Backwards will always be backwards

How do you live with YOUR self?


Backwards will always be backwards
by Kaveh Nouraee

Recently Dariush Abadi questioned whether the recent stoning of one person is backwards, when compared with the apparent progress made by the IRI since 1979.

Yes, Dariush. It is by definition, backward.
This is 2007 A.D., not 2007, B.C. Anyone who thinks this is acceptable in any society must be stoned (as in high) themselves. But let's not stop there. Let's address the rest, shall we?

The very fact that the U.S. has not attacked Iran has nothing to do with Iran playing her hand well. In fact, if this were the World Series Of Poker, Iran wouldn't have made it past the 1st round. The IRI has become as predictable as a sunrise at dawn. Heavily accented rhetoric from some olaagh in a band-collar shirt from the 1980s in desperate need of a shave and a shower (especially the shower) does not equate to playing one's hand well. It's merely a case of two bullies attempting to show each other up. The only difference is that the olaagh in Tehran speaks English better than the jackass in Washington.

Don't be so quick to praise a country where corruption is thicker than the smog in Tehran and L.A. combined, drug addiction and prostitution are rampant, and the average Iranian makes less money in a year than an illegal immigrant in the U.S. makes in a month.

It's too bad you have an issue with Imperial flag, since I (and I'm sure many others) take issue with that piece of trash they call a flag now, something not even worthy of serving as toilet paper. Your comment to Darius Kadivar to get out of 2,500 years of backwardness directly contradicts your idea of having rocks thrown at you for having sex by a bunch of illiterate villagers who haven't been inside a vagina since they came out of one as being progressive. Maybe the idea of seeing someone suffer like that assuages one's own guilt.

It might be helpful to know a few simple definitions.

Republic: A state where sovereignty rests with the people or their representatives.

Treason: Betrayal of one's government/providing aid and comfort to the enemy.The monarchy was the government that was betrayed, and that degenerate Moussavi Hendi was the enemy that was aided.

Martyr: One who is killed for his/her beliefs. The children who died in the Iran-Iraq war were killed... murdered by the IRI... not for their beliefs, since school age children are too young to formulate their own belief systems, but for the mullahs to remain in power. The IRI is the chicken you refer to, who sent babies to do their dirty work, since they all are a bunch of gutless bastards, spineless like jellyfish.

The real question is... Dariush Abadi, how do you live with YOUR self?


Recently by Kaveh NouraeeCommentsDate
Shab Bekheir, Baba Joon
Oct 01, 2009
Caught up in the mortgage mess
Aug 16, 2007
more from Kaveh Nouraee

Kings of deception...

by Rostam on

FIRST, I am not pro-X or anti-X (except for IRI, I am definetely anti-IRI.)

But I do give due credit to the IRI, or the Shah, or anyone else when it is backed by the truth. However, I hate nothing more than deceptions. They are worst than lies. It was deception that drew me to the streets in 1978 to join the revolution, and made me RESPONSIBLE for my share for the misery that exists in Iran today.

Mr Daruish is NOT liying in his remarks, BUT he is DECEIVING a great deal. He uses tried and proven similar deception tactics used to deceive me and the likes of me 30 years ago. I feel responsible for answering to them. So here we go...

Let's just take one example: "BIG" (but clever) deception: iliteracy is less than the previous regime. You see Mr. Dariush is not lying, he is DECEIVING. There is a big difference between the two. I, a previously deceived person who has learnt his lesson, shall expose Mr. Dariush:

Iliteracy. What did we have under the Shah in 1948? Thirty years before the revolution? The iliteracy was 95 percent. With the limited small resources that were available, the effort for the literacy of the coutrny began. Most of this resource was spent for the younger generation. What did we have in 1978? of the 14 millions (boys and girls) between the ages of 7 and 18, 12 millions of them were in schools. That's about 85 percent. These stats are available even TODAY, at the IRI's dept of education. It was this latter group that grew older and today are 37+ years old. THAT's why the 40+ years old population is more literate than say Turkey. It was the previous regime's effort that allowed this.
Where would we be today if the Pahlavis stayed in power? You can first of all bet that there would be millions more ALIVE to be literate. I am referring to those killed by imaam Zahaak in the worthless war with Iraq. Second, the literacy not only would be highter, BUT ALSO, all of the higher/university educated Iranians would be working IN Iran and serving their country, instead of in foreign countries. Iran would be so much more prosperous.
There Mr. Daruish. I exposed you again. By comparing Iran under Pahlavi of THIRTY years ago with Iran under IRI today, you attempted to DECEIVE the readers. But you stand exposed.

Kaveh Nouraee

Neither were democracies

by Kaveh Nouraee on

Learn your history and take a basic civics course. Neither regime is democratic.

Ben Madadi

Completely agree with the article!

by Ben Madadi on

Beautiful piece! ;)


and don't beat around the bush

by dariushabadi on

don't judge a democracy by its economic woes, or social ills. It is about how much public participation is allowed, the level of control in one person (or his family) and ALSO...

dictatorships are usually heriditary. The Shah's son would have become the Shah without the people having a choice. However, neither Khomeini's son, nor Khamenei's son can become the next leader of Iran (unless the people through the Assembly of Experts chose it that way).

Shah had 2 political parties, the "Yes party" and the "Yes sir party". Then it just became the Rastakhiz party.

IRI has hundreds of parties allowed, both official and un-official


Which was more of a dictatorship, Shah or IRI?

by dariushabadi on

Just answer me this:

Which one is more democratic:

Shah with his one party system, raztakhiz.



Which one allows more freedom of speech, Shah in 1978, or now?

Just answer me that.

Kaveh Nouraee

How pathetic

by Kaveh Nouraee on

Your pathetic arguments are typical of every IRI apologist. Any time someone states their opposition to the IRI, the singular response is to bring up Israel or secular Turkey in a feeble effort to defend your position. This has absolutely nothing to do with either of those countries. The position against the IRI is based solely on its own doings since 1979. It is a dictatorship, in every sense of the word. It is operated by a bunch of illiterate, narrow-minded, Arab-loving, motherless, value-less, immoral human refuse who have prostituted Islam. They are the wolves you speak of. They have raped the country and continue to do so with every passing second. They sent school-age children to detonate land mines. They have no respect for the rule of law. And as far as money is concerned, they have hoarded more stolen cash in Swiss banks than every member of the Pahlavi family, their cronies, Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, Nicolae Ceaucescu, the Siclian Mafia, and the Russian Mafia combined. But I suppose that's acceptable to you since they showed up the U.S. To all of the apologists, that's the trump card. Remember, Hitler's domestic economic policies had a positive impact on the German economy, but that doesn't mean he is worthy of any praise.

The IRI has no business rebuilding Lebanon when they can't even rebuild Iran. Lebanon or any other Arab country would never lift a finger to help Iran, and you know that. Iran is trying to flex its muscle in the region the same way the U.S. did. Olaagh-see, olaagh-do.

The days of the IRI are numbered. Not by the U.S. or Britain or anyone else. The IRI will collapse unto itself.

I didn't fight in the war. And I'm glad. I would never defend the IRI. No one fought for Iraq or Iran. Millions of people died because of Saddam or Moussavi. There's a
difference. But I question your ability to understand it as it's obvious that it's over your head.


dogmatic and blind

by dariushabadi on

I think you fail to see the reality of economic growth in the form of the shah's crony capitalism. The Shah's economy was no more than the Shah purchasing military toys from the US master. The second the Shah left, the US filled in this void by having Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq fund the American military complex. The Shah was squandering Iran's money while being an iconoclastic, ego-centric maniac. What gave the right to the Shah to govern to begin with, except his father's coup, and then the CIA coup that brought him back to power.

It is amazing that you in the diaspora (muhajireen) consider Jimmy Carter the one who "orchastrated" the revolution, but it was the people's revolution and you hate to admit that. Every sector of society rose up, from secular to religious, leftist to communist, capitalist and sociolist. The Shah had aliented everyone and everything. Even his own loyalists started taking all their money, wealth and even took out fake loans and escaped the country. No one stood by his side. Even his army collapsed within days, because they too would rather be with the people than be with the Shah.

regarding literacy rates: If what you say is true, look at today's Turkey. Turkey has a strong economy, it has western secular values, and warm relations with every country in the world (including the US and Israel). Yet, why is Iran's literacy and even higher education rates much higher than Turkey's? If this is "inevitable” why is it not happening in any other country in the region? Did you know that with all the money the Arabs are getting in foreign investment, in capital growth (look at Dubai, Qatar, and even Saudi Arabia), and combine that with Turkey (who was further ahead than Iran during the end of WWII and beyond), and then ask yourself why Iran is still scientifically far ahead than all of them and publishes more books than all the Arab and Turkic states combined?
If the “mullahs” are so incompetent, why do international and US National newspapers all label Iran as either an “emerging regional superpower” or the region’s superpower (Israel has only 1/100th the influence Iran has in the region right now).

It is sad that you want to return to a time when Iran sides with the oppressors of the world (Israel, US, Britain), rather than stand up for itself and be praised by the world’s oppressed.

Again, I’m not claiming iran is perfect. Economically, socioally and politically a lot of reforms are needed. But much praise needs to be given because no one thought that after the revolution, 8 year war, and 2 million refugees that Iran houses, that the regime could even survive. Let alone all the media reports that say that Iran’s regime is stronger than ever.

How sad for you. You will never wake up and realize the Islamic Republic is a regional superpower that doesn’t need the US’s support to survive or ever continue getting stronger.

Today, Iran is re-building Lebanon as a sign of influence in the region (and Iran benefits from this in the long term in the amount of Iranian products these countries these peop0le end up buying). However, if it was the time of the Shah, the US would have been the one telling the Shah what to do. (just look at Saudi Arabia and any other arab nation today. They listen to the US command the way the Shah used to in his day). Yet Iran does what is in HER interests, no matter how much you guys try to demonize her and give excuses for the global imperalists to rape her.

Yes, Iran is surrounded by wolves, about to be raped, and you are all siding with the wolves.

You are all traitors to your country. Not the "mullahs" in power, who stood by Iran while every country in the world sided with Saddam to destroy her. Where were you when Saddam was attacking Iran? Were you on the front lines defending the soil, or packign your bags and crying about the Shah?

Kaveh Nouraee

Who is the hypocrite?

by Kaveh Nouraee on

Where am I praising the Shah? If you read again, I have never praised the Shah in any of my writings. I certainly preferred him over these degenerates masquerading as clerics, if those were the only choices. I have, however, trashed the IRI and will always trash the IRI, because trash is trash is trash. They are nothing but a gang of thieves and murderers, plain and simple. Building schools and hospitals doesn't give them a free pass. People who are totally devoid of any morals or values are in no position to govern over others. Yes, I HATE the IRI. I hate Ruhollah Mousavi, that half Indian sociopathic murderer you call Imam, I hate all of his cohorts and co-conspirators, that retarded monkey Ahmadinejad and everything they are about. They stole our country from us, with the help of another retard by the name of James Earl Carter.

The literacy rates in the villages were bound to increase regardless of the monarchy's continuation. But the villages were not going to be where these academic, economic and infrasture improvements take place first. These improvements were inevitable because of the triangular or pyramid shaped growth of economy. It starts at the top, then flows simultaneously outward and downward until reaching all socio-economic groups. It's not like filling a glass with water where the bottom of the glass gets wet first. All of the protesting in the late 1970s was from the people who, among other things, wanted it all and wanted it yesterday, and failed to grasp the basic concepts of economic growth.

Again, if it is so great, why aren't you there?


wow, do you read what you write?

by dariushabadi on

First of all, who said that I claimed that Iran is good at it's deplorable state? Iran must improve, it MUST IMPROVE. Corruption, economic mismanagement, political re-structuring, all of this must happen.

All I did was compare Iran with the time of the Shah, as well as with its neighbors.

By the way, child-mortality rate does not mean people aren't dying. It is the number of children that die at childbirth. It is actually an indictator by scientists on how developed a society is (on the amount of healthcare it provides its citizens). If healthcare is weak, or proper fascilities are lacking, then more children die at childbirth than otherwise. In the old days, more than half of children under the age of 7 would die before reaching their 7th birthday. As societies grow and their technology increases, their mortality rates go down.

Now, Iran's mortality rate is at the level of industrial nations such as in Europe (and actually higher than the US child mortality rate) while countries in the neighborhood (turkey, arab countries, central asian coutnries, even china) are at development or under-developed levels.

This is a result of Iran building more hospitals outside of the main cities, and forcing doctors to make rounds in villages before they can practice medicine in main cities.

These are accomplishments we cannot deny. It doesn't mean that Iran is now a super country, and that their is no room for improvement. Their is room for improvement EVEN IN THIS AREA.

And raising literacy levels is DEFINATELY an accomplishment. If it was so easy, then how come Iran's literacy rates are near industrial country levels, while none of Iran's neighbors (including Israel) have reached such figures?

Not only that, my question for you is this. Why was literacy of women at 18% at 1978 when the Shah was still in power, yet now women's literacy is at 78%? Most of those figures come from the women in villages and dahats, and has nothing to do with the struggle of women in cities "for more freedom", etc. It is the Islamic Republic's push to get women educated (as Imam Khomeini said, women are the first teachers of a child, and they must be more educated than a man, for they are the first and most important teachers).

My question to you is this:
You claim that we blame everything that goes wrong on others, and take credit for everything that is not ours. Is that not what YOU are doing??? You are saying all praise be to the Shah, and anything bad is solely from the Islamic Republic

You're hypocricy amazes me. At least I have many times commended the Shah for a lot of GOOD things he did, and did not say he was 100% bad. But you are the dogmatic fool who thinks the IRI is 100% bad. To claim that is to be ignorant, and blindsighted, and FULL OF HATE.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Reality is different from your fantasy. Teh world is not black and white, not even grayscale, but full of color. Recognize the many goods and bads, the ups and downs, and be more fair and balanced in your approach.

Kaveh Nouraee

Stop justifying what cannot be justified

by Kaveh Nouraee on

God's law came first, in the form of the 10 commandments. Secular civil law, created by man, is based upon those 10 commandments. Man is indeed an animal, whether you like it or not. But we are the only animals who throw rocks at fellow members of our species.

Dariush, all of your comments and general ideology are indicative of the attitude adopted by the IRI's apologists, who are of the inexplicably warped mindset that it's perfectly acceptable for Iran to be in the deplorable state that it is in today, for no other reason except that in the process it has repeatedly given Washington the big bilakh for 28 years running. If you truly prefer the IRI, for God's sake what are you doing living anywhere outside of Iran?

Dariush, you need to answer for your thinking that Moslems (I refuse to spell it the way Arabs pronounce it) are more in touch with politics and realities in their own countries, when the evidence is clearly to the contrary. Your line of thinking is elitist and arrogant, pure and simple. You have Jewish and Baha'i friends? Good. You say that as though you should be awarded some kind of prize. I, too, have Jewish and Baha'i friends, as do countless others. Stop thinking you're so superior because you are Moslem. If you happen to know what is God's religion, let the rest of us know, because we're all anxious to find out.

Of course Americans are full of hatred, as it's their nature. What else would you expect from a country that started out as basically nothing more than a dumping ground for British refuse? They hated the Germans and the Japanese and the Italians during WWII. So what? Toyotas are the Number One selling vehicles is the U.S.! The largest market for BMW and Mercedes-Benz is the U.S., and Friday night is now pizza night. And where are we? In Iran? No, we are here in the U.S., living amongst the Americans.

Are you suggesting Iranians didn't hate Iraqis and vice versa during the 1980-1988 war? There are Moslems who hate and wish death upon everyone who they consider to be an infidel, just like there are Christians who think everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is going to hell.

You "corrected" Faramarz Fateh's figures from a previous post as though the statistics you quoted represent an actual accomplishment!! First of all, how does a government lower the mortality rate, anyway? Do you honestly believe the IRI passed a law that forbids death? The government had nothing to do with it. The fact that two thirds of the 70 million plus people are under the age of 30 is why the death rate is low. As the population ages, the mortality rate shall rise proportionately. Also, I seriously doubt the mortality statistics include the countless children sent to sweep for landmines from 1980-1988, or the scores of people executed by a criminally corrupt regime.

When the literacy rate is at 48 or 21%, raising it is no accomplishment. The percentages were so low they could only go in one direction anyhow.

Average living standards raised? How? By subsidizing gasoline? Just because some dahaati has a cell phone and a 1971 Paykan doesn't mean living standards have improved.

Schools and infrastructure in rural areas are indicative of progress per se. This was all on the agenda of the White Revolution as well. The revolution started by Jimmy Carter merely delayed it further and now the mullahs are taking credit for it. Typical Persian mentality: blame everyone else for your own mistakes and take credit for things you had nothing to do with.

Opportunities for females will always pale in comparison to the opportunities for males. Males generally do not take time off for childbirth and maternity leave, for openers, which can end up interrupting the advancement and progression of a female's career path. This isn't sexist, just a fact that employers everywhere prefer and will pay more for workers they perceive will not take time off for personal issues.

I have to correct you on another "fact". Iran is not the only country exporting cars to China. General Motors and Mercedes-Benz are among the two largest automobile exporters to China. They sell more Buicks in China than in the U.S. and S-Class sedans are as common there as they are in Los Angeles.

The GDP, the economy, these so-called accomplishments of Iran aren't amazing. What's amazing is how apologists like yourself fail to see how amazing it really would be if there were no IRI.

As far as the 2 tomans you offered, keep the change.



by dariushabadi on


Where do you get your statistics? 99.9%? "most"? Do you have any proof? Can you show me any reliable SCIENTIFIC poll or survey that confirms your position? Maybe 99.9% of the people you talk to, but I could counter that 90% of the people I talk to would hold the exact opposite position. That when I went to Iran, the majority of people supported this government, or at least hated the Shah more than they had grievances against the IRI. But I am not going to sit here and claim the majority prefers the IRI either based on my own experiences, because I did not hold a scientific survey, and neither did you.

If you want respect, don't make up numbers. It makes your argument only weaker when you claim things as factual, when in reality they are part of your fantasy world.

4 million people are not paid to go to haraam of Imam Khomeini, nor are they workers of the dawlat (the government neither knows they go, nor has the ability to keep track of 4 million people's comings and goings). Not only that, no one there asks you for your name or stamps anything you have for you to claim you went there. No one I know has been paid to go there, they do so willingly.

Even here in America, you might live in Los Angeles and claim that 99% of Iranians in "the West" are against the Islamic Republic. But I will laugh at you, because that statistic comes from only the people YOU hang out with and interact with. But even in that Los Angeles that you live, their are huge Islamic centers filled with thousands of Iranians that support the IRI. Neither are they paid to love the revolution and the current government, nor do they have any ties to the regime.

If you leave general monarchist-loving areas (such as Los angeles, or parts of Washington DC or New Jersey), you will find the majority of Iranians are either apathetic, or even religious and somewhat either supportive of the government, or at least the reformists.

I personally know 4 physics and math olympiad winners from Iran, who not only support the government, but are heavily religious. They are students at Stanford and MIT. Neither are they paid, nor do they say so out of fear. But I am not going to sit here like you and make up statistics.

And while you make continue to lie about how Iranians are now POOR compared to the time of the Shah, according to the United Nations, and even the US State Department, the purchasing power of the AVERAGE iranian has increased since the time of the Shah. The standard of living and expectations have RISEN, but that doesn't mean they are worse off than the time of the Shah.

The Shah focused on the main cities. Have you seen what the Islamic REpublic has done for the villages and sections outside of Tehran? While the Shah completely neglected them, they now all have electricity, gas and television access. You racists were always concerned about the rich upper/middle class of Iran who happened to be in main cities. We are concerned with all people.

And what you concider freedom, we consider backward. We don't want to see half naked women and naked women in the street. That is not freedom, that is corruption and backwardness. We aren't animals.

However, I do believe Iran should have more political freedom, but I also understand the paranoia in 3rd world nations, because of America's meddling and manupilating politics when it is free.

And by the way, IRI is much MORE freeer political (on any political index) than the time of the Shah. Don't compare Iran's politics with nations that have had INDEPENDENCE from FOREIGN meddling, but compare it with the TIME OF THE SHAH, and all its neighbors.

Is Iran more free politically than UAE, Saudi, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, etc.?

Why is it that Iran is more free than all those Arab, Turkish and Indo-Pak nations, yet most of those other nations have strong relations with the US, and the US doesn't criticise them for their human rights violations?

Reminds me of Carter commending the Shah for his human rights efforts, while our youth were rotting in his jail. I'm not claiming IRI doesn't have innocent people in jail (and it does, and I condemn it), but compared to the time of the Shah, their is way more freedom in the press. Even in state controlled TV. I can show you examples if you wish.



by Rostam on

Aghaaye Dariush,

On the subject of treason: Most Iranians today prefer the "puppet" Shah than the "independent" Islamic republic. Why? Because under the Shah, people had more freedom and were more prosperous. Under your Islamic repulic people have lost even their basic social rights and are poor and with no hopes of a better tomorrow.

Yes, the Iranian people overthrew the Shah, not Khomeini, but the people were "seduced" by Khomeini whose specialized in lies. Ask those who demonstrated against the Shah, and excluding the "nochehaaye dolate eslami", 99.99 percent of them regret they ever took to the streets. If as in magic, time could go back, but the memories and experiences remained, they would stick to their "vatanforoosh" Shah with gladness, or at least with Bakhtiaar or whoever else exept Khomeini the "Shah of lies".

I am not pro-Shah but I can at least see that the Shah's grave is visited by only hundreds instead of millions of "paid roostaayi" or "nochehaye dolat" who visit the imam's grave, because duh! The Shah's grave is in Egypt not in Iran!

On the subject of "who is really backward": Yes, I agree. Man evolved and marriage became an institution for moral reasons. But... The freedom that Mr. Kaveh promotes are neither backward nor promotes moral corruption. It is YOUR restrictions that is backward AND promote moral corruption. The proof? Just take a look at Iran under the Shah and Iran of today. The Shah promoted social freedom, you and your folks restrict it. There are more prostitues today in Iran by order of magnitudes than they were in the past. That is the proof.

You and your folks promote backwardness and moral corruption. So, no you are not the evolved ones. And who gives you the right to tell women what to wear? If you don't like what they wear just don't look at them. Or... Why don't you and your male folks all also wear chador? and don't forget roosari too.(unless you shave your head.) The day that you and your male folks also wear a chador then you have minimally "evolved."

If you want to evolve a bit more, then maybe you can start by banning multiple wives. You see that's an animal behavior, which you and your folks are still stucked in.

Also, I don't think Mr. Kaveh said that cheating your wife is "ok." No, that's not what he said. I think, he only meant that the punishment was too brutal and "vahshiaaneh".

There, Mr. Dariush, you stand completely exposed.




by dariushabadi on

Treason is what your Shah committed, being a puppet to the real enemy (the USA). He chose the USA over his own people, and his own people overthrew him, not Imam Khomeini. Imam Khomeini was the symbol of the revolution, but can you deny the millions who came out in the street to overthrow your VATANFOROOSH of a Shah? Did those millions commit treason too?

How many people show up to the shah's grave every year (100 people this year according to Reuters). Yet over 4 million people show up to Imam Khomeini's shrine every year in constant pilgrimage. Who was the real leader of the people? He who is neglected in Egypt, or he who people make a trip from across Iran to see his shrine?

The real martyrs were those who defended your country.


Who is really backward?

by dariushabadi on

If you want to speak in evolutionary terms, it was man that was like an animal originally, naked and without law.

It was through time that man evolved completely out of his animal nature, covered his private, and created laws to create peace and security amongst his tribe. This included laws of marriage, to prevent people from having sex like animals, and for children to be raised by an obvious father and an obvious mother.

However, it is the "freedoms" you promote, that are backward. They are so backward, you have to go to pre-civilization times to see them. For in Europe, man and woman roam around naked completely without any shame. They sleep around as if it is a competition on who can treat the most women as sex objects. Even when they are "married", they have adultery like no-other. In the US, it has a stranger twist, where the president who had an affair was pushed to get impeached (by people who probably have had affairs too), yet the president who has millions of dead on his bloody hands roams free.

And you call us backward?

We are the evolved ones. We are the ones that claim that women should not be paraded around like sex objects. We are the ones that say that women should not parade on TV in bikinis, showing their breasts, having value only by their looks, but by their intellect. It is we who say that cheating on your husband or wife is NOT tolerated.

We are not ANIMALS to roam around, commit acts without reprucussions, and then even promote it on a global scale. If you think cheating on your wife is okay, then you belong in the animal kingdom, you don't deserve to call yourself a HUMAN.