franks, Saint Bathilde, an ex-slave… Towering above the  Senate of the French Republic. Republics with slavery were tried before, and didn’t work… Bathilde outlawed slavery… Take that, Julius Caesar!

Revealingly, women tend to acquire control in history, when the going gets real tough (it’s know that famed Roman emperor Justinian didn’t not resign during the Nika riots, because of his wife). Sometimes their role has been enormous and pretty successful at defending the established order (in France, Yolande of Aragon, queen of the four kingdoms, victor of the “100 years war”, a two Medicis queens and the mother of Louis XIV, who defeated the “Fronde”, are examples…)

So what of our mystery female leader, and what did she do that was so awesome? Any guess?

She has a statue facing the French Senate, in the Jardin du Luxembourg, Latin Quarter, Paris. This is Queen Bathilde, who ruled the Imperium Francorum in the Seventh Century. She outlawed the trading of slaves who were denizens of the empire (be they Christians, Pagans, Jewish, etc.) A millennium later, slavery was reintroduced in the English colony of America. So women can have the brains where it makes a difference for civilization. 

What is fascinating is that Bathilde outlawed slavery at a technological level no higher than the Greco-Roman empire. However, the outlawing of slavery forced Europe to become much more technologically advanced, by using machines instead of people for all sorts of tasks (when Europeans got to China they were surprised that men were used for many tasks where Europeans used mechanical advantage). An example is the heavy steel plough necessary to work the wet and fat soil of the European plain, productive heartland of the Franks, soon to produce lots of genetically modified, protein rich, beans. By the year 1,000 CE, Western Europe had started to become more advanced than Rome.

Empress Wu Zetian a contemporary of Bathilde, ruled for decades, at the apex of the Tang. She was demonized by later Chinese historians. Yes, I believe her baby daughter was strangled by Lady Wang…. Because later male historians had powerful sexist reasons to make us believe that the official version was wrong… Sexists can’t believe that China at its apex was ruled by a woman… Except, of course, if she was a she-devil. This being said, Wu Zetian had this in common with Bathilde that she was totally a sort of female James Bond. Just like Bathilde, she took enormous risks (Bathilde escaped as a slave; Wu Zetian took as illegal lover the son of the emperor she had become concubine of, thanks to her extreme beauty and literary skills)

When people think of a scientist, they think of Einstein (who popularized Relativity which Lorentz and Poincaré had discovered, and made a few secondary discoveries besides). However, who knows Émilie du Châtelet?

She started her fame in physics by translating Newton, and discovering that Newton had confused energy and momentum. Émilie du Châtelet corrected that by elucidating the concept of energy, tied it to heat, discovered infrared radiation, was a top philosopher… and died after childbirth at 41. Arguably, Émilie du Châtelet was greater than Newton (who put things together rather than introduced any new concept)

Bathilde was the greatest politician, greater than the doomed, erroneous Pericles (who himself was his second wife’s puppet: Aspasia did all the thinking, pericles all the bullying). Émilie du Châtelet was the greatest physicist. As great as the any of truly greatest. And who knows her name? Nobody. Even the French ignore her (… especially the post-Napoleon French? Napoleon is the name of a sexist disease, long pandemic in France…)

Women are deliberately ignored. It’s a form of masochism for humanity. It’s also a sadistic behavior of men.

That means, half of humanity is thrown away by artifices in part deployed by the present ruling half… Which wastes a lot of… energy oppressing the other half.

It’s not just a waste of half of humanity. It also makes women less motivated, less performing, less sure of themselves… And they are on the front lines of early child education… so humanity’s mental performance is hit twice by sexism

Patrice Ayme

***

***

So what in practice? I don’t like California Senator Kamala Harris: she reminds me too much of Obama, a puppet, with very conservative views paying lip service to progressivism. The natural choice is whom Trump calls derisively “Pocahontas”, Elizabeth Warren, who has long espoused correct principles in finance and economy. She is not an opportunistic, young and inexperienced chick like Harris, but a veteran law professor…

“Daughter’s AMBITION WAS TO BE A PROSTITUTE”

People are not just led politically by self-described “leaders” such as Obama. People are not just led emotionally by self-described “leaders” such as Obama. People are led psychologically, philosophically, neurologically by those “leaders”. People are also led by the whole galaxy of influence those leaders are supported by, and that they support in turn. Movie producers such as Harvey Weinstein (just like a whole galaxy of popular journalists, academics and novelists), with their extremely fake vision of history, are crucial to the institution of the subjugated minds their rule depend upon. And what other sins did Weinstein institute? Objectifying women into sex devices, and imposing his will abjectly upon them, among other aspects of vigorous sexism. That very violence made Weinstein popular with the abusing, plutocratic, elite, because Weinstein, just like video games, made violence honorable!

One of the pseudo-intellectuals who gravitate in the highest US “Democratic” circles, Harvey Weinstein wants all daughters to be prostitutes, and it turns out the top “Democrats” knew this very well, and played right along! Proof below! It gets better all the time! Past formal police accusations against Weinstein include four rapes. In spite of admission of sexual aggression (in the case of the Italian model, see below), to the New York police, years ago, Weinstein was left free to proceed, and the Obamas couldn’t have enough of him. 

One can tell who people are, by looking at whom they socialize with. The song “family” of the Rolling Stones is relevant to recent happenings in the highest reaches of the “Democratic” Party, finally revealed, for all to see.

California’s Napa and Sonoma valleys, in the northern San Francisco Bay Area are burning. The region on fire is 80 kilometers by 40 kilometers (50 X 25 miles). One hundred kilometers south, in the core of the San Francisco area, it has been hard to breathe, for five days. When we said the greenhouse was going to be a problem, that’s what we were talking about: expect devastating fires. All over. That’s how climate changes. Fast.

For years our great leaders have done nothing much, when much could be done (see Angela Merkel and her ridiculous “Energiewende“, energy change, which sees Germany emitting ever more CO2!). President Obama’s highest philosophical principle was, at least as he presented it in his “memoirs”, personal “navigation”. A distinguished lawyer visiting me this week, who knew Obama as a teenager, told me two days ago laughing in derision, that “Obama is busy turning anything he touches into gold”. Let’s teach that to the youth, we rats and roaches of the lowest gutters, much cheese to be had, by navigating well, all lights out!

The Harvey Weinstein scandal is growing (and it’s not just Weinstein, many pillars of the US establishment do just the same, rolling all over the law; after all, Obama admitted using cocaine in his memoirs: the law is for lesser beings! Amazon just fired the head of its studio, alleging sexual harassment against employees). Weinstein was a pillar of PC clamoring, and funding (see below where the Great Leader’s daughter found her first job!). All his best friends, including his wife, are distancing themselves from him. Best friends of Weinstein incorporate the entire upper establishment of the so-called Democratic Party. Clinton got millions from Weinstein.

Hillary Clinton Left, hilariously revealing that she can’t Get Her Hands Off Producer & suspected Sex Criminal Harvey Weinstein, Right. With lovers like that, who needs democracy?

Weinstein was a pillar of the Hollywood establishment with movies such as “The King’s Speech,” “The Artist,” “Shakespeare in Love,” “Silver Linings Playbook,” “Django Unchained,” and “Good Will Hunting.” (For a total of 1400 Oscar nominations, and 81 received Oscars…). Weinstein was rumored to have fled to France (for “rehab”). Then he resurfaced in LA, and conferred onto himself:”Second Chance!“

The “King’s Speech” was total BS to mask the fact that the preceding king and his partisans, were Nazis foaming at the mouth, who signed a Treaty with Hitler in 1935, to violate the Versailles Treaty. So now a whole new generation of young morons think speech difficulties is what made Britain interesting then. Thanks Mr. Weinstein. In truth, in my book, what made Britain interesting in 1936 was that her forcefully ejected king was a Nazi.

That entire US pseudo-Democratic establishment spent lots of political capital pointing at Trump as immoral and crazy, while themselves indulging with relish in the very practices they conferred to Trump (this observation shouldn’t be construed as a support for Trump). This sort of accusations of crimes by those who indulge in them is a human characteristic. For example Louis XIV accused more than 10% of the population of his kingdom, France, the  Protestants, of the very crimes he himself committed with gusto. Ditto Hitler,and other anti-Jews with the Jews. Or, for that matter, Nero with the Christians. Or the Inquisition with the heretics: who was cavorting with the Devil? The Vatican, or its victims?

What, me worry? Life is a blast. Sexual Criminals provide me the employment, and overlordship. Malia Obama: to Harvard, like her dad and her grand-father (a Kenyan politician the CIA found convenient as a potential strongman). But first internship with the world’s most famous sex aggressor was a must (see “The Weinstein Company” logo behind): learning from this master of propaganda how to navigate to domesticate We The People, the police, judges, etc.

Malia Obama worked for Harvey Weinstein. Yes, you read that right: the first job her Great Leader Dad found for her was with the world’s most famous serial, notorious, mass sex abuser Harvey Weinstein! Reality writes better scripts than fiction. And certainly better than Obama or Weinstein can.

Malia Obama, 19, landed an internship at the Weinstein Company right after her dad left the US Presidency earlier this year, see The Hollywood Reporter. Working in the New York City office,TMZ reported that Malia Obama was “ensconced in the production/development department,” tasked with “reading through scripts and deciding which ones move on to Weinstein brass.”

A genius, we tell you. Malia’s well connected internship has come under sudden scrutiny by the Mainstream Media (MSM) in the wake of a New York Times investigation that revealed Harvey Weinstein paid off at least eight women who accused him of sexual harassment in quid pro quo for promises that he would help further their entertainment careers. Since then the scandal has blossomed enormously: all sort of actresses came saying it happened to them to. In other words, they were OK with humoring Mr. Weinstein until they were in danger of being exposed.

Senator Obama was great buddy of rich pig Harvey Weinstein (right). So were Senator Lautenberg and Senator Schumer from New York (the later presently the Democratic head of the US Senate). Yes, they all knew. Life is a blast. Why should they worry?

Frank Rich, who used to be the most interesting writer at the New York Times, before he left it, and now executive producer for Veep and a New York writer, has done a bit of thinking. Mr. Rich revealed that Weinstein’s sexual transgressions were not a secret.

“Biggest mystery of @nytimes Weinstein story: How exemplary parents like Obamas let their daughter work there. The stories were out there,” Rich wrote on Twitter.

In what is Obama exemplary, exactly? The quest for power at any cost? To quote the Rolling Stones in the 1968 song “Family”: “Her ambition is to be a prostitute, But the breaks just weren’t right. What exactly is gonna happen, tell me?

When her father finds out That his virgin daughter has bordello dreams And that he’s the one she wants to try out. Yeah. There’s ma, she’s living dangerously It’s a cinch she’ll try it anything twice She thinks she can run right to the whirlpool’s edge And stop herself just in time.

What exactly is gonna happen?”

All in the family. Film producer,  studio executive, suspected serial mass sex criminal Harvey Weinstein laughs at remarks directed at him by U.S. first lady Michelle Obama as she hosts a workshop at the White House for high school students about careers in film in Washington November 8, 2013. At right is actress Whoopi Goldberg. Wealthy clowns giving sexism and exploitation a happy, friendly face.

What exactly is going to happen is the question Rich is asking after the richer got more rich under Obama than they ever had been before. What is exactly going to happen is that we are getting all F… up, and the planet too. Indeed, guys like Weinstein made the breaks right. They were all on it. They all knew. A few years back a curvaceous Italian model accused Weinstein of sexual attack, ran to the police. Weinstein’s office dismissed Ambra Battilana, a 22-year-old who testified in the sex scandal case of former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, as an opportunist with a sketchy past (but Weinstein didn’t deny having attacked her to the police! Never mind, that’s new York, we will overlook an admission of sexual assault when a Pluto does it!)

The establishment is very cynical: it was even ready to disingenuously denounce Weinstein, sounding indignant, to paint itself all over with an aura of morality. There is an upper class out there, roaming the planet, organizing it for themselves.

It’s all very simple: politics, as it is, is not about taking care of civilization, or the planet. It’s the domain of greedsters who learn to navigate in a sea of prostitution, and dazzlingly smile about it, to convince you all they are good guys.

A few days ago, I interviewed a janitor in a San Francisco skyscraper. He was cleaning a carpet with obviously dangerous chemicals. He removed his mask. His name was Abdullah, from Yemen. He had been doing this for 22 years. He had to flee Yemen because of war. It was the fault of the Saudis, with the Americans pulling the strings, circulating the oil money back to Wall Street, he said. (He even confided much more that I will not reproduce here lest he and me run in trouble)

I know plutocrats and quasi-plutocrats: I could never have such a conversation with them. I know, I tried, many times: they just look down, say they don’t believe in conspiracy theories, and politely excuse themselves. Then they unfriend and start a Twitter campaign against the would-be offending conspiracy theorist, namely yours truly…

Yes, Abdullah also knew the UN Security Council decided last week an inquiry on the situation in Yemen. He told me that was just because Saudi Arabia had decided to buy SA 400 aerial defense missiles from Russia, to put a bit of pressure on them…

Their ambitions were to be prostitutes: how can we unsettle them psychologically? Well, we can’t: they indulge in what they condemn. We may as well try to make Stalin feel guilty of killing millions (once a self-congratulatory Stalin, in an orgasm of sincerity, cocktail in hand, boasted to Winston Churchill that he killed even more Russians than Hitler did…)

We can’t unsettle them, but we can ooze towards a more democratic system, and that means there shouldn’t not been so much money around in politics. Also mandates could be limited to one year, as they were in the Roman Republic, or Switzerland, and the real direct democracy re-introduced, after 23 centuries of eclipse.

Another old friend of Obama, who knew him already nearly half a century ago is pretty persuaded that guys like Harvey Weinstein are kept as potential distractions, when real serious stuff is coming down.

It happened before: the connection between the US government, the Italian Mafia, the United Fruit style Mafia, the Kennedys, the Banana Republics, was kept out of sight, although the most prominent general of the US Marine Corps, Smedley Butler mentioned it vociferously.  There and then, in the 1930s.

Out of sight, in plain sight: this is what the Plutocratically owned media knows how to do very well, and it has got way worse with the Internet. Hence a general stupidification.

Ignorant folks will scoff. But that’s how Auschwitz happened: the news were there, but people preferred to read fake news. At least in the USA. Thus the USA and the countries it influenced (Belgium, the Netherlands, Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland and of course fascist Italy) refused to collaborate with the French Republic in a timely manner. Poland and France were left alone to face the spectacular coalition of the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and smaller murderous clowns.

Since then many more conspiracies and occultations occurred.  The “Terror” war is one consequence. Just one of them. Past leading ideas of the USA are exposed for what they are: prone to scheming hypocrisy, pushing us into the abyss, dragging us all.

This is true not just on the lofty level: in the Bay Area fires, plenty of ways to avoid them were neglected, in part because “pot”, the well-being of geese, and the obsession with the scores of sport teams were deemed to be much more important issues. A few measures would have avoided the fire calamity, for examples replacing overhead power wires with underground ones, stucco plastered houses (as in Paris, 1660 CE), and faster mobilization of firemen… Right now, the madness of Kim of North Korea, who threatened explicitly nuclear strikes, is also a very practical and direct matter. As entire neighborhoods of the San Francisco Bay now look as if they were atom-bombed, this should be meditated.

One prominent hypocrisy is that sexism is strong out there, and everybody affecting gravitas does as if it flourished only in Saudi Arabia. Watch the non-noble Nobel Prizes: one more year, and no woman laureate. No wonder: when women try to have a career, they are made completely different propositions, and that’s viewed as acceptable. And the pseudo-left leadership of the USA not only knew it, knows it, but also makes careers out of it, and can’t find a better place for their daughters to go to. I guess when one is a successful prostitute, as so many of our pseudo-leaders are, it’s probably tempting to feel one should prepare one’s child for such a career. Thus the evil sentiments which support evil groups procreate, from parent to child.

Civilization doesn’t just progress: it lurches, from time to time, as past behaviors are found intolerable. For sexism, it is high time to realize that what the political leaders found acceptable and alluring (see the pictures above) is intolerable and condemnable.

Courageous individuals, such as Rose McGowan, who denounced Weinstein, in spite of getting $100,000 to stay silent about her rape twenty years ago, and launched the campaign against him, are needed. Those are the true leaders. The narcissistic ones, obsessed by navigating their precious selves towards all they can turn into gold, were already, rightly, excoriated in the Bible.

Unfortunately, in so-called “representative democracy” (a contradiction in adjecto, if there ever was one!), the ambition of our so-called “representatives” and politicians, is to be prostitutes.

Culture wars have to be engaged, and won by the good guys, if one is to be spared real wars. Right now, the bad guys have had all the powers. And having all the powers make them worse. Why? Because, deep down in human psychobiology (= human ethology) is anchored the will to Armageddon. Why? Because when there are too many people, and one can get away with anything, the ultimate crime is committed, the crime of the holocaust of the very environment which supports the species (this is Patrice’s Evil Theory, in a nutshell). That has to be avoided at any cost. And that’s when all values get inverted.

Patrice Ayme’

Should Present-Day Catholicism Be Made Unlawful?

Catholicism, as practiced in the past, would clearly be unlawful today: all the great leaders of Christianism of  five centuries ago, would be condemned to live in prison, but for those who would end their lives in psychiatric asylum. Should they resist by force, their fighters would have been eliminated as if they were the worst Jihadists, defending holocausts, or Aztec warriors, defending cannibalism.  

Catholicism, in its original form, its ancient form, its Salafist form, prescribed many atrocities (later carbon-copied by Islam). I will concentrate here just on a particularly inhuman prescription, sexism. Sexism is against nature, because the human species has evolved with little difference between males and females. This goes at the root of what it means to be human.

Catholicism says women are inferior creatures. This hurtful outrage is an ultra-violent contradiction of common human decency, common sense, science, human ethology, and human rights. Mass organizations violating both science and human rights should be outlawed.  

Catholic churchmen are still free to proselytize their contempt, not to say, hatred of women. Women can’t become priests, bishops, cardinals or popes: they are clearly viewed by the Catholic Church as inferior, misleading, depraved creatures. Why should such preaching be legal? 

Tyrant Constantine front and left, directs the Nicaea Council 325 CE, as seen in the 16 C….

To be fair, this religious misogyny started before Catholicism. Catholicism was an invention of the Roman Tyrant Constantine at the Council of Nicaea, in 325 CE (presently located in Islamizing Turkey). Constantine, born at York in England, son of his father, a “Caesar”, was a psychopath who conquered the entire Roman empire. Constantine killed his nephew, his wife and his highly successful son, just because he could. That was enough qualifications for Constantine to be made a saint by the Orthodox Church.

The earliest Christian writer is known as the so-called “Saint” Paul. I put “Saint” in quote, unquote, because in my religion no sexist pig is a saint. Saint Paul was a sexist, man-obsessed pig. I have nothing against homosexuals of the male gender, as long as they don’t disparage woman. But Saint Paul did. 

The Apostle Paul wrote that the “husband is head” and “wives, submit“, and that he was divinely inspired to write what he wrote… Catholic groups diverge in their interpretation of the following passage. Saint Paul wrote:

“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.[1Cor 11:3–9]

In the first seven centuries after emperor Constantine, the self-described “13th Apostle” and certified bloody monster of the tyrannical type, priests could marry: Catholicism was overviewed by the Franks, who attached a lot of importance to living like Pagans, and (relatively) non-sexist Germans. The Franks had reinterpreted Catholicism their way. However, by 1026 CE, for the first time in centuries, the Catholic church was able to execute heretics.

What had changed? What had allowed Catholicism to draped itself in, and drip with, blood? Why the relapse into mass murdering theocratic fascism? Plutocracy unbound. The rise of plutocracy, self-described as “aristocracy”: hereditary positions of the wealthiest and the mightiest needed a mood to nurture their capture of civilization, and they had to justify that by the fascist Judeo-Christian god and His torturous, sexist ways.

At that point, the men who viewed women as objects of natural sexual interest were discouraged to join the Catholic Church. Men who preferred men were prefered. And naturally men who love children as sex objects.

So here we are: the Catholic hierarchy is stuffed with sex pedophiles. And the Catholic Church can’t deny this, lest it denies itself.

The present Pope talks a big talk, but he is, at the very least, sympathetic to pedophiles. A fact. For a millennium, the Catholic Church has induced its professionals to approach children, with love (pedo-philia, literally) rather than approach adult women, with love. Thus all too many professional Catholics came to view children as sex objects. And getting away with it. A striking example is the right hand man of the present Pope, now back in Australia to face damning charges… Francis I gives moral lessons to entire planet, but socialized for years with an outrageous pedophile.

As the New York Magazine puts it in “The Pope’s Pedophile?”By Andrew Sullivan:

“Well into Pope Francis’s pontificate, one of his closest aides, the third-highest official in the Catholic Church, Cardinal George Pell, has now been credibly accused of several acts of sexual assault, including one of rape. Australian police have concluded that the evidence they have is sufficient to move forward, even in cases that happened long ago… A cloud has hung over Pell since he was an Episcopal vicar in a parish in the 1970s that has been described as a “pedophile’s paradise and a child’s nightmare. A full 15 years ago, Pell was accused of molesting a 12-year-old boy but when the church investigated, a retired Supreme Court justice found that there wasn’t enough evidence, even though the victim appeared to be “speaking honestly from actual recollection.” A year later, Pope John Paul II made Pell a cardinal. Several new alleged victims spoke out in a book published only last month. In 2015, Australia’s Channel 9 ran a 60 Minutes segment that can only be called horrifying. In it, one of Francis’s own appointees to investigate sex abuse, Peter Saunders, described Pell’s record on sexual abuse as “almost sociopathic.” Pell had a “catalogue of denials … a catalogue of denigrating people, of acting with callousness,” Saunders said on camera. “I would go as far to say that I consider him to be quite a dangerous individual…

The notorious case of the founder of the Legion of Christ, Marcial Maciel, comes to mind. Protected by Pope John Paul II, coddled by Benedict XVI, he was also defended by an array of theological arch-conservatives as a paragon of virtue… It comes as no surprise, for example, that Pell has upheld, like Maciel, a highly conservative theology on sexuality — which was why he was so favored by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He opposed the use of condoms to stop AIDS in Africa, refused to give communion to openly gay people, campaigned strenuously against marriage equality, and described the church sex-abuse scandal as not a function of minor abuse and cover-up but of allowing homosexuals to be priests (a ban on gay seminarians remains formally in place). In his own words: “80 percent of the abuse is with young boys. So I mean it’s obviously connected with the problem of homosexuality … We’ve got to see that [homosexuality] is not tolerated amongst clergy and religious orders.” To which I have to echo David Ridsdale: “Fuck you, George, and everything you stand for.”

What I cannot understand is why Pope Francis chose to advance this man under this cloud so high up the hierarchy. If Pell is found guilty, Francis will have advanced an accused abuser of children to the highest echelon in the Vatican. Far from cleaning the church of this evil, he will have contaminated it at its very apex. That’s why this case is indeed a watershed for Catholicism and Francis himself. If Francis can turn a blind eye to this, we can trust no one.”

What is there, not to understand? It’s in plain sight! The Catholic Church is intrinsically dangerous: most Catholics, with the possible exception of Saint Martin, Saint Francis and a few others, are toxic for civilization, because they abuse not just little boys, but reason. As Emperor Julian had diagnosed around 360 CE, Catholicism was very dangerous to civilization, just because of that point ( and basically all the great social advances ascribed to Roman Catholicism originated in Rome, not Catholicism, which piggy-backed on Rome). Catholicism was basically PC, Political Correctness, gone self-sanctifying and lethal. Many of the Saints of Catholicism were mass-criminally insane (example Saint Bernard, author of the Second Crusade, more Pope than the Pope Himself, and from a Pluto family, to boot; same for the demented Saint Louis, author of more insane texts than the Marquis de Sade, but not meant to be fiction, but all too real threats…)

Sexism is not legal. Sexism should not be preached. Private conversation is one thing, public address, another. Preaching sexism should be unlawful.

The reasons to crack down now on Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Judaism are multiple. An obvious reason is that, each time perverse religions dwell in hyper-sexism, the practitioners of these nasty primitive faiths point at Christianism. Islamists, in particular, claim that sexism  Naive philosophers such as Michel Onfray make the situation worse by calling our civilization “Judeo-Christian”. That leaves us no choice, but to carpet bomb “Judeo-Christianism” into smithereens.

A more advanced reason is that we need humanity to be as intelligent as possible, as soon as possible: the easiest way to do that is to insure women have the same access to education, and to the motivation to acquire education, as men. Mostly women mostly educate children, early on, keep that in mind: a sexist society is necessarily a more stupid society than it otherwise would be, absent the sexism.

Still an even more overwhelming reason is that we have entered the age of reason. It’s reason, or die.

A hint: the young thermonuclear cannibal in North Korea. The irrationality of Catholicism, which views, half of humanity as inferior (same as (Islamism), and enforces that vision, should not be tolerated, but eradicated.

Everybody needs somebody to love. The Catholic Church says that men should not love women. The Pope, Francis, says this. His collaborators, not to call them accomplices, are left to love small children, because small children are all they have around, aside from each other and their perverse ideology. Enough. You want to fight Islamism? Fighting the abuses of Catholicism may be the easiest way to start doing so.

Mass irrationality implementing stupidity is not just deeply inhuman. It implies the end of intelligence. Perhaps of intelligence in the galaxy. This is not just about us. Let’s make sexist mass ideologies seriously preached unlawful: at some point civilization has to progress.

Patrice Ayme’

Abuse of Muslim Women Ignored By Western Leadership, and Why

The tolerance of inhuman, hard core Islam is symptomatic of the venality of elites and their “elected” servants, who we have to endure, all around the world. That’s not very surprising: the very principle of letting a few thousand people (“elected” or not) decide the fate of the biosphere, and, in particular more than seven billion people, is intrinsically demented and immoral.

Pseudo progressives claim “all religions have to be respected”, but then why not religions ordering human sacrifices? Answer: they do, because hard-core Islam does order human sacrifices of the many types of people the Qur’an orders to kill.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (@ayaan) and Asra Q. Nomani (@asranomani), are authors (and in the case of Ayaan, an ex-Member of the Dutch Parliament) who were born into Islam, and got mutilated and abused as a result. The New York Times allowed them to write an “Op-Ed” (a vicious notion, as if the usual editorials of the New York Times had no opinion!))  Ms. Nomani is a co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, once a Dutch MP, was hunted out of Europe by murderous Islamists and various lethal fatwas. Authorities there proved unable and unwilling to protect hurt from rabid Islamists. Whereas there are very few Muslim from most fanatical Islamist region in the USA (yet!), where she took refuge, there are orders of magnitude more in Europe.

The New York Times blocked my comment on this excellent editorial (showing its duplicity: it claims that my comments are blocked by editors at the New York Times, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a friend and does not block me in social networks, far from it!). The true reason for the NYT blocking me? Because those posing as “liberals”, who are part of the elite, are more often than not, not “liberal” at all, but simply, venal, corrupt, greedy!

Gender equality is a fundamental human trait. Any ideology ordering otherwise should be unlawful to preach, especially to the youth. Not all variant of Islam are sexist: they are outliers in the “Sufi” tradition, for example in West Africa. However mainstream Islam is deeply sexist, women being literally at best only a fraction of men.

That present day “liberals” refuse to see this means that they are just taking orders from the powers that be (the ones which got them elected to start with). A basic triangular conspiracy exists between oil-producing monarchies, international finance and elected politicians. It was set in stone when president Roosevelt met with Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, king of Saudi Arabia, in 1945.

The attitude of present day “liberal” leaders relative to Islam is revealing of their general attitude relative to the elites and the mighty: they join them rather than contradict them. Their positions arise from greed for their personal power, rather than principle for humanity.

****

(Part of) Text from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani below:

The so-called “left”, or self-described “liberal” elite, verily, an elite of leeches, has never read Voltaire, or Montaigne. All it read is that Wall Street and Saudi Arabia have all the money. Compare Ayaan’s saying with Voltaire’s own:”One must crush infamy!”

June 22, 2017

… “Senator Harris took her seat in front of us as a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We were there to testify about the ideology of political Islam, or Islamism.

… just moments before the hearing began, a man wearing a Muslim prayer cap had stood up and heckled us, putting Capitol police officers on high alert. We were girding ourselves for tough questions.

But they never came. The Democrats on the panel, including Senator Harris and three other Democratic female senators — North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill — did not ask either of us a single question.

This wasn’t a case of benign neglect. At one point, Senator McCaskill said that she took issue with the theme of the hearing itself. “Anyone who twists or distorts religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule,” she said. “We should not focus on religion,” she said, adding that she was “worried” that the hearing, organized by Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, would “underline that.” In the end, the only questions asked of us about Islamist ideologies came from Senator Johnson and his Republican colleague, Senator Steve Daines from Montana.

Just as we are invisible to the mullahs at the mosque, we were invisible to the Democratic women in the Senate.

How to explain this experience? Perhaps Senators Heitkamp, Harris, Hassan and McCaskill are simply uninterested in sexism and misogyny. But obviously, given their outspoken support of critical women’s issues, such as the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria and campus sexual assault, that’s far from the case.

No, what happened that day was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives when it comes to confronting the brutal reality of Islamist extremism and what it means for women in many Muslim communities here at home and around the world. When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation.

Sitting before the senators that day were two women of color: Ayaan is from Somalia; Asra is from India. Both of us were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Shariah by having a baby while unmarried. And we have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things we have said and done. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards.

In other words, when we speak about Islamist oppression, we bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise.

Yet the feminist mantra so popular when it comes to victims of sexual assault — believe women first — isn’t extended to us. Neither is the notion that the personal is political. Our political conclusions are dismissed as personal; our personal experiences dismissed as political.

That’s because in the rubric of identity politics, our status as women of color is canceled out by our ideas, which are labeled “conservative” — as if opposition to violent jihad, sex slavery, genital mutilation or child marriage were a matter of left or right. This not only silences us, it also puts beyond the pale of liberalism a basic concern for human rights and the individual rights of women abused in the name of Islam.

There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism. Partly they fear offending members of a “minority” religion and being labeled racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. There is also the idea, which has tremendous strength on the left, that non-Western women don’t need “saving” — and that the suggestion that they do is patronizing at best. After all, the thinking goes, if women in America still earn less than men for equivalent work, who are we to criticize other cultures?

This is extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity. And it leads good people to make excuses for the inexcusable. The silence of the Democratic senators is a reflection of contemporary cultural pressures. Call it identity politics, moral relativism or political correctness — it is shortsighted, dangerous and, ultimately, a betrayal of liberal values.

The hard truth is that there are fundamental conflicts between universal human rights and the principle of Shariah, or Islamic law, which holds that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; between freedom of religion and the Islamist idea that artists, writers, poets and bloggers should be subject to blasphemy laws; between secular governance and the Islamist goal of a caliphate; between United States law and Islamist promotion of polygamy, child marriage and marital rape; and between freedom of thought and the methods of indoctrination, or dawa, with which Islamists propagate their ideas.

Defending universal principles against Islamist ideology, not denying that these conflicts exist, is surely the first step in a fight whose natural leaders in Washington should be women like Kamala Harris and Claire McCaskill — both outspoken advocates for American women.

We believe feminism is for everyone. Our goals — not least the equality of the sexes — are deeply liberal. We know these are values that the Democratic senators at our hearing share. Will they find their voices and join us in opposing Islamist extremism and its war on women?”

According to Aischa, child-bride of Prophet Muhammad, the Qur’an as written by the Third Caliph, Uthman, was extremely sexist. Less sexist version of Muhammad’s message were destroyed under the order of Uthman, who ended assassinated as a result. Aischa fought with an army for her anti-sexist views, but, differently from European women, she was defeated at the famous “Battle of the Camel”.

***

Straight out of Qur’an and Hadith:

To divorce a wife, a Muslim man can just say “Talaq, talaq, talaq” That’s called the instant divorce law. It was controversial even in Muhammad’s times, and Muhammad criticized it. However, according to the Hadith, the Prophet practiced it. Even the New York Times recognizes this instant divorce law is a problem today, all the way to India.

All the more as, according to Hadith, “irrevocable divorce” does not allow for any sort of allowance or remittance.

The Qur’an Surah An-Nisa, 34 defines the relations between husbands and wives. Quran 4:34 reads:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

— Qur’an 4:34, [5]

Some of the relation of Islam with sexism is nearly hilarious. Here is a Hadith showing how much of lala land Islam is: “Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Zam’a: The Prophet said, “None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.”

However, a bit of discipline is good for the ladies:

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:132 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:73:68

In Sunni Hadith, violent sexism rules, and is reiterated ad nauseam. here is an example: “Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife. — Sunan Abu Dawood, 11:2142”

The unending litany of verbal and “Sharia legal” abuse hurled at women in Islam sacred texts is properly astounding. It goes against human nature so deeply that any civilization submitting to it can only fail.

***

We Already Knew This, But A Slightly Different Angle Is Instructive:

Making women uneducated and submissive make them stupid, and thus, so for their children, and the grown-ups who follow, insuring a vicious circle of less than optimal intelligence and culture. Thus Islam’s sexism is self-reproducing, and self-defeating.

Islam is not just in contradiction with the present (“Western”) civilization, and the United Nations Charter (whose foundation is basically:”All Persons Are Created Equal”). Any preaching otherwise should be outlawed. Islam is also in contradiction with human ethology itself, the core of human strength, as human sexual equality is a genetic given.

But so, of course, is plutocracy. In Islam, plutocracy sees an enemy of its enemy, humanity. So they are friends!

Patrice Ayme’

[The integral version of the text above from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Arsa Nomani was published first in the New York Times under the title:“Kamala Harris, Speak Up. Don’t Be Silent on Women’s Rights.” I spent an hour trying to persuade the New York Times to publish my comment, it replied by interfering with my computer, erasing text. Then the New York Times changed the title to “They Brushed off Kamala Harris, Then She Brushed Us Off.” So, according to the New York Times, the text of the two ladies above is not about women’s rights anymore, but all about ladies “brushing off” each other.

A fight for human rights oppressed by a misogynistic ideology has been replaced, in its title, according to the New York Times, by cat ladies fighting for supremacy. Thus the New York Times manipulate minds, one moody detail at a time… All the comments are also doctored, selected, to present a biased view of what We The People are thinking. British tabloids have used that method for decade, hence Brexit. The New York Times is ever more brazen in its practice of it.]

PLUTOCRACY IS MASS MASTER CRIME

American Racism & Slavery Originated With The Rule of Greed. This Is Just A Particular Case Of Plutocracy:

Atrocious pictures on TV: suffering infants with microcephaly in Brazil, victim of Zika. Most of their heads are missing. Below those nearly inexistent skulls, are eyes full of pain. They experience paralysis… This calamity was avoidable, with enough fundamental research, early enough. The governance of this biosphere tottering under our blows, is cruising to the apocalypse. The Zika virus was detected 2 years ago in French Polynesia, and now it’s all over. It is carried by an omnipresent mosquito which has learned to live in water-friendly human garbage. There is no vaccine. The immune system reaction often provokes paralysis (from the Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS))

The world is turning satanic. Pluto power, all over. This can be directly traced to the fact the worst are allowed to rule (directly, or through their teleprompter reading servants). The worst people (from the CIA, G. H. Bush, or KGB, V. Putin), the most glaringly corrupt (Clintons), the worst moods (the market, that is, greed, as an ubiquitous guide for what’s good), the worst lies (plutocrats are philanthropists), etc…

Some who support the plutocratic Clintons claim that electing a female will subdue an evil, sexism, which is as bad as plutocracy (Krugman). This is ill-informed, naive, unobservant, silly and erroneous in many ways. What is needed is the instructive perspective of history. First of all, there were many female rulers before. Even several “Muslim” countries elected female Prime Ministers (and those countries are still legally sexist). China, Rome, Russia, Britain, and especially France, had female rulers, at crucial points of their history.

Hatshepsut Was A Great Pharaoh. She Ruled From 1479 BCE To 1458 BCE. One Of Several Great Female Pharaohs. However, Just Being Female Does Not Make Someone Great. Some Female Rulers, From China, To France, To Yucatan, Were Nasty Civilization-Destroying Plutocrats

[Hatshepsut, chief wife of Thutmose II, mother, when she came to rule, of one year old, Thutmose III, is generally regarded by Egyptologists as one of the most successful pharaohs. Hatshepsut ruled as the fifth pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Let it be said in passing that the famous Nefertiti apparently ruled on her own right. We know exactly what she looked like, as we have many detailed pictures of her.]

Egypt, the first massive civilization, had female rulers since the First Dynasty, 5,000 years ago. Queen Meryt-Neith or Merytneith or Merneith First Dynasty (~3000 BC) was listed among other, and her tomb is with the tombs of other Pharaohs. She was the wife of Djet, and the Mother of Den. Some of these queens played major roles: one founded the Fifth Dynasty.

Racism, sexism, religious intolerance are mass moods (which can be partly legislated, as in some so-called “Muslim” countries). Plutocracy is something else: a political regime. By controlling, and ruling society, plutocracy turns it into its own image: the rule of evil. Here is an example:

THE PLUTOCRATIC TEMPTATION BROUGHT SLAVERY TO AMERICA:

Take the case of slavery: the Franks made slavery unlawful in their vast empire, which comprised Gaul and most of Germany, in 655 CE. The situation was made even clearer in 800 CE: the Franks proclaimed the  “RENOVATION” (“RENOVATIO”) of the Roman Empire. And Constantinople agreed (Charlemagne, Carlus Magnus found himself sole emperor of the… Roman empire!)

How was the empire “RENOVATED”? Well, the one and only difference with the Roman Empire just prior was… SLAVERY. The Roman empire had been renovated by outlawing slavery! This is what the Franks said, and it caused a virtuous circle, as fundamental technology went where the Roman emperors had forbidden to go (Roman emperors, as good plutocrats, naturally detested change, and the Will to Knowledge which fosters it).

Four centuries later, in 1066 CE the Franks, led by the Duke of Normandy, re-conquered Britannia (England to start with), and outlawed slavery there too.

The American colons re-invented slavery in New England, starting in 1620 CE. Those colons were richer, by far, than European peasants (as evidence and letters from Pilgrims, flaunting their riches, show).The colons’ motivation in re-establishing slavery was not survival, but greed. Tobacco agriculture expanded greatly, very soon after, thanks to the import of massive numbers of slaves from Africa. Some American states were 90% African slaves.

Jesus Christ also thought that money was the root of much evil. Jesus did not mention racism as an evil (simply because the Greco-Roman empire was not racist: some emperors came from Africa, and at least one, from Arabia). In the USA racism appeared to justify slavery: it was OK to enslaves Africans, because they were just apes, or halfway there. (Sexism evolved along similar lines, thousands of years before; sexism cannot be found in small human groups, because it would make them dysfunctional.)

Paul Krugman pretends that sexism and racism are independent from plutocracy. Krugman claims sexism and racism stand on their own. It may be true in a sense, but they both originated from plutocracy, historically speaking. In a way, this is a debate about what the word “Pluto” means. “Pluto” was the new word for “Hades”, god of hell, after “Hades” got such a bad reputation, no decent Greek would dare evoke Him.

Whether one should fight plutocracy, or just say that just being ruled by a woman would dispel evil, is a debate about how evil works.

Anybody who knows a bit of history knows that such a debate is stupid: the last ruler of imperial China was an empress who ruled decades, and made a bad situation way worse… The mother of Louis XIV, a ruling queen, prevented, by a five-year civil war, the rise of a Parliamentary Republic in France. She was a significant malefactor of historical proportion. She also made her son all the devil he could be. She taught him, by example, that nastiness should rule (that’s another way to say “plutocracy”). Sure enough: Louis XIV threw the Protestants out of France, after mass torturing them for decades (the jerk is still respected in France, because he did a few good things, go figure this masochism in a boudoir… Naturally, Louis XIV established slavery overseas…)

“Pluto” is the god of the underground, thus Pluto is the god of hell, and fire, but also the god of gold, silver, precious stones, riches. The modern usage keeps only in mind the latter part, but Jesus disagreed (and so do I). “Pluto” has many of the characteristics we see in today’s plutocracy: for example, he could make itself invisible (like Dark Money, invisible to tax authorities and gullible voters alike).

Money it ultimately power, and ultimate money corrupts ultimately. And ultimate corruption means the affected individual becomes satanic, or, using the root of the concept of satan, plutocratic. Yes, plutocratic means satanic, it’s as simple as that.

Slavery, racism, sexism, are all consequences of plutocracy. Plutocracy is the master cause. Periodically, plutocracy runs out of control, and takes over. At best, it’s stopped by revolution (Britain, France and the USA had revolutions, and the former two, several, starting in 360 CE!) At worst, plutocracy brings annihilation of a civilization (as happened to the Mayas, or the Baghdad Caliphate, destroyed by a Mongol-Christian coalition in the Thirteenth Century).

A world is led by devils is intrinsically evil. Time to get rid of the whole idea.

Patrice Ayme’

Do Violence, Bias & Abuse Help Research?

Sexism is not humanly, ethologically, culturally, economically, civilizationally, emotionally, poetically, romantically and scientifically correct. Moreover it flows and then encourages, a general mood of violence, abuse, exploitation against all and any human being. It also rests on many a stupidity, thus foster stupidity. But, as we will see, there is worse.

Thanks to Sean Carrol for an  excellent essay condemning abusive harassment of women in science: “We Suck (but we can be better)”. A reminder: sexist research found, decades ago, that the brains of women and men were different. Many powers jumped on that result to claim the poor results of women in science, or the intellect in general, were thus justified.

However, upon closer examination, that was simply not true. Unsurprisingly, it was found female and male brains are not quite the same, except that one could not tell, and some of the differences are the opposite of what’s expected: most brains are a haphazard mosaic of female and male features.

Researchers have identified several structural differences between the brains of men and women, but they form changing mosaics from individual to individual, making it impossible to tell the sex of an individual based solely on MRI images of the brain like the one above.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds

In the end, therefore, human beings are not just bisexual, but multisexual. To boot, the varying influence of some hormones rule, haphazardly, while having nothing to do with pure intellectual performance.

The reason for the intellectual equality between human sexes is obvious: prehistoric life required women to be pluripotent, because they had to replace men. When men were far away hunting big game, patrolling territory, or at war, women had to be able to replace them completely, even for defense and hunting. More recently, Roman legionnaires were very surprised when they discovered that German women wielding swords turned out be what prevented German men to retreat.

The reason for having a non-sexist society is that we double the number of brains, thus increase considerably the number of ideas. It was obvious all along that females could perform at the very highest mental level: Emilie du Chatelet, after all, discovered the concept of energy, ½ mv^2 (Newton confused energy and momentum, apparently). She also discovered a few other things, such as infrared radiation, although she died in childbirth.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/non-locality/

So sexism is a form of abuse, and, ultimately, not just a form of abuse of particular individuals, but of society itself, as it deprives society of half of its best elements.

And that is the connection with the violence made to graduate students. The American fundamental research system depends upon 120 institutions. However, many of the most prestigious universities, in their most prestigious departments depend upon a system of exploitation, or even abuse, of their students.

It works this way, even in public universities: the graduate students make all the necessary work (be it basic research or basic undergraduate teaching, or both). However some of these university departments have ridiculously low rates of attribution of the PhD. Say 10%. This means they use to teach, or do research students who, statistically, have no probability to get what they are after.

I personally witness ultimate violence in some of the world’s most famous universities. All the way to murder (I may give more details in a further version of this essay).

In 1998, Jason Altom, a graduate student in chemistry at Harvard, took his own life. Renowned among his contemporaries as both an extraordinarily talented scientist and a meticulous personality, he left behind a pointed note:

“This event could have been avoided,” the note began. “Professors here have too much power over the lives of their grad students.” The letter recommended adoption of a three-member faculty committee to monitor each graduate student’s progress and “provide protection for graduate students from abusive research advisers. If I had such a committee now I know things would be different.” It was the first time, a columnist for The Crimson observed later, that a suicide note took the form of a policy memo.

It seems clear in the behavior of Harvard’s (Nobel Prize) Corey. By telling his star student who committed suicide that, after five years, he had made “no intellectual contribution”, Corey was actually committing a crime. OK, the law does not strike this sort of abuse yet for what they are: potentially lethal abuse. Why? Because this is so typical of what happen in so many graduate department in the USA. It’s a bit as when there were slaves everywhere in the USA: it was legal, and it felt normal.

It is important to remedy this. How? Notice science was not as cut-throat in the 1960s: young professors could afford to buy a house next to a prestigious university (it’s not the case anymore). Young professors were typically on tenure track, graduate student were treated decently, etc.

Then things changed: American man had landed on the moon, science was not needed anymore. Investment in science went down, culminating with Congress yanking out the super collider. Society decided to do science and intellect on the cheap. Cut-throat academia came into being.

Treating women students well enough to have as many of them as men will improve quality, it will also force society to realize that research cannot depend upon abuse and exploitation of people, but its exact opposite: the fragile blossoming of ideas rejects relations brimming with the grossest powers.

Rejecting violence, exploitation and abuse will force society to put more (relative) resources into (fundamental) research, the way it used to be, not so long ago. Instead of treating graduate students as modern slaves, universities will have to recognize their humanity, dignity, hence foster their responsibility and independent judgment, producing higher quality thinking. Ultimately thinking blossoms from the debate of many minds, and not just the celebrity cult. Cutting throats does not help.

However, a cut-throat establishment may want research to be in its image, abusive and exploitative, to justify its own mood. Hence the present plutocratic university system is not here by accident, engaging into satanic behavior, just because bad things happen. Far from it. To teach celebritism, oligarchism, and even abuse, exploitation, sadism, and inhuman behavior is entirely what the present educational system sees, secretly, as its mission.

Patrice Ayme’

SEXISM HOBBLES CIVILIZATION

DISCRIMINATING AGAINST FEMALES IS UNSAFE FOR CIVILIZATION:

Why did Athenian direct democracy fail? A case can be made that it did, because Athens was too sexist.

Some will raise their eyebrows, as I accused Aristotle to have fostered monarchism and plutocracy, by teaching directly the plutocrats who extinguished Greek democracy (for 22 centuries!) Thus, Aristotle destroyed democracy.

However, in the history I narrated, Sparta, urged by the (Athenian philosopher) Demosthenes and his friends, went to war against Macedonia’s Antipater, and his army of mercenaries… And Sparta nearly won. Athens sat on her hands (Athens went to war later, way too late, after Sparta had been completely defeated).

Why did Athens not support Sparta in a timely manner against Aristotle’s Executor (that’s Antipater)? It may have had to do with sexism.

Delphi’s Sanctuary Of Apollo (Who Spoke Through The Pythia)

[The Pythia was a woman; the sanctuary started with the worship of Gaia. Ethylene vapors helped…]

Sparta was a fascist system, but, in some ways, it was way more advanced than Athens, or all other Greek cities. In particular, Sparta was a very anti-sexist society: girls were trained like boys, in the nude, for the toughest physical activities. They had lots of freedom, in many ways.

The enmity between Athens and Sparta may have been born from the former being sexist, and the other, just the opposite. The crowd of thinkers around Socrates, which was very attracted to Sparta’s charms, may have been so, because of this trait precisely: see below.

In any case, Athenian society suffered from an excess of aggressivity at the start of the Peloponnesian war, and  more caution from a feminine input may have made the difference (Athens’ annihilation of Melos, and attack against Syracuse, after throwing Alcibiades in Sparta’s arms are example of ill conceived aggression which voting mothers in the Assembly would have certainly voted down).

A sexist society is at a disadvantage: not only are the women forced to be moronic, but they can only teach their children moronically, being morons themselves.

Maybe that’s why the Middle East, thanks to the sexist interpretation of the Qur’an has been so stupid, for so long, overall. Sexism does not just oppress women, it oppresses boys: it makes them less intellectually performing than if their mothers were fully endowed. In any case, it clearly does not help. (The same argument can be extended in favor of direct democracy: in a direct democracy people vote directly on laws and decisions, as they did in Athens; so they are motivated to become more intelligent, creating a virtuous spiral up of ever greater smarts, as evidenced in Switzerland.)

Giant corporations imposing the notion that female nipples are unsafe, are not just moronic, but are themselves, considering their enormous clout and power, unsafe for civilization (be it only because they foster stupidity).

Why we need sexual equality to be institutionally imposed has to do, ultimately, with brains. Yes, female brains may be different in some genetic ways, from males ones (because, maybe, of different neurohormones, sometimes). And it’s true that, overall, female mental performance in the last 3,000 years, has come short.

The latter situation is entirely due to sexism, the poor man’s plutocratic impulse. Up to around 1850, even in the USA and Britain, a woman who married entered what was called “civil death”.

The general abuse women were submitted to is in striking contrast with the long recognized fact that top female brains have been as capable as males ones: this is evidenced by the many leaders, who, even millennia ago, were women. The Magna Mater, Great Mother, Cybele Cult, which reigned over Middle Earth for millennia had God as a woman (the Virgin Mary of the Christians is a pale echo of that).

Carthage was founded by a queen, Dido, nearly 29 centuries ago. Even earlier, there had been famous, important, female pharaohs. When the Frankish empire became Western civilization, in the Sixth Century, replacing the decaying Roman State, there were no less than seven reigning queens in a century (I counted them). The last Frankish Queen, Bathilda, is the world’s first monarch on record, who had slavery outlawed. (That’s how slavery disappeared from Europe.)

Even Plato had recognized that females were the intellectual equivalent of men. And he may even have implicitly stated that they were superior: Plato adulated Socrates. And yet…

It is striking that all teachers of Socrates are women. And some are listened to religiously. By everybody. Pythia, the oracle at Delphi, was a towering figure of Ancient Greece: “Know Thyself and nothing in excess” was her motto. Delphi’s Oracle was actually an institution of wisdom managed by women over centuries. Delphic puzzling wisdom taught Socrates what came to be known later as the Socratic method. Socrates claims that the Pythia launched him on his quest for wisdom.

Asphasia of Miletus was Socrate’s teacher of rhetoric. She was a top philosopher (and became Pericles’ second wife, after he divorced, and married away his first one!)

In Plato’s symposium, Socrates says: “…the philosophy of love I learned from Diotima of Mantinea… [she] was my instructress in the art of love, and I shall repeat to you what she said to me….”

The Pythia invented the Socratic method, and Diotema Platonic love.

For the longest time, we were told women could not do science, or mathematics. However Emilie du Chatelet discovered ENERGY, and distinguished it from momentum.

Newton had confused momentum and energy; discovering energy makes Emilie more important than her boyfriend Voltaire… and a more original, and important, thinker than Einstein.

Energy is the core concept of contemporary physics. No less.

In the Twentieth Century, Emmy Noether was a towering mathematician.

There is a problem with women, though: Emilie du Chatelet went one boyfriend too far, and died from the birth of her fourth child, at age 42 (and, slowed down by three children, she had blossomed late as an intellectual; she was a global thinker). Emmy Noether died of an ovarian cyst at only 53.

The fragility of women’s health was greatly due to childbirth. In the European Middle Ages, the average child bearing woman would survive only ten years to the birth of her first child (who would die soon, too!) Now this is history, thanks to higher technology.

In prehistoric tribes, women collaborated intellectually as much as men. A civilization which can make female brains all that they can be, is a civilization with twice more brains… And intelligent children (as women are in the closest contact, and educate them for the first few years). Sexist societies are in contradiction with basic human ethology (the normal behavior of humans, their default state, what they are made to operate optimally in).

The easiest way to a superior civilization, is to let women become as brainy as men are allowed to be.

There are encouraging signs, such as more women registered now in universities of the USA than there are men.

Yet… How can we preach against sexual discrimination while discriminating against female skin?

Patrice Ayme’