Posts Tagged ‘Iran’

Embargo The Saudis

January 4, 2016

(And don’t forget Iran!)

Interpreting holy Muslim texts literally was made a capital crime under Saladin, eight centuries ago. (Meanwhile Iran and the Baghdad Caliphate had long ignored Literal Islam; however, they would fall to the Mongols shortly after.)

Wahhabism revived the literal reading, thus giving the Saudis the moral pretext and the fanaticism they needed to take control of Arabia. In 1945, the government of the USA concluded an alliance with Ibn Saud. Not because the USA needed it to survive: the USA was the world’s largest oil producer. The accord with the Saudis enabled American oil men to make huge profits, while the government of the USA enjoyed controlling most of the world’s oil.

Saudi Arabia had a good weekend: it executed 47 “terrorists”, including a prominent opponent, Shia cleric. Yes forty-seven.

Shia Cleric Decapitated, Iran Unamused. Diplomatic Relations Broken

Shia Cleric Decapitated, Iran Unamused. Diplomatic Relations Broken

This comes a few days after Iranian rockets landing within 1,500 meters of French and American warships in international water. Some Iranian officials claim that should be seen as a “warning”. Considering the USA bent over backwards for the accord with Iran, and France was skeptical, this is rather curious.

The cleric was “legally” assassinated for (verbal) offenses that included “breaking allegiance with the ruler” and “inciting sectarian strife.” Who made this “ruler” a ruler? Some horrendous war, less than a century ago, when the Saudi family stole most of Arabia, for its own exclusive enjoyment. Nothing said that plutocrats cannot capture entire countries. In Saudi Arabia, justice itself is intrinsically unjust, it’s just an “allegiance to the ruler”..

The Saudi and Iranian plutocracies, hiding behind god’s orders, know what they are doing: if they execute contradictors, they will be contradicted less, as potential contradictors will not look forward arrest, abuse, torture and execution, after being “judged” to be horrendous people.

The New York Times Editorial Board editorial could not resist to strike the usual compromised moral stance in “Saudi Arabia’s Barbaric Executions“. In that otherwise pretty good opinion piece, it squeaks that: “The tangled and volatile realities of the Middle East do not give the United States or the European Union the luxury of choosing or rejecting allies on moral criteria.”

Questions: 1) so are we going to choose or reject allies on which criteria? Greed only? This was tried with the Third Reich before. It made the Nazis’ Reich ever more aggressive, and strong.

Not entering morality in economics enables evil, so we become accomplices of it. The foundation of the Republic is moral. What others are doing (outside of the USA, Europe, and our close allies) is none of our business, however, our purchasing of Saudi oil makes their business our business.

2) who has no choice? With oil and gas lower than in a very long time, why do we need their oil? Who are the barbarians going to sell their black oil to? Russia? A direct oil embargo on Middle East oil would barely inconvenience us, but it would make it much harder for those who violate human rights. Indeed the world oil price would barely move, but the profits the human right violators make on it would collapse (they would have to use circuitous routes, and maybe the Black Market, if enough countries followed the West’s lead).

So what are we waiting for? Imperialism in the name of morality is a bad thing, but imperial morality is the only strategy for survival. As long as said morality is the best that can be devised.

What’s the best? Human ethology, including gender equality, what regimes such as the one in Saudi Arabia are firmly determined to destroy: see the all-out war of the Saudis against Sweden to defend their right to violate human rights, especially those of women.

Rhodesia, South Africa were embargoed for apartheid. The embargoes were highly successful.

Saudi Arabia certainly applies apartheid against females. So doing, it made its entire society not just unfair, but stupid (women instruct children until age 7 or so, traditionally). Now stupidity brings forth aggressivity. So Saudi sexism is a question which impugns upon the security of the West. And, indeed, Saudi Arabia has financed many terrorist networks over the last few decades, when not causing wars outright.

This little planet has room for only one morality, the one which insures humanity’s sustainability. That’s not imperialism, that’s reality.

Patrice Ayme’



Changing Iran For the Best.

December 31, 2009




Protesters in Iran have started to ask for a "Republic Of Iran" instead of an "Islamist Republic of Iran". Excellent.

The Shah of Iran was made into a dictator (instead of the constitutional monarch he initially was) by the CIA and the Shiites the CIA supported, financed, and excited. So, in a way, those Shiites being initially the arm of the CIA, can be suspected of being American agents in a contrived, extremely Machiavellian way.

Before I get accused to be delirious, notice that, in a long winded sort of way, the Islamist revolution in Iran allowed the West to incite (some will say manipulate) Iraq into attacking Iran (with the help of the West), later on facilitating the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has much greater reserves of oil than Iran. Those who do not believe in "conspiracies theories" can check "Iran Contra", when Reagan secretly armed the Shiites dictators of Iran, to fight Iraq that he was arming simultaneously, in the extremely deadly Iran-Iraq war (one million dead). Profits know no bounds.

All these oily manipulations would break down if, at last, Iran would become a genuine democracy. The time has come, all the more since oil is on its way out.

Secularism is the religion of the age ("age", as a period of 120 years, is what "seculum" means in Latin). Secularism means that one lives in one’s age, and not in one’s past.

Secularism can tolerate one superstition, or many superstitions, but just that way: as tolerance. Toleration and tolerance come from the Latin tolerationem (nom. toleratio) "a bearing, supporting, enduring".

Secularism has never been more important: the world has never been changing so fast. The sea level rise has augmented by 50% in the last three years, as the ice shields in Antarctica and Greenland are finally giving way. What has Allah or Jehovah, Molloch, Belzebuth, or Huitzilopochtli, to do with it? Nothing.

The disaster visiting the Earth is all the making of man, or more exactly of a few particular nations, chief of them, the USA. So, instead of evoking the non existent Allah, evoke the all too existing United States of America, and what ought to be their obligations.

What we have in Iran, instead of the reign of reason and what can be done today, is a superstition masquerading as a republic. But the public ought to be free to think about whatever, in whichever way, and conduct its life accordingly, after democratic debate. Whereas the superstition, or, more exactly the oligarchy promoting it, orders the People to believe in its arbitrary credo.

Moreover, that castle in the air of a self serving credo is so incredibly primitive, so tribal, so sectarian, so obscurantist, so sexist and so anti-intellectual that it makes the European Middle Ages seem more enlightened in all too many ways. Thus, there can be no compromise between secularism and the superstition.

In particular, the Qur’an contains some horribly fascist orders, upon which the principle of Ali Khamenei’s dictatorship in the name of Allah, rests.

Indeed, Allah, according to the Qur’an, wants us to obey whoever detains power: "O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER." (Quran’s fascist principle, Sura 4; v. 59).

"YOU" meaning, YOU, the Muslims. The Qur’an makes clear that, although anybody, after the appropriate incantations and a few meek rituals, can proclaim himself or herself to be a Muslim, renouncing Islam afterwards is then subject to the death penalty. But, then, it is up to others to decide whether you are indeed a Muslim, or not. Thus Islam is the ideal mechanism for a dictatorship to eliminate physically its opponents. It is a "great religion" that way.

This superstitious mechanism to eliminate opponents was not invented by Muslim dictators at all, but by those who inspired them, the Roman "Catholic Orthodox" imperial dictators in Constantinople (and later Rome). An atrocious, bottomless Christian dictatorship had firmly established its grip on the Roman empire for more than three centuries, when it inspired the Muslim would-be dictators in the desert. The Christian dictatorship had caused many holocausts, and weakened the empire so much that it got into a very nasty war with Sassanid Persia, in part about Roman intellectuals and their books, who Persia succeeded to protect to enough of an extent to save a lot of the mental work of Greco-Roman antiquity.

OK, back to the present situation in Persia, which is inverted relative to the Sixth century: it’s now the West that protects the intellectuals and their works, and the theocratic dictatorship in Persia which is at fault.

Application of the Qur’an Sura 4, verse 59: Ahmadinejad has power, he is a Muslim, so he has to be obeyed. Khamenei has power, he is a Muslim, so he has to be obeyed. By that token, were Barack Obama a Muslim, since he is in power, he would have to be obeyed indefinitively, if he reigned over Muslims. That’s how Islam fabricates dictators, from Saddam Hussein, to Ibn Saud, to Hosni Mubbarack.

And that will keep on happening, as long as the Qur’an has a grip on the Iranian public. Or the Egyptian public. Or any Muslim public (this does not mean that any place which has a majority of Muslims will be a dictatorship, but that so it will be, if the Qur’an is the Constitution, which is the case in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but not in Kazakhstan or Indonesia.)

Once the Qur’an has been kicked out of the Iranian Constitution, or on its way out, France, and, or, the USA, or, better, both together, should formally guarantee the secular Iranian republic its security, with a formal defense treaty, including the nuclear weapons umbrella.


Patrice Ayme


Annex 1: Why not to guarantee Iran with other nuclear powers? Well, Russia and Britain have a history of imperial interference in Iran, and the Iranians will probably reject their mediation with horror. (The USA too, interfered in Iran, but to a lesser extent; in 1953, the CIA messed up, organizing the professional Quranists against the secular democracy, true, but it was a lot in the name of British and American oil companies, which had decided they owned Iran as a major profit source. Those devils are less powerful nowadays, and resented in the West too.) I will not bother mentioning China as a guarantor power, since it has no history of being able to do that, and its behavior in Africa leaves a lot to be desired.

France, though, has more than a millennium of experience in going to war to guarantee other powers’ existence. The last most significant case being 1939, when France went to war against Hitler, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and American plutocrats, to guarantee Poland’s existence. France (and Britain) also unilaterally and voluntarily guaranteed Bosnia, going to war against Serbia, in the name of human rights, and against fascism. (Clinton’s USA followed later, driving the final nail into Serbian fascism.)


Annex 2: Apostasy in the Qur’an. It is condemned, and is to be punished in the next world mostly. But, because of Sura such as 5, verse 33, Muslim scholars made it a capital crime in the Hadith, an ensemble of texts illuminating the Qur’an by providing a supposed context to it, and which was passed orally for more than a century after Muhammad’s death. It is all a question of the mood imparted by robust, not to say severely abominable, verses in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an in Sura 5:33 says:

5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004).

Poor little Muslim God, so weak, frail, that it needs to be defended with the strongest atrocities…

In any case, it is important to realize that this verse defines a legal context: Muhammad is laying down the law of the land. Enough said. I won’t get in the story of the old woman who was split in two, alive and screaming, by camels, just because she belonged to the wrong tribe… (Tabari.) The just diseased Grand Ayatollah Montazeri tried to make all kinds of reasoning and excuses about why Islam required death for quitting the faith, historically speaking… Montazeri claimed that apostasy was only punishable under restricted circumstances, but these minority opinions have not found acceptance among the majority of Islamic scholars. Khomeiny condemned people to death when he viewed them as having left Islam.

Thought Systems Rule, Men Follow.

November 3, 2009


Roger Cohen compares the fall of the Wall, the "Iron Curtain", across Europe in 1989, and the revolution that-was-not this year in Iran. Cohen ponders events driven by systems of thought:

"In 1989, the revolutionary year, the Tiananmen Square massacre happened in Beijing and, five months later, the division of Europe ended with the fall of the Wall in Berlin. Could it have been otherwise? Might China have opened to greater democracy while European uprisings were shot down? "

No. These things do not happen by accident. When the proto-revolutionary American leaders went to Paris, in the 18th century, they learned by the feet of the Enlightenment (itself partially a product of the English "Glorious Revolution", itself in turn the fruit of a long democratic process in England and France which had its root in Rome, Greece, even Phocea…).

American leaders were told, by the police of the French Ancient Regime, that slavery was not lawful in France, that they had to free and pay their slaves minimum wage. Thus, when France was shaken later by a tremendous revolution, going much further than the English one, and the American one, it ought to have been no surprise: even under the French Ancient Regime, the system of thought in force was more advanced than anywhere else, including the USA.

Thought systems tell people what to think, what to feel, what to expect, what to be. People learn, and follow.

Relative to the advanced system of thought Europe had known, the Stalinist system imposed on Eastern Europe was incredibly primitive, and intolerably rapacious. It was an anachronism, and an exploitation. In the Middle East Islam is not viewed as the anachronism it is, and the exploitation of the many by the few that it is, and can only be. Cohen overlooks this when he says: "Iran is experiencing a brutal clampdown, but memories of 1989 suggest that the dam must break when a repressive regime and the society it rules march in opposite directions."

In China, the repression in 1989 worked, because the communist leadership of the People’s republic was not anachronistic, relative to the history of China. It was a relative advance, of civilization. The argument could be made that it was primordial for China not to fall into the anarchy, and primitivism of the past, and keep on developing as fast as possible under various Western European thought systems (at least four of them: technical and scientific development, communism, Colbert (French) like central economic planning, and free enterprise capitalism). To force onto China Western European thought systems that it was deeply foreign to, ever since Confucius, 26 centuries before, required pretty ferocious methods (and thus it is a meta argument in favor of the People’s republic political system; India had been much more in contact with Europe, ever since the early Greeks, so democracy is much more natural there.)

A society thinks according to the system of thought it uses. Left to their own instruments, evolutions of societies are all about the systems of thought they use. The system of thought of the so called "communist" Eastern European LEADERSHIP was fully self contradictory: supposedly it served the People, such was its fundamental axiom. So how could the "communist" leadership prevent the People to walk, if the People wanted to walk? The East European crowd’s thought system had no such contradiction, though: since the official socialist system was supposed to serve them, they wanted to serve themselves accordingly. So they walked. What were the leaders going to say, to try to contradict them?

The present Iranian thought system is an obvious contradiction onto itself: it wants to be medieval, superstitious and fascist (because it follows the Qur’an to the letter, and so are many of the fundamental statements in the 400 pages Qur’an). But Iran also claims to be a "republic". Res-publica: the public -thing. But only professionals can interpret the sacred writings, not the "public". Hence the so called Iranian republic is also a theocracy, where professional specialists of the study of God have an oversight position.

Iran is equipped with a fascist, non publicly elected leadership made of Shiite Muslim priests, one them being the "supreme leader" (chief of the armed forces), a "council of Guardians", and an "Assembly of Experts". I call them "priests" just as I would call Aztecs religious professionals "priests". Nothing mistaken or biased there (I know perfectly well that Muslim propaganda claims that nothing stands between man and God, so there are no "priest" in Islam, they claim, to try to distinguish themselves from the Medieval Christian Inquisition; this claim does not resist the simplest of observations).

In any case, once the public uses in its mind the Quranist thought system, in its Shia variant, to the letter, that is, a thought system which is, among other things, superstitious and fascist, how could it become democratic and rational? It would be as if one could be a sincere Nazi, and then claim to be a democrat (this is not an insult, but a description of fact: Hitler knew Islam very well, and was inspired by it, or at least so he claimed explicitly).

The "communist" Wall in Europe was bound to fall, because not just of the self contradictions of the thinking of the pseudo "socialist" system, but also from the fact that its most fundamental axioms were supposedly rational and democratic.

Thus the repression of the most primitive communist leaders kept on going down in the intensity of its ferocity. Germany, however culprit, was treated in an abominable way by the "communist" and Stalinist leadership during and after the fall of the Nazis. But then, of course, Stalinist leadership was in charge, with the explicit approval of the leadership of the USA (Roosevelt gave half of Europe to Stalin at the Yalta conference).

Soviet tanks in Hungary killed 40,000 in 1956, with more or less explicit American approbation. In 1968, a similar scenario in Czechoslovakia was much milder: only 72 killed. Moreover the Soviet invasion force was invading a fellow communist country, led by communists: Dubcek, who led Czechoslovakia, was the leader of the communist party. Dubcek had gone to the end of the logic of the fundamental axioms of the communist system, and was serving the People. Whereas the invader, Brezhnev, was contradicting these fundamental axioms, an UNSUSTAINABLE logic.

As long as the fundamental axioms of the Iranian thought system come from an analphabetic culturally challenged epileptic desert bandit thriving 14 centuries ago in the desiccated wilds, it will be friendly to Ayatollahs, and not to republican, democratic, secular, rational, informed politics. The very fact that the opponents to the Ayatollahs rally with the cry:"God is great!" show that there is no hope: they do not even know that religion is central to the repression they whine under. Let the raiders of the lost desert take care.

In 132 BC, having supported the revolt led by Aristonicus against the Romans, the Greek city-state of Phocaea was saved from destruction thanks to the intercession of Massilia, the Roman republic’s oldest ally. Massilia had been founded as a Phocean colony in southern France, six centuries before. Phoceea, the modern Foca (Fossa), is in present day Turkey. To this day, this vast history is part of the system of thought of Western Europe: thus empathy, freedom, republican principles have been long anchored in the collective semi conscious. Of Europeans.

To this day, Marseille remembers, and celebrates its Phocean origin. In the same area as Phocea, 500 kms to the south-east, the country of Phrygia long maintained its independence (1200 BCE to 600 BCE), and so its characteristic red bonnet became the symbol of liberty, worn by Macedonians, Thracians, and later freed slaves in republican Rome. Eighteen centuries later, American and especially French revolutionary would wear the Phrygian "liberty cap", a red bonnet worn forward, ubiquitous in French republican iconography to this day. Meanwhile 12th century Normans had worn it, making their steel helmets in its shape, as they fought Islam all over Europe.

Thus freedom, revolt, republicanism, secularism, and not the mindless and obsequious adulation of the desert God, are mainstays of the European thought system. And deliberately, symbolically so. Not such an importance of liberty in Iran, and for Iranians. Who momentarily interrupted the independence of Phrygia? Well, Iranian Cimmerian invaders (circa 690 CE). But, beyond this, most Iranian religious holidays, to this day, are celebrations of their tremendous defeats and victimizations at the hands of (Sunni) Muslims. Celebrate torture and horror, rejoice in pain, and enjoy Ayatollahs! To each his own desire and must!

Patrice Ayme

P/S 1: On Iran’s fascist theocratic leadership: The "Supreme Leader" is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war or peace. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Assembly of Experts comprises 86 "virtuous and learned" clerics elected by adult suffrage for eight-year terms. As with the presidential and parliamentary elections, the Council of Guardians determines candidates’ eligibility.

P/S 2: The French revolution of 1789 was very anti-clerical. Although the Ancient regime was not theocratic.

P/S 3: Oh, and when will Americans start to wear the red bonnet Phrygian cap again, to free themselves from Gold-Man Sacks? Stay tuned…