تاريخ و دوربين ٣

تاريخ و دوربين ٣
by Khar

الاحضرت همایونی محمد رضا شاه پهلوی وارث تاج و تخت کیانی در حرم امام رضا درحال سجده نماز و شکر گذاری درمقابل خدای ارتجاع سیاه که وی را هم بلعید,  ایا این حوالات وی بود به اینده و ایندگان.... شما چگونه این عکس را میبینید؟


Recently by KharCommentsDate
A Christmas Sermon On Peace
Dec 25, 2010
Davoud Azad - Sanama
Dec 13, 2010
Be the Turkey
Nov 25, 2010
more from Khar
Genghis Khan

زنده باد نظام پادشاهی ایران

Genghis Khan



استبداد مگر  گربه‌ است؟ که "میو"‌هایش تلخ یا شیرین باشد. آیا این
ملت به این اندازه بدبخت شده که هر کم سواد کم اطلاعی برایش نویسنده گی ‌کند؟


If my body dies, let my body die, but do not let my country die.


میوهای تلخ استبداد


Bahram Moshiri on repression (Estebdad) and dictatorship:


There is no statue of limitation 4 murder or accessory 2 murder

by Anonymouse on

Yes it is hard to stop but they just made it bigger and bigger.  Could he have done his accomplishments without being ruthless?  I mean once you put people in prison that should be enough.  Torture doesn't stop people it just gives them another reason to fight for change.

Bottom line for me he was a dictator with bloody hands one way or another.  He may have had more "mercy" than current regime but a dictator is a dictator. 

It is easy for those who were never affected by a dictator "personally" to see the bad in it but once you run into trouble he'll loose all his glamour.  Most of us were young during his reign and not old enough to understand one way or another.  Now we're all Philosphers ;-) What happens when you have too many Philosphers in the kitchen?! 

Everything is sacred


Anonymouse, Once You Start

by Faramarz on

Once you start down the path of torture and detention, it is hard to say when to stop. Also, look at the Iran of the 70’s in the context of the East-West rivalry and the CIA activities, etc.

I never forget an incident on a double-decker bus on a warm spring morning heading to my high school. The bus was packed and uncomfortable. A young man in his early 30’s, probably a school teacher or a government employee started complaining about the situation, saying out loud,” what kind of a country is this.., what kind of a government is this.. this is bad…that is bad..etc.” And before you know it, some guy jumped out of his seat, flashed his Savak card to the driver and told him to stop. He then drag the young guy out of the bus, beat the crap out of him on the sidewalk, threw him into the Joob, and got back on the bus. And we were on our merry way! What a way to start your morning!

Savak introduced the whole concept of “soda bottle into your rectum”, if you recall. There was a joke that the political prisoners preferred Canada Dry bottles to Pepsi bottles, because Canada Dry bottles had a pause in the middle!

Here is an image to start your day!


Farah Rusta

Missing the big picture for a snapshot

by Farah Rusta on

My final word on this selectively chosen and misguiding blog is that the Blogger and Co. have tried and failed to portray an  overall  erroneous image of Mohammad Reza Shah based on a snapshot atogether with a flawed analysis heavily influenced by the personal prejudices of the analyst, meaning, Milani.

The Shah was a deeply spritual person and a mildly religious one. The difference between the spritual and the religious is the difference between say Gandhi and Khomeini. Gandhi while essentially an adherent to Hinduism, sought to establish peace and harmony among Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities and was respected by all three, among members of other faiths. On the other hand, Khomeini was a fanatic follower of his own deviated interpretation of Islam and showed little tolerance and mercy  for the followers of other faiths. 

The Shah had members of other faiths, Zoroasterian, Christian, Jewish and indeed Bahai appointed to key administrative, military and governmental positions. His own personal physician was a prominent member of the Bahai community. Yet, he was the head of state of a Muslim nation and had to observe the required public duties of a Muslim monarch.

In this blog, many contributurs like, Benross, Kaveh, Genghis, Legion, and indeed Darius wrote extensively and elaborated an accurate account of the Shah's personality. But when the Blogger and Co. are determined to push through their own selectively viewed image of the late king, we can't expect to have an informed opinion from them.




Faramarz jaan I meant as a man what made him do it?

by Anonymouse on

You mentioned him as a man and many of the things rang true.  I meant what made him lead Savak torture people? In some foreign interviews he was confronted with it and said it is necessary or something.

Savak was pretty brutal.  Ruthless.  Imagine his reply when they gave him reports such as we pulled all his nails and he is not talking.  We think the next step should be to hacksaw his shins and let his partner watch it and that should work.  Okay do it and let me know the outcome.

Didn't that bother him? He slept like an angel?! No tossing and turning?  To me this whole Savak business showed how ruthless he was but not sure how he felt.  Comparing him to today's basij shows how bad it is but doesn't say what makes them do it.

It may not be easy to understand, for example what does it take for one to become a ruthless dictator like Pol Pot, Pinoche, these African war lords, heck even the bad guys in Scarface!  They're all someone's baby but end up overseeing mass executions and ruthless behavior.

Everything is sacred


As it turned out, SAVAK

by benross on

As it turned out, SAVAK became a huge bully institution completely incapable of doing a real intelligence work. From very reliable source, I heard that the bulk of quality intelligence was coming from a small branch of police forces, called the 'Édaré-yé Aagaahi' (Intelligence Bureau). But SAVAK and Toodé party had a long history of bédé béstaan.


The Shah and the Mullahs...

by Khar on

Maybe this is redundant but thses two videos by Abbas Milani brings out the gist of this bog. He compaires the relations between Reza Shah, Mohammad-Reza Shah, and the religious establishment in Iran.

“Those who cannot remember the past condemned to repeat it” - George Santayana






مرد هزار چهره



It ended up being for self preservation the same way Basij and the intelligent apparatus of the IR is today.

Savak had a guy (magham e amniati or mard e hezar chehreh) coming on TV during prime time and Q/A the political prisoners who have obviously been tortured. His show and Morad Barghi were very popular those days.


Faramarz jaan what do u think made him create & lead Savak?

by Anonymouse on

Everything is sacred


Shah, the Man vs. Shah, the King

by Faramarz on

I hope that one of these days somebody steps forward and write a book about Shah, as a man. I think that the most qualified person to do that is obviously his wife. But she will never do that because she probably wants the history to judge him based on his accomplishments and the contrast to the current fiasco in Iran.

Looking at the late Shah’s life experience, one can only conclude that he was a complex person. In my opinion, having been sent to a boarding school in Switzerland at a young age caused him to lose emotional contact with his fellow Iranians. I don’t think that he had a good read on the culture and the religion. And by fellow Iranians, I am not talking about the well-to-do and educated crowd that frequent this site. Also, two failed marriages must have taken a toll on him.

Based on the chronology of his life, he did not spend a lot of time with his father. His mother, Malakeh Maadar was a religious person and was famous for her religious Sofreh and could have influenced him. The famous passage in his book about the horse back riding incident and how he was saved from falling by the invisible hand of Hazrat Abbas as well as the failed terror attempt on his life all are indicative of his deep religious beliefs.

His relationship with the European monarchies is also very complex. To me, it looks like that he wanted to prove to them that Iran was a lot more advanced that it actually was. That whole 2500-year anniversary celebration and inviting all the kings and queens to come to Iran and stay in tents at Takht-e Jamshhid, and changing Iran’s calendar looked so strange to the majority of Iranians. It just proved that he was living in a bubble. While the European kings and queens praised him and took money from him for all kinds of projects and causes, when he needed a home after he left Iran, they all sent messages that he was not welcome there, not even in the safe haven of Switzerland.

I think we should have a realistic view of the man’s contributions, which are quite a few, and also acknowledge his shortcomings.


۲ چیز این عکس سلطنتیست. یکی‌ سجده با دماغ و دیگری پنجه پا!


Everything is sacred

hamsade ghadimi

dear dk

by hamsade ghadimi on

thanks for the clarification: "you" means my likeminds and not just me. in other words "me" and "people who think like me!" o.k., i guess that makes it better if you say so!

dk, i just don't believe that there are only 2 boxes out there: one that is yours (and other monarchists) and one that is everyone else.  as i said before, i'm not a fan of velayat faghih whether it's with encrusted jewels or a turban.  thanks for using the vf for england's monarchy (similar to the aryamehr concept) and now i can use it to describe your preference without offending you. ;)

i'm a very inclusive person.  i'm for all political factions (definitely more than 2)  participating in the political process in a democratic iran including monarchists.  if they can convince the iranian population on the concept of constitutional monarchy, then so be it.  however, i have a feeling you have something different in mind; hence, dividing everyone into two camps: you're either with consitutional monarchy or YOU're with the ahmadi and company. sounds like one of those refrendum thingies.  and that's where we diverge. 

i do consider you a fanatic but in a positive sense (you're a fan of monarchy and not ashamed of it) except when you resort to posturing as you have done on this thread insinuating that i'm a fan of the so-called republic (iri) repeatedly. don't worry, i'm not going to lose any sleep on this silly name-calling.  that's how we started last year and i thought that you came around, but it seems to be your m.o. when you feel someone is pointing out the eyebrows above your monarch's eyes. :)

when you get a chance, do tell me how the previous vf was "imperfect" or "not without fault." take care.


Dear MM

by divaneh on

No one has said that religion and humanity have anything in common. Saddam is a good parallel example to show that all ME leaders commit the same mistake. Instead of trying to enlighten their people, they try to appeal to the people’s religious feelings, and seem to forget that when it comes to religion, strings are pulled by the clergy.


Dear Kaveh

by divaneh on

I agree with most of the points that you have raised and Benross’s assertion that Shah had no choice but to play with the cards that he was given. You asked where the leftists and nationalists were when clergy had an open field.  Well they were simply in his majesty’s prisons.

The least that Shah could do was to stay true to the constitution and allow further political and press freedom. He deprived people of the democracy for which they had fought and put a halt on the awakening process that had started with the Mashrouteh movement. Clergy was given a free hand to influence all educational channels including the school curriculum that they filled up with religious lies. The punishment for having the wrong book was prison and torture whilst the killers of patriots such as Kasravi were pardoned. He trusted the Akhonds and he was proved wrong. The price for that mistake was dearly paid by a mesmerised nation who was seeking its salvation in the religion.

I must say that after all, I do not see the world as black and white.  I do admire the Shah for his good deeds but I also reserve the right to criticise him for his mistakes. I also don’t think that we can summarise a system in one person. Those who surrounded the Shah had as much share in the right and wrong of that era as the Shah himself. That is all history now and we would be a damn silly nation if we repeat the same mistake again and put one person at the helm, be it Shah, VF, Imam, big brother or any other person who have the arrogance to think that he or she knows the best.

Darius Kadivar

hamsade ghadimi jaan On a more Serious note ...Sort of ...

by Darius Kadivar on

When I say "YOU" I don't Mean "YOU" Per Se But YOU in the generic sense of the word as to your Likeminds.

You are a Republican and therefore belong to another Constituency than mine. I have no problem with that but then accept accountability for Your System of government. This Republic whether Theocratic or Not is Still YOUR Republic. Now the latest convenient argument has been to claim the Revolution was highjacked. And this blog is the Perfect example of this recurrent attitude to escape Personal Accountability and Responsability. Something went Wrong with the Revolution so it's Not Our Fault ... It's Always the neighbours fault if not it's the Shah's. That is Too Easy and a Cheap Shot by Far and an Insult to the intelligence of anyone who experienced this Revolution Firsthand in the past 30 years. That a bloke like Trita Parsi who was hardly 5 years old when he left Iran could come up with such Mumbo Jumbo, I would understand but from You Guys ( because I believe you and K are more or less of my generation 40 upwards) ? 

Begoleh Faransaviha : Mon Oeil:


Well then I can claim that the Monarchy was highjacked after 1953 and I can see this highjacking of the monarchy amongst people in my own camp like the Shahollahis like Sakuee and their Trashy LA TV's. But I don't consider them as Right nor do they represent any official stance of the Constitutional Movement. They do not even represent a Political party but merely a Bazari mentality which can equally be found amongst YOUR Constituency.

 I don't have the same understanding of history nor share their values Yet YOU and YOUR FRIENDS ( aka Jomhurykhah) Equally Attempt of Wanting to reduce our ideas or that of our likeminds to these types of individuals under the generic term : Shahollahi. simply because we present our arguments in favor of a System of government we believe in and which is a Constitutional Monarchy.  Sorry I don't buy this !

We are speaking in terms of confrontational Ideas Not Individualities or personal accountability which is non of my business anyways of whether or not you took part in the vote last year or not ( which I said you are entitled to it one way or another).

The intellectual Confrontation we are having here is again one of two Opposite Visions of Iran each defendable in their own right.

As such I don't share yours all the more that I think you have a very simplistic vision of Constitutionalists in general but that is fine.

The fact remains that since last Summer the Islamic Republic and the Very legitimacy of this Republic and therefore of the Revolution that brought it to power are at Cross roads.

As Such Historically the ideological Choice will ultimately be boiled to two Choices: A Secular Republic or a Constitutional Monarchy.

Whether that choice is made in a year's time or in 10 or 20 years is another debate.

But the democratic system of government which will emerge one way or another cannot escape the judgement of history. So either way no one will come out Clean and Shining unless you want to stop people from writing books on history or commenting on what they draw as conclusions.

If Iran becomes a Constitutional Monarchy nothing will stop historians to take an unbiaised look at the history of the monarchy including from a Republican perspective as is the case for someone like Abbas Milani.

Even in Great Britain there is a Republican Party which continues to criticize the Legitimacy of the Monarchy and the current Heir to the Throne of England:

RESTORATION: Prince Charles, The Meddling Prince (5 Parts)

On the otherhand if Iran becomes a Secular Republic the same will be true for historians who wish to look at things from a Constitutionalist or even a purely Monarchist perspective.

That is why however interesting K's Blog attempt here of looking at History with a Magnifying Glass is yet equally biaised and reductive in that it cannot give a Full picture of that historical reality no more than if I had done the same or do the same with my blogs. Why ? Because there will always be two ends if not more to a story that involves human beings.

Go and explain to her that YOUR Republic is Legitimate ?

BOOK: EVEN AFTER ALL THIS TIME By Afschineh Latifi ( A Memoir )

It won't bring her father back to life will it ?

I would equally have a problem if I have to justify the Monarchy to any victim's family who has lost his life in the name of that system of government I feel is right for my country.

At Least My Queen has made an effort in that direction :


Which one of YOUR President's has done the same to date ?

You guys Boast about being Democratic but are the first to go on your high horse when contradicted.

But if you think I am a fanatic fine !

It won't stop me to sleep at nights !

I am confident that Our King shall Reign Over You on the Long Run anyways ...






a picture is not worth a thousand words

by MM on

Saddam has hundreds of pictures/videos that shows him praying to god.  Is that a proof of his religious commitment? 

We also see IRI officials/Mullahs praying ALL the freaking times.  Is that a proof of the IRI religious elite being human beings? 

It is the deeds that counts.

hamsade ghadimi


by hamsade ghadimi on

i'm glad that you found a point that we can agree on.  i suppose there's nothing better than being the king: to have all the houris without shahadat and all the power without accountability.  it was a great run though, i must admit. btw, did mel brooks make any movie that was bad?  :D

Darius Kadivar

hamsade ghadimi Jan if you say so ...

by Darius Kadivar on

But Trust me ... it's GOOD to be the SHAH :


So Relax No Need for you to lose your sleep and temper over the inevitable outcome in the Post IRI Iran which will send your Republic to the dustbins of History ...



hamsade ghadimi

dk jan, i do say so...

by hamsade ghadimi on

dk, thanks for replying and confirming that a monarchist cannot get into the details of shah's "flaws" or "imperfections" without putting the blame on others.

no need to get dramatic and go back 25 centuries to find fault of all monarchs, the issue at hand is the last one.

you say: "Didn't you all go out and Vote under this System and now shouting out loud "WHERE IS MY VOTE" ? Or "Ahmadinejad is Not My President" ?"

the answer is no and no.  i did participate in many demonstrations in support of iranians living in iran though.  i could appeal to your own logic, when confronted by detractors, and tell you to go and read all of my previous posts.  but i'll make it easier and give you the link to my first blog:


as you can see, i had predicted ahmadi to win by 63% before the "selection" that i thought was rigged beforehand.  i got a lot of flack those days for not believing in the voting process.

if your only choices are de facto velayat fahgih of shah (as you referred to england's queen) or the velayat faghih that currently exists, then you won't have any critics when you claim the first choice is better.  you can keep saying it over and over again and i'll be the first to stand up and clap for you.  however, i think the iranian nation deserves something better than vf whether on the peacock throne or emam zaman's well in ghom. ;O)

Darius Kadivar

hamsade ghadimi Jan if you say so ...

by Darius Kadivar on

You are the one who is trying to convince me of YOUR Republican ideals are Right and My Constitutionalist Ideals are Wrong.

I am accountable for the Monarchy's flaws. I have always clearly stated that the Shah overlooked his Constitutional Prerogatives after 1953. I have also Denounced the SAVAK including in my posts and pictory sections.

And Even Beyond that I have always been accountable for the blood spilled in the name of the Monarchy in the past 25 centuries. But Nations are built on Blood and Sweat of people often innocents but does that make a nation illegitimate for that matter ?

I guess that the answer to that question for each and every nation and generation depends on the historical perspective we choose to adopt in order to draw the conclusions we deemed right.

YOU seem to have found YOURS : Congrats !

I have MINE !

After all the French Republic which serves as a Reference to many democratic States who are Not Constitutional Monarchies also have been built on Blood:

VIRTUE IN TERROR: Maximilien Robespierre and the Reign of Terror (BBC)

Which many French Republicans to this day present as an unfortunate but inevitable collateral damage ...

Well I suppose YOU Have YOUR IDEAL Model of Democratic Philosophy to justify your Republican Ideals.

Well than I have Mine:

RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'

If you think that People Were Right to Throw the King out therefore you Support the fact that IRanians were Right to get rid of the Monarchy.

Fine That is Not My Opinion. What are you going to do about it ?

It's Your Republic Now so Go and Fix it.

Didn't you all go out and Vote under this System and now shouting out loud "WHERE IS MY VOTE" ? Or "Ahmadinejad is Not My President" ?

Well the Velayateh Fagih is NOT My King and this Regime is NOT My Monarchy !

You Fellows rushed to take part in these elections for whatever reason to which You are entitled to so You cannot escape the responsability that this is YOUR REPUBLIC ! 

Respectable IRI Apologists have been defending this Very Republic until only last Year including this Respectable and internationally acclaimed Lady:


But to claim this Fact is deemed as Intolerant coming from a Monarchist but doing the same by a REpublican like You towards the Shah is deemed Objective ?

I claim they were Wrong and I offered my arguments and an ALTERNATIVE Solution to the Mess YOU people created for yourselves and for us 30 years ago.

YOU have a Better Idea than a Restoration ? Be My Guest ... Go Ahead Fix it :




hamsade ghadimi

dk jan

by hamsade ghadimi on

i’m not familiar with sadri bros. and don’t believe they invented the line of logic that shah was also to blame for what has happened to iran.  and i’m sure that you respect portions of milani’s work that agrees with your beliefs and throw other portions into the circular file.  fair enough.  however, in critical thinking, one does not only look for sources to confirm his own beliefs but rather searches for sources that refute his own beliefs and try to resolve them.  you simply dismiss research/assertions that does not fit in your world.

and there you again: “shah was not faultless.”  yes, i’ve heard this before many times that shah was “imperfect.”  let’s hear it: “was it that he was too good?.”  was it that he was surrounded by “moftkhors?”  was it that he didn’t understand the “backward people of iran?”  was it that “he trusted people with bad intentions or bad information?” i know that it’s a mortal sin for a monarchist to admit guilt on behalf of their monarch.  it’s like the line in love story “[being a monarchist] is never having to say you’re sorry.” [insert love story video here]

by the way, it was a good effort on your part to fit me in a box and accuse me by association of your pre-determined box: “you republicans”, “you guys very much like most mossadeghis.”  after you make this assumptions about me, you derive conclusions that i support vf and ahamadi is my president.  please note that bullying and name-calling will not change hearts or minds but effective reasoning does. 

and no “nations cannot be stupid.”  i don’t even know what sense to make out of this.  if the entire iranian nation was stupid, then that includes the shah, you, me, our families, and every other iranian.  no, that does not make sense at all.  unless, you mean anyone who doesn’t think like you is stupid.  and i’m sure that in your opinion “i will never understand” until i agree with you. by the way, not liking monarchy is not a problem in my world and people who think like me, it’s a problem for monarchists. ;)

Darius Kadivar

hamsade ghadimi Jan if you say so ...

by Darius Kadivar on

I am familiar with this scapegoat argument recently submitted to the BBC Persian Journalists for the 30 anniversary of the Shah's Death by one of the Sadri Brothers ( and NIAC Advisors whose Religious Views are a secret to no one and who have been amongst the staunchest IRI Apologists) as their new revisionist theory. I suppose to once again find excuses for their own poor judgment of a Revolution that went wrong. Even Hamid Dabashi the most Staunchest IRI Apologists has been asked to give his "Expert" Opinion on the Shah's Reign ... which makes me smile at best as to the credibility of such scapegoat arguments and know perfectly where they are rooted from and to what purpose: Safeguarding the Republic !

Well I don't Consider YOUR Republic as Legitimate, Never did and Never Will but I understand that my assessment is not shared by you guys or your likeminds who have been against the Monarchy from Day One.

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine !

On the otherhand I Respect Abbas Milani's scholarly work in general and on the Shah on whom I know he is about to publish a well researched biography but I don't share his angle on this question as well as other views he has of the Shah's rule. He also has a Republican Reading of our history which is interesting and defendable in it's own right and no doubt reinforced in his "Republican" Convictions due to the fact that he himself was opposed to the monarchy and imprisoned for it (along with some of the current leaders of the Islamic Republic).

But I simply Don't have that reading of our contemporary history or of the Constitutional Movement in Iran. My views are closer to those of Mashadollah Adjoudani in this regard:

HISTORY FORUM: Mashallah Ajoudani on Intellectuals and the Revolution

Both of whom have slightly different views on the Shah's role prior and in the aftermath of the events of the 1953 Coup:

Coup or Counter Coup ? BBC interview of Parviz Rajji, Mashadollah Adjoudani, and Abbas Milani:


I don't think I was in anyway disrespectful of the people nor did I  claim that the Shah was Faultless ...

But I am a Constitutionalist and a Legitimist !

I believe in the Utility and the Role of the Monarchy in our land and I don't consider that the Crown which embodies our National Identity and Unity is Bargainable no more than our Shiro Khorshid Flag. 

YOU Republicans chose to Dismantle the entire State Apparatus and throw away the entire Constitution drafted by our forefathers which had the democratic ingredients that could have shaped our country into a perfectly democratic State had we been able to Get OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT. Something that Bakhtiar understood early on despite his own opposition to the Shah's reading of the Constitution:

LESSONS IN DEMOCRACY: Shapour Bakhtiar Interview with LA TV (1987)

You Guys very much like most Mossadeghi's ( and most probably even Mossadegh would have turned in his grave had he been alive ) of the National Front from the Forouhars to the Sanjabis instead chose to give it all up for the Religious Theocracy and it's constitution you fell for and now in handsight want to blame the Shah for YOUR Poor Choice ? :

Referandum of 79:


Yes Nations can be Stupid and to acknowledge this is not an insult to their culture, dignity or identity. After all the Germans who gave the World Bethoven, Goethe, Wagner and many many other great men in all fields ranging from Arts to Sciences fell for the most Abject form of Government and Regime the world has ever known and which the President of YOUR Republic hails as a Role Model Today.

Hitler Accession to Power Quite Democratically in 1933 as Chancellor of the Weimar Republic:


Comme on dit en France:

 "a Chacun Sa Merde".

We Have our Share of Responsability in what happened to IRan but YOU have YOURS only YOU NEVER ACCEPTED to take responsability because I suppose the Guilt of accepting this reality is too much of a Heavy Burden on your conscience.

That YOU guys Never Liked the Concept of the Monarchy (Constitutional Or Not) in our Country is YOUR Problem Not Mine ...

I Respect that but I don't share it. 

But then Don't Try and Define something YOU Clearly don't Understand ! ...



hamsade ghadimi

dk jan

by hamsade ghadimi on

no one is panicking with the prospect of vf magically turning into a constitutional monarchy. that statement, in fact, is akin to a juvenile retort: “you’re just jealous.” i think for the sake of reconciliation between different groups of thoughts that are in opposition with the current regime, each group should own up to their mistakes. many monarchists (not all) just blame the stupid/olagh/namak nashnas people of iran. if this is their view of the iranian people, then it’s beyond me why they’re wasting their smart/congenial/grateful breath on them. claiming that the shah was blameless except his extraordinary vision and being surrounded by bad people does not wash (didn’t in the past, won’t now or in the future). if you believe m.r.p. is beyond criticism, then it’s reasonable to think that you also think the same of r.p. and that kind of thought is not acceptable by those who yearn for overthrow of those who currently are beyond criticism.

it is one thing that the darbar used this photo op for their own purposes, it’s another that the monarch and his people unwittingly strengthened the position of clergy which ended up devouring the hand that fed them. that to me, was the intent of this blog.

Darius Kadivar

What this blog expresses is Your Fear of a Restoration ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

Which is bound to happen at some point if the opportunity arises:

Views on intellectuals and religion vy Bijan Abdolkarimi 
  Hence all the Jomhurykhah's panic lately on the Pahlavi's Fortune as expressed by my dear friend  Masoud Kazemzadeh and now by K' Jaan's on the Shah's deemed Religious Mysticism ...
and demands of accountability for their OWN POOR CHOICE 30 years ago:
Khomeiny Hichi :
Have we just discovered that Iran under the Shah was a Muslim Country ? or that the Shah also did a Hajj to Saudi Arabia's Mecca along with Ardeshir Zahedi Iran's Ambassador to the US:
  as all faithfull muslims in our nation have done eversince we became a muslim Shia country some 14 centuries ago ? ... It didn't stop him to change the muslim Calender to the Royal Calender in the mid 70's which triggered many of YOU Jomhurykhah's to criticize him for that !
  Now You have all become Secular Overnight ? ...
  There is absolutely no contradiction in this photo between the pious image any Persian monarch has projected be it prior or after the Arab conquest of Iran and the Notion of Kingship as guardian and protector of the Faith. It is actually the case of All Muslim countries to date from Morroco to Jordan to this day. Which doesn't stop the King Abdullah of Jordan or his Wife Queen Rania to be in tune with the Cyber World or Secular Ideas:
  Or Go on Oprah :

  Prior to Islam Persian Kings were King by Divine Right under the Shadow of Ahura Mazda and after that under the Shadow of Allah. The links between the Monarchy and Religion is nothing new nor surprising. The Queen of England is De Facto a Velayateh Fagih and Chosen by GOD !
However the British System of Government has managed to overlook this well known fact because British Society as a whole has evolved into a secular state:

HISTORY FORUM: How Truly Democratic is The British Monarchy ?
But the institution remains deeply linked to the Religious establishment since it is the BIshop of Canterbury who places the Crown in the Queen or King's Head during the Coronation:
  At least Our Kings would put it on their head themselves !
  In a Constitutional Monarchy if ever restored I believe that the Crown Should be Put on the King or Queen's Head by the Head of the Parliament. That could be an interesting change to underline that his power derives from the People and Not God ! Or simply have the Shah take Oath on the Crown and not put it on during the ceremonies except maybe on the Formal Photos dunno ... But that is another debate which can take place in a free and democratic society at anytime in Parliament in the same way as a debate over whether the Royal family should or not be subject to Taxes as is the case today in Great Britain and even Morroco ...
As for The Religious aspect of the British Monarchy mentioned above it is specific to the British history however because of the fact that since Henry VIII, the British Parted from the Catholic Church and hence created their own with the Monarch as their Pope so to speak. In other European monarchies notably Spain or Northern European Monarchies but Spain in Particular they do not have this problem because they have remained Catholic and the monarch's are traditionally loyal to the Vatican in terms of religious lineage. The government however remains strictly Secular and Religion does not interfere in the affairs of the State.
So in the end it is all about society itself and how it copes with the spiritual and religious realities of their country.
  Religion in our country has always played an important role and to claim that Mossadegh was more Secular than the Shah in this regard is absurd given that he too as any astute politician knew how to play with that reality to satisfy his own objectives.
  As you can see the Clerics were at the forefront of the demonstrations side by side with the Nationalist supporters of Mossadegh against the British during the Oil Crisis of 1953:
So using Religion as a political tool in a highly religious country like Iran was EQUALLY used by the Shah and Mossadegh in their own Right.
Had Reza Shah not been forced to abdicate during WWII probably the secularist tradition which he forcefully imposed on society could have continued like in Neighbouring Turkey under Attaturk. But the Turks unlike us did not see their President forced to resign like our King was forced to abdicate by foreign powers in 1941.
But YOU Republicans are the first to accuse the Pahlavi's of having forced the banning of the Hijab on one hand which was not the case under his son:
  pictory: Girls in Bikini vs Veiled Women on Caspian Sea, Babolsar (1971)
  And then Complain about the Shah's Mysticism or respect of Religious values.
  Before accusing the Shah of having contradictions explain to me How do you Cope with your own Contradictions ?

Sanjabi head of the Iranian National Front say's Khomeiny is the Continuation of Mossadegh:


Well Sorry at some point You Republican's Need to GROW UP and Take Accountability for YOUR OWN Mistakes before demanding the same from Constitutional Monarchists.  

History is Not about GOOD People VS BAD People it's About TRUTH in our COLLECTIVE Behavior and the choices we make individually and collectively Good or Bad which shape a nation's destiny. And that is true whether one is a Secular Republican, Religious Republican. Constitutionalist Monarchist or Orthodox Monarchist. 


Lastly To Quote Queen Rania of Jordan ( very much inspired by our own Shahbanou's endeavors in the arts and social activities for Women Emancipation in her own country) :

"Send me Your Stereotypes and I will Tell You who You Are":



My Humble Opinion,


PS: Oh and it's Not Farah Diba it's Shahbanou Farah Pahlavi for most people eversince she married the Shah and at worst Farah Pahlavi for those who like you are opposed to the monarchy which is your right. Lastly for your information she does not have a Facebook page unlike her Son and issued a warning statement on her official website in this regard for those who claim to speak in her name.

maziar 58

primary education

by maziar 58 on

khar jan your points are well taken in your blog (as to all the social short comings from the Iranians top to bottoms).

keep in mind (Dec,24,1979 ) a well planned and project landed the soviet tanks in KABUL!! a x-mas gift for the americans as the russian suggested it  during Iran's revolt and.........

American advisers keep reassuring the late shah that if he takes their offer the russians will not even look to IRAN knowing USA is behind them and the deal was to let him leave so all the west and east can take all the they want and as long as they can and the rest are what the world is witness to.

I'm hoping that AMERICA is not planning to attack my motherland and tear it to pieces like yugoslavia or the USSR . 



هوچی گری یا نقد تاریخی؟


میلانی دقیقاً توضیح می‌دهد که به چه دلائلی شاه به روحانیون پر و بال داد. وحشت از کمونیسم. به عبارتی وحشت از خود میلانی، یا خود تو و به نحوی خود من. پس ما چطور می‌توانیم این اقدام شاه را محکوم کنیم بدون اینکه استدلال بیاوریم که این وحشت بی‌مورد بوده است؟ بالاخره تمام قضایا به این بر می‌گردد که اگرچپ ایران آزادی داشت، چه بر سر ایران می‌آمد؟ تو نمی توانی حق به جانبانه عکس شاه در حال نماز خواندن را آن بالا بگذاری و انتطار داشته باشی که همگی در مقابت سجده کنند که بله اگر آخوند پر بال نمی‌گرفت، حضرت خر دست وبالش باز می‌بود و اگرچه یک جو اندیشهٔ سالم در ذهن نداشت، ولی چون نیتش خیر بود، همه چیز به خیر و خوشی  تمام می‌شد.

این چیزی است که فرح تلاش داشت به تو تفهیم کند ولی ظاهراً موفق نبود. من یک کامنت نسبتاً مفصل نوشتم، کاوه پارسا هم همنیطور، که هردو به دور از جنجال آفرینی سعی داشتند در چارچوب هدف بلاگ تو نظری مطرح کنند ولی تو همه را نادیده انگاشتی چون هیچکدام به تو سجده نکرده بودند که بله غلط از شاه بود که آخوند را در مقابل تو قرار داد.

اعتبار یک نقد تاریخی از آنجا شروع می‌شود که نقاد همان شیوه را در مورد تاریخ رفتار و پندار دیگران برگزیند که در مورد خودش برگزیده است. تو هنوز با حالتی حق به جانب سعی داری که تقصیرات را جملگی به گردن دیگران بیاندازی. میلانی هم بگونه‌ای غیر مستقیم به همین شیوه به مسأله برخورد کرده است.

تنها زمانی تو می‌توانی استدلال کنی که دست باز گذاشتن آخوندها به ضرر دموکراسی تمام شد این است که بتوانی ثابت کنی در فقدان -نه در فقدان- در کنار آخوندها، دیگران هم اگر آزادی عمل داشتند دموکراسی تقویت می‌شد و به پاشیدگی کشور منجر نمی‌شد. این را چپ، به صرف چپ بودنش در دوران جنگ سرد، نمی‌تواند ثابت کند. چون نفس وجودش به انقلاب کمونیستی منجر می‌شد. تنها استدلالی که می‌توان آورد این است که چه شرایطی می‌توانست وجود داشته باشد که چپ، چپ نباشد. همان عنصر سکولار ترفی‌خواهی باشد که در بطن چپ بودنش نهفته بود. ایران تنها در صورتی می توانست از فضای باز سیاسی برخوردار باشد که چپ چپ نمی‌بود. اگر می‌خواهی نقد تاریخی داشته باشی، بد نیست توجه خود را به این نکته متمرکز کنی که چه اشتباهات تااریخی به این منجر شد که توی چپ گرا می‌توانستی چپ نباشی و درعین حال مطابق نیت قلبی خودت که تمایلات تجددگرایانه، عدالت گرایانه وآزادیخواهانه بود،آزادانه فعالیت سیاسی داشته باشی. 


غلط املایی یا غلط تاریخی


گّل گفتی‌ دوست عزیز، خر. جالب هست که پس از صد ساله استبداد سلطنتی و خلیفتی، پس از صد سال کشتار بهترین جوانان وطن، هنوز هم مقداری از دوستان با سواد و با هوش قادر به یک بحث صادقانه در مورد حقایق تاریخی کشور ما نیستن. همین نا‌ آگهی در باره تاریخ کشور ما بود ۳۱ ساله قبل که آخوند‌‌ها رو به قدرت رساند. نا‌ آگهی سیاسی و تاریخی بزرگ‌ترین دشمن توده هاست. 




خب, در مورد گذشته ٨ ساعت تمام سر و کله زدیم و کامنت پشت کامنت نوشتیم و انرژی مصرف کردیم. حالا یک سوال برای من اینجا پیش امده و ان سوال این است که: ایا ما به عنوان یک ملت یا فرد توانایی این را داریم که به گذشته نظر بیندازیم و از ان دروسی هر چند ابتدایی و اساسی بگیریم؟ و ان دروس ابتدای و اساسی به احتمال زیاد ازادی فکر, فرد و دموکراسی اجتماییست ..... من امیدوام!

درضمن اگر غلط املایی در نوشته بالا بود به بزرگی خودتون ببخشید ;-)

شب همگی شما خوش!

13th Legion

Dear Genghis Khan, "Kingdom of the Khar"

by 13th Legion on

Dear Genghis Khan,

Your breath and energy are way to precious to be waist on a khar and a divane, I see that even spending my time commenting on this blog has been a waste, it is truly for the likes of these know it all idiots that the country is in the state it is…what reason can one make with a khar or a divaneh…you show them day light, they will say its night, you show them white and they will say no its black.

Most importantly what value dose the content posted on the blog and blogger bring to the culture, the country or world? “NOTHING” after all the content and language of the blog is only as good, sharp and effective as the brains and mind of the blogger and a few like minded, a collection of worthless words by a Khar a divane and perhaps an olagh ;)

After all the first sign of dealing with an ignorant “jahel” is that when they cannot reason with you they will start bad mouthing you and calling you names and they can only do this from the security and privacy of the internet, in real life and when confronted eye to eye, well you know the type lol


Let them be happy, jolly and wise in the small world of their mind, the kingdom of the khar, divane and olagh.