Feb 202016


The band “Pussy Riot” invade a Christian Cathedral in Moscow


The term LGBT was invented to refer jointly to lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals. It connotes both a lifestyle and sexual preference. It is important to note that the term Gay has evolved to refer to a “preference” instead of an inborn trait. At an earlier stages of Gay discourse, it would appear that the term “Gay” was coined more in reference to those that showed an inborn drive for same-sex relationships, whether sexual or not. Today, the LGBT community will be critical of anyone trying to limit the phenomenon to only those who have a natural tendency, choosing instead to view it as a lifestyle choice.

LGBT has developed in six phases as a phenomenon over the past four decades.
• Being gay as a personal condition,
• being gay as a personal choice,
• being gay as a social choice,
• celebrating being gay,
• actively advocating for the mainstreaming of gay discourse and lastly,
• actively sitting in judgement those in opposition to the phenomenon.

I wish to approach the discussion on LGBT along four perspectives.
1. LGBT as a lifestyle choice
2. LGBT as a topic within a broader human rights discussion
3. LGBT as manifested in society
4. LGBT within Islamic and religious discourse.

1. LGBT as a lifestyle choice

LGBT is an emblem rather than a fully substantive lifestyle in my view. If LGBT is at its root a sexually referenced choice, then I cannot see how it can represent a complete or comprehensive comment on sexual discourse. LGBT does not provide an exhaustive frame for discussing sexuality. After all, it omits bestiality, incest and polygamy as some examples. Neither does LGBT provide a complete or comprehensive framework for any meaningful lifestyle discourse. The human experience is frightfully complex, and, reducing it to the sexual is limiting in the extreme.

What is LGBT emblematic of? Same-sex attraction and relationships have always been there. What makes it different in our times? My humble submission is that LGBT represent the most profound attack on the normative. It represents the highest form of rejection of any positivist or objectivist world view. It represents the most visible (and colourful) celebration of the break with modernity and pre-modernity. The gay movement takes the archetypal traditional human taboo topic, namely sex, and celebrates the break with traditional approaches to it. It is therefore not enough for the LGBT activist to recognize sexual deviation from the norms, but instead, chooses to celebrate it. It represents a sort of shock treatment to normative systems, with the goal of unfreezing existing attitudes. It makes a mockery of the dominant normative social paradigm, to the point of de-legitimizing it.

LGBT has grown out of post-modernity. As an activism, it can perhaps be seen as a natural outgrowth from a society where pleasure-seeking and nihilism constitute the foundation. A society un-anchored in a set of transcendent norms, where a unique personal identity becomes more and more contested, provides the compost from which the activism has grown. LGBT provides more than an identity to its proponents. It redefines a moral and ethical discourse within which the LGBT identity is not only shaped, but in fact heroically adopted as an emblem of that new ethical and moral framework. It presents moral, naturalistic and social relativism to humanity as a new code of existence, placing the LGBT community in its vanguard.

There are many other bases from which identity has been shaped; Economic status, dietary preference, mode of worship or appearance being some examples. The problem with any of these becoming emblematic of the new moral relativism is the absence of any substantive and real currency that these would have in society. If the vegans of the world were to launch a movement to make veganism the emblem for moral relativism it would simply not have enough impact. Choosing to make an economically defined category the basis has been done before within Marxist analysis, which places the human, as the worker at the heart of its discourse. In a neo-liberal, market dominated society; the money masters would simply not allow this. Variant modes of worship or non-worship, such as the neo-atheist movement and other post-modern new-age ideas have had some good impact, but not nearly as successful as the LGBT discourse. The element that these phenomena lack, and which is probably the key to the success of LGBT activism is the element of victimhood. As with Zionism, which really only received mass global sympathy after the Holocaust, LGBT enjoys a wave of popular sympathy due to the perceived victim status of gays throughout history.

A final word on the LGBT lifestyle is that it does appear to be a middle class phenomenon. The LGBT agenda is not being visibly directed by the poor, but rather driven by the wealthy middle class.

2. LGBT within broader human rights

The post-modern condition has created an obsession with individual identities. These Individual identities have had to be forged from whatever source possible. Religion, nationality, race and culture provided some useful sources where people could create for themselves an individual identity, in the new confusing pluralistic society. Nowhere was this more relevant than in societies such as in the “melting pot” USA or the “rainbow nation” South Africa. The “rainbow nation”, where each color manifests separately is a very effective metaphor of the new identity-obsessed society. In an attempt to subscribe to a human rights culture and individual rights, the new pluralistic society has virtually sanctified individual or sectional identities. LGBT, as a newly emerged social choice, has joined other sectional identities as being sanctified by law.

The problem is that the human rights emphasis on sectional and individual identities has come at a cost of an emphasis on core human and social and economic rights. Why do we hear of “Gay Rights” as human rights, “Freedom of Religion” as a human right, but never, ever, is it legitimate to express a “Living Wage” as a human right, or “Proper Shelter” as a human right or “Sound Health Care” as a human right, enshrined by constitutions and guaranteed by the state? Society has been trained to tolerate the worst forms of degradation of its citizens due to poverty and inequality, yet seems to react hysterically when individual freedoms or rights are contravened.

The reality is clear. Sectional bourgeois identities have taken over, nay hijacked the grand narrative within the new post modern plural society. The subjugation of the grand narrative by sectional narratives is a bane and not a boon. It represents a type of fascism that denies human rights to the masses, while sanctifying them for the minority. In the wake of this subjugation, popular truisms and values have been remolded to reflect this focus on the bourgeois identity. Human rights are now the rights of bourgeois to choose their sectional pursuits and frolics. Injustice, as a universal value has been eclipsed by terms such as non-sexism, gender equality, non-racialism and freedom-of-sexual-preference. The new political correctness reflects and enforces this. The grand narrative of poverty and inequality within South Africa, coincidentally the most unequal society in the world, is not regarded at the same level of urgency and hysteria for example as the narrative around gay rights protection, and other sectional identity rights. Why?

It is time that a call for a broadly just society is revived. The poor, the humiliated and the degraded need to be placed at the centre space of liberation politics, a space that is currently being squatted on by LGBT and other sectional bourgeois interest groups. The real and urgent needs of the people cannot go on being subordinated by the agendas of bourgeois identity interests. Why would LGBT (or any other sectional agenda) feel uncomfortable in a society where justice is guaranteed to all collectively and not articulated separately for the different sections? My humble opinion is that the stratification of society into sanctified sectional agenda groupings has become the biggest tool in the broad neo-liberal assault on general human dignity. Human dignity is no longer the common collective pursuit of all people, but has become the narrow prize for the interest or lobby group. The neo-liberal project guarantees freedom to pursue one’s own agenda, but not the freedom for society to pursue the greater good. It is time to re-sanctify the call for “justice for all”, and to curtail and de-sanctify the call for “justice for the interest group”. LGBT, the nation, the culture, mode of worship and any other mode by which people shape their identity needs to seek its own justice within this broad call.

3. LGBT as manifested in society

The various components of the LGBT phenomenon seem to be the following: Legitimating, Celebrating, and Challenging.

The legitimating component has been very effectively co-opted within the broader gender discourse. It is strange to see how gender activists initially grabbed hold of the LGBT agenda. In this new merged discourse, the lesbian seems to represent the pinnacle of feminist parity with the male gender, and male homosexuality the pinnacle of the liberated male, freed from all chauvinist masculinity. The merging of these agendas has reached a point where critical gender theory has become fully instrumentalised and harnessed by the LGBT agenda. A discussion on gender equality no longer seems complete without a discussion on sexual preference rights. The LGBT agenda has therefore benefitted from both these two revisionists and critical theories.

The celebrative component of the movement is manifested in the gay parade and the omnipresent public tokens of obeisance to the agenda found in popular culture, popular media and even official communications. Gay sex is no longer regarded as an exceptional, non-normative and private preference, but is mainstreamed into movies and other popular cultural expressions. The gay parade serves to galvanize general public attitudes in favour of it, while other public expressions serve to normalize it. All of these find protection and legitimacy within a human rights discourse that places it on a par with the highest aspirations of justice in society.

Finally, the challenging component refers to the activist side of the movement. This is the LGBT attempt to stifle or silence any challenges to its claim to being a valid and even valued identity within society. By effectively merging and even hijacking the gender agenda and the broader human rights agenda, the LGBT movement has in its possession the tools to fend off any challenge. With these tools, it has managed to advance its cause to dizzy heights. In the 1970s, the movement could count as its greatest achievement, the coming out of the closet of gays and lesbians. Presently, the achievements have shifted very far beyond that. After winning the battle to sanctify gay marriage in Western societies, the new pursuit now seem be gay child adoption. Under cover of its wielding of human rights, the legitimizing of the trade in children is the latest pursuit. Society, being subdued morally, intellectually and legally to the agenda seems to stand willing to negotiate away the rights of the child in the onward gay march. In a court case in the Louisana, USA for example, an adopted child of gay parents expressed the view that she was “was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk.” If this does not constitute child abuse, then what does? There have been scary reports of the sexual abuse of children by non-biological male gay parents, but even these seem to be insufficient to check the onward march.

4. LGBT within Religious and Islamic Discourse

Western religions have by-and-large succumbed to the LGBT agenda. The Christian church, with its traditional dichotomizing of church and state found it most easy to let the LGBT agenda slide in under broad secular justifications. When the Christian Church decided to take a stand on the LGBT agenda encroaching and invading the Church itself, it found itself outsmarted and overcome. The Church has subsequently had to succumb to the agenda within its own order. The phenomenon of the gay priest and church-hosted gay marriages are the result. The biblical counter-narrative would seem to have been simply conceded in the process.

It is more difficult to achieve the same within Islam. There is common consensus in Islam is that homosexuality to the point of sodomy is condemned in the Quran as the practice of the People of Lot. This has not prevented certain contemporary Muslim gender activists from attempting to sneak the agenda in under cover of the broader gender rights agenda. A thinker like Amina Wadud is in the forefront of this. Other Muslim thinkers such as Tareq Ramadan seem unable and powerless to mount a proper response. Instead, they choose to frame their response within a larger secular pluralistic discourse. The result is that a view is being advanced by Ramadan that homosexuality is not supported in Islam, but is left to the private conscience of the individual. This view represents a cowardly cop-out and act of appeasement. It also reveals a measure of insecurity of a thinker like Ramadan. His approach is perhaps best understood within the context of his own need to defend the broader project of legitimating his own sectional group interest agenda, in his case that of being Muslim in the West.

This brings Muslim scholars to their biggest challenge. Do they trade off the broader gains of the sectional Muslim interest agenda by confronting the LGBT agenda? Only if Islam is seen as a sectional identity can this be the case. When Islamic scholarship is on the other hand redefined as the vanguard of the human project, then this is not possible. When Islamic scholarship defines itself as the defender of all human dignity and emancipation, then this trade-off does not present itself. It therefore is required of Muslim scholarship to redefine their own mission as being key protagonists for broader truth, spirituality and social justice, instead of being defenders and champions of the Muslim identity.


A day or so ago the world experienced its latest display of homofascism with the public disciplining and humiliation of the world renowned boxer from the Phillipines, Manny Pacquiao. Within the context of his Christian religious affiliation and upbringing, he remarked that sex between the same genders was not to be found within the animal world, and that animals therefore found themselves at a higher level than humans who engage in the practice. His views sparked an outrage, which hit global headlines. It also led to his corporate sponsor Nike, withdrawing their sponsorship to the boxer. He was forced to make a public apology. The public humiliation of world figures represents an important element in the greater LGBT agenda as it serves as a lesson for any other person that their livelihood (which often means their life) can be taken away from them should they question the mighty unchallengeable LGBT colossus. The crime here is clearly not his negative views on homosexuality but rather the excessive and overwhelming response to these views.

In 2015, the University of Cape Town SRC, suspended a student leader, Zizipho Pae, as acting President of the SRC for uttering the words “We are institutionalising and normalising sin! May God have mercy on us.” in a Facebook post. The suspension took place after a group of LGBT activists staged a sit-in and pressured the SRC to suspend the student leader. What is telling about this act of homofascism is the recalling of an elected student leader that again expressed a personal sentiment borne from a committed religious belief. Personal conscience or even legitimacy by election is clearly no longer seen as a mitigating circumstances, spelling a clear move to fascism by LGBT. The expulsion also marks the subordination of religious norms and values and the will of students who elected the leader, to the LGBT agenda.

In 2012, the Russian LGBT activist band called “Pussy Riot” invaded the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow and proceeded to desecrate the place of worship, including urinating in it. They were arrested later and understandably sentenced to jail for hooliganism. The response in the Western media was telling in this case. It was overwhelmingly sympathetic to the band’s outlandish act of desecration to an institution with a long established tradition in Russia. Their actions fit in with the broader LGBT agenda to mock and to desecrate any established value system in favor of the hedonistic and nihilistic LGBT agenda. The abuse of “freedom of speech” was also very effectively employed here to provide moral cover for their reprehensible actions.

Barbwire.com (retrieved 2016) lists 300 (three hundred) additional examples in the US of homofascism. The examples they site seem to indicate of pattern that ranges from robbing ordinary people of their livelihood by lobbying for their dismissal from work, to outright death threats by the LGBT lobby.


It is time to clear the human rights, social justice and intellectual public central spaces of the LGBT squatters. The war against poverty and inequality needs to be refocused on the masses of people who are suffering homelessness, disease and degradation. The grand social justice narrative must be wrested from the sticky neo-liberal hands of the LGBT lobby movement. I sincerely hope that a party in South Africa like the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) under Julius Malema will not be lured into diverting its agenda to the agenda of these petit bourgeois intellectual squatters.


Wikipedia. Pussy Riot. (2016) Retrieved February 20, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot

RDMRdm Newswire. (2016) Student leader in hot water over public attack on homosexuality – Sowetan LIVE. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2015/06/30/student-leader-in-hot-water-over-public-attack-on-homosexuality

Chris Murphy. (2016) Manny Pacquiao sparks fury after homophobic remark. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/16/sport/boxing-manny-pacquiao-animals-gay/

Barbwire.com. (Retrieved 2016) acts of homo fascism – Google Search. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://barbwire.com/2014/07/07/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/

Wadud, Amina. (2016) Women Imams – Amina Wadud. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJo8y-AxZHY

Ramadan, Tariq. (2016) Tariq Ramadan about homosexuality. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsaWjxkZB3w

Andy Marso, Jim Mclean. (2016) Topeka Child Abuse Case Raises Questions About Kansas Policy On Gay Adoptions. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://kcur.org/post/topeka-child-abuse-case-raises-questions-about-kansas-policy-gay-adoptions#stream/0

Last, First. (2016) Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

Feb 152016

Two giants in South Africa engage in debate. Clem Sunter is the strategic visioning guru of South Africa;s biggest company, Anglo American. Julius Malema is the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, the party that has become a serious threat to the ruling African National Congress party in South Africa.  Excellent engagement.

Jan 172016

welath poverty

There are many religions practiced in the world today. There are also neo-religious philosophies such as Neo-Atheism and Scientism. I have found a surprisingly high level of commonality between the core assumptions and beliefs of all of their adherents. By saying this, I have to add that present-day religious followers may not even be aware of how similar their beliefs and assumptions about the world are. I hear some of you vehemently disagreeing with me. Keep in mind though that it is possible for people to be at war with each other and still adhere to the same core values. My point is that religious differences have actually reached a level of superficiality in the world today.

I hear you asking me what about religious fundamentalism from ISIS and their equivalents. My own position is that ISIS is a movement aimed at transferring power through using religious sentiments and a religious programme. Zionism, similarly was a movement aimed at securing power for Jewish power brokers, more than it was a religious movement. The religious element was contributory and supportive, and not core to the goal of achieving a power base.

So I repeat there are core assumptions commonly shared by the Muslim, the Jew and the rest. Here are some of these common assumptions:

Fatalism: Most people, from all major religions have resigned themselves completely to some or other fatalistic view of the world. Speak to a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian and you will sense a high level of acceptance of, even a resigning to our world and a fundamental acceptance that he or she is really powerless to change it. This “inevitability” of the way the world is, is subscribed to by almost all. People are happy to go along with the way the world is evolving or devolving. If you mention poverty, hardship, debt, inequality, crime, war, personal depression and disease, which are all at crisis levels, you find a sense of detachment from the problem by most. People display a clear attitude of powerlessness, whether Muslim, Christian, Atheist or Jew. This powerlessness, manifested in indifference, cannot be described other than being a form of fatalistic acceptance of the world.

Absence of reflectiveness and spirituality: Religions have become social formations rather than centers of wisdom, reflection and spirituality. I agree that there are plenty of religious practices that involve personal ecstasy and devotion to charismatic figures and events. The question is, to what extent does the singing in the church, the gospel industry, the Hajj industry, the Halaal industry or the attachment to charismatic priests reflect reflectiveness and spirituality? I am of course referring to the majority of adherents today, not all. To most, spirituality, deeper reflection and meditation over the world and our own role in it, is sadly non-existent.

Respect for and yielding to the powers that be: Whether that power is just or unjust. All religious adherents refrain from declaring as illegitimate rulers that uphold systems that are unjust. Some may be involved in futile and impotent processes of rotating rulers, but the basic ruling class almost always goes unchallenged. The attitude of people reflects an attitude of complacency with their rulers, and a childlike trust of the ruler or at least the ruling class.

Submission to popular norms, behavior and practices: Consumerism, personal propulsion, and individualism are every bit as part of Saudi society, as it is of Israeli, British or Chinese society. It may just be more pronounced in classical Western societies, but believe me; the Muslim is as keen to form part of these modern social phenomena as the Jew or the Hindu for that matter. We all willingly submit to the latest politically correct speech or practices. Our behavior is virtually shaped by those who speak to us every second of the day through popular art and the media. Arabic music, Hindu Muslic and Western music are a case in point. Music from all of these cultures generally reflects frivolousness at its best or debauchery at its worse.


All of this makes me realize that the world has in fact in recent times morphed into a one-religion world. Deep within, almost all of us share the same core assumptions and values. We accept our sick global reality as the unalterable way of nature, our corrupt ruling classes as unchallengable, and our only real goal to be that of establishing ourselves firmly in positions of wealth and comfort. We revere the same things and we aspire to the same things. That makes us common adherents of the global establishment. Anyone who stands up and questions the king, the corporate controllers or the state is regarded as a heretic to the accepted order.

But that leads me to a further deduction, namely that we have embraced the unequal, corrupt and cruel world order we all experience. We accept the benevolence of the billionaire classes and the corporations, in their hold over our leaders (elected or not.) We (perhaps subconsciously) blame the poor for his poverty, the victim of war for the war, the debt slave for his debt or the refugee for the civil strife that turned him into a refugee. We have embraced indifference to the injustice that has befallen our world. Very few of us see our role as that of activists needing to overthrow the system. We may raise a polite objection but very rarely a radical programme to challenge the system.

What I witness has much in common with the Hindu caste system which makes it a religious principle to embrace social inequality and neglect. The Brahman at the top of the hierarchy decides what constitutes virtuous behavior for all people, and the poor despised Untouchable at the bottom has no other choice than to wallow in his misery as a life-long curse. The Brahman is innately virtuous and pure, receiving their guidance from God alone. The Untouchable is impure, superfluous and a burden on society.

According to Hinduism, in the middle, one finds the rulers, the merchants, the farmers and the labourers. All in service of the Brahman. The question is: Who are the Brahman in the new world order?

 Posted by on January 17, 2016 at 9:28 pm  Comments Off on One World Religion: The new global religious caste system?
Oct 072015

The 11th of September 2001, in my view represents a seminal event that may shape history over the next few centuries.  Why, you may ask?  After all, Word Wars 1 and 2 collectively resulted in far greater losses of life, numbering in the tens of millions.  The atomic attacks by the US on Japan alone account for the deaths of 50 times more innocent civilians than died in 911.

The importance however of 911 for me lies in its potential to undo the until-now tight alliance between Western money-power and Western military power.  Let me explain what I mean by these:  Western money-power, as manifested currently in the integrated global banking system, dates back to around 1800 when the major banking families of Europe laid the foundations of what we experience today as the global financial system.  Western military power, in my view, dates back to the conference at Vienna around 1815, when Europe (and the world) became subordinate to Anglo-Saxon power.  America today is the face of Anglo-Saxon power, having taken the mantle of the world’s greatest military power from Britain after World War 2.  World Wars 1 and 2 were conflicts that shifted power within the Western frame of reference without ever threatening the alliance between banking money power and Anglo-Saxon military power.  911 May just change this.  But how?

Before I get there, let me digress a little. Banking has been around for centuries.  The banking of our times is primarily occupied with money-lending.  Some of you may naively assume that a bank’s primary function is to keep your savings in trust.  You may further assume that they make extra money by lending out your savings to others, who pay interest to the bank, from which they then profit. Wrong.  There is one problem with your assumption, namely what would banks do if they had insufficient cash in trust from people?  This problem is solved as follows.  Banks actually themselves have the right, by law, in most countries, to lend out ten times the amount they hold in trust from people’s savings.  If they hold one million dollars in deposits from the public, for example, they are authorised to lend out ten million dollars in loans.  The shortfall in cash is provided by an institution that prints the currency in your country, called the Central Bank or the Federal Reserve. The banks then pay this institution a fee for borrowing from it. But wait a minute! Who owns the Reserve Bank or the Central Bank in your country?  The likelihood is that the very banks that borrow from this reserve are the share-holders of the Federal Reserve or Reserve Bank.  Only a handful of countries’ central banks are owned by the state.  That means that banks actually print money, and lend it to themselves!  Even the government must pay the bank interest when borrowing from it.  This they do by printing promissory notes called government bonds, which they exchange with the central bank for cash now, in return for a higher repayment in time to come.

The banks as money-lenders is a phenomenon that is age-old. Every few centuries however, the debt burden becomes so heavy on governments and society, that a revolt takes place. The yoke of the bankers is then overthrown, sometimes in a violent and cruel way.  All those classes and groups associated with the money-lenders are also violently expelled in the process.  The Jewish community is known to have been the foremost money-lenders in Europe for many, many centuries. In the year 1290, a violent English uprising took place against Jews, who were the primary money-lenders in England then.  The violent attacks resulted in much loss of life and the expulsion of the Jews from England under the reign of King Edward I.     In fairness to Jews, the catholic church often tacitly encouraged them to practice money-lending as Christians frowned upon the practice as anti-Christian.  Oliver Cromwell eventually re-opened England for Jews and their money-lending practices in 1656.  Fast forward 280 years and we find the same expulsion of Jews as the biggest banking power in Germany.  This time it was Hitler who saw in Jewish money power a threat to the German people’s success and prosperity.  Germany was defeated in 1945 as we all know, and the bankers’ power restored.  You can go back even further in history and find the same story repeated.  Even Jesus Christ in about 30 AD expelled the money-lenders from the holy temple in Jerusalem.  Sadly, that act caused a bad result for the Holy Christ also.

Back in our times now, the bankers have reached the pinnacle of their power.  It is said that banks collectively have indebted the present population on earth to the tune of three hundred trillion dollars!  When I say banks, I mean the money lenders, the central banks, the World Bank and other global money lenders.  Every person on earth pays interest to the banks.  Even a poor, unemployed person in Africa pays interest to the bank. How?  Let’s say the South African government owes money to the World Bank (which it does.) The South African government raises taxes from its population to repay the interest to the World Bank.  These taxes are collected from ordinary poor folks in the form of sales tax, income tax and import duties, which the state levies on all South Africans.  For your information, the United States owes the banks in the region of 18 trillion dollars. This money will have to be repaid to the banks by Americans today and Americans that are yet to be born!

Let’s move the discussion on.  We all know who the Anglo-Saxons are.  We all know what their religious ethos is.  As a reminder, the Anglo-Saxon world is founded on a Christian world view, which underwent dramatic reform during the period of the enlightenment (1600’s to 1800’s.)  Western States, during this period neutralized Christianity as a political force, reducing it to the realm of moral conscience. The state itself became secular and even anti-Christian during the Enlightenment.  What is the religion of the bankers?  The declared religion of the most powerful bankers in the world was then, as it is now, Judaism, and especially the Zionist strand of Judaism.  Let me explain:  In 1917, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour sent a declarative letter to 2nd Baron Rothchild, a leader of the Jewish community and hailing from the most powerful banking family.  The letter promised Jews that Britain would yield to their demands for a homeland in Palestine.  In return, the powerful Jewish banking money power under Rothchild and others in the West promised all sorts of support to the British war effort against Germany at the time. This moment represents a renewal of the alliance between Anglo-Saxon military power and Jewish banking power.

In 1948, Balfour’s promise was kept when the West recognised Israel officially as a Jewish state, on the land of Palestine. There is therefore, until today, a clear connection between global banking power and the state of Israel.    Israel achieved holy cow status because of global Jewry’s support to the Anglo-Saxon world.  The persecution (and killing) of Jews in Germany became a global object of profound sympathy and regret under the trade mark of the Jewish Holocaust.  The years from 1948 until the nineties represent the golden age of Israel and Jewish banking power.

The yoke of increased taxation, poorer living standards and the threat of Western jobs moving to third world countries disturbed the relative contentment in Western countries by the nineties.  Consumerism had also peaked, and new avenues for banks to create new income streams became necessary.  When the Eastern Communist Block fell, the West was expecting a peace dividend, after years of cold war with the Eastern Block.  A new distraction was needed to occupy the wandering mind of the Westerner.  The bankers identified a fear of Islam as a new theme on which to base new extortion opportunities.  Overnight, Muslims’ image changed from the romantic Arabian Nights to the violent terrorist.  The founding of Israel itself was a provocation of Arabs in 1948, but by the 1980’s most Arab counties were at peace with Israel.  The 1980s and the 1990s saw renewed provocation by Israel of Arabs and Muslims through the massacres of Palestinians and invasions of neighboring Arab countries.  This continues to today.  The Western Anglo-Saxon – Zionist Banking alliance remained firm throughout this time.

Which brings us finally to 911 in 2001.  Israel needed the West to defend it from the Arab threat.  Zionist Bankers needed the West as a continuous source of profits and interest, and also as a continued protector globally.  It was difficult to sustain this position, especially as the memory of Word War 2 and the Holocaust started waning with the passing of that generation.  American loss of life in the Muslim lands though the 1980s and 90s weakened the US’s resolve to fight for Israel.  An event of biblical proportions, implanted in the Western psyche was needed to renew the alliance and additionally create a new source of war profits and interest payments.  An event no less than the destruction of key symbols of the West would be needed.  A good deal of loss of life had to accompany the event. 911 was the ultimate ‘abracadabra’ event for Zionism and global money power.

Why then does 911 truth threaten the Anglo-Saxon-Zionist or put differently, the global military and financial power alliance?  After all, financial power is useless without a military guarantor.  Imagine if people and states simply refuse to pay the three hundred trillion they owe the banks. 911 Is a real threat for the following reason.  By conceiving of and engineering 911, Israel (symbol of Zionism) may have overstretched their chutzpah or hubris.  In attacking these Western symbols on 911 and simply blaming it on Islam, they may have miscalculated the naiveté of ordinary Westerners.  The power of the Truth Movement in the West, questioning the official version of events of 911 is growing by the day.  What if the secret comes out? There is no doubt that 911 Truth carries the potential of severing the Western alliance with Israel and Zionism in general. It may even result in the biggest pogrom that the world has seen in centuries.  A break in the alliance will see the world back to the pre-1656 period.  The West would be crippled financially due to the disappearance of easy credit. The West would be culturally reshaped when the Jewish influence through the mass media evaporates.  The age of individualism and competitiveness would make way for a new age of co-operation between people.  The market for ideas and ideologies will be free again, and, who knows what Westerners would choose?

As Christopher Bollyn states: “911 Truth Ends the War.”  I can add, 911 Truth has the potential to  restore the real freedom of humanity.

 Posted by on October 7, 2015 at 8:58 pm  Comments Off on 911 Truth Has the Potential to Usher in a New and Better World
Apr 232015

All religions promise a good life on earth. Many of them also promise a good life after we die.   All religions preach very different ideas though. Who do you believe? I can imagine the answer coming from most of you: “I am happy with what my parents brought me up in.”   If you believe that, then I have one more question to ask you, after which you can happily stop reading. My question is, if each person’s parents taught them the best religion possible, and calls other parents’ religions false, then how do we know which one is telling the truth? Like for example, if my parents are Muslims and your parents are Christian, and both regard each others’ beliefs as being wrong, whose parents does a neutral person seeking an answer believe? If this question troubles you, keep reading. If not, thank you for your time.

If I flip a coin and ask two people to each predict either “heads” or “tails”, three things are possible: 1. Both could predict heads, 2. One could predict heads and one tails 3. Both could predict tails. Are you agreed that that’s the only three possibilities? Okay, so after I have flipped the coin, and show the outcome, there are now three possibilities again:

  1. If both chose differently before the toss, then one will be right and one wrong – Both cannot be right
  2. If both chose heads and the outcome was tails, then both of them was wrong in the first place.
  3. If both chose heads and the outome is heads, then both were right in the first place.

The lesson for our discussion is as follows:

  1. When people agree on an issue, its possible that they could be agreed on the wrong thing
  2. If people agree on something, its possible that they could all be right.
  3. When people differ over an issue, it is impossible for all of them to be right

Why have I brought up this coin-tossing analogy? I want to prove that having everyone agree with you is not a guarantee of following the right thing. Also, I want to prove that its impossible for everyone to be right when they all differ amongst each other.

The religious world looks like this today: Those who follow their religion, feel that millions of others are also following the same thing, and therefore comfort themselves that they MUST be following the true path.   The fact however is that millions may be following one religion, but millions of people also follow an opposing set of beliefs, which really means that some of those millions MUST be wrong.

This booklet is an attempt to provide clarity and to offer a way forward.

Before I can continue the discussion, I wish to ask for two basic points of agreement, without which, we will only be wasting our time. Those two points I need agreement on are:

  1. We have to agree that a solution to our problem can be found
  2. We have to exert our healthy minds to the best of our ability to seek that solution

If you believe that using our minds is not a viable way forward, or if you believe that no solution exists to the question of “which religion is right?”, then I also bid you farewell.

Religions claim to be about God. They claim that God gave humanity religion as a means to save themselves. Now let’s look at the gifts of God.   What tangible, natural gift is the most precious gift you have, from God, that sets you apart from all other life forms? Our healthy intelligent minds are most certainly the most prized gift we have as human beings. If you were to be told by some crafty person to pay over half the money you possess, in return for a double your money tomorrow, your healthy mind will protect you from such stupidity. Stupidity causes loss. Healthy thinking causes success. The biggest gift God gave you is the gift that will protect you and guide you throughout your life. Why then do so many of us choose to suspend the use of our minds when it comes to religion?

More importantly, my key question: Why do religions claim that they are God’s gift to us, while those same religions deny God’s other great gift to you, namely your sound mind?? I can hear some of you say: “My religion doesn’t do that!” The fact is that ALL the major religions I’ve come across ask you to believe in things that you would normally NEVER believe, using your sound mind. I can list a few examples, but I ask you not to be offended, as my aim is not to degrade any religion here, but rather to pursue a path to the truth, God willing.

Example 1: Can someone have both the power to do something AND lack the power to do that thing at the same time? In philosophy , this is called the Law of the Excluded Middle. A person either IS or on IS NOT carrying an ability, and any option besides the two is impossible.   Note, we’re not talking about subjective opinions here, but rather about facts. For example, take the statements “The sun is out” and “The sun is NOT out.” There can be no option where the sun is out and not out at the same time. Another example: “I have a cat”, and “I don’t have a cat.” Both cannot be true. Yet, the Christian church confuses this healthy reasoning when it comes to the most important core aspect of their religion, namely God! Claiming that Jesus is fully God and fully Man. I.e. Jesus has all the powers of God, and at the same time, none of the powers of God. Now, I know hundreds of books have been written to justify the official position of the Christian church. I have a question however for those who defend this belief: If someone came with a similar argument to you today, claiming that he is both a billionaire and a homeless vagrant dying of cold, would you believe him?

Example 2: Any act can be seen as virtuous or NOT virtuous. Is it possible to conceive of an act that is both intended as an evil and a good act at the same time? Killing someone could either be done justly, such as in self-defence or UNJUSTLY, such as in a murder. An act cannot be both Good and Bad at the same time. Yet, in Islam, in the war that raged between the elected leader and fourth Caliph Ali on the one side and Muawiyah the rebel leader from Syria on the other side, both men are regarded as virtuous! The rebellion of Muawiyah, with the subsequent thousands of deaths, is therefore painstakingly justified by hundreds of scholars.

Example 3:  Can a person both be present and absent at the same time? Let me introduce this example as follows: Say your uncle has a huge fortune that is to be distributed to his heirs upon his death. You are the sole heir. A man appears and claims that he has a child of your uncle, who he cannot present at the present moment, but whose claim he would like to stake. Will you hand over all the wealth entitled to this guy, without at least asking to see the child? Twelver Shi’ism makes this exact demand from its followers: Accept that the 11th Imam, Hassan Al Askari has a son, which none but one witness has seen , who is both absent and present at the same time in the world. Meanwhile the only witness to such a child is also the beneficiary as a custodian of the immense wealth due to the child.

Example 4: Can God perform a Devilish act? According to the Jewish Old Testament, the answer is “yes”. The Jewish books are replete with events that would ascribe the actions of Satan to God Almighty. If God is capable of mimicking Satan, then is the faith that places such a Satanic being at its core not itself satanic?   Look at this verse, clearly enunciating a satanic act:

Samuel 15:2,3 :This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ”

The ridiculous claim that God can mimick Satan by committing grave injustices is carried forward into Salafism. They too believe that unspeakable atrocities can be committed such as burdering babies and innocent people in the name of God.

I have now provided you with four examples of how every one of the major religions calls on you to suspend your good mind, and to accept the fantastic opinions and reasonings of its scholars and priests.

Do you need to be a professor in mathematics to know that you have ten fingers? If some mathematics professor arrives and writes a million books about you having nine fingers, would you believe the million books or your own eyes?   The scholars and priests of religion are the same. They come to you, asking you to suspend your logical mind and to believe their poppycock just because they are more learned than you. Why are they more learned? Just because they read more books? Did they travel to the life beyond death? Do they have a secret stash of heavenly revealed books? My dear reader, you were born, you grew up, you found a way to sustain yourself financially, all without the help of a cleric or a priest. So why do you desperately need them when it comes to religion? Its like saying that you cannot make any decision in your life without calling your lawyer. Or that you cannot eat anything without calling your doctor. Or that you cannot spend any money without calling your accountant. Completely absurd.   Religion should be about God, and not about the priests. But the priests have carefully twisted religion to be about them (speaking on God’s behalf.)

Here is my first appeal to you, dear reader: Reclaim your right to ponder, evaluate, scrutinise, consider, reflect and critique what you are told by men who claim to speak for God. Your sound mind is God’s best gift to you, to use in your journey to Him. If anyone tells you that your sound mind will lead you away from God, then that person is saying that good religion cannot be achieved by a healthy process of contemplation. You are also insulting God, by saying that God created you with a mind that leads you away from Him!

Liberating yourself from priesthood, and embracing your own sound intellect or mind is the first major step towards a pure and sincere religion.


Are all religions all wrong?

A river starts high up in the mountains or highlands, and finds its way down towards the lower valleys.   All rivers start out clear and pure, but can undergo contamination during its downward path. At a certain point, the river might lose its purity and become hazardous to your health.   Its up to you to take personal care to purify the water from the river before you drink it. I believe that the major religions are the same today. They can be good for you, provided you filter out the filth. And guess what: When you filter water from the Amazon, the Nile or any other river, all you get is the same nourishing H2O.

Applying this to our study of religion, we have to put any idea that anyone asks us to accept to a purifying process. What is this purifying process? Its simply the rational, reflection, pondering, weighing up and critical reflection that we exercise with our sound mind. If someone is handing out water to people, and you see those people falling ill and dropping dead after drinking the water, you need to be especially sceptical. With religion today, if a religion is causing death, pain and suffering, you need to be especially cautious of that religion.

My thesis in this booklet, my dear reader, is that, once you clear the filth out of Islam, Christianity or Judaism, you will be left with the same unadulterated Godly religion. What do I mean by unadulterated Godly religion? I mean by that the core-concepts that all religions preach, namely:

  1. The recognition that there is a greater reality within which the perceivable world exists and the recognition of God as Supreme Creator and Sustainer of the universe and what exists beyond.
  2. God is virtuous and has established guidance for human beings to be virtuous
  3. The recognition of the Earth as temporal abode preceding an eternal after life abode where the most excellent of souls will enjoy eternal flourishing.

None of the main religions will dispute or subtract from these core principles. What they do do is to add confusion to these simple core points. Islam confuses these core ideas by introducing a huge cumbersome set of unnecessary laws and shifting the focus away from love and dedication to God, towards love and dedication to laws. One example: Islamic scholars write endless books on how to posture oneself during the act of worshipping God, while omitting the importance of making a sincere connection with God during worship sessions. Orthodox Judaism commits the same mistake, turning religion into a strict maze of legalisms.

Christians and Hindus shift the attention from God towards His creation and his mediators. Christians places worship, love and dedication to Jesus on a par with love and dedication to God almighty, whilst Jesus himself announced that he worships a greater power. Hindus adore the creation of God, as a manifestation of God. This amounts to confusing God with His creation. The artist is not the painting; the engineer is not the engine, the watch maker is not the watch, so why should God’s creation be regarded as God?

Religious imposters serve to confuse the pristine message of religion as stated above. God’s detractors have given up hope over the millennia from convincing us that He doesn’t exist, so they’ve changed their strategy to confuse and muddy his essence.

The tools of the imposter and corruptor are:

  • Claiming to speak for God and claiming the right to punish you on God’s behalf
  • Using intimidation and mob tactics to defend the orthodoxy which they established.
  • Claiming mysterious knowledge of the afterlife and promising damnation to those differing with them
  • Claiming mysterious powers to influence your fortunes in the world

All of these are absolutely fake and invented to lead you away from pure unadulterated worship of God.   Accepting any of these as valid places you on a sad path that leads away from God.

Can I be regarded as a good Christian/ Muslim / Jew if I adore God, worship him everyday, do virtuous deeds every day of my life and show nothing but kindness all my life? They all say “No!” The Christian Priest says “No!” because you failed to accept Jesus Christ. The Muslim and Jewish Priests say: “No!” because you failed to follow the myriad of laws meticulously. This shows the ridiculousness of the religions of the priests.

On the other hand, can I be regarded as good Christian / Muslim / Jew even after living a life oblivious to God and committing countless acts harming others? They all answer “Yes, its possible”. The Christian claims that you have achieved salvation and your sins forgiven, as long as you professed that Jesus died for your sins. The Muslim and the Jew claim that as long as you followed the laws, and kept up your rituals, you will be regarded as a good Muslim or Jew. When I visited Mecca in 1985, I learnt that thousands of tons of meat, ritually slaughtered would rot and be disposed of, never to reach an empty stomach. This to me is an indication of how legal ritual kills and overrides virtue. I saw a Shi’ite priest once advising a devout follower to escape fasting ordained in the Holy Quran by taking a pointless journey and returning home again. Meaningless compliance with rituals and stupid nonsensical actions can never be regarded as part of the magnificent grand plan of God Almighty. If you witness such actions, be assured that you should be worried.

Now to conclude: All religions have a good core, and you have to cut away the corruption to get to that core. If we all do the same, we will notice an amazingly uniform system emerging where priests, titles and sects will lose relevance and where only God and Virtue will become our main pre-occupation.

 Posted by on April 23, 2015 at 1:10 pm  Comments Off on Which Religion??
Oct 262014

Eric Walberg
October, 2014
Academics, activists, journalists and writers gathered in Tehran for a conference to discuss Israel’s war on Gaza, Islam’s relations with the West as well as the rise of ISIS and those behind the latest terrorist group. Eric Walberg was there.
Tehran, Crescent-online
Monday October 06, 214, 14:19 DST

The conference “New Horizon: the International Conference of Independent Thinkers” was held in Tehran, September 29–October 1, including more than 30 journalists, writers and academics from around the world presenting papers and arguing issues of world geopolitics, with a focus on the Middle East. I represented Canada, along with University of Lethbridge Globalization Studies Professor Anthony Hall, author of Earth into Property: Colonization, Decolonization, and Capitalism (2010). It was greeted in western media by hysterical denunciations, in the first place by the American Jewish Committee which accused it of “promoting hatred of Jews and Israel” and the Anti-Defamation League which accused it of “promoting anti-Semitic propaganda”.

The conference almost didn’t take place at all, having been officially cancelled, supposedly as a gesture to the West, after the new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was elected last year. But after a flood of criticism at Iranian websites sympathetic to the organisers, the Iranian Foreign Ministry reversed itself. Nader Talebzadeh, the principle organiser, had had to lobby hard to reinstate the conference, calling the cancellation of the conference “a major mistake on the part of our government”. “Have our leaders given in so much to the world that they are even afraid of a conference that might hurt Mr Obama’s feelings?” asked one blogger sarcastically.

The First New Horizon Conference in September 2012 was denounced in the West when it was addressed by former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, probably best remembered in the West for his 2005 soundbyte that Israel should be “wiped off the map”, referring to Ayatollah Khomeini’s prediction that “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” The translation of the Persian text was later corrected but this was ignored in the West, where Ahmadinejad was further accused of “holocaust denial” for suggesting the figure of six million as the number of Jews who died in the holocaust was exaggerated, and mocked for suggesting that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

Indeed, most Iranians see 9/11 as involving some degree of conspiracy by the US and/or Israel, but then so do, for instance, 55% of Egyptians. So, not surprisingly, prominent at the New Horizon Conference this year was the world’s leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist, France’s Thierry Meyssan, who in 2002 published what is still considered the classic work on the topic, 9/11: The Big Lie (L’Effroyable imposture), translated into 28 languages, arguing that the attacks were organized by a faction of “the US military industrial complex in order to impose a military regime.” Meyssan also argues that the attack against the Pentagon was not carried out by a commercial airliner but by a missile. Also present was American filmmaker Art Olivier, who produced the feature film “Operation Terror” (2012), whose scenario followed Meyssan’s.

In a YouGov poll last year, 60% of Americans rejected the official explanation as published in the 9/11 Commission Report (2004), so Meyssan’s call for a UN investigation of 9/11 and the recent petition signed by 100,000 New Yorkers for an investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 are surely legitimate, though they have been blocked by politicians as “absolutely ridiculous” and “wild fantasies”.

Iran’s current President Rouhani was not associated directly with this year’s conference, instead embroiled in a controversy with British Prime Minister David Cameron, who both extended his hand in friendship to Rouhani at the UN General Assembly in a “historic meeting”, and then slapped him in the face from the UN General Assembly podium, attacking Iran for its “support for terrorist organizations, its nuclear program, its treatment of its people”, called it “part of the problem in the Middle East”.

“On the contrary,” said a peeved Rouhani in his address to the UN, blaming the West and Saudi Arabia for sowing the seeds of extremism in the Middle East with “strategic blunders” that have given rise to the Islamic State and other violent jihadist groups. He also criticized the West’s sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program and reiterated his government’s desire to resolve the dispute, stating that no cooperation with the West against ISIS is possible until the sanctions are lifted. He called Cameron’s comments at the UN “wrong and unacceptable.”

Appropriately, the New Horizon Conference opened with the book launch of the Persian edition of US journalist Gareth Porter’s Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (2014). Porter told me, “Through painstaking checking with experts and an IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] official, I discovered that the documents submitted to the IAEA, which supposedly showed Iranian plans to put nuclear warheads on their missiles, were fabricated by the terrorist group People’s Mojahedin of Iran [referred to in Iran as the munafiqeen] and were passed on to the IAEA by Mossad. They were contradictory—clearly doctored blueprints for an obsolete missile system.” Porter was awarded the UK Gellhorn Prize for investigative journalism in 2012 for exposing official lies concerning US policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. With this latest expose, Porter did for the Iranian nuclear dossier what he and others did after 2003 in exposing the lies that prompted the US invasion of Iraq.

The conference sessions were varied. “The Gaza War and the BDS Movement Strategies” was addressed by Code Pink activist Medea Benjamin, who has been arrested dozens of time for her plucky protests at Congressional hearings against the war in Iraq, and who famously interrupted a speech by President Barack Obama in May 2013 protesting his continued use of drones against civilians. (She is barred from entering Canada.) Benjamin suggested a new project to highlight illegal Israeli settlements: activists hope to target one of the largest US-based real estate firms, RE/MAX, which “operates in over 90 countries, including Israel, where it sells homes complete with swimming pools in the West Bank to Israeli settlers in defiance of international law. Every Sunday tens of thousands of “open houses” are held by RE/MAX around the world.” Benjamin hopes activists will picket these open houses to embarrass RE/MAX into ceasing their West Bank activities.

A session on Islam and the West, “Postsecularism and its Discontents”, emphasized the importance of ethics in Islamic civilization which makes subservience to market diktat unacceptable, and is a major stumbling block to understanding between the West and the Muslim world. “There is no teleology in western society, no guiding morality, only an obsession with materialism, with logos,” argued organizer Arash Darya-Bandari. “We believe it is necessary to control the negative tendencies in culture, such as pornography, alcohol, drugs, prostitution, to strive towards a more moral and justice society.”

“The ‘Islamic’ State Meme, its Precursors, and the US-Israel-Saudi Triangle” heard frontline reports from Meyssan and others about the intentional destruction of the Iraqi and Syrian states by the invasion of Iraq and ongoing western and Israeli support for insurgents in Syria, directly resulting in ISIS’s phenomenal success. “The West has abetted Sunni-Shia differences in the process to keep Muslims divided and allow continued western penetration and control of the growing chaos there,” charged Meyssan. Rouhani’s comment at the UN—“Certain intelligence agencies [who] have put blades in the hands of madmen, who now spare no one,”—is hard to argue with.

In the session “The Israeli Lobby in England”, Stephen Sizer, Anglican vicar and author of Christian Zionism—Road Map to Armageddon? (2004), explained that the vast majority of Zionists are not Jewish, but Christian. This prompted him in 2006 to draft what became known as the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism signed by four of the Heads of Churches declaring Christian Zionism a heretical belief, both immoral and a contradiction of faith. The rector of the University of Middlesex was pressured to rescind Sizer’s PhD but the examination committee wouldn’t budge. Nor has Sizer been cowed by constant harassment, including a break-in and the theft of his computer.

Contrary to the shrill cries in the western media that the conference was anti-Semitic, it was unique in my experience in addressing Zionism and US imperialism forthrightly and intelligently, without a hint of racism. The issue of anti-Semitism was addressed and dismissed, as “There is no issue with Jewish people or the Jewish religion,” explained Darya-Bandari, “but rather with Zionism, that secular distortion of Judaism that itself is racist, and has been used as a pretext to dispossess and kill Palestinians.”

The American Defense League loudly attacked the conference for focussing on Zionist control of western media and the outsize influence of the Zionist Lobby in the US and around the world. So what’s wrong with that? There is more than enough documented proof of this, as I discover when I researched Postmodern Imperialism. The ADL labelled several of the delegates as anti-Semitic, including ex-US Marine Ken O’Keefe, who has led several relief convoys to Gaza, has appeared several times on BBC’s Hardtalk in support of Gaza, and famously renounced his US citizenship in view of US crimes around the world. It should be remembered that the ADL was successfully sued in the 1990s for false accusations of anti-Semitism.

The conference issued a resolution condemning ISIS, Zionism, US unconditional support of Israel, Islamophobia, and calling for activism locally to boycott Israeli goods and to promote understanding between the West and the Muslim world, and to fight sectarianism. “This was a great opportunity to meet anti-imperialist activists from around the world, to bring Russians, Poles, western Europeans, North Americans together with Iranians and other Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, in a forum without sectarianism, truly supporting peace and understanding,” said delegate Mateusz Piskorski, director of the European Centre of Geopolitical Analysis in Warsaw and former MP in the Polish Sejm.

Eric Walberg wrote for Al-Ahram Weekly in Cairo and is author of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games

 Posted by on October 26, 2014 at 9:28 am  Comments Off on Independent Thinkers Conference – Tehran
Oct 262014


Part 1 of what will be several parts Insha Allah

For news about the Conference: https://www.facebook.com/NewHorizon.ir

Imran N. Hosein

Our Iranian hosts planned very well indeed for this Second International Conference of Independent Thinkers and Film Producers that was held in Teheran from September 29th to October 1st 2014, and was devoted to the application of independent thought to critically important problems now facing mankind.

The greatest problem of all to which attention was directed was the multi-dimensional oppression of both Israel and the Zionist part of modern western civilization over all of mankind, but over the Palestinians in particular.

The Iranians succeeded in attracting to the conference a galaxy of gifted thinkers belonging not only to different religions (there were two Christian Ministers of Religion present), and with specialization in different disciplines, but also many whose defiant scholarship and courageous investigative journalism had already won international acclaim.

I was reminded again and again during the stimulating and, at times, exciting discussions in the conference that Allah Most High had sent down the blessed Qur’an li qawmin yatafakkaroon (to people who think, – i.e., who think things out) and this was indeed a conference of independent thinkers who had the integrity to think things out without regard for consequences; – what a blessed gathering!

But I was also dazzled by the courage displayed, especially by those participants who were based in North America, Britain and Western Europe, some of whom were distinguished university professors, who defied their own oppressive Zionist-controlled governments and demonizing information media to travel to Iran to attend a conference that was certain to be denounced back home as a gathering of ‘terrorists’. The Zionist world-system seems no longer capable of responding to any anti-systemic challenge to their relentless oppression and bogus claim to truth, other than by beating the drums of “terrorism” ad nauseam.These were not only gifted thinkers, but also models of courage, whose heroic defiance of the oppressor should inspire the rest of the world.

It was also heart-warming for me, a Sunni Muslim, to witness the courage of our Iranian hosts who also defied the Western Zionist oppressors in reaching out to not only invite, but to successfully persuade this galaxy of scholars, journalists, political analysts and activists to attend their conference in Teheran.

The Iranian organizers worked tirelessly, and with the charm of a people who have learnt to show patience with a smile, to steer the difficult and challenging conference to a successful conclusion with narry an incident. Special mention must be made of the live-wire Hamed Ghashghavi, who could never find time to have a complete meal during the conference, and Arash Darya-Bandari who displayed commendable management skills as moderator of sometimes difficult conference sessions.

Even without the insight provided by Islamic Eschatology through which we could recognize that the world is now located at the brink of a pit of nuclear fire, the organizers could discern the importance of bringing critical thinkers together at this time to ponder over critically important issues affecting the very fate of mankind, and, more importantly, ensuring that they had unfettered freedom to express themselves on those issues. For that reason more than any other, our Iranian hosts must be complimented for organizing this historic conference which, perhaps, could not have taken place anywhere else in the contemporary Muslim world, nor in most of the rest of the world.

I am absolutely certain that the Zionist world is going to plot with every conceivable form of cunning, to try to prevent this conference from ever taking place again in Iran – with the confidence that if it does not take place in Iran, it can hardly be held anywhere else except, perhaps, Algeria. I will be pleasantly surprised if the Conference is repeated in 2015. The brief period of time which now remains before nuclear war takes place is too critically important for the Zionists, and the threat posed by the Conference of Independent Thinkers is too great, hence the government of Iran will face the greatest of all pressures to prevent the Conference from taking place next year.

Iranian nationalism – Shia sectarianism

It is very important that we enter into the record our observation that the conference made no attempt whatsoever to promote either an Iranian national, or a Shia sectarian agenda.

I remained amazed, for example, that no one objected, and no one (including our Iranian hosts) showed any annoyance over my bold statement, repeated twice in the conference, that “the Iranian Rial, the Pakistani Rupee, the US dollar were all bogus, fraudulent and utterly Haram, and that we should be striving to restore money with integrity i.e., the gold Dinar and silver Dirham.” But I was also painfully aware that these views of mine were perhaps ahead of time – even in Iran – and that many of our thinkers had not as yet been adequately introduced to an Islamic eschatological analysis of the current Zionist-constructed fraudulent monetary system.

Not only did the Conference not promote any Shia sectarian agenda but, rather, I could hardly discern anything in the Conference that could possibly be linked to Shia Islam or to the Shia-Sunni divide in the world of Islam.

Rather, the record should indicate my view that the Iranian Shia organizers of the Conference remain clearly inspired by the matchless courage of Imam Husain (‘alaihi al-Salaam), the heroic grandson of Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), who defied the forces of oppression in that epic encounter on the battle-field of Karbala. I startled the Conference Chairman with my remark that Karbala witnessed the last manifestation of the pure revolutionary faith of Islam. I also believe that the blood-stained sands of Karbala are destined to unite Shia and Sunni in a common stand against oppression. In this context therefore, the Conference of Independent Thinkers must be recognized to possess the potential of uniting Shia and Sunni Islamic scholarship in a common struggle for victory of truth and justice over the Great Satan’s falsehood and tyranny

 Posted by on October 26, 2014 at 9:25 am  Comments Off on Iran Promotes Independent Thinking
Sep 042014

I have put up a comprehensive response to 25 questions (some very offensive) from a self-declared islamophobe.

The Questions include stuff like:

“Marrying a child in Islam”

“Beating one’s wife”

“Allah deceiving Christians”

“The sun sets in a pool”

Download the 1 Meg pdf Here

 Posted by on September 4, 2014 at 10:15 pm  Comments Off on Responses to 25 accusations of an islamophobe
Jun 222014

My humble proposal is that Truth, or that which is good, correct, real and wholesome for the involuntary actions of human beings, does not necessarily require a champion.  What in fact requires a champion, an activist, an intervener or an agent is the eradication of falsehood. By falsehood, I mean those actions and beliefs that are false or harmful.  At best, Truth requires a confirmer.  This is exactly the role of the Prophets of God, upon whom be peace.  Look at this verse from the holy scriptures:   Surah Fatir, Verse 31: وَالَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ هُوَ الْحَقُّ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ بِعِبَادِهِ لَخَبِيرٌ بَصِيرٌ “That which We have revealed to thee of the Book is the Truth,- confirming what is in front of it, for Allah is assuredly- with respect to His Servants – well acquainted and Fully Observant.” Most translators of the arabic have interpreted [Read further…]

 Posted by on June 22, 2014 at 7:18 pm  Comments Off on Does Truth need a champion?
May 152014

I have forever pondered over this, and feel the need to constantly re-evaluate the basis for my beliefs. Although I have acquired philosophical and rational justifications for my present beliefs, I used to believe for very practical reasons.  Let me share some of those practical reasons, and how they gradually lost all validity for me. The number one reason I always followed that which I followed is because I wanted to fit in.  As a child, I am taught the ways of my parents, my uncles and my siblings, and thus observing their rituals and beliefs makes me fit in.  I grew up in a community where the Muslims were a small minority within a larger Christian society.  This meant that the Muslim family had to really establish a very strong attachment to its beliefs to prevent children from growing up and becoming assimilated into the larger Christian community, and [Read further…]

 Posted by on May 15, 2014 at 11:23 pm  Comments Off on Why do religious people cling to their beliefs?