The 'Ravenous' Meme: Islamic Radicals Must Be Wiped Out With Their "Caliphates"

"This is an attack not just on Paris, not just on France, This is an attack on all of humanity."  - President Barack Obama yesterday, speaking at the White House.

The carnage in Paris yesterday and early today (Paris time) was almost too much to bear. The slaughter of innocent concert goers by maniacal zealots made wifey and I recall our own concert attendance at the Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna, e.g.

Scene at the end of the concert  at Schonbrunn Palace, Vienna.

And we tried to imagine what it'd have been like for assorted lunatics, seized with evil, ideological fervor, to barge in with AK-47s and grenades, slaughtering everyone in sight.  But what would provoke a human to do that to another human and especially invoke some kind of deity or "Allah"?

People, like us, would have gone to the Bataclan Concert Hall to enjoy an evening of music, never mind it wasn't the classical type we enjoyed at Schonbrunn. The last thing they'd have expected is having their pleasant evening disrupted and turned into a nightmare by murderous zombies, which is what they were. Brain dead, or rather brains infested by ravenous memes, creatures that were only bent on destruction.  The death toll now stands at 127 and could go even higher, this now on top of the 224 murdered by likely ISIS bugs in the bombing of the Russian Metrojet at Sheik-el-Sharm.

Why do I say "ravenous memes"? And what is a meme?

A "ravenous meme" is an idea or conviction that constrains the brains that hold it to consume other beliefs, ideas in a "war of memes".  This has the aspect of a metastasizing cancer in that the ravenous meme will have the brains' physical counterparts actually destroy other persons (not holding the same meme) in order to advance itself.

The first explication of the meme that I recall reading was in the Chapter, 'The Kingdom and the Darkness' in the book, Chance and Necessity' by Biochemist Jacques Monod (Collins Books, UK, 1970)

Hence, Monod tied the blame to the spread of inherently primitive, anti-human and perverse ideas, in a kind of mind-to -mind infection. Hence the later coined term,"mind virus". In terms of infection, discussing the analogy to viruses in his book, Monod listed three attributes:

1) Performance value (what change does the mind virus bring about in a person's behavior?)

2) Propagation value (How far and wide is the mind virus spread and what means are employed to achieve this? I.e. fear of "Hell", fear of physical retribution (stoning, beheading in Islamic enclaves, etc.)

3) Infectious value: (How easily are other brains infected with the mind virus? What specific attributes of the mind virus facilitate this infection?)

Of course, in examining the preceding, the question must be asked: How adverse is the infection to human welfare? If there is a significant component of adversity, or perversity such that human welfare is undermined then one must concur the mind virus is antithetical to humans, and hence a threat to our civilization. In that case, we owe it to ourselves to eradicate the virus as we would any adverse physical virus, such as smallpox, or Ebola.

It follows then, that if a religion harbors such a ravenous meme, hostile to human welfare, then it poses a threat to our planet and civilization by extension. Hence, the sooner we can eliminate this threat the better. If not the toxic memes themselves then we must eliminate those whose brains embrace them and nurture them. The question posed since Monod's book, is 'How best do we do that?"

 Author Howard Bloom in his book, 'The Lucifer Principle', explores in depth the gestation of memes in all religions.  But he pays special attention to Islam because its basic, militant - jihadist meme tolerates no contender religions or beliefs. He writes (p. 228):

"Today's Islam is the perfect example of a meme grown ravenous".

That means it bears analogy to a mind virus with the power to infect brains, and basically convert the owners into murderous Zombies. What do you do with murderous Zombies infected with the "Zombie brain virus"? Well, you lance them through the head. There is no other way to ameliorate the threat and you can't change them - short of a brain transplant.

Bloom goes on to write (ibid.):

"The ground is ripe for worldwide Islamic fundamentalist expansion. It is currently the largest growing religion in the world"

Thus, just as zombies in the "Zombie apocalypse" multiplied because the bitten dead always multiplied more than the remnant humans (not yet dead) so the "ravenous" meme underlying Islam has multiplied via the multiplication of living, mind virus infected brains. Is there such a thing as "Peaceful Islam"? Bloom doesn't believe so, quoting one prominent Mullah who disavows any promotion of harmony. He tells Bloom (p. 226):

"The leaders of our religion were all soldiers, commanders and warriors. They killed and they were killed."

Specifically, their basic meme promotes one of two outcomes: either the slaughter of the "infidel" or what  is perceived as such, or conversion to its laws and religious beliefs. For further clarification of what he's getting at, Bloom writes (p. 224):

"Though Islamic literature praises Mohammed as a man of peace, he was anything but. In A.D. 624 the Prophet announced the concept of the jihad - the holy war. He said in the Koran: 'Kill those who join other gods with God (i.e. Christians) wherever you shall find them, and seize them and slay them, and lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush."

Bloom goes on to note in the next 9 years after those words were put to paper, he ordered "at least twenty seven military campaigns and led nine of them."

Who or what directed this? It was the ravenous, belligerent  underpinning of the Islamic meme which by its very nature can tolerate no mutual co-existence with other god beliefs or religions. It was either the Islamic way or the death way.

Isis and the hundreds of other Islamic groups now vying for power in Syria, are cut from the same cloth, which is why there is no such critter as a "moderate rebel". This is the phantasm of addle brained Westerners and faux liberals prepared to extend tolerance to the point they themselves are slaughtered.

Thus, whether ISIS did it, or Al Musra, or Al Qaeda, is of no relevance - nor whether some one of the other 100 -odd groups fighting for power in Syria to overthrow Assad is to blame. They ALL need to be eliminated with their "ravenous" memes.  Any Islamic fighting against established order in any area of the Middle East is infected.

It is clear from this that the West must treat all those infected by the Islamic meme promoted by Mohammed as de facto living zombies. And as anyone knows one cannot make peace or harmony with a zombie because his first instinct is to take a chunk out of your head. He is ravenous, after all. It matters not that he or she is an ISIS zombie, an Al Musra zombie, an Al Qaeda zombie or any of a hundred others. They are all committed to the militant stance of Mohammed described in detail by Howard Bloom. One thing they cannot be is a "moderate Islamic zombie" which is an oxymoron.

If further incidents like what transpired in Paris are to be avoided, the U.S. must drop the stupid pretense of the existence of "moderate Islamic rebels" and join with the Russians to wipe them all out. There can be NO "moderates" because as Islamics following the Koran all are committed to jihadism. Stop inveighing against Russian military might and work with it to extinguish the ravenous violent meme carriers laying waste to the Middle East. Stop seeing the Russians as your enemy but rather as your ally against the Islamic Zombies.

Don't worry about eliminating all of them.. "Let God sort them out" to use the words of Bill Maher in one of his Real Time shows.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jaime-oneill/64773/the-monstrous-acts-in-paris-an-emotional-and-personal-response

Bill Maher is Wrong About Pope Francis' Take on Charlie Hebdo

Last night, in one 'Real Time' spot during his opening joke segment, Bill Maher saw fit to call out the Pope for his recent remarks that there are limits to free expression. According to Maher, wearing a half-assed smile:

"This is so sad! I was starting to really like this Pope. Oh yeah, fuck the Pope! Well, George Bush said it, 'you're either with us or against us'.  Apparently the Pope is not with us because he came down on the side of the bad guys. 'You cannot provoke, you cannot insult someone's faith, you cannot make fun of the faith of the others'. I guess he doesn't get HBO.  ....And then he mimicked punching someone in the face! He said, if Luigi here made fun of my mother, POWWW!"

SO what, Bill? The Pope is exactly correct on this and I am afraid you and the righteous mob are all wrong. Moral courage, in fact, means not standing with the mob but with moral clarity and moral communication - which is what the Pope's message was all about, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/01/moral-communication-and-free-expression.html

And I provided two links therein, one noting how despicable 'cockroach'  cartoons led to the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda, e.g.

http://hutututsi.weebly.com/propaganda.html

and also how the Nazis' portrayal of the Jews dehumanized them and led to their mass slaughter.

http://sefershoah.wordpress.com/nazi-propaganda/

And by the way, any dodo who refers to Obama as a "Nazi" clearly doesn't get it, and has no clue what a Nazi even means, or what it meant. As my late German friend Kurt put it (he had been in the Hitler Youth, under compulsion) it meant: mercilessly beating up socialists, workers union members, Jews and communists and-  if not killing them- making sure they didn't  ever return to the particular village or town.  Obama meets the definition on none of these, nor in fact being a member of the N.S.D.A.P. for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei . (Again, a right wing fascist party, not a left-socialist party, despite the misleading name)

Back to Maher. He doesn't get the Pope's point at all. Nor is the Pope "on the side of the bad guys", which is the simpleton's take - the same as if some clueless critic said I was "with the bad guys" for writing this blog post.. As I asked in my earliest blog on the Paris Hebdo attack:

Can one condemn the brazen attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine but also criticize the outrageous satires the medium used, especially to attack Muslims?

The Pope showed one could condemn the murderous attack, but also hold the propagator of the inflammatory cartoons partly responsible. As I noted myself in that January 8th post:

"No one gets to insult whoever and whatever they want without any consequences. Ask any drunk in a bar who after one too many begins hurling epithets at the mothers of the all the other patrons. Think he will last very long before being punched out for his intemperance? Anyone who believes so is an idiot"

The Pope said essentially the same thing:

"If my good friend, Dr. Gasbarri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch."

He referred above to Alberto Gabarri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by Francis side when he made his remarks. (Francis made the comments to reporters en route to the Philippines.)

Francis went on to defend freedom of speech as a fundamental right and even a duty to speak out for the common good. But he said there were limits to free speech, especially when confronting another equally fundamental human right: the freedom of religion. Meanwhile, Hebdo had indiscriminately attacked all religions, including Catholicism, Islam and even Jews (a la the Nazis' cartoon exaggerations).

Francis' points didn't come out of the blue either, but from a long Catholic tradition in its canon that freedom can never be absolute. Points I noted earlier including the three axioms tied to the "paradox of freedom":

The first paradox of freedom is that true freedom is experienced only in relation to what is good and true.

The second paradox of freedom is that, since we are contingent and limited beings, we can only experience freedom within parameters and by limiting our freedom to a certain extent:

The Third paradox of freedom is that my freedom today often exists due to prior constraint."

The point missed by Maher (and the Hebdo satirists and their mob defenders) is that so long as over two billion subscribe to these principles, making gratuitous attacks (under the 'free speech' banner)  on religions or minorities is a fool's errand.   As I asked in my Jan. 8 blog:

How can we ever expect to make the world a better place by tearing others down, whether via films ('Desert Warrior', 'The Interview') or by over the top "satire" which is designed to impale raw nerves and inflame hatreds?

Maher himself has been on an anti-Islamic tear for over two years now, referring to "radical Islam" as if Islam itself is innately radical. But as his guest, author Wes Moore (a former soldier in Iraq) corrected him, one must "distinguish between the radicalization of Islam and Islam itself".   A good point, which again brings up the importance of history - especially of the Middle East- when most Americans don't even know their own.

Thus, as Shamus Cooke (on smirkingchimp) has observed, "Islamic fundamentalism was virtually extinguished from 1950-1980, with Saudi Arabia and later Qatar being the last bastion and protective base of fundamentalists "  

But in the 1980s, as I also pointed out in the last chapter ('From November 22, 1963 to September 11, 2001')  of  my recent book, 'The JFK Assassination: The Final Analysis', the U.S. - under Reagan - had to interfere in Middle East geopolitics by propping up Saddam Hussein's Iraq against Iran. It did this by supplying him with arms, including poison gas (later used on the Kurds) and also set the stage for later jihadi assaults by herding radical Islamists into Afghanistan to fight the Russians.

A good summary from Shamus Cooke:

"The U.S.-backed Afghan jihad was the birth of the modern Islamic fundamentalist movement. The jihad attracted and helped organize fundamentalists across the region, as U.S. allies in the Gulf state dictatorships used the state religion to promote it. Fighters who traveled to fight in Afghanistan returned to their home countries with weapon training and hero status that inspired others to join the movement.

The U.S. later aided the fundamentalists by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, destroying Libya and waging a ruthless proxy war in Syria. Fundamentalists used these invasions and the consequent destruction of these once-proud nations to show that the West was at war with Islam."

So basically, the U.S. created the 'Frankenstein' monster of "radical Islam"  itself - by its interference for purposes of hegemony only, in the Middle East. Now, having created that monster, we stand and gape at the dozens of attacks launched by these mutants - after WE created them in the first place!

There is such a thing as taking responsibility but evidently we have none. We'd rather have people believe that these Islamic radicals simply sprang out of the blue.  No remote clue the original RPGs, IEDs etc. were given to them by the U.S., as well as many other arms.

Meanwhile, let's return to the matter of "free speech" and where it should really matter in true freedom of the press. To most intelligent people and those educated in history and the march of globalism, it means inveighing against the powerful - not picking on minorities or religions. To the extent the Hebdo cartoonists didn't  consistently attack the Neoliberal World Order - and took time instead to jab religions and minorities, they weren't doing their jobs.

This is the background that Maher would do well to learn, as well as many others in this country, before they launch into their anti-Islamic jeremiads again.

But am I hopeful they will? Hardly! Not when PR and propaganda dominates exchanges and most people have the historical memory of a gnat.

See also:

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/these-crimes-will-never-be-purged-away.html

and:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/margaret-kimberley/60483/charlie-hebdo-je-suis-white-people

Excerpt:

"One look at Charlie Hebdo cartoons shows that the word satire is being used very loosely. The depictions of cabinet minister Christiane Taubira as a monkey, and the kidnapped Nigerian school girls as pregnant welfare recipients make a mockery of the world satirical. Regardless of how many French politicians are skewered in its pages, it must be pointed out that Charlie Hebdo indulges in racist hate speech."