Posts Tagged ‘Iran’

The Age Of War Is Coming. (In Part Courtesy US Oil.)

June 20, 2019

Yes, Earth’s climate is changing a little bit. Soon it will change enormously, and at a torrid pace. US politicians and their “Democratic” and “Republican” followers are mostly to blame: while North Americans and Australians emit more than 20 tons of CO2 per person, per year, a country such as France makes do with 4 tons (and the UK has collapsed it emissions, down to 6.5 tons now). Listen to the “Democratic” candidates: even the supposedly “anti-war” Tulsi Gabbard from Hawai’i (an intense fossil fuel state), already rejects the responsibility on other powers about doing something against climate change. Says pretty Tulsi:”The United States alone can’t accomplish this“. (Supreme hypocrisy: most of the CO2 crisis was originated in the USA!)

US led inaction is really a splendid spectacle: Trump is rightly accused, however the excellently disguised Obama did the heavy lifting, to further the CO2 production, by pushing for massive fracking (“bridge fuel to the future” he called it). Now the US is back to its usual position of world’s first producer of fossil fuels.

So the climate will change further… and will become ever more favorable to war.  


Parthia came out of nowhere, a small kingdom SE of the Caspian Sea. it invaded the Greco-Roman world gigantically. As with Scythia, just north, the Romans proved unable to address the problem. That can be directly traced to the assassination of Julius Caesar. Caesar was ready to kill both empires in one fell swoop. Instead, after his assassination, his army, the best Rome ever had, turned against itself and against the Roman Republic, ultimately pushing Caesar’s great nephew and adoptive son to become “First Man” (Princeps)

In history, there are calm periods, and periods when all hell breaks loose:

So it was between Romans and the Sassanids (Persia). War would erupt, often because the Sassanids wanted Rome out of Mesopotamia. “Mesopotamia” means between the streams, the Euphrates and the Tigris.  

Historically, monstrous Achaemenid Persia had lurched west, conquering Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Black Sea area, Athens resisted, and defeated the Persian at Marathon (while Sparta played). Something we celebrate to this day. Athens then tried to free Egypt, but was ultimately defeated by Sparta as the hand of Persia (which financed the Spartan fleet). So much for Persia always being innocuous. With its accomplice racist, enslaving, human rights abuser Sparta, Persian plutocracy smashed Direct Democracy durably, for millennia to come (and counting!)

Alexander and his father subdued Greece. That happened only because a resentful Sparta stayed out of the crucial battle. After nine  hours of combat, a charge of Alexander and his cavalry against Thebes’ Sacred Band gave the victory to the Macedonians. Thebes was eradicated, Athens was preserved, and then Alexander destroyed the Persians, going all the way to Afghanistan, India. He had to give up on visiting the Pacific.

Hellenistic successor regimes of Alexander’s empire were in turn defeated by the Parthians, who appeared in the south east corner of the Caspian Sea.

The Parthians exerted military pressure on Rome. From the Greco-Roman point of view, those were invaders of the multi-civilizational Seleucids, successor to Alexander. Julius Caesar was on his last day before going to crush them, when he was assassinated (obviously why he didn’t expect the treachery).

By 224 CE, the Sassanids in turn replaced the Parthians. The Sassanids invaded Armenia, Syria, etc. Rome counterattacked, a Roman emperor was made prisoner…


Under Shah Abbas, Iran controlled both sides of the Straits of Hormuz. That didn’t last, but the memory of it perdures… like that of Ottoman control of much of Europe, the Middle East and Africa. And, as far as the contributions… the 1001 nights were written in Paris, and the Ottoman made printing unlawful. Right, Francois I of France would send printers to the fire, too, but that didn’t last…

Back to the Present, No Nukes Enforced:

In history, there are calm periods, and periods when all hell breaks loose. Wars between Romans and various Persian empires were separated by periods of calm after major wars.

It’s mechanical: combatants are exhausted, peace treaties are signed, causes of war disappear.

We are entering an age where billions of people, because of climate change, will become refugees. Last time this happened, the climate was also changing for the worse, and the Huns were exerting pressure in the back of all German nations, which tried to flee to within the Roman empire. Gigantic pressure on the Roman border resulted in a breakdown and invasions which destroyed the empire (and much of its economy and population; for example the Vandals invaded and occupied Africa, cutting Rome’s grain supply).

What to do in such a case? The Romans should have projected military force outside of the empire in a timely manner. This is exactly what the philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius was doing, when he died (still relatively young). Marcus wanted to create two new Roman provinces, to act as buffer, and domesticate the savage, all too numerous Germans. As Caesar or Augustus, he understood that war was best, far away.

The order of the world cannot stand too many countries with nuclear weapons. Iran is going to find out that even Russia and China understand this (let alone Japan and the EU). There are already too many countries with nuclear weapons. Iranians say they have a right to them too. But those who, in the area, know long term history, will reject that. More than once the Persian Gulf was Persian all around, indeed.   

No nukes?


Yes, it will require some efforts. And, by definition, efforts are not always nice. It’s not just a matter of arguing for world government a la Einstein, shooting the breeze, looking good. We have world government. It’s called the UNSC. It’s just a bit messy, right. But better that, than the alternative. Only one way.

No nukes.


Patrice Ayme


Why Iran Can’t Have Nuclear Weapons

June 9, 2019

I talked to a young US citizen, who is also an Iranian citizen. He studies International Relations. He used to visit Iran continually (his family has various property in Iran, including farmland up north). But now no more: he is old enough to be drafted in the Iranian army, and he doesn’t want that to happen. He is secular, and not thrilled with the theologists in Iran. However, considering nuclear weapons, he said: “why can’t we have them?” As most Iranians, he feels that to be deprived of nuclear weapons is a strident injustice. Who doesn’t want to partake in nuclear fun?

For reference, the Japanese, who were smarter than the Nazis, knew perfectly well that nuclear bombs could be made, and had three programs, using different techniques, to make them (one was located in North Korea, rich in hydro, then Jap occupied). One idea was to have a bomb ready to drop on GIs gathered on a beach. However the crazed maniacs who had bullied their way at the top of Japan got a taste of that medicine before they got their own ready:

Nagasaki Bomb Explosion. The Christian city and its cathedral were not the primary objectives. Clouds got in the way. The shipyards initially targeted in another city were switched at the last moment. The bluff was to persuade the crazed maniacs leading Japan that there would be such a bomb every three days. They capitulated before the largest city of the northern island of Japan got atom bombed too. Ultimately, the atomic bombings saved millions of lives, mostly civilians in China being killed by the system the Jap invaders had set up…

In the 1960s, there was an important movement against nuclear weapons. The threat was clear: as weapons were not precise then, war planners had advised to make giant bombs: may be they could not land where intended, but then they would destroy everything in a giant radius, that was good enough. Standard equipment on bombers were bombs in the megaton range. The USSR produced up to 50,000 thermonuclear bombs or so.

A semblance of sanity prevailed later and thanks to Reagan (!) and Gorbachev, arsenals got reduced by 90% or so. (Compare with my useless friend Obama, who achieved no arm reduction, just the opposite…)

However, even after reductions, nuclear weapon systems are still formidable.

A French defense minister pointed out in the last few years:”We can kill 50 million people in twenty minutes, and we think that’s enough.”[1]

No solution was found to world denuclearization. The balance of terror is all the parental guidance the world is getting. [2] 

In the 1950-60s, because of the existential threat to Israel, France helped Israel develop nuclear weapons. At some point 5,000 French engineers were at Dimona, the top Israeli nuclear site. Israeli scientists took part in the French nuclear bomb program, all the more as rabid pacifism was rampant in the French intellectual community, and most French  physicists refused to develop nukes (ironically enough the same who hated the bomb in 1960 wanted it in 1938; but the enemy was not the same!)

It has been said by those who should know, that Israel has of the order of 200 nuclear warheads. During the Yom Kippur war, using nukes was considered. It didn’t come to that, in part because high precision US weapons arrived in a timely manner.

Since then Pakistan and India have developed large nuclear arsenals. Their main potential effect will be to reduce considerably the overcrowding of South Asia.

So most Iranians want nuclear weapons: why can’t we have them?

After all, Iran has existed for longer than India… (Lore and archeology indicate.)

But then is Islamized Iran really Iran? Even the Iranians don’t know from one moment to the next. Thus most of Iranian feasts are gloomy, except for Norouz (which is at least 5,000 years old).

The reason is that if Iran gets nukes, surely so will Arabia, and then why not Egypt, Algeria, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. And of course Japan could have thousands of nukes, any time, it’s just a small constitutional change away.

Nuclear Armageddon would be guaranteed.

So, unfortunately, the balance of terror and nuclear strike supremacy of the Permanent Members of the Security Council has to stay in place: only them should have nukes.


Why The UNSC (UN Security Council) and its five members?

One has to go back to history. China is the oldest civilization with the Western Cradle (the Indo-European civilization). Either have had organized sedentary, agricultural, states for five thousand years. Overall, France and China have been the most prominent military powers of the last two millennia. France was the modernized form of the Roman state and its continuation, and pretty much created Europe, while China created Japan, Vietnam, etc.

Chinese defenses mostly failed in the last millenium, and China spent most of the time occupied by Mongols, Jurgens, and Manchus. (OK, arguably only the Mongols (=Yuans) were really not Chinese.) In the first half of the 20C, Japan tried to invade China, and became crazed fascist from trying too hard.

Meanwhile Germany’s fascist plutocracy tried to seize all of Europe as colony, and was defeated by France and Britain. Their progeniture, the US, caused Europe more problems than it solved, and flew to the rescue of victory in wars it had contributed to launch, organize and maintain. Twice. (Yes, most historians would disagree, but they are paid to say what they say, whereas I am only rewarded with expressing the truth, a fundamental human instinct and pleasure.)  

Thus France, Britain, the US, China, Russia could pose as the main combatants against barbarity, horror, and infamy in the 20C… and they were. Moreover the first three are the champion of democracy, human rights (France abolished slavery in 655 CE, imposing that to all of Europe and later the world; then formally re-established the “Renovatio Imperium Romanorum (Renovation of the Empire of the Romans), unwilded Germany, in 1066 CE France abolished slavery in England, and French imperialists there ended establishing the world’s most advanced democracy, the British Parliament, etc.)


So it is OK that those five have nuclear weapons: they are unlikely to engage in crazed world conquest. To those who moan that France had a giant empire, let them be reminded that it was a “Mission Civilisatrice”… Not a joke when you look at the details. French Canada was not the English Colony in the Americas: the later, founded by private investors, practiced genocide, whereas the French colony, under tight government control, didn’t.  (This is also why the English won the war… Nothing like genocide, when you want space, as Hitler pointed out cogently, yet idiotically… because those things are better left unsaid.)

Argentina and Brazil were persuaded to drop their atomic bomb program. South Africa, too, and accepted to dismantle seven already completed bombs.

The world order we have now is not the best imaginable… But it works. Some Germans moan they would like a Permanent Security Council seat. Well, they already have it… through France. Otherwise why not Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc.? The beauty of it all is that all these countries can, and have sieged at the UNSC. Just, they aren’t permanent and don’t have veto powers.

So Iran will not get nukes. Arabia and Israel are dead set against it. Arabia tolerated the nukes of its de facto ally Israel: everybody understands Israel is very small, very hated, and has been disappeared thrice already, once by the Babylonians, later by the Romans, and finally by the Nazis. One could say they have excuses to take existence seriously.

But Arabia will not tolerate to have Iran as local superpower. Not again: they have seen that movie before, several times.


Shah Abbas expanded Iran back into Iraq (as happened many times prior).

Iran Was Not Always Pacific:

A leitmotiv, out there, repeated by millions of parrots, is that Iran was always pacific.

In the early Seventh Century, Iran, then Sassanid Persia, conquered most of Arabia. The backlash is that god crazed Arabs destroyed the Sassanid empire a few years later (the Romans had done the heavy lift of destroyed the Sassanids before, literally a few years before the Arabs attacked, led by their great strategist Muhammad…)    

Using an army formed in part of ghulams—Christian slaves from Armenia and Georgia who had been converted to Islam—Shah ‘Abbas re-established Iran’s borders, defeating the Uzbeks in the northeast. He would eventually expand his empire, seizing the Kingdom of Hormuz from the Portuguese, on the other side of the Arabo-Persian Gulf, and defeating the Ottomans to take control of Baghdad (Iraq) in 1623 CE. These conquests allowed Shah ‘Abbas and Iranians access to the sacred Shi’i shrines of Kazimayn, Karbala and Najaf in Iraq. It also gave the Shah complete control of trade coming through the Persian Gulf. The Shah created a magnificent capital, Isfahan, in the south. A breathtaking city I had the good fortune to visit, with some of the world’s most beautiful building (blue and gold mosques).

Not again will the Arabs say. Conscious of the fact the present world order needs to be sustain, the US and the EU agree… And no, Russia and China are not stupid enough to come to the rescue of Iran in a significant way… That’s precisely why China and Russia are on the UNSC: because they aren’t crazed too much.

Patrice Ayme



[1] Standard US and French bombs are around 250 kilotons nowadays. But they are typically on a “bus” carrying up to nine other independently guided bombs. Thus one missile on just one nuclear sub missile could destroy the largest city. for example Teheran. France has 4 of these Armageddon subs, the UK has three (the fourth was denuclearized). The US has 14 such subs, each nearly 20,000 tons (!!!), carrying 24 Trident missiles with up to eight nuclear warheads… 4 other such subs were denuclearized…)


2] Accidental nuclear war from a short circuit is possible, as Launch-On-Warning systems are still in existence, in Russia or the USA (France doesn’t do launch-on-warning, as it depends upon aircraft and nuclear subs). Unbelievably, supposedly progressive politicians in the West have long stopped caring about Launch-On-Warning, although such systems can launch nuclear war, Terminator style, any day…. Another deep failure of the Clinton and Obama administrations (I didn’t expect progressive smarts from W. Bush or Trump! But when the self-declared progressives are not progressive, we have a serious problem…)

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…