Amir Parviz for secular monarchy

Amirparviz

The thing is in order to be effective at manufacturing consent, body of
article needs to be fair and balanced, yet how they make their
conclusion has the greatest impact on the opinions manufactured and in
the grey area of this conclusion they are not honest in my opinion, I
bet if you asked 100 english people what their views were you'd realize
what I am saying.  What the article accomplished was not to show regime
in a bad light at all.  They used the man to give the regime cover with
that conclusion.  The conclusion negates being anti-regime in many of
the readers by being put that way. A subtle point.

First of all the article is not about the I.R, it is about this man. The article was not trying to accomplish anything except telling his story. You are obviously trying to find something that does not exist.. In three places the article is actually criticle of the regime, yet you ignore this.  It's not a subtle defense of the regime at all. I will highlight these three things again. 

"He died a lonely death in a bedsit in Croydon, south London, in 1981,
after losing his ambassador's pension and Tehran properties in the
Iranian revolution.

Here the article clearly portrays the Islamic revolution negativly. If the article was defending the regime it would say after the revolution a statue was built of him and he recieved 1 million dollars personaly from khomeini. But no, it says his property and pension was taken away. Is this defending the regime? Does this make the Islamic republic sound good? 

 "He believes the story illustrates the "general cultural propensity of
Iranians to be tolerant" which is often overlooked in the current
political climate."

Here the article clearly states the political climate in Iran that may lead westerners to think the average Iranian hates Jews. 

"Mr Mokhtari hopes that by telling his story, through the testimony of
survivors, including Mrs Cohanim, he will bring it to a wider audience
but also shatter "popular misconceptions" about Iran and the Iranians."

Once again, the article defends ordinary Iranian people, not the regime. 

Jews in history

A lot of hate during the history towards jews, especially during the middle ages was because of the concept of interest which religion was against. As Jewish citizens were ostracized from most professions by local
rulers, the church and the guilds, they were pushed into marginal
occupations considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent
collecting and moneylending.

The ironic thing is that "jews and money" is something which has been created by basically anti-semites during history. The problem they didn't forsee was that this also made it possible for the jews to become powerful in the realm of economics, so financially many jews were in good shape.

Before WW2 occured you would see poor people in Germany, but at the same time there were a generally vary high standard among jews in Germany. This of course created envy and Hitler used this in his rethorics and described them as "blood-suckers", "rats" etc...

So this envy and hate has lasted through history and both jews and anti-semites have picked the information parts that have suited them in order to legitimize their own causes... E.g. some people (especially muslim radicals) still blame jews for the concept of interest, the ironic thing is that if local rulers hundreds of years ago forced the jews to work e.g. as farmers the situation would have been quite different...

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest

Bravo Simorgh5555

your said it the best.

The problem is all these theories are racist

Fesejoon2 with his najes comment if true, knows how to get me mad at my own people.  Racism is the worst way I can think of to spread fear into peoples hearts and move them away from their conscience and from the love we all desperately need.  Propaganda has gotten out of control, we all really need to pursue this as the crime that it is, whenever we can.  You can't harm one culture without harming the others too.  Its like the mullahs have castrated our humanity with their racism.

I'm now realizing that this terrorism of free thought the muslims have propagated has deeply wounded our country for a long time and produced an environment where the muslims in Iran instead of being a force for good, have themselves been corrupted islamic authorities, probably for centuries.  Since islam is always likely to be with us the least we can do it make sure we remove the corrupted authorities and pursue the practioners of this inhuman intolerance/racism.  So first thing to do is separate church from state, next thing is to pursue criminals/unlawful citizens/propagators of hate.

IRI's "Djuguten" theory

The BBC article linked in the blog mentions the "Djuguten" theory that Sardari peddled to the Nazis in order to provide an ideological excuse for exempting Iranian Jews from being rounded up.  According to this theory, Iranian Jews were of Aryan origins, and not racially related to European Jews.

It turns out that the IRI peddles its own version of the Djuguten theory, but w/ a reversed conclusion.  According to the IRI version, the true descendants of the original Hebrew inhabitants of Palestine are the current Middle Eastern Jews, whereas European (Ashkenazi) Jews, from whose ranks the Zionists arose, are converts descended from the Turkic Khazars.  (Whoever posted the above video on YouTube, added his own nonsensical banners to it, which are irrelevant.)

So, according to the original Djuguten theory addressed to the Nazis, the good Jews are the Aryan converts, while the evil ones are the original European ones, whereas according to the IRI version, the good ones are the original Persian Jews, while the evil ones are the European converts.

I get what you are saying.

The thing is in order to be effective at manufacturing consent, body of article needs to be fair and balanced, yet how they make their conclusion has the greatest impact on the opinions manufactured and in the grey area of this conclusion they are not honest in my opinion, I bet if you asked 100 english people what their views were you'd realize what I am saying.  What the article accomplished was not to show regime in a bad light at all.  They used the man to give the regime cover with that conclusion.  The conclusion negates being anti-regime in many of the readers by being put that way. A subtle point.

Oh and by the way

Jews are "najes", not Israelis. Nejaasat (being filthy or unclean) would count as anti-Semitism, and was around in Iran at least since the times of the Safavis.

AmirParviz

You are looking for a pro I.R message in this article that just does not exist.

"Here you have a Muslim Iranian who goes out of his way, risks his
life, certainly risks his career and property and everything else, to
save fellow Iranians," he says.

"There is no distinction 'I am Muslim, he is Jew' or whatever."

So what? The guy was a Muslim and they mentioned it. I don't see a problem. 

 In a way they are covering up for the 24/7 Antisemetic manufacturing
IRI, using a good Iranian from who served before IRI came to power.  In
not one place does it honestly refer to the current regime and its
Anti-Semetic Propaganda, that is necessary info when you are portraying
the goodness of Iranians to not miss out on the badness of the entire
regime or else people reading it would logically manufacture the feeling
that this is how Iranians are today and their regime needs protection
with people like that.

"He died a lonely death in a bedsit in Croydon, south London, in 1981,
after losing his ambassador's pension and Tehran properties in the
Iranian revolution.

The article cleary portrays the Iranian revolution as taking away the properties and pentions of a man that has been described in this article as a hero. Is this good support for the I.R? 

 "He believes the story illustrates the "general cultural propensity of
Iranians to be tolerant" which is often overlooked in the current
political climate."

"Mr Mokhtari hopes that by telling his story, through the testimony of
survivors, including Mrs Cohanim, he will bring it to a wider audience
but also shatter "popular misconceptions" about Iran and the Iranians."

There we go. In both these quotes it admits that there are misconceptions about regular Iranians due to the political issues. 

I'm off to bed. 

How exactly did the BBC use this article to defend the IRI?

At bottom of article.

"Here you have a Muslim Iranian who goes out of his way, risks his
life, certainly risks his career and property and everything else, to
save fellow Iranians," he says.

"There is no distinction 'I am Muslim, he is Jew' or whatever."

He believes the story illustrates the "general cultural
propensity of Iranians to be tolerant" which is often overlooked in the
current political climate.

In a way they are covering up for the 24/7 Antisemetic manufacturing IRI, using a good Iranian from who served before IRI came to power.  In not one place does it honestly refer to the current regime and its Anti-Semetic Propaganda, that is necessary info when you are portraying the goodness of Iranians to not miss out on the badness of the entire regime or else people reading it would logically manufacture the feeling that this is how Iranians are today and their regime needs protection with people like that.

Muslim Iranians today are doing things entirely opposite to this article, and by not even mentioning that in the current political climate we lack honesty.

AmirParviz

Today, the bbc, the organization of the UK tasked with defending the
Islamic Republic wrote a great article regarding the accomplishments of
Iranians in the humanitarian realm before the IRI came to power.  Sadly
the BBC used this Story to defend the IRI

How exactly did the BBC use this article to defend the IRI? I just read it, and can't see any defending of the Islamic republic. If anything the article was slightly anti I.R. Here is a quote in reference to the brave man written in the article you think is defending the IRI. 

  "He died a lonely death in a bedsit in Croydon, south London, in 1981,
after losing his ambassador's pension and Tehran properties in the
Iranian revolution."

Anti-Semite or

Good question. If you believe all people have the right to self-determination except for Jews then it sadly does make one anti-Semite - especially if he is denied the right of return to his/her historical homeland. This is not denying the equal right of the  indigenous population of Palestine Arabs or Duze to share the land. But what you often forget is that historical Palestine includes Jordan (which is larger than Israel) had until recently laid claim to the entire terrirory of the West Bank and Jersulam as part of Jordan. I didn't see any Palestinian 'nationals' complain when they were occupied by the British, Hashemite Kingdom or the Ottomans for that matter but when it comes to JEWS it becomes a big deal. 

Why didn't 'Palestinians' hijack Jordanian and British  airlines and kill their athlestes? Why didn't  Palestinains strap explosives around themselves and blow themselves up on Jordanian busses? Why? Is it 1) Because Jordanians and British occupiers are not JEWS. 2) 'Palestinians' were happy to live under the Hashemite rule seeing no difference betwwen themsleves and the Jordanians who ruled them. 

If people complain about the State of Israel being established then they have abosilutely NO RIGHT on earth to live in the USA or declare themselves to have American citizenship. Zionists have historical, religious, cultural and archaeological roots which links them to the land of Palestine (regardless of how it hold up but at least its more than Americans) but can your fellow Americans descended from Europe who destroyed the entire indiginous civilization and culture from mainland North America to Rio de Plata for GREED, gold, transportaion of slaves, colonisation and breeding speace during the last 500 years make such a connection?

If you are living in California or Nevada then you are living on contested Mexican land. Land which has been stolen from the indiginous Mexicans but yet very few Iranians can claim to have a beef with living on a contient which has been ethnically cleansed good and proper. Is it because they are not JEWS? 

Yes, but that happened centruries ago and tha doesn't matter so maybe the Israelis should have completely ejected the entire Palestinian population (or killed them outright) so people wouldn't make such a fuss about their existance now.  

If any Iranian American or  European American, or any American,  has a problem with the creation of the State of Israel please renounce your American citizenship, pay compensation to a trust fund in support of native Americans and repatriate to your country of origin.

Anti-semitism does have a dark history in Iran

Here's a book written that gives the account of how people gathered to watch the torture and execution of Jews in Iranian towns during the Qajar era. They would celebrate the festive event. It was called Jew-slaughter

//fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AC%D9%87%D9%88%D8%AF%DA%A9%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%86

I'll have to write a seperate blog about it. 

Sick News of the day, USA Secretly Supplying China

with its most advanced missile defense technology.  With the accidental interception of 69 Patriot missiles bound for Shanghai, the question is in exchange for what?  If information is the currency of democracy, the USA doesn't even have democracy for itself which it proposes to the rest of the world ironically.

//www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16292244

on the article that gave it all away.

Anti-Semite or Anti-Israeli?????

You see, these two phrases are not the same or interchangeable necessarily.

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

Vildemouse, I guess it's just part of me doesn't want to

believe it could be true. yet seeing how my country acted towards it's own peaceful, progressive and human rights champion in the late Shah it's almost too hard to admit the truth to myself. Personally I have never been Anti-semetic, Anti-Pahlavi or Anti-monarchist as a result of the media's 24/7 work, I wish more were the same.

Vildeouse "even a Jew will become anti semetic with 24/7

Propoganda against the zionist,"

You got a point I have to admit a good one too.  The Main Stream Propaganda does seem to work, whether in Iran, Russia, China, the USA, UK, etc.  First it is about fooling their own people, then they try their best to fool others.  The USA and UK are more intelligent with their propaganda, which they use to follow their agenda's, conceal their agenda's and conceal their past acts.  The sad thing about propaganda is works for many years following its use, if you are on the winning side of using it.  Dictator, Repression, Corruption, the 3 lies propagated by the west against the late Shah, even the Shah and the Royal family would become anti-monarchist by the wests 24/7 propaganda against the pahlavi's. So Sad, but So True. 

Is that a rhetorical

Is that a rhetorical question?? The IRI feeds off of anti-semitism. Even a Jew will become anti-semitic by the 24/7 IRI propaganda against the "zionist" Jooooooooooooooos. 

 Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

It's not enough that faith claims to be the solution to all problems but is now demanded that such a preposterous claim be made im

The Short Answer?

Yes.

And the IR apologists who troll this website are proof.