Iranians always look to the past, never the future

35 +
Source: Youtu

Sorry, I hate it. This demonstrates a very common problem and is the best example of the quintessential Iranian syndrome.

An over the top fascination and obsessive compulsive addiction to the past. Look how committed they are to fully re-enacting this dramatic performance. They just love it so much!  Too much for it to be healthy.

It's an addiction high. It feels just so good to go back to the past and it offers so much relief and protective warm sedation from the horrible present that is too painful to live in.

The full OCD and drug addict high is even demonstrated by the edit which goes back and forth from sepia tone monochrome to full color to imagine the past coming to life.

The addiction comes into play because the editor keeps doing it again and again and you can see how much he loves the feeling.

He and all of us desperately want to go back to the past and bring it back with us so that we don't have to live in this shit presence.

Worse, if you notice there is absolutely NEVER any sort of futuristic Iranian artistic expression. Even our rock music is always an homage. Usually to Pink Floyd.

Always and only, the past is re-presented sanitized, super sized and over glorified for us to collapse in sheer orgasmic inebriation. Self sedation.

Sorry. I'm waiting to see Iranian Android hybrids playing space harps on a spaceship while battling 4 headed aliens. With their minds! 

Or is that too much to ask for?

50 comments

Best   /  Newest   /  Oldest
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
You're correct to an extent pointing out the domination of Traditional, Backward-looking culture of regression to past in Iran.
For the past 38 years the ruling mullahs have always stated their goal as establishing an order resembling the beginning of Islam, 1400 years ago.
So such cultural regression shouldn't come as a surprise.
However that's only a part of the story. In Iran we also have thriving sub-cultures that defy mullahs & their cancerous attachments to the past, and are truly forward looking.
Due apologies if this sounds a bit pedantic but, let's not over generalize and also recognize the Modernist sub-cultures of Iran which are constantly in struggle against the (dominant) backward looking religious rulers.
See More
6 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
Mollahs must be superhuman with psychic powers. Because this also infects Iranians in the US.

Who are actually free.
See More
1 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
The title of this piece could have easily been:

"Iranians always generalize about everything, never able to comprehend nuances and caveats of concrete reality."

It's amazing how in the spirit of not 'looking to the past' this entire past 38 years of our lives is simply forgotten and monarchists become 'the very worst of us,' while degenerate ruling mullahs who by comparison have turned monarchists into 'mild-criminals' get off scott-free!

But it gets even worse; yesterday's Hezbollahis who only a few years ago (during AN's administration when people were tortured and killed in Kahrizak or gang-raped and burned like Taraneh Musay,...) were writing about how Iranians should support AN, now that the flow of all those stolen monies has stopped, and AN's lieutenants like Baghaaie are in jail (hopefully AN himself would join them soon) all of a sudden write about how 'Iran has lost everything' even 'our gods.'

Of course a thoroughly reactionary, religious Hezbollahai mind (now hiding behind a picture of Kasravy, and a poor portrait of him at that) could never comprehend that gods and religion at every period of our history, ancient and modern, has always been the Achilles' heels of Iranian civilization, (or our Sfandīār eyes, for a Persian equivalent) a root cause of all our problems.

It was religion during Achaemenid that led to their degeneration.
It was religion during Sasanian that paralyzed them and vulnerable to invading Muslims.
It was mobilization of Shia clergy against Babian movement during Ghajar which turned Shia clergy into a permanent component of the State in Iran.
It was the growth of reactionary, conservative Shia clergy during Shah's reign (as a buffer against nationalists and Leftists) that led to his fall.
And the past 38 years speaks volumes for itself, of the unprecedented degeneracy and utter immoral decay Iran has experienced.
But it seems that no one has learned anything from anything, even these mullahs had resorted to giving a free hand to extremist Sunni forces in Kurdestan to counter Kurdish nationalist and Leftist currents, and just a few weeks ago we all witnessed the terror attacks in Tehran, by the very same individuals who were freed from jail just two weeks prior to that attacks.

So lets get things straight, and not twisted. Religion has been, is and will continue to be a central source of problems and setbacks for us in Iran. But all of our culture is not religious and we have had and continue to have resilient anti-religious, enlightened sub-cultures.
Kasravy in a twisted way is an example of an anti-religious sub-culture. While he wrote trenchant critiques of Shiaism, Bahaism, Shaikhism at the same time he was attempting to create yet another religion!

There isn't much space left in here so as a concluding remark I'll just mention Ahmad Shamlo as a pioneering, futurist artist and submit one of his poem as a refutation to this whole sloppy, generalization in here.

No more generalizations, please!
See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
While you are spot on with your "veiled" suggestion that for a society to progress religion ought to be banned, banning religion outright(which I completely agree with) ain't gonna happen.

That's because the original witch doctor who invented it made his an ambiguously absent yet omnipresent god.

That being said with no irrefutable evidence that proves or disproves the existence of God, for better or worse he's here to stay.

What a courageous and wise people would do however is to tamper down religion as much as possible.

Unfortunately we are neither courageous nor wise.
See More
0 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions."
Writer of these lines is a famous atheist himself. Rest assure that as long as we have 'a heartless world,' alienation and other social afflictions there will be religion in one form or another.
My point was to put into focus the disastrous role organized religion has played in our history, ancient and modern. What we need to accomplish in Iran is to create a well defined, institutionalized, lawful separation between religion and the state.
But that's only one of our problems.
Iranian culture is also afflicted with a problem of religious thinking, or rather non-thinking. Iranian philosopher Aramesh Dostar has some invaluable contributions about how our culture is basically a bastion on non-thinking, non-questioning and total obedience. A critical inquiry and challenging the very basic axioms of our long held convictions in Iran is basically non existent, other than Aramesh Dostar and a few like him.
Besides these cultural, political issues we also have an array of conundrums in our material life, in our collective life styles.
For instance Iranian economy since the time of Ghajars, to Pahalvis to now has had a steady surplus of imports. We consume way more than we produce. The longevity of this malady in the past 150 years or so should make it clear we can't blame it on any specific regime, but our own undisciplined way of life.
Currently Iranian water consumption per individual surpasses that of all European countries.
Having enumerated some our most critical problems I still think your generalization is vastly abstract and doesn't really address the issues which ought to be paid attention to.

"Unfortunately we are neither courageous nor wise."

This last line from your response is another instance of sloppy generalization that doesn't help anyone or anything.
We have had an incredible amalgamation of courageous and wise individuals, moments and movements in Iran, ancient and modern. Yet these positive forces were not able to institutionalize their gains and there was no significant continuity in their path. Instead of making pointless, rhetorical abstractions we should investigate why this is so.
See More
2 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
افق روشن


روزی ما دوباره کبوترهایمان را پیدا خواهیم کرد
و مهربانی دستِ زیبایی را خواهد گرفت.







روزی که کمترین سرود
بوسه است
و هر انسان
برای هر انسان
برادری‌ست.
روزی که دیگر درهای خانه‌شان را نمی‌بندند
قفل
افسانه‌یی‌ست
و قلب
برای زندگی بس است.



روزی که معنای هر سخن دوست‌داشتن است
تا تو به خاطرِ آخرین حرف دنبالِ سخن نگردی.



روزی که آهنگِ هر حرف، زندگی‌ست
تا من به خاطرِ آخرین شعر رنجِ جُست‌وجوی قافیه نبرم.



روزی که هر لب ترانه‌یی‌ست
تا کمترین سرود، بوسه باشد.



روزی که تو بیایی، برای همیشه بیایی
و مهربانی با زیبایی یکسان شود.



روزی که ما دوباره برای کبوترهایمان دانه بریزیم…







و من آن روز را انتظار می‌کشم
حتا روزی
که دیگر
نباشم.



۱۳۳۴/۴/۵
See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
Lovely but this is another one of my peeves about us. We revert to romantic classical poetry whenever we get nervous about a subject.

While there is wisdom in especially our poetry to be sure, it is once again a hidden secret commentary masked by vague representations and references that takes a literature degree to unlock. No one has literature degrees. Everyone seems to think engineering is useful.

We need to stop speaking in verse and say what's on our minds. Simply clearly and above all out loud.
See More
0 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
Dude you wrote: "Worse, if you notice there is absolutely NEVER any sort of futuristic Iranian artistic expression."
And here's a lovely poem from Shamlo, which is all about anticipating a future vastly different from our bloody mundane present.
It would be nice if you could once admit that your unqualified abstractions have some very big holes to fill!!
And since you like our poetic wisdom so much here's one of my favorites, from a very futuristic Iranian artists, whose pen name was "Eshghi Gharn Bistom"
For non Iranian readers, the name means "The Eshghi of Twentieth Century" but Iran of his time was barely even nineteenth century!


من كه خندم نه بر اوضاع كنون مي خندم
من بدين گنبد بي سقف و ستون مي خندم

تو بفرمانده اوضاع كنون مي خندي
من بفرماندهي كن فيكون مي خندم

همه كس بربشربوقلموني خندد
من بحزب فلك بوقلمون مي خندم

خلق خندند به هر ابله رخساري ومن
برخ اين فلك ابله گون مي خندم

هركس ايدون بجنون من مجنون خندد
من بر انكس كه بخندد بجنون مي خندم

انچه بايست بتاريخ گذشته خندم
كرده ام خنده بر اينده كنون مي خندم

هر كه چون من ثمر علم فلاكت ديدي
مردي از گريه من دلشده خون مي خندم

بعد ازين مي زنم از علم وفنون دم حاشا
من به هرچه بتر علم وفنون مي خندم

See More
2 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
“Bright Horizon”
By Ahmad Shamlo


Some day we will find our doves
Kindness will take Beauty by the hand

That day – the least song will be a kiss
and every human being be brother to
every other human being

That day – house doors will not be shut
Locks will be but legends
And the Heart be enough for Living

The day – that the meaning of all speech is loving
so one won’t have to search for meaning down to the last word
The day – that the melody of every word be Life
and I won’t be suffering to find the right rhythm for every last poem

That day – when every lip is a song
and the least song will be a kiss
That day – when you come – when you’ll come forever –
and Kindness be equal to Beauty

The day – that we toss seeds to the doves…
and I await that day
even if upon that day I myself no longer be.
. . . . .

We are grateful to Hassan H. Faramarz for the Persian-to-English translation of “Bright Horizon”.

See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
Love it.

Thanks for posting the translation. One of the goals for this reborn site should be to offer English whenever possible. We need to record our culture in the internet in a language that defense our intellectual achievements. The arabicization of Farsi and the (current) refusal of Google to accept it as a searchable text has made years of Farsi language posts invisible to the internet.

Always post in English so that the record if our existence is not erased by the oppression and tyranny in our country.
See More
0 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
Glad you liked it.
Concur on the need for a recording of our cultural achievements on the net.
One big reason Farsi is getting such a short shrift from all quarters could the disastrous state of publishing and Literature in Iran.
Just imagine in a country of 80,000,000 millions, books are getting published with a circulation of 500 in their first printing!
When the stature of a language is so dismal in its homeland and base you could figure out the rest.
Since you liked Shamlo's translation so much here's another one.

BTW Shamlo had a strong personal dislike for the English language. In one of his trips abroad I had the pleasure of meeting him and offering a few texts (in Persian and English) which I though he might enjoy, among them was a book (in English) about the Paris Commune and Arthur Rimbaud. He was almost offended that a book in English was offered to him, and after explaining book's theme he somehow relented, but it was visible that deep down he didn't appreciate the offer! Personal baggage from 1953? Maybe.

--------------------------
"In This Dead-End "
Ahmad Shamloo


They smell your mouth
To find out if you have told someone:
I love you!
They smell your heart!

Such a strange time it is, my dear;

And they punish Love
At thoroughfares
By flogging.

We must hide our Love in dark closets.

In this crooked dead end of a bitter cold
They keep their fire alive
By burning our songs and poems;
Do not place your life in peril by your thoughts!

Such a strange time it is, my dear!

He who knocks on your door in the middle of the night,
His mission is to break your Lamp!
We must hide our Lights in dark closets!

Behold! butchers are on guard at thoroughfares
With their bloodstained cleavers and chopping-boards;

Such a strange time it is, my dear!

They cut off the smiles from lips,
and the songs from throats!
We must hide our Emotions in dark closets!
They barbecue canaries
On a fire of jasmines and lilacs!

Such a strange time it is, my dear!

Intoxicated by victory,
Satan is enjoying a feast at our mourning table!
We must hide our God in our dark closets

.
See More
3 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
Awesome.

Two reasons Farsi isn't an internet friendly language is that fonts haven't been optimized. Mostly Farsi fonts is illegible. I did a project in this and found that Farsi 12 point is really equivalent to English 6 point. Which is why mist Farsi inline looks too reez. Which means we don't really read it well because we can't see it well.

Fir Farsi to be legible inline it needs to be at 24 point. And most sites and bloggers don't post that big.

So while Iranians love to blog a lot no one is reading those blogs for the most part. Because they can't.

The other reason is that Farsi looks like Arabic. Which carries an ugly and therefore negative Islamic connotation.

So I day we bypass that and try to convey our culture in English as best we can and bypass all the negatives to get to the marrow of who we are.
See More
2 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
Who we are is not as static or as essentialist as it might sound.
Our identities and culture change according to the circumstances under which we live. Iranian identities and cultures (note that the plural is used in here) of today are not the same as those of 150 years ago, for very obvious reasons.
One amusing example is how even our resident Hezbollahi (now hiding behind Kasravy) has a very Americanized anti-Americanism!
Problem with all any grand abstractions is how it forgets that our actual living, functioning National Culture itself is nothing but an amalgamation of many sub-cultures.

Also if you think all Iranian Marxist are religious it simply means you probably have never heard of or read anything from Avetis Soltanzadeh (from the first generation of Iranian Leftists).
There are also tons of current Iranian Leftists that (all due respect) would prove you completely wrong as to any influence of religion or Islam.

پروبلماتیکا
problematicaa.com/home/

منجنیق
manjanigh.com/


The above are just the first two that came to mind, there are tens and hundreds of other such examples.
See More
0 +
 
Ash Ash (@Ash)
When looking at the history of Iran it becomes clear that it's one long sad story of loss. We have lost almost everything, even our gods. Iran is a nation fallen from grace. So naturally, Iranian art, literature, and music have become expressions of this reality, and this regretful mentality has a spillover. The Shahnameh in particular, which enshrines Iranian identity, is essentially a nostalgic epic poem. So it's understandable why Iranians have a tendency to take refuge in the past. They see the present as horrible and the future uncertain, only the past can provide comfort. It's helpful when nostalgic art provokes positive contemplation about our past and present conditions, but too much of it to the point where it turns from contemplation to lamentation is harmful. That's when it becomes something like drugs.

But we should remember that the past can be very inspirational. It also serves as a source of lessons for us not to repeat the mistakes of our ancestors. Certainly in Iran's case, the past proves what Iranians were and what they have the potential to be. It informs us of our capabilities, our past accomplishments, and our place in the world, in addition to our shortcomings we should overcome. This provides (or should provide) confidence and self-esteem among other things, without which people cannot elevate themselves.

There's a very thin line dividing regressive mentality and historical consciousness. Many Iranians do not respect this line, monarchists being case in point. Because the present situation is unacceptable, these people want to go back to the past rather than be inspired by it. This isn't helpful. It's a misuse and abuse of history. History should provide hope for a future better than both the past and the present rather than make us fantasize about a return to the past. Until a forward-looking mentality prevails, Iranian history isn't going to be fully appreciated.

It's clear why there's a lack of Iranian futuristic expression in art. Look at Westerners, who have a linear view of history. To them history is like a straight line always going up towards progress and development. This gives them confidence in the future. Iranians are the exact opposite. When Iranians want to escape the present, they resort to the past. But when Westerners feel the same, they go to the future. Both cases are an expression of escapist mentality, "feel good" activities whose purpose is to temporarily overcome the limitations of the present condition.

Remember that Westerners also celebrate their past. In fact, they celebrate their history more than Iranians do, and they do it even better in various ways. They do it for the right purposes too, not to cry over spilled milk like us Iranians.

There's an Iranian filmmaker currently working on an epic biopic of Kurosh-e Bozorg. You know why he had this wonderful idea? It's because he "wanted to counter the negative depiction of ancient Iranians in the movie 300". Let that sink in.
See More
5 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to Ash (@Ash)
I was actually very proud of the depiction of the Persians (not Iran) in the film 300. I saw it 3 times in the theater in order to see in full glory the masterful armies and the sheer power.

Many Iranians stayed home. Because they heard that the film showed Xerxes as a sexual deviant with disfigured whores in what they thought depicted a brothel. I didn't get any if that at all. Instead for once I saw the most glorious visual depiction of a massive Persian Army I had only heard about, that faced 300 very brave Spartans who valiantly held them off for less than 3 days, largely due to advantageous terrain.

If you went and saw it you know in the film 300 the Spartans lose. The Persians win.

But to your other point about "what Iranians were and what potential they have to be".

Exactly what were Iranians? We know what the Persians were. But Iranians are not Persians. So far the only thing Iranians are, are cowards. So what do Iranian cowards have the potential to be?

Ferdowsi tried with his epic poem to rally the Iranians around a mythical hero Rostam. And save our language from the Arabs. Making Rostam a giant in order to embody the entirety of the Iranian people so they could stand up against tyranny by the king and strong enough to resist the evil embodied by the deev.

But that didn't work either.

Now Iranians are no longer Persians. They are indeed sheep. In need of a shepherd. Who always ends up being a wolf.

Maybe Iranians are in fact cockroaches. Able to survive and even thrive under the harshest conditions. Maybe even nuclear war?

On your pont about monarchists, I completely agree. Monarchists actually make my point about Iranians being cowards.

They are the very worst of us.
See More
2 +
 
Ash Ash (@Ash) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
All Persians are Iranians, but not all Iranians are Persians. The Iranian ethnic tree has several branches (Persians, Kurds, Baluchis, Medes, Parthians etc). And we Iranians have called our land Iran (or variants of it) since time immemorial. That's why I called the Achaemenid armies Iranian rather than Persian, because they were made up of soldiers of different Iranians ethnicities like the Medes for example. I thought such basic facts would be painfully obvious to you given that you appear to be Iranian.

The fact that you felt "very proud" when watching 300 tells me that you didn't watch the film with intelligent eyes and instead only wanted to find anything to satisfy your very urgent need to be "very proud", otherwise you would have easily detected the not-so-subtle anti-Iranian tone in that stupid racist movie.

Dr. Touraj Daryaee seems to have watched the movie as an actual clever Iranian without self-esteem issues. Learn from him:
tourajdaryaee.com/commentary/go-tell-the-spartans-how-300-misrepresents-persians-in-history/

This article and its sub-sections also break it down for you:
kavehfarrokh.com/articles/nordicism/the-300-movie-separating-fact-from-fiction-1/

Also, what you said about the Shahnameh is very misleading. Ferdowsi neither created Rostam nor did he write the Shahnameh for anti-royalist purposes. The tales of Rostam are in fact much older than the national poet himself. They go back to at least Parthian times. Wait a minute, you do know who the Parthians were, right? I hope so. All Ferdwosi wanted to do was to save Iranian traditions, culture and Persian language from extinction, and immortalize himself in the process. He succeeded in doing that. It is also false to claim that the Shahnameh fails to inspire Iranians, as Iranian culture and history prove you wrong quite easily.

The self-hating anti-Iranian vitriol you spewed about Iranians being cockroaches and cowardly sheep is despicable. Your self-esteem issues and grudge against Iranians make you fail to realize that Iranians are survivors. They are people brave enough to withstand an Islamist tyranny at home and predatory foreign enemy abroad. Indeed, those Iranians who stayed in Iran and endured tyranny and sanctions (and eight years of war with Iraq) have much more to say about courage than those who ran away with their tails between their legs and threw themselves at the feet of immigration officers in Farang.
See More
2 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to Ash (@Ash)
I can criticize us all I want. You don't have to accept or read it.

That being said please accept my analysis of the film 300 as unbiased. Rather than the well known bias of Daryaee (anti homosexual) and Farrokh who is well known for the discriminatory standards of his comments.

What if Xerxes was a homosexual? Which the film did not portray. Is that bad? Do you think it was not possible for a Persian king to be gay? Do you deny the entire Qajar dynasty during which homosexuality was WIDELY accepted?

When I read the shahnameh unlike you I read a fantasy depiction of a giant Rostam that fights for Iran. I read the giant as a symbol of the entirety of the Iranian people who always fight for ad defend iran against evil. Whenever Iran is in trouble the Iranian people, just like Rostam does in the poem, come to the rescue if Iran.

So I read the Shahnameh as a warning to us. I don't read it as the comic book I wrote about it for our kids.

The anti monarchy part of the shahnameh to me, is the constant dilemma Rostam (now representing the entire people if Iran) faces whenever saving the kings ass again, which is "Why doesn't Rostam ever just Stop putting the inept ad foolish king back on the throne each time and just make himself king?"

To me, as I read it, and I am entitled to do so despite the many outdated rules the many outdated schools kerpy pushing on how you are supposed to read the shahnameh, Rostam is us (that's why he's so large), and Ferdowsi is warning is yo take power from inept kings and become kings of Iran ourselves.

That works for me beyond belief. Because it is absolutely spot in advice from a poem, especially if our poetry is supposed to guide us.

Finally when I say Iranians are no longer Persians I mean that exactly. Iranians may be descended from the mighty Persian culture, but clearly there is no fight or especially much honor left in us.

A cockroach lives in the dark scurries across the floor finding scraps and survives and indeed thrives and grows larger no matter the conditions. That is perfectly depicted by the visible success of Iranians inside Iran with beautiful cars hones apartment buildings architecture and extensively modified women. Iranians scurry across the Islamic floor fight for scraps and indeed thrive! Even more so outside of Iran! Look how well we are doing while under total lockdown!

Cockroaches.

A sheep is quick in their feet cancer anything and to survive stays obedient in the herd. Never wanders and is content to go wherever the Shepherd wants them to go. And very rarely bleats while they are being shorn.

Sound familiar? Yes? Then you get my absolutely furiously angry and frustrated reference of us. No? Then you are yet one more if us in denial of our reality and I am ONLY too happy to try to wake you up.

If we cannot accept our coma condition now and keep looking to the past to find a smidgeon of biased glory, we aren't long for this cruel world.

We are being remade into Arabs now.
See More
1 +
 
Ash Ash (@Ash) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
We know that Khashayarsha I was not homosexual. He was married and had offspring. So when some foreigners make a film depicting the Spartans as super masculine good men and the Persian king as a bizarre-looking effeminate gay tyrant, you know that it's an obvious attempt at distorting history for malicious purposes. So please don't try to turn this into an issue of "homophobia".

Your dismissal of Dr. Daryaee and Dr. Farrokh is as intellectually lazy as it is laughable. Stop being unreasonable. Give credit where it's due, and show respect for people who know what they are talking about.

Your reading of the Shahnameh is flawed. Ferdowsi was not implying that Rostam should have dethroned Iranian kings. Rostam, despite his greatness, was not fit for the throne, since he was hot-tempered and sometimes arrogant. Additionally, if Rostam had dethroned the the kings of Iran he would have been considered a usurper and a rogue. Remember what happened to Bahram Chubin? He turned from a national hero to a usurper and fell from grace.

Many Iranian kings deserved to sit on the throne, like Kay Khosrow. Others did not. This was all determined by the Farr which was bestowed on legitimate kings by the gods. The gods did not bestow this on Rostam. Do you understand what I'm saying? Ferdwosi was not against Iranian kingship. He did not even believe in the rule of the people in the modern sense of the word. He was a man of his time who believed in the Farr and the Circle of Justice.

Now regarding your anger about the current state of affairs. Calling Iranians cockroaches is not criticism, it is insolence and stupidity. You're basically bashing Iranians for being survivors, it can't get more absurd than this. If you think Iranians are cockroaches for being able to survive under harsh conditions, then you might as well call the rest of humanity cockroaches, since all human being can survive under very harsh circumstances as history proves. But of course you won't do that, since your comments are informed by self-hatred and grudge as an Iranian, typical of some diasporic Iranians.

Since many Iranians care so much about foreign opinion, let me tell you this: if you don't start respecting yourself, others will not respect you. Work on your Iranian self-esteem issues and start ridding yourself of your angry American hate culture. Only then will you begin seeing things clearly.

By the way, Iranians are not being turned into Arabs. They are transforming into self-Orientalizing self-othering pseudo-Westerners.
See More
1 +
 
Ash Ash (@Ash)
Shame on the "moderators" with their selective "moderation". That's all I can say now.
See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to Ash (@Ash)
reword and repost it. That's what I do.
See More
0 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
Per Historicism in Iran Ahmad Ashraf provides a meticulous scholarly view.

According to Ashraf "Rejecting the essentialist tenet of the romantic, primordial conception of national identity as well as the modernist and postmodernist contention of a radical historical disjuncture in the origins of nations, the historicizing perspective emphasizes the role of historical forces in the formation of modern nations. It focuses on the historical origins of ethno-cultural communities and postulates that modern nations and nationalisms are products of long-term, historical processes. The historicizing quality of the “nation” is sought in myths, memories, values, and symbols. The proponents of the historicizing perspective see ethnic communities and nations as historical phenomena that are subject to “flux and change.”

www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iranian-identity-i-perspectives

Such precise analysis stands in sharp contrast to both sloppy abstractions here by our good friend and the ridiculous distortions of cyber Basij and claims of "mullahs kicked Pahlavi out." Conveniently forgetting mullahs' engineering and implementation of Cinema Rex tragedy (burning hundreds of people alive in a movie theater) and all the lies and manipulations that enabled them to pave their path to power.
It's an indication of Cyber Basij's total desperation how it hides behind Kasravy and an indication of their thorough obtuseness in using Kasravy's image as a tool to heap praise on mullahs for their 'achievements.'




See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
You lost me when you used Iranian line as a reference.

That being said Iranian obsession with the past to find glory conveniently mixes the accomplishments of ancient Persia with Sassanid through Qajar Iran.

Which is where I get angry. You cannot compare sheer global domination of Persia with what is at best a slow but steady complete decomposition.

And then to be artificially proud of it too?

Not attractive. No. We need to stop this now bury the past accept the horror of our present state as a people and start thinking about and dreaming out loud about our future.
See More
1 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
"global domination of Persia"
If our end goal is restoration of some kind of 'global domination' then you know we really have some deep issues.
Mullahs' current venture to spread the cancer of Shia sectarianism in the region is precisely a path of domination and they use it as a fig leaf to present themselves as 'nationalist.' Evidenced by the dense propaganda efforts of our resident Cyber Basij.
This attraction and allure of mastery and supremacy over others is intrinsically symptomatic of a very insecure and petrified psyche. Hezbollah thugs being the ultimate exemplar of such sick psychology.
Yes we ought to start thinking about and dreaming out loud about our future, a future filled with peace, love and understanding.

See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
Cyber Basiji?
See More
0 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
Intolerance for dissenting voices and attempts to marginalizing them as "MEK", "Marxist", "Baha'i",...
Continued admiration for mullahs, at the cost of diminishing how every single sector of society opposed shah.
Continued worn out anti-Westernism, but turning a blind eye to how Chinese junks have flooded Iranian markets & bankrupted so many businesses in Iran.
Subservience to Russians role in prolonging mullahs hold on power,...
And many other instances. These are clear & undisputable hallmarks of Cyber Basij.
A blog dedicated to the topic of Cyber Basij seems to be in order.
See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
Interesting idea.
See More
1 +
 
Ash Ash (@Ash)
The degenerate multi-accounting partners of MEK (who don't even have the balls to admit using multiple pseudonyms) demonstrate once again their illegitimacy and non-existent integrity. Who else other than illiterate red losers would attribute the fall of ancient Iranian dynasties to the Zoroastrian religion. Indeed, the Marxist pro-terrorist cyber-criminals of the Trans-Atlantic Empire pretending to be genuine dissenters seem to be unfamiliar with historical research. For a bunch of fifth-columnists good at nothing other than fantasizing about murdering and raping innocent civilians in the name of Marx and sending others to concentration camps, is their infinite ignorance and stupidity really surprising? I think not. But we shouldn't expect less from a bunch of charlatans and traitors who sided with Saddam against Iran.

It is quite clear that the former apes of the Soviet Union who have now morphed into loyal dogs to Washington (and Doha) are trying so hard without avail to divert attention away from the stench of their own hypocrisy by claiming to see a Hezbollahi behind a Kasravi portrait. Does that not remind us of the mullahs with their constant slander tactics? It does indeed. It surely isn't a coincidence that both mullahs and their Marxist playmates use strikingly similar rhetoric, since both are morally, intellectually, and politically bankrupt elements undermining Iranian national interests and playing the same game together. We all know that both sides are destined to pile up rotten in the garbage of Iranian history where they belong.

Partners-in-treason:

See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to Ash (@Ash)
The reason why Iran is seemingly not working very hard to shut down the MEK outright is that at the end if the day the MEK are doing their work for them. Namely trying to show that Iran is a Moslem country.

Never doubt that the MEK intends to rule Iran under Islam.

THEIR TREASON against Iran aside that's my biggest objection to the MEK.
See More
0 +
 
Ash Ash (@Ash) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
MEK are power-hungry criminal mercenaries and traitors who are as bad as the mullahs. MEK might be Islamists, but other Marxists are ardent atheists who would put a bullet in the back of your neck (NKVD style) for refusing to renounce your belief in god. Case in point on this website is a duplicitous cyber partner of MEK hiding behind multiple accounts and spreading Marxist/Communist propaganda for the service of Washington's empire, pretending to be a legitimate voice of the opposition but in fact is nothing more than pro-terrorist turn-coat promoting the agenda of the State Department and its global servants. His only claim to legitimacy is fantasizing about meeting Ahmad Shamloo. Once his ilk assume power in Iran, their tyrannical rule will make Stalin humble. But fear not, everyone knows what these charlatans are all about: former agents of Communist Moscow and current slaves of Neo-Liberal Washington. Iran will not invest its hope in fifth-column anarchic losers and political eunuchs castrated by the Pahlavis and stomped by the mullahs.
See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to Ash (@Ash)
Only European Marxists are atheists. Iranian Marxists so far have all been Islamists too.

European Marxismy theory used nationalism as the "glue" to bind the proletariat unto the superstructure (committees) that ran all the aspects of the economy to ensure the fruits of all labor go to the workers.

In Iranian Islamic Marxism the social glue is Islam and the conmittress (komiteh and shora) run all aspects of the economy as well as society to ensure that the fruits of the entire country go to the mollahs.

The MEK is done for. They are doing everything and anything to convince US politicians trying to get off the US terrorism list so they can come in from the cold.

All they want is a small quiet flower shop to run in Fairfax county. They're all willing to promise or say anything for that now.
See More
1 +
 
Ash Ash (@Ash) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
All Marxists are pretty much done, not just MEK. Pathetic failures who have not accomplished anything other than being fifth-column traitors and terrorists. For more than 70 years they have been consumed by fantasies of establishing an atheistic tyranny of the proletariat modeled after Stalin's regime, and for 38 years they have been telling us that the Islamic regime is falling. They are completely devoid of credibility, integrity, and intelligence as they have always been. Consider that all the other political factions in Iran accomplished something for the country one way or another, but not the Marxists of course. The monarchists modernized the country, the nationalists gave us Mossadegh, and the mullahs kicked Pahlavi out. But what have the Marxists done? Nothing. You know how utterly worthless and disgusting those reds truly are when you remember that even factions as despicable as monarchists and Hezbollahis have actually surpassed them in achievements. Even in the realm of political discourse the Marxists are abject failures. In a political discussion you will benefit much more from a dialogue with a chimpanzee using sign language than with a Marxist.

A fresh example of the poor judgement and political and moral bankruptcy of the reds is our multi-headed agent of Washington/Doha with his weak slander tactics. Like a dog barking to protect his owner from a threat, this pro-terrorist charlatan will desperately try to discredit anybody who opposes his masters in the State Department, just like how his likes reacted to anyone who opposed their old masters in the Soviet Union. Old habits die hard.
See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to Ash (@Ash)
Agreed. This is what makes Khamenei 's propsitiom so transparent and flawed. He actually thinks he has invented a new Islamic socioeconomic governance system!

But in fact he has merely come up with the same old Marxism. With the same old massive failures that come with it.

Committees headed by corrupt leaders designed to keep things fair and honest that collapse in greed and cruelty.
See More
1 +
 
Ash Ash (@Ash) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
This is another reason why Marxists are really nothing more than the clean shaven version of the Hezbollahi. Both are tyrannical, thuggish, and corrupt to the marrow of their bones. Their political visions are strikingly similar. They both want to export their rotten ideologies throughout the world in order to dominate it (which makes them also similar to ISIS and their masters). The Hezbollahis resort to Shia pan-Islamism, feuling hatred between different religions and sects whilst the Marxists use internationalist socialism for a similar purpose, turning people of different classes against each other. It's not a coincidence that both are very afraid of nations and nationalism. No wonder both Hezbollahis and their red partners are not fond of Dr. Mossadegh.

Consider the tired old anti-national pseudo-arguments often used by the left-wing and our multi-accounting agent of Trans-Atlantic Empire. His poor attempts at undermining the sovereignty and legitimacy of nations and nation-states serve no purpose other than promoting the interests of Western transnational corporations, and he does this under the guise of internationalist socialism. Who else other than these corporations (with their servants on the BBC) and their ironically red pawns would benefit from the destruction of national borders and nations.

Of course our multi-headed terrorist-sympathizer is too much of a coward to admit all of that. Like the typical Marxist sore loser that he is, he won't even admit what every schoolkid already knows, that it was his mullah partners who kicked Pahlavi out. He has no way of hiding his naked ugliness other than using multiple aliases in order to fool unattentive readers, and he tries to divert attention from his obvious hypocrisy and stupidity by throwing accusations at imaginary Hezbollahis.
See More
0 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
One sector of Iranian society which is for the most part permanently stuck in the past is Shia clergy and their supporters, including but not limited to Cyber Basij & "Officers of Soft-Warfare." Such an attachment to the past is so strong that even our own resident Hezbollahi, hiding behind Kasravy, can't stop heaping praise on Mullahs for "kicking shah out." Just keep in mind how Shah kissed ayatollah Kashani on his return to Iran, for all the services Kashani & other reactionary mullahs did in restoration of monarchy in 1953.
There's even a famous picture of shah kissing Kashani on the cheek for all his betrayals.
See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
I agree. It is clear now that the shah was afraid. A coward to be more accurate . Evety action points to this. No surprise that he would cover in the face of holiness too and bow to the witchcraft he was simply to frightened of to deny.

The price we pay whenever we think another king can save us.
See More
1 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
As one writer said a while ago (if not mistaken it was Mohammad Ghaed) the question wasn't why shah was overthrown, the question was why he lasted so long in power.
On the other hand what we have had in the past 38 years in nothing but another version of total-monarchy. This time disguised as "supreme leader". Also let's not forget how Khomini's wrote a book in 1943 "Kashf al-Asrar" as a justification for monarchy and against the popular will of the people. No wonder mullahs never, ever mention "Kashf al-Asrar"!

.
See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
Well said. If Khamenei puts one of his sons in power it will be only too obvious. But it will hopefull be the end of this disgraceful period of our history.
See More
1 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
It's obvious that mullahs have no future in Iran, therefore Sepah has been pushing Solaymani as the defender of the nation, not a defender of the faith, as they used to call him.
Therefore "our" erstwhile hardcore Hezbollahi has turned into a hardcore 'nationalist'. But the intolerant Fascistic mindset remains exact the same.
Hence anyone and anything that calls for a precise study of history becomes a 'marxist', 'MEK',... in the process Ashraf becomes a 'Marxist!" Encyclopædia Iranica becomes "Marxist" and anything that calls into question national chauvinism becomes "Marxist!"

Ashraf's entry to Encyclopædia Iranica on the topic of Iranian National Identity is worth repeating, since is captures the complexities, caveats and nuances involved in such formatioms:

" "Rejecting the essentialist tenet of the romantic, primordial conception of national identity as well as the modernist and postmodernist contention of a radical historical disjuncture in the origins of nations, the historicizing perspective emphasizes the role of historical forces in the formation of modern nations. It focuses on the historical origins of ethno-cultural communities and postulates that modern nations and nationalisms are products of long-term, historical processes. The historicizing quality of the “nation” is sought in myths, memories, values, and symbols. The proponents of the historicizing perspective see ethnic communities and nations as historical phenomena that are subject to “flux and change.”

www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iranian-identity-i-perspectives

It's also noteworthy how even in it's 'reinvented' form our resident Cyber Basij simply can't stop heaping praise on mullahs and claims of "mullahs kicking Pahlavis out!" In this Cyber Basij narratives hundreds and thousands of striking workers that shut down the industries are 'mullahs.' All those students, professors and teachers that shut down schools and universities back in 1977 to 1979 are 'mullahs.' All those women opposed to shah who participated in street demonstrations are 'mullahs.' Of course in Cyber Basij world people have no role or existence but act only as tools of mullahs and anyone who dissents becomes MEK, Marxist,....
See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
The FACT is that the Shah had a history of conceited selfish cowardice. And fi you play the video back, and watch ALL the body language, you can see he was a little more than a tad, "fem".

Here's additional data:

- He knew he had terminal cancer as much as 3-5 years before he died.
- He had not one, but TWO very effective and acceptable choices of succession, his wife who EVERYONE adored (and adores to this day), and his son who had been more than trained and groomed fro the job from day one, and would have been an 18 year old King with all the powers and perfectly acceptable support necessary for a proper monarch to continue the plan. Including the counsel of his Mother.
- He had plenty of time, to set up a constitutional democratic government that protected the integrity of a "ceremonial/advisory monarchy" like the UK has, and shifted Iran into the future.

But he didn't do ANY of that. Or the height of selfish irresponsibility. Instead, he gave up, packed up, and evacuated. There was NO revolution, there was a quick evacuation. There was NO movement, only the vacuum left by assholes, that was conveniently filled by other, now more than proven to be, bigger assholes.

So I do at once love and blame the Shah. Because he had every opportunity to give us the biggest gift anyone could give Iran, but out of jealousy, self hatred, and a seriously depraved "If I have to die of cancer now, I just don't give a fuck anymore", blew it up for everyone.

Possibly forever.

So, no. The mollahs didn't kick anyone out. Because there was no one left to kick out. That's why to only took 3 days, and no one (really) got hurt. Ironically, the "big battle" was the 2 days it took the idiots to figure out how to turn on the TV station again, in order to broadcast the "victory of the people!". Once they found the power switch, and found an idiot to sit in front of the camera, the "Revolution" was over.

I was there.
I watched it all.
It was stupid.
We laughed at first.
Then we started crying.
Have not stopped crying since.
See More
1 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
You raise some interesting pertinent points in here. Since today is a very busy day I'll just telegraph a few points. Hopefully we'll expand them when there's time.

1) We actually had two revolutions in 1977-1979. It's amazing that 40 years since that event only two Iranian writers have pointed this out: Mohammad Ghaed and Mohammad Reza Nikfar. The former is a journalist chronicling of the events of those two years, the latter in a more philosophical-historical account:


انقلاب بهمن: دو روح در یک کالبد
www.radiozamaneh.com/124026

2) What you refer to as "only 3 days" was actually the culmination of a Revolutionary Situation lasting two years. Those three days would have never happened without the political mobilizations of the tow years which proceeded it.

3) Bakhtiar could have been an ideal alternative for Iran, if Iranian bourgeoisie wasn't so weak and fragmented. But that wasn't our fate.

4) Some have cried since, some have fought since (Kurdestan,...), to each their own!

See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
The problem with all revolutions is that the reality is that the people merely trade in one dictatorship for another.

This is why in my opinion, I agree with Chesterton's quote; "You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution."

This explains why when the revolution overthrew the Shah, it was doomed. and just a new set of dictators replaced the Shah.

That is the problem with dictatorships. The only way out of one, is for a benevolent dictator to grant the people freedom. And dictators don't usually want to do that.

Even in the US, the American revolution was really about American dictators AKA the "Founding Fathers", taking power from the King of England, for themselves.

Same goes for Robespierre when France did it.
Same Goes for Fidel Castro in Cuba.
Same goes for Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.

Name one revolution where the conquering hero didn't become a dictator.

Certainly it happened in Iran.

So, I go back to blaming the Shah. We were emotionally ready for it, and he could have handed us a fully functional democracy, but through arrogance, pride, and just plain being a big baby about the unfairness of him dying from cancer, he chose to abandon us and left us and our asses hanging in the wind, for the wolves in Mollah's clothing to gnaw on.

And my! How we have had our asses bitten!
See More
1 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
All due respect you seem to have a canny ability for reducing complex issues to very reductive abstractions and generalities.
Not all revolutions have been doomed and no revolution is supposed to make every thing fine and dandy in one day, one month or one year.
Mexican Revolution of early 20th century is a good refutation of your abstract, generalities.
Besides the key point is social transformation and change for better, be it through Reform or Revolution.
We could blame shah and monarchy all we want (and that bastard, may he rot in hell if there is a hell, deserves a lot of blame) but our problems are much bigger than one dictator.
How in the world could have anyone "handed us a fully functional democracy" in Iran when our Civil Society was demolished into pieces, and no substantial culture of tolerance and democratic behavior in our national culture?
Even in the West when they have had an extensive tradition of Parliamentarian Democracy this tradition is experiencing severe crisis due to corporate (military-industrial complex) interference and attacks by Right wing movements. Nothing is for granted and it all depends on Class Struggle and balance of social forces. Not abstract generalities.
Alas, all your comments up to now is another indication of how uninformed and confused we remain to be about the social explosion of 1979 in Iran.
Our revolution was Dead On Arrival, as soon as mollahs took over and created a theocracy to replace monarchy, but until we grasp the complexities of that process there's not much hope of changing the current circumstances.

See More
2 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
I agree with you.

But you have not named a successful revolution in which one corrupt dictatorship was NOT replaced by another corrupt dictatorship.

You cited Mexico as your only example. Mexico is your example of a successful revolution?

Find me ONE example where dictatorship was replaced by freedom and democracy and everything worked out perfectly. Then we can discuss the value of revolution.

Until you prove it wrong, my seemingly overly simplistic quote by Chesterton has no choice but to stand.

My further simplistic analysis of this (for now until you find me an example of it not being true) fact, is that if I am right (and so far you have failed to find me ONE example of me not being right), you can NEVER get Democracy from Dictatorship through Revolution.

If this is true (and you still cannot find me ONE example of it not being true), then it goes back to my even further simplification of this, which is that the ONLY way you can go from Dictatorship to Democracy and freedom, is by the kind hand of a BENEVOLENT Dictator.

Which is entire possible, but in our case which spans 2500 years of essential and apparently necessary Dictatorship, is not statistically probable.

Again, find me ONE example, and I'll accept the possibility that Revolution can bring about Democracy.

:)
See More
1 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
All right dude, you win. Happy now? But me thinks, me said: "Besides the key point is social transformation and change for better, be it through Reform or Revolution."
Meaning that I don't have a fetish or a hard on about revolution. And there's a lot more to be said about the relationship between Reform and Revolution and the resultant calculus and differentials, but this exchange is getting a bit boring.
Also "And my! How we have had our asses bitten!" could serve as a good intro to the History of Violence in Islamic Republic (which actually in a way will repudiate your original claim of always looking back) but perhaps another time.
Don't mean to be over sensitive but the disrespectful, condescending tone towards Mexico is definitely not appreciated. Before dismissing Mexico (like all those Euro-centric narratives) a rudimentary familiarity by the advances made in Mexico could be helpful.


See More
2 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
It's OK, I usually win these debates. Because I'm a Master Debater.

I agree with you totally. I just don't see Revolution as any sort of guaranteed way to happiness. Because usually, the people doing it are usually Revolting.

Also don't mistake my criticism of Mexico's 10 years of Revolution as a huge failure, as me Dissing Mexico. I love Mexico. I root for Mexico to beat the USA every time.

But their governments have been NOTORIOUSLY corrupt and OBVIOUSLY dictatorships. As Mexican dictatorships go these days.

Here's a primer on Mexico's attempt to achieve democracy through revolution:

Diaz ruled Mexico for 35 years
1910 Madero challenged Diaz, and lost in an election Diaz rigged
1911 Madero won a landslide but only after forcing Diaz to step down. By force.
1913 US backed General Huerta kicked out Madero. By assassinating him.
1914-1915 Carranza, Villa, and Zapata got rid of Huerta. But could not power share so Mexico went into civil war until 1915 when Carranza's General Obregon defeated Villa who ran away.
Zapata began a guerrilla war until 1919.
1919 Carranza found and assassinated Zapata.
1920 Villa came out from the cold and surrendered.
1920 General Obregon ran against Carranza who tried to rig the election. Carranza died mysteriously "falling off a horse"
1924 Obregon survives a military officers coup, but is defeated by General Calles
1928 Obregon tries to run against Calles but is assassinated.
Mexico is run by successive Generals until the 50's.

See More
0 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
That was supposed to be a sarcastic comment on my part. You took it as a compliment. Good. Thou may keep your illusions about 'Master Debater!'
As we say:
!آرزو بر جوانان عیب نیست

And you're correct on the 'Revolting' nature of many involved in the Revolt, what do you expect? As that Russian writer mentions, a revolution brings out everything from all the nooks and crannies of the society. This dialectic of the Revolt and the Revolting is worth pursuing further; especially as it relates to 'revolutionaries' like Hojatieh, Bazar, Mullahs, Lumpen Proletariat,...
Then again the ranks of revolutionaries can't be all PhDs and Engineers.
And actually there's a good chance if you have upward mobility, there will be less reasons for a revolt.

And thanks for the Wiki paste up. Too bad according to it there was never a Lázaro Cárdenas (in office from December 1, 1934 – November 30, 1940) or any other progressive nationalists in Mexico.
As a result of Mexican Revolution a system of communal land ownership, Haciendas, became law of the land. Catholic church was put in its place and out of politics, and many other wonderful things including but not limited to Frida Kahlo, Diego River,...
PRI's corruption is criminal, PAN is even worse, but there are also Zapatistas and all those other social movements in Mexico, which get the same treatment as Cárdenas!
You still need some work in your Mexican department. My recommendation to you would be to start with Mexican Chorizo, some shots of quality tequila, washed down by Corona or Tecate. If you're into soup Taco soup is always good, Sopa de camarones even better. Topped by a Enchilada de camarones. Make sure you get the side of Guacamole, sour cream and salsa, to have Mexican flag's tri-color.
And if you need more Mexican culture you may curl up and read some Roberto Bolaño.




See More
2 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
I was only being sarcastic at your sarcasm.

But again, I think you keep missing my point. (maybe I just don't get your reply, this is a problem with non face to face debating.)

I'm not dissing Mexican culture. I love Mexican culture. And Im not being sarcastic. You keep bringing this u, so I want to make sure you don;t mistake my critique of Mexico's politics with any sort of negative feeling on my part towards Mexicans or Mexican Heritage.

Regarding Mexican food, I eat it once a week like clockwork at an authentic non-chain Mexican restaurant, where they know my name. (full proper enchilada chile relleno platters including pork preparation. So no Chipotle etc. I fucking hate Chipotle!)

I'm just saying that REVOLUTION doesn't bring about Freedom and Democracy like people seem to think. It ONLY brings about more Dictatorship. Which is usually fraught with political and actual waste, disaster, and destruction.

The Mexican example when they were Revolution-prone, more then proves this theory of mine. Continuous long histories of rigged elections by military generals who used coups and assassination disguised as "revolution" to gain power. Which they then used to become corrupt, and thereby ensured the next guy took it away from them.

My other point was that in the EXTREMELY rare cases when a country goes from Revolution to Freedom, it is always by the hand of a BENEVOLENT and KIND-HEARTED Dictator. Who switches them over to it, and essentially eliminates his own position.

Lázaro Cárdenas is the perfect example of my assertion that ONLy when you get a BENEVOLENT and KIND-HEARTED Dictator, who stops the need for continuous Revolution, do you finally get to Freedom and the beginnings of Democracy start to take hold.

Which is where Mexico is pretty much today. Other than Political corruption, Mexico is pretty much Free and Democratic.

But as you can see the damage done by "Revolution" takes a long time to erase.

The entire point of this was to apply it to Iran. So my thesis is that if Free Iranians abroad think that the ONLY solution is another revolution to free Iran, they are historically and statistically wrong.

The only thing that will free Iran right now, is if Khamenei suddenly decides to give away the Islamic store he's built. But if anyone takes over from him by force, or even inherits the job via his death, they will merely become the next backstabbing Dictator in Iran's long line of them.

Even longer than Mexico's!
See More
1 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
I know that you know, that I know the deal!
But me thinks somehow you presume that me envisions Revolution as some kind of a guaranteed transaction, or a panacea magically working for all times, in all places. Which I don't.
It would be helpful to also recall that Revolutions are not made to order, but happen out of the sheer necessity of those revolutionary moments and due to unreformable material circumstances; hunger, poverty, war,...
It could be further submitted that all revolutions (up to our own Dead-On-Arrival 'Islamic Revolution' of 1979) have significantly contributed to improving national living standards increased rates of social mobility and created advances in national health, housing, education, and other indices of social progress.
Such is the case with American revolution of 1776, France 1789, Iran 1905, Mexico 1910, Russia 1917, China 1949, Cuba 1959. However starting with Iran in 1979 and continuing with Free Market 'revolutions' of Eastern Europe there are actually declines in living standards and decresed social mobility due to the post-revolutionary state and government.


Rosa Luxemburg has some very pertinent points on the relationship between Reform and Revolution in her

Reform or Revolution
www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/

See More
1 +
 
tehranosaurusrex Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd)
Any revolution that has a benevolent dictator improves the situation.

European Socialism and Marxism failed eventually due to the failure of Nationalism to keep it glued together. When people are fed enough (socialism spreading the output/wealth among the workers producing it) they tend to get greedy and want more which eventually makes them lazy and unproductive.

This is what happened in Europe and why Socialism and Marxism sort of failed to a large extent. Although enough good remnants of socialism remain in Europe today, which is why they tend to have better social programs, and sounder thinking about such things, than most. Certainly better than in the pure market driven highly anti-socialist US.

But Khamenei has perfected the flaws of Socialism/Marxism. By removing ANY trace of Nationalism, and replacing with the far more potent form of "Opium for the Masses". Religion. And not just ANY religion. Islam! The one true religion, that is infallible. That can never be argued against. Because it says so! That you therefore dare not repudiate. Or else!

In return, the state takes all the wealth (via the national charities that are funded by Oil, and all those mail-box-fuls of donations everywhere), and distributes it amongst the registered Social welfare recipients in return for pretending to fake-fist-pump "Death to America" every Friday.

The councils keep everything pious and controlled by religious leaders instead of Nationalism.

In fact Nationalism only confuses people if it is ever compared to Islam. So Khamenei equates being a good Moslem, with Iranian nationalism. Khamenei has set the narrative to this;

By being a good moslem in Iran, you are being a good Iranian. And sadly, even the young Iranians who should know better, but see the foibles in the US and West now, are buying into it.
See More
1 +
 
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Behrouz Bahmani (@tehranosaurusrex)
1848 is a very significant date which should have been included in the previous lists of revolutions.
In these Bourgeois revolutions of 1848, throughout Europe the dictators, feudal lords, were not benevolent, but they got their asses kicked anyways, and everything improved to the extent of making Europe the heart and driving engine of Capitalism.
Immanuel Wallerstein, the historian-theoretician of "World Systems Theory" contends that we have had world revolutions in 1789, 1848 & 1968.
In 2011 Tunisia and Egypt initiated a chain of revolutions, some of which have turned into protracted civil wars, with possibility of triggering a world war.
Perry Anderson offers a comparative analysis of Arab Spring and its complexities:

ON THE CONCATENATION IN THE ARAB WORLD
newleftreview.org/II/68/perry-anderson-on-the-concatenation-in-the-arab-world

Point being that in many revolutionary instances the proceedings take place on a global, continental or regional scales, and not on a merely national scale. In these contexts the single will or reaction of a ruler might not turn out to be a major factor.

Tunisia in 2011 is an example of a dictator who wasn't benevolent, was ousted and a new government replaced it. And as precarious as gains of the Tunisian revolution are, Tunisia has a functioning parliamentary democracy.

Interesting observations on Khamenei's subsidy-patronage machine. This is a key pillar of mullahs' regime.




See More
0 +
 
More