Tuesday, May 3, 2005

 

Cube of lies

"In the beginning Arabia counted a few thousand friendly gods, until the prophet Mohammed came and destroyed those gods. And the cube that was built in Mecca as the house of the gods by people rich with imagination, the Kaaba, suddenly became the house of one God, namely Allah.

This rebellious God has literally killed all the other gods and taken possession of the cube. Allah consolidated Himself over all existing traditions that surrounded the cube. This, for the other gods, uncompassionate God declared the stories of all those poor gods and their peoples untrue and unhistorical. The monotheistic jihad against the other gods laid the foundations for political and ethical intolerance. According to the colonizer of the cube, all prior history was void. This way, Allah gave the signal for the beginning of a new history and he became the first modern professional revolutionary. Thus he laid the basis for possible terror and imperialism. The result is a population brought up in deceit and violence which moves around the geometric appearance of lies: the cube.

Every Muslim, every country has wanted to have his own cube since that day: the Al-Aksa Mosque in the city of the Jews; the tombs of the descendants to Mohammed in the heart of Babylonian civilization (contemporary Iraq); as well as in the heart of the Zoroastrian civilization (contemporary Iran). So far, the most recent cube is the tomb of ayatollah Khomeiny: the founder, and in some sense, the deceiver, of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This proves once again: all idols are forbidden in Islam, except their own.

Twenty-five years ago Khomeiny returned to Iran from France and made himself with his bearded men the master of the revolution of the people.. The French philosopher Michel Foucault, a European self-hater par excellence, sympathized with Khomeiny's revolution. Foucault's qualifications are incomparable: he spoke of a "regime of truth", and about "a unique moment of origin." When the first executions started, Foucault's sympathies for the regime of truth started to dissipate.

How has the regime of truth fared since? To illustrate, a few sentences from the speech of ayatollah Ghazali, former member of the Council of Guardians. This council applies and questions the laws of the sharia, and had recently excluded approximately 3,000 reformist minded candidates from participating in the parliamentary elections. Ghazali defended removing the reformists from politics and launched a blistering attack on the Americans, Europeans (especially the French) and on Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian woman who received the Nobel Peace Prize last year.

To strengthen his case, he added the following story: "A few years ago, during a celebration in Turkey, the partygoers threw the holy Koran under the feet of the dancers present there. They weren't afraid of anybody. There was a colonel who left the party after realizing his sin. After he left, a lightning bolt came from heaven and struck the party-goers and the place, an island where the party was held. All party-goers disappeared together with the island. Even their bodies were never found again. This is a divine punishment."

Where was this island? This populist spoofing reveals the brutality of a regime of lies that, with help of made up stories and threats, constantly tries to create a new zero-point from which to rewrite history. This kind of people have been deciding for twenty-five years for whom citizens are allowed to cast their votes. The sons of Allah guard with violence over the history that they themselves have set in motion.

This 'history', the Iranian revolutionary zero-point, is starting to become odious. Everyone in Iran is wrestling with the consequences of terror and the rule of lies. The reformist parliamentarians have risen too late against this tyranny. They should have listened to the real opposition (in exile), who warned them that the constitutional power of the Islamic regime forms an obstacle to a culture of democracy and human rights.

Iran, like other totalitarian countries, has a double power structure that flows directly from the constitution. We have to think of the former Soviet Union, where the party structure and the government structure were side by side and sometimes mixed together.

The power in Iran has more or less the same anatomy: the civil, lawgiving and security bodies that obey the spiritual leaders and those civil, legal and security bodies that are connected to the president. The spiritual leader, in conformation with the constitution, is the highest body of power. He is the sovereign, the center, the cube, the pivot around whom truth is supposed to revolve.

The parliamentarians had only one basis of power: the citizens, the voters. But they have failed to organize this basis of power in the past four years. Was this an intellectual mistake? No. They didn't dare to speak to the citizens in the streets, as Yeltsin had done, because they feared the consequences.

The parliamentarians measure by two standards. During the last presidential elections the Council of Guardians removed 800 candidates. The representatives did not protest against this. Moreover, we remember how president Khatami abandoned the students in the summer of 1999. At the moment when students in Tehran were being brutally repressed, a scared president appeared as a brother beside a determined spiritual leader (Khomeiny) in the eight o clock news on Iranian television. It was disgusting to watch, as he did not even try to protect his own voters.

Deceit seems to be almost genetically determined here. From whom did we learn this? From the prophet? Who knows! The reformists were not yet prepared to relinquish the cube of lies, the republic of terror. Will they ever regain the confidence of their citizens?"

Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]