Occidental Malakut

It is a fair argument to say that social network websites may not be objective. It is also fair to say that they do not reflect the whole truth. However, things have to be seen in the right context. These networks do not exist in a vacuum. They have turned out to be the only means through which a part of the Iranian population is trying to make its voice heard around the globe.

Yes, we have had an unprecedented turn out for election, for which we must be proud. But a high turn-out in elections is not synonymous with a landslide victory. Is it possible to fake 11 million votes? Yes, if the body in charge of the elections has everything to win in it and has monopoly over all the mechanisms of the voting in the country (which painfully seems to be the case). So, once there is objectivity and there is independent supervision and monitoring, for sure it would be extremely difficult to fake a landslide and hijack 11 million votes. In the absence of independent monitors, it is very much likely to happen, particularly when we have seen the precedents of it very frequently in the past.

Is it people’s ‘duty’ to vote? Or is it their ‘right’ to vote? I think we are now facing a corrupt political literature which is undermining the very basic principles of political literacy and reinventing a fallacious way of dealing with democracy.

Going back to social networks: yes, they should never be our only sources of information, but in the absence of any reliable source and while all ‘different’ media outlets have been systematically silenced (why silenced if we claim to be right?), they can at least be beacons of the desperate attempts of a population which goes unheard and suppressed.

Is it only social networks on the internet? Then how do we explain the chanting of Allah-u Akbar every night on rooftops and in the streets of Tehran and other cities?

I think social networks serve to tell us, more emphatically than ever, “Hey! Something terrible is going on here that they do not want the rest of the world to know about!” This we can say with a degree of confidence.

I completely understand why some of the supporters of Ahmadinejad are so infuriated by the breathing of social networks: it does not allow them to silence just about everything (the same thing goes for BBC Persian TV even if they claim it is not impartial). That is the whole point and that is why they want to discredit and disclaim the entirety of it.

Posted by at 7:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Iranian President has recently said, in one of his typical extraordinary remarks, that during his trip to Iraq 'the enemies had planned to kindnap and assasinate the servant of the nation...'. What a fool would be anyone who would plan to kidnap and assasinate HIM! Man! You are a liability for the entire existence! Who would want you, alive or dead?!

Posted by at 11:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I just accidentally noticed something extraordinary on BBC one. They are showing a TV series called Spooks. The episode I am seeing now is about an Algerian extremist who has escaped home arrest and plotting with local Iranians in the UK to attack US businesses here. So far one could guess almost anything, but moments later you find out that this Algerian is in touch with the Iranian Embassy! There is talk about nuclear achievements of Iran and their involvement in terrorist attacks against the US. Well, so far this is the normal line of propaganda. But then you see the scene at the Embassy (which is obviously supposed to happen in recent year). There are armed guard wearing the Revolutionary Corps Gaurds uniform at the door of the Embassy (an extremely unlikely thing for almost any embassy in the UK). And when you enter the Embassy, you see a lavishly luxurious place, like a palace (what did they think of the Iranian Embassy?). You see men wearing ties and these men are diplomatic digintaries of Iran! You see women at the embassy wearing no veil. A certain lady tears her dress in a murder scene inside the embassy and her bra can be seen, etc. Well, what a drama!

This is full of imagination and lies. I woder why the Iranian Embassy has never criticized the BBC for this stupid theme, particularly at a time when there is this political crisis and controversy about Iran. Anyway, watch Spooks and laugh at it. I always thought the idea of making up such cheap series only comes up in Iran. I never knew that such superficial ideas also appear in the BBC! Well done, BBC! Did they ever think to themselves that if they are Muslim fanatics, they would not have unveild Muslim Iranian women in the embassy. At least they could have paid one visit to the embassy, not to come up with this embarrasment. I thought they would be more mature than this. But for what it's worth, this is just drama, not news or analysis. It is at least good they do not make news based on their drama series.

Posted by at 9:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The controversial visit of Ahmadinejad to the US has been a revealing mirror for what goes on in American politics and the level of degradation of values such as freedom of speech, democracy, human rights and even law itself.

Many Iranians do not agree with their president’s rhetoric. After all, what can they expect from him? They all know what kind of a character he is. Yes, he has been defiant before the Americans and this is exactly what a lot of people, Iranian and non Iranian alike, admire in him. The rest does not matter to those who like him. Those who criticize him do not agree with his extremist opinions. However, what happened in Columbia University was vivid evidence to the fact that politics has degraded the American society to an extent that even the President of the University would just literally lose it and forget his extremely critical role.

Whatever Ahmadinejad is or says cannot be a good enough excuse to address him with such harsh and particularly indecent and impolite words. This was way below the dignity of a university president. And guess what? Ahmadinejad is absolutely right in saying this was no manner of hospitality. This man is ruthlessly correct in what he says. President Bollinger has spoken in a manner which was by no means befitting of the President of such an esteemed and reputable university. It would not be unfair to say that he literally disgraced the University of Columbia. He simply got carried away with all the propaganda and the pressure he was under for inviting the man. If he ever intended to say such discourteous and uncivil words, it would have been a lot better if he did not even invite the man to address people there. What did he mean to do? Make fun of Ahmadinejad? Had he forgotten that the man is not merely an ordinary individual? In that capacity, he was also representing a sovereign state. Forget about the fact that people may not like him in his own country. You should not have forgotten about your own values and the decorum which was indispensable to your office, you were not a politician and you should not have followed the rhetoric of American politicians. I am truly sorry for you, President Bollinger. You just blew one chance you had for showing the world that you can be independent of the political and ideological chaos which surrounds you.

Posted by at 3:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)