People want the world
... NOT leftist, idealist, Islamic-reformist,
intellectual concoctions
July 18, 3003
The Iranian
Dear Ms. Sohrabi,
I am writing to you because I just read something
of yours for the first
time on Iranian dot com and thought about writing
back. I then
went to read the
rest of the things you had written, but soon gave
up,
because it is now early in the morning, and I can't be fucked to
do proper
research that would do a different kind of justice to your call.
Meanwhile
I know that if I don't write something right away, it might be
indefinitely
deferred like so many other things, and so I will nevertheless
write, and
with that I will posit that saying something no matter how obnoxious,
is
better than not saying anything at all out of fear, respect,
or any other
bind. What I would like to pick up out of your argument
is the bit about the
referendum. I have also been thinking about this for a while now.
While I
have to give credit to Reza Pahlavi for putting this "ear
worm" in
my ear, yet it is
so basic of an idea that is clearly far from any "higher" thought
out of any
sort of kingly or noble mindset... it is common and commoner's
sense. To
find out what people want, ask them. As far as it is something
dealing with commons, then, it is also immediately within the firing
range of the
learned academy.
While everything within the academy would also
be open to
dialogue and debate however, a pedestrian notion such as a
referendum, is
but practice props and small game for budding intellectual
powerhouse-tigers. When training to rip texts apart and glue
them back
together looking for truth, women, or Socratic wisdom, from the
microscopes
of Aristotle and the political schemes of Plato, to the world
wars and post
everything, even engagement of such ridiculous child-play is
nostalgic and
retro undergraduate longing for enlightenment and reformation,
revolution or
whatever.
Nevertheless you have humored the common pitifulness,
and so will I, just
for fun, and between sips of gin (now without tonic.)
Speaking of what I am drinking, I just read again
the very first page of
Shafa's translation of the Goethean divan ("Divane Sharqi")
The very
last line on the page is Shafa's translation of an unpublished
poem by Nietzsche
entitled "Question of a Water-drinker," (Shafa
leaves the title out,
and this English title is mine.) It reads -- translated from Shafa's
Persian: "Your Word itself is the Drunkenness-Giver of the
Wise in the World. Hafiz,
why do You want Grape's Wine, to do what with?"
But as you say in your writing, I digress.
There is a parallel drawn between the revolution
of seventy-nine in Iran and
the "referendum" that followed it on the one hand; and
this buzz mainly
emanating from RP, but also from others, even on the
streets of Tehran today
and for some time now, on the other.
Speaking about the streets
of Tehran,
I am reminding myself of the common areas of common sense. Common
sense
intellectualized is a sort of a weird theology that looks for reasons
behind
self-evident senses, but it is a comic one because at the end of
it the
basest of commons win, and things go on in the stupid figure of
a perished
American new-comer. No tragedy, no matter what anybody says. The
winners
are good guys, and good guys win, comically. It's so fucking gay!
Things indeed tend to repeat themselves, but not in the fashion
one might
think. It is about the eternal return of not the same, but its
equal, "dessen gleichen".
I am sure you won't disagree that all the various
secular and nationalistic groups and even Marxist and other leftist
groups, all at some point
agreed
to agree overtly or covertly on having the Ayatollah from Qom
as their
leader all those years ago. And following that there was a question
put to
the people, where the choices were either Yes to the Islamic
Republic, or No
to the Islamic Republic. This election was not monitored internationally,
and did in fact not follow even the guidelines of the United
Nations.
Now,
the intellectuals, - that is the older generation of Pahlavi-bashers
of
various denominations - who were acquainted with various intellectual
catch
phrases out of the universities founded by the two last Shahs,
did know the
positions of the Ayatollah and were aware of his agenda, at
the very least
since his great publications in the sixties. These texts were
however not
critically engaged; a critical engagement with them was deferred
in the name
of resentment against the Pahlavis. This was the revolution
that surprised all its very own rank and file.
Things are indeed repeating themselves again. No
one gets a straight forward answer about what this fantastic new
intellectual concoction
of
leftist idealism and Islamic Reformationism has planned for the
serious
problems that the young in Iran are facing. Criticism is mounted
instead
mainly by other well-to-do Iranian-Americans, against a middle
aged
politically engaged house husband, one time heir to the last
Iranian Shah
(d. 2539, 1979, 1357,) now living in the U.S.; and against the
heart-breaking circus of exiled commoners in California that
hasn't
developed a voice.
These intellectuals are joined of course also by
Old-school European Marxist-lights and Islamic Reformationists
and their Calvin's and
Luther's.
This time, this spoiled brat, whose father's death at least some
20 million
people around the world had hoped for, (and many had audibly called
for;)
this common man whose illiterate grandfather had marched into Tehran
and
crowned himself Pahlavi the first, Reza; this "dars nakhunde" according
to
Dr. Banisadr of the Sorbonne, (whose mouth possibly smells of
vomit still
in his old age;), this nim-Pahlavi is now writing books, and speaks
those
mundane meaningless words, such as referendum and secular democracy.
There is a story about a son of the last Sassanid
monarch's reception by
the King of China, - something that might be further researched
in the
history of Tajikistan, I don't know - but that is not the one
amongst many
recurrences I pick up on certain frequencies, to which I wish
to turn here...
Before there was no critical engagement with Khomeini,
and what his programs
(and pogroms) were, and now, apart from a fundamental lack of trust
in the
syntax and semantics ("it's no secret that a liar, won't believe
anyone
else") leading to summery rejection of the hermeneutically
saved, read
intention of the author, there are no serious criticisms of RP's
proposed ideas. No engagement with the text.
This all may appear to be the same thing, "das Selbe," but
in fact it is not
the same; rather, it is its equal, dessen gleichen: "Die ewige
Wiederkehr
des Gleichen." Yes, yes, we are repeating ourselves... But
there are
always new translations of Zarathustra.
So, the genetic, hereditary claims are now framed
within an almost undetectable artwork of intellectual sophistry.
His father's son he is, and his father was a murderous dictator
that
surprised the would-be suicide blonds and suicide bombers and suicidal
political cults, by dying in Saddat's, a dead-man's, a dead-friend's,
Egypt. And of course then
there
are the suicidally perished, "Die Verschollene," or as
it is translated, the"
America". Emperiaalisme-Jahaankhaar-Gooyaan-e Aalam Mottahed
Shavid!
Now as far as the logistics of a "multi-staged," "internationally
observed," "
free and secret," "voting and voicing one's opinion" goes,
there are ways
of preparing for it somewhat systematically, (and if your interest
goes
beyond Pahlavi-bashing, you could get in touch with me and we could
talk
more specifically about this; if not, you could also get in touch
with me and
tell me about what a stupid idea the referendum is, and how RP
and Shah Abbas Safavi both suck.)
But these are all strategies and words, and I have
enough political history
on the shelf here to be able to talk until cows come to rule.
What about 18
Tir? There was no revolution I read in your writing. I unfortunately
do
not receive these hated Californication channels, but am familiar
with what
they are, from visits to my parents in California. I can tell
you that
the programming need to improve, and some sort of professionalism
required;
but the trouble is that no one who can do something does anything.
But let
me come back to the California dreaming later, let's get back
to insomnia in
New York for a bit. As Iranian-Americans, we might want to stop and
reflect on what happened
four years ago to our fellow students. In doing that, we might
meditate on
what it is that they want, and what it is that we want them to
want, or
perhaps on why should we reflect at all. But since four years
ago, Iranians, both within and without the republic have come to
increasingly
be
aware of the date, and have also tried to voice what they want
in
remembrance of the date.
On the necessity for dragging the war
into
politics and learning to win and lose politically and in one
polis; on this,
there seems to be a consensus; despite the lingering and retarded
battle-cries for conventional and futuristic war-fare, from
all sides by the
tiered and the slow witted. So, people are becoming vocal,
and at some
points violent, but eventually they are hoping to be able to
voice themselves and vote.
Displace the violence elsewhere. But
why vote
to
vote? Particularly when one can instead investigate the 28
of Mordad some
more, to gather more proof that it's all the work of the
British, and the
CIA, and RP and of course last but not least, Khwaast-e
Elaahi (which
always lingers in the background of all our fears and resistance
to what
makes us insecure; a power we cannot take on, and should
either love or
hate.)
In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, there
is a part about respect, and those who demand respect
for something or other. And of course then the respect factor
turns into a
political bargaining chip, it becomes an argument. But who sets
the rules
of the discourse? What is respectful to say, do; what is the
respectful way
of inflicting violence; what is not allowed in the public or
the republic?
There is a reporter that they killed and quickly buried; we know
of her,
because she was Canadian; we wouldn't know of her if she were
merely Iranian;
because we are busy bashing one another, and have no respect
for ourselves,
our history, who we are, (and other things I won't bore you with.
You know
it.)
The reformists themselves are waiting for the next
coming of reform because
they think it dead and are still religious in their age of modernity.
And
it appears from what I gather, (not from LA TVs) that people
want the world,
and they want it now. Now? Now!
Now it is past 8, and I can't possibly be coherent,
so I'll stop. But
before that, I'd like to thank you again for trying to rally
people on the
internet. I know that rallying people is very difficult. I actually
wanted
to talk to you about the fear that stops one from coming out
and saying what
one wants to say. Human beings can adapt, even to the Islamic
Republic, provided two youth's brains are served to the snakes
regularly
from amongst
those who didn't get their BS and took off for Canada.
* Send
this page to your friends
|
