Braindroppings

These people are freaks created by the reigning conditions in Iran - the Islamic Republic. Their leader is someone who took some money from the pre-reformists to make a movie in Egypt and bailed. He insists on displaying his ignorance and illiteracy through critical readings from the Qoran, which he performs from London, as a part and parcell of the general anti-Arabism that the august Islamic Republicans have caused amongst Iranians. Now he has written a royal constitution sans all Arabic. The problem - as if there was only one - is that they not only attack the mullahs and mullah-lights and their extended blatant and undercover and implicit supporters and cooperators abroad, but also don't even accept Reza Pahlavi as king, partly because he is not Persian enough, and partly because he doesn't give them the attention he would to a dog. The m.f.ing BBC, of course, continuing along the lines that they have followed since their successful and effective role in the overthrow of the House of Pahlavi, and as the number one mouth piece of the Islamic Republicans of Iran on the world stage, continues to provide headlines such as these, thus ridiculing, undermining and implimenting the Pahlavis and all supporters of the Iranian royal tradition. No matter, our elder says, sometimes with the back on the saddle, sometimes the saddle on the back. Things will not remain like this, I can promise the Brits and the Islamic Republicans. But have a jolly time ridiculing Iran and Iranians while you have the chance.

Are these the only ones who are "Iranians" and I am not, because I find what they did ridiculous? I am making fun of "Iran and Iranians"? I don't even know these people and their leader, I just find the whole act, regardless of its political and idealogical background, stupid and ridiculous! The reference, made by mentioning Obelix, was obviously made as a joke! Loosen up Amir!

I thought that Influenza was kind of cute. :) Now, why these folks think that restoring the Monarchy in Iran is a good idea is something that I do not understand.

Khodadad, I never said you are not Iranian. You are more Iranian than all of them together. You are an Iranian citizen. I also find what they did ridiculous, and have no problem with French cartoons either... In the BBC coverage I find lots of symptomatic things. As for David... one has to want to understand something, before one does understand something, and it takes patience and hardwork, and not easy cancelling based on self-evident common sense superimposed on matters hundreds of thousands of miles away, different traditions, cultures, languages, mores... All this takes more than logical positivism... Hope that helps. Khodadad, for a jokey jolly Iranian citizen, you seem to be awfully shorttempered to tell me to losen up... smile and wink and jolly jolly good times...

Amir, some years ago, when I was working on my first college degree, I studied cultural anthropology. Ultimately, I earned a Minor in that subject. Consequently, I do have some understanding of different cultures and traditions. Also, during that period, one of my best friends was an Iranian. Neither of those things makes me an expert on Iran, but I would appreciate it if you would not leap to conclusions about my comments without knowing anything about about my background or what I know or understand. Thanks. Smiles and jollies to you too. :)

Minor in Cultural Anthropology ey? Well, then it all makes sense why you don't "understand" the call for the restoration of monarchy by some "ridiculous" and "crazy" Iranians after 27 years of enduring Islamic "Republican" fascism (Well, except for those who can fit in, also perhaps based on some Anthropological insight, but most likely based on some Realpolitik prior to any emancipation from fear and into a space where one could voice one's opinion)... hm... Yes, yes, thanks for clearing up the matter. Indeed, now that I think of it, I think maybe if I had studied the Anthropos of the Homo Iranikus (as a Minor) I would have come to the same scientifically progressive ideas. And on top of that to actually know a few of the specimens of the Iranians as Anthropos case samples... By God you are right... I am going to convert to a default liberal Bush basher and a latent supporter of the Islamic Republic and all the other "republics" which are so freaking natural and "understandable" in the region... I have been blind, but now I see the light... I think it was your mentioning your expertise in Anthoropology that finally convinced me to play both sides and "understand" Islamic "Republicanism"... Oh yes, thoughts are floating in like butterflies drowned in slow moving brooks... Iran has a much smaller per capita income than it had some 27 years ago, many are crazy and on planes in Europe, many others are crazy and all over the planet, all the misery indexes are sky rocketting, it's all jolly jolly good times... Hiphip Hurrah jolly jolly friends...

Amir! I am sorry to say this, but please be respectful of other people's ideas and watch what you say here. You are free to say what you want, but if you want to argue with someone and specially if you want to make statements such as "that explains why you don't understand...", please do it somewhere else. Also, David said nothing about "stupid" Iranians, that was me. Please do not mix-up what everyone says and use it for attacking them, and particularly, don't do it here!

Amir, I have no interest in trading sarcasms with you. As to my comment regarding the Iranian Monarchy, perhaps I should have been more clear. Some Iranians benefited greatly under the Shah's government, but obviously not all. It seems to me that a true representative democracy would be superior to Monarchy or continued government by Mullahs. I think that I will make this my last word on this particular post. No doubt you will wish to add more of your unproductive ramblings. Have fun.

Khodadad, thanks for your comment. I was typing while you were posting. Catch you later at your next post. :)

You know John Stuart Mill has a whole section about "respect" in his "On Liberty" where he talks about people who censor and censure others while appealing to the concept of "respect". In effect, he says, anything that the establishment does not wish to hear, could - and I would say, would and all the time - fall into this drawer... Watch it, or I'll ban you, respect... Well, with all due respect: Sorry to have disturbed the liberal heaven, carry on boys. Just one note, Khodadad, again, with all due respect an on my knees and following some holly verses to purify the atmosphere... I have not done anything to even warrent a warning... I did not insult David, did not in anyway intend on insulting someone who expresses easy opinions from far away on matters that has meant imprisonment, life, death and exile to me, no, rather, I was trying to bring out the complicated nature of the whole debate that is sometimes so easily solved, or "not understood", in any case written off, and solved, I did and do however think that having a degree in Anthropology and knowing some I-ranians does not qualify one to pass judgement on the Iranian monarchy, as Wittgenstein says, about that which one cannot speak, one must remain silent; but furthermore, David, apart from all empirical data and historical choronology and recent history, on purely theoretical grounds, where orientalists and political scientists - and I am sure also Anthropologists - could also follow the argument, I hold that the constitutional monarchy is the most perfect mold that a representative democracy could assume in Iran, and over an beyond that, presently the most democratic-minded person around, paradoxically perhaps, is the very person of the prince. All this to say that the duality you are trying to create between Iranian monarchy and representative democracy, only works in some limited circles: you have to have some Islamic Republicans mixing with some funky internationalist spring chicken leftists, and then you could propose your argument without any disrespekt, and all on the chairs clapping your derision of the conditions during the Pahlavi era, of which you no doubt would only know through the pre-Islamic Republican discontented ones with the civilization... So, on who was doing well and who wasn't doing well under the Pahlavi (which was not a democracy, but a founding era for many of modern institutions) I would need footnotes.... Again, Respek!!! - if degrees and Iranianness is required, references could also be furnished upon request.

Amir! Asking you to "please take your argument" somewhere else is not censoring or censuring you! I did not say that I will not allow you to write what you want here, I just ASKED you to take it somewhere else. So, again, stop putting words in my mouth (or my hands). Stop pretending like you are the victim of some sort of attempt to ban you from presenting your ideas. I have told you time and again, since you have time to write all of these things that you are writing in my comment's box, I suggest you start your blog, and I will put a link to it here. I have told you in public and private that I am ready to do that. I am not dismissing your ideas, nor do I need to see degrees or proofs of your citizenship. I know you, and I very well believe that your ideas should be expressed as well. Just not in my comments box and not in direct argument with my visitors and friends. Is that such a big thing? When did I delete your comments or ban your IP? What did I do to give the feeling that I am censoring you?

Khodadad, look, you have put up a link to a story by the BBC. I responded to it by agreeing with you on the ridiculousness of what the Iranian "low jackers" did, and also provided some, I thought, relevant info on this particular "crazy" group, and then went on to talk about my reading of the BBC piece, pointing out symptomatic inadequecies and problematics of it. Then David wrote and said he doesn't understand the whole thing about monarchy and I got engaged with him over that, again, completely related to your original post, as these freaks do in fact represent not only those with monarchical thoughts, but also point out the psychotic nature of the post-revolutionary Iranians in exile - I know, not a very large or important group, but nevertheless, and again, completely related to your original post. Then you tell me something like you are Iranian and I am in some way denying that through my post... This is an exchange. If you ration and rationalize me into my own box and keep saying that I should just basically talk to myself and not offend you or your friends by arguing with them ernestly or sarcastically, with a straight face, or out of a frustrated impulse, this seems also problematic to me, because on the one hand your post asks for reactions, but once they come, there is with it this attempt to authorize, authoritorize, control and manipulate everything that does not fit into the bahbah and chahchah. Now, you bloggers, Hossein khane bloggollah your sheikh, and the rest of the world famous reformationist bloggers who used the internet as a medium to compensate for the suffocating atmosphere following the late 90s optimism, at least at some point had some claim on encouraging a sort of "public" space to make up for the fake "republic" that authoritatively weeds out the unwanted and disrespectful and unfit discourse... So, the point I thought was not that everyone have their own weblog and only engage the likeminded and the kosher, but also in the spirit of uni-verse-ity and debate to try to bring about some genuine exchange. So on the censuring issue, again, I feel that despite the courageous stances that you assume against the great satan and the ridiculous monarchists, you fear in a way that my comments will get you in trouble with those who give trouble to your fellow bloggers... and I feel that this is where you keep "asking" me to take my comments elsewhere. This, with all due respect, seems to me like a place I've been before. Sure, you haven't yet kicked me out, but while you do not engage what I write, or debate the very themes that you yourself put up for comment on the world wide web (not in your private purified and uniform circle of friends, but out where everyone can see them) in the interest of saving your friends' delicate constitutions and Others' sacredly dictated tastes and your continuous skirting of the issues, lest you fall out of grace of the respectful ones and not be able to examine the rocks in ShahreRay, what propels me to nevertheless come back is in essence your claim to be following the likes of Fry and others, become an Iranist, a historian, a scholar, a writer. And this, because I know you, like you, respect you, and want you to do well in what you have undertaken which is at the end of the day, also the understanding of what I also call my heritage, forces me to intervene and again and again bring up the need for us, Iranians, us, scholars, us, to move towards a true republic, towards a true public sphere, away from fears that keep us shut up. Because it is all our responsibility. In dreams begin responsibilities and someone who takes on the task of confronting history, tradition, linguistic, culture and heritage, must needs to do more than simply repeat the patterns of limiting spaces and categorizing what's hallal and what's kosher. In any event, despite my heartfelt and existential engagement, I don't mean any disrespect to you, your friends, or your state - well, I do mean disrespect to your state, why the hypocrisy. Anyway, hope what I have written creates some friction somewhere... it is so easy to slide down the surface of things, especially when avoiding the real dangerous unforgivable waves.

The exact matter is that you write with the intent to create friction and confrontation. I, on the other hand, through public and private chats with you, have found out that I genguinly do not share your political point of view. I have also found out that arguing with you in some sense is futile, since you dismiss what others say as useless and call everyone who does not say exactly what you believe, names.

I also have a major difference. I beliebe internet as a whole is a place to express your ideas, but I do not feel the slightest need to argue and confront people about their beliefs. Yes, I belive internet and the blogosphere is a place to create a real republic, but I don't think a republic is where people would argue to death in otder to prove that they are right and others are wrong! I am just fine with me having my own ideas and you having and keeping yours. I would hate a world in which we all believe in the same thing. So, I again do not feel any urge to argue with you or anyone else. Why, you have a certain outlook towards the world that comes from your background, experience, and education, and I have mine that comes from my background and experience and education. We might see the world in different lights, and there is no need to try to prove to the other that we are right. That is the true democracy that I think of, not where everyone thinks the "right" thoughts.

My fears, which I have explained to you in private, have nothing to do with this. I am not engaging in arguments not always because of my fears, but I don't always see the need to, as explained above!

You're free to think however you like and classify me and the rest of the world however you like. Leb wohl!

I call people names like "ridiculous" and "crazy", that maybe, but I don't think anyone could possibly throw the first stone here, well unless there is some authorized connection to the abscent Imam, then I suppose all is good. I don't know exactly where you get the "argue to death," - it appears to me to point to some fear of argumentation in general, otherwise, I think arguing to death, or death as a result of an argument, is not really something common, well, I know some people who got death because of arguing in the Islamic Republic, but again, this seems to me more like a figure of speech exaggerated to extremes, to precisely avoid any argumentation at all, while the name-calling, ridiculing and sarcasm does go on, with or without my decidedly fundemantally unwelcome opinion (no matter what it is, or in relation to any post, or following any theme at all) - but argumentation as such, which is I think you would also agree to be very essential to the "republic" that I believe, as you seem to say, you are also into - although that is also not very clear, and everything has double meanings and is indirect... - argumentation then is being avoided for fear of "death," but I know that I don't kill, and you know that you don't (right?), and you yourself say that the point of argumentation is not to change anyone's perspective or point of view or founding beliefs, but rather to exercise democracy; it may seem redundant, useless, ritualistic without any purpose or decided end; but that's all it is to it: not censuring, not getting insecure because of words, not being thrown into distress because someone that you will never in a million years agree with, find compassion for, also is there, is present, in black and white, is expressing his views, despite the repeated ostercizing, and the seemingly eternal attempt to set down ethical guidelines derived from God or other absolute authorities who do not see any point at all in engaging anyone they disagree with. The argument resulting from all this then seems to be something like separate but equal, take your sh.. elsewhere, I don't want to be contaminated with your insanities and "namecalling". But really: I don't know why you think I want to convert you to my thinking... if that is in fact what you think ... I am well aware that you will never hold my perspective, even if you were comfortable with arguing, which is clearly not the case. But the bottomline is, if you do not want to hear political opinions and argumentations from the ridiculous crazy monarchists on the m.f.ing BBC - same story was reported by many others, but I specifically replied to the link you had given, as not to be irrelevant, thinking naively that if I stick to the theme, then I will be allowed to express my views without the repeated censuring and run in with the entezaamaat - why exactly is it that you bring it up to begin with? To say something that no one then will be allowed to contradict? Do you honestly think that's cool?