Iranian of the Day

Good Point WeAreBlessed. Those who opposed Shah are unpopular.

I can see how his video is going to be offensive to many people and create a lot of defensive reactions against him. 

But the truth is the underlying sentiment of his comments resonate deeply with the truth of the situation.  Monarchists that I see in the west were and are still more patriotic and honorable than others.  They Love Iran and it's culture and traditions.  They unite behind idealistic goals they believe they can honestly accomplish like freedom and work towards making them a reality.

If Iran ever becomes a democracy, it will be because monarchists pursued that goal and transformed the culture of Iran, helped create the institutions and made it possible.  As a realist, I don't believe that is any longer possible to achieve real democracy in Iran in my life time, even if we could get rid of the mullahs today.  I think in 1979 we were 20 to 30 years away from acheving that goal, now we likely have 20 to 30 years of progress just to get Iran back to how it used to be in 1979.

Anyway who are we kidding, with the way the USA/UK/France/Germany brought the fundamentalist mullahs to power and have since fought tooth and nail to put all their resources in creating circumstances to keep them in power and with their primary aim being to Africanize the middle east using Islam in Govt, I'd be happy if Iran just had Freedom.  The future is very dark as is the present for Iranians. 

That is the reason WeAreBlessed all those that opposed the Shah became recognized as Traitors who betrayed all Iranians.  And I would add only one thing to that, I think that is the correct way people who opposed the Shah should be addressed by monarchists and Iranians alike.

Where a person is coming from is important in how one approaches the future.  And the reason for that is simple, to enjoy freedom in Iran once again and not allow the freedom to become a tyranny, we need to be responsible. 

And that includes using the freedom that we have to defend the character of what was good with Iran and attack those forces that came together and represented what was irresponsible with in Iran.

"Those who opposed the Shah, do not have popular support today."

If there is evidence, please refute the following: 

"Those who opposed the Shah, do not have wide popular support today."  

Please look up any organization, who opposed the Shah, who has popular support today.  Show one organization/person, who opposed the Shah, who is widely popular today.  Any organization, linked with the over-throw of the Shah, is not popular today among Iranians.   

The truth cannot be denied.  Please show ANY evidence, which refutes the following: "Those who opposed the Shah, do not have popular support today." 

Reality-Bites... please.

However, let's not engage in revising history and overlook the fact Shah
denied people true political freedom

He did not deny, it was that he could not provide, there was NO possibility of opening up politically without being subservient to foreign powers, which he spent his entire life struggling against that wanted to keep Iran backwards econmically... something they succeeded at by falling in love with Islam for Iran... No accident.  He built Iranian Steel with 100% US and UK opposition, so many of his economic programs were totally opposed by the free world which wanted us to be like Africa. Please. 

and had his security violate the
human rights of those who were active against his rule.

Plenty of people in govt were opposed to his rule, how do you explain that?  He only made life difficult for armed groups, terrorists, MEK, Tudeh, Akhoonds after they had a hand in killing an Iranian Prime Minister called Mansour.  Please.

There was a fair
degree of corruption and nepotism/favouritism during his rule too.

No doubt.  Because it exists in all countries.  However with 5 government agencies active in combating corruption, Iran was better than the USA, UK and all countries surrounding Iran, even though when he came to power Iran was the most backwards of all those countries.  Please.

If we want to see Iran one day become a free, democratic and progressive
country, then we need to be honest with our history and learn from it.
Otherwise we'll just end up repeating the same mistakes as before.

Please. Don't give anyone a lecture on Freedom, Progress or Democracy. 

Lets just start with the obvious. 

What is the one ... and only opposition group and leader that has the largest support within Irans educated groups and the next generation that has the possibility of restoring freedom for Iran? 

Since many people can't even figure that one out yet, it's better to just sit back and laugh as people develop the wisdom with which to answer the most simple and most important question of all. 

Where did VPK Go anyone see him lately?  I miss his innocence and charm.

Ari 4 points.

A Good Republic--even an entirely democratic one-- is preferable to a tyranical/corrupt Monarchy.  A 4 person dingy with 4 oars, gets you there faster than an Aircraft Carrier with no fuel.

Common Sense, right?

Zarghans attitude comes from reflecting on 3 realities. 

1) The 1979 Betrayal of all Iranians was a gutless movement even by the most basic iranian standards, deserving of contempt for those who participated. 

2) The unworthy character exhibited in 1979, is not unique to just Iranians.  People all over the world indulge in disingenuous actions that are based on emotions created out of jealousy, blame and the village gossip that those emotions give rise to.

3) The resolution of the gutless, unworthy character iranians showed in 1979, can be resolved the same way it is resolved all over the world, by individuals experiencing the emotion of shame for ones actions = feeling both regret and extreme pain together. 

You will notice that too many people who talk with various political leanings show their imperfections in character through their own words and views.

They have not gone through this character mending approach Zarghan mentions, the emotion of being truly ashamed of what you have done or are doing, with respect to harming others.

4) Your Final point about Bernie Maddoff is very important. you may not be aware, it is absolutely correct.  "believe it because I say so" school of persuasion. You don't want
Bernie Madoff advertizing for your bank.

Bernie also could not express shame, which is why he caused so much harm as a direct result of his actions, kind of like what gutless iranians did in 1979. If he had a painful regret for the consequences of his actions to others, he would not have been able to go down the path he went down..or iranians went down in 79.

Take a look at hirre comments, just using him as he seems to fit with our bernie madoff example as our residident berie.

He says... Sigh... That is why the majority in Iran aren't taking fundamentalists or monarchists seriously...

Tell me reading between the lines of that comment and putting fundamentalists and monarchists in the same category which many others do too to not just pick on him, and to be not taken seriously,

does that appear to you a person that has expressed shame for 1979?  Or is that closer to a comment you would expect from an anti-social element of society, like say khomeini, al-capone, bernie madoff.

Many People can and do see through it.

Which is why Saltanateh Mardom is taken seriously.

Coming full circle.  Lets get specific.

Lets compare all the Republics I mentioned with the monarchy that existed in 3rd world Iran of the 1970's. USA, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Portugal vs 3rd world Iran.  On Corruption, on the use of absolute power to break agreements/alliances, on serving the majority of the people in society.

If you were to look at those honestly, without using the propaganda created by the so called free world media, which acted as a foreign policy tool and disingenuously you will see what a catastophy 1979 was for Freedom, Truth and Peace in the world.

We are so fed up with the tyranny of IR...

That we have started to look at Shah's rule only through rose-tinted glasses and think that everything was hunky dory then. It wasn't.

Yes, Shah (despite his personal faults) was a genuine patriot and did a lot to modernise the country and improve the standard of living of many Iranians. And he was definitely preferable to the blood thirsty savages, currently ruling Iran 

However, let's not engage in revising history and overlook the fact Shah denied people true political freedom and had his security violate the human rights of those who were active against his rule. There was a fair degree of corruption and nepotism/favouritism during his rule too.

If we want to see Iran one day become a free, democratic and progressive country, then we need to be honest with our history and learn from it. Otherwise we'll just end up repeating the same mistakes as before.

...

You don't understand, it doesn't matter if you are a mullah, it's what you stand for... E.g. during the time of Mosadeq he had a lot of mullah supporters...

Hirre.....

Sorry, 60 years ago there was much higher illiteracy and rural demography (with extreme religious sentiments) in the country, Jebel Amel Mullah's had the only means of communication with the illiterate masses through mosques (no TV and little radio coverage to enlighten masses as in 1960's and 70's). The entire society was going toward some form of extremism, but at the end Mullah's had the reigns of the masses, as they have, ever since Safavids established the fear of Shia Islam by their genocidal conversions. In any given elections, the Islamists would have gained more and more control. Since they already had critical mass (or very close to it), they would have asserted their rule without hesitation, as they did in '79 with even a bigger western educated and affluent, so called, "middle class".

...

The problem is that no democrat isn't against mullahs gaining power some 60 years ago, if it would be done within the framework of democracy and fair elections. That's what it is all about! The problem during our history is that no one should have power single handed. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

By giving different groups (through elections) power within a certain democratical timelimit they are automatically evaluated by the people. In this case the mullahs would not have power 60 years ago since their political program only attracted a fraction of Iran's population back then.

The problem with the current system (except that it's a dictatorial system) is that it hides its agenda, this can not be done in a fair democratical system. That said, the mullahs (60 years ago) would have gained some popularity but not total power. Another beautiful thing is that it forces the mullahs to reform themselves in order to gain power or else they will lose it again!

Simple logic and broader historic context......

What is so disturbing about reading this site over the past couple of days is the typical modern Iranian narrow mindedness in claiming the "Right" reasons for the '79 calamity and the Islamist occupation. Pahlavis were not the reasons for this calamity! You need a broader historical context to judge IRI calamity, not just focusing on the specific events of the 1950 -1979, or the autocratic rule of the Pahlavi kings.

IRI is not the result of the Pahlavi rule! IRI is the continuation of Iran of pre-Pahlavi, from Safavids to Ghajars. Pahalvis were the anomaly to modern Shia-Turkic-Iranian history. Pahlavis can be blamed for not sustaining their own progressive/autocratic rule, but NOT for inciting Islamic Republic of Turkic-Shia-Iran.

If the second Pahlavi's autocratic rule accelerated the reactionary relapse to IRI form of rule, then this is highly debatable. I challenge anyone to prove that any democratic form of government, starting as far back as in 1950's (or any other time for that matter), would have prevented Islamists gaining control!

The fact remains that when Pahlavis brought risky progressive social and cultural reforms to a deeply reactionary and Islamic society, even the most liberal-nationalist elitists failed to support them.

Amirparviz

A good monarchy--even an absolute one--is preferable to a corrupt republic. Common sense, really; a working bicycle gets you there faster than a broken car. But Zarghan's attitude in this video is a bad begining for a working monarchy. Reason #1: he comes from a position of contempt for many of his countrymen. Reason #2: he belongs to the  "believe it because I say so" school of persuasion. You don't want Bernie Madoff advertizing for your bank.

Sigh...

"I think its why a majority of the new generation of iranians, born after the revolution, living in iran are monarchists."

Ahmadinejad:

"There are no gays in Iran"

That is why the majority in Iran aren't taking fundamentalists or monarchists seriously...

His words really stick. And very tightly.

I think its why a majority of the new generation of iranians, born after the revolution, living in iran are monarchists.

More than all other groups combined can't be explained by just culture, traditions and values, etc.

Good Experience matters alot too.

The tough lessons learned with the use of their conscience, not the absense of conscience has proved to be a melting pot for the new civilization iranians will create again with their love, truth, honor, justice & freedom pursuing peoples monarchy.

Saltanateh Mardom.

Ari you are off on motive. There actons were honorable period.

Monarchists have nothing to be ashamed of.

Unlike popular western propaganda, I have in exile met many many monarchists, that left iran without a penny and had served the shah most of their lives, because he brought freedom for Iran after centuries of iranians not experiencing it.  They gave iran so much and helped raise itto being in the top 9 largest economies in the world, with the largest middle class growth.

I wonder if the reason you can not see the honorable and truly decent nature of monarchists actions, is because of a personal motive.

Maybe if you did not have the preference of being republican you could even see the causes behind why republics produce the most corrupt form of government in comparison to shahs Iran.  History, the USA with its lobbying groups that lawfully pay a representative money to buy his/her vote have proven the point sufficiently. 

I'm sure you have been paying attention to the news about the republics of france, germany, italy, ireland, portuga, greece etc enslaving their people in unsustainable debts.  In every case there is corruption and personal gain behind this, not innocent mistakes. while people like the greek president sold off billions of default swaps to friends, when he knew their value would increase 100 fold.

What these "Republic" systems lack is 1st class and 2nd a code of principals... instead of carefully selecting people based on good family values and whether or not they grew up around thieves and cheats.

Monarchies get this part right and it is the explanation for why the UK, Spain, Japan etc are not facing the same problems...

Ari, Try hard and see it, I know its new for you, but people with class and principals are the competitive edge that monarchies give society, not perfect, not with out black sheep/rare exceptions, but over all their systems are not corrupt, run by mostly gangsters/banksters and rotten to the core, like say the USA or IRI.

Sadly due to propaganda and lies, republics have to cover up this truth and portray a different image to hold a candle to monarchies.

His point was and is 100% Valid.

some what, i strongly agree

some what, i strongly agree with him.

Finally a video clip on IC that makes compelet sense!

Javid Monarchists!

he makes some good points

those of you who joined khomenei and put our generation in this position, shame on you. also you never hear any of them apologize, they just keep blaming the shah who has been dead for decades. 

good for them who stand against this regime and have never been a part of them at any point in history.

Zarghan's argument in fable format

A big crow told a bunch of little crows, "Hey lets's go raid the stash of shiny buttons that the crowned crow is hoarding, and we can all split the loot." The only crow that objected to the idea was the crowned one with all the shiny buttons. This is because he was the most baa sharaf and kheradmand crow.

Moral of the story: the story teller needs more time in his writing workshop until he learns the concept of "motive."

Iranians were crazy and insane?

We all know Iranians had revolution and many Iranians were killed at that time.  Did Zargan add an addition?

His words are almost the same as saying all Iranians were crazy and insane at the time of revolution.  Zargan should have discussed the reason Iranians became insane and revoluted at the time.  What did they need (emotionally, financially or ..)?

On the other hand, his words are worthy since all Iranian groups are still thirsty of Iranian bloods except Green and Reza Pahlavi. 

Enough already, stop the name calling!

Let me make two points very clear before I start, 1-These fascist in Iran are by far the worse group of people who ever ruled Iran! 2-I agree that the Pahlavi's made some good contribution. 

However, the current regime is directly due to the mistakes made by the Pahlavi regime and if  you do not see it you are being really disingenous .  The fact is that the shah was a dictator, no matter what you say....look at the evidence!  The savak, the single party (Rastakhiz), the lack of any free elections, etc.  If he had not suppressed all the other parties people would have not looked to Khomeini to lead them out of a dictatorship in hope to get democracy.  Alas they ended up in a worse situation.  But just because this current system is the worse ever, one could not say the last system was a good system.  People need and want a representative democracy, not a king or a velayateh faghih.  Plus it is not for us to choose the leader of Iran anyway.  It is for the people of Iran in a free and fair election.  You and I will have the right to vote as well but we have only one vote! You want to do something good!  Support the people to overthrow these bastards and stop the name calling!

Dorod bar Iran!

You Have a very Valid Point

I agree with you that all political groups followed that bastard, barbaric Islamist except monorchists.  They really are BS Sharaf, they did not sell their country & their people to enemy.