En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

samedi, 13 janvier 2018

Preparing for Iran's Next Reza Shah


Preparing for Iran's Next Reza Shah

Ex: https://jasonrezajorjani.com

No one in the mainstream media seems to have noticed that the uprising in Iran took place six months after the most well-established Iranian opposition groups were unified for the first time in 38 years of theocratic tyranny. On August 11, 2017 in Los Angeles, the Constitutionalist Party, the Pan-Iranist Party, and the National Front were brought together under the cultural umbrella of the Iranian Renaissance to form the Jebheyé Irângarâyân or Iranian United Front (literally, the “Iranist Front”).

For about a year now, a faction within the so-called “hardliners” of the Islamic Republic has been considering embracing the idea of an Iranian Renaissance in order to salvage some of the core structures of the Islamic Republic that protect Iran’s banking system from globalist control and secure Iran's territorial integrity in the face of foreign-backed separatist agitators. This faction is centered around Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, who briefly served as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Vice President and was unsuccessfully backed by Ahmadinejad to run against Rouhani (because the Guardian Council deemed Mashaei a “deviationist” for his nationalism). Mashaei’s circle has been reading Renaissance texts such as The Political Thought of Aryan Imperium, written by Shahin Nezhad, the spokesman of the Iranian Renaissance (and a Mashadi), who delivered a talk at The London Forum last February. Since this group of hardliners are a part of the regime itself, they were able to secure permits for demonstrations against worsening economic conditions and corruption. Ahmadinejad gave a speech threatening the regime's corrupt establishment shortly before the protests began, and he has since been arrested by the Islamic Republic for provoking unrest. The slogans of the Ahmadinejad-associated protests condemned the so-called “reformist” Rouhani administration for its broken promise that Iran’s concessions in the nuclear deal would raise living standards.


At the same time that these legal demonstrations were organized in the city of Mashad (the city of Imam Reza), the Iranian Renaissance planned a celebration for Ferdowsi’s birthday. The event was originally scheduled for the 27th of Âzar (his actual birthday), but then rescheduled for the 2nd of Dây (the date he gives for his birth, not adjusted to changes in the calendar system), or December 23, 2017. The tomb of the author of the Persian national epic, the Shâhnâmeh, is in Tous, just outside of Mashad. The idea was to replicate our Cyrus Day event, when hundreds of thousands gathered at the tomb of Cyrus the Great on October 29, 2016. Once busloads of ultra-nationalists arrived at the tomb, they were informed that their rally permit was revoked. These angry ultra-nationalists were diverted to Mashad where they encountered the legal hardliner demonstrations, and joined them, shifting the slogans in a nationalist direction. Then they went back home to the smaller cities and towns where the Renaissance has its largest following, rather than in more Westernized major metropolitan areas. The rest is history.

The protests that we have been seeing in Iran since late December of 2017 are fundamentally different from the Green Movement of 2009. This can be seen from the type of slogans being chanted by demonstrators. They are not in favor of democracy or demanding so-called ‘free elections.’ No one is asking “where is my vote?” and not so much as a green handkerchief can be seen on the streets during this uprising. Here is a breakdown of some of the slogans that have become definitive of this revolt.

“We are Aryans, we don’t worship Arabs!”

Iran is shorthand for Irânshahr, the Middle Persian form of Aryânâ Khashatrâ or “Aryan Imperium.” Persians never referred to Iran as “Persia” or the “Persian Empire.” What we are seeing on the streets in Iran is the spearhead of a renaissance of the Aryan heritage of Iran after 1,400 years of genocidal Arab, Turkic, and Mongol colonization. Those who are concerned that Iran’s uprising will lead to the kind of change we saw during the so-called “Arab Spring” are clueless regarding the chasm that divides the Arabs and other Muslim societies from Iranians. The #AryanSpring in Iran is radically pre- and post-Islamic, if not anti-Islamic.

“Islam and the Quran, we sacrifice them both to Iran!”

Protesters who are chanting slogans such as this are not simply opposing the 39-year old Islamic Republic. They are burning down mosques, and setting fire to the religious schools that train Mullahs (i.e. clergy) and produce the regime’s reigning Ayatollahs. People are rejecting Islam as such in favor a renaissance of pre-Islamic Persian values like the reverence for wisdom, industriousness, chivalry, tolerance, and humanitarianism.

Reza Shah & Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.jpg“Whether by cannons, guns, or tanks – the clergy have to go!”

Contrary to the peaceful nature of the upper class 2009 protest movement, which was aimed at mobilizing the international community to impose allegedly ‘free elections’ on Iran with a pre-determined neo-liberal outcome, this working class uprising is forceful. People in the streets are not demanding a chaotic ‘democratic’ revolution, one that would decimate the nation’s industries and threaten its territorial integrity. Rather, they are inviting a military coup and removal of the Ayatollahs under martial law conditions.

“Reza Shah, may your soul rejoice!”

This is probably the most popular slogan of the current uprising, and further substantiates that the will of protesters is a transition out of the Islamic Republic under martial law. Reza Shah Pahlavi (d. 1944) was an authoritarian ultra-nationalist who came to power in a military coup. He is the one who, in 1935, requested that the world call “Iran” by the same name that the Persians have called it for 3,000 years. Reza Shah was removed by the Allied powers when they invaded and occupied Iran from 1941–1946, because although Iran was officially neutral, Reza Shah ideologically leaned toward the Axis.

So it is safe to say that what is going on inside of Iran is not a “color revolution.” In point of fact, the Mossad was taken completely by surprise, and the Trump administration had not yet even formulated, let alone implemented, a cohesive plan for how to effect regime change in Iran. We preempted them. That having been said, there is a very great danger that this movement will be co-opted.

Reza Shah, Not Reza Pahlavi

Slogans of “Reza Shah, may your soul rejoice!” should not be conflated with support for Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, even if the latter’s supporters inside of Iran are attempting to conflate the two. The Crown Prince has repeatedly and emphatically rejected the legacy of his father and his even more authoritarian and ultra-nationalist grandfather. He is an advocate of liberal democracy, neo-liberal economics, and a kind of ‘human rights’ that entails federalism on an ethnic basis and the disestablishment of the Persian language (which we have not once heard come out of the mouth of his daughter and heir). In the summer of 2016 there was a revolt against him from among the ranks of the most elite proponents of a restoration of the Persian Imperial tradition. Those of us who signed the “Last Warning” statement of August 20, 2016 were particularly vexed by his close relationship with the Arab sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf (which he has referred to as “the Gulf” in order to placate them). At a CFR meeting in Dallas on February 25, 2016, he went so far as to belittle the genocidal Arab invasion of Iran and mock Iranian nationalists. At the same meeting, Reza Pahlavi II relinquished a future post-Islamic Iran’s right to nuclear weapons and suggested that Saudi Arabia should so deeply invest in Iran’s economy and industry that war with the Wahhabi Kingdom would become inconceivable for Iranians. The Crown Prince has also gone on record saying that if the religious beliefs of Muslims are to be disrespected under a new regime, then it would be better for the Islamic Republic to remain in power.

Based on this past history, his response to the current developments in Iran were quite predicable. After returning from a winter vacation in Europe, which allegedly prevented him from delivering a speech during the days of the most intense protests, on January 10, 2018, Reza Pahlavi granted an interview with the newscaster Alireza Nourizadeh. In this interview, Reza Pahlavi actually admits that he “did nothing” to catalyze the uprising. He is gleeful about the prospect of its being leaderless, and yet he attempts to co-opt the movement on the streets in Iran for his own purposes, or rather, for those of his foreign financiers and handlers.


The Crown Prince rejects the need for a charismatic leader, voicing concern that such a person could become an idol who is later toppled or smashed. He says that he has always insisted that Iran’s problems must be addressed through a bureaucratic system. This is in response to the interviewer’s rhetorical question about whether the current uprising has put him in a position of greater responsibility. As his own father once remarked about him to a prominent court minister, this Crown Prince has always endeavored to shirk responsibility by any means possible.

Reza Pahlavi denies the need for a charismatic leader to shepherd Iran’s transition out of the Islamic Republic because, unlike the grandfather who is his namesake, he is not such a leader. In fact those close to him know that he has repeatedly mocked his grandfather and criticized him for being a ‘dictator’. Apparently, the Crown Prince does not recognize the difference between dictatorship and the need for sovereign authority in a state of emergency when the normal constitutional order has been suspended. It is precisely in such situations that one cannot rely on the systematic decision-making process of a bureaucracy.


The Crown Prince also fails to recognize the difference between the type of idolatry characteristic of Sultanates and the Persian Imperial concept of farré kiâni or “divine royal glory.” The latter is an inextricable element of any properly Persian monarchical system, and it is a philosophical concept that his father embraced by assuming the title Âryâmehr or “Light of the Aryans.” The farré kiâni was aesthetically symbolized by the halo or aura around the head, a convention that entered both European and Buddhist art via Iranian influence on Roman Mithraism and the Iranian development of Mahayana Buddhism. Reza Pahlavi actually rejects the idea of farré kiâni out of deep resentment over the fact that he lacks it. Protesters on the streets are, however, clearly looking for someone with this quality.

Reza Pahlavi says, “leadership (rahbari) is not dependent on one person. We each have our own roles. A workers syndicate leader has to provide leadership (rahbari) to exactly the same extent as a social activist inside the country and a student leader and so forth.” This shows his fundamental failure to understand the concept of rahbari or shahriyâri, i.e. sovereignty, in the framework of Iranian political thought. This becomes clearer in the context of his remarks concerning democratization of Iran.


The Crown Prince identifies the establishment of a “true democracy” as the goal of the uprising against the Islamic Republic. He further defines this as the determination of Iran’s form of government, as well as all of the policies of this government, by means of “the ballot box” and according to “the will of the majority.” Interestingly, in rejecting the restoration of monarchy as a foregone conclusion, he says “I don’t know what form of government the majority of the people of Iran will choose in the future election that establishes a secular democratic parliamentary regime.” These are very telling words. They reveal that for Reza Pahlavi “a secular democratic parliamentary regime” is non-negotiable and while various ‘monarchist’ and republican parties may contend over the specific shape that it takes, the basic ideological parameters of this coming regime are predetermined.

What if the single largest segment of the population with a coherent will (what Rousseau called a volonté générale, which need not amount to 51%), prefer a regime that is not democratic or secular in the sense that Reza Pahlavi means? After all, the Islamic Republic came to power in a democratic election wherein 98.2% of the population voted for a regime that the Crown Prince himself now describes as “an occupation regime”. Perhaps Reza Pahlavi can identify what foreign power 98.2% of Iranians were acting as a fifth column for when they democratically elected it? If foreign manipulation did take place on such a scale (and perhaps it did), then why would the Crown Prince assume that democratic elections held amidst a chaotic revolution now would not be manipulated in the same way? Including, and especially, by the foreign interests who want to install him.

It is significant that he uses this phrase, “occupation regime”, to describe the Islamic Republic at a point in this interview when he is praising France as a model democracy. Since 1789 France has been through five republics, with each of the four preceding the present one being brought to an end by either a bloody revolution or a devastating war! Meanwhile, the “democratic” policies of the present French Republic have turned large parts of Paris, Marseilles, and other major metropolitan areas into Muslim slums and Sharia-law enforced no-go zones. Within a generation, there may be a Muslim majority in metropolitan France.

More fundamental than all of these criticisms is the fact that Iranian civilization is fundamentally anti-democratic and has been so since Darius and Xerxes fought with Athens over the control of Greek city states, many of which were pro-Persian. The core concept of Iranian political thought is Shahrivar (a contraction of the Avestan Khashatrâ Vairyâ), which means a utopian aristocracy wherein those who are most qualified to make decisions regarding certain areas of state policy are the ones making them, rather than the ignorant masses. This system avoids the injustice of treating those who are unequal as if they are equals. As Darius the Great states in the rock carving of Behistun, "Neither did I allow the strong to oppress the weak, nor did I allow the weak to tyrannize over the strong. I stood for what is Just." This conception of good governance guards against the manipulation of the masses by oligarchs who hide behind the façade of a democracy. Heraclitus, Pythagoras, and Plato all essentially accepted the superiority of this Persian form of government over the democracy exemplified by Athens. This ideal was resurrected in the West during the Italian Renaissance and its modern European representatives are thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Julius Evola, Carl Schmitt, and Martin Heidegger.

Unlike Greek democracy, the Persian Imperial tradition, which Reza Shah Pahlavi resurrected and Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi disowns, is one that outlawed slavery and insisted on charitably providing economic welfare to all workers (Daheshmandi) with a view to promoting industrious development and the beautification of the world (Abâdsâzié Gitiârâ). Such ideals of statecraft were superficially Islamized by Medieval Iranian thinkers like Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi and Al-Farabi, whose treatises in turn influenced Ayatollah Khomeini and some of the other theoreticians of the Islamic Republic. In other words, there are certain anti-democratic formal structures of the Islamic Republic that are thoroughly Iranian. Iranians can de-Islamize and reclaim these rather than adopting a system of government that is problematic even in the West.


Human Rights and Secularism

Reza Pahlavi claims that the next constitution of Iran should be based on the 1948 United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and he places a special emphasis on the freedom of religion (Article 18) while insisting on a “secular” regime. The Crown Prince makes it emphatically clear that by “secular” he does not mean anti-Islamic. On the contrary, he is very concerned with protecting Islam and the rights of Muslims to profess and practice their religion in tomorrow’s Iran.

The UDHR protects freedom of religion unconditionally, and it declares that popular sovereignty is the basis of the legal authority of governments. The drafters formulated these rights in an unqualified manner that renders the Declaration incoherent and self-vitiating, because it inadvertently allows the ‘moral majority’ of a religious democracy to deny dissenting minorities the very human rights that are protected by the Declaration. Certain of the drafters of the declaration were aware of this possibility. If one compares the law of the Quran to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it becomes clear that Islam is not compatible with the qualified liberal democracy that some of the UDHR drafters had in mind when writing Article 21, but is compatible with the original Greek conception of Democracy, as well as the kind of Democracy advocated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the popular revolution of 1979 is an example of a democracy that, once established, renounced its nation’s commitment to make a sincere effort to protect universal human rights under the UN Charter. There is a fundamentally false presumption underlying the drafting of Article 18’s unqualified right to freedom of religion, namely that the state can be “neutral” with respect to any and all religions. This is the same delusion that Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi is laboring under. It is nonsensical to tolerate an irrationally and inherently intolerant religion, and it is impolitic to do so when your nation is presented with a historic opportunity for a cultural revolution that could move it beyond 1,400 years of Islamic colonization at the hands of Arabs, Turks, and Mongols, on the basis of a renaissance of pre-Islamic Persian principles and ideals.

Humanism is one of these ideals, and it is often confused with the internally contradictory modern Western formulation of “human rights.” Cyrus the Great was not the author of ‘the first declaration of human rights,’ as Westernized Iranians like to refer to the Cyrus Cylinder. Cyrus the Great was an autocratic militarist whose conquests established the first true empire in human history that encompassed and integrated numerous formerly independent kingdoms. It is true that he was able to do this because, unlike previous tyrannical rulers, he was also a humanitarian. His humanitarian character and the cosmopolitan humanism of his Achaemenid successors is based on an ancient Iranian concept called Vohuman, which is the oldest Indo-European instance of the word “human.” According to Zarathustra (Zoroaster), one is a human being to the extent that one has cultivated one’s mind and thereby raised oneself above what one shares in common with animals. This sense was retained when Mithraism acted as a conduit to bring this idea from Iran to Rome, where it was revived as the ideal of humanitas in the Italian Renaissance. The West implicitly recognizes this in the designation of the liberal arts as “humanities” or the means whereby one becomes a human being. That is what Saadi of Shiraz meant in the famous poem that Barack Obama was so fond of misquoting, and that is stitched into a Persian carpet at the United Nations: “The children of Adam are all limbs of one another, should one be in distress the others unmoved cannot remain; should you be indifferent to human pain, a son of Adam may your name not remain!” This is not an endorsement of “human rights.” On the contrary, the idea is that many people are not deserving of being considered “human.” 

shah-d-iran-et-son-epouse-en-1967-637x0-2.jpgWhat is particularly alarming about Reza Pahlavi’s discourse of human rights and secularism, especially considering that he is funded by Saudi Arabia, is that he wants Sunnis in outlying provinces such as Kurdistan and Baluchistan to be able to build mosques and religious schools that reflect their beliefs. At a time when the majority of Shiite Iranians are burning down mosques and seminaries, do we really want Wahhabi-funded madrassas in Iran? Reza Pahlavi is utterly ignorant of his nation’s history when he claims, in this interview as in many others that he has given, that the Shiite-Sunni conflict does not precede the Islamic Republic’s allegedly divisive state ideology and foreign policy. When the Ismaili Assassins and Shah Ismail Safavi took up the banner of Shiism, it was to exploit this sectarian division in order protect Iran from being swallowed by the Arabian and Turkic Caliphates. Otherwise, Iran today might look a lot more like Persian-speaking Afghanistan. Iranian society has evolved beyond the need for cloaking Iranian ideas and values in a Shiite garb. Nevertheless, it is dishonest to deny the historic relationship between Shiism and the struggle to maintain Iranian identity in the face of the Sunni Muslim orthodoxy of the various Caliphates, including the present Islamic State to Iran’s immediate West and Al-Qaeda or the Taliban on Iran’s eastern border.


According to the Crown Prince, “Liberalism” was the uncompleted goal of the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1911 and the current revolt against the Islamic Republic represents the completion of the final stage of the project initiated by the constitutionalist revolutionaries. How interesting that although he rejects Iranian sacred ideals such as farré kiâni and insists that the next regime of Iran should be radically neutral with respect to every religion, Reza Pahlavi refers to the attainment of “complete liberalism” in Iran as “this sacred goal.” He does so while asserting that Iran’s new constitution should not be based on any particular ideology: “Equality before the law will have been established when no ideology is superior to any other and all ideologies are free. I see this exemplified around the world, in the freest and most progressive countries.” Does he think that Liberalism is not an ideology?

Of course it is. Liberals just cheat themselves out of an honest fight by pretending that it isn't. Liberalism is an ideology that originated in modern Europe and one that has been embraced by a particular segment of Western society, a small minority of extremely Westernized Iranians living abroad, and perhaps also an even smaller urban elite of nihilistic materialists in wealthy districts of Tehran and other big cities. It is certainly not the ideology of the people protesting since December 28, 2017.

Furthermore, Liberalism is an incoherent ideology insofar as it attempts to synthesize itself with Democracy. “Liberal Democracy” becomes a contradiction in terms as soon as the will of a majority in any country (or perhaps in a future global democracy) turns out to be illiberal. This may take the form of the electorate embracing some form of religious orthodoxy as the basis of public policy, as in the so-called “Arab Spring”, or democratic elections that empower more secular but anti-liberal forces, as in the example of Italian Fascism and German National Socialism. As Carl Schmitt understood well in his critique of John Stuart Mill, liberals like Reza Pahlavi make the mistake of confusing a political regime’s decision-making with a gentlemen’s debating society.  Every political order is at least implicitly based on a certain ideology. More than that, sovereign decision needs to be grounded in an ethos or moral character that is more fundamental than the written constitution of a nation.

“Liberalism” is an uprooted way to conceive of the values of a particular culture or civilization, values which Iranians actually may share with certain of their European cousins, on the basis of a common Aryan heritage of free-spirited chivalry and broad-minded tolerance. However, these values are nothing like universal to humanity and in Iran, in particular, they have been under a 14 century-long assault by brutal Muslim colonizers of the kind that are now targeting the West as well. It is the most liberal social atmosphere in Persian history, the Mazdakite Revolution of the late Sassanian period, that opened the way for the Islamic Conquest of Iran. The liberalizing reforms enacted by the Shah in the late 1970s, under pressure from President Carter and other Western leaders, led directly to the Ayatollahs’ tyranny. Today, when Iran is flanked by two rival forms of a fundamentalist Sunni Caliphate, and also finds itself across the Persian Gulf from a Wahhabi regime that is funding and arming anti-Persian separatists in all of Iran’s most resource-rich provinces, advocating a constitutional order based on liberal ideology is tantamount to treason.

Globalist Capitalism vs. Nationalism

The final points that Reza Pahlavi makes in his January 10th interview are the most damning. He doubles down on the direct assault on Iranian nationalism, and the promotion of globalist economics, which I blasted him for during an interview with Omid Dana that exposed his February 2016 speech and Q&A session at a Council on Foreign Relations dinner in Dallas. Toward the very end of his interview he even chuckles as he mentions that he has said these things before “at considerable cost.” He is talking about the damage that Omid and I did to him with this interview. Unrepentant, the Crown Prince patronizingly explains that: “We have to think deeply and get out of these blind nationalist games that always pit Arabs against Aryans and look at things in a way that is a little more sophisticated and realistic.”  He goes on to point out that European nations that fought terrible wars with one another are now joined together in the European Union, citing France and Germany, and France and England, in particular. Based on this grotesquely false analogy, which shows his inability to even conceive of an Iranian Civilization distinct from the Arab and other Muslim cultures that misappropriated its genius, he argues that Iran should enter into a regional common market with Saudi Arabia. Each of the countries in that market, the vast majority of which would be Arab states, ought to invest in all of the others to the extent that war between them becomes impossible.

In fact, Reza Pahlavi goes so far as to suggest that Iran should agree to have an integrated military structure with Saudi Arabia that would act as a “common defense” for the entire region of the Middle East and North Africa, stretching as far as Morocco. He repeatedly emphasizes that these ideas are based on numerous conversations with big players in the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and “the Arab world as a whole” where, he claims, people have no animosity toward Iranians and are only opposed to the Islamic Republic. So the Crown Prince essentially wants Iran to be swallowed by the GCC or Arab League, and one is left wondering if he could really be so idiotically naive as to believe what his Arab benefactors are telling him.

“In the end it’s all about people being able to get their daily bread, right?” he asks rhetorically. “Well, then,” he says, “if that’s what it is, tell me where the majority of the capital for rebuilding our nation is going to come from? …Who has the most money in their hands? These very same countries in the region. Should we throw it at each other in the form of missiles?! Or should there be capital investment in Iran to create jobs?” In other words, Reza Pahlavi wants sheikhdoms like Saudi Arabia and the UAE to be the single largest source of capital investment for the rebuilding of Iran’s economy after the overthrow of the Islamic Republic destroys all of those industries under the control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The cherry on top is what he says about the banking system of Iran, which is currently one of the very few nations in the world without a Rothschild controlled bank: “When you… institute international standards, and regulations concerning banks – Iran is crying out for this! We cannot constantly be interfering in the affairs of our neighbors.” Really? The protesters are crying out for a Rothschild bank?

Reza Pahlavi is a disgraceful antithesis of the grandfather who is his namesake. The Pahlavi dynasty died with the Crown Prince's 'suicided' brother, Shapur Ali Reza – a true patriot and a doctor of Iranian Studies. This leaves us asking, “Who is the next Reza Shah?” Certainly not Maryam Rajavi or any commander of her Islamist-Marxist militia.

An Islamist-Marxist Terrorist Cult

The Mojaheddin-e-Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO) was the main force behind the hostage taking at the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. They also introduced the description of America as “the Great Satan” and the slogan “Death to America!” into the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Anyone who has honestly studied the Iranian Revolution in depth knows that the hostage crisis was engineered, on the American side, by 33° freemason and CIA director George H.W. Bush. The Bushes are so close to the House of Saud that former Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Bandar bin Sultan was nicknamed “Bandar Bush.” So it should be no surprise that Saudi Prince Turki Bin-Faisal has praised the late Massoud Rajavi, leader of the Mojahhedin-e-Khalq, as a hero worthy of those memorialized in the Shâhnâmeh.


On the weekend of July 2nd 2017, in a suburb of Paris, prominent US Senators Newt Gingrich and Joe Lieberman joined Saudi Prince Turki Bin Faisal to attend an event organized by the Mojaheddin-e-Khalq. At the meeting, former Democratic senator Robert Torricelli, who has since become the group’s lawyer, described them as the “point of the spear” for regime change in Iran. Also known by the aliases People’s Mojaheddin Organization of Iran (PMOI) and National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the group was on the US State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations until being removed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in September of 2012.

The Mojaheddin most certainly belonged on that list. Aside from the fact that these guerrilla fighters were responsible for assassinating Americans in 1970s Iran, and initiating the hostage-taking at the American Embassy in Tehran after the Shah was removed from power, they are first and foremost guilty of terrorizing their own membership. The group, led by Maryam Rajavi (in the wake of her husband Massoud’s recent death), is essentially a totalitarian cult of personality that controls every aspect of the lives of followers and demands blind obedience from them. Their bizarre ideology fuses a Che Guevara or Maoist type of Marxism with an anti-clerical and therefore radically heterodox messianic Shiite Islam. Their political leadership and militia commanders include red headscarf wearing women, and yet men and women are even more strictly segregated in Mojaheddin facilities and encampments than they are under the sharia law of the Islamic Republic. Members of the group are even forced to divorce their spouses and pledge all of their love to their Leader. When Massoud was still alive, it is rumored that he used to sleep with other members’ former wives as a test of loyalty. Also consistent with what is observed in many cults is the fact that disobedience from members, of any age, meets with physical torture, solitary confinement, and brainwashing tactics.

The group has virtually no following inside of Iran. After they helped to bring the provisional government of the Islamic Republic to power, Ayatollah Khomeini turned on them in 1980 and they responded by siding with Saddam Hussein during his 8-year, Western-backed war of aggression against the Iranian people. They defected to Iraqi territory taking some tank divisions and helicopters with them. Consequently, the Mojaheddin are considered traitors by almost everyone in Iran. It does not help that, during the war, the MEK agreed to govern the Iraqi-occupied oil-rich province of Khuzestan for Saddam, in the event that it could be separated from the rest of Iran, or that the NCRI’s official charter and proposed constitution promises regional autonomy and the right of self-determination to Kurdish separatists who falsely deny that all Kurds are Iranians. The US-occupation of Iraq in 2003, and the subsequent increase of Iranian influence in Iraq has meant that Iraq is no longer a safe haven for them, with the very significant exception of separatist Iraqi Kurdistan. Consequently, Rajavi and her followers have relocated most of their resources to the West.


Senator Lieberman and former House Speaker Gingrich, who has been photographed bowing before the group’s leader, are not the only prominent politicians on the Mojaheddin’s payroll. The former governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, has been paid more than $150,000. Rudy Giuliani, the 9/11 mayor of New York, Republican Presidential candidate and close associate of Donald Trump, has received a $20,000 ‘honorarium’ for each of the many twenty minute speeches that he has given at MEK events over the years (including when the group was still listed as a terrorist organization). Senator “Bomb Bomb Iran” John McCain has accepted a medal from the MEK and praised them as “freedom fighters.” The list of the MEK’s bought and paid-for supporters in Washington goes on and on, including former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, top brass of the US military such as Generals Wesley Clark, Peter Pace, Hugh Shelton, and Anthony Zinni, as well as three former directors of the CIA: James Woolsey, Michael Hayden, and Porter Goss.

The question is: Where does the MEK get its money? Tel Aviv and the Israel Lobby in the United States. The Mossad has trained the group’s operatives to carry out assassinations of nuclear scientists in Iran and clandestinely gather intelligence on Iranian nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) successfully strong-armed Hillary Clinton’s State Department to remove the Mojaheddin from its list of terrorist groups. Elie Wiesel and Alan Dershowitz are among the group’s most prominent advocates.

It has been very disturbing to see the NCRI/MEK/MKO promoted over American intelligence-backed Persian language news services during the course of the uprising. The CIA-run Voice of America Persian Service allowed Maryam Rajavi to use its capability to satellite broadcast into Iran and this reached another level with FOX News giving airtime to this Mojaheddin representative to distort the American public’s perception of this revolt against the Islamic Republic.

Bonapartist Persia

Concern over this movement being co-opted is, considering all of the above, quite reasonable, but it should leave no one with the illusion that the Islamic Republic can somehow be salvaged. Consider that 90% of the 3,700 protesters arrested in Iran are under 25 years old. No one should be fooled by the pro-regime demonstrations displayed on IRI propaganda outlets like Press TV. They are fake news. As in this case of this video from Shiraz, the Islamic Republic is transporting its supporters by bus from one city to another, staging demonstrations there, filming them, and moving on to the next city to repeat the same routine. In some cases, such as the alleged pro-regime demonstrations in Neyriz, they are simply broadcasting old footage of Qods Day gatherings on state TV. On the contrary, precisely because the situation has crossed the point of no return, it is imperative for the Iranian people to receive every encouragement to persist in their valiant struggle. Otherwise, those with the worst intentions will seize this opportunity to take up the mantle of opposition to the Ayatollahs.

President Trump should maintain his public support for the uprising in Iran. However, he should under no circumstances authorize a US military intervention in Iran. Moreover, the White House must prevent the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia from manipulating the situation in Iran with their support for ethnic separatists and other terrorist organizations such as the MEK/MKO/NCRI. No one should militarily engage the Islamic Republic (even outside of Iran), as this would give the regime an excuse to crush any attempted coup as an act of treason. Finally, the President and his cabinet (i.e. Secretary Tillerson) would be well advised to never use the term “Arabian Gulf” again. It almost completely cost them their credibility with a population that could potentially turn Iran into America’s most reliable long-term strategic ally in the Islamic world.

At the same time, Americans should not impose their expectations upon Iran or be deceived by an opportunist like the Crown Prince simply because he mirrors those expectations. In view of how the current uprising began, one can project that it will not end with free elections and wholesale replacement of the Islamic Republic by foreign-based opposition. Rather, we are headed for a coup d'état by members of both the IRGC and the national military, a coup which preserves certain formal structures of the Islamic Republic while replacing its ideological content through a top-down cultural revolution.

That is as it should be. This uprising is not about democracy, human rights, and secularism. It is about the idea of "Iran", which is an inherently imperial idea. The repudiation of the Rouhani government is also a rejection of the international community's denial of Iran's right to nuclear weapons. Given its glorious world-historical civilization and incomparable geostrategic position, Iran should certainly have nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the numerous nuclear-armed rivals that surround it (recall that Russia alone is responsible for militarily conquering and colonizing one-third of Iranian territory, and that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is essentially owned by Saudi Arabia). "Neither for Gaza, nor for Lebanon, I'll sacrifice my life for Iran!" is not a slogan of retreat or surrender. It is just that the sixth Persian Empire will have no place for the Palestinians or Hezbollah.

Iran is surrounded by 10 artificial states, and at least half of them were former provinces – some, for example northern Azerbaijan and large parts of Georgia in the Caucasus, were still part of Iran as recently as the 19th century (which is yesterday in terms of Iranian history). That Iranians are not willing to waste their lives and their hard-earned money on protecting Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian, and Yemeni Arabs, does not mean that Iran can be prevented from re-integrating territories that have been part of at least five successive Persian Empires, including Iraq and the Tajik (i.e. Persian-speaking) regions of Afghanistan and Central Asia. As soon as he became the Revolution, Napoleon formed an Empire. Westerners (and irredeemably Westernized Persians) need to stop agitating for democracy in Iran. They should prepare themselves for the rise of Bonapartist Persia.

vendredi, 10 novembre 2017

Lovers of Sophia


Lovers of Sophia

Jason Reza Jorjani

Ex: https://manticorepress.net

Introduction to Lovers of Sophia

JRJ-sophia.jpgThis mammoth volume is a collection of twenty distinct philosophical reflections written over the course of a decade. Most of them are essays, some almost of book length. Others would be better described as papers. A few are well structured notes. There is also one lecture. A magnum opus like Prometheus and Atlas does not emerge from out of a vacuum, and an alternative title to these collected works could have been “The Path to Prometheus and Atlas.” While there are a few pieces that postdate not only that book but also World State of Emergency, most of the texts included here represent the formative phase of my thought. Consequently, concepts such as “the spectral revolution” and “mercurial hermeneutics” are originally developed in these essays.

In addition to revealing the context for the genesis of specific concepts that I have developed, these reflections also have certain stylistic features and central concerns that, when taken together with my two published books, make it possible to discern the key characteristics of my philosophical standpoint. For example, I reject any subdivision of Philosophy into distinct and specialized fields such as Ontology, Epistemology, Aesthetics, Ethics, and Politics. The main reason that I have included “An Introductory Lecture on Ethics” is because it exemplifies my integral conception of what it means to philosophize. From the essay, “Philosophy, Science, and Art” it becomes clear that beyond a rejection of specialization within Philosophy, I go so far as to argue against any fundamental differentiation of Philosophy from the arts and sciences. It is my contention that philosophers (such as Aristotle and Descartes) determine the deep structure of successive scientific paradigms, at least at their inception, and that philosophical thought can take place in an artistic and literary medium. This is why several of the pieces here are interpretations of literary or cinematic works, such as The Trial of Franz Kafka, or two films based on the writings of Philip K. Dick. In my view, aesthetic intuition is a necessary (but not a sufficient) condition for being a philosopher.

While on the subject of what it means to be a philosopher, let me point out that it is only with the publication of these essays that I reconcile myself to making the claim that I am one. Thus far I have described myself only as “an aspiring philosopher”. In addition to the aforementioned “Introductory Lecture on Ethics” and reflection on the relationship between “Philosophy, Science, and Art”, my diatribe “Against Perennial Philosophy” makes it quite clear that I do not recognize the majority of academics in the field of Philosophy as “philosophers” even though they disrespect the great thinkers of the past by referring to themselves as that. “Against Perennial Philosophy” actually disqualifies the majority of so-called “philosophers” in the Canon as well, and it suggests that there has hardly been any philosophy worthy of the name outside of the Indo-European civilizations (including Buddhist Asia).

A philosopher is someone whose thought engages with fundamental questions concerning Truth, Beauty, and Justice, in a way that leads to the discovery of concepts with a potential to catalyze scientific and political revolutions. The philosopher’s ethics and politics must be grounded on his ontology and epistemology, and, as I have already suggested, this integral thought has to be guided by an aesthetic intuition comparable to that of the most extraordinary geniuses in literature and the arts. This is a definition that disqualifies scientists as innovative as Khayyam, Galileo, and Newton, political theorists like Cicero, Rousseau, and Strauss, or artists such as Ferdowsi, Dostoyevsky, and Kubrick. That I reflect philosophically on the brilliant works of Franz Kafka and Philip K. Dick, does not mean that I consider them philosophers. On this definition, there are probably not many more than two dozen philosophers known to recorded history. (This qualifier “recorded history” is important since I am certain that we have lost a great deal of legitimate philosophy to vicissitudes such as the burning of the Library of Alexandria or the Islamic Conquests of Iran and India.) On account of the development of at least four original concepts thus far, namely the “spectral revolution” and “mercurial hermeneutics” in Prometheus and Atlas, the concept of a “world state of emergency” in the book by that name, and the terrifying idea of a “destructive departure in worldview warfare” from the essay “Black Sunrise” that appears in this volume, I now see myself as (just barely) having joined the ranks of these fellow lovers of Sophia.


The backbone of this collection is constituted of critical, and in some cases iconoclastic, contemplation of the work of my predecessors in the Canon: Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, James, and Wittgenstein. The interpretation of Plato ventured in “The Pharmakon Artist” and that of Aristotle in “Building the Theater of Being” are totally original and extremely destabilizing to received tradition. The essay on Hegel’s “Paranormal Phenomenology”, which also adopts and adapts certain ideas from Maurice Merleau-Ponty, is the point of origin for the concept of “mercurial hermeneutics” further developed in Prometheus and Atlas.

But it is by no means the case that these philosophical reflections are limited to the Western Canon. Rather, one of the distinguishing characteristics of Prometheus and Atlas as well as World State of Emergency is the cosmopolitan scope of my thought. My “Critique of Shiite Esotericism” and exegesis of “Verse 4:34” from the Quran, are incisive philosophical critiques of Islam. They were instrumental scholarly exercises on the way to the anti-Islamic argument of World State of Emergency. Essays like “Serpent Power of the Superman”, where I argue that Hindu Tantra is more Nietzschean than Nietzsche, reaffirm that I recognize no distinction between ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ philosophy. Although most of what could be called philosophical thought in the East is Indo-European or Aryan in origin, my “Notes on the Tao of Bruce Lee” suggest that Aryan traditions like Buddhism can be augmented by assimilating elements of non-Aryan traditions such as Taoism. As I argued in both Prometheus and Atlas and World State of Emergency, I see this innovatively evolving cosmopolitan humanism as one of the most distinctive qualities of the Indo-European community. Bruce Lee is Aryan, not Chinese – and I say that mainly on account of the form of his thought, rather than his half-German genetic inheritance or his upbringing in the British colonial culture of Hong Kong.

By the way, as “Trial Goddess” strongly suggests, I also consider Franz Kafka to be an Aryan. Fragmentary as his writings may be, in my view Kafka is the peak of German literature – or rather the cathedral gloom of its most horrifyingly abyssal depth. How integral Jews have been to defining the most Aryan of attitudes and ideas in the Western Canon is also clear from the overwhelming influence of Baruch Spinoza on the development of the core structure of Nietzsche’s thought, which I trace in the essay, “Spinoza, the Untimely One.” Nietzsche, the progenitor of the Aryan Superman, himself recognized the Jews as a world-historical community who, as compared to their small numbers, have demonstrated an incomparable genius in every field of human endeavor, producing some of the most brilliant philosophers, scientists, artists, and mystics.

To the horror of those who consider cosmopolitan Jews to be nothing other than crafters of corrupting golem, in the essay “Prisoners of Property and Propriety” I argue that Karl Marx was a devotee of Prometheus – the most Aryan of all divinities. Moreover, it is in this essay on Marx and other radical Marxists that I first developed the concept of the “spectral revolution” as early as 2010. I synthesized Prometheus and Atlas from this essay with Deleuze’s idea of conceptual personae in “Philosophy, Science, and Art” and Merleau-Ponty’s understanding of spectrality as I interpret it in “Paranormal Phenomenology”, in order to produce the core structure of my magnum opus. Reflecting on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s concept of language games was also instrumental to arriving at the idea of “worlds at war over Earth” in Prometheus and Atlas.


My thinking defies all binaries. More than that – it mocks them. Those who know how to read esoterically, as I know how to write esoterically, ought to have discerned that in Prometheus and Atlas. Hermes or Mercury, the Trickster, is not the book’s villain. Like the figure of The Joker in the essay “Gotham Guardian”, he (or she, another false binary) is an agent of chaos and a de-structuring force required for any new world order. This is what the Alt-Right never understood about Pepe, the incarnation of the ancient Egyptian god Kek. Of all the figures in the leadership of the Alt-Right, I was Kek’s most faithful emissary. Richard Spencer and Daniel Friberg are just the devil’s playthings.

This brings me to “Black Sunrise”, which is by far the most disturbing essay in this collection and the only one in which I develop a new concept beyond those of my first two books. While a superficial reading might leave one with the impression that this is a Fascist manifesto, those who are attentive will find no explicit endorsement. Even more thoughtful people would recognize that the text carries out what occultists call “revelation of the method.” The method in question is the means whereby a global Fascist state could be established on this planet, well within this century. I conceptualize this method as “destructive departure in worldview warfare” – a loose translation from the much more evocative German phrase that I coined to express this idea: Abbauende Aufbruch ins Weltanschauungskrieg. This is not a hypothetical idea.

It is, in practice, the most radical form of psychological warfare imaginable. It presupposes an anarchical existential ontology on the basis of which one can captivate entire societies through the manipulation of false binaries that form the fabric of their weltanschauung. The societies are broken down and then re-conquered by a breakaway civilization, in comparison to which the target societies are simulacra with programmable mytho-poetic variables. I disclose the modus operandi of this occulted Fascist breakaway civilization. But what is more interesting, from a philosophical standpoint, is the way in which this disclosure serves as the context for an exploration of some radical ideas about the nature of space-time and the possible non-linearity of human history reaching all the way back to the antediluvian civilization of Atlantis.

These questions about Time, and specifically whether it is possible for the future to re-write the past, are at the heart of the debate over free will and determinism. One of the oldest philosophical debates, it is central to at least four of the pieces in this book: “Free Will vs. Logical Determinism”, “Rewriting God’s Plan”, “Changing Destiny”, and “An Introductory Lecture on Ethics.” Readers who are familiar with Prometheus and Atlas will know that my argument for Free Will, which draws heavily on the metaphysics of William James, also featured prominently in that text. Consequently, this concern with the metaphysical preconditions of human freedom, conscientious action, and genuine creativity can rightly be seen as one of the most defining characteristics of my thought. These four essays on free will should leave no doubt that I am, above all, a freedom fighter. It is because, like Zarathustra and Buddha before me, I recognize that superhuman gods are real but unjust and deceptively manipulative that I reject democracy as a political form that is capable of protecting the creative power of the precious individual genius. Democracies will always be instruments of these master manipulators, whether through their direct power over the psyche of the ignorant mob or through their dealings with oligarchs who hide behind the façade of democracy in order to outlast other more forthright forms of tyranny.

My philosophical project ultimately represents a rebellion against all forms of tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority. Its goal is the highest human self-consciousness and the most creative self-determination. One reason that this has not been understood is that my detractors, and those who have defamed me, are not capable of seeing past their own noses. At its deepest and most esoteric level, my thought, like that of Plato or Nietzsche, is scaled to thousands of years of human and post-human evolution. People who think that John Rawls is a philosopher and waste their time writing about him are ants laboring in the shadow of my obelisk. What is written in these pages is not for them. It is for you, lovers of Sophia – all of you, across the ages into the distant future, into the lighthouses of a galactic Alexandria. From Zarathustra onwards, we are all flames of the same undying cosmic fire. We are the glowing forge of futures past.

samedi, 21 octobre 2017

The Coming Persian War


The Coming Persian War

Ex: https://jasonrezajorjani.com

On Friday the 13th of October, 2017, President Trump gave a speech on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that Persians will forever remember as “the Arabian Gulf” speech. Seven months earlier, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced that the United States was initiating a “comprehensive review” of its Iran policy, including the JCPOA colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.” About a month after Tillerson’s April 19th statement, the Secretary of State accompanied President Trump on a state visit to Saudi Arabia where the President addressed tens of Arab nations in a speech that identified Iran as the leading state sponsor of terrorism. This, despite the fact that Iran has never carried out an act of terrorism on American soil whereas, during his campaign, Donald Trump himself rightly identified Saudi Arabia as responsible for helping to plan and organize the 9/11 attacks. A comparison of the remarks of candidate Trump regarding Saudi Arabia to the policies of President Trump on Saudi Arabia is one of the clearest examples of Donald Trump’s hypocrisy and charlatanry. Another is his not having included the Saudis in his “Muslim ban” that does prevent Iranians from immigrating to the United States. The candidate who lambasted Hillary Clinton for taking money from Saudi Arabia went on to literally do a war dance with the Saudis, and to form a coalition with them against Iran. Several weeks after this trip to Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Tillerson referred to the Persian Gulf as “the Arabian Gulf”.

During his Friday the 13th speech decertifying the JCPOA and laying out a strategy for regime change in Iran, President Trump echoed his Secretary of State when nearly six minutes into the twenty minute speech, he said that Iran “harasses American ships and threatens freedom of navigation in the Arabian Gulf and Red Sea.” Trump’s speech presented the outcome of the “comprehensive review” of Iran policy announced by Tillerson back in April. In summary, the new Iran policy includes renegotiating the nuclear deal to remove the time limits on the heavy restrictions of Iran’s nuclear energy program, to target Iran’s ballistic missile development, especially its efforts to acquire ICBMs, as well as measures not directly related to the nuclear program but targeting the regime, such as the imposition of crippling sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which “has hijacked large portions of Iran’s economy”, and finally, to support “regional allies”, i.e. Sunni Arab states, in confronting the Iranian military and paramilitary presence in Shiite-majority countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

For someone who has long been involved in the Iranian opposition to the Islamic Republic, and who was outraged by Obama Administration policies toward that regime, there were certainly elements of Trump’s speech that, on the face of it, seemed positive. These included his description of the regime as a tyranny that does not reflect the character and will of “a proud people”, a regime that has “raided the wealth of one of the world’s oldest and most vibrant nations.” Trump rightly condemned the Islamic Republic for brutally crushing the peaceful mass demonstrations of the summer and fall of 2009. He rightly chastised Obama for a nuclear deal that “threw Iran’s dictatorship a political and economic lifeline, providing urgently needed relief from the intense domestic pressure…” Indeed, Obama was penning secret letters to the Supreme Leader at the same time that the latter was ordering the murder and torture of young unarmed protestors whose chants included “Obama, Obama, either with us (the Iranian people) or with them (the Islamic regime)!” Trump’s evocative description of Obama’s perverse physical transfer of “huge piles” of cash to the Mullahs by airplane was particularly compelling.

There is, however, good reason to question the sincerity of the President when he claims that in his proposed policy of confronting the Islamic Republic, the United States government stands “in total solidarity with the Iranian regime’s longest suffering victims… The Iranian people [who] long to… reclaim their country’s proud history, its culture, its civilization…” The bare minimum of showing respect for the people of Iran’s millennial Persian civilizational heritage is to refer to the Persian Gulf by its proper name, which dates from the time of classical Greek geographers and has since been officially recognized by all major international organizations. Wanting to get under the skin of the Mullahs and threaten them is no excuse, since from the moment that they seized power in 1979, they have been Arabizers that tried to suppress Iran’s Persian identity. At one point they even wanted to bulldoze Persepolis and change Iran’s language to Arabic. President Trump’s use of the bogus term “Arabian Gulf” was bound to terribly offend the Persian people themselves. It reveals that the rest of his rhetoric about Persians being oppressed and victimized by the Islamic Republic was primarily for domestic consumption, preparing Americans for the “liberation” of yet another country.

Trump’s deployment of the phrase “Arabian Gulf” was no more accidental than Secretary of State Tillerson’s seven months earlier. It signals the true end game of the new Iran policy: the transformation of the Persian Gulf into the Arabian Gulf through targeting Iran’s nationwide Persian cultural identity by engineering ethnic separatism, reducing Iran to an impoverished rump state of ‘Persia’ surrounded by resource-rich “microstates” exploitatively controlled by Saudi Arabia and the rootless global capitalists whose cancerous Deep State has destroyed America’s moral compass. That Trump and Tillerson intend to pursue a war with this outcome was made clear in statements that Walid Phares volunteered to Fox News on October 13th during a preview and preliminary analysis of the President’s “Arabian Gulf” speech.

When asked about the nature of the new Iran policy that the President was about to announce, Phares explained, “The Pasdaran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, will be under the focus of [i.e. in the crosshairs of] our allies, and speaking of our allies, remember the President went to Riyadh. He met with 50 Arab and Muslim leaders. This is way different from what was the situation in the ‘90s. He has a much larger coalition. Even if the Europeans are going to be criticizing his position, he has a much larger bloc in the region to work with.” The Fox News anchor fails to ask Phares why he is jumping all the way back to the 1990s rather than drawing a contrast with Obama’s Iran policy. What does a “larger coalition” of Arab nations have to do with “the situation in the ‘90s”?


Phares is referring to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the coalition of Arab nations that George H. W. Bush formed to demolish Iraq. Saudi Arabia was the backbone of this coalition, as it will be the linchpin of the “much larger bloc” of Sunni Arab states that Trump will lead in a war that shatters and devastates Iran. On Phares’ revealing analogy, the Revolutionary Guard’s forward positions in the Shiite crescent are akin to the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. The difference is that the entirely predictable reaction of the Islamic Republic of Iran to being bombarded by Saudi-based missiles and air force jets is going to be a massive retaliation against Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-Arab sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf, which will require American and allied Arab forces to put boots on the ground in Iran (at least in support for ethnic separatists and other terrorists) whereas Bush Senior’s coalition never marched to Baghdad. It is also predictable that, if attacked, the Islamic Republic will use Hezbollah to unleash asymmetrical warfare inside the United States on a scale that makes 9/11 look like a firecracker. Certainly, at that point, Congress will be intimidated into authorizing a full-scale American occupation of Iran.

I met Walid Phares and discussed Iran policy with him. Later on, I wrote him a very substantive letter warning the Trump Administration not to go down the Pro-Saudi path that it has since chosen to pursue with respect to regime change in Iran. This was the secret plan that Hillary Clinton had for dividing and conquering Iran, and the main reason that I and so many others within the Persian Renaissance movement supported Donald Trump was to make sure that it never actually became US foreign policy. The one thing that could turn the largely pro-American Persian people against the United States is American support for a Saudi-led Sunni Arab war against Iran. I was introduced to Walid Phares by Michael Bagley, the former intelligence director of the infamous Blackwater militia and founder of the Jellyfish intelligence agency.

During the summer of 2016, a certain individual contacted me. I’ll call him X. He praised Prometheus and Atlas to high heaven and said some things that I am not going to disclose because you will find them as hard to believe as I did before I was read into certain esoteric projects. Initially, I dismissed X as a nutcase and would rarely respond to him. Then he offered to concretely assist my efforts on the Persian front by putting me in touch with Michael Bagley, the President of Jellyfish, which he described as a private security and intelligence agency working with the Trump Team to prepare a new United States policy regarding Iran and the Islamic world. I was told that General Michael Flynn worked for Jellyfish, clandestinely of course, and I appreciated Flynn’s position on the Islamic threat. I figured that engaging with Michael Bagley would be an easy way to find out whether X was a crank or whether the other things he was telling me might be true.

Whereas some of what I later saw and heard while working with X and his other associates (there was a Y and Z) might have been smoke and mirrors, deliberately tailored to my personality profile and edgy techno-scientific interests, Michael at least turned out to be totally legit. His clients mostly consist of the chief executives of Fortune 500 companies, but I surmised that he had a special rapport with X and that the group X represents had some role in forming Jellyfish and mainly used it for their purposes – with the corporate consulting acting as a cash cow. I met with Michael months before the 2016 Presidential Election, again after Trump’s victory (which I was not surprised to see), as well as in the early days of the new administration. He would see President Trump on a regular basis, and he introduced me to others with even more access, including Walid Phares, who Michael described as the shadow Secretary of State. He said that Rex Tillerson was just supposed to be a front man, and that when I spoke to Walid I should assume that I am essentially speaking directly to President Trump. What really interested me was a proposal by Michael that I act as a liaison who provides media content produced by the Persian Renaissance Foundation to Jellyfish for broadcast into the Islamic Republic of Iran from a facility in Croatia.


Why Croatia? As X and I discussed, Croatia is a part of Iranian civilization. During Tito’s rule, which imposed a Slavic identity on all of Yugoslavia, scholars were actually prosecuted, imprisoned, and even tortured for researching and writing about the Iranian origin of the Croatian people. Specifically, they are part of the Scythian branch of Iranians – cousins of the Persians who rode deep into Europe. Widely known in Europe as “Alans”, they brought the Persian culture of chivalry and the Arthurian mythos to the West. On top of their Scythian ethnic roots, they were also a colonial territory of the Persian Empire under Darius – whose naval power, at its zenith, reached the Adriatic Sea. At least, that is how X pitched it to me. For all I know, Michael has never heard of the Scythians and the Balkans facility had absolutely nothing to do with Croatia’s heritage.

You see Michael’s interest in me was not limited to what we called “the Iran project.” At a meeting we had in Washington just before the Trump Administration came to power, Michael proposed to “take Richard [Spencer] out” and install me as the leader of the Alt-Right. By then, I had met Richard during NPI 2016 and, as someone whose fatal flaw is always wanting to see the best in people, I counter-proposed that Spencer was a reasonable guy who would accept direction from above if it meant that, through a figurehead other than himself, he could have access to the President. Steve Bannon was known to be a reader of Arktos books and Michael’s plan was to send me into the White House to cultivate a relationship with Bannon, and through him, to influence President Trump. My main reason for wanting to have such influence was to help determine Iran policy. Michael got at least one of my letters on this subject into the hands of the President. In it, on behalf of the Persian Renaissance, I explicitly warned Trump not to pursue a pro-Saudi or generally pro-Arab strategy for regime change in Iran. In retrospect, I suppose that through that letter the President and his policymakers also acquired some fairly substantive intelligence on our outlook, intentions, and capabilities.

Together with X and Michael, a plan was hammered out to secure my position as the leader of the Alt-Right by creating a corporate structure that unified the major institutions of the movement, in both North America and Europe, bringing Richard’s National Policy Institute think tank together with Daniel Friberg’s European Arktos publishing house, and the Red Ice Radio and Television network founded by Henrik Palmgren. A major investment would allow me to become a majority shareholder both in this new Alt-Right Corporation, and in its would-be subsidiary, Arktos Media, replacing Daniel Friberg as its CEO. When I expressed concern to Michael about what this plan would mean for my academic career, he replied, “What do you need an academic job for? You’ve been there and done that. Now it’s time for us to put some money in your pocket.” When a man who routinely does work on contract for Fortune 500 executives says something like that, it really does amount to an assurance that one will not be thrown under the bus (in the way that I now have been).

The funds for this investment into the Alt-Right Corporation, through yours truly, were going to be secured through a multi-billion dollar black budget for a classified project to be implemented by the Trump Administration. That project involved the construction of a vast constellation of “micro cities” in North Africa and Western Anatolia to contain the flow of migrants from the Islamic world into Europe, and to act as resettlement areas for illegal immigrants expelled from European countries. I was fully aware of the catastrophic damage that these migrants were doing to the social fabric of European countries: increasingly frequent acts of terror, molestation of women and children, and the spread of no-go zones where sharia law is enforced in European cities. So I can honestly say that I would have had no problem sleeping at night knowing that I was profiting from a project that would relocate these mostly military-aged Muslim men to places where they cannot volunteer to act as a fifth column for the Islamic State. Especially since I had been forced to helplessly witness ISIS destruction of the irreplaceable Iranian heritage in regions of northern Iraq and Syria that were once cultural centers of the Persian Empire. Not to mention the rape, enslavement, and genocide of Yazidi Kurds, crypto-Mithraists who are the purest remnant of ancient Iranian ethnicity.


As I have explained in previous pieces, the funding for a capital investment that would have established me as the majority shareholder of the Alt-Right Corporation never materialized. Now you can see why. Neo-Cons and Neo-Liberals at high levels conspired to ensure that President Trump never authorized the construction of what they considered glorified concentration camps, even though I was told by both Michael and X that the black budget funding for the “micro cities” had already been allocated.

Let me tell you what X did when I started writing him letters warning that I was losing control of my partners and influence over the direction of the corporation. I wrote that I would be forced to take drastic measures if he and Michael allowed me to be humiliated in front of them on account of hollow promises and repeated, false assurances that the obstacles had been cleared and the capital would finally reach us. This was Spring of 2017, before the current troubles in Venezuela. X sent me a nearly $1 billion itemized oil contract, to pass on to a top-notch petroleum engineer at one of the world’s largest oil companies and ask if they were willing to take it on. X confessed that his “Promethean pirates” were planning to overthrow the socialist government of Venezuela and that they needed to get into the oil industry there before doing so. The engineer came back and said his company was not capable of the project.

I am sorry to have to disclose these facts. However, in the wake of The New York Times libelous publication of the video footage of me that Patrik Hermansson (aka. ‘Erik Hellberg’) surreptitiously obtained and deceptively edited, I contacted both X and Michael and gave them a final opportunity to do right by me. After all, I would never have been in that pub with ‘Hellberg’ as an Alt-Right leader if Michael had not promised to fund our proposed corporatization of the movement. What is worse is that Mr. Hermansson was sent my way by people closely associated with X, who was a founder of The London Forum. X was the person who contacted Jez Turner and Stead Steadman to set up that talk for me, and also secured an invitation for my dear friend Shahin Nezhad, leader of the Persian Renaissance Foundation, to give a speech as well. This is significant because ‘Erik Hellberg’ first met and set his sights on me during that event.

There was something very peculiar about X’s involvement with bringing me to The London Forum. He did not attend the talk himself, complaining about the Antifa demonstrators who surrounded the venue (there were even police helicopters circling the high-rise building during my speech). However, at one point X was actually in the lobby of the conference hotel and he sent up a certain Potkin Azarmehr. This troubled Shahin and I, as well as our close associate Aria Salehi (a member of the Board of Trustees of the Persian Renaissance), because we had encountered Potkin a day or two earlier at a Persian Renaissance event in London. He was not there as a sympathetic audience member but as a person carrying out surveillance, sitting alone in the back of the room with a disapproving look on his face. Potkin did the same thing at The London Forum event where Shahin and I spoke. He came in, checked things out, reviewed the book stand, and then left grumbling about how we were a bunch of “Mosleyite Fascists.”


What was a leftist like Potkin doing at either event? Why is he an associate of X if the latter is a founder of The London Forum and someone claiming to help facilitate the aims of the Persian Renaissance – including by getting me into business with the Trump Administration through Michael and the Alt-Right? Potkin is rumored to be an asset of Scotland Yard, and to have connections to the Mojaheddin-e-Khalq (MKO, aka. MEK, or National Council of Resistance of Iran), Marxist-Islamists who are even worse than the Islamic Republic and who lost any shred of legitimacy they may have once had when they defected to Iraq with some Iranian tank divisions and sided with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War. Late in the course of my work with X, another associate of his who had also been falsely promised funding, let me know that X had at one point worked for MI6.

What were Michael’s true intentions when he suggested that I enter the leadership of the Alt-Right? Well, I can report that not only did our “Iran project” go nowhere, it has since come to my attention that even though X kept encouraging the Pan-Iranist discourse of the Persian Renaissance in the private meetings that I had with him, Michael was being told by people in “the deep state” that our Pan-Iranism was at odds with the kind of regime change that they wanted to see in Iran. Apparently, so was our tough stance against Islam and our emphasis on Pre-Islamic Persian values. In fact, Donald Trump eventually hired an American convert to Islam to manage his new Iran policy! After this, those of us in the Iranian opposition participating in private White House discussions regarding regime change had to fill out a form stating that we are Muslim, even though millions of young people in Iran today – and certainly all of the most anti-regime people in the country – have left Islam, usually for some form of Neo-Zoroastrianism. This is reflected in the part of Trump’s Friday the 13th speech, where he says “We hope that our actions today will help bring about a future… where young children, American and Iranian, Muslim, Christian, and Jewish, can grow up in a world free from violence, hatred, and terror…” On account of the Persian Renaissance movement, the Abrahamic religions, including and especially Islam, are on their way out in Iran. Why would Trump not acknowledge the millions of Neo-Zoroastrians who are the most anti-regime and most pro-Western elements in contemporary Iranian society? Whose interests does this serve?

Why was I continually encouraged to present policies to the shadow Secretary of State, in person, and to the President of the United States, in writing, which Michael had already told X were unacceptable? How could this have been allowed to go on for so long that, on August 11th, the Persian Renaissance formed the Iranian United Front (Jebheyé Irângarâyân) unifying the most established patriotic political parties opposed to the Islamic Republic, including the Pan-Iranist Party, under the false assumption that the Trump Administration would give us a serious hearing? Perhaps because certain agencies wanted us to put all of our eggs in one basket, so that they could break them all at once.

As the youngest and most intellectual member of the new coalition, the one who named it Jebheyé Irângarâyân, and the person whose speech introduced it to the English-speaking world, tarring me in the pages of The New York Times and countless other media outlets that have echoed its libelous coverage of the doctored Antifa video, could potentially be used to destroy the whole coalition. On September 28th, the mainstream Persian media outlet Radio Zamaneh ran a hit piece on me even more libelous than that of The New York Times, titled “In America, an intellectual leader of Iranian Fascism has been dismissed from teaching.” The Persian Renaissance Foundation is referred to as an imperialistic “fascist” organization, and its fate is explicitly and irrevocably tied to mine. Hopefully, you are starting to get the picture.


What was done to me on September 19th was the outcome of a long-term plan, and it is not just about the destruction of my academic career. Administrators at NJIT are simply useful idiots. This is about the reorientation of the trajectory of geopolitics in the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. It is about aborting a Renaissance of the Persian Empire, which could bring progress and prosperity back to the dark heart of what is now ‘the Islamic world.’ I have been the most passionately outspoken and philosophically sophisticated advocate of that Renaissance who also has deep ties to the United States of America, the country in which I was born and raised.

In fact, like Donald Trump, I was born in Queens and spent most of my life in Manhattan. Dad actually used to frequent the same neighborhood butcher as Donald’s father. My paternal ancestors include the Qajar monarchs, one of the longest reigning dynasties in Iran’s 3,000 year history, and my grandfather, Reza Qajar Jorjani, was a renowned patriotic public intellectual who helped to found the University of Tabriz – one of Reza Shah Pahlavi’s key instruments to guard against the secession of Azerbaijan and to restore its Persian cultural character after centuries of backward Turkicisation. When the Shah sent him from Tehran to Tabriz, after years in European cities such as Montpellier and Paris (with his best friend, Sadegh Hedayat), my grandfather’s orders were to wage a culture war to salvage and reinforce the Persian heritage of Tabriz. His wife, my recently deceased grandmother, Leila Dowlatshahi, hails from the family who were the regional governors of the Azerbaijan province of Persia in the Qajar period, including the northern part of Azerbaijan in the Caucasus, seized by the Russian Tsars in the mid-1800s and occupied by the Soviet Union until 1991. Her aunt, Esmat Dowlatshahi, became Reza Shah the Great’s wife, integrating our family into the Pahlavi Dynasty. God bless his soul, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the “King of Kings and Light of the Aryans” (Shahanshah Aryamehr) whose “White Revolution” (1963–1978) endeavored to revive Persian Imperial glory, was my grandma’s cousin.

So the coming Persian War is particularly personal for me. I call it the Persian War because it is specifically a war being orchestrated against the Persian civilizational identity of Iran. As I explain in the speech where I introduced our nationalist opposition coalition to the English-speaking world, the conflation of “Iran” and “Persia” has in recent years been used to the opposite effect that this equivalence had in the West for most of history. Iran is shorthand for Eranshahr (Ancient Persian, Aryana Khashatra) or “Aryan Imperium”, which is how all Iranians, including the dominant Persians, always referred to the “Persian Empire.” Prior to 1935, Iran’s internationally recognized official name was “Persia.” Moreover, even after 1935, when Westerners referred to Iran as “Persia” they meant to suggest what has more recently been termed “Greater Iran” or the Persianate World, the Imperial sphere of influence from the borders of China to the Caucasus, from Northern India to Syria, wherein Persian (Parsi or Dari) has been a lingua franca for centuries and where people of many diverse ethnicities and religions (including huge Buddhist regions in Pre-Islamic times) were brought into a humanistic cultural, intellectual, and spiritual dialogue with one another through the Persian crown.

Today, at the behest of Arab oil sheikhs and transnational corporatists who want to loot Iran’s resources by dividing and conquering the country, “Persia” means the Persian ethnostate that would be left after fomenting Azeri, Kurdish, Ahwazi, and Balochi separatist revolts against the government of Iran. This rump state of “Persia” would have lost about 30% of Iran’s remaining territory (already a shadow of what it was only two centuries ago, let alone during the five great Persian Empires), and about 70% of vital resources such as oil and gas. Moreover, the Arab Republic of Al-Ahwaz (i.e. Iran’s Khuzestan province), Greater Azerbaijan, Greater Kurdistan, and Free Baluchistan, would have no deeply-rooted and rich civilizational heritage to serve as the backbone of nationalist resistance against exploitation of the oil and gas resources that belonged to Iran. Meanwhile, the rising tide – rather, the incipient tsunami – of patriotic sentiment based on the Persian Imperial heritage would be contained in a small and impoverished Persian ethnostate stretching from the Caspian Sea to the “Arabian Gulf”, rather than leading to the establishment of the sixth Persian Empire on the ruins of the Caliphate of Al-Qaeda (in Central Asia) and the Islamic State (in the Middle East).

I call it the coming Persian War because we, the Persians, will not go quietly into that good night. The Trump plan to divide and conquer Iran, working with Saudi Arabia and their paid agents amongst Iran’s ethnic minorities in resource-rich outer provinces, may succeed in the short term but it will eventually end in a catastrophic failure. Weimer Germany is the best analogy. Within a decade, a stoker will reignite the fire from out of those ashes. Except that we are not Germans. Through the Scythians (i.e. the Saxons) and the Alans, we lent the Germans and Goths our Faustian (i.e. Zoroastrian) genius and chivalric spirit but those northern Barbarians never understood the essence of our cosmopolitan humanism.


Al-Ahwaz and a Kurdish nation have nothing but Sunni fundamentalism and barbaric tribalism to offer the world, whereas our Persian civilizational heritage has not only held Iran together for centuries it has, repeatedly, offered all of humanity the best chance at forming a world order based on innovation, compassion, and social justice. Martin Heidegger rightly observed that “Language is the house of Being”, and there have been very few languages that became, for centuries, the lingua franca of many peoples other than those for whom it was a native language. These include Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, French, English, Russian – and Persian. We will rebuild our house of Being and defeat, at any cost, those who want to see it become a ruin inside of a ghetto.

Profiteers who are used to running ghettos want to ghettoize all of the great nations of Earth. They have been doing it to America for decades. But not to worry, after we have our own house in order we will also work to make America great again. The people of Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman, the nation of Melville, William James, and Jackson Pollock deserves better than Donald Trump or any other chump who is ‘elected’ to be a mere tool of an unaccountable and totally corrupt Deep State apparatus, which has metastasized like a cancer throughout all of the organs of the United States government.

We, the Persians, do not hold the decent and hard-working American people responsible for: (1) CIA and CFR orchestration of the Islamist seizure of power in 1979; (2) that piece of CIA theater known as “the hostage crisis” that muddied Iran’s good name; (3) the solidification of the Islamic Republic through full US operational support for Saddam Hussein’s war of aggression from 1980–1988 at the cost of half a million Iranian lives; (4) destruction of irreplaceable Persian archeological treasures by Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, terrorist groups that the United States set up in our former provinces; (5) Obama’s facilitation of the mass murder and torture of the valiant youths who rose up in 2009; (6) Trump’s proposed war to create an “Arabian Gulf.”

We know that you do not really have a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” You are oppressed by a rogue dictatorship. Rest assured that after we liberate ourselves and secure our future, we will bring the ever-living fire of true freedom to your bountiful continent as we once brought it to Greece. Far be it from us to leave your resistance movement in the hands of the Alt-Right or comparable culturally impoverished and regressive reactionaries. We are coming to save you, America. So speaks the living spirit of Xerxes, King of Kings, Light of the Aryans...

Bonapartist Iran


Bonapartist Iran

There is a plan to destroy Iran, a plan drawn up together with Saudi Arabia by those within the American military-industrial complex who consider the Saudis an ally of the United States. Hillary Clinton, who has extensive ties to Saudi financiers, certainly intended to implement this plan. Judging from the repeated references to Saudi Arabia in statements on Iran made by both the Secretary of Defense, General “Mad Dog” Mattis, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, it is beginning to look like this plan might move forward even though there appeared to be substantively different plans for Iran back when General Flynn and Steve Bannon were the leading members of Team Trump. Whether or not this Saudi plan succeeds will have a deep impact on the future of Westerners and others in the wider Indo-European world. The question of Iran’s immediate future probably has more profound implications for the long-term survival of the Aryan heritage than any other contemporary crisis.

Surrounded by a dozen artificial states that do not predate the European colonial machinations of the 18th and 19th centuries, Irân is the only real nation between China and India in the East and the sphere of declining European civilization to the West and North. Shorthand for Irânshahr or “Aryan Imperium”, the country’s 55% Persian majority never referred to Iran as “the Persian Empire.” The classical Greeks coined that term and it stuck in the West. It is dangerously misleading because, while the Persians have been the most culturally dominant ethno-linguistic group within Iranian Civilization (playing a role comparable to the Han within Chinese Civilization), the Kurds, Ossetians, Baluch, and others are both ethnically and linguistically Iranian even if they do not speak the Persian language (referred to as Pârsi or, wrongly, as Fârsi in Western Iran and as Dari or Tâjiki in Iranian Central Asia).

The conflation of “Iran” and “Persia” has, for a number of years now, been enlisted as part of a plot to further erode the territorial integrity of Iran by reducing it to a Persian rump state. While the rootless globalist conspirators plotting to frame “Iran” as a conceptual construct of Persian Imperialism are certainly driven by economic and strategic considerations, their ultimate goal is the erasure of the very idea of Iran or Iranshahr. They see the revival of this idea as perhaps the single greatest threat to their broader agenda, and since the total failure of the Islamic Reform Movement of 1997–2009, just such a revival has been at the heart of an ultra-nationalist cultural revolution known as the Iranian Renaissance.

This movement strives for a rebirth of the Pre-Islamic worldview of Iranian Civilization, seeing the so-called “golden age” of Islam as an afterglow or abortion of what might have been had Iran continued its developmental trajectory as an Aryan nation. After all, the vast majority of scientists and engineers who were forced to write in Arabic under the Caliphate were ethnic Iranians whose mother tongue was Persian. In every respect, from Science and Technology, to Literature, Music, Art, and Architecture, so-called ‘Islamic Civilization’ acted as a parasite misappropriating a truly glorious Iranian Civilization that was already 2,000 years old before the Arab–Muslim invasion imposed Islam, and the genocidal Mongols cemented it (by crushing the Persian insurgencies in Azerbaijan, on the Caspian coast, and in Khorasan).


The Iranian Renaissance is based on the revival of ancient principles and ideals, many of which Iran shares with Europe both through their common Caucasian ancestry and through extensive intercultural exchange. This included the deep penetration of the Iranian Alans, Scythians, and Sarmatians into the European continent, and their eventual integration with the Goths in “Goth-Alania” (Catalonia) and the Celts in “Erin” (a cognate of “Iran”). Their introduction of the culture of knightly chivalry (Javanmardi) and grail mysticism into Europe left as deep an impact on the “Faustian” ethos of the West as the “Promethean” (really, Zoroastrian) ideals of the worship of Wisdom and innovative industriousness, which were introduced to Greece through centuries of Persian colonization.

The civilizational barrier between Iran and Europe has been very porous – on both sides. After the Hellenization of Iran during the Alexandrian period, Europe was almost Persianized through the adoption of Mithraism as the state religion of Rome. Partly as a consequence of the machinations of the Parthian dynasty and their black ops Navy in the Mediterranean, this was imminent by the time Constantine institutionalized Christianity – probably as a bulwark against Iran.

So it should not come as a surprise that many of the core elements of the ethos of the Iranian Renaissance seem strikingly European: the reverence for Wisdom and the pursuit of knowledge above all else; consequently, also an emphasis on industrious innovation leading to a utopian beautification and perfection of this world; a cultivation of chivalrous free-spiritedness, charitable humanitarianism, and broadminded tolerance; a political order that is based on Natural Right, wherein slavery is considered unjust and strong women are greatly respected.

But one must remember that to the extent that Iranshahr extended far eastward into Asia, these values were once also characteristic of Eastern Aryan culture – especially Mahayana Buddhism, which was created by the Iranian Kushans. Iran colonized northern India five times and the entire Silk Route into what is now Northwestern China was populated by Caucasian-looking Iranians until Turkic and Mongol conquests in the 11th and 12th centuries.

While the Iranian Renaissance wants to “Make Iran Great Again” by reviving this Indo-European legacy, and even by territorially reconstituting what people in our movement call “Greater Iran” (Irâné Bozorg), rootless globalists, Arab oil sheikhs, and their Islamist collaborators in Turkey and Pakistan want to erase Iran from the map altogether. Evidently this is not lost on the hundreds of thousands of Iranian nationalists who gathered at the tomb of Cyrus the Great on October 29th 2016 to chant the slogan “We are Aryans, we don’t worship Arabs!” The slogan is as blatantly anti-Islamic as possible within the limits of the law in the Islamic Republic. The prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali were, of course, Arabs, so the point is quite clear. It is also clear who these young people consider their true messenger, since the other most widely chanted slogan was, “Our Aryan Cyrus, you are our honor!”

Since the brutally crushed uprising of 2009, almost all Iranians have rejected the Islamic Republic. Many of them, especially the youth, are convinced that Islam itself is the problem. They have clandestinely converted to a Neo-Zoroastrianism that is indistinguishable from Iranian ultra-nationalism. Zarathustra in a winged disc, symbolizing the evolutionary perfection of the soul, known as the “Farvahar” is everywhere: on pendants, rings, and even tattoos (despite the fact that tattoos, which were ubiquitous among the Scythians, were banned by orthodox Zoroastrianism). Now even key elements within the regime, especially the Revolutionary Guard, are reading treatises on “the political thought of Aryan Imperium” that are extremely critical of Islam while glorifying ancient Iran.


Meanwhile, the so-called ‘opposition’ in exile has been almost entirely corrupted and co-opted by those who wish to carve up what little is left of Iran. On the one hand you have the radical Leftists who actually handed Iran over to the Ayatollahs in 1979 before Khomeini turned on them, forcing those who escaped execution to go into exile. On the other hand you have the blindly loyal devotees of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, whose vision – or lack thereof – largely aligns with that of the leftists, at least insofar as it concerns the aims of the Globalists and Islamists.

Those in the Marxist and Maoist opposition to the Islamic Republic promote ethnic separatism, transplanting an anti-Colonialist discourse of “people’s liberation struggles” into an Iranian context where it does not belong. The Persians never lorded over anyone. We were humanitarian liberators. If anything, we were too humanitarian and too liberal.

Leftists speak of “the peoples of Iran” as if the Kurds and Baluch are not ethnically Iranian and as if a Turkic dialect were not imposed on the province of Azerbaijan, the Caucasian wellspring of Iran, by means of genocidal half-savage Asiatic conquerors. While claiming to be feminists and partisans of the proletarian revolution these leftists accept funding from Saudi Arabia, who wants to help them separate the partly Arabized oil-rich region of Khuzestan from Iran and turn it into the nation of Al-Ahwaz, with a considerable coastline on what they already refer to as “the Arabian Gulf.” Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, Al-Ahwaz, Baluchistan: these microstates, ostensibly born of leftist “liberation movements”, would be easy for rootless global capitalists to control. In at least two cases, Al-Ahwaz and ‘Free Baluchistan’, they would also be breeding grounds for the further spread of Islamist terrorism. Finally, they would leave the Persians divested of almost all of Iran’s oil and natural gas resources, and contain the rising tide of Aryan Identitarianism within a rump state of ‘Persia.’

The most well-armed and well-organized of these leftist groups is the Mojaheddin-e-Khalq (MEK), which also goes by the aliases People’s Mojaheddin of Iran (PMOI) and National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). Their armed guerrillas essentially put Khomeini and the clerical establishment to power before being branded as heretics. Their response was to swear allegiance to Saddam Hussein and put at his disposal a few military units that defected during the Iran-Iraq War. This means that they de-facto accepted the Iraqi occupation of Khuzestan. Later, when they were forced to relocate to Iraqi Kurdistan, they made promises to the Kurds to support Kurdish secession from Iran. A whole host of prominent politicians in the United States and the European Union have been bribed into pledging their support for the group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi, including John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, and the NeoCons.

The majority of the Iranian people view the MEK as traitors, and the fact that they are essentially a cult whose members – or captives – are as forcibly closed off from the outer world as North Koreans does not help either. While this means that they would never be able to effectively govern Iran, the MEK could be used as a catalytic agent of de-stabilization during a war against the Islamic Republic.

Here is where Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi comes in, together with his wing of the exiled Iranian ‘opposition.’ The globalist cabal and their Arab allies in the Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE) intend to create a problem to which he is the solution. He is in their pocket.


At a CFR meeting in Dallas in early 2016, which I exposed in a notorious interview with the Sweden-based independent journalist Omid Dana of Roodast (“the Persian Alex Jones”), Reza Pahlavi mocked the allegedly “overblown nationalist rhetoric” about the genocidal Arab-Muslim Conquest of Iran. He referred to this incomparable historical tragedy as something that, if it happened at all, is unimportant because it happened long ago. Really, he sees it as an obstacle to good neighborly relations with the Arab states of “the Gulf”. Oh yes, in interviews with Arab media he has referred to the Forever Persian Gulf as “the Gulf” so as to appease his wealthy Arab benefactors. Reza Pahlavi has also allowed representatives in his official media outlets to repeatedly do the same. He has even used the term in a context that implies Iran might surrender several islands in “the Gulf” with a view to better neighborly relations. (As if his father’s relinquishing of Bahrain was not bad enough!)

In fact, he has suggested that Saudi Arabia and other inhumane Arab governments ought to invest in Iran’s economy to such an extent that Iran would be so dependent on them that waging war against these nations would become impossible. Relatedly, and very embarrassingly, the Crown Prince asserted that his future Iran should not have nuclear weapons because he would be afraid to sleep at night in his palace, since if Iran were to develop atomic arms other rival nations in the region would have the right to do so as well and would aim their missiles at Iran.

What is worse than all of this rhetoric is the Prince’s very concrete plan to put the question of a federalization of Iran to a popular vote or nationwide referendum. This is not merely a proposal. He meets with individuals and groups who are promoting separatism and the further territorial disintegration of Iran, with the first stage being “education in the mother tongue” (rather than Persian) and regional autonomy in the context of a federal system. At the same time, he denounced as “Fascists” the Iranian patriots who, at a risk of being imprisoned or killed, assembled at the tomb of Cyrus the Great on October 29th of last year and chanted the slogan, “We are Aryans, we don’t worship Arabs!” This, despite the fact that some of the same protestors also chanted slogans congratulating the Crown Prince on his birthday – a mistake that they will never make again. He even made remarks that suggestively mocked supporters of the Persian Imperial Tradition.

Reza Pahlavi takes every opportunity to make it clear his real ideals are “liberal democracy” and “universal human rights”, Western concepts that he uncritically embraces without the least understanding of the fundamental problems with them as compared to our aristocratic Iranian political philosophy – which influenced, and is much more in line with, substantial Western political theories such as those of Plato, Aristotle, and Nietzsche.


While his embrace of democracy and human rights extends to a popular vote on a federalization that leads to regional autonomy and eventually secession of numerous provinces, it apparently does not protect criticism of Islam. Also under influence from his neo-liberal Western handlers, and the leftist PC police in the West, and totally out of line with the popular sentiment among the Iranian youth, he has asserted that if Islam is to be insulted or if there is to be ‘Islamophobia’ in the future Iran, then it would be better for the Islamic Republic to remain in power. He has the gall to say this while branding his critics as agents of the Islamic Republic. When tens of prominent patriotic monarchists signed a “Last Warning” (Akharin Hoshdâr) statement to him in July of 2016, some of whom were his father’s closest advisors, he accused all of us of being agents of the Islamic Republic who falsified his claims and manufactured evidence (which was itself a patently false and slanderous claim).

We were not agents of the Islamic Republic, nor will we ever be shills of a Shi’a theocracy in its present form. But given the crisis that we face now, we need to consider a radical alternative to both the secessionist traitors in the Paris-based leftist opposition and the Shahs of Sunset in Los Angeles who are all too happy to have their Prince of Persia reign over the rump state that is left of Iran after “regime change.” I propose a grand bargain, a Bonapartist preemption of the coming reign of Terror.

Those who have followed my writings and interviews know that there is no harsher critic of Islam, in all its forms, than yours truly. I have not yet published my really serious and rigorous critiques of Islam, including and especially my deconstruction of the Shi’a doctrine. Nothing that I am about to propose changes the fact that I have every intention of doing so within the next few years.

Nevertheless, we are entering into what Carl Schmitt called a “state of emergency”. In this exceptional situation, wherein we are presented with an existential threat to Iran, it is important to recognize the difference between ontological or epistemological questions and the kind of friend-enemy distinction that is definitive for political thought in the proper and fundamental sense. Iranian nationalists have friends within the system of the Islamic Republic, and Lord knows we have plenty of enemies outside of it.

That young Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) officer from Mashaad who recites Hafez while patrolling the Iraqi border and waiting to be murdered by Kurdish separatists, but whose own mother is a Kurd, and who goes with his Persian father to worship at the shrine of Imam Reza while wearing a Farvahar around his neck, is not only a friend he is the brother of every true Iranian patriot. It was not the Pasdaran who shot and butchered young Iranians to put down the revolt of 2009, it was paramilitary thugs beholden to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – who is now on his deathbed.

We need to think about the future. The very heart and soul of Zarathustra’s teaching was his futurism, his emphasis on evolutionary innovation. If he were alive today, he certainly would not be a Zoroastrian. Frankly, even if he had been alive during the Sassanian Empire, he would not have been a Zoroastrian in any orthodox sense.

windcatcher windcatcher badgir iran persia 1.jpg

The Iranian Renaissance holds up the Sassanian period as the zenith of Iran’s history, “the climax before the dramatic decline.” But the two greatest heretics, from the standpoint of Zoroastrian Orthodoxy, had the backing of the Sassanian state. Shapur I was the patron of Mani, who created a syncretic world religion in which Gautama Buddha and the Gnostic Christ were seen as Saoshyants (Zoroastrian World Saviors) and the legitimate successors of Zarathustra. Manichaeism spread all the way to southern France in the West, where it sparked the Holy Inquisition as a reaction against it, and China in the East, where Mani was referred to as “the Buddha of Light” and his teaching influenced the development of Mahayana Buddhism. The libertine esotericist Mazdak, whose socialist revolution I would classify more as national-bolshevist than Communist, was given the full backing of the Sassanian Persian Emperor Kavad I. Even Khosrow Anushiravan, who crushed the Mazdakite movement, was not any kind of Orthodox Zoroastrian. He was a Neo-Platonist, who invited the remains of the Academy to take refuge at Iranian libraries and laboratories such as Gondeshapur after Justinian closed Europe’s last universities.

Moreover, the evolution of the Iranian spiritual tradition founded by Zarathustra did not end with the Islamic Conquest. The Iranian Renaissance condemns Mazdak unequivocally, and yet Babak Khorrdamdin is regarded as a hero of nationalist resistance to the Arabian Caliphate. But the Khorramdin partisans of Azerbaijan were Mazdakites! A clear line can be drawn from the Mazdakite movement, through the Khorramdin, and into esoteric Shi’a groups such as the Nizari Ismailis or Order of “Assassins” as they are widely known in the West. Fighting against both the Caliphate and the Crusaders simultaneously, there has never been a greater champion of Iranian freedom and independence than Hassan Sabbah. Nor did his brand of Shi’a esotericism decline with the Sevener or Ismaili sect.

There are still, in Iran today, putatively Shi’a clergy who owe more to Suhrawardi, via Mullah Sadra, than they do to anything that Imam Ali actually preached. By the time of the Sixth Imam, Ja’far al-Sadiq, the Shi’a faith was co-opted by Iranian partisans struggling against the Sunni Caliphate. The kind of Shi’a doctrine that some of Ayatollah Khomeini’s colleagues attempted to impose on Iran in 1979 represented a radical reconstruction of early Arab Shi’ism, not the kind of Shi’a esotericism that birthed the Safavid Dynasty. The latter allowed Iran to reemerge as a distinct political state set apart from, and against, the Sunni Ottoman Caliphate and a Mughal Empire that had also declined into Islamic fundamentalism after Akbar’s Persianate literature and philosophy proved an insufficient bulwark against this. Some of these Persianate Shi’a are at the highest levels in the power structure of the Islamic Republic. They need to be welcomed into the fold of Iranian nationalism, even into the fold of the Iranian Renaissance.

The Italian Renaissance reached back to Pagan Rome for the sake of a civilizational revitalization, but it did not abolish Christianity. Neither did Benito Mussolini when he adopted, as his explicit aim, a second Italian Renaissance and a revival of the Roman Empire. Rather, Il Duce recruited Roman Catholicism as a reliable ally in his valiant struggle against rootless capitalism, because he knew that Roman Catholics were “Roman” – even in Argentina.

Likewise, today, Shi’a are somehow culturally Iranian, even in Turkic northern Azerbaijan, Arabic-speaking Iraq and Bahrain, not to mention northwestern Afghanistan, where Persian remains the lingua franca. If Neo-Zoroastrians, both in Iran and in the parts of Kurdistan currently outside of Iran’s borders, were to ally with Persianate Shi’a it would do more than shore up Iran’s territorial integrity. It would establish a new Persian Empire, providing central Iran with numerous Shi’a buffer zones and forward positions while, on the basis of Iranian nationalism, also reincorporating areas that are ethno-linguistically Iranian but not Shi’a – such as greater Kurdistan and Tajikistan (including Samarkand and Bukhara).


What I am proposing is more than a military coup within the Islamic Republic. The label of “Bonapartist” is only partly accurate. We need a group of officers in the Pasdaran who recognize that Timocracy, as Plato called it, is only the second best form of government and that their rule will need to be legitimated by a philosopher king and a council of Magi with the intellect and depth of soul to use state power to forward the Iranian Renaissance that is already underway. Ironically, if we separate the political form of the Islamic Republic from its content – as a good Platonist would – the regime’s anti-democratic and illiberal core structures are strikingly Iranian. The Guardian Council (Shorâye Negahbân) is the Assembly of the Magi and the Guiding Jurisprudent (Velâyaté Faqih) is the Shâhanshâhé Dâdgar who has the farr – who is rightly guided by the divine glory of Wisdom. This should be no surprised since, after all, Ayatollah Khomeini borrowed these concepts from Al-Farabi, who is still, deep down, an Aryan.

The Pan-Iranist Party, with its origins in the National-Socialist Workers Party (SUMKA) of early 1940s Iran, is a key element in this stratagem. Famous for its very vocal parliamentary opposition to Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s relinquishing of Bahrain in 1971, the ultra-nationalist (i.e. to the Right of the Shah) loyal opposition of the Pahlavi regime could become the loyal opposition of the Islamic Republic if it were legalized after a coup d’état by those within the Revolutionary Guard who understand the value of Iranian nationalism in confronting the imminent existential threat to Iran.

Unlike all of the other opposition parties, the Pan-Iranist Party’s underground subsistence has been just barely tolerated by the Islamic Republic. Although it is technically illegal, and cannot field candidates in elections, the regime has not crushed it either – because there is no question about the party’s loyalty to Iran. The party has extensive connections to both the intellectual leadership of the Iranian Renaissance and the more patriotic members of the Shi’a clergy. If it were the only legal opposition party, all Iranian nationalists would vote for it and, within a single election cycle, or two at most, the Pan-Iranists would secure a majority in parliament. Their first piece of legislation ought to be something with great symbolic power and little chance of backlash from the remaining military-industrial complex of the Islamic Republic: the return to the Lion and Sun as Iran’s legitimate national flag (one of the Party’s stated goals).

The Lion and Sun epitomizes the ambiguity of Iranian identity. Shi’a claim that it is a zoomorphic representation of Imam Ali, “the Lion of God” (Assadollâh) and that the sword wielded by the lion is the Zulfaqâr. The Islamic Republic replaced the symbol because its fundamentalist founders knew this to be false. The Lion and Sun is an exceedingly ancient Aryan standard, which probably represents Mithras or the Sun rising into the zodiacal house of Leo.


Moreover, Neo-Zoroastrians are wrong to think that the curved sword is an Islamic addition (and consequently that it ought to be replaced by a straightened sword). Rather, the lion’s sword is the harpe, which was the symbol of the fifth grade of initiation in Mithraism, known as Perses. Perses was the son of Perseus, the progenitor of the Persian Aryans. He severs the Gorgon’s head with a harpe sword. Gorgons were sacred to the Scythians, the tribal rival of the Persians within the Iranian world. Perseus holding the severed head of Medusa is a symbol of his having seized her power (her Shakti) while remaining human (without turning to stone). But yeah, sure, it’s Imam Ali.

In the new Iran, Neo-Zoroastrians are going to need to tolerate the mass mourning rituals of Moharram and Ashura, after all their true origins are in the ancient Iranian mourning processions for the martyrdom of Siyâvosh. Meanwhile, Shi’a are going to have to put up with Farvahar-tattooed Neo-Zoroastrian women who have been so antagonized by the Islamic Republic that they want to jump naked over Châhâr-Shanbeh Suri bonfires lit by burning Korans.

Unlike under Reza Shah Pahlavi II, and the proposed Arab Republic of Al-Ahwaz, there will be no criminalization of ‘Islamophobia’ in nationalist Iran. Actually, the Shi’a component of the new regime will serve to legitimate Iran’s alliance with European nationalists fighting the fifth column of the new Sunni Calipahte in Paris, London, Munich, and Dearborn. The hydra’s heads are in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. Mithra’s Lioness will sever these heads with her harpe. For the first time since the Fatamid Dynasty of the Assassins, Mecca and Medina will be governed by Shi’a mystics. Persians will celebrate at Persepolis.

There is no doubt about it. The time has come for Bonapartist Iran – the Aryan-Islamic, Religious-Nationalist assassin’s fortress of resistance against the rootless globalists, where, “No-thing is true, and everything is permitted.” We are left with only one question, “Who is the Persian Napoleon?”

lundi, 27 février 2017

Jason Reza Jorjani Identitarian Ideas IX


Jason Reza Jorjani

Identitarian Ideas IX

Jason Reza Jorjani speaks at the Identitarian Ideas gathering in Stockholm, Sweden.

lundi, 05 décembre 2016

Iranian Renaissance with Jason Reza Jorjani


Iranian Renaissance with Jason Reza Jorjani

Jason Reza Jorjani is a philosopher and faculty member at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. He is author of Prometheus and Atlas.

Here he discusses the influence of pre-Islamic, Zoroastrian culture on the society within Iran following the Arab conquest. He notes that Islamic Sufism borrowed heavily from an esoteric strain of Zoroastrianism known as Mazdakism. He also maintains that the Arabic preservation of ancient Greek texts was largely done through the auspices of Persian scholars. These texts eventually were instrumental in the vast flowering of European culture known as the Renaissance. Today, within Iran, there exists a movement known as the Iranian Renaissance. Millions of young Iranians are wearing Zoroastrian symbols and are endeavoring to learn about the ancient, Persian past. Much of the inspiration for this movement comes from a text known as the Shahnameh or Persian Book of Kings.

New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series.

dimanche, 06 novembre 2016

World Religion of the Future

World War II was not a struggle between nationalism and globalism. It was a battle between conflicting visions of world order: a deracinating, soulless global marketplace vs. an Indo-European planetary hegemony based on a future pan-Aryan religion. At least, that is how the leader of the Kyoto School saw it.

tomo.jpgDespite his claim that the cultural crisis brought on by worldwide technological advancement could not be solved by a wholesale adoption of Eastern traditions such as Zen Buddhism, Martin Heidegger engaged in many conversations with… Japanese scholars throughout his philosophical career. His first and perhaps most significant encounter with the East took place as early as 1919, eight years before the publication of Being and Time. After having attended Heidegger’s 1918 lectures, one of his Japanese students, Tomonobu Imamichi, introduced Heidegger to the concept of “being in the world.” In The Book of Tea (1906), Tomonobu’s teacher, Okakura Kakuzo had used these words to describe an aspect of Zhuangzi’s spiritual vision.

tea03864558-us-300.jpgThe Book of Tea uses the tea ceremony to explore the wabi-sabi aesthetic experience cultivated in Japanese Zen arts and crafts. The early German translation of The Book of Tea uses the words das-in-der-Welt-sein, which, via Imamichi, found their way into the heart and soul of Heidegger’s 1927 magnum opus. Interestingly, Heidegger’s philosophical career not only begins under Japanese influence, it also ends with it. One of the essays in his last work On the Way to Language is “A Dialogue on Language” between “a Japanese and an inquirer” who remain significantly unnamed

In his “Introduction to Heideggerian Existentialism”, Leo Strauss makes much of Heidegger’s ‘Eastern’ response to the crisis of world-enframing technology in the absence of a genuine global society. Strauss observes that modern technology is forcing the material conditions of a World Society upon us, without a common world culture as its basis. It is the unification of mankind on the basis of the lowest common denominator. This leads to “lonely crowds” suffering from a pervasive sense of alienation and anomie. Furthermore, Strauss recognizes that no genuine culture in the world has ever arisen without a religious basis, without addressing man’s need for something noble and great beyond himself. So the world society, being wrought largely as a consequence of apparently valueless technological forces, is ironically one in need, not merely of a universal ethics, but of one world religion. The world religion must emerge out of the deepest reflection on the crisis of cultural relativism, and on the essence of the technological forces bringing it about:

[Heidegger] called it the “night of the world.” It means indeed, as Marx had predicted, the victory of an ever more completely urbanized, ever more completely technological West over the whole planet – complete leveling and uniformity… unity of the human race on the lowest level, complete emptiness of life… How can there be hope? Fundamentally, because there is something in man which cannot be satisfied by the world society: the desire for the genuine, for the noble, for the great. The desire has expressed itself in man’s ideals, but all previous ideals have proved to be related to societies which were not world societies. The old ideals will not enable man to overcome the power, to weaken the power, of technology. We may also say: a world society can be human only if there is a world culture, a culture genuinely uniting all men. But there never has been a high culture without a religious basis: the world society can be human only if all men are genuinely united by a world religion.

Explicating Heidegger, Strauss explains that in order for it to be possible to overcome technology, which is not at all the same as rejecting it, there must be a sphere of thought or contemplation beyond the rationalism developed by the Greeks and forwarded in Western science and technology. This must be an understanding of the world from behind or beneath the will to mathematize all beings with a view to instrumental manipulation of them on demand (bestand). It must understand the difference between Being and beings, and that Being is no-thing that can be mastered. The to be which is always as present at hand, is taken by Rationalism as the standard of being – that which really is, is always present, available, accessible. Instead, Strauss thinks that: “a more adequate understanding of being is intimated by the assertion that to be means to be elusive or to be a mystery.” Strauss claims that “this is the Eastern understanding of Being” and he adds that: “We can hope beyond technological world society, we can hope for a genuine world society, only if we become capable of learning from the East… Heidegger is the only man who has an inkling of the dimensions of the problem of a world society.”

nishida001-7a112.jpg…The thinkers of the Kyoto School of Philosophy were in favor of the war and have been collectively referred to as the “philosophers of nothingness”. Some of them had a constructive vision of how the Buddhist understanding of the void could complement the techno-scientific thinking of the West in order to bring about a new global civilization. Key figures among them, such as Nishida Kitaro, were students of Heidegger as early as the 1920s, and like Heidegger they saw the world war as the means to bring about a global culture that would ground techno-scientific development in a spirituality transcending insular and traditional values.

Remember that the Indian caste system that Nietzsche so admired, and that was based on regimented and hierarchically stratified class divisions, was a function of the Aryan conquest of the native Dravidian population of India. This origin is reflected in the Sanskrit name for the “caste” of the caste system, varna, which literally means “color” so that it was once a color-coding system. The four classes were: the Brahmins – the Vedic priests or scholars (including those who engaged in various proto-scientific practices); the Kshatriyas – the caste of knightly warriors, including feudal lords as chief amongst them; the Vaishyas – the business class, including both farmers and various types of merchants; and the Shudras – menial laborers, usually involved in undignified or hard labor. Finally, there were also “outcaste untouchables” that were relegated to an inhumanly low status. “Prince” Siddhartha Gotama belonged to the Kshatriya class.

The Buddha was a light-skinned blue eyed Aryan whose father was a feudal lord and who was expected to become a knight. In his late writings, Nishida Kitaro explains how it is that “Indian culture”, from which Japan inherited Buddhism (including the symbol of the swastika that is ubiquitous at Japanese temples) and which shares the Aryan or ‘Indo-European’ ethnic roots of European culture, “has evolved as an opposite pole to modern European culture… and may thereby be able to contribute to a global modern culture from its own vantage point.” What is the “global modern culture” that Nishida envisions?

Well, he certainly views it as having a religious basis and he thinks that the world war during which he is writing is a means to achieving it: “And does not the spirit of modern times seek a religion of infinite compassion rather than that of the Lord of ten thousand hosts? It demands reflection in the spirit of Buddhist compassion. This is the spirit which says that the present world war must be for the sake of negating world wars, for the sake of eternal peace.” In every true religion the divine is an absolute love that embraces its opposite, to the extent of even becoming Satan, and this is the meaning of the concept of upaya or shrewdly bringing to bear “skillful means” in Mahayana Buddhism so that “the miracles” of “this world may be said to be… the Buddha’s expedient means.” This all-embracing character of the divine, as that which encompasses what one would take to be its opposite, “is the basic reason why we are beings who can be compassionate to others and who can experience the compassion of others. Compassion always signifies that opposites are one in the dynamic reciprocity of their own contradictory identity.”

A God who is the Lord (Dominus) in the sense of an ultimately transcendent substance cannot be a truly creative God. Creation ex nihilo would be both arbitrary and superfluous; it must be out of love that God or Buddha creatively manifests the world from out of its own self-negation. Nishida believes that the school of Prajnaparamita thought in Mahayana Buddhism, established by Nagarjuna, has a deeper and more adequate understanding of this than pantheistic Western thinkers of dialectical synthesis, such as the Hegelians, who remain within the realm of reason even in their negative theologies. Nishida nevertheless refers to his ontology of the absolute’s self-expression and transformation as “Trinitarian” and compares it to Neo-Platonic thought.

However, Neo-Platonism and all pagan western thought falls short insofar as it fails to see Satan or “absolute evil” as an aspect of God. He adds: “The absolute God must include absolute negation within himself, and must be the God who descends into ultimate evil. The highest form must be one that transforms the lowest matter into itself. Absolute agape must reach even to the absolutely evil man. This is again the paradox of God: God is hidden even within the heart of the absolutely evil man. A God who merely judges the good and the bad is not truly absolute.” In passages such as these we see that Shunyata (in Sanskrit, Mu in Japanese) is not the Nothing of Descartes at all. Quite to the contrary of serving as an entirely distinct polar opposite of a Perfect Being that would exonerate the latter from being the source of any imperfection, this Nothingness is an inner dynamic tension within Being – as expressed in the spectral incompleteness and interdependent interpenetration of all beings. The battle between God and Nothingness in the heart of man, the “dynamic equilibrium” between “is” and “is not”, may be paradoxical but it is also the existential ‘ground’ of the volitional person. “Radical evil” lies ineradicably at the root of our freedom. We are always already “both satanic and divine.” Nishida claims that the Buddha – or any other conception of divinity – outside of one’s own existential potentiality is not the true Buddha:

Only in this existential experience of religious remorse does the self encounter what Rudolf Otto calls the numinous. Subjectively speaking, the encounter is a deep reflection upon the existential depths of the self itself; and as the Buddhists say, it means to see our essential nature, to see the true self. In Buddhism, this seeing means, not to see Buddha objectively outside, but to see into the bottomless depths of one’s own soul. If we see God externally, it is merely magic. …Illusion is the fountainhead of all evil. Illusion arises when we conceive of the objectified self as the true self. The source of illusion is in seeing the self in terms of object logic. It is for this reason that Mahayana Buddhism says that we are saved through enlightenment. But this enlightenment is generally misunderstood. For it does not mean to see anything objectively… It is rather an ultimate seeing of the bottomless nothingness of the self that is simultaneously a seeing of the fountainhead of sin and evil.

In this Zen injunction to kill any conception of a Buddha outside oneself, Nishida does not deny the cycle of birth and death or samsara as an empirical or phenomenological fact, he simply insists that the truly religious consciousness is one that has recognized the identity of samsara and nirvana. On his terms, and according to the sages of the esoteric Buddhist tradition, nirvana does not mean to attain some state distinct from and after samsara but to recognize that in every moment of the cycle of reincarnation the perfection beyond the impurity of karma is already present. This does not mean that the self “transcends its own historical actuality – it does not transcend its own karma – but rather that it realizes the bottomless bottom of its own karma.”


This relatively late Mahayanist view is anathema to the teaching of Siddhartha Gotama and the early Indian Buddhism founded on it. According to the Buddha Dharma, just as there are physical, biological, and psychological laws operative in the cosmos, there is also an ethical law. The law of karma is a lawful relationship between one’s actions, including verbal and unspoken mental acts that express one’s volition (cetana), and both the realm within which one is reborn as well as the conditions of life that one experiences within this realm. The ethical quality of one’s volition is supposed to resonate with the qualitative character of a certain realm of existence, and to tune into this realm, as it were, as a consequence of being on the same wavelength. Within these more general parameters what one experiences within a given realm of existence is conditioned by one’s actions both within the present life and in past lives. The fundamental presupposition here is that even if an action or intention does not appear to bear fruit (phala) presently, it reverberates in ways that one may remain unconscious of until it finally yields some tangible results (vipaka) – possibly later in one’s present life, but perhaps not until a future life.

While psychological research in the wake of the coming spectral revolution in Science might validate certain classes of phenomena associated with Buddhism as genuine natural phenomena, it is likely to reveal significant Buddhist misunderstandings of these very same phenomena and to profoundly challenge Buddhist codes of ethics. This is the case with the Reincarnation research of the late Dr. Ian Stevenson… What would disturb Buddhists most about Stevenson’s apparent validation of one of the central tenants of their religion is that the ethical idea of karma is untenable in light of his scientific research into the reality of Reincarnation as a natural phenomenon. What Stevenson found is that a person’s strong psychic impression of localized bodily injury at the time of a violent death or terrible accident, could affect fetal development of the body to be subsequently inhabited by that person to produce a birthmark or birth defect corresponding to the site of injury and even the shape or type of injury. In other words there are many cases of the following type: an innocent person is attacked and has his arm hacked off by a murderer and while the victim is reborn with that arm badly deformed, the murderer not only gets away scot free in his present incarnation, he also does not suffer any apparent ill effects in his subsequent incarnation.

Nirvana is the goal of the path, the aim of the Buddha Dharma. Yet, it is the most obscure element of Gotama’s teachings and, unlike karma, meditation, and the moral disciplines, it is one of the ideas most unique to his understanding of the Dharma as compared to the various pre-Buddhist forms of Sanatana Dharma (aka. ‘Hinduism). It is referred to at times as an element or a state, a state of supreme bliss, and yet it is supposed to be beyond any conditioned state, whether painful or even pleasurable. At times Siddhartha discusses Nirvana as if it were attainable amidst the present life and at other times it seems like a total annihilation that a perfectly enlightened person can pass into upon the disintegration of what will be his final body. What, then, is the difference between this annihilation and the so-called “annihilationism” that is one of the wrong views most destructive of an ethical life? Is the Buddha Dharma, in its original form, essentially a grand doctrine of suicide? Does it opt out of actual suicide because it will not do any good, since the underlying tendencies of the psyche are still active and will reorganize around a new physical aggregate, so that suicide can only be truly successful by unbinding the threads of this psyche – by disintegrating the soul?


Nirvana means “snuffing out” or “blowing out”, as in putting out a flame or fire. Orthodox Buddhists of the Theravada tradition most directly descended from the teachings of Gotama suggest that the answer to the perplexing question as to who attains Nirvana and where he attains it, namely as to whether a Buddha or arahant exists in Nirvana after death or is annihilated and passes into nothingness, can be simply answered by saying that the perfectly enlightened person simply “goes out” or is “put out.” He was a flame burning with the fire of life, but this fire of ceaseless suffering has been put out. Phew! Can there be a more pessimistic and nihilistic view of life? At least the man who actually commits suicide affirms a life that would be worth living by comparison to his own, which he judges intolerable only as compared to some ideal. He would also be affirming a sense of history wherein the future can be meaningfully different from any past epoch, an understanding of time that warrants a historical struggle – even if not one that he can personally bear to participate in here and now. It is above all in Japan where this early Buddhist nihilism gave way to the world-historical ethos of the fiery forge.

Nishida draws a distinction between physical, biological, and historical life. The teleological irreversibility of time in the course of organic development is key to his distinction between the first two. Whereas the world of biological life forms remains partially spatial and material, in the human world time negates space and the spatialized chronological ‘time’ relevant to inorganic physics. As Nishida puts it: “We can even say that there is no death for a merely biological being. For death entails that a self enter into eternal nothingness. It is because a self enters into eternal nothingness that it is historically irrepeatable, unique, and individual.” Only in the face of this “eternal death” qua nothingness is genuine individuation possible and only the real individual becomes agitated by the religious question. A being who carries out its moral duty for duty’s sake, in other words out of adherence to what Kant frames as the categorical imperative, would have no individuality; religion can have no meaning for such an abstract subject without any concrete will. Groundless nothingness (Shunyata) is the unstable and ghostly horizon of one’s finite existence, and existential awareness of this ultimate and inescapable negation of one’s self is not a merely noetic reflection.

Nishida approvingly attributes to Fyodor Dostoyevsky the “standpoint of freedom” which holds that: “There is nothing at all that determines the self at the very ground of the self.” From the vantage point of his own time, Nishida sees the spirit of Dostoyevsky as the closest point of contact between Japanese spirituality and the West. He admonishes the Japanese for having remained too insular and that the spiritual sense for the ordinary and everyday that Japan shares with Dostoyevsky has hitherto been too superficial. “At this juncture,” he says, “it must come to possess an acute Dostoievskian spirit in an eschatological sense, as the Japanese spirit participating in world history.” Nishida hopes that “in this way” the hybridized Japanese civilization “can become a point of departure for a new global culture.” Nishida sees the way that the Yahweh “folk religion of the Jewish race” evolved into a world religion, and one that served as the basis for a medieval European culture that he clearly admires, as a model for a potential globalizing evolution of Japanese tradition. The “scientific” secularization characteristic of modern Western civilization, wherein “old worlds lose their specific traditions”, is a necessary phase in the formation of “a global humanity.” It is, in a dialectical sense, a negatively determinative moment in “the world’s transformation.” However, it must be recognized that “science is also a form of culture” and that “the world of science may also be said to be religious.” The failure to recognize this has been chiefly responsible for the fact that “such a thing as the decline and fall of the West has been proclaimed.”


Dostoyevsky diagnosed the causes of this decline perspicaciously in Notes From Underground (1864), which is widely considered the first existentialist novel. It is a response to the situation of the Cartesian ego, which… is sadistically enmeshed in murderous machinery over which he takes himself to have no control. The underground man is crippled by his hyperconsciousness. He is unlike the common man of action insofar as he can trace all effects back to ever receding causes such that, for example, he is incapable of mistaking vengeance for justice, since the would-be target of a retributive act is not ultimately responsible for it. He is also unlike people who are cruel only out of stupidity, because he cannot even stop at the egoistic passions that they take to be primary causes. Under a more intensely rational scrutiny, comprehending these passions also dissolves them as any solid basis for action. The underground man challenges the claim that other materialistic rationalists make, to the effect that a person cannot but act in such a way as is to his advantage.

nishesp.jpgDostoevsky asks us to suppose that we were able to arrive at a formulation of the laws of nature, including biological and psychological laws, so precise that we could calculate, in every case, what a man will do by knowing what is at that moment to his advantage – not as an individual – but as an organism that microcosmically expresses the survivalist egoism of Nature. A man who became aware of this calculation would spitefully do something else, anything else, just to prove that he was not “a piano key” or an “organ pedal” whose thoughts and passions could in principle be encompassed by a formula, tabulated, and predicted according to statistical probability. Dostoevsky equates the sum total of any comprehensive formula for the laws of nature, of the kind that physicists today are still searching for under the rubric of a theory of everything, with “an endlessly recurring zero” because it nullifies meaningful action.

The underground man would act contrary to his advantage, he would humiliatingly sacrifice himself to others, to be beaten and brutalized, to be impoverished through impossible generosity, and in every other way to fail and suffer in life just so as to demonstrate that life “is not simply extracting square roots.” On the one hand, he knows that “two times two makes four”, in other words the laws of nature cannot be changed and so “there is nothing left for you to do or to understand.” On the other hand, he has a painful awareness that “Consciousness… is infinitely superior to two times two makes four.” The underground man decides that “if you stick to consciousness, even though you attain the same result, you can at least flog yourself at times, and that will, at any rate, liven you up. It may be reactionary, but corporal punishment is still better than nothing.”

If “natural science and mathematics” were able to prove to him that even this reaction were predictable in accordance with some “mathematical formula”, he “would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason” and moreover, he would try to hurl the whole of the world into an abyss of “chaos and darkness and curses.” This is what the underground man is referring to when he admits:

The long and the short of it is, gentlemen, that it is better to do nothing! Better conscious inertia! And so hurrah for underground! …But after all, even now I am lying! I am lying because I know myself as surely as two times two makes four, that it is not at all underground that is better, but something different, quite different, for which I long but which I cannot find! Damn underground!

Nishida is in search of what the underground man could not find as a cure to the mechanistic materialism dominating science under the Cartesian paradigm, but what he believed that Dostoevsky himself did find – albeit in an overly Judeo-Christian form that would benefit from a deconstructive encounter with the abyssal void of Zen.

Consciousness always consists of both an extending out over oneself as one’s world and a determination of oneself by that world, so that ‘subjectivity’ and ‘objectivity’ are abstractions of a creative world-forming process that one can intuit in the abyssal or groundless inner depths of the self prior to the interpretation of it as an ego. Nishida thinks “discovery in the scientific domain exemplifies the same point”, namely “seeing by becoming things and hearing by becoming things.” Nishida goes so far as to proclaim the ontological priority of the religious form of life over both scientific practice and social mores: “Both science and morality have their basis in the religious form of life.” Nishida later repeats this point with respect to scientific practice: “Active intuition is fundamental even for science. Science itself is grounded in the fact that we see by becoming things and hear by becoming things. Active intuition refers to that standpoint which Dogen characterizes as achieving enlightenment ‘by all things advancing.’” According to Nishida, the religious form of life is more fundamental than scientific cognition and the knowledge gained by means of it; the quest for scientific knowledge is a mode of the essentially religious character of our existence:

I hold that even scientific cognition is grounded in this structure of spirituality. Scientific knowledge cannot be grounded in the standpoint of the merely abstract conscious self. As I have said in another place, it rather derives from the standpoint of the embodied self’s own self-awareness. And therefore, as a fundamental fact of human life, the religious form of life is not the exclusive possession of special individuals. The religious mind is present in everyone. One who does not notice this cannot be a philosopher.

Nishida proclaims that, “A new cultural direction has now to be sought. A new mankind must be born… a new global culture.” Although Nishida admits that “the new age must primarily be scientific”, he sees a radicalization of the immanent view of divinity in Dostoyevsky and Russian mysticism in general through an encounter with Japanese Buddhism as playing a key role in defining “the religion of the future.” Yet the Buddhism that contributes to the formation of the religion of the new age, the religion of the global culture, must transcend the racial character of the Japanese: “From the perspective of present-day global history, it will perhaps be Buddhism that contributes to the formation of the new historical age. But if it too is only the conventional Buddhism of bygone days, it will merely be a relic of the past. The universal religions, insofar as they are already crystallized, have distinctive features corresponding to the times and places of the races that formed them.” It is inevitable that our ethos reflects a national character, but “the nation does not save our souls.” A true nation or civilization must be based on a world religion, and not the other way around.

The has been an excerpt from “Kill A Buddha On The Way,” the tenth chapter of Prometheus and Atlas (Arktos, 2016).

Right On Radio: #8 – The Promethean Destiny of Man with Jason Reza Jorjani


Prometheus and Atlas

In Prometheus & Atlas, Dr. Jorjani endeavors to deconstruct the nihilistic materialism and rootless rationalism of the modern West by showing how it was grounded on a dishonest suppression of the spectral and why it has a parasitic relationship with Abrahamic religious fundamentalism. Rejecting the marginalization of ESP and psychokinesis as “paranormal,” Prometheus & Atlas […]

Price: $36.50