THE RUSHDIE REPORT

Preliminary reports for the Islamic Party of Britain by Committees A & B investigating the suggestion that the author of Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie, is mentally imbalanced.

As early as September 25th, 1988, in his interview with Sean French, Rushdie openly admitted that the classic “psychotic-schizophrenic fall and flying sequence” of his devil Chamcha and the Angel Farishta were, whilst ‘dificult to admit’, purely autobiographical.

Therefore, by his own admission we must consider the voices of Farishta Rushdie and Chamcha Rushdie as co-authors of the book, along with its Honorary White title holder Salman Rushdie. In an interview with James Wood in ‘The Guardian’, September 21st 1991, Rushdie stated: “In my life I’ve always had to be a triple person...” His vocal cords and split-personality are taken over by extraneous powers, so that angelic-devilish ventriloquies issue from the same mouth, in classic schizophrenic fashion:- “it was me both times, baba, me first and second also me... both the statement and the repudiation, verses and converses, universes and reverses, the whole thing, and we all know how my mouth got worked.” Actually we don’t all know, says D. J. Enright in his New York Review of Books, March 2nd 1989, who goes on to say, ‘it appears we are told that God is Satan, and Satan is God, which adds up to one form of monotheism ... Rushdie’s book is copious in thesis and antithesis, but, not too surprisingly, synthesis hovers beyond it." [The Rushdie File, pages 17 and 19]

The admission by Rushdie is consistent with statements in the Qur’an which refer to writers, poets and critics of Islam from its earliest days to the present time, who falsely accuse God’s messengers and prophets of being either mad, possessed or guilty of producing revelations from their own creative, psycho-mystical desires and experiences. These writers now include in their ranks Salman Rushdie, together with his friends and collaborators among authors in the American and English branches of PEN and the predominantly secular/occult governing establishments working in concert with news and media institutions; populated largely by well-educated, highly sophisticated, clever (but regrettably, all too often) spiritually subnormal personalities, who because of their myopian vision see nothing wrong in spreading alarm, despondency or disinformation in order to increase, or maintain their power to influence (for their own benefit, financial or otherwise) what people believe, think and worship. This is achieved in the way they edit or invent the news or the types of story they report, often allowing the bottom lines of balance sheets or viewing figures to exercise editorial control of the headlines and programme contents; as Randolph Hearst, ‘the original image manipulator’, said: “We don’t report the news - we make it.” A point confirmed in the famous 1930s response by John Swinton, retiring editor of The New York Times, to a toast to an ‘independent press’: “What folly is this, toasting an independent press? Everyone present here tonight knows there is no such thing as an independent press. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions, and if he did, you know beforehand it would never appear in print. I am paid 250 dollars a week to keep my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar work.

The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the foot of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race for his daily bread.

You know this, and I know it, and what folly it is to be toasting an independent press! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks - they pull the strings, and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes." [from The New Zealand Social Creditor, reproduced by The Social Credit Union]

In a chapter appropriately entitled ‘The Pen‘, the Qur’an defends itself and its messengers from the perennial attempts of either jealous or mentally sick writers who try to invalidate it. Those who spread doubt about its authenticity do so because of their consistent failure to meet its challenge to all men: to join together and write one comparable verse. Ironically, the defenders of Satanic Verses and its author Salman Rushdie, the American and English organisation of authors, have elected to be known as ‘PEN’, although perhaps in this case Poisoned PEN might be more suitable; and even his publishers have the mark Viking-PENguin.

Surah 68: Al-Qalam, or The Pen

“In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Nun. By the pen and by the record which (men) write, you (Muhammad) are not, by the grace of your Lord, mad or possessed. By no means. Verily for you is a reward unfailing. And furthermore, you stand on an exalted standard of character. Soon will you see, and soon they will see, which of you is afflicted with madness. Verily it is your Lord who knows best, which among men, has strayed from His path: And He knows best those who receive true guidance. Therefore obey not the rejecters, who would have you compromise, in order that they in turn may compromise. Neither obey each feeble oathmonger and detractor, spreader abroad of slanders and calumnies, who habitually hinder all that is good, transgressing beyond bounds. The malefactors deep in sin, who are violent and cruel. The ones greedy and base-born, therewithal intrusive."

(This more than adequately describes the modern press which Neil Kinnock blamed for his election defeat in 1992; the Associates and Members of PEN, The Establishment, The Media in general and Tabloid Journalists in particular, together with some disc jockeys and TV shows - including Kill-Roy, as distinguished from Kill-Rushdie.)

PSYCHIATRIC REPORT EXTRACT COMMITTEE B

(1) The book, “Satanic Verses”, is anti-Islamic to the core. The particular passages that have aroused Muslim protests can be seen as being in the nature of gratuitous inflammatory devices, superficial to the underlying theme of the book, and strike one as being essentially ‘Nietzschean’ in character and content.

[Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, 1844-1900. German philosopher. ‘The man who thought he was god’. He rejected what he called the “slave morality” and values of Christianity in works such as ‘Also Sprach Zarathustra’ (1883-91). He proposed a philosophy asserting the self and - the “will to power” - Nietzsche’s doctrine of the superman.] 

(2) The core theme in the book “Satanic Verses” is, that it is man who creates God or the supernatural through the force of and projection of his own desires. The Prophet Muhammad, in effect (according to Rushdie) desires a particular verse or ayat that will be accommodated to the Qureish tribal leaders. The Angel of revelation, Gabriel, reflects back as it were, this desire, in the form of the Satanic Verses. However, when these ayat or verses cause offense to the prophet’s companions and faithful followers, the prophet in effect seeks a new ‘ayah’ or verse to reconcile the mess created, and Gabriel, according to Rushdie, obliges. The prophet then sees one verse as being of the Devil and the other from God: Rushdie, however, in effect is saying that both are from the prophet’s own desire.

The Qur’an, anticipating this suggestion, refutes it in Surah 22, ‘The Pilgrimage’. We read in verse 49-54: “Say (to the people): O mankind, I am only a plain warner unto you. Those who believe and do good works, for them is pardon and rich provision. While those who strive to thwart our revelations, such are the rightful owners of the fire. Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before you, but when he recited (the message) framed he also a desire, and Satan threw some vanity into his desire: but Allah abolishes anything that Satan throws in. And Allah will establish His Revelations. For Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom. In order that He may make these Satanic suggestions [Satanic Verses for example] but a trial for those in whose hearts is a disease, and those whose hearts are hardened: verily the evil doers are in a schism far from the truth. And in order that those who have been given knowledge may learn that the (Qur’an) is the Truth from you Lord, so that they may believe therein, and their hearts be made humbly open to it: for verily Allah is the guide of those who believe, to the straight way.”

(3) In a nutshell, Nietzsche’s philosophy is that man has, in the past, projected outwards, power that resides within himself; and this resemblent projection or image eventually came to be worshipped as God. Therefore, as man begins to realise this, he can take back the power into himself and by so doing become, as it were, superman again. 

(4) As a philosophical notion, this idea is at least worthy of debate, and it would not be exceptional to explore and illustrate a philosophical theory through a work of fiction. There is, however, a big difference between knocking about the intellectual idea of Superman, on the one hand, and feeling one is personally becoming this Superman, on the other: This latter prospect can be indicative of insanity.

(5) C. G. Jung had some sympathy with Nietzsche’s philosophy - i.e. that man projects aspects of himself into or onto external images, which he then imbues with power. [One can explain, for instance, some aspects of the Hindu pantheon of gods in these terms, and the age-old techniques used in the imitative magic process, with Aleister Crowley as one of its better known adepts.] Recognising this process and then taking responsibility for these forces that properly originate within the self, was seen by Jung as an indispensable step in becoming a mature and whole human being. Jung emphasised, however, the need for humility in dealing with these normally unconscious forces within the self. Otherwise he warned that the Ego becomes solely inflated with a sense of power-producing or rather (in Rushdie’s case) paranoid and grandiose arrogance, with the symptoms of disintegration of the self and frank insanity following later.

Nietzsche said ‘There cannot be a God because if there were one I would not believe that I was not he.’ Remember, Jung attributed Nietzsche’s own insanity to his lack of Humility. After all, humility only comes from recognising that, whatever the power of the self, one is ultimately a servant of God.

(6) It can be argued that in the ‘Satanic Verses’ Rushdie is not simply philosophising in a literary form, but is describing his own internal experience of psychotic inflation of the ego, which he then projects onto his “fictional characters”.

(7) The fact that some of Rushdie’s other books also seem to illustrate a Nietzschean position, rules out the possibility that it is purely coincidental in Satanic Verses - and seems to demonstrate a fascination by Rushdie for Nietzsche, because his philosophy resonates on the same wave-length: This appears to explain the psychotic struggle experiences going on within Rushdie, and mirror closely, Hitler’s fascination with Nietzsche, and may be expressed in similar terms; there are several indications that this latter interpretation may be the case. Recent statements by Majorie Walace and others convert the possibility into a probability. [Rushdie’s Mein Kampf could perhaps be next?]

(8) The conclusions drawn by Dr. Mohammad T. Mehdi, in his book entitled ‘Islam and Intolerance (Reply to Salman Rushdie)’ 15/12/1989, the observations and comments of Marjorie Wallace, director of S.A.N.E. (Schizophrenia a National Emergency) and Rushdie’s own admission as early as September 1988 in his Observer interview with Sean French, leave little doubt that he should be seeking psychiatric help.

While not wishing to acknowledge outright that he and Chamcha the devil are one and the same, Rushdie nevertheless admitted that the fall and flying sequences were more to do with autobiography than he cared to admit even to himself.

It was during the radio 4 program ‘Start the week’ on February the 5th 1990, that Marjorie Wallace inadvertently drew our attention to Rushdie’s possible insanity by stating that Satanic Verses contained some of the best descriptions of self-experience, identical to those reported by schizophrenics, which mimic the schizophrenic sensation of falling, of being taken over by extraneous powers, of losing self identity and feeling a blurring of the boundaries of self. Her comments followed a discussion on Satanic Verses with Bamber Gascoign, Edward Debono, and Professor Ahmed. In passing she said:-

“ The area I deal with is what I feel far more profound. I am dealing with the ‘dark night of the soul’ area. I’m dealing with the disintegration of thought, where the boundaries leak out, one into the other. I mean the whole definition of schizophrenia as the fragmentation of the personality, a splitting off from reality, and actually, going back onto the Rushdie, Satanic Verses (issue), I read, with absolute excitement in this (book) some of the best descriptions of Psychotic-Schizophrenic breakdown that I have ever read. This fall that he has, this use of imagery of flying, and in fact he even dedicates it to. This is a condition that most schizophrenics often find themselves in. He describes this as a condition that Satan lives in. Confined to a vagabond, wandering condition...We don’t know the causes of schizophrenia, but it is possibly based in the bio-chemical pathways of the brain, where something is going wrong, when the boundaries between themselves and reality have disintegrated and they are subject to torment”. “

This rootlessness is Rushdie’s (personal) problem, but the Muslim world has become his victim and is expected to pay the price.” [New York Times, Book Review Section, January 29th 1989, Satanic Verses review by A. G. Mojabai]

Dr. Mohammad T. Mehdi said, “If he (Rushdie) does not believe that he has insulted one billion, two hundred million Muslims [one quarter of the world’s population] then he must be considered a man who is out of touch with reality.”

Any writer, Dr. Mehdi says, who even in a work of fiction were to call Moses “Hitler” or the blessed Virgin Mary a “whore”, while at the same time believing that he would not be causing offence to Jews and Christians, “must be a mental case”.

Furthermore Rushdie, he says, should acknowledge that not only has he poured insults on the Muslims, but also on Judaism, Christianity, black people, white people, the Queen as head of the Church of England, not to mention Allah, His prophets and His angels, failing which, he should plead temporary insanity for what he has done to the feelings of the Muslim world.

Under the circumstances, and as it seems that Rushdie is out of touch with the realities of life, hospitalisation for him in a mental institution may be the best remedy and the only way out of the present impasse! Rushdie’s friends should examine this suggestion and encourage the man to seek help.

Otherwise for him the growing isolation and psychological torture he is destined to endure will serve as just punishment for his actions and suffice as a deterrent to others.

The Old Testament Book of Leviticus declares: “Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death”.

According to St. Augustine: “Better a heretic should die than allow false teachings of ridicule to lead others to eternal damnation”.

EARLIER SATANIC VERSES AND THEIR POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES

Rushdie’s Satanic Verses have parallels in the writings of political figures and anarchists such as Karl Marx, George Jung, Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, Moses Hess, Pierre Proudhon, Aleister Crowley and others.

Marx, according to Robert Payne in his book entitled “ The Unknown Karl Marx”, was under Satanic influence when, at the age of 23, he wrote a play which he entitled “Oulanem”. The title is an inversion of “Emanuel”, and it bears a striking resemblance to Rushdie’s psychotic, plummeting ventriloquies. Marx’s father wrote to him: “You are obviously animated and ruled by a demon not given to all men. Is this demon a heavenly one or a Faustian one? Will you ever ... be receptive to true human happiness?” [The portable Karls Marx, page 10]

OULANEM’ BY KARL MARX

"Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed, see this sword - the prince of darkness sold it me. Yet I have power within my useful arms to clench and crush you. While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.

You will sink down and I shall follow laughing, whispering in your ears, ‘ descend, come with me, friend’, ruined, ruined. My time has clean run out.

The clock has stopped, the pygmy house has crumbled. Soon shall I embrace eternity to my breast, and soon, I shall howl gigantic curses on mankind. Ha, eternity, she is our eternal grief, an indescribable and immeasurable death, vile, artificially conceived to scorn us, ourselves being clockwork, blindly mechanical, made to be the fool calendars of Time and Space, having no purpose, save to happen and be ruined; there is something which devours, I’ll leap within it, though I bring the world to ruins.

The world which bulks between me and the abyss, I will smash it to pieces with my enduring curses. I’ll throw my arms around its harsh reality.

Embracing me, the world will dumbly pass away, and then sink down to utter nothingness.

Perished, with no existence: That would be really living."

SATANIC SUPERMAN PLAYS SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD

In 1841, Moses Hess, brought Marx into a society called the League of the Just, and taught him collectivist ideologies. Hess wrote: “Dr. Marx, that is the name of my idol, is still a very young man who will give medieval religion and politics their death blow...” [The portable Karl Marx, page 22] George Jung, another friend of Marx, wrote in the same year: “Marx will surely chase God from His heaven, and will even sue Him”. [Mystery 666, page 144]

Bukharin, one of Marx’s associates, in the ‘First International’ was an anarchist and, by all accounts, an ardent satanist. He wrote: “Satan is the first free thinker and saviour of the world. He frees Adam and impresses the seal of humanity and liberty on his forehead, by making him disobedient.” [ibid, page 45]

Bukharin, who was secretary general of the Communist International, revealed that as early as 12 years of age, after reading the ‘Book of Revelation’, he longed to become Antichrist. And realising that the Beast was the son of “ The Great Whore”, he insisted that his mother confess to having been a harlot. [ibid]

Aleister Crowley also longed to be known as the Beast 666 of Revelations, and was actually called it by his own mother:- “What, however, is peculiar in Crowley’s case is not that he chose ‘evil’ but that, in his revolt against his parents and God, he set himself up [like Nietzsche] in God’s place. ‘Why do you call yourself the Beast?’ I asked him on the occasion of our first meeting. ‘My mother called me the Beast,’ he replied to my surprise.”

“At first, he was a devout little Plymouth Brother, taking turns with his parents and the servants in reading passages from the Bible... He could not, he said, even conceive of the existence of people who were so foolish or so wicked as to doubt it. In his childish ardour he thought of himself as a Christian Knight, doing deeds of holiness and valour. As he grew older his ideas took a strange turn... Now any description of torture or blood aroused his feelings tremendously... [Nietzsche loved blood, too]

He liked to imagine himself in agony, and in particular, degraded by and suffering at the hands of a woman he described as wicked, independent, courageous, ambitious and so on. He fell in love with the false prophet (Dajjal), the Beast whose number is 666, and the Scarlet Woman. And suddenly, after the death of his father - he was then eleven years old - he discovered that his sympathies were entirely on the side of the enemies of heaven. He had gone over to Satan, and did not know why. He was still searching for the reason when he came to write his autobiography at the age of fourty-seven." [The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, page 14]

Other early Communists, Rationalists and Freethinkers made no secret of their sense of identification with, or “Sympathy for the Devil”, in other words, that persistent and rebellious spirit in man. For the Satanic propensity is in our blood according to the holy prophet Muhammad. Its receptors circulate in the blood-stream, waiting to respond to the 24 hour broadcast whisperings of ‘Radio Satan’ (no doubt transmitting on 666 Mega Hurts). Fasting is recommended as the most successful method of jamming or tuning it out, thereby screening ourselves from the relentless bombardment of his most successful group, ‘The Temptations’, which undenyably influence our thoughts daily, from the soul via the heart which handles all the blood, which reaches every feeling crevice of physical desire within the body and the brain. Temptations are monitored and weighed by our discerning faculties, and then accepted or rejected according to the level of our refined awareness or God-consciousness.

SOUL MUSIC?

The Qur’an confirms that our own souls are responsible for our own problems:- Surah 4:78-79: “If some good befalls them, they say, ‘This is from God’; But if evil, they say, ‘This is from you’ (o prophet). Say: ‘All things are from God’. But what has come to these people, that they fail to understand a single fact? Whatever good, (o man) happens to you, is from God; But whatever evil happens to you, is from your own soul. And We have sent you as an apostle to instruct mankind. And enough is God for a witness.”

The Qur’an clearly identifies the three phases of the human soul which manifest themselves in the personal disposition and behaviour of the human being:

(1) The evil aspect is called An-nafs al-amaratun bi’l-su In Surah Joseph or Yusuf (12), verses 51-53, the lady who tried to seduce Joseph was subject to this temptation, and Joseph says, “And I call not myself sinless; surely (mankind’s) soul is want to command evil, except those on whom my Lord has mercy. Surely my Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.”

(2) The neutral or balancing aspect of the soul, i.e. the conscience or internal policeman, is An-nafs al-lawamah In Surah 75, ‘The Resurection’(Al-Qiyamah), verses 1-2, we read: “I do call to witness the Resurrection Day; and I do call to witness the self-reproaching soul (which eschews evil).”

(3) The completely positive phase is An-nafs al-mutma’inna In Surah 89, Al Fajr, verse 27, it is referred to as follows: “O soul that art at rest, return to yourLord, well pleased and well pleasing. So enter among My servants and enter My Garden.” Here is an example of the evil aspect of the soul: According to Bakunin, Proudhon, who wrote the following Satanic Verses, like Marx, was a disciple of Joanna Southcott. He said, “We reach knowledge in spite of Him (God). We reach well being, in spite of Him, Every step forward is a victory in which we overcome the Divine.” He exclaimed: “God is stupidity and cowardice; God is hypocrisy and falsehood; God is tyranny and poverty; God is evil. Where humanity bows before an altar, humanity, the slaves of kings and priests, will be condemned... I swear, God, with my hand stretched out towards the heavens, that you are nothing more than the executioner of my reason, the sceptre of my conscience... God is essentially, anti-civilised, anti-liberal, anti-human.” [Mystery 666", page 145]

Not all Marxists are Satanists, but the majority are ideologically aggressive, evangelising atheists, and to become a great communist leader, one needs to be a devil. Bukharin wrote of his associate Joseph Stalin, “He is not a man, but a devil.” Marx had 6 children. Two daughters and one son-in-law committed suicide, two others died of malnutrition.

According to Salman Rushdie, the first writer to influence him was the Pakistani communist writer Fez Ahmed Fez who was awarded an M.B.E. and ‘The Lenin International Peace Prize for Literature’ in 1962.

(9) Rushdie’s own “sacred” revelations issued through the mouth of his apostle, Harold Pinter, to the assembled faithful at the Herbert Read Memorial Lecture; show clear signs of ‘grandiosity’ and, that he is coming perilously close to believing himself to be “superman” in the Nietzschean sense. Rushdie appears to be saying that great literature - in which category by implication he includes his own utterances - has replaced religion as the means of transcendence and is now the vehicle by which man experiences his spirituality. At one point he even says, “I seem to be arguing in a messianic way”.

Authors, it seems, are now the high priests of the modern age. The implications of this claim, have disturbed even some of the Liberal Establishment.

(10) In Rushdie’s defense of Satanic Verses, reported in the ‘Independent on Sunday’, Rushdie likened himself to [1] Al-Hallaj, [2] Iqbal, and [3] Abdul-Hamid Al-Ghazali. And here we see more than a touch of “grandiosity” at work in his comparison, particularly of placing himself in the company of Imam Ghazali.

Of Iqbal the compiler knows too little to make a comment, except that he is extremely well known and revered in Pakistan. On the other hand of course, Al-Hallaj and Al-Ghazali clashed with the Ulema or Clergy of their day, but their opposition was based on their experiences of reality, which required them to divest themselves of ego in order to achieve their high status. This can only be achieved through intense humility, and this is a quality altogether absent in Mr. Rushdie. It would seem, therefore, that there is not the slightest comparability between Salman Rushdie and these Muslims, who - being serious scholars of the subject - sought to divest themselves of wealth, position, and publicity.

The fact that Rushdie has sought an identification with these three figures further suggests that he is fundamentally out of touch with reality.

Here is not the place to explore the meaning of Al-Hallaj’s utterance: Ana al-Haqq (I am the Truth). But the fact that Rushdie seems to be truly identifying himself with Al-Hallaj (who by the way was the only one of the three to be executed for blasphemy) further indicates that he has reached a rather advanced stage of grandiose delusion.

“Say (to the people, Muhammad): Whosoever is an enemy to Gabriel - For surely he revealed (the Qur’an) to your heart, by Allah’s command, verifying that which was revealed before it, and a guidance and glad tiding for the believers - Whosoever is an enemy to Allah, His angels and His messengers, including Gabriel and Michael, then surely Allah is an enemy to disbelievers. And We indeed have revealed to you clear messages, and non disbelieve in them except the transgressors”. [Qur’an Surah 2, Al-Baqarah (The Cow) verse 97-99]

‘FANATICISM’ - A PRELIMINARY REPORT BY COMMITTEE A, 21 AUGUST 1990

The Tavistock Lectures by C. G. Jung contain important information crucial to understanding the motivation and psychological reasons behind Salman Rushdie’s book ‘Satanic Verses’ and the reaction of present day Muslims to it.

“Fanaticism (both secular & religious) is always a sign of repressed doubt. You can study that in the history of the Church. Always in those times when the Church [in this case Mosque] begins to waver, the style becomes fanatical, or fanatical sects spring up, because the secret doubt has to be quenched. When one is really convinced, one is perfectly calm and can discuss one’s belief as a personal point of view without any particular resentment.”

In the introduction to an earlier lecture, Dr. J. A. Hadfield, said: “Nothing convinces me so much of the truth of any conception as when its creator is able to see it as a subject of humour, and that is what Dr. Jung did last night. Over-seriousness in regard to any subject very often displays the fact that the individual is dubious and anxious about the truth of what he is trying to convey.”

This is why Salman Rushdie fanatically defends the religion of literature and its pantheon of self-centred, self-promoting secular gods, idols and authors. He asked via Harold Pinter at the Herbert Read Memorial Lecture: “Is nothing sacred?” 

As far as Rushdie is concerned, he sees the Qur’an not as a religious revelation of the truth, but part of the world-store of narrative whose function is to enrich rather than to dictate how life should be lived. The book Satanic Verses, he admits, is based partly on “a quasi historical incident, he picked up while studying Islam at Cambridge ... racism at Rugby Public School ... his wanting desperately to belong ... a desire to make a reckoning ... settling old scores ... unmaking the veil of history ... and against the bearded and turbaned Imam Khomeini”. But that which he less readily acknowledges is where his fears and problems reside: in the leven of the - books and bread - he reverenced as a child; leading on to the bread he has earned from the books he has written. Books written with Rushdie’s own personal political objectives in mind as a secular prophet-novelist: Books promoting perpetual (secular) revolution and subversion, be it moral, religious or otherwise.

He points out that “film, the most expensive art form, is the least subversive. Bergman, Fellini and others made the most successful secular revolts into the territory of the sacred. I prefer the greater possibilities of the novel.”

Rushdie’s idolisation of literature, “ The most precious art”, and its worshipful masters, novelists like him, confesses: “I grew up learning to kiss books and bread. Devout households grew up kissing holy books. But we in our household kissed everything; dictionaries, atlases, we kissed Enid Blyton novels and Superman Comics. If ever I’d dropped the telephone directory, I’d probably have kissed that too. This was before I’d ever kissed a girl. But one never forgets ones first loves. Bread and Books. One food for the body, one food for the soul. What could be more worthy of our respect and love? It has always been a shock to me to meet people to whom books simply do not matter. People who are scornful of the act of reading, let alone writing. It is perhaps almost always astonishing to learn that your beloved is not always as attractive to others as she is to you. My most beloved books have been fictions, and I’ve been obliged to accept - for many millions of human beings, they are entirely without attraction or value.”

“We have been witnessing an attack on the very idea of the novel- form. [is nothing sacred?]‘An attack of such bewildering ferocity, that it has become necessary to restate what is most precious about the art of literature.”

“ To answer the attack not by an attack, but by a declaration of love. Love can lead to devotion. A devotion of the lover is unlike that of a true believer, in that it is not militant. I may be surprised, even shocked that you do not feel as I do about a given book or work of art. I may very well attempt to change your mind, but I will finally accept that your tastes, your loves are your business and not mine. The true believer knows no such restraints. The true believer knows that he is simply right. He will seek to convert you even by force, and if he cannot, he will simply despise you, for your unbelief at the very least. Love need not be blind (but) faith must ultimately be a leap in the dark.”

“ The title of this lecture (Is Nothing Sacred?) is a question usually asked in tones of horror! when some personage [Rushdie for example] or idea [that man’s need for God is obsolete] or value or place held dear by the questioner is treated to a dose of iconoclasm, e.g. ‘white cricket balls for night cricket, female priests, a Japanese take over of Rolls Royce cars’, Is Nothing Sacred ? However it was a question to which I thought I knew the answer. The answer was no! Nothing is sacred, in and of itself. I would have said, ideas, texts, people can be made sacred. The word is from the Latin - sacrare - to set apart as holy. But even such entities, once their sacredness is established, seek to proclaim and to preserve their own absoluteness (and) their inviolability [like certain novelists perhaps?]. The act of making sacred [or un-sacred, like an act of blasphemy] is in truth an event in history. It is the product of the many and complex pressures of the time in which the act occurs. And events in history must always be subject to questioning, de-construction, even to declarations of their obsolescence.

To revere the sacred un-questioningly [like the national debt] is to be paralysed by it. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas, e.g. uncertainty, progress, change, into crimes."

THE DEATH OF GOD

“To take any one such declaration of obsolescence (personally) I would have described myself as living in the aftermath of the death of God! On the subject of the death of God! William H. Guss the American Novelist and Critic had this to say as recently as 1984: ‘The Death of God represents not only the realisation that gods have not existed. But the contention that even such a belief is also no longer irrationally possible. But neither reason nor the taste and temper of the time condone it. The belief lingers on of course. But it does so like astrology or a faith in a flat earth.’'

There were others, prior to William Guss and Rushdie. Gherman Titov said, he and his fellow cosmonauts might defy God:

“Gherman Titov, the Russian cosmonaut, is reported to have proposed that some sort of anti-religious experiment should be carried out in space by Russian Spacemen. He is reported to have made the proposal in a speech to a conference on atheism held by the Communist Party several weeks ago. ‘Studying the cosmos and penetrating further and further into the depths of the universe leaves no place (left) for God on earth or in heaven’, he said. Titov said the cosmonauts had decided to direct their activities more against religion. He did not elaborate on his reference to a possible ‘special anti-religious experiment in the cosmos.’ ” (Western Mail, Cardiff, 1st February 1964)

The above story confirms the predictions by the Prophet Muhammad 1400 years ago that man will achieve his life long objective of mounting up to the heavens to see if God was there. Like Nimrod on his Tower of Babel, and the Pharaoh of the exodus, both suffered from the ‘edifice complex’. Both destroyed themselves and many of their followers.

“And Pharaoh said [like Nietzsche after him]: O chiefs! I know not that you have a god other than me, so kindle for me a fire, O Hamman, to bake the mud bricks; and construct for me a lofty tower in order that I may survey the god of Moses; for behold, I deem him one of the liars.” [Qur’an 28:38]

The prophecy that the Marxist-Communists / Atheist- Capitalists will declare, having conquered space, that God is dead, and will ravage the earth, is as follows.

“After they have devoured everything they will still not be satisfied, and will rush through the sky and begin to fire projectiles/arrows into the heavens in order to bring about the death of Allah. And Allah will in turn fulfill their wish and command the angels to put blood on their arrows/missiles [shuttles and satellites?] and return them to earth. When they see their missiles return with what appears to be the proof of Gods death, they will indeed believe that they have killed Allah. Then they will say: ‘We have killed God, now let us try to dominate the moon and the heavens.’ At that time Allah will send down some kind of disease upon them which will consume the flesh of their bodies. And the stench of their corpses will spread over the world. Then it is that Jesus the son of Mary, with all other Muslims who have hidden in the mountains, will pray to Allah to save them from the disease and death. Then a great cloud will cover the sky and Allah will send down rain for fourty days. At first the rain will be red, the colour of blood. It will then turn green and will wash away the smell and the bodies. The rain will finally become clear and purify everything. The believing servants who were saved will live peacefully and serve Allah, for their faith will be Islam.” [Israel and the prophecies of the Holy Qur’an, page 120-121]

BACK TO RUSHDIE’S ‘IS NOTHING SACRED’ ?

“I have some difficulty with the uncompromising bluntness of this obituary notice (God’s obituary notice). It has always been clear to me that God, unlike human beings, can die, so to speak, in parts. In other parts, for example India, God continues to flourish in literally thousands of forms. So if I speak of living after his death, I’m speaking in a limited personal sense. My sense of God ceased to exist long ago. So I was open to the great creative possibilities offered by surrealism, modernism and their successors. Those philosophies and aesthetics born of the realisation that, as Karl Marx said, ‘All that is solid melts into air.’ To me [Rushdie] however, my ungodliness, or rather my post godliness need not necessarily bring me into conflict with belief. Indeed one reason for my attempt to develop a form of fiction in which the miraculous might co-exist with the mundane, was precisely my acceptance that notions of the Sacred and Profane both needed to be explored as far as possible without prejudgement in any honest literary portrait of the way we are. That is to say the most secular of authors ought to be capable of presenting a sympathetic portrait of a devout believer, or to put it another way, I had never felt the need to totemise my lack of belief, to make it something to go to war about.

Now, however, I find my world picture under fire, and as I find myself obliged to defend the assumptions and processes of literature - which I had believed all free men and women would take for granted - and for which all un-free men and women continue every day to struggle, so I am obliged to ask myself questions I admit to finding somewhat unnerving:-

Do I perhaps find something sacred after all ?

Am I prepared to set aside as holy the idea of absolute freedom of the imagination and alongside it my own notions of the world, the text, and the good?

Does this add up to what the apologists of religion have started calling “Secular Fundamentalism”?

And if so, must I accept that this secular fundamentalism is as likely to lead to excesses, abuses, and oppressions as the canons of religious faith?" [He could have mentioned the English revolution, the French revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, World War I, World War II, Auschwitz, Korea, Vietnam, Polpot, the Iran-Iraq War, Tiennemen Square, the US-Iraq War, in order to conclusively illustrate the excesses, abuse, and oppressions brought about by the can(n)ons and artillery of secular fundamentalism together with the rule of art for art’s sake, artists, international law and global banking. But he chose not to do so.]

C. G. JUNG: WHY WE NEED RELIGION

“What are religions? Religions are psychotherapeutic systems. What are we doing, we psychotherapists? We are trying to heal the suffering of the human mind, of the psyche or the human soul, and religions deal with the same problem. Therefore our Lord himself is a healer; he is a doctor; he heals the sick and deals with the troubles of the soul; and this is exactly what we call psychotherapy. It is not a play on words when I call religion a psychotherapeutic system. It is the most elaborate system, and there is great practical truth behind it. I have a clientel which is pretty large and extends over a number of continents, and where I live we are practically surrounded by Catholics; but during the last thirty years I have not had more than about six practising Catholics among my patients. The vast majority are Protestants and Jews.” [Analytical Psychology, page 181-182]

JESUS CHRIST: JUNG’S SOUL DOCTOR

“When you shall know the world, you shall see that I have spoken the truth, and so shall you know the truth in every prophet. Know you, then, that there be three kinds of worlds comprehended in a single name: the one standeth for the heavens and the earth, with water, air and fire, and all the things that are inferior to man. Now this world in all things followeth the will of God, for as saith David, Prophet of God: ”God hath given them a precept which they transgress not."

The second standeth for all men, even as the “house of such an one [say the house of Israel]” standeth not for the walls, but for the family. Now this world, again, (also) loveth God; because by nature they long after God, for as much as according to nature everyone longeth after God, even though they err in seeking Him. And know ye wherefore all long after God? Because everyone longs for infinite good without any evil, and this is God alone. Therefore, the Merciful God hath sent his prophets to this world for its salvation.

The third world is man’s fallen condition through sinning, which has transformed itself into a law contrary to God, the creator of the world. This makes men behave like demons, God’s enemies. And this world our God hateth so much that if His prophets had loved this world - what think ye? assuredly God would have taken from them their prophecy. And what shall I say? As God liveth in whose presence my soul standeth, when (Muhammad) the Messenger of God shall come to the world, if he should conceive love towards this evil world, assuredly God would take away all that He gave him when He created him, and would make him reprobate: so greatly is God contrary to this world.

...the scribes and priests, having understood that he spoke against the traditions of the Elders, were kindled with great hatred. And like Pharaoh they hardened their hearts: Wherefore they sought occasion to slay him, but found it not." “Jesus departed from Jerusalem, and went to the desert beyond Jordan, and his disciples that were seated round him said to Jesus: ‘O Master, tell us how Satan fell through pride, for we have (always) understood that he fell through disobedience, and because he tempted man to do evil... Said Jesus: ‘When you are invited, remember not to seat yourself in the highest place, in case a greater friend of the host comes, and the host says unto thee: - ”Arise and sit lower down!" which would be a shame unto you. But go rather and sit in the meanest place, in order that he who invited thee may say: “Arise friend and come and sit here above!” For then you shall have great honour: for every one that exalts himself shall be humbled, and every one that humbles himself will be exalted.

Verily I say unto you, that for no other reason than his pride did Satan become reprobate. Even as saith the prophet Isaiah, reproaching him with these words: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, that wert the beauty of the Angels, and didst shine like the dawn: Truly to earth is fallen thy pride!”

Satan (having) presented himself before the woman [Eve] like a beauteous angel, said to her: “Wherefore eat you not of those apples and corn?” Eve answered: “Our God hath said to us that eating thereof we shall be unclean, and therefore He will drive us from Paradise.” Satan answered: “He saith not the truth. You must know that God is wicked and envious, and therefore he brooketh no equals, but keepeth everyone for a slave. And hath only spoken thus to you in order that you may not become equal to him.

But if you and your companion do according to my counsel, you shall eat of those fruits like the others, and you shall not remain subject to others, but like God, you shall know good and evil, and you will do that which pleases you, for you shall be equal with God." [The first cry of ‘Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité’]" [From The Gospel of Barnabas]

ext: Sadistic Acts : Satanic Nurses

Table of Contents Acknowledgements Prelude Preface Introduction Chronology The Rushdie Report Sadistic Acts : Satanic Nurses Chutzpah : The Shameless Impudence Satanic Purses Carved Turkey Guilt - Edged Insecurity Generic Engineering The Revolt Against Islam The Continuing Subersive War of D.M.J The Unacceptable Face of Zionism The Unheeded Warnings The Luciferian Doctrine Unmasking Jehovah Jah-Bul-On Appendix Bibliography

Download Entire Book -  PDF Format (842kb)  Word Format (657kb)