European Parliamentary Election: Avoid European Leaders Imposing Hard Core Wahhabism

Remember the Wahhabist Friendly Powers That Be In The European Union. Such As Jihadist Judges at the European Court of Human Rights!

The European elections are next weekend. People have approached me, and asked me who to vote for. I have two answers about who NOT to vote for:

Don’t vote for “ecologists” who are against nuclear energy. 93% of the energy of the world at this point comes from making CO2, nuclear deniers are ignorant, lunatics, hypocrites, or all the preceding. CO2 is warming the planet too fast, and acidifying the oceans, evolution can’t follow. The combination could lead to the ultimate catastrophe; collapse of the oxygen making system. Nuclear energy from fission, Thorium and fusion, has to be deployed ASAP. https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/global-hypoxia/ (I am also 100% for solar, etc.; but they will be too little, too late…)

Don’t vote for those who consider that Wahhabism is NOT a danger. Wahhabism (literal Islam) is intrinsically terrible, but also a Trojan horse against reason pushed by global plutocracy. It is part of a complex plot (deliberate or not, conscious or not) to subjugate the world, by the powers that be (often in finance).

We should go back to fundamentals. Clearly the creature is a fruit of synthetic biology…

[Wahhabism is generally confused with “Islam”… something which should infuriate, and often does, the other one hundred other types of Islam… All the more as Wahhabism was so hard core primitive, that it was already outlawed in 12 C Egypt, five centuries before Wahhab was born. But Wahhab made a symbiotic alliance with the Saudis, so here we are…]

The debate of what Islam exactly was started during Muhammad’s lifetime. Actually, people closest to the Prophet tried to kill him by pushing his camel off a mountain path. (Muhammad knew who they were, but refused to say, lest they be killed, and Islam fractured.) Right after his death, things got way worse: the announcement of his death was delayed until Muhammad started to rot and balloon up, some verses of the Qur’an got eaten by a goat (Aisha told a furious sexist Omar), and so on. Omar and Abu Bakr (“brother” and father in law of Muhammad) grabbed power, and their version of the Qur’an. However, Uthman imposed his own Qur’an later, and an all-out Muslim against Muslim war started, with the closest people to Muhammad at each other’s throats… that war goes on to this day…

The Qur’an is around 80,000 words (I counted them myself!) It was controversially written/re-organized under the 4th Caliph. However, Islamist follow millions of “sacred” words often written many generations after the so-called “messenger’s death…

***

European Court Of Human Rights = European Court Of Islamization

A woman referred to as E.S. was convicted in Austria for talking about known events in Muhammad, the so-called “Messenger” of god, the great bully in heavens. In October 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld this woman’s 2011 conviction for “disparagement of religious precepts,” a crime in Austria. The facts of what E.S. did are not in dispute. She held “seminars” in which she presented her view that Muhammad was indeed a child molester. Dominant Islamic traditions hold that Muhammad’s third wife, Aisha, was 6 at the time of their marriage and 9 at its consummation. That too, is not contested by the most hard core Jihhadists, Salafists, and Wahhabists: it’s in the sacred texts.

When Muhammad married 6 year old Aisha, he seems to have been in his early 50s (the age of the Prophet is quite uncertain, it turns out; don’t believe those who tell you Muhammad was exactly 54…) The Austrian woman repeated these claims, and the Austrian court ruled that she had to pay 480 euros or spend 60 days in prison. The ECHR ruled that Austria had not violated her rights.[1]

The ECHR wants us to lie about Islam, when telling what is in Islam texts is inconvenient. If we don’t, we have to go to prison:

When Muhammad married 6 year old Aisha, he seems to have been in his early 50s. The Austrian woman repeated these claims, and the Austrian court ruled that she had to pay 480 euros or spend 60 days in the slammer. The ECHR ruled that Austria had not violated her rights.[1]

Tell the truth about Muhammad Having Sex With Children, and the European Court of HUMAN RIGHTS will send you to prison for 60 days. Nevermind that these historical facts are front and central in the most basic Muslim texts. Solution? Bring political power to bear on these so-called “judges”.Here are some of the original texts from the Hadith:

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:

‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64

Narrated ‘Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65

Narrated ‘Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ‘Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).” what you know of the Quran (by heart)’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88

Narrated ‘Ursa:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is not true.

Sahih Bukhari 7.18

Narrated ‘Ursa:

The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”

***

The New York Times published a long article on anti-Judaism coming back to Germany. Long description, but zero explanation in depth. I sent a comment providing necessary depth:

The Abrahamic religions started with Judaism. Christianism was born, in Greek, during the war of fascist Rome against Judea. Christianism was friendly to Caesar, and enemy of Judaism (some view initial Christian texts as Flavian propaganda). Six centuries later, Islam appeared, considering Jews as even more wrong on Abraham than the Christians. Thus, both Christianism & Islamism have a strong antipathy to Judaism… Yet arose from it, so can’t just annihilate them, most of the time. Hence the ongoing scapegoating of Jews. This will go on as long as Abrahamism rules in the background!  

It got published, but not so the second one:
The moods created by religions it itself brought to life, caused much of the mood against Judaism (Roman imperial rage against Israel helped the process). Western anti-Judaism was greatly caused by Christianism. A common myth among intellectuals, Muslims and others who don’t know Islam well, including occidental islamophiles, is that Islam has nothing to do with anti-Judaism. Some academics even lie. As the NYT says: “Many Muslims criticize the notion of “Muslim anti-Semitism” as wrongly suggesting that hatred of Jews is intrinsic to their faith. Muhammad Sameer Murtaza, a German scholar of Islam who has written extensively on anti-Semitism, argues that European anti-Semitism was exported to the Middle East in the 19th century and was only “Islamized” starting in the late 1930s…”

This is gross disinformation, fake news. There is massive anti-Judaism in the Qur’an…. And it is found in later, “Meccan”, abrogating verses (so nice, pro-Jewish verses don’t count). An example is from the second and longest chapter of the Quran, the Cow: Quran 2;61 says: “And abasement and poverty were pitched upon them [Jews], and they were laden with the burden of God’s anger; that, because they had disbelieved the signs of God and slain the Prophets unrightfully; that, because they disobeyed, and were transgressors.”

Naturally the Hadith went further. Islam in its fundamental texts is lethally anti-Judaic. Here is an example: the following is part of Hamas’ constitution.  

This is Hadith 41;6985: ”Allah’s Messenger: The last hour would NOT COME UNLESS the Muslims will FIGHT AGAINST THE JEWS and the MUSLIMS WOULD KILL THEM until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree, and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and KILL HIM…”

The verses in the Qur’an nasty for Jews are from the 13 year long Meccan period, after Muhammad 10 year stay in Jewish city Yathrib (now Medina). Thus they abrogate the earlier verses.

It is high time to realize that the elites in charge of the European Union have been serving themselves, and the conception of elite, the Davos Club, they profit from. In particular, not enough Euros have been created. In particular, Europe has not been defended against exporting jobs, most of them to China. Make no mistake: I am pro-Chinese. However, at this point, China is on its way to the Moon, and Europe on its way to oblivion.

Macron may mean well, but he acts weak, because he is fundamentally a creature of financial plutocracy, which has been ruling the world (but not China). A few months ago, I would have advised to vote Macron. But that was before he absolutely refused to enable RIC, Referendums on Initiatives from the Citizens (in his last version, he still wants 182 French MPs to agree, plus one million signature; one million should be enough… the number of signatures is roughly in line with California)

We need tougher solutions in Europe, don’t vote weak.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Here is the introduction and beginning of the ECHR’s judgement: on the face of it the judges of the ECHR take us for terrorized idiots without dignity. The gist of it is that if an Islamist marries a 6 year old, and has sex with her when she is 9, that does NOT show the Islamist “has had paedophilic tendencies”… and to say so hurts Islamists, and that latter fact is against European law.

 

“In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of E.S. v. Austria (application no. 38450/12) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for disparaging religious doctrines; she had made statements suggesting that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies. The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria. It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.

 

Principal facts The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna (Austria). In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which allegedly was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”. On 15 February 2011 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower court’s findings. A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December 2013. Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression. If they had done so, they would not have qualified them as mere value judgments but as value judgments based on facts. Furthermore, her criticism of Islam occurred in the framework of an objective and lively discussion which contributed to a public debate”

 

Here is the name of the Wahhabismophile so-called “judges”.

 

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Angelika Nußberger (Germany), President, André Potocki (France), Síofra O’Leary (Ireland), Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia), Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria), Lәtif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan), Lado Chanturia (Georgia), and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar

 

The European Court Of Human Rights seems as confused as a group of six year old children. Here is the core of their decision. Notice the absurdities:

 

“The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.”

 

So “applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship.”

 

So the ECHR thinks that relating what is in Islamist texts demonstrate Muhammad is not worthy of worship?” And why should a human rights court care?

 

[The ECHR] “agreed… Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.”

 

Now why would one worship someone who children (pedo) love (philia) so much in a perverted way they have sex with them at age 9? Can the dimwits at the ECHR give us one, just ONE, other historical example. Just one, “Human Rights” buffoons, in the entire history of civilization (examples of royal children married early exist, but they were between the children themselves, and were not consummated, be it only for the good and simple reason prepubescent children are not sexually equipped.

 

Muhammad was a child rapist, and, moreover, his followers were so blind, they didn’t notice to this day, although the facts are in the very book they allegedly got from their so-called “god”, through aforesaid child rapist.

 

OK, agreed, Muhammad was an excellent, good natured, gifted and enlightened rapist; Aisha ended up loving him sincerely, and he let her roam, and being strong and free. Aisha famously asserted Muhammad was much less sexist than his successors….

 

More from the mental dwarves at the ECHR:

“The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. 3 The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression…

The judgment is available only in English.”

Why only in English? Because it were in Austrian language, which is German, it would use the same buzz words as the Nazis? Yes, it would! The ECHR dimwits, so ignorant of history, obviously do not know of the strong connections between nazism and islam, enduring to this day. Right, Nazism is dead, but the Muslim Brotherhood it helped to create, is alive and well!

***

P/S: A reader reminded me of an enormity: Muhammad died when Aisha was eighteen. The enormity? The Qur’an itself ordered that she should never re-marry:

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL. Qur’an, Surah 33, Verse 53:
“O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity.”

Multibrain: Republic, Democracy

Some brainiacs such as the philosopher Michel Serres (of “France decapitated”), make a big deal that France is a “Republic”, and the USA a “Democracy”. It’s the sort of mock sophisticated distinction that those who want to look intellectual embrace. Serres has taught in plutocratic universities of the USA, he should know better. Or, maybe, he knows better how to serve his masters than yours truly. The distinction is without merit.

First it blows up the differences between France and the USA. In truth, both Republics are much more similar to each other than they are, to any other regime in the world (including the United Kingdom).

Differently from Rome and Athens, the USA and France were born as entangled republics. Both Republics have recent imitators, namely dozens of modern states.

Second, the main difference between “Republic” and “Democracy”, as it happened 25 centuries ago, was just a matter of language and esthetics. The beauty of how the concept sounded in Greek did not translate in Latin (‘Populus-Imperium” has six syllables).

Athens called itself a “demokratia”, because demokratia was a Greek word. Greek spoke Greek, Romans spoke Latin.

Too Big For Debate Killed Respublica

But democracy was not exclusively a Greek concept. It was as strong, if not stronger, in Rome.

Indeed, the “rule of the People” is how human societies have always worked best (except during war): distributed intelligence, creating the super-brain effect, from the many brains debating. The “Multibrain” effect. Whereas, indeed, I do not believe in the “Multiverse”, the human brain, and, even better, any human society, is a multiverse onto itself.

Democracy allows to tap in this multiverse of the multibrain. Democracy is a multiverse. For real.

So the Romans spoke Latin. They had two words for “power” in the sense of “rule”. “Potestas” for lower magistrates, “Imperium” for higher magistrates (Consuls, Proconsuls, Praetors; “Censors”, although higher magistrates, did not have the “Imperium”).

It would have been all too long, thus awkward to make a single word with “populus”, “potestas”, and “imperium”. Thus the romans instead used the Thing Public (Res Publica). Later the Demos-Kratos of the Greeks, Latinized into “democracia”, was used.

But that does not mean the Romans did not practice democracy. They did. Real democracy, that is, direct democracy. In practice, there was little difference between direct democracy as practiced in Athens, and that practiced in Rome.

(But for the fact that Athenian democracy lasted two centuries, and the Roman one, around five. Also, even under the Principate founded by Augustus, many Republican functions kept on going, and it was not clear that the Republic had stopped, as the weird transition between Augustus and Tiberius amply demonstrated.)

The various Roman “Magistrates” were masters of diverse functions, and represented those functions. They implemented People Power, they did not displace it. They did not represent people, just functions.

Rome, or at least the Roman Republic, which lasted five centuries, ignored that oxymoron, “Representative Democracy”. SPQR, the Senate and People of Rome, lasted so long, precisely because the Romans refused to be represented in some theater, by professional liars. (For those who don’t know, oxymoron is Greek for “sharply stupid”.)

Athens’ democracy failed, because, as Demosthenes pointed out, the Greek city-states refused to make the tremendous war that was required to get rid of the fascist plutocrats from Macedonia. In the end the war came to them, and Antipater, one of Philippe’s senior generals, took Greece over thanks to enough torture and execution to terrorize the Greeks into submission (130 years later, the Roman Republic freed Greece, and the legions were then withdrawn).

If it was so good, why did Rome quit Direct Democracy?

I have argued that it was because of the rise of plutocracy. That’s entirely correct, but then the question occurs of what allowed this rise.

I have written detailed essays pointing the finger at the Second Punic War, the rise of the war profiteers, the death, or dilution of the really noble Patrician families’ spirit (whose ancestors had conducted the Roman Revolution in the Sixth Century BCE). I also pointed out to the fact that the Roman Republic became, thanks to that war, around 200 BCE, a global power.

All too many rich, powerful families were then able to do what is now called “inversion”. Namely rule from abroad (where Roman Law did not apply). So they escaped confiscating taxation that was meant, precisely, to decapitate the plutocratic effect.

But there was another pernicious effect of the vastness of the Roman Imperium.

Athens had met it already. In the Athenian Assembly (of the People), important decisions needed a high quorum. That meant distant farmers had to travel to Athens for a few days. That was expensive, so the Athenian Republic paid for distant farmers to come to vote.

The situation was much worse in Rome.

The Athenian City-States ruled Attica, which is about 100 kilometers long. The Athenian Imperium extended at some point to the Black Sea (to insure the wehat supply). Moreover, all Athenain dependencies could be quickly reached by boat.

Not so with Rome. Cities such as Numance (Numentia) sat in the middle of Northern Spain, weeks of travel from the sea.

Rome was physically incapable of maintaining communications fast enough to maintain direct democracy (in any case the old democratic set-up in Rome depended of the detailed status of citizens within “tribes”, and would have had to be severely modified just to extend to Italia).

Very slow communications was the deep down root killer of Roman direct democracy.

We don’t have this excuse. Not anymore.

Quite the opposite. Whereas Rome experienced a loss of opportunity as the empire extended, modern technology, the Internet, offers us the ability to do as the Romans did under the Republic: vote all the time, about anything.

We don’t need no stinking representatives. Freedom is a mouse click away.

Patrice Ayme’