OUTLAW MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
The public, live, worldwide, could see Muslim Brotherhood fanatics shooting at security forces from the gigantic, beautiful minaret of the Al Fatah Mosque in Cairo. Policemen returned fire. So it was, all over.
Colossal hypocrisy blossomed among the West’s political leaders: suddenly here they were, siding with Al Qaeda, whining about the security coup in Egypt. The leader of Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Doctor Al Zawahiri became their spokesman. Was then Al Qaeda just a way to get big budgets for otherwise indefensible activities?
Do our vertiginously hypocritical chiefs ignore that Secularism is the secret of the West? Secularism means: living in one’s own age. This enables the rule of the following values, symbolized in one neat coat of arms.
Notice the oak for strength, and the olive, for peace. The Republican Roman Fasces, represent the power of justice, to cut infamy in two; the law as the ultimate ruler, made strong by the unity of the People, bound around the idea of justice; fundamentally the entangled letters “RF”, superficially “Respublica Francia” (in Latin) fundamentally mean “Free Republic”, republic and freedom entangled, something for the People Republic of China to meditate. This coat of arms ought to be that of the world, including Egypt!
Do our double-faced, plutophile Western propagandists, suddenly in love with Al Qaeda, want us to forget that all the countries of the West were founded by the military? Generally the military was fighting plutocrats covered by a sacred religion. Why can’t the same courtesy be extended to Egypt?
It’s sick to see the emissary (emirssary?) of Qatar, an extreme, hereditary plutocracy, a financial support of the Muslim Brotherhood, go around Europe seduce plutophile servants of the established order (for which Qatar is a core value), who then stand by his side (as just happened with the West German foreign minister: should not Germany be cured from siding with racist plutocrats, already?).
No part of the West ever lived free under an Islamist regime: the fundamental reason is the extreme violence within much of the Qur’an.
Moreover, Salafist Islam implements a racist distinction between believers and non believers (the later being punished all the time). The multicentennial reign of Islamists, from Portugal to Rumania, was a quasi-continuous subjugation, oppression, demolition, ruination and depredation. The pleasures public slavery and impalement provided with were not to Western taste, which had evolved.
Salafist Islam is the Islam of the Ancients (that’s what Salafist means). Contrarily to bien pensant repute, it’s an extremely violent ideology, read direct from the Qur’an. Therein a crucial difference with Christianism.
After Greco-Roman philosophers complained that the Old Testament (basic to Islam) was full of atrocious lessons in barbarity, the “Founding Fathers of the Church” (Saint Jerome and company), around 400CE, admitted that the Bible was metaphorical, and not to be taken literally.
Twice something related happened in Islam: around 850 CE the Caliph in Baghdad, declared unlawful future (re)interpretations of Islam’s sacred texts. More interestingly, Saladin and his successors, in Egypt around 1200 CE, outright outlawed the literal interpretation of Islam, and they cracked down with a ferocity that I would welcome in Egypt today. (If Nazism is unlawful, why not Salafism? They are not similar by accident: Hitler had more than a passing familiarity with Islam, and sang its praises on many occasions; Hitler loved all that Biblical stuff, especially the holocausts.)
Literal interpretations of Islam reappeared in the Eighteenth Century in the wilds of Arabia, when a fanatic called Wahhab presented the ancestors of the present Saudis with a coy plot to come to power: pretend to serve the true god. So here we are: we see the enlightened leaders of the European Union calling for the return of Wahhab, side by side with Qatar and Al Qaeda.
Plutocrats of the world, Unite! How touching!
The reason why Muslims spend much time killing other Muslims, is that disagreements naturally arise about who is, or who is not, a genuine believer (the distinction is left unclear in the very short Qur’an). While the call to kill, or, at least, to abuse non-believers is unambiguous. Hence the circus in Syria. There, too, secularism is the only way out not involving a holocaust.
Why do the leaders of the West want Islam to rule Egypt? Because it was so great when Christianism ruled?
Christianism’s rule in the West, 16 centuries ago, brought a sudden apocalypse (not by accident: Christianist imbeciles had read in their sacred texts that the apocalypse was supposed to bring back Jesus!. So they did their best to bring an apocalypse, by taking countless bad decisions).
Christianism brought the end of any semblance of republic, the reign of superstition, decerebration, crusades, the Inquisition, Sharia, religious wars, the institutionalization of racism (against intellectuals, secularists, Jews, Pagans and countless exterminated minorities). All non believers were exterminated (except the Jews, because Jesus had been one; with uncharacteristic Christian generosity, the extermination of the Jews was contemplated, and half carried out).
Christianist rule has a name: the Dark Ages.
How did the West get out of the apocalypse? Through military force. The military is intrinsically fascist, because that’s best for fighting. However, the best performing military, to achieve higher performance, also needs to be up to date in its weapons and thinking. In one word: secular.
The Franks became the shock troops of the Roman empire, because they were highly multicultural (living in present day Netherlands, between sea and land, Germania, Gallia and Roma), and ended up with the best weapons (the Celts had the best metallurgy, and equipped the Roman army since its inception!)
As the Franks helped Constantine conquer the empire, they knew how Constantine’s Christian sausage had been made. They refused to join, as the threat to secularism (on which, as I just said, the Franks’ supremacy rested) was clear to them.
Similarly, the Egyptian military is an excellent position to know how the Muslim sausage has been made (and the double faced role the Euro-Americans are playing with the Islam game).
After trying several times over 150 years, the Franks finally took control of the (North Western) Roman empire and subjugated apocalyptic Christianism.
Christianism devastation went on elsewhere, for another 150 years. That led to a systematic destruction of reason, wisdom and knowledge. Roman intellectuals, and their books fled to Persia, followed by a terrible war between the Oriental Roman empire and Persia. Constantinople had to agree to be nicer to its own intellectuals, at some point. But won the war.
Muhammad pointed out to his Arab followers that the time had come to attack the Romans and the Persians. The Arabs were hungry, ferocious, and, at the time, their women followed them in battle, preventing them to flee (!) and finishing wounded enemies. (Then the Arab army got lucky, twice, but that’s another story.)
So it’s fanatical Christianism and the resulting mental degeneracy it entailed, that enabled the sudden take-over by Arab raiders known as “Muslims”, of most of the Roman empire, and all of Persia.
Tellingly, the one place where the Arab armies would be annihilated three times in a row was the place where fanatic Christianism had long been turned into a force for (secular) education. The Franks had completely defeated the viciousness of the Pope Gregory the Great (usually celebrated as “great” in conventional historiography). The Gregory the Villainous threatened to burn alive bishops who allowed “grammar” to be taught (that meant secular knowledge). But the bishop of Dignes (south east France), so threatened, was protected by the Frankish army. Gregory had no army (the Roman emperor Charlemagne created the Vatican state, more than two centuries later).
So Christianism made the bed of Islamism. Better: the Copts, that is, the Egyptians, did not believe in the Trinity (because of a 4C bishop of Alexandria, Arianus, had a problem with a triple god who was nevertheless one; he had refused the subtle balance between Jesus, Zeus, and the Logos). That’s why the Muslims do not, because the relative of Muhammad who told him what he saw in the desert (some Archangel), was a professional Christian Copt monk.
The idea of superstition is to find an idea that stands above the world. That may be appropriate sometimes, to save a civilization. However, civilization exists to create ideas, and so any civilization resting on a superstition comes quickly into contradiction with itself. No doubt the Romans came to that conclusion, and, well before the end of the Republic, had embraced all religions. As long as they did not call for human sacrifices (those where completely eradicated), or as long as they behaved (after a major scandal, the Egyptian cult of Isis was outlawed for a while). Thus:
Sustainable civilization means secularization. If a civilization is not secular, it is, or becomes obsolete.
Putin ought to meditate this, as he gave Christian Orthodoxy with a Russian sauce a quasi state religion status; Peter the Great viewed Orthodoxy as the major problem of Russia, and took shattering measures to break its grip (an inside joke, as Peter broke himself the limbs of some religious fanatics on the wheel, just to have the pleasure to hear them plead for their lives).
To deny secularization to some countries, because of their Oriental origins, as many political leaders in the West just did, is sheer racism.
[This is a tiny part of the Salic Law; it had 65 chapters to start with, and underwent constant changes and augmentation; by 600 CE the law made all inhabitants of the enormous empire a Frank, without consideration of origins or religions; a Jewish Syrian selling camels in Paris (!) could have Frankish children.]
The West was not founded by Islamists, or Christianists, or other deluded Superstitionists. The West was founded by Secularists, firmly grounded in reason. The West was founded by the Salian Franks. Those “Salted” Dutch ruled through the secular Pactus Legis Salicae (Pact of the Salic Law).
The main difference between Salian Law and republican Roman Law was the replacement of many death penalties cases by more humanitarian fines.
Greater humanism was the main difference between old Greco-Roman civilization and the “RENOVATED” version the Franks imposed, and celebrated.
Aristotle had contemptuously pontificated that civilization needed slaves, so that people like him could sit on their haunches and think of higher things.
The Franks contradicted Aristotle: let there be machines, beasts and bioengineering to serve us.
The Far East (China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia) also practiced bioengineering: new varieties of rice were developed, that produced twice a year; around 1000 CE. This is one of the reason why the population of the Far East exploded. Another, of course is that the Far East was secular: Confucianism, Taoism, and (original) Buddhism have a very low superstition index. Thus the Far East developed a lot of science and technology on its own, and that advanced civilization. The Middle Kingdom and its neighbors thrived for the same exact reasons as the West.
In the end, the West dominated more because, starting with the Franks, and the abolition of slavery, it was less oriented towards using people as machines or animals. But it was a close call, as the Christianists and Islamists nearly annihilated civilization (Western books were saved mostly through Zoroastrians, and the regard most Caliphs of the 8C and 9C had for. Greek culture. there again following another twist in the Qur’an.).
Written in Latin, the Salian Law was purely secular.
Just by imposing secular law, the Franks, more than 15 centuries ago, got rid of aggressive Christianism. The Franks literally founded the West with precautionary Christianophobia. It was high time. True, the Franks claimed to be “Catholics”, but the Catholicism they imposed had nothing to do with the religious terror that brought Rome to its knees.
Even before the Qur’an had been written down, the Imperium Francorum sent spies to find out who these Islamists were. A case of precautionary Islamophobia, right from the start. The Franks long viewed Islam as a form of particularly aggressive militarized Christianism. They were familiar with the problem: hordes of black dressed monks, especially in Egypt, had laid civilization to waste, three centuries before.
France has been at war with invasive, aggressive Islamists ever since. 60 generations of hostility.
Why can’t Egyptian security forces be given the same liberty?
Or do Western leaders whine because time is up on their ravenous instrumentalization of Islamization, their counterfactual, perfidiously manipulative, identification of Islamization with civilization? Are they afraid that their oil supply is threatened, or that they will have to start treating Arab speaking people not just as Muslims, but as full human beings?
An organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood, operating inside the French or American republics as it did in Egypt would be outlawed overnight, and lethal force would be used. So why not the same in Egypt?
When Western leaders talk as if the Muslim Brotherhood was holy, a case of human rights, they are just hypocritical, lethally vicious and racist. The Muslim Brotherhood ought to be outlawed in Egypt as it would be in the American or French Republic.
It is easy to understand why corrupt leaders in the West would want Egypt to stay under the oppression of an ideology invented in the desert by analphabets, 14 centuries ago: this way, 85 millions Egyptians, and 35 millions of inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula, where the oil comes from, and much money, would stay subjugated, ruled by their pseudo-god fearing masters.
But for those who really care about the well-being of Egyptians, there is no doubt that getting rid of 1650 years of delirious, somewhat satanic variants of the religion of Abraham, will help. Abraham? The despicable character who wanted to please a satanic boss (known as “god”) to the point of killing his innocent child.
Where, in the entire history of humankind, can we find something as condemnable as a foundation of elevation? Notice it’s the boss himself who stopped the servile crazed psychopath would-be child killer’s hand. So bosses are the fount of humanism! Especially after they order to kill children?
It certainly makes sense that the despicable Barroso, head of the European Commission, another living incarnation of Star Wars’ Jabba the Hut, who does not mind 50% unemployment rates in part of the European Union, according to his plutocratic god, would threaten Egypt (with cutting aid to starving people). The barbarian Baroso embraces the Muslim Brotherhood, as a new trick to make the youth suffer more afield.
The ancient Republican Romans knew what to do with a thought system that had turned wanting to kill children into a religion: annihilate it. They face it with Carthage. No doubt that, if Carthage had not sacrificed children, it would not have been annihilated by Rome.
The inhuman pulsion to kill children inherent to Abrahamism was probably copied from Carthage and Moloch. Abrahamism was adopted by Rome, later, but, by then the Republic was in pieces (in a telling detail, Constantine, the self described “13th apostle”, inventor of Christianism, killed his adult son and nephew; he also steamed his wife).
To rejoin the forefront of civilization, it long occupied, Egypt needs to become secular. Those who, from their heavenly secular fortresses, think otherwise are just Twentieth First Century racists. Let them join Al Qaeda. Sorry, they already have.
Polls show more than 80% of Egyptians support the security crack-down against the Islamists. “Moderate” Islamists have no more than 15% support. Faced with the determination of the 500,000 strong Egyptian military, the plutophile cowards who lead the West will no doubt back-off.
The fact remains, in that fatidic week, when Egypt plunged in a remedial civil war, our money loving Western leaders showed their face, and that was the face of Al Qaeda. I do not doubt that they are going to put some new mask on, and change the subject real quick. Yet, it was a very revealing moment.
Patrice Ayme
