Sic Semper Tyrannis

DK Jaan

your video pretty much sums up the grand result of the 1979 devolution.  All the hoopla so that we can kiss a different person's hand. 

If Velayat Faghih were a monarchy

If Velayat Faghih were a monarchy, there would be ONE woman in Iran who was QUEEN.

This one, splendid woman would be treated with extreme deference by all Iranian men, who would then seek to obey her wishes.

There is no such woman in Iran. Therefore, VF must not be a monarchy.

Food for Thought ... and Contradiction ...

Hand Kissing ... Shah Era ... Khomeiny Era ( Recognizeable Faces ) ...

Anonymous Observer We are getting somewhere!

You are right, yes, I've seen those sleeves too. I just wonder if they have anything to with "aftabe". 

(hehe!)

(what is aftabe in English btw, they just had bumphlets..)

Every fascism is an index of a failed revolution - Walter Benjamin

Differences?

Monarchy uses deodorant. VF needs delousing.

Monarch spoke 3 languages. VF can't even speak Persian.

Monarchy wears a crown of jewels. VF wears a diaper full of dandruff.

Monarch was called "Shah". VF is just plain shit.

You should read Oktaby's recent blog

about IRI's economy and educate yourself about its actual state.

 //iranian.com/main/blog/oktaby/actual-value-rial-roughly-25000-dollar

some facts about Iranian economy

The Iranian GDP is growing at rate of 5%-almost the highest in the world. The avrage of earrned income is at an unprecedented level of $11500. Also, Iran has 8 times more in reserve than the country's owes(soverign debts). if this is a failure, so what is the success?

ram jams

Shazdeh Jaan

Thank you.  I agree.  Here, look at this picture.  He's even commissioning officers:

 //www.farsnews.com/plarg.php?nn=M622234.jpg

Is there any function of a king that King Khamenei, II does not perform? 

Shah didn't have a beard, didn't smell funny & had half a brain?

AO dear: this a good blog.

I tried and tried, but couldn't find a serious answer. You are right, Red or Black revolutions rarely create truely positive changes in the backward countries.

Look at Russia - wasn't Stalin 100 times worse than the tsar?

MM

That's a potent combination.  However, it does give Iranians a "heads up" when the thugs begin to approach to arrest and beat them.   So, in a sense, their bad hygiene is a service to patriotic Iranians.  

golaab+BO

A visiting friend told me that, many times, the use of golaab is to hide the infrequent bathing, hence BO, which results in a unique combined golaab+BO olfactory stimulation recognized in a distance.

Onlyiran

of course.  Also, don't forget the "taharat" distinction.  I'm sure Shah used a "bideh", while King Khamenei II uses the old fashioned, Imam Zaman approved "aftabeh".   

Don't forget the Rose Water distinction

Shah and his family used Cartier and Christian Dior designer colognes.  VF is humble enough to use rose water only.  This has got to be a serious distinction.  :-))

yes, "I voted..."

he is incredibly wise.  That's why Iran is # 1 in human rights violations, #1 in drug use in the world and # -0- is world economic ranking.

dont care what others have tosay

Ayoptollah Khamenei is one good and wise leade. Obama wrote him a letter but then he(obama)reneged on it. He more likely will be the last Vallieh as we know it meaning after him there wont be an indivdual getting elected as the suprem leader.

ram jams

Samasam Jaan

Almost forgot.  Thanks for the input my brother.  But bear in mind that as you always point out, the character of Persian monarchy has not been the same post-Qadissyeh.  So, really, having a mullah king disguised as "velayat-e-faghih does not harm that bunch in terms of their identity anyway.  

I love this:

In India the Gaav(cow) is king & in Ommatestan the king is Gaav.

Indeed, indeed... 

MM

as to your first point, I agree, and said as much in one of my comments below.  The hereditary nature of a monarchy is a distinction without a difference in my opinion.  VF pretty much appoints his successor, as Khomeini did.  And I will bet you that Khamenei will do the same thing...that is, of course, if his butt is not taken off the throne by the people before then. 

2 reasons why the VF position is handed down

1. So far, the VF position was handed down, e.g., Khomeini got angry at Montazeri (who was appoint by Khomeini) for second-guessing his orders, had him under house-arrest and appointed Khamenei (a student and morid of Khmeini) as the next VF, and Khomeini's decision was rubber-stamped by councils this and that. 

2. In addition, the way the Mullahs inter-marry within their own "kind", they are mostly related, and in effect, the VF position is handed down within the family, no matter who get the call.

BETTER CHOICE

that all said is a fantastic dream for our beloved Iran MINUS... there will be no need of M I (masjids of Iran)  like the C of E.

hope I'm not offending any one.      Maziar

سوال اینه که

چرا مردم ما اینقدر...ببخشیدها..."خر" هستند که بگذارند این اراذل و اوباش همینطور برمون حکومت کنند.  البته من فکر می‌کنم که مساله خرییت نیست بلکه منفعت جویی است.  ما همیشه یک مشت بادمجان دور قاب چین داریم که از دیکتاتوری این و اون بهره میبرند و یا میشند ابزار حکومتشون یا چمقدارشون. 

Dear Darius

British parliamentary monarchy system is a fascinating and solid institution which in my view (and I think yours too) would make the best example of a modern and functional democratic monarchy. I would like to make a few and slight amendments to your as always educating and informative comments and I am sure your would excuse me for my zaboon deraazi.

The British monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the Defender of the Faith. This is a merely titular position and in reality it is a symbolic status. The monarch can appoint senior church officials of the C of E on the advice of the Prime Minister who in turn is advised by the church leader. All the British Prime ministers to date have been "professed" Christians but not necessarily of the C of E denomination (eg David Lloyd George, Alec Doglus Home, and Gordon Brown). See this link for reference:

//www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/09/prime-ministers-religion-god

 The ultimate power of change is of course is in the hands of the Parliament.

With regards,

Farah

DK

all the same.  :-)

Sorry I meant Henry VIII not XVIII ... ;0)

As MY Buddy Omid can confirm :

OMID's HOUR: Omid Djalili ... "I'm The King of England Bitch"

ROYAL CURTSY: Omid Djalili Shares a Joke with Prince Charles (LONDON - JULY 06, 2009)

DK jaan

That is an interesting anaylsis with the queen of England.  That seems to be an infusion of religion and monarchy.  But whereas in the UK the queen took the legitimacy of being the head of the church from the fact that she is the queen, under the IRI, the VF took his legitimacy to be the "king" from being the head of the religion--or at least the self appointed head of the religion.  

Actually the Queen of England IS a VF ...

But this is unique to the British Monarch's since King Henry XVIII.

Beyond the medieval Notion of Divine Kingship common to all Absolute Kings and Queens (which I hope to develope in another thread later one in this discussion), which was abolished virtually in all West European Monarchies by the 19th century but prevailed in other countries like in Tzarist Russia ( which despite attempts by the Reformist Tzar like Alexander II to draft a secular constitution) and in many middle eastern and Asian Monarchies today at more or less different levels, in Great Britain however the Monarch Remains the head of a Religious Institution which is the Anglican Church.

As Such she is something of a Pope if you will, even if it is purely symbolic in that she does not truly interfere in the theological debates as the Pope in the Vatican would.

Nevertheless you will never see her Bow to the Pope in Rome and kneel to his Holiness during State visits:

First State Visit to Rome in 1953 ( HEr black Dress was because her father the late King George has passed away during her honeymoon):

Or with John Paul II in the 1990's

Although Pop John Paul II above Does bow to her because she is a woman ...

But that does not stop her Majesty to name a Catholic Prime Minister ( Tony Blair ), who can as a private citizen visit the Pope and or convert to the Catholic Faith and institution and therefore renounce to the Anglican Faith; ( See Report)

I need to look into this more deeply if the British Constitution accepts the Queen to name a Catholic Prime Minister though ? ...

I believe he or she cannot:

After 30 years as a closet Catholic, Blair finally puts faith before politics: Outgoing PM seizes early opportunity to convert free of dilemmas of public role (guardian) 

If anyone has more info in this regard please feel free to answer But this is what I found here ( Wikipedia):

There is no simple yes or no question to this answer. While there is no express legal bar the election of a non-Anglican British Prime Minister, such a situation would be constitutionally akward given the prime minister's role in appointing senior members of the Church of England. While theoretically, the soverieng has the ultimate power in making ecclesiastical appointments, he or she acts on the advice of the prime minister.

Under the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, sect. 17, and the Jews' Relief Act of 1858, sec 4, no Roman Catholic or Jew may advise the sovereign on ecclesiastical matters. Were the prime minister to be a Roman Catholic or a Jew and alternate system of ecclesiastical appointment would have to be devised.

To date, all British Prime Ministers to date, at least while in office, have professed Anglican faith. Disraeli, while born into a jewish family, was babtised into the church of England at age 12 and Tony Blair waited till after he stood down from the post of prime minister to officially convert to catholicism.

Gordon Brown does not 'profess the Anglican faith'. His father was a Church of Scotland minister. It is unlikely that any other non-English Prime Minister would be an Anglican (e.g. Alec Douglas-Hume, Ramsey Macdonald).

At times it seems hard to prove otherwise

One thing is that the "Rahbari" will not be passed down to their families but will be elected by a group of people. In this case looks more like Soltan until death do us apart.

"You support Khamenei"

Yes, Khamenei will not come out with his rear end first to allow a soldier to have his way with him.  That is because he does "taharat" at least eight times a day (even without a bowel movement).  And you know how that works.  The fingers go way up "in there". And he gets all the satisfaction right there.  No need for "outside help".  

Boom

I actually agree with you, even with the part that says that the wording of the blog may have been better.  I also agree with you on the issue of Pahlavi revolution --or actually, on a more specific basis, his White Revolution, which transformed Iran from an Afghanistan like feudal system to a country with a modern economy.  If it wasn't for the White revolution, Iran will still be ruled by fiefdoms of landowners similar to most areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan.  You can read my comments on this blog about the issue:

//iranian.com/main/blog/anonymous-observer/name-one-good-thing-iri-has-done-iranian-people-past-31-years

Shah and his father had a vision for Iran.  They wanted to modernize it, and incidentally, that is the reason why all these akhoonds were against him, because they are anti-modernization.  And that, in turn, is because modernization will put an end to superstition which is what has kept them relevant for the past 1400 years.

The point about the VF that I was trying to convey is that there is no "republic" in Iran.  The 1979 devolution was what I always call it: a devolution.  It put an end to Pahlavi's vision for a modern Iran.  But it also brought with it another dynasty: we can call it the "Khmoeini dynasty" since he even handpicked his successor.  Now i know that many of my friends here cringe at calling the VF a "monarchy" because of the implications and the inevitable comparison to the last monarchy.  But in my opinion, VF is no different than a king.  We can call him a king, a caliph, or a monkey with a turban (no offense to monkeys) who sits on a throne.  But from a practical standpoint, he is a king.  He has all the characteristics of a king.  He has all the functions of a king.  How is he not one?  

In fact, the whole concept of VF is an IRI trick.  They want us to not call him a "monarch".  It is a pretty neat trick, actually.  Khomeini wanted to be king.  He bamboozled the population into appointing him king.  But, for matters of expediency, and to give his new dynasty religious legitimacy, he came up with another name for his dynasty: Velyat Faghih, just to somehow show that the 1979 devolution actually accomplished something.  See the trick?  I personally think that by NOT calling him a king and giving him a distinction, where there is none, we are actually playing into IRI's hands.    

Food For Thought and Contradiction: Machiavelli Art of Politics

Must Watch/Read for anyone who wants to understand the mechanisms of Politics and the delicate balance that must be found between Moral standards of governance and the Realistic and inevitable challenges of leadership:

HISTORY FORUM: Machiavelli's "The Prince" and the "Art" of Governing

I couldn't agree more

Boom Shakalaka you hit he nail on the head : Pahlavi revolution

FR