What's new

Iran after protests...a Changed Iran in videos

I see no direct reference to legality or lack thereof. On the contrary, user Bleek spoke of those governments which allow vectors of western propaganda to operate on their soil, i.e. authorized NGO's.
and MSF work spreading such propaganda
.look at the context of the discussion

1) Even if such "radicals" existed, they would not qualify as a fifth column. A fifth column acts consciously and is aware of the impact of its actions.

2) Reality is not what liberals claim it is.

3) Not every ground reality must be accepted. Some concretely existing things must be actively contained, resisted and fought against for the sake of Islam and the nation. A goal liberals oppose.

4) Liberals do not believe in sharing power with anyone. They want the highly ideological type regime of their choice to rule unchallenged, much like is the case in western regimes. The pretense that liberalism and liberal democracy are axiologically neutral is one of the greatest fallacies and lies in modern politics
and you claim reformist are on payroll
to me anybody who is responsible for weakening iran is a fifth column
Debatable. Firstly Ahmadinejad was not a principlist. Secondly many of his statements directly took aim at some of the pillars of the post-WW2 imperial ruling system.
he was principal of choice , after two ti three year in his second term people began to say he is not a principalist .
and every thing he did or said was giving ammunition to the enemy and was like a stab in unity of the country
 
.
1) NGO's can't really be classified into domestic and foreign ones insofar as they are non-governmental organizations, as their name indicates. At best can one operate a distinction based on the country they're registered in, and the nationality of their personnel and representatives.

2) Yes, NGO's registered abroad are active in Iran and think tanks counseling the USA regime are considering them as a weapon to instrumentalize. This is illustrated by the following document:


3) That being said, the enemy does not need to rely on NGO's registered outside Iran: the liberal fifth column (reformists, moderates) is doing its dirty work already. Including in the NGO department, where hundreds of such organizations staffed by liberals are busy undermining the Leadership's guidelines, working against the Islamic Revolution and advancing the zio-American agenda in Iran.

One example would be the NGO claiming to offer free education to orphaned children, which was caught brainwashing youngsters with the very same sexualized material imposed on nations by UNESCO's Agenda 2030, which Supreme Leader Khamenei (h.a.) had to intervene personally in order to prevent it from being integrated into public school programs by the liberal-majority Majles. There are tons of similar examples. When the enemy has a treasonous fifth column up and running, direct presence of its own institutions is no longer a top priority.



Kind of doubt it, unless you waged jihad on Doctors Without Borders when they set up shop and began operating an inflatable clinic in Iran at the onset of the coronavirus crisis. The principlist government of seyyed Ra'isi chased them away, rightly so.

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.o...oke-approval-msf-coronavirus-treatment-center



There were very little protests, and most took place in middle class neighborhoods.

These were quickly followed by violent riots. Rioters in turn represent a minority among their social class.





Until you familiarize yourself a little more with modern Iranian history, in particular with authors and politicians such as Iraj Mirza, Kasravi, Taqizade, Hedayat, Dashti, Ansari, Fuladvand to name just a few, you'll be deprived of the knowledge enabling adequate commentary on this question.

In Iran there's a minority political current of islamophobic tendency, which is unrelated to the present day education system in the Islamic Republic. This islamophobic current historically was not spawned by the Islamic Republic, nor did it appear as a reaction to the latter's policies.

Indeed, it all began when Naser ed-Din shah of the Qajar dynasty made two fateful and jinxed visits to Europe in 1873 and 1878. The shah fell victim to what patriotic and revolutionary thinkers would later term as westoxification - a form of neo-colonial inferiority complex towards the zionist-dominated west, whereby national culture and civilization including and especially its religious Islamic dimension, are regarded as a factor of backwardness and under-development, and whereby aping the west even superficially is seen as a guarantee of progress and prosperity.

This is distinctly different from, say, the Meiji's conviction that western technology ought to be combined with local values and spirit: the political inferiority complex we're talking about takes aim at and generates shame for anything rooted in domestic social reality.

Thence, it developed along two iterations: one, downright admiration for the west and its secular liberalism; and two, a romanticized reinvention of a distant, pre-Islamic past as the advocated cornerstone of national identity, which, in an oftentimes unavowed manner, adopts the same liberalism and secularism characterizing the former ideology (as a matter of fact, most Iranian ultra-nationalists happen to be liberals on the societal-cultural level, as well as secularists on the political level, even though some of them will denounce the west and its imperialism; likewise, they have no problem with zionism by and large, in contrast to the great majority of Islamically-oriented Iranians, even if some of these nationalists might engage into occasional judeophobic speech).

The toxic western-submissive view first spread to elements within Qajar court notability and aristocracy. Then, western imperialists as well as western-based freemasonry cultivated it amongst Iran's political scene during the so-called Constitutional Revolution of 1906-1910, when the monarchy was brought to accept the creation of the first Iranian parliament. However this revolutionary movement, which was initially marked by strong anti-imperialist and patriotic leanings and was largely led by traditional clerics, came to be hijacked by freemasonry and its agents in Iran. Those same elements were responsible for the dastardly execution of an Islamic and national hero, sheykh Fazlollah Nuri, who had recognized and opposed the hijacking of the Constitutional revolution by secularist liberal freemasons linked to western imperial powers.

From that point on, the two above mentioned political families which emerged during late 19th century / early 20th century modernity, the liberals and ultra-nationalists, both of which are staunchly secularist, gave rise to varying degrees of islamophobia with full support from western imperialists, zionists, freemasons and Haifan Bahai activists.

Traditionally, national / local cultural identity on the one hand and the dominant religion of the land (i.e. Islam) on the other hand were not seen as antinomic in Iran. As long as this was the case, Iranian society was experiencing unparalleled stability and appeasement. Namely under the Safavid, Afsharid and Zand dynasties, as well as the early Qajar period. But as soon as western-seeded ideological currents allergic to Islam set out to challenge the consensus, episodes of tumult followed.

The Iranian context differs starkly from the Indonesian. Any attempt at comparative sociology will have to take into account this background information.

However, there are global tendencies at play as well, brought about by the zio-American imperial monster and its far-reaching tentacles of cultural imperialism. Said tendencies run counter to religiosity including Islamic religiosity and no Islamic nation is spared.



If and when the AKP is replaced by secularists, it will be squarely on the electoral system of democracy. For the latter is supposed to feature political alternation as a key aspect of institutional life. A democracy where one and the same party is elected over and over again with no end in sight, is considered a dysfunctional one, not a true democracy so to say.

Moreover, this notion that Turkish society has become more religious and more conservative as compared to the 1960's-1970's is not a correct one. Many Iranian secularists who're having issues with sharia law hold this belief. Truth is that Turkey under the anti-clerical Atatürk and subsequent decades used to be a more conservative place than it is today. Never have nudity, homosexualism, alcoholism and the like been more widespread than they are now.

This was confirmed by a senior user from Turkey, who set the record straight for Iranian forumers sharing this supposition:

View attachment 910880

The Islamic ruling party in Turkey, and in Indonesia's case the military deep state, are projecting an outwardly image of societal re-Islamization because it's a practical tool of governance and legitimation in periods of political and social transition. Also because it can help contain backlash from the traditional segments of society against the nefarious impact of globalist post-modernity. Under the surface however, the cultural institutions that allow a society to function in the traditional way are unabatedly and gradually being struck one by one as a consequence of these countries' integration into the dominant global order.





Interestingly enough, in terms of development the supposedly "medieval, ideological" government of Iran has trumped the secularist, "non-ideological" (a fallacious notion anyway) regime of the ousted Pahlavi monarchs. Be it in the field of industries, agriculture, infrastructures, R&D and technology, public education (including of women), public health, no matter what aspect one will look at the Islamic Republic's record literally dwarfs that of the secularist former regime of the shah.

In another thread, I composed a comprehensive overview proving the point. I'd advise studying it prior to formulating a counter-factual claim:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iran-player-refuse-to-sing-national-anthem.755139/post-14089084

Since I wrote the above by the way, Iran climbed to rank ten in worldwide automobile production, as well as to rank seven in worldwide steel production.

Generally speaking, why should this be so much of a concern to you? I don't see many Iranians caring about what Chinese authorities do at home.





I wouldn't bother about the user, brother. They'll argue endlessly for the sake of pushing a secularist, liberal and western-exonerating ideology. To this end, they'll go as far as blatantly contradict themself, so long as it serves their talking point at that precise moment depending on the topic at hand.

For instance, when I highlighted how Iran, by seeking inspiration from China's Great Firewall, could improve the filtering of subversive material the internet is literally being flooded with by Iran's existential enemies and their oppositionist footmen, the same user kept suggesting that internet censorship is a useless endeavour doomed to failure because people will end up circumventing it with VPN's and so on. Now they're striking the exact opposite tone, lamenting the effects of filtering because this way, they can try to depict the Islamic Republic as a government that limits free speech in contrast to western regimes.





The second video is from Sohrevardi avenue - not a working class district, it's rather home to upper middle class people.

The first, which claims to be recorded in southern Tehran, has scenes spliced in from shopping malls located in upscale neighborhoods. And interestingly, features numerous very short sequences of a second or less - presumably because its makers cherry picked hejab-less females and were wary of showcasing their minority status.

The third video is from central Tehran, again more of a lower middle class than a pure working class district. But even there we can see how the majority of females are in fact observing hejab.

In actual working class areas, hejabis are more dominant even.

At any rate and as user AuZ observed, what can be seen in these clips isn't a new phenomenon in the sense that it predates recent riots. It was thus not induced by the latter.
If the Pahlavi dynasty had continued to rule, it is probably likely that Iran today would be far wealthier and more advanced scientifically than it is. You’re comparing a snapshot of time to another snapshot of time so it’s not a fair comparison.
 
.
If the Pahlavi dynasty had continued to rule, it is probably likely that Iran today would be far wealthier and more advanced scientifically than it is.

History fiction is an unscientific exercise, which doesn't add much to a discussion.

You’re comparing a snapshot of time to another snapshot of time so it’s not a fair comparison.

By that logic no comparison can be fair because no two moments in time and no two locations in space are exactly identical.

I'm comparing two successive political orders in one and the same country, which is as admissible as it gets. Especially since the conclusion remains the same when factoring in key observable evolutions Iran went through over the considered period of time, as well as all the major environmental variables (international, political, social, demographic, cultural etc) the Iranian government has been operating under.



and you claim reformist are on payroll
to me anybody who is responsible for weakening iran is a fifth column

That's gibberish. Weakening a country by design and doing so unintentionally do not involve the same degree of culpability.

This is beside the fact that revolutionary forces haven't been weakening Iran, Iran actually owes her continued existence to them. They're the ones who've successfully held at bay an existential enemy of global superpower caliber. Whereas liberals are actively working to disarm Iran, to give up the nation's core means of deterrence, to advance the enemy's agendas of "ethno"-linguistic balkanization, social-cultural degeneration and Malthusianist demographic suicide.

he was principal of choice , after two ti three year in his second term people began to say he is not a principalist .

He never was a principlist and represents another political tendency. Principlists supported his election, which is a different matter.

and every thing he did or said was giving ammunition to the enemy and was like a stab in unity of the country

This is like saying, confronting the enemy will give ammunition to the latter - a fallacy liberals resort to in order to have Iran capitulate and transfer her sovereignty to the imperial overlord, as during the toppled monarchy. Not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
.
History fiction is an unscientific discipline, which doesn't add much to a discussion.



By that logic no comparison can be fair because no two moments in time and no two locations in space are exactly identical.

I'm comparing two successive political orders in one and the same country, which is as admissible as it gets. Especially since the conclusion remains the same when factoring in key observable evolutions Iran went through over the considered period of time, as well as all the major environmental variables (international, political, social, demographic, cultural etc) the Iranian government has been operating under.





That's gibberish. Weakening a country out of design and doing so unintentionally, do not involve the same degree of culpability.

This is beside the fact that revolutionary forces haven't been weakening Iran, Iran actually owes her continued existence to them, whilst liberals are actively working to disarm Iran, give up the nation's core means of deterrence and advance the enemy's agenda of "ethno"-linguistic balkanization.



He never was a principlist and represents a different political tendency. Principlists supported his election, which is a different matter.



This is like saying, confronting the enemy will give ammunition to the latter - a typical fallacy liberals resort to in order to have Iran capitulate and transfer her sovereignty to the imperial overlord, as during the toppled monarchy. Not going to happen.
There's no point going back in time but I have no doubt that Iran and its people would be far better served by a secular Republic type of government that employs more realist and less ideological approaches in both its foreign diplomacy and domestic governance.
 
Last edited:
.
There's no point going back in town but I have no doubt that Iran and its people would be far better served by a secular Republic type of government that employs more realist and less ideological approaches in both its foreign diplomacy and domestic governance.

There's no realistic option of that kind, and your assumption runs counter to Iran's actual modern history.

Likewise, the notion that Islamic governance is 'more' ideological in nature than say, liberal western or Chinese-style governance, is misleading. In reality the latter types of systems are every bit as ideological as the former.

Western liberalism for instance has been quite successful at peddling the fallacy that it represents an axiologically neutral way of governing public affairs. Nothing could be farther removed from the truth though, since this is a heavily ideological system with far reaching, deeply subversive anthropological aims (similar to the classic totalitarianisms of the first half of the 20th century, liberalism seeks to transform the very essence of man). These goals however are unavowed to a large extent. I'd invite people not to fall for the carefully elaborated, fake facade of theirs.
 
Last edited:
.
People seem more happy about their social lives and freedom to wear what they want.:

I start in Kish Island....


in Tehran:




In Qeshm Island (Iran's largest island in Persian Gulf"

In Shiraz:

In Persepolis:
A big tight slap on the face of the mullahs.
No reason why those Persian beauties should be covered.
Covering those beauties equates to losing a tourism revenue.
 
. .
we're moving towards creating 2 groups of people, the islamist-ashraf (royality) and 95% proletariat.
They tax workers but prevent soccer players and actors from being taxed because the Islamist upper bourgeoisie does not see workers and teachers as humans, unlike the well dressed nice looking liberal actors and famous soccer players.

Not sure what news sources you've been following lately, but revolutionary authorities in Iran are definitely not on good terms with liberal show business "celebrities", quite the contrary. It shouldn't be too hard to find out how wealthy westernized actors and football players have been acting as dedicated propagandists against the Islamic Republic for the past couple of decades.

Examples are plentiful, but let's confine ourselves to Mahnaz Afshar's decision to rent out her "Twitter" account to the Tavana association, a leading representative of which is on the record for suggesting that Iranians should welcome and celebrate NATO bombs falling on their country in the same way as Kosovars supposedly did. Or take the recent riots, where veteran football players like Ali Karimi and Ali Daei were among the most prominent agitators against the Islamic Republic (the former being in exile, the latter having his jewelry store shut down and seen his relatives prevented from leaving the country).

I'd recommend listening to the following program for an interesting analysis on the subject:


This one's outstanding as well (it features a guest who's especially familiar with the social milieu of Iranian cinema for having frequented it for years):

 
Last edited:
.
There's no point going back in town but I have no doubt that Iran and its people would be far better served by a secular Republic type of government that employs more realist and less ideological approaches in both its foreign diplomacy and domestic governance.
You need to consider Iranian geographic position beside its enemies-allies and its role in the region and beyond economically, politically, geo politicallly, geo strategically, etc. You cannot sacrifice other factors for sake of one factor.

Geographically and geo strategically, Iran is located in a place where it connetcs Indian subcontinent to Europe and also connects Central Asia to African continent and Arab world. This geography is full of natural resources which makes it even more important to colonial powers. Iran controls one of the most important straits in the world and its allies are stretched from central Asia to Bab el Mandab and Mediterraneans. This kind of potential makes Iran and the region center of all battlefields between major powers. In a region like this, the one who owes its power to Foreign powers would be doomed to fail.

Ideologically, Iran has a great place in the hearts of true Muslims, it is the only independent Islamic country which has never bent over to colonial powers, it has resisted with all means and after revolution this public resistance has spreaded into governemental levels. Iranian spirit doesn’t accept ideological hegemony of foreign powers according to British spy Mr. Hempher but only what majority of its people and its allies want, Removal of regional cancer Israel.

Geo politically, Iran has always been center of attentions. Russian Tsar believed without having influence over geo politics of Persian Gulf, you cannot control the world economically and politically. That's why USA had made Pahlavis their gendarme in the region. In fact, it wasn't out of respect for Iranian nation but only for sake of USA's global dominance. If USA remained in Iran, like the case with Bahrain, they would have tried to tear Iranian geography into pieces to destroy these potentials and to eliminate the possibility of rise of Iranian spirit.

If you put all these factors beside each, then you would understand the reason behind forming regional resistance forces in by Iranian leaders. Iranian leaders won't change this regional power/influence and the high potentials with bunch of dollars.
 
.
You need to consider Iranian geographic position beside its enemies-allies and its role in the region and beyond economically, politically, geo politicallly, geo strategically, etc. You cannot sacrifice other factors for sake of one factor.

Geographically and geo strategically, Iran is located in a place where it connetcs Indian subcontinent to Europe and also connects Central Asia to African continent and Arab world. This geography is full of natural resources which makes it even more important to colonial powers. Iran controls one of the most important straits in the world and its allies are stretched from central Asia to Bab el Mandab and Mediterraneans. This kind of potential makes Iran and the region center of all battlefields between major powers. In a region like this, the one who owes its power to Foreign powers would be doomed to fail.

Ideologically, Iran has a great place in the hearts of true Muslims, it is the only independent Islamic country which has never bent over to colonial powers, it has resisted with all means and after revolution this public resistance has spreaded into governemental levels. Iranian spirit doesn’t accept ideological hegemony of foreign powers according to British spy Mr. Hempher but only what majority of its people and its allies want, Removal of regional cancer Israel.

Geo politically, Iran has always been center of attentions. Russian Tsar believed without having influence over geo politics of Persian Gulf, you cannot control the world economically and politically. That's why USA had made Pahlavis their gendarme in the region. In fact, it wasn't out of respect for Iranian nation but only for sake of USA's global dominance. If USA remained in Iran, like the case with Bahrain, they would have tried to tear Iranian geography into pieces to destroy these potentials and to eliminate the possibility of rise of Iranian spirit.

If you put all these factors beside each, then you would understand the reason behind forming regional resistance forces in by Iranian leaders. Iranian leaders won't change this regional power/influence and the high potentials with bunch of dollars.
Iranian sovereignty I totally support.

The Islamist ideology however is not a necessity and it’s a hindrance to Irans true potential.
 
.
The Virtues of wearing "Hijab" must come via "education" not "legislations"...Women should be free to decide..The dinosaurs in this thread that equate a woman's freedom of choice with immorality need to go to Afghanistan for a while ...even better they should immigrate to Afghanistan...:azn::azn:
If you just let the culture goes without any plan then everything would go with it down to nowhere and other would tell your people what wear or think ... I neither like previous status que nor the current one ... but it is somehow typical behavior in Iran we always go extremes.
sometimes education ain't enough .. how many doctors do you know that smoke? that's why we have smoking room or areas which is legislation.
On second part ... do you know her? what you're saying is like what she said.
436324523424۴.jpg.215x307_q100_box-208,10,418,309_crop_detail.jpg



A big tight slap on the face of the mullahs.
No reason why those Persian beauties should be covered.
Covering those beauties equates to losing a tourism revenue.
Do you like tourists come to see your women? for how much?
 
.
If you just let the culture goes without any plan then everything would go with it down to nowhere and other would tell your people what wear or think ... I neither like previous status que nor the current one ... but it is somehow typical behavior in Iran we always go extremes.
sometimes education ain't enough .. how many doctors do you know that smoke? that's why we have smoking room or areas which is legislation.
On second part ... do you know her? what you're saying is like what she said.
View attachment 911070




Do you like tourists come to see your women? for how much?
They will visit for Persian whores,They earn dollar and in the fucks women around the the world. Thats the reality of western tourist.
may be those Islamophobic bitches who have been in anti hijab protest loosing their opportunity for such disgusting service...Like the Philippines and Thais server them.
 
. .
They will visit for Persian whores,They earn dollar and in the fucks women around the the world. Thats the reality of western tourist.
may be those Islamophobic bitches who have been in anti hijab protest loosing their opportunity for such disgusting service...Like the Philippines and Thais server them.
As I said it's up to people to make their choices to what wear as outfit period in addition I added culture is cornerstone of anything and having no plan for that ain't wise .. for sure being covered from head to toe wouldn't turn you to a saint as being bareness wouldn't make you evil neither ... I just wanted to point out that such an important issue i.e. culture needs more attention.
P.s: as I said before you have no right to call anyone by such a title, how dare you to call people whom are demanding their rights about dress law such a thing?

No we are not as attractive as you :lol: Question was about you not us.
There is no question.
 
.
So I was talking to some asian americans (probably of the East Asian or SEA american variety) and they say iranians don't consider themselves asian.

Is this true, for the mainland iranians like @Hack-Hook or @Muhammed45 ?
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom