Saturday, 11 July 2015

Measuring Female Beauty

According to the great Aristotle, man is form and woman is matter. This observation is laden with the deepest implications, because it tells us something about the root of our being and the role bequeathed to us by nature herself.

Superficially seen, the mentioned utterance of Aristotle could be shrugged off as no more than an instance of the archaic worldview of a man whose thoughts should no longer matter to us. But this is the attitude of the crude-minded literalist accustomed to surveying the mere surface of things. It is precisely of such creatures it is said that “although seeing, they do not see.”

It is form that shapes matter, and in assigning formality to man and materiality to woman are we not acknowledging male superiority? This is not quite the case, because form in and of itself is a mere abstraction, viz., matter is required for what is no more than potentiality to be translated into the actual. This is to say that form alone can never be counted amongst the existents.

It could legitimately be said that woman stabilises man, much in the manner of matter which endows form with subsistence (Beharrlichkeit). Man, for his part, vivifies woman; and it must necessarily be so, because matter alone is a substance that is yet to assume a definite shape.

To speak of male or female superiority is permissible in a relative sense only. The perseverance of the female and her instinct for survival are boons that provide longevity also to those who surround her. Man, for his part, must make his presence felt with his intellectual brilliance, and his wisdom must inspire the female to admire and love him.

But drawing another human towards you with a view to being loved is easier said and done. As pointed out by a German philosopher, “die Forderung, geliebt zu werden, ist die groesste aller Anmassungen.” Magic potions, violent coercion, and desperate implorations: these are all methods to which recourse has been taken in order to gain the affection of another human being.

The degree of efficacy of the three mentioned methods cannot be determined with certainty, and we would be well advised to concentrate on more tangible means to attaining one’s amorous objectives. We have already touched upon male intellectuality as something that leaves refined ladies in awe, but what exactly is it that makes a woman worthy of one’s love? The simple yet
difficult answer is: beauty.

Now, beauty is one of those elusive concepts on which it has been written extensively, but all the elucidations on which we may care to meditate will leave us none the wiser. According to Plato, beauty is one of the transcendentals present in all beings, but this is a discovery of little value. During his poetic flights, Plato would describe beauty as the emanation of the true, or splendor veri as the scholastics preferred to call it. But all of these facile discoveries do not bring us any closer to the root of the matter.

Again it is Kant who has provided us with the most valuable pointers in regard to beauty. As the effect of beauty, Kant describes the “freie[s] Spiel […] der Vorstellungskraefte in einer gegebenen Vorstellung zu einem Erkenntnisse ueberhaupt.” Those familiar with Kantian epistemology will be aware of the purely intrinsic side to the process which results in the formation of knowledge, viz., the procession of preformed categories qua schemata into real categories which are rendered into concepts which in turn serve as components to our judgements. Reflection on beauty abides by no such rules of thought. The “freies Spiel” (free interplay) of the phantasms stored in our imaginary faculty of which Kant speaks terminates both in that which admits of being expressed and that which defies all such attempts. Beauty, insofar as it can be formulated upon apprehension, is merely exterior beauty, whereas intrinsic beauty awakens the contemplative in us.

The disinterested contemplation of beauty alluded to by Kant could also be seen as a negation of volition or a breaking of the will in the face of a beauty overpowering our sensibility, i.e., “visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur” (“sight, touch, [and] taste fail [to comprehend] you”) as so pithily put by Aquinas. This jumbling up of the senses is the lot of many a man as he beholds a rare feminine beauty: the connecting link between our senses and our intellect is temporarily severed and the reflexive failure to trigger concepts or phantasms which could serve as templates for the beauty beheld paralyses the organism of those men who are unaware of what is taking place within them.

It should also be pointed out in this regard that our ideas of beauty can be either cosmopolitan or philistine. The concepts guiding our lives are no mere abstractions; rather they should be seen as receptacles subject to the constant revision and distillation of that which they contain. We are not beings living solely within ourselves; we are also beings with a history. What Kant calls the Einheit der Apperzeption is our ability to synthesise with coherence all that we see and live through. In this case the factors of intellectual and volitional prowess come into play. The philistines are those whose lives seemingly unfold in a strictly rectilinear fashion; unwilling to face the contradictions attendant on existence, they wish away all that flies in the face of their prejudices and expectations. The cosmopolitans, on the other hand, are those who strive to give their apperception the widest extension possible; and they take into account all the contradictions to existence as obstacles that must needs be faced not only because they ennoble our lives, but also because our willingness to fraternise with the foe enables us to comprehend what otherwise would have remained incomprehensible to us. In the light of these considerations, it could be said that the philistine’s understanding of beauty is constrained by cultural norms and a general provincialism rooted in the lack of refinement and education, whereas the cosmopolitan endeavours to ground his concept of beauty in true universality, thus enabling one to penetrate the appearances (Erscheinungen) so as to partake of that bottomless abyss and primal cause (Urgrund) from which all that is issues forth:

“In truth, when the man looks into her eyes, he sees a life much deeper than she herself realises […]. That which is immortal in him looks at that which is immortal in her, and the gods descend to meet in them.”

The beauty of which we have spoken thus far is the beauty of essences. Considering that we are attempting to come to terms with feminine beauty, there is another modality to beauty that must be accounted for: this is the beauty that is consequent upon essence, and unless we get to behold this second kind of beauty, we will not be able to ascertain the validity of the judgement that we may have conferred on the essence. Case in point: a woman may dazzle us with her natural beauty, but as soon as she opens her mouth, we see her for the worthless lump that she really is. Furthermore, a woman who persists in displaying severe intellectual deficiency into her twenties does not admit of being reformed and may rightly be deemed a lost cause.

In Aristotelian terms, the beauty posterior to essence is known as the second act of a being to which essential beauty serves as potentiality. Here it is worth pointing out that there is no necessary correlation between beauty qua essence and beauty qua act. As we all know, a beautiful woman could well cause us nausea with the sheer stupidity of her words and deeds, whereas a woman to whom nature may have been less generous or downright unkind might evoke our sympathy if not admiration with the beauty of her spoken words and accomplishments. On a personal note, I would like to point out that some of the most sinister ladies I ever encountered were also hideous by nature. The injustice that nature had done to them had unleashed demonic forces within them that prompted them to act out of envy and malice, viz., to quash the happiness of others.

As regards the nature of our acts, provision must be made for the factors of upbringing and social context as correctives to the deterministic view which adjudges acts to be the necessary outcome of essence. The complexity of the human condition is such that what induces one individual to accomplish excellent deeds could well pacify the will of another. Some thrive amidst adversity, whereas others need constant encouragement. Moreover, there is a thin line separating virtue from vice, viz., the same act could be lauded as fortitude or decried as intemperance, depending on circumstance. Existence itself could thus be deemed an art, the mastery of which is acquired through trial and error. In this regard, the following observations of Kant are highly instructive:

“An einem Produkte der schoenen Kunst muss man sich bewusst werden, dass es Kunst sei, und nicht Natur; aber doch muss die Zweckmaessigkeit in der Form desselben von allem Zwange willkuerlicher Regeln so frei scheinen, als ob es ein Produkt der blossen Natur sei.”

This is to say that art must imitate in nature with such painstaking fidelity that one cannot tell the one from the other. A beautiful female of good upbringing, refined manners, and intelligence is one of those rare creatures who upon being found should never be lost sight of. She conducts herself with such naturalness that one cannot tell if the beauty of her acts is owing to acquired habits that have left a lasting imprint on her character or if she was born thus – nor does one need to know. To the wonder of which we just spoken the coquette may be counterpoised, and this is one of those grotesque creatures of which there are far too many in this world. Although it goes without saying that the coquette must be avoided like the plague, it is worth dwelling briefly on the cause of this anomaly. According to Stendhal, the coquette is the product of failed upbringing, viz., parents who constantly remind their daughter of her beauty hamper the development of her interior qualities.

It must be conceded that a woman who combines within her both essential beauty and the beauty of acts is hard to come by. According to Rochefoucauld, such a woman “is a hidden treasure, and he who has found her would be well advised not to boast about her.”

Tuesday, 12 May 2015

Pakistan's Founder Jinnah: Tragic Hero

Lately I have been reading several books about Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and I must say that this man is one of the most intriguing political figures I have ever encountered. It is easy to romanticise the lives of great political characters such as Attaturk, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh who also excelled as men of action. Jinnah, on the other hand, was primarily a barrister and all his battles were waged with words.

Some years ago, the former Foreign Minister of India and a member of India’s largest Hindu nationalist party, Mr Jaswant Singh, wrote a book about Jinnah which caused a storm in his country. Mr Singh the Hindu was in awe of his Muslim foe, and as a result of his book lionising Jinnah, he was declared a traitor to the nation and expelled from his party. The freedom of speech is clearly not valued in “the world’s largest democracy.”

The factors that brought about the creation of Pakistan were many. It would of course be an over-simplification to suggest that the partititon of India was solely a product of the British propensity to divide-and-rule which also gave us other explosive binaries such as Eire-Ulster, Israel-Palestine, and Iraq-Kuwait. In addition to this we also need to take into account the machinations of the subcontinental bourgeosie and the gentry: these were people who willed the creation of a separate Muslim homeland because they feared being quashed by the financial prowess of the Hindu majority in a united India. Hence their demand for a separate Muslim homeland rested on the desire to guard their economic interests rather than pure nationalist fervour. Interestingly, all the major religious movements of the Indian subcontinent were vehemently opposed to the creation of Pakistan.

One of the ideological foundation stones of Pakistan is the truly bizarre two-nation theory, engendered in the mind of a third-rate thinker known as Mohammad Iqbal. Strangely, this individual did not realise that in making religion the main criterion of nationhood, the right to separate homeland would also have to be extended to the Christians, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists of India, but the provincial thinker that he was, he never dwelt on the implications of his theory. But here it is worth emphasising that the recourse to the two-nation theory as one of the ideological pillars of Pakistan is more than anything else a post factum justification for the creation of this country that should perhaps never have come into being.

If we consider the process that culminated in the creation of Pakistan, there are certain contradictions that should become apparent to us all. Jinnah did his utmost to persuade the princely states of what is today known Rajasthan to accede to Pakistan. This is a region with a Hindu majority. Furthermore, once Pakistan had been created, Jinnah reminded his countrymen that one’s creed must remain strictly a private affair:

“In due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in a religious sense because that is the personal faith of an individual, but in apolitical sense as citizens of one state."

Given that Jinnah was also willing to include predominantly Hindu regions in his nation-state, the primary causes of the creation of this country were of a non-religious nature. We have already
mentioned the factors of the British inclination to divide-and-rule and the economic interests of the Muslim bourgeoisie and gentry. The third important factor that must be taken into account is the personality of this highly gifted man.

According to one apocryphal story popular amongst Hindus, Jinnah, whose ancestors were Hindus of the Lohana caste, wished to revert to Hinduism, but he was rebuffed by the Brahmins. Jinnah took offence and avenged himself on the Hindus by creating Pakistan. Although this story is almost certainly a fabrication, it is also true in the sense that offers us a correct appraisal of his personality as a reactive man.

The dialectics that we can discern in the life of Jinnah is also present in the lives of many amongst us. We set out on a specific path intending to traverse it to its very end, but certain unforeseen and insurmountable obstacles or personal tragedies force us to pursue the contrary path with doubled determination. These are ingredients that can easily be seen in the life of Jinnah. His personal tragedy was the death of his young wife, and by all accounts he was deeply affected by the loss; this was a personal tragedy that also hardened him as a man. As for the obstacle that completely changed his political outlook, we must point to Gandhi’s deliberate utilisation of religion as a political tool. Jinnah, a staunch secularist, was infuriated by Gandhi’s religious oratory, and once Gandhi had set out on the path of the politics of religious identity, Jinnah was compelled by the circumstances do the same – and he did it much better than Gandhi.

One last factor that truly matters is that of personal ambition. There are two kinds of ambition worth dwelling on in this regard: on one the hand there is the kind of ambition that has solely private gain in sight, whereas on the other hand there is the kind of ambition that never loses sight of the common good. Even Ignatius Loyola insisted that the members of his order must aspire to great deeds for the greater glory of god; in other words, being ambitious in such a way that one benefits others than oneself is a virtuous act in conformity with the teachings of Christ. Jinnah was probably well aware that his being Muslim would prevent him from assuming the leadership of a party that was predominantly Hindu. Only by pursuing the politics of religious identity could he reach the summit. He did reach the summit, and his vanity certainly played a large part in this regard. To what extent his actions benefitted the subcontinental Muslims remains a moot point. Even so, the following words of Jinnah’s biographer contain no exaggeration whatsoever:

“Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three.”

Friday, 1 May 2015

The Meaning of Love

‘Love’ is perhaps the most diluted word in any language. Whenever most of us resort to this word, it is typically in an offhand manner, almost as if we were afraid of dwelling on it. What has always intrigued me upon some reflection is that men will openly speak of their sexual conquests, whereas love is a matter that would make them cringe. The main reason for this appears to be as follows: a sexual conquest entails a power relation in which man is the stronger party, whereas in the case of love man will have to contend with parity or be willing to undergo submission. According to Plato, a man madly in love readily subjects himself to the kind of humiliation that would make even his enemies feel embarrassed on his behalf. Few amongst us would be willing to assume such a self-effacing posture, whether in words or in deeds, let alone allowing the world to witness it.

All the great philosophers have written extensively on love. Aristotle views love as one of the primary human instincts, or concupiscence as it was called by the scholastics. Concupiscence it is that impels man to obtain what he desires, and if any impediments were to prevent our advance towards the desired object, our other primary instinct comes into play: irascibility. The latter instinct is our inclination to anger, which gives us the strength to do away with that which impedes our advance towards the desired object. Rendered into an idiom to which all of us are accustomed, our primary instincts are love and hatred. Furthermore, our capacity for hatred will be proportionate with our capacity for love. Or to quote a famous German philosopher, ‘what does he know of love, he who has never hated?’

Thomas Aquinas elevates the Aristotelian principle of love as instinct to an all-pervading universal force. Love, according to Aquinas, is a movement towards. From falling bodies to the orbit of the planets to the growth of the plants to the man on the verge of madness owing to the splendour of a lady: it is all love.

This is all very beautiful, but the pinnacle of all theorisation on love is reached with Spinoza. What Spinoza has to say regarding love is so chillingly profound that it merits verbatim quotation:

“He who conceives, that the object of his love is affected pleasurably or painfully, will himself be affected pleasurably or painfully; and the one or the other emotion will be greater or less in the lover according as it is greater or less in the thing loved.”

With Spinoza love assumes a cognitive character heretofore not formulated philosophically, viz., he conceives of love as a kind of parity that extends from being a purely external relation to a meeting of minds. Often portrayed as one of the driest amongst the philosophers, it does not require of us that we delve far below the surface in order to encounter a man of tremendous passion. The German Romantics discerned this passion with ease and termed Spinoza ‘a man intoxicated with divine [love].’ The imprint of Spinoza is all too apparent in the case of Goethe’s Die Leiden des jungen Werthers; the protagonist in the mentioned novel is so enthralled by the object of his love that he sees her countenance in all things, and this to the point that he loses his mind. Let us return to Spinoza in this regard:

“In proportion as a mental image or emotion is referred to more objects, so are there more causes whereby it can be aroused or fostered, all of which […] the mind contemplates simultaneously in association with the given emotion; therefore the emotion is more frequent, or more often in full vigour, and […] occupies the mind more.”

Thus far have we have treated of love as instinct, as a universal force, and as cognition. But there is another aspect to love that tends to rob it of all its romantic zeal: love as a social phenomenon. There is every reason to believe that love has undergone manifold conceptual-evolutionary mutations, and it is plausible to think that our primitive ancestors knew nothing of love as we know it. What we call love was no more than a crude act of sexual gratification amongst our primitive ancestors, and insights into the sexual habits of ancestors can be gained by observing simians: parents will copulate with their children and brothers with their sisters.

Love as we know it saw its first beginnings as men set out to order their social relations in accordance with the dictates of reason rather than let nature run her course. Henceforth, sexuality would become regulated, possibly because of the socially disruptive consequences unfettered copulation, and once the factor of property came into play, the institution of matrimony became a necessity. Kant, at his pithiest, gave us the following definition of matrimony:

“Geschlechtsgemeinschaft […] ist der wechselseitige Gebrauch, den ein Mensch von eines anderen Geschlechtsorganen und Vermoegen macht […]. Die natuerliche Geschlechtsgemeinschaft ist nun entweder die nach der blossen tierischen Natur oder nach dem Gesetz. […] Die leztere ist die Ehe [.]”

As we can clearly see, Kant’s definition is in perfect conformity with what was stated in the preceding paragraph. Alas, with Kant love has lost all its allure. And just when you thought matters could not get any worse, Marx demolished love completely. In his Communist Manifesto, Marx hit back at those representatives of the bourgeoisie who accused the communists of wanting to erode the institution of matrimony:

‘Die Bourgeoisie hat dem Familienverhaeltnis seinen ruehrend-sentimentalen Schleier abgerissen und es auf ein reines Geldverhaeltnis zureuckgefuehrt. […] Worauf beruht die gegenwaertige, die buergerliche Familie? Auf dem Kapital, auf dem Privaterwerb.’

Implicit in Marx’s spectacular counter-attack is the following retort:

‘You accuse us communists of wanting to erode the institution of matrimony? Forget not that this not-so-holy matrimony of yours is no more than a sophisticated form of prostitution.’

What Marx is likely to have had in mind were the marriages of convenience commonly practised by the European aristocracies and the bourgeoisie. Marriages between cousins, and at times even between uncles and nieces, served the purpose of shielding one’s property. Werner Sombart, the brilliantly unorthodox thinker that he was, saw in the bourgeois rationalisation of love another sign of the insidious spirit of capitalism. The stored up eros of the uncle, who is likely to have had qualms about going to bed with his niece, was channeled towards the accumulation of wealth instead.

If Kant, Marx, and Sombart are right, what is it that remains of love? Is love a sham? Does love not really exist? Are the sublime thoughts of Aquinas and Spinoza nothing but futile invocations of chimerae?

Kant the destroyer will enable us to rebuild at least some of the edifice of love that came tumbling down with the demolition work that he and Marx had carried out. According to Kant, there are two ways of perceiving the world: (i) the world as beholden to the irreversible laws of causality and (ii) the world as ordered by the regulative principles issuing forth from our own minds. It is to the latter category that love must be assigned. Love has now become a command, in adherence to the teachings of Christ, according to which we ought to love all.

But is it possible to love all? According to Hegel, unabashed bias is in the very nature of love. Love is all about making an exception for another human being. Love does therefore not admit of being universalised.

Perhaps the most intriguing attempt at unravelling the mystery of love was made by Schopenhauer. The most extreme cases of reciprocal love, according to Schopenhauer, are triggered by what he calls 'the genius of the species', viz., when two human beings are so strongly attracted to one another that they are willing to destroy any force that might prevent their coming together, it is in fact nature herself qua metaphysical entity that wills their union. The motives of the two lovers are confined to the level of individuality, whereas the intentions of nature of a universal order: to create a superior offspring for the benefit of the whole species.

According to the Arabs, God has 99 attributes and the 100th is known to God only. Something similar could well be said of love: the farther you delve into the matter, the more do you become convinced that there are dimensions to love that shall remain forever unknown.

Thursday, 26 February 2015

Destroying Iraq's Cultural Heritage

Strange things are happening in Iraq. At Firdosi Square in Baghdad there was once a gigantic statue of Comrade Saddam, soaring towards heaven like an axis mundi of sorts. Those with their memory intact do perhaps recall that the invading American vermin toppled the statue of Comrade Saddam in a staged media event. This risible hullabaloo allegedly foreshadowed Iraq’s transition from Baathist tyranny to American style democracy. As we all well know, things did not quite turn out this way. The Americans constitue a mentally inferior human type, and bequeathing the responsibility of nation-building to creatures belonging up in a tree is tantamount to asking a seasoned pimp to lecture a nunnery on the merits of virginity.

Enough of this digression on the Yankee simians; let us return to Firdosi Square:

At Firdosi Square, where the statue of Comrade Saddam once stood, we are met by gigantic billboards with images of past and present Ayatollahs of Iran. This appalling act of provocation is a firm indicator as to the unabashed sectarianism permeating the Iraqi society. Things were not always so: during the reign of Comrade Saddam, the great dividing line was not between Sunni and Shia but between those who adhered to the principles of Baathist nationalism and those beholden to religious obscurantism (the worst culprits in this regard were typically the socially conservative Shias of Southern Iraq). Intermarriage amongst Baathists negated sectarian divisions, and Comrade Saddam, one of the greatest Arab visionaries and a true Kulturmensch with a formidable sense of history, sought to construct an Iraqi super-culture which would deliver the final blow to all sectarianism. As Comrade Saddam saw things, his Baathist regime stood in a direct line of continuity with the great Assyrian and Babylonian empires of the past. Furthermore, Comrade Saddam was heir not only to Sargon and Nebuchadnezzar, but also to Al Mothanna ibn Haritha the scourge of the Persians and Saladin the crusher of the crusaders. This majestic vision is articulated with gusto in Ardulfurataini Watan, a remarkable piece of Baathist poetry. I want you to reflect carefully on the following words; these are not idle utterances – rather they bespeak a definite national vision, and it is a profound lesson in history:

Vaterland spreads its wings over the horizon
And wears the glory of civilisations
Blessed be the land of the two rivers
Vaterland of glorious determination and tolerance
This homeland is made of flame and splendour
And pride unmatched by the highest heaven.
It is a mountain that rises above the tops of the world
And a plain that embodies our pride
Babylon is within us and Assyria within us too
And because of the glory of our lineage
History itself radiates with light
We alone who possess the anger of the sword
And the patience of the prophets
When we forged the sands of Arabia into a revolution
And bore the flag of history as ideology
Since Al Mothanna marched onwards [towards Persia]
And Saladin covered [his foes] with spears

There was of course much more to Iraq than mere nationalist oratory. Comrade Saddam created a secular welfare state that became the pride of the Arab world. Educated foreign workers from East Germany, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union shared their know-how with a regime that was intent on turning Iraq into the Germany of the Middle East. Christians could occupy elevated political and bureaucratic positions in a majority Muslim country and openly confess their creed. Comrade Saddam, the Kulturmensch that he was, emphasised the need for academic excellence for all – including women. Given this, the following observations of Rania Khalek are spot on:

“Contrary to popular imagination, Iraqi women enjoyed far more freedom under Saddam Hussein’s secular Ba’athist government than women in other Middle Eastern countries. In fact, equal rights for women were enshrined in Iraq’s Constitution in 1970, including the right to vote, run for political office, access education and own property. […] Prior to the devastating economic sanctions of the 1990s, Iraq’s education system was top notch and female literacy rates were the highest in the region, reaching 87 percent in 1985. Education was a major priority for Saddam Hussein’s regime, so much so that in 1982 Iraq received the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) award for eradicating illiteracy.”

This was the burgeoning Iraqi national project that was torpedoed by a deranged homosexual Ayatollah intent on exporting his Islamic revolution to his neighbouring countries and subsequently aborted by the American barbarians and their stooges. This was the assault of Untermenschen who themselves possess no culture on the citadel of Kultur an sich. In the words of James Petras, the war on Iraq

“was not a ‘war’ against a dictator, nor even a simply ugly massacre of the Iraqi people, it is the deliberate destruction of a civilization carried out by modern barbarians - modern barbarians combining high-tech weapons of mass destruction, directed at destroying homes, factories, offices, water treatment facilities, public utilities with primitive vandals and paramilitary forces destroying the heritage of 5000 years of civilization and 30 years of a modern secular Arab state. Vandals unleashed to incinerate the archives of a nation, its libraries and research institutes, to strip the most famous archeological museum of priceless antiquities and jewels of Islamic art, to destroy universities, school records, hospitals, documents detailing the most important aspects of modern Iraqi life as well as Iraqi national heritage. This is the systematic destruction of everything which allows a people to exist as a recognized nation.”

In the light of these astute observations of Petras, it is the epitome of hypocrisy to accuse ISIS of destroying the Iraqi heritage when the American enemies of Kultur have done exactly the same, and that far more intensively and extensively.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the destruction of the libraries in Mosul and the iconoclastic frenzy that we have witnessed lately are not the misdeeds of native Iraqis; rather we are dealing with a mere footnote to the destruction of the Iraqi heritage that was inititiated by the Americans more than a decade ago. Those responsible for this vile but minuscule cultural destruction are foreign provocateurs. The quesion that must be asked is the following: at whose behest are they acting? We should be pointing our fingers at Iran.

So stupified are Westerners by the bugbear called ISIS that they have become oblivious to the terrorists and infiltrators doing Iran’s bidding in Iraq. These are the observations of Ali Khedery, an American diplomat:

“The staunchly pro-Iranian Badr Organization commander Hadi al-Ameri — who was welcomed in the Oval Office by Obama in 2011, and is known for favoring power drills to murder his victims — has been tasked with leading all Iraqi efforts to secure and pacify the strategically important province of Diyala. [...] These militia leaders are not only operating outside the Iraqi government’s control; many key figures are deeply embedded within Baghdad’s power structure. Hakim al-Zamili, an Iranian-backed militia commander notorious for ethnically cleansing Baghdad of its Sunni inhabitants while serving as Maliki’s deputy health minister, is now chairman of the Iraqi Parliament’s security and defense committee.”

More alarmingly:

“This constellation of Iranian-backed militias is eclipsing official Iraqi institutions, and sowing the seeds of conflict for decades to come.”

Given these circumstances, it should surprise no one that the Sunnis of Iraq have no one to turn to except ISIS. But ISIS itself is no more than a loose designation for a multitude of belligerent entities with contanstly shifting alliances amongst each other. Your friend of today is your foe of tomorrow. This is the perfect climate for Iranian infiltrators who, unlike the ignorant American enemies of Kultur, have historical reasons for wiping out the cultural heritage of their perennial adversary. Now, the Iranians are a most peculiar people and it is in your own best interest to learn a thing or two about this nation of double-dealers (zahir-batin):

“As we know the Persian in history, he is a born liar. He is, therefore, a born conspirator. He has great quickness of mind, adaptability, and, apart from religious emotion, no conscience. In the third century of the Hijra (the ninth A.D.), the Persians were either devoted Shiites or simple unbelievers. The one class would do anything for the descendants of Ali; the other, anything for themselves. This second class, further, would by preference combine doing something for themselves with doing something against [...] the Arabs, the conquerors of their country.”

The latest spectacle of the cultural destruction in Mosul, a former Baathist stronghold, appears to me as being just another instance of the Persian-Iranian habit of “doing something against the Arabs.”