American Uncivil War

People pass away, mentalities perdure.

The English were not the first colonizers of North America. However, when they finally got there, it was with the most effective ethics to enforce the objectives of ultimate greed. England had been too busy with recalcitrant Scotland and Ireland to join the early conquistadores (meanwhile, the French re-conquered much of the Mediterranean from the Muslims, and even the Canaries archipelago).

The English arrived nearly a century after the Spaniards and the French… and six centuries after the Vikings! With a very different sort of leaders. And with a very different mood, uncontrolled greed foremost.

The reason that the Vikings did not conquer North America was that the aboriginals strongly objected to the Scandinavian presence. When Jacques Cartier arrived in 1534 CE in Quebec, the story repeated itself. The French had firearms, but they were taken aback by the sophisticated discourses of the inhabitants, who explained to the French that there was no space for both the aborigines, and the French. And if the French insisted upon invading the place, there would be war. In due course, over many generations, the French government persuaded the Natives that they could learn to farm, too, and then there was space for everybody.

The Spaniards were not as kind. In 1529, Francisco Pizarro received royal approval to conquer the region and be its viceroy. The letter read: “In July 1529 the queen of Spain signed a charter allowing Pizarro to conquer the Incas. Pizarro was named governor and captain of all conquests in New Castile”. It is not just a question of race. The Spaniards also used Black Conquistadores, professional soldiers who had been captured in Africa, in African wars, and sold to the Spaniards. Then those African soldiers were freed to do what they did best again…in the Americas, with European weapons.

Colombus exploited, according to Satan, Las Casas revolted against Satan. The Spaniards taught their ferocity in the Canaries islands, once they took over from the French, massacring the tall, white blonde aborigines. Ferocity can procreate and multiply. The worse being that it works.

Las Casas took part in the conquest of Cuba, and was granted by the crown a huge land, an encomienda, complete with slaves. Then he moved to the continent. Finally, Bartolomé de las Casas had enough of the “unbelievable” holocaust he was a witness of, since its inception. Bartolomé went from adventurer to bishop, and tried to enforce the good side of God. Happily, the (French-born and educated) Spanish king and Roman emperor Charles V ordered an inquiry and trial on the Spanish induced Holocaust in the Americas. The ensuing Valladolid debate was conclusive enough to bring Charles V, the would-be conqueror of Europe blocked by France, into ordering the halt of the Conquista (here I differ from Wikipedia, because I know much more). More exactly, Charles V ordered the halt of completely new conquista, and then resigned (1551 CE, although said resignation was official and final only in 1558 CE).

So the Spaniards did not conquer most of North America…. which should have been a military walk in the park; Spanish exploratory raids had gone all the way to present day Washington DC, finding most of the country emptied by (European generated) epidemics.

The English colony, though, was not founded by a government, inasmuch as a mercantilist collusion of the “West Country Men” and the English government, famous for lining alleyways with skulls in Ireland. One of the investors was the king of England. The English colony was powered by slave labor, from inception. Whites, Indians, Blacks were enslaved. The whites often with the subtlety of “endured servants” contracts (if they ate a pig in the forest, they got another five years, if they escaped to the Indians, they got quartered alive, a disagreeable prospect to keep them in line obsequiously, etc.)

I have long described the “West Country Men” mentality. It is alive and well. What made the English colony profitable was tobacco exploitation, thanks to hundreds of thousands of slaves. Never mind that the king of England execrated tobacco smoking. It was good, very good money, and profits are the supreme value. Never mind the satanic aspects. That’s why it’s called plutocracy.

In the present day USA, governmental violence is a fact. First there is the political violence of “representatives” elected by money, as surely as in the Eighteenth Century England.

In the USA police violence, revolting by Western European standards, is a fact. It is not just after “blacks”. It is the violence of car chases (try 100 mph in a city). The violence which results when not putting the hands on the wheel, when stopped for bogus reasons.

Police officers, armed to the hilt, with a mentality which shoots first and ask question later, are very well paid. The total compensation of a police officer at the University of California, Berkeley, is 200,000 dollars. More than three times the US median family income. That is gigantic, even by American standards. It is also how the 1% buy the army which protects them (so drive a BMW, or a Tesla Model S, to be left alone by police: class solidarity operates…)

Violence in the service of plutocracy is also judicial violence, not just police and political violence. In California, that America of America, full of silicon, and engineers from all over the world, keen to make a fortune, American born citizens were condemned to life in prison, without possibility of parole. For… stealing a slice of pizza.

Why? It insures the peace. The upper middle class will think twice before launching a revolution. If eating pizza can get you killed, imagine what having to eat your own words get you.

Remember Victor Hugo? He wrote, among many other great works, “The Miserables”. The main protagonist, Jean Valjean, early in the Nineteenth Century, is condemned to twenty years prison for stealing a bread. That was was viewed as a horrible injustice, and, at some point the french Republic passed a law saying one cannot be condemned for stealing food.

Just as one cannot be condemned in France, just for fleeing (fleeing being viewed as a fundamental right; although not obeying police is a crime: subtleties, subtleties…)

Now compare again with California, where eating a slice of pizza can get you to the slammer forever… In the 2000’s (the law was amended slightly since: gulping American pizza does not qualify as a major crime anymore, although, of course, it is, for other reasons…).

This was just an example. Possession of “crack cocaine” is punished at twenty times the rate of “cocaine powder” (blacks use rock cocaine, Wall Street uses cocaine powder).

And so on. Meanwhile Federal Magistrates are nominated, and serve a couple of years earning a measly 180,000 dollars, while being extremely partial to Silicon Valley oligopolies, from their judges’ benches. Then they resign, and are employed by the usual suspects, said Silicon Valley oligopolies, earning many millions (I have seen cases, close and personal). “Free market”, anyone?

The educational system is by the wealthiest, for the wealthiest. And ever more so. Educational violence: preventing the lower class to access quality education.

Of course the Whiter House, white as the driven snow, after spending an inordinate amount of time and money plotting with Silicon Valley, knows all of this. It’s Mercantilism on steroids. It does not matter. Obama is gathering plutocrats to pay for his hyper expensive “library” to the greater glory of Uncle Barry’s sedate reign 

And all this violence, direct or indirect, works. Watch the rigged presidential elections, with thoroughly corrupt plutocrats running against each other, in a parody of representative democracy.

As long as We The People don’t shoot back. That it does not happen more often, and that militant Islam does not get more recruits, is rather surprising. But times may change. Any day. What will the plutocratic establishment do? Load bigger guns, with more ammunition, and more science fiction weapons. In this particular case of 12 police officers shot, wounded, and killed in Dallas, the gunman, 25, had been trained, apparently very well, as an exterminator in Afghanistan. He was killed by… a robot. Times they are changing, even if plutocracy only grows. What plutocracy needs, is even more spying on the Internet (the gunman had a Facebook account where he expressed his displeasure for the white man…)  Inequality can be an expensive call.

The Spanish and English colonies were founded as wars against the Peoples, to satisfy the god of greed, and domination, and the attending mentalities endure.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Islam Rape Kit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

Not To Corral Islam Is Racist & Exploitative

Abstract: Both the present Middle East and the way one interacts with Islam it are failures that grew from a racist bias. Islam has not been treated as well as Christianity. Christianity was domesticated, educated, and given strict guidelines to become compatible with civilization. As a result, at least in Europe, after a joint attempt with the Nazis at killing most Jews, Christianity has been made irrelevant, except for the pretty monuments it left behind, a propensity to charity, and a consolation for some of us who believe we are more than star dust.

It is racist not to extend the same courtesy to Islam.

Universities Grew From Cathedral, Under Government Forcing

***

Two Frenchman were immediately identified from a Daesh (“Islamist State”; ISIS/ ISIL) video showing the beheading of 18 prisoners, November 17, 2014.

One of them is Maxime Hauchard from a French family of French descend. He got a Catholic education. After a few lousy little jobs, Maxime converted to Islam, starting to wear a robe and shaggy beard.

The other terrorist is pretty similar: same age, 22 years old, also converted out of the blue from a Catholic background.

A prominent, even dominant movement of Catholics, in the Middle-Ages and Renaissance, over a period of seven centuries, caused great mayhem in Europe, and the Middle East, killing millions, spawning dozens of wars.

Fortunately, nowadays, the Christian superstition has been nearly exterminated as a force in Europe. So it is only natural that those who want mayhem should turn towards its untamed daughter superstition, Sunni Islam, especially in its Wahabbist variant.

So back to our frustrated Catholic know-nothing, do-nothing Maxime. Let me recognize, at the outset, that the state, and the philosophy which guided it is at fault, and at fault in two ways: with neither providing jobs, nor the education to go with it. A better look at contemporary China, or the European past, is in order here.

So a French low life is told about the Qur’an where it is said that one should kill the enemies of the Faith (sometimes rather painfully). Not to be able to kill one’s enemies with Catholicism is obviously frustrating. Christ made some statements where he apparently said he wanted to kill the enemies of the Faith, but modern Catholics insist he did not mean it.

In the Qur’an, some verses suggest one should not force Islam upon non-believers. But there are three sorts of “non-believers”.

One can be a “non-believer”, but still from the “people of the Book” (whatever the book is!). Or one could be a total heathen, a polytheist (but sometimes Christians, because of the Trinity, three gods, are put in that category). And the worst type of “non-believer” are the “Apostates”.

“Apostates” used to be Muslim, but then they were found not to be Muslim, after all. Those have to be killed absolutely, the greatest severity has to be deployed against them.

That’s why, when a Muslim writer has a sudden need to expose shortcomings of Islam, they end up dead, or on the run.

Who decides who is an “Apostate”? Well, that’s the beauty of Islam: just join, and then you can.

Take the case of these French punks. Remember: they are plain French punks to start with, and cannot do a thing. They have no power. Everything is forbidden. Then they convert to Islam, something that takes two minutes. Then the punks are free to decide who is a Muslim, and who is an ex-Muslim, that is an Apostate. So they take a ticket to Turkey, Turkey let them get in contact with very well financed terrorists, and let them enter Syria. Once inside Syria, our ex-Catholics and Two Minutes Muslims are free to kill whoever they are told is Apostate. Hey, they can nominate their own apostate, like all these Syrians and Americans to behead.

If one is a born beheader, it’s wonderful.

Girls? Girls are hard to get for Catholic punks. Yet, as a Muslim, you will be able to acquire a “battlefield bride”, any female human “whom you right hand posses”. Yes, that’s in the Qur’an, the perfect excuse for those who want to violate Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.

The Quran, chapter 4 (An-Nisa), verse 24:

“ 1.And (also forbidden are) all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah’s ordinance to you,

2.and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication… surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

— translated by M. H. Shakir

The term “those whom your right hands possess” is considered to refer to prisoners of war, or more broadly to slaves in general, according to the classic tafsirs. Bernard Lewis proposes the translation “those whom you own.” Slaves are mentioned in at least twenty-nine verses of the Qur’an.

The general term ma malakat aymanukum (literally “what your right hands possess“) appears fourteen times in the Qur’an.

In all civilized countries, education is mandatory and this means not just that children ought to go to school, but that they ought to learn enough secular material to be civilizationally compatible.

This element of civilized behavior was first implemented by the Franks in the Sixth Century. Frankish bishops were often Frankish nobles made into bishops with a three weeks course. The Vatican hated them. A confrontation finally happened when the Pope Gregory the Great threatened to burn alive the bishop of Dignes, France. The latter was culprit of secularly educating children in his diocese.

Of course, the Pope had no army. The Frankish State told the bishop not to worry. Two centuries later, the Imperium Francorum actually forced all and any religious establishment to teach secularly, or be eradicated. By then the Pope had figured out not to argue with the Franks. The Church submitted.

Out of that mandatory secular education grew the European university system (the “Cathedral schools” became universities, as happened in Paris even before the present Cathedral.

In general, nasty religions have to be subdued, or stamped out. Such is the way of civilization. Leaving People in a state of subjection to nasty systems of superstition is human right abuse.

Tolerating vicious systems to thought and moods is not just about letting other been victimized. It’s also about civilization not been under threat.

Take the example of North Korea. A committee of the United Nations found that North Korea was a Nazi-like state, and recommended sanctions. (That, of course delighted Putin.) North Korea, being a nuclear armed state, represents an immense danger: it could bring the death of 50 million people, much faster than Hitler.

Civilization needs to be defended, lest it be destroyed.

What to do?

Nowadays, the Christian Church cannot do what it wants. If the Church hierarchy decided to burn alive some Church authority, as it did with Hus in the Fifteenth Century, the Carabinieri would take over the Vatican, disarm the Swiss Guard, and sent the Pope and his accomplices to a mental asylum, for treatment. (I would enjoy the sight, but that’s besides the point.)

The Vatican, as a State, was created by Charlemagne. What was the fundamentally Pagan Charlemagne up to, is an interesting question. He may have created the Vatican as a state to allow Venice, say, to pursue its semi-autonomous existence as a Republic (and thus allowing the potential for more Republics (Genova, Firenze), and attempts to establish some (as happened in Rome herself in the 11C). Within two centuries, a Muslim army actually seized the Vatican, and was then dislodge by a Frankish army.

If Christianity is tightly corralled, why should not Islam be tightly corralled too?

That question was not answered by the Franks, and their successors the French. In the case of the Franks, the reason is simple: the Franks were essentially secular (although their leaders evoked their made-up Christian Saints and Jesus, when not King David or the Trojans, all day long). Frankish armies annihilated the main Muslim Arab and Berber armies in 721-750 CE.

As the Franks extended religious tolerance to Jews, Pagans, and Catholics, they may as well have extended it to Muslims, too. And that’s what they did. Thus, no Muslim was discriminated against (massacres against the Jews started, much later, in Germany with the First Crusade, in 1099 CE).

That worked well. So it became a habit. When the Franks and Normands took over parts of Italy and Sicily which had been invaded by Muslims, that policy of religious tolerance was pursued: Crusaders were astounded to see thousands of Muslims praying in their peculiar way on what was nominally Roman ground (although the Arabs called the Franks “Franji”, namely Franks, the Franks considered themselves “Romans” officially since 800 CE).

Emperor Frederik Barbarossa’s personal guard was Muslim.

Meanwhile, the French State had, de facto, split from the rest of the Roman empire, although it was considered that the “French king was emperor in his own kingdom”. Western Francia was the strongest piece of said empire, and kept seeing the Church as something submitted to it. Clashes between the French State and the Vatican were numerous.

Some of these clashes were funny: a French king was excommunicated for 12 years (he had divorced his Danish wife, and remarried, without the Pope’s approval). Others were less amusing: Philippe IV Le Bel, cracked down on the Vatican, arrested the Pope, who ended dead. Soon, Philippe arrested, and annihilated the army of the Church, the Templar Monks.

For centuries to come, the French State went back and forth, most of the times cracking down on the Church. However three spectacular counter-reactions occurred, at the times of the seven religious wars of the late 16C, under the Medici queen, or, of course, under the usual suspects, Louis XIV and the Slave Master Napoleon.

In the end, the French State made a tight deal with the Catholics, Protestants and Jews… But not the Muslims! (Although it had plenty of Muslims, more or less under its jurisdiction in Algeria; I say more or less, because a deal had been made about the freedom of religion with Abd El Kader, to end the war in Algeria).

In all these matters, the rest of Europe more or less followed France, however belatedly (for example the Prussian anti-Jewish laws re-instituted all over in 1815, were finally destroyed in 1945).

France herself has been following her philosophers… Who were clueless about Islam.

The last philosopher to dare criticize Islam was Voltaire, and his theater on the subject was censored recently… Although it was not censored under the Ancient Regime! And although, in the guise of criticizing Muhammad, Voltaire was criticizing Christianity, as everybody knew.

So one can say that now Islam has become more of a sacred cow in Europe, than Christianity was in 1770 CE!

Why is Islam treated more leniently in 2014 than Christianity in 1770? Well, it’s a case of reverse racism. But reverse racism is still racism, just like antimatter is still matter of sorts.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

 

a transexual look fashionable in Europe, sometimes with high heels and feminine manners, see Wurst; amusingly we have a rant from Charlemagne himself on the subject: the emperor declared that only short skirts, or long pants made sense for real men, as anything else got in the way).