Intro: What is going on in Iran did not originate there. And it’s not just a question of the 1953 CIA instigated Shiite coup. Way back, at the origin of Christo-Islamism, was the turn that Oriental Rome did not take, as it imploded into feverish theocratic terror.

In other words, the rise of the West occurred because, there, Christianism, or more exactly Orthodox Catholicism, was made into a philosophical minority, subservient to the (Pagan) political authority of the Franks (OK, the Franks claimed to be Catholic, and they made their own version of Catholicism; but, truly, they were, in their practice, Pagan).

This anti-Christian mood of the European civilization lasted until the murderous craziness of the crusades, which culminated with religious fevers, such as the Reformation, Inquisition and many religious wars, a full 1,000 years after Constantinople went off the deep end. (And it did not last very long, as political powers put a clamp on the various Christian sects, after a few centuries of religious madness, say 1100 CE to 1700 CE). A running analogy with the USA and the EU is made.


I am preparing another study on theocratized fascism, contrasting what happened in the “Occidental Part” of the Roman empire, and what happened in the “Oriental Part”. It is highly relevant to the situation in Iran, and relevant to the rise of religion in the USA, as plutocracy grew. Here is a foretaste.

Basically, because of the German invasions around 400 CE, several types of tolerance were imposed on the “Occidental Part”. The overlords were a minority, so they made sure that respecting minorities was the majority of feelings expressed.

In a violent contrast, having been preserved from the Germans, the “Oriental Part” (“Pars Orientalis”) went the exact opposite way, not just inventing and practicing so called Caesaropapism, but even engaging in massive holocausts, and severe state religious oppression, and monumental intellectual fascism.

This murderous religious “Orthodox Catholic” craziness in the “Oriental Part” led to a tremendous, morally erroneous war with Sassanid Persia. Persia was defending civilization, whereas the self proclaimed “Orthodox Catholic” theo-dictatorship in Constantinople was destroying it.

Both Persia and Oriental Rome came out of that war exhausted, and the Arab army to the south was not paid, while all Christians of the Middle East and Egypt hated Constantinople’s tendency to massacre all Christians who did not agree that 3 = 1 (the absurdity of the so called “Trinity”). The result was that the Arab army revolted against its non paying “Roman” paymasters: even before Muhammad came out of Medina, Gaza and other Arab cities had revolted, because of this absence of payments. Muhammad and his successors exploited it quickly, and, of course Islam exploded, a logical derivative and extension of emperor Justinian’s religious terrorism (relative to Justinian’s crazed Catholicism, Islam was very enlightened).

Next, the more tolerant, less religiously obsessed West, stopped the Arab and Berber armies (721-737 CE), in “Francia”, in the name of secularism, or more exactly, in the name of “Europe” (not in the name of Christianism). This indirectly destroyed the Arab Caliphate (it was replaced by the much more sophisticated Persian Caliphate, 750 CE).

Then the Franks, not satisfied with repelling Islam from Western Europe, all the way down to Sicily, wiped out Constantinople, Oriental Rome, as an independent entity (1204 CE).

In any case, Caesaropapism had allowed plutocratic corruption to marry superstitious religion, solidifying both. Superstitious religion encourages submission, because, being unbelievable, it trains people to believe whatever, making them docile to absurdly abusive masters. That is why as plutocracy grows, so does the encouragement for organized superstition, and the more absurd, the better, a phenomenon clearly observable in the USA in recent years (Bush was told by God to invade Iraq, remember, and each American politician orders God to “Bless America”).

Plutocracy, the reign of the few, the rich, the special, is naturally deified and sort of incarnated by that ultimate plutocrat, God, who owns everything, but never has enough, and wants your mind and your heart too. Ali Khamenei, Iran Supreme Guide (not to be confused with the ex “Guide” of the Germans) just informed us that God is of the opinion that the Iranian religious dictatorship is what is best for Iran (nothing like being sure of one’s connection with God, especially if one goes about, killing people, that is why the SS had “God With Us” on their belts: “Gott Mit Uns”).

How does one get there? Having leaders telling People what God wants? And ordering God around? How does one get to the point that leaders, such as Bush, or Khamenei, can justify killing people in the name of the ultimate plutocrat, up in sky? Well, one gets there through odious little steps, always further down the road of mental indecency, and also, let’s be blunt, increasing mental incapacity.

Here is The Wall Street Journal, 6/18/2009: “Some executives at banks propped up by government aid have retained a coveted perk: personal use of the company jet. Flight records show numerous occasions when banks receiving federal money have flown their planes to destinations near resorts or executives’ vacation homes, including spots in Europe, Mexico, the Caribbean, south Florida and Aspen, Colo. In some cases, it’s clear that bank executives were traveling for personal reasons; for other flights, many of which were over weekends or holidays, the passengers and purpose couldn’t be established.”

And the WSJ to explain that some jets waited more than a week on the runways of exotic locales as the executives’ families relaxed. Some of these flights cost more than $90,000 (without counting the cost of the waiting jets and crews). (For more information:

So what is going on in the USA? How come this is tolerated? The bankers and their shadows feel they own the country, and the People does not care enough, does not feel enough outrage, to go in the streets as the outraged Iranians do. So they pay and shut up. Americans, like the proverbial frog, are boiled very slowly, so they do not resent it, whereas the Iranians have noticed that they are being jerked around.

But can a country be owned by bankers and their shadows only? Can it go on that way? No. Ultimately, a country owned by the few becomes dysfunctional because plutocrats care first about themselves, and, in the fullness of time, it leaves the country with nothing. That is what happened to Rome. And here is the reason: if there is no democratic control of the basics of investing, there cannot be a true democracy.

In the economic system as it is in the USA, bankers, and their shadows, by deciding who gets the money, create the economy. They create which enterprises, which sectors, which activities are worth, in their opinion, investing in. But this is their private opinion, oriented towards their own profits and, maybe, if they so please, those of shareholders they supposedly take care of.

And the question is, once those bankers and their shadows are done, does this economy do anything the People want, or even anything the People need? The latest crisis, and the state of the present economy of the USA show that the answer to both is a resounding no. One has just to look at: decaying health care, deindustrialization, and a median income stagnant or going down for decades, and an economy that is losing its comparative advantages in so many ways that it is incapable of maintaining its independence.

Hence the economy is too important to be left to bankers. Somehow the place of the state (hopefully elected by the People, not bankers) has to grow. So the question becomes: how do you control plutocracy, once it has got out of control? It is not easy. Once the influence of private interests on government has grown enough, very little stop them.

An extraneous example: eleven French engineers were killed by a bomb in Pakistan. It was assumed that it was Al Qaeda. But yesterday two French antiterrorist judges informed the families that it was actually agents of the Pakistani government, who were unsatisfied by how much money they got under the table. Those unsatisfied greedy types did the deed.

The point: after some degree of expectation is reached, the powerful will not be held by anything, to keep getting the power they view as their due. It does not matter if it is in Pakistan, or Iran, or Zimbabwe.

Back to the USA: ten days ago or so, a Congressman, Collins Peterson, said in the New York Times about bankers and Congress: “They run the place”.



When moral expectations are too low for the main economic actors, one gets an economy that has no morality. And, as I pointed out, ultimately, no performance.

To fix that, moral standards have to rise again. A place to start is by limiting compensation. In Europe, main street is asking for it, just as in Iran main street is asking for the right to change the government. But what is main street asking for in the USA? Did it get bad enough yet? In Iran, or Europe, people know that a government not representing them can make things turn immensely bad in daily life.

But the population of the USA does not have such collective painful memory. So the Obama administration is in a difficult position, trying to impose on bankers something the People did not ask for.

Plus, a major problem is that international corporations are able to declare profits in low tax jurisdictions (part of the tax heaven problem). A triage of what needs to be addressed first is of the essence. By inventing new methods for limiting the powers of rich individuals overseas first (fixing the tax heavens abroad), it may be just a question of translating them back in the USA (fixing the compensation heavens at home).

We will see what Obama does. In the core of Europe, the danger has been perceived. Europeans know well that weak taxes mean a weak state, thus a weak People. This notion is less important in the USA, where the government is much less of the People (the increasingly boiling frog), and much more of the plutocracy. That is why Obama feels it is an important part of his duty as American leader to give religious lessons to the world. Just as Khameini does in Iran. Both claim to defend “God”, the omnipotent one.

Why does omnipotence need to be defended? Because, after all, it’s not omnipotent? But then, if it is not, what is it, that Bush, Khamenei and Obama need to defend? When Obama tells Europeans that women ought to be dressed as tents, because God ordered it, what does that mean? Does that mean Obama teaches God to European democracy, and knows best, just as Khamenei knows best?

Superstitious religion is strong in the USA, because plutocracy is strong. Superstitious religion is strong in Iran, and people there use the euphemism “corruption”. The French revolution was made against the Clergy (the same Clergy, basically which gives the orders in Iran). It’s all very classic, and it was all written down first by Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian and their numerous fanatical theo-fascist colleagues (312 CE to ~ 600 CE). Those most cataclysmic of the Christian Caliphs caused the Dark Ages, antijudaism, antisemitism, the destruction of books and free thinking. among other disasters. They too, were leading the nation, and telling people who and what to worship and how to get dressed.   

Patrice Ayme


Notes: 1) Obama, Cairo, 4 June 2009: “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” In other words, Obama wants to pose as Defender of Islam, the exact official title and duty of the Khalifa (Caliph = Successor). Welcome to the secular republic of the USA, version lost its head in an accident.

On religion in general, here is Obama’s illuminated position: “Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion.” I guess Aztecs, Carthaginians, Maoris and old Celts are welcome back, and free to engage in human sacrifices. Hawaiian long pig, anybody? Oh, human sacrifices would violate democratic law? Um… I guess, then, democracy will have to surrender. Too bad. Anyway, democracy had already to surrender to plutocracy, so it better keep trained to submit. (Applause.)

2) Islam nearly wiped out the much more advanced and non fascist Zoroastrianism (the 3,000 years old religious-philosophical advance on the even older Mazdaism), the old religion of Iran. It opposed truth to lie, and that is clearly because of this opposition that Sassanid Persia found itself at war against the fascist-obscurantist power of the theocrats in Constantinople.  

Islam mostly wiped out Zoroastrianism through a succession of tricks. Paradoxically, as Iran took control of the Caliphate (750 CE), it was in the Iranian interest to stay Muslim. But it was a very relaxed form of Islam, complete with see through blouses… Obscurantism can grow on its own: Khamenei is waiting for the Mahdi, the Hidden Imam, who will return with the oligarchic “company of his chosen ones”… With, or without Jesus… Don’t ask…

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: