Monarchy or Republic?

News, Commentaries & Political Discussions on Iran

Moderators: Club Operations, Web Operations, Political Operations

Postby IPC » Sat Apr 16, 2005 2:22 pm

Dear Members:

Below writing is not the official IPC Operation's opinion, but my own.

First of, Iranians need to learn that the Monarch does not necessarily have to be a King. It can also be a queen. Maybe Iran needs a touch of an empress. E.G.: Azarmidokht and Poorandokht Sassani.

Second, even though, Ali Reza Pahlavi's education is in the fields of music & culture, but at least he has an education and Reza Pahlavi doesn't!

Third, Ali Reza is more strong, more determined, more practical, more educated, more risk taking, more will power, and more powerful character. Reza Pahlavi barely has a character!

Fourth, in general, I believe Monarchy is not practical or logical, because heredity of crown does not make sense. The ruler must be worthy of position by his qualification and not by heredity. Through our history, the starter of each dynasty was a worthy person but afterwards, each monarch was weak & weaker and the final monarch of each dynasty was in general the weakest & most worthless of them all. I believe in Oligarchial or Council of Monarchy to decide on who will be the next Monarch after each monarch's pass away. An elite of most educated, aristocrats, top families and most powerful characters of the nation must form a Council of Monarchy or an Oligarchial system of Government, so after the death of each monarch, they will decide who is the worthiest character to become the next Shahanshah. This is the only way, the future Monarchy will work in Iran, otherwise, Monarchy will have no future in Iran.

E.G.: After Cyrus The Great passed away, the Council of Monarchy & The Elite Aristocrats, Intellectuals, Rulling Familie's, Qualified Governors of Iran formed a council of Monarchy and elected Darius The Great as the Shahanshah. Thats how Achaemenid Dynasty survived and bloomed.

Fifth, Through the history of Iran, at the final days of each dynasty and during the most worthless Shah's reign, the starter of the next dynasty took over the power by force and by overthrow of the old dynasty. The only way to avoid this primitive tradition is to accept the concept of the council of Monarchy and Oligarchical System of Monarchy. Any other form of Monarchy in today's world, is not logical or practical.

Sixth, with Sharyar Shafiq, Azadeh Nikbakht out of the picture *, Ali Reza is the only character who can possibly by a slim chance return Pahlavis monarchy to Iran. If not, then Pahlavis must kiss dreams of reign goodbye. This doesn't mean there is any guarantees. In reality, 26 years ago Monarchy and Pahlavis have been finished and they are yesterday's news and no one believes there is any chance for Monarchy returning to Iran but a slim number of exiled monarchists, but what I am saying is that if there will be any hope for monarchy to return to Iran, will & must be a Revised and Modernized form of a Oligarchial Monarchy custom made for Iran and a new dynasty will be the best suited for this role. Pahlavis only chance to occupy this position will be no one but Ali Reza. Because Farahnaz is a confused and weak Semi Drug Addict, promiscuous woman taking after her Aunt Ashraf, Reza Pahlavi has no character and no will power, besides, he spends much time in bedroom making babies hoping to make a baby boy. Everyone else who had a head on their shoulders, are dead and its down and up to Ali Reza to merge the scene or else Pahlavis can say goodbye to the Persian Crown & let a new dynasty take over!

*: Cat (Old IPC's legendary Web Mistress) used to say: True but ironic, Ashraf's kids were much, and much more gutsy & worthy than Mohamad Reza Pahlavi's useless kids!!!

Catayoun Razmjou
IPC Office
User avatar
Posts: 999
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Nature of Monarchy

Postby Ahreeman X » Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:42 pm

Nature of Monarchy
June 23, 2005


Back to business we go....

Before I start, allow me to state some classifications:

Monarchist (Saltanat Talab) = Absolutist Monarchist
Constitutionalist (Mashrute Khah) = Constitutionalist Monarchist

Even though majority of these Folks claim that they are "Constitutionalists", yet the truth is that majority of these Folks are "Monarchists", too shy to come out in open & reveal their nature.

Why do Monarchists pretend to be Constitutionalists?


a) They must put on a civilized democratic face, as a show, so they can sell themselves to the gullible public.

b) If they come out of the closet in today's world. No one but no one joins their gangs.

c) This has become a tactic, a tactic of duality, to preach democracy, yet in hiding take off the mask & talk about the pre 1979 good old times & the way, they love to take Iran back to those times. Every time they talk about it, they All get erections only by thinking about it!

Their justifications are that the Imperial Regime was heaven compare to the Islamic Republic! I ask them true, but so what? It is like claiming that Disease is Better than Death! Why do you compare the Imperial Regime with Islamic Republic? Why don't you compare the Imperial Regime with a Western Democracy or best put United States of America?

Today's Iranian Monarchists, by majority are "Closet Monarchists". There is a new term for you! Meaning that, they preach Constitutionalism, yet in nature they are Absolutists. When they talk about Reza Shah or Mohamad Reza Shah, they are not only defending the good deeds which they both have done for Iran, but they are defending the nature of "Absolutist Monarchy". Their agenda is to clearly take Iran back to 1979, so that once more, they can Rule Iran & Shut everyone else up. They have no intention of granting Democracy to the masses of Iran.

By majority, almost all Iranian Monarchists are Absolutist Monarchists or put simple, they are what I call Monarchists or "Closet Monarchists". They are Totalitarian Gangsters.

By minority, a slim percentage of Iranian Monarchists are truly "Constitutionalist Monarchists" or as we call them "Constitutionalists". These are truly Democratic Elements who believe in True Constitutionalist Revolution of Iran, Sattar Khan, Baqer Khan, and the very young "Constitutionalist Monarchy of Iran" who only lived a few years @ the ending period of Qajar Dynasty.

Monarchists were in control before Ahmad Shah. Their most massive erections were during Mozafaredin Shah. Once again, they pushed & forced Reza Khan to become a Monarch & to forget his plans to create the Republic of Iran. In a way, these Monarchist Dictators, created a New dictator for Iran & created a new Dynasty to once again opress the masses of Iran. Monarchists stole the Constitutionalism from the masses of Iran. They trashed the Constitutionalist Revolution of Iran. They once again erected a new Dynasty, new Dictators, new Absolutists & they ruled Iran by Iron Claws!

In a way, Feudals, Aristocrats & Monarchists, guaranteed themselves to rule Iran as a Elite Social Class under the power of the Monarch. Iran was extremely close to finally find salvation by the hands of a Superman named Reza Khan as the first president of Iran; however, these little Dictator Erectors, managed to steal the "Constitutional Revolution" of Iran, & technically, dismantle the legal Constitutional Monarchy of Qajar via a coup. To Erect Reza Khan as a Neo Dictator & Pahlavi as yet another Absolutist dynasty of Iran, added to 8000 years of Suffocation in history of Iran!

Today, they preach "Constitutionalism", but the reality is that they are "Monarchists" & lovers of Dictatorship. A slim minority of them are "Constitutionalists". Those are the people & Activists which we can work with them because they are believers of Democracy.

Rest of these folks are indeed Gangsters, Gang Leaders, Gang Members, Criminals, Murderers, Dictator Lovers, & Dictator Erectors. The perfect example is a Buffoon named Fouladvand.


Let me ask something from you: do you honestly in a million years, believe that if people like Aryo Pirouznia, or in that manner, almost every single Monarchist Opposition Leader, by a slim chance, manages to take over Iran & establish a Monarchy in Iran, then they will grant Democracy to the masses?!

These Folks cannot even tolerate a single voice of opposition to their ideology in their little silly cyber space forums, then how do you assume, once they rule Iran, they will allow Referendums, free elections & a Multi Party system in Iran & to the people of Iran?

The perfect example was Alahazrat! In his final years, instead of opening up the Political Breathing Space, he closed down all political parties of Iran & created the "Rastakhiz" Party as a sole political party of Iran! Basically he turned Iran into a Fascist Regime! Or as he used to call it, "Iran is a Social Imperial Regime"! Once he had issues with American's, he started buying Russian Migs & equipment. He openly stated that Iran in its economical nature is a Socialist Regime but an Imperial system is the roots of her foundation. I never forget that he openly came out & in an interview stated that:

"Iran is a Social Imperial Nation" a combo of Socialism plus Monarchism! That was Shah's latest creation before the 1979! Eventually all Shah's mistakes & all Monarchists' mistakes led to 1979. But afterwards, they absolutely denied any responsibility in this matter!

As a typical conspiracy theorist, blame shifting Petty Dictators, Monarchists started to blame every single factor, from Great Britain, United States, Queen Elizabeth, MI6, MI5, CIA, Mullahs, Islamists, Communists, Socialists, Marxist Islamists, Arabs, all the way to Martians for the disaster of 1979! It was like Monarchists & Alahazrat were only simple victims to greater forces! No responsibility whatsoever!

Every petty Ex Imperial General who sold Iran to Khomeini, became a Super Hero, every Ex Imperial Statesman who cowardly ran away from Iran, became a Vajih ol Melleh Nationalist & Shah became an innocent Saint who the whole globe, plotted against him! Thats the Monarchist version of 1979! Shah fled Iran like a coward, instead of standing his ground & fight, but Monarchists portray him as a Humanitarian who did not want bloodshed! Then how come thousands of political prisoners were in Pahlavi jails? How come Shah never jailed any Mullah? How come Shah never killed any Mullah? How come Imperial Jails were full of Leftists & Free Thinkers but not a single Muslim? Because Shah in his nature was a superstitious Muslim with no respect for Secularism, thats why! @ least I have the guts to say it in open!

I grew up in an Elite Ruling Family, Aristocratic Social class, Imperial Courthouse & Cabinet, but unlike these Monarchists, I do not shovel the Shiite under the Persian Rug! I do not put Shiite on Shingle & Goh-Mali the History to create Saints out of Imperial characters! Unlike these Hee_Row Worshippers, I do not create a website dedicated to My Father because he was a Cabinet Minister & I do not worship my Father & create a Hero out of him because he was a Imperial General who handed Iran to Khomeini or an Imperial Statesman who cowardly fled Iran! I, as a Historian, have a duty to tell the true history of Iran to the next generation.

You see my point? The beautiful harmonization & coalition of Hezbollahis & Shahollahis! But suddenly Hezboz got rid of the Shahoz & determined to rule by themselves!

Monarchy's Nature

Monarchy in it's nature is Reactionary, Oppressive & Dictatorial. As I mentioned before, the only reason that some of the today's Monarchies in Europe are civilized, is because the masses have forced them into submission due to Enlightenment, Industrial Revolutions, & Reforms. Or else, they would have still controled people like ants & dirt.

Monarchists call me a Commie!

Now that's a great load, isn't it? I am a Hard-Core GOP, American Republican Party Activist. I am a Right Wing Republican, as Right Wing as they come! My political views on Iran & the globe is absolutely conservative right wing beliefs, but according to these Brain Drained Monarchists, I am a Commie! Sometimes they call me a Mojahed or a Socialist! You see, anyone who is not their kind, must be a Leftist! They are such Reactionary Fools, stuck in 1979, stuck in Mid Evil Ages where Monarchy still rules, that any sane person with a clear vision of today's world must be a Tudehi, Leftist, or a Red Commie!

They give a new name to pathological psychotic behavior! Do you know what's funny? @ the same time, Jebhei Liberals call me Monarchist, Fascist & Nazi! Hell, it seems like I just can't win! Us Iranians just call people names as it suits us! We are great with name callings!

Chances of Dialogue

Over & over I have asked to have a dialogue with these folks! They simply cowarded out of it! Why? Because they know that I will crucify them! I am pure Logic & they are pure Backwarded Reactionary Opressive illogic! Look @ their leaders:

Fouladvand, has nothing to cling on except going back 1400 years to pre Islamic era! He has no solution for problems of Iran! He knows nothing about Economics, Sociology, Psychology, & Philosophy. These days, every bozo carries a title of Doctor or Engineer before his name! This psycho killer knows how to destroy but when it comes to building, he has no clue! He is living in the glory of the past. Anything to offer for glory of future? I guess not!

Reza Pahlavi, a pacifist soft spoken, mellow jello, who can't bare to get out of his kitchen! An absolute No Risk Taker with null degree of Active Resistance, Education, Economy, or charisma! The man has failed over & over to actually make a single move towards a solid Change or Establishment of a United Front. He failed to even support the true patriots who wanted to make a coup in the 80s!

Dariush Homayoun, Oh Lord, I do not even want to go there! Does Hypocrite, Desk Baller (plays with his balls, behind his office desk, all day long!), Wanna Be, Opportunist comes to mind?! So bloody fake! Mr. Homayoun's passion is Manqal o Vafur!

Forget the rest, they are too irrelevant to even name! How can they actually sit & have a major philosophical, economical, political, social & fundamental debate with me? They do not have the knowledge, education, will or even motivation to go head to head! How can they face the logic? They have actually nothing to say! So they refuse to debate. They are a group of Reactionary Monarchists in Disguise of Constituionalism! In Fouladvand's case, he is a psychopathic sociopath. He is criminaly insane belonging to Archam Asylum with others like Joker, Penguin, Scarecrow & Two Face! The man is totaly out of it & he lost his marbles long ago!

Over & over I have invited these Great Monarchists to a debate. They All backed out, cowarded out & escaped the debate & discussion. What can they say? What can they offer? Passive Aggressive Behavior, Gang Mentality & Oppresive Reactionary solutions to return Iran a few decades or a few millenniums back into the history! Thats All!

Yes my friends, Monarchy in its nature is Reactionary, Oppressive & wanting to cling to Old Ancient Values & go back in History! Why? Because they have nothing to offer! They are not about New, Freedom, Science or Tomorrow! They are about Old, Control, Superstition & Yesterday!

There is no sense wasting logic on these folks. Personally I only consort with the Constitutionalists which are the most Pragmatic, sane & revolutionary faction of these people. The rest are Monarchists, totally out of touch with today's world.

Now when I talk sane, I am not talking about Gang Leaders such as Fouladvand.

Now Pirouznia is another story. He could be useful to some point, he is a activist & he can be helpful, but unfortunatly, he, also has a few outrageous characteristics:

a) He is creating the news out of his Rectum rather than reporting the news; therefore, he is no Journalist.

b) He is a rowdy, aggressive, bully who always loves to push people around & into submission to his own Monarchist agenda! The man is almost a midget but in his deranged mind, he believes he is Samson!

Have you noticed all of these guys such as Fouladvand, Pirouznia or other Monarchist Feeders & Leaders are almost all Short, Bald or Semi Bald, Glasses, Weak in Logical Argumentation but strong in Shouting, & almost all of them refuse to allow any opposing voice to their own agenda to be heard?!

These are the people who want to build the Iran of Tomorrow! Now the question is what kind of tomorrow? Another Dictatorship for a specific Social Class only! Kind of going back to 1979 AD or 651 AD to be ruled by a marginal social class, where They would rule & others would Shut the hell up or leave Iran. Isn't that what Alahazrat openly stated? "Join Rastakhiz Party, work for your Shah & Nation, or the doors are open, you can always leave!"

So this is the solution that Monarchists will put in front of you! Love Monarchy or leave Iran. But today, they are too shy to say it in this manner! Why you ask? Because they do not have the power yet! But once they take over the power, they will cling to it like glue, political parties will be banned, & then their way or high way! Look carefully, isn't that what Fouladvand is already doing in his TV, Pirouznia is already doing in his Forum, Homayoun is already doing by his opportunism & RP is already doing by his refusal to debate with me?! Thats Monarchy for you, alive & in action!

You can shut some of the people, some of the times,
You can shut some of the people, all of the times,
You can shut all of the people, some of the times,
But you can never shut all of the people, all of the times!

Democracy is the only solution before things get out of control & explode, such as they did on 1979 & they will eventually explode once more in the upcoming years!

Do you recall, in the height of IPC with over 1000 members, Roya Factioned out? Roya & her group factioned out because Roya was a Monarchist & she took a great number of members out of IPC. Roya Factioned out because she did not believe in the rights of the members of Jebhe Meli, & other groups of so called (Opportunists or Whores of the Opposition) to speak freely in IPC. I am not keen on the four opportunist groups (Jebhe Meli, Hezbe Tudeh, Fedaiyane Aksariyat & Nehzate Azadi Iran), but I would give my life to protect their rights on Freedom of Speech to talk freely in IPC.

Let me ask you a question: If we do not allow "All" to speak freely in IPC (even Hezbollah), then what would be the difference between us & likes of Fouladvand or Pirouznia?

I predict that this will happen again & more Monarchists will faction out of IPC. It is not because I reject them. My arms are always open to All, yet its because their Reactionary nature cannot grasp our fundamentals! What are our fundamentals?

Our Fundamentals

Allow me to remind you, incase you have forgotten:

Iran Politics Club supports the fight to establish Freedom,
Secularism, Federalism, Human Rights and Democracy in Iran.

Freedom means Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly, etc. for All.

Secularism means Separation of Religion & State for All Ideologies.

Federalism means the belief in Internal Autonomy for All States & Minorities to govern themselves & only obey the Central Government on military, national security & international political issues.

Human Rights means All have rights, as equal human beings, despite their race, religion, ideology & ethnicity.

Democracy means government of people by the people & for the people.

We started this place by believing in Freedom, Secularism, Federalism, Human Rights and Democracy. Unfortunately not all of us believe in these fundamentals.

Certain groups, such as Monarchists do not believe in Freedom cause they openly trash Freedom of Speech. They do not believe in Secularism because they openly plan to create an Imperial Regime with Shiite Islam as the national official religion or they want to shove Zoroastrianism up people's throats! They do not believe in Federalism because they believe in Central government control to rule over states & minorities. They don't even believe in many minorities such as Arab Iranians or Jewish Iranians to be Iranian Citizens, set aside to have rights! They do not believe in Human Rights because they are openly agree that the Ends justifies the Means, so they can sacrifice thousands of innocent civilians to achieve control! And they definitly do not believe in Democracy. They either openly dispute Democracy & believe in government of a specific social class or group, or they are "Closet Monarchists" & they are reluctant to reveal their true face!

These are our fundamentals & we believe in them. Guests may come & preach as they want. We respect their rights to Freedom of Speech in IPC, but that does not mean that we will change our Fundamentals which this place was built upon them:

Iran Politics Club supports the fight to establish Freedom,
Secularism, Federalism, Human Rights and Democracy in Iran.

And that's All.

We shall continue working with Constitutionalists, thus they are the only sane people & democratic people amongst these Gangs of scattered petty Dictators called the "Monarchists". I rest my case.

What say you?


Someone with a Vision of Tomorrow in mind!

Dr. X
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby IPC » Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:56 am

Ms. Parvin Darabi's Response:

Subject: Re: Nature of Monarchy!
Date: 6/24/2005 11:49:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
From: homa@......

Dear Dr. X,

I read your article, nature of monarchy and although I agree with most of your statements I do not support your views totally. I consider myself a liberal democrat because almost all human progress was made through open minds. Right wing, conservative, republicans in America have closed minds and nurture closed minds. The ideologies such as separation of church and state, human rights, equality, labor laws, public education, freedom, liberty are all results of progressive liberals activity. Just look around you today in the United States, the country is going backward and many of the Republicans are advocating the merging of church and state. They want to make this country a Christian nation.
My second issue is that you have trashed many of the monarchists however you use "Dr. X" as your name? Not an Iranian name. How can you expect people to want to debate you if you hide your identity under Dr. X?

I believe that two forces of Saltanat and Rohaniat have worked together for centuries and kept Iranians in dark ages. However, 26 years ago Iran lost Monarchy and give it some time it will drop theocracy on their own.
As an Iranian woman I also do not have any respect for the Iranian Constitutional Monarchy's constitution where only a Muslim man can become the Shah and ruler of Iran. Such an undemocratic statement? Also the fact that the Iranian Senate with 60 members, 30 chosen by the population and 30 appointed by the Shah. That meant one man right, the Shah's was equal to the entire population of Iran.
I also agree with you that Shah was a religious man and so is his son. Otherwise they would not read Koran every year when they go to Egypt on their yearly memorials?

Parvin Darabi
Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds (English)
Pendare Nik, Goftare Nik, Kerdare Nik (Modern Persian)
Humata, Hukhta, Hvarshta (Avestan Persian)
User avatar
Posts: 999
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Postby IPC » Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:03 pm

Response from Catayoun Razmjou (IPC WebMistress)
to Ms. Parvin Darabi (Women's Right Advocate)

Dear Ms. Parvin Darabi:

Thank you for your response. Dr. X is once more, not available, so I take the initiation to reply to you.

"Dear Dr. X,
I read your article, nature of monarchy and although I agree with most of your statements I do not support your views totally. I consider myself a liberal democrat because almost all human progress was made through open minds. Right wing, conservative, republicans in America have closed minds and nurture closed minds. The ideologies such as separation of church and state, human rights, equality, labor laws, public education, freedom, liberty are all results of progressive liberals activity. Just look around you today in the United States, the country is going backward and many of the Republicans are advocating the merging of church and state. They want to make this country a Christian nation. "

Dear Parvin, I am sure of a few facts.

1. Dr. X has strong convictions about GOP. He is an old GOP Activist.

2. Once the new Website starts its operation (hopefully soon), we have a list of the highly intelligent Iranian personalities which we are planning to interview. I believe you are on the list.

3. Aside from the interview, In the future, there is no reason that you & Dr. X cannot participate in an official net debate. I am sure he doesn't have time to attend to it now but he will be glad to attend to it sometime in the future. In this debate, you can bring up the issue of Liberal Democrats vs GOP. I am sure it would be a great debate.

"My second issue is that you have trashed many of the monarchists however you use "Dr. X" as your name? Not an Iranian name. How can you expect people to want to debate you if you hide your identity under Dr. X?"

A good question comes to mind, would you prefer that:

a. We have a Dr. X, alive, as the Founder of IPC to continue what he is doing?
b. Would you prefer for Dr. X to get assassinated, so there will be no Dr. X anymore?

If your answer is b, then case closed, but if your answer is a, then you must understand every relevant person in Iranian Opposition has been assassinated including our Master & Dr. X's Mentor, Dr. Kourosh Aryamanesh. The time is not right for Dr. X to reveal his identity. Lets suppose that tomorrow, Dr. X decides to go public with his identity, but we will for sure forbid him to do that, I would for sure not "allow" him to do so. His life does not belong to himself anymore, but it belongs to IPC, Opposition and Iran. "We" will decide, when the time is right. There will be a time & that time is not now.

My recommendation to you is to listen to his message & reply to his message. Does it really matter if this message comes out of Dr. X or Dr. Y or Iraj Mirza? The name behind the person is not important, what comes out of his mouth is important.

"I believe that two forces of Saltanat and Rohaniat have worked together for centuries and kept Iranians in dark ages. However, 26 years ago Iran lost Monarchy and give it some time it will drop theocracy on their own."

This statement (on their own), sounds as you are against Foreign Help (mostly USA) to achieve the end to theocracy in Iran. I know for sure, Dr. X disagrees with you and it would be nice to observe the two of you debate on it.

"As an Iranian woman I also do not have any respect for the Iranian Constitutional Monarchy's constitution where only a Muslim man can become the Shah and ruler of Iran. Such an undemocratic statement? Also the fact that the Iranian Senate with 60 members, 30 chosen by the population and 30 appointed by the Shah. That meant one man right, the Shah's was equal to the entire population of Iran."

As an Iranian woman, I agree with both statements above. When Dr. X talks about "Constitutionalism", he is not particularly talking about The Constitutional Monarchy's Constitution, used before 1979. I believe he is talking about the Fundamental & Nature of the Constitutional Monarchy. Constituions can change, but we have members who believe in the Constitutionalism & they are constitutionalists. They believe in the nature of Constitutionalism & not particularly, the Constition of 1909 or 1925. These members are Democratic in nature.

"I also agree with you that Shah was a religious man and so is his son. Otherwise they would not read Koran every year when they go to Egypt on their yearly memorials?"

I agree with you. This is a fact.

"Parvin Darabi"

When putting your URL under your signature, write it as:

So it will work (in all the E-mail formats) when clicking on it. In today's sophisticated Internet connecting protocols, networks, browsers & systems, "http://" is a must for a URL to link but "www" is not a must for a URL to link.

Ms. Parvin Darabi, as you are aware, we have so much respect for you & what you do. Dr. X feels the same way. We recieve a great number of E-mails. A good number are his E-mails. When he is out of town or out of country or not available, we take the liberty to reply to all of his mail which needs to be replied. With your permission, this dialogue will be published in the Club. We feel, it is beneficial for the public to view these points of wiews.

Catayoun Razmjou
IPC WebMistress
IPC Office
Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds (English)
Pendare Nik, Goftare Nik, Kerdare Nik (Modern Persian)
Humata, Hukhta, Hvarshta (Avestan Persian)
User avatar
Posts: 999
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Do As You Preach!

Postby Ahreeman X » Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:47 pm

Do As You Preach!
The Challenge
November 15, 2005


Before I begin, please allow me to once again state here that Monarchy or Republic is not the case, but Democracy or Tyranny is the case!

Harsh but true, hard to do, but for once and for all, I shall make this issue clear for "All".

What I am about to write may:

a) Primarily sound silly to you, but if you think about it & ponder a bit, then it will make sense & it will sound much logical.

b) It might hurt the sensitive feelings of my Monarchist Comrades who live in USA or any other Republic! But hey, you read my words because I speak my mind. That's why you read my writings! If I do not speak my mind, then you will not bother reading it; therefore, you would not continue trusting to read my line of reasoning. So allow me to speak my mind. Read it & it will make sense to you because it is logical!

Do As You Preach

Do as you preach! What do I mean by it? Let me give you a manual & a statement:

One must do as he preaches. If you are a Monarchist & preach Monarchy, then the first thing to do is for you to live in a Monarchy. Do as you preach. If monarchy works & it is functional, then you must live in it.

I have political respect for those who do as they preach. I have political respect for true believers, no matter what their ideology may be! No matter if they are Monarchist, Communist, Socialist, Republican, Mojahed, etc. Do as you preach & the primary element is for you to move & live in a society, where you preach about! The secondary step is live as you preach, but that is another discussion!

Now, I am not talking about "Non Political Activists". If you are not an activist, but you believe in whatever that you believe, then its fine, you can live wherever you want. You can be a Monarchist, Marxist or Islamist & live wherever you want. But:

"If you are a political activist; furthermore, a political leader, then you must do as you preach. The primary action to take, is for you to live in a society which you preach for others."

You might say that after 1979, you just had to get out of Dodge! So you went to any country which given you a visa! It is by accident that you live wherever which you may live! But friends, that was 1979. Today it is 2005. You are living, wherever you may live, by choice. If not so, then move!

The Hypocrisy

Monarchist Opposition Leaders, Media Lords & Political Activists, who live in a Republic, are hypocrites. It also goes for Marxists, Republicans & others.

If you are an activist Monarchist, then move & live in United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden, Holland, Japan, Belgium, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirate, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan, Thailand, Malaysia, or wherever there is a established Monarchy in charge.

If you are a Marxist Activist, then move & live in Cuba, North Korea, China (if you call that a Marxist Regime), Vietnam, etc.

Same goes for Islamists, move to Islamic Republic of Iran or etc.

It goes for All.

My Monarchist Friends

I have many Monarchist friends, activists & associates.

I have political respect for those Monarchists who live in a Monarchy. Fouladvand maybe a paranoid schizophrenic who believes MI6, MI5, The Whole British Intelligence & even Queen Elizabeth is after his Shambool, yet I have to give him credit. He does as he preaches. The man lives in England, a monarchy. It goes for Mesbahzadeh (Kayhan of London). Even though, he creates the news out of his rectum, if still alive, he lives in London & does as he preaches! I respect that! Amongst my comrades, there are many, for instance lets take a look @ operations, Liberator does as he preaches. He lives in a monarchy (Sweden) & preaches monarchy. I respect him because he is not a hypocrite & he truly believes in what he believes.

If you are a Monarchist yet you do not live in a monarchy, I maybe respect you as a good human being for your good heart, but how can I respect you politically, if you do not do as you preach?

Reza Pahlavi is a good person, a fellow opposition member & a decent man, but if you preach monarchy, then do as you say, will you? A Mansion in Maryland is not exactly Monarchist land, is it?

United States of America is not just another republic, yet it is the heart of "All" Republics. It is the symbol of Republic, the true meaning & definition of the Republic. It is the most unique form of Democratic Republic, a Federal Republic in the world. France, Germany & Italy are republics. If you are a monarchist leader, an activist, a media lord, a .............. Why do you live in a republic? You are contradicting yourselves. You are hypocrites. Your actions have conflict with your beliefs! If you do not do as you preach, then how can the masses do as you preach?

Monarchist Opposition Leaders, Media Lords & Activists, who live in United States of America, need to come out clean, with themselves & with the public. Do as you preach or you will look & sound like yet another:

Desk-Baller (definition: One who sits behind a large size desk, on his leather office chair & plays with balls, all day long, yet preaches resistance, struggle & action for others inside & outside Iran!) Think about it, will you?

A typical desk-baller hypocrite bureaucrat, that's what you are.

Reza Pahlavi, Aryo Pirouznia, Monarchist Garage based Satellite Television owners of Los Angeles, Up_Position leaders of LA, Media lords of LA, Ragazine & Rag Paper owners of LA, Cheesy Tabloid Website owners of LA, & other Monarchists located in USA, do as you preach & for Allah's sake move out of here & on to UK or other Monarchies, will you?

Daryoush Homayoun, my favorite monarchist leader! I like him, he is an old timer, he paid his dues to Iranian politics. An old Coup Conspirator (Kudetachi)! But since his SUMKA days where he got his ankle blown up, 28 mordad coup days & then Exile days (after 79) he been moving around so much! By the way, where is Daryoush? US, UK, Paris, where? I don't know, last I seen him, he was limping around between States & Europe! Where is he? So I cannot judge the man, he could be living in Paris these days! I am only kidding; I like Daryoush, as I have said, he paid his dues to Iranian politics.

So basically my word is with you Monarchist Activists, who live in States or other republics. I cannot include Canada, Australia, New Zealand & other Neo British Colonies as Republics! Canada is a constitutional monarchy that is also a parliamentary democracy and a federation. So they still have a governor & a Prime Minister! Monarchists, who live in Canada, can take a breath, clean up the sweat off their foreheads & relax, because they are living in a Monarchy! I can see the whole IIRF & our buddy IIRF Rep are exhaling: Shooooooooo............, that was a close one! Relax friends, technically you still live in a Monarchy, so you are not hypocrites!

But my word is with you Monarchists who live specifically in USA, the greatest symbol of "Republic" in the globe! Why are you here? By all means get out! How can you live here & then bash republics? Bunch of hypocrites, that's what you are! Why don't you move out? I tell you why you don't move out! You do not move out of States because:

You love the lifestyle, provided by the Federal Democratic Republic system of America, but you still love to bash it & call it names! This is all due to your thick Persian Skulls full of hypocrisy! You are like little spoiled children who want their candy & want to eat it too! Brats who love to eat Moms cooking, but they say No No No, to be finicky little rats! You are ultimate example of hypocrisy & contradiction!

Why do Monarchists live in USA?

Why are you Monarchist Desk-ballers live in Los Angeles? Why don't you move to England? Why?

Because you love the American Life style, large states, green space, large houses, great supplies & variety of merchandise & food products, top quality fruits, Hi-Tech Equipments, luxury automobiles, cheap prices, cuisine of every nation brought in one place, job opportunities, high pays & income, benefits, public education, scholarships, grants, welfare, food stamps, housing, medical, dental, Medicare, & the greatest standard of living in the world provided for you in United States of America, thanks to the "Republican" system! You love The True Freedom!

You live in a republic & you preach monarchy! How can the masses listen to your preachings? By all means move out of USA, France, Germany, etc. & move on to a monarchy & then preach monarchy! Isn't this the only logical action to do?

I would like not to hear a single word coming out of Reza Pahlavi, Aryo Pirouznia, LA TVs, LA Radios, LA Ragazines, LA Rag Papers, LA Tabloid Websites, LA Media Lords & other 1001 Up_Position Monarchist leaders' mouth, until they move out of here! Not a single word, announcement, e-mail, broadcast, preachings & rhetorics! I want you to keep your silence, until you move out of States to a monarchy. Only then, you can open your mouths & broadcast, preach, send political e-mails, make announcements & release rhetorics via your secretariats!

Monarchist Activists & Leadership living in USA or any other Republic:

Please close your mouths, stop your preachings & maintain silence until you move to a monarchy! Thank you very much for consideration. I do not want to hear a single word or rhetorics in your forums, websites, media & head quarters until you fly the Dodge!

Why am I here?

I came here on January 1979. I came here because I was forced to exile. I came here because I meant to come here. I came here because even in Iran, I was a Republican. I believe in the Republic & I believe in United States of America. I am an American citizen & I am willing to defend this nation to death. What does this mean? It means, hypothetically if tomorrow United States goes to war with IRI, then by all means I will voluntarily, go to Iran & take arms against Islamic Republic of Iran. Why? Because I believe in this country & what it stands for. I am a Republican, I believe in a Republic. I believe in a Federal Democratic Republic. I believe it is the most up-to-dated political system in the world. That's why I am willing to take arms & fight to save it or spread democracy in the globe.

You, on the other hand, are sitting your career exilist, rich asses in LA or in RP's case in Maryland & critic "The Republic" & preach for a "Monarchy"! Then move the hell out of here. England welcomes you, why are you still here? You want that American Titty, you want to suck on that American titty but nag & whine like little bitch boys with your rhetorics about superiority of a Monarchy over the Republic. Why are you still here? I thought by this point of my article, you would be taking the next plane to London?! Still here?

I tell you why you are still here! Because English are hungry themselves & they are coming by the plane & boat loads as legal or illegal immigrants to USA for work! Then how the hell can they feed your ass?! They don't want your Iranian ass to be shipped to UK! You are like little whining Rats who complain & bitch about the Republic but you live in one! You are the ultimate hypocrisy, Persian style. I would like you to shut your mouths about Monarchy until you move to a Monarchy! Got it?

I know for a fact that every single Iranian, who is anybody in the politics of Iran, does read IPC. This is not an If or a But, yet it is a fact. And if you have not been reading IPC since year 2000, then for sure, you are reading it now. I know for facts that you are now reading this article. So pay attention & pay attention well. Imperial Ex-Genrals living in US, please pay attention:

"Do as you preach".

Make a conviction & stand by your conviction or someone like me, will come out to chew your ass to pieces & crush your little toy world! No matter what you believe & what kind of a system you believe in, more power to you, as long as you live, preach & work in the system which you believe in! Wherever it may be, is fine as long as you live, work & preach there.

The Agenda

After stating the above logic, I am expecting that from this moment on:

a) Only Monarchists who live in Monarchies, debate politics, discuss issues, & preach monarchy in Iranian community.

b) American or Republican based Iranian Monarchist Media, Forums, Parties, etc. immediately close down or seize their broadcast until moved out of United States & other Republics.

c) As of this moment, the masses are absolutely on to you! Right here & right now, I have exposed you with pure logic. You, your words & your preachings cannot be trusted because you say one thing & then you do another!

The Challenge

If any Monarchist Activist, living in a Republic (by choice), can deny, argue or rebuttal my argument & logic, by all means come on over & I will be glad to hear you out. But be logical & reject my argument with reasoning.

Can you take the challenge?

Simple as that & once more, that's all I have to say to you & all:

Do as you preach.


Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Liberator » Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:41 pm

Dear Dr X,

I think you're being way too simplistic in this reasoning. One can support a Constitutional Monarchy yet live in a Republic! One model does not fit all nations this should be pretty obvious! Not all people like gambling, drinking, lying, hunting etc... we are all different and should adopt that which fits us. In America the best system of governance may be a Republic and not a Monarchy hence the overwhelming majority supporting a Republic.

Why do you think that people in Sweden, UK, or Japan like their governments; who are totally different than those of Italy, Germany or the U.S.?

Lets not generalixe or be too simplisitc. Each culture/race/people have their unique set of values/history etc which suites them. One cannot demand that ALL nations adopt a particular system of governance.

Ba Sepaas
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Chief Warrant Officer
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 758
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Ahreeman X » Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:09 pm


As I have said:

a) Primarily sound silly to you, but if you think about it & ponder a bit, then it will make sense & it will sound much logical.

My argument may primarily sound simplistic yet if you ponder about it, then it is not simplistic @ all!

Don't you tell the Marxists to get out of States & go live in a Marxist nation? Don't you tell them have a taste of their own medicine? Don't you tell them do as they preach? Well I am telling the Monarchists who live in US, the same thing! What is so simplistic about it? Are we having double standards?!

I do not read any line of substantial reasoning which you made! Where is your chain of reasoning? Can you refute my logic with reasoning? People have different taste! So what? They can vacation in different places but they can live in their Utopian Ideal Land, no?

I say:

Do, live & act as you preach. I mean it literaly & actualy! Thats how I live, don't you?

Have you ever taken a logic & argumentation course? What you wrote as a reply to my hypothesis, is not a "Rebuttal" but a comment!

I am still waiting for a challenger! Is there a challenger amongst Career Exilist Monarchists to come up with a logical rebuttal & actually prove my logic is wrong?

PS: Have you read what office wrote on Peter's post in IPC Dictionary room? Riot! I cannot wait for Peter's response! :)

Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Liberator » Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:17 pm

Dr X-jaan,

Not all people in the world are fit to be ruled by ONE particular system; if this is a comment then please do take it as one, I really can't elaborate on it much more at the moment :D

Ba Sepaas
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Chief Warrant Officer
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 758
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

The CIA Titty & The Career-Exilists who suck on it!

Postby Ahreeman X » Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:10 pm

The CIA Titty & The Career-Exilists who suck on it!
November 16, 2005

Dear Haj Viking:

This must be your lucky day because Ahreeman is going to tell you a story!

You are a young rooster with a viking sword, roaming around the Nords viking land, waving your sword & seeking justice for the crime, which has been done 27 years ago to your motherland. Your sensations & emotions overwhelm you. I, on the other hand, am an old Bull! I am an old bull, whom in my days, had a cow here or there & torn a few shirts along the way! I deal with facts & logic. I been around a while; therefore, I can tell you stories which in your wildest dreams, you cannot picture! So allow me to tell you the story of:

The CIA Titty & The Career Exilists who suck on it!

Monarchist-Activist Career-Exilists of Los Angeles, loves The American Titty! Why is that, you ask? Because The American Titty is firm, round, well fed, juicy, milky white color, squeezable, huge, wealthy & healthy! These career exilists, enjoy sucking on that titty!

Everyday, they suck on that titty and afterwards they say "Ah Ah" & "Piew Piew"! Then they spit & wipe out their mouths! Then a few hours later, they start sucking on them titties again! Every day they suck on them Republican Titties, then they say Ah Ah, spit & reminisce about the good old times of pre 1979 Imperial Iran & how good they had it in the Monarchial Regime! Everyday they bash & bad mouth the Republic & praise the superiority of the Monarchy! Everyday they mope & groan about Exile & cherish the good old days! So this daily drink the wine & break the glass is a routine in Los Angeles! Living a great life in America & mope, bitch & whine about the good old times. They scream & cry about their heartaches & hard lives in Exile, while they guzzle down the best Chelo Kabob Sultani in Westwood & wash it down with home-made duq!

In banquets, they become more Nationalist! As soon as they guzzle down the Yankee Caviar on crackers, they reminisce about the good old Caspian Sea Caviar, which they miss so much! Once they sit their royal butts, down on the Yankee Cadillacs' leather seats, lean back & drive around the Bel-air, they mope & cry about how they miss the homemade Paykan!

Career-Exilist Types

Career Exilists are of two types:

a) Monarcho-Aristocrats aka Rich Career Exilists (Shikam Koloft)
These folks are behind the scene. They gather in private banquets for their monthly reminisce, bitch & moan about their old status. They smoke the Foor (Opium), drink the Araq (Vodka) & cry Crocodile Tears while Mahasti & Homeyra sings live @ the background! Their Imperial Majesties, Their Excellencies, Their Royal Highnesses, Their Imperial Generals, Their Ministers & Majlis Representative-ness, Their Governorships & The old Taryaki Businessmen are amongst this group!

b) Monarcho-Lampoons aka Poor Career Exilists (Goshne Geda)
These folks are out in open because they need the publicity to get their hands on some dough! They do Nationalistic Gatherings & in these gatherings they wave them Miran Flags & Sing "Ey Miran Ey Miran" songs! Then they move to their Garages to do their daily broadcasts! The LA Media Homeless, The Garage Based Satellite TV Owners, The Talk Radio Owners & Hosts, The Ragazine Owners, The Rag Paper owners, The Tabloid Website owners, The TV Movement Leaders, The Up_Position Leaders & Feeders, The Website Movement Leaders, The Concert Producers & other Grocery Store Owners in cheap 3 piece suits are amongst this group!

All the above Persian Knights in shining armors, are here to rescue Iran with their own blend o special remedy! They are prime Desk-ballers, master Mashmooleh Khah & professional "Ey Iran Ey Iran" song writers!

CIA Titty is coming to Town!

Ho Ho Ho Ho, CIA Titty is coming to Town! Every other year or so, CIA & State Department Titty comes to town. Kind o like Santa Clause but with big tits! The CIA Titty asks: Have you been good? So you better be good for goodness sake! Suddenly all of these Career-Exilist Eye-Rainian Nationalists become titty lovers! They drop on the floor, beg & moan, scream & cry, rip each other's clothes & eyes apart, run themselves through dirt, dust & sand, run, swim & fly across the lands & oceans just to get their hands on some o them Yankee CIA Titties! CIA Titty is selective, so she only selects the most house-trained "House Niggers"! CIA Titty, allows them Big Bellied Persian "House Niggers" to get some o them titties!

@ this moment, all o them "Ey Iran Ey Iran" singing, Lion & Sun Waving, Persian Nationalism & Monarchy over Republic superiority becomes "Pashm" & "Kos O She'r"! Auction starts, every big-bellied Eye-Rainian for himself! Like a Thirsty Arab Army of Muhammedin in deserts, they invade the CIA Bag o Goodies! So the auction starts:

CIA Titty: One million, two million, go go go once, go go go twice, go go go three times, goes to the highest bidder, most obedient "Persian Negro", the gentleman with the fat belly in the cheap three piece suit holding a TV sattelite and the gentleman desk-baller ...................

So couple of millions gets distributed between the Media Homeless & Goshne Geda of Los Angeles! They run to the bank to cash their CIA checks, so they can continue running their cheesy websites, Televisions, Radios, Ragazines & Rag Papers! Once the checks cashed, they run to the garages of their rental homes to broadcast! And that's your Respectable Compatriots, The Up_Position Leaders, The Media Lords of Los Angeles, and the backbone of the Iranian Resistance against Islamic Republic of Iran! Zip a dee doo da de & a bottle of cognac! And then the Champaign & Cognac it is, until they run out of dough & then once more, it will be cheap beer & malt liquor! The Up_Position in action!

Iranians & Eye-Rainians

By majority, today's Iranian Movers & Shakers of London, Paris & New york are yesterday's writers, authors, intellectuals, technocrats, specialists & professionals of Tehran.

By majority, today's Iranian Career-Exilists of Los Angeles & Washington DC are yesterday's Con Artists, Car Dealers, Cutthroats, Bribe Receivers, Fled by night businessmen & other corrupts of Tehran!

Well Mamy, bless my boots & spank my balls with black leather straps, City of Angels indeed, The Tehran Geles, home to Eye-Rainian Career-Exilist Media Homeless & Up-Position Leadership.

The Titty Irony!

I keep on asking them Eye-Rainian Big Boys: Why ain't you letting go of them titties?! Baba let go of them titties, haven't you drank your mothers milk when you were infants? You are sucking on them Republican titties like Labu Tanuri! Baba let go for a second?! Even though they are dead busy sucking on them titties & you can hear their Melech Molooch & suction noise from a mile away, yet somehow they manage to get their mouths off of them titties for a second & reply, in this manner,

Monarcho-Lampoons Career-Exilists of LA:

"Yum Yum, Gimmi Some, Mmmmmmmmmmmm ................ suck suck suck........ Melech Molooch, .........., Hmmmmmmm, we hate the Republican Titty & we hate living in the Republic, thus we are Mashmooleh Khah & Sar Qalat Talab, but we are in Exile & Qorbat, so what can we do? We have no choice but to continue sucking them horrible Republican Titties!"

and once more, they start sucking on them big ol Republican titties, ........... Malaach Molooch, suck suck suck .................

and Ey Iran Ey Iran song plays @ the background, the lion & sun flag waves in skies of Los Angeles! and there goes yet another glorious day, full of struggle in Tehran Geles:

Ey Miran, Ey Marze por Goh Arrrrr,
Dar Saye at karde jay Gav o Khar,
Without CIA titty, we can't broadcast,
Bull Shiite & Kos o She'r, Darbast!

Ey Miran, Ey .............. Lay La Lay Lalay.......

and the flag waves in the skies of Tehran Geles...............

What a charade! It is "All" Bull Shiite, one big Career-Exilist Show for the Naive Omat o good believers (Khosh Bavar)!

Let the Show go on ......................

Yes my friend, you are only a young rooster, running around with your sword in the Nordst Snow! But I am an Old Bull.

I have grown these Career-Exilists with my own dried up breasts!
(Man in Tofeyli haro ba in pestun khoshkidam bozorg kardam!)

Yes folks, I been around a while & I know the story of:

The Republican Titty & the Monarchists who suck on it!
The CIA Titty & The Career Exilists who suck on it!

That's why I have separated my account from these Chalquz, long ago.........

Ahreeman Bless



Good Old X
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

How Republicans & Monarchists View the world?

Postby Ahreeman X » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:00 pm

How Republicans & Monarchists View the world?
November 18, 2005

Haj Viking & All:

Before I begin, I would like to state here that I do not want to change anyone's ideology, yet I am only arguing for argument's sake. My tool is logic & that's all! Now let's elaborate,

"Not all people in the world are fit to be ruled by ONE particular system"

Great! This is exactly where we have 2 different ways of thought patterns. Let me explain:


You & Monarchists view people as a unit which are "Ruled" by a "System". You believe the masses are ruled & must be ruled by a "Regime" (Totalitarian) or a "Monarch" (Monarchy) or etc. This is your view of the world.


(1) Government of a Monarch by the parliament/cabinet & for the people.
ex: Sweden

(2) Government of a Monarch by the Monarch & for the people.
ex: Imperial Iran

(3) Government of a Monarch by the Monarch & for an Elite.
ex: Saudi Arabia

(4) Government of a Regime by the Regime & for the Regime.
ex: Bashar al Asad & The Ba'th Party of Syria

I do not view the world in above manner, simply because it is not an up-to-dated view of the world; therefore, it is not logical nor it fits today's world. In today's most sophisticated forms of government, a person (Monarch, Tyrant, Chairman, Emperor, etc.) or a Regime (Imperial Family, Monarchy, Communist Party, Mosque, Church, Ayatollahs, Fascist Party, Ba'th Party. etc.) does not rule over the people, yet people rule over the people.


(1) Government of the people by the people & for the people.
ex: United States of America

(2) Government of the people by the parliament/cabinet & for the people.
ex: Parliamentary Republics of France, Italy, Germany, etc.

World Views


In my view of the world, no system, regime or person rules over the people & there are no needs for any particular force to rule over the people. People decide & elect their government; they rule over themselves. No one rules over me. I have no masters. I rule over me. I decide the type of the system, who runs the system, who will govern & their power limits.

In a Republic, the masses "Elect" the whole hierarchy of the government; therefore, the people rule over the people.


In your view of the world, a person, a party or a regime must rule over the people. Consciously or subconsciously this is registered in your mind. Even in the most sophisticated present forms of Monarchy, one person (The Monarch) rules over the people, yet by the power of the Parliament/Cabinet. Of course it took centuries of struggle & numbers of Revolutions for the masses to finally gain the power over the Despotic Monarchs of Europe or elsewhere. Even in Sweden, the King of Sweden rules over you & everyone else. No one "elected" him the king. He inherited his kingdom.

He maybe head of state & the prime minister is the head of government but he still rules over you & you have no power over him because you cannot "elect" him. You are being ruled by one person. In 21st century, this is simply not logical

In a Monarchy or a Totalitarian system, a person, a party, a regime rules over the people; therefore, people do not rule over the people.

Monarchist Arguments

The best one comes from Daryoush Homayoun (my favorite monarchist). Daryoush stated:

"In a Constitutional Monarchy, the Monarch rules, yet he does not govern. Monarch acts as a "Symbol" to unite the people. The people look upon the monarch as an uniting force."

In 21st century, this trend of thought is simply illogical. Monarchs of 21st century do not have full or even limited powers. They are figureheads of states. They serve no role, no purpose & no use, except waste of the national budget on their salaries & luxurious lifestyles. They unite no one, except those Tabloid Reader simpletons & Teenagers who follow the Royal Families lifestyles & gossip on which king or prince done what & who banged who!

Iranian Scenario

In our case, since 1979, Monarchial Ideology & a puppet monarchial system (Constitutional Monarchy), has not united the Iranian Opposition nor the Iranians, yet it had divided them more than ever! Why you ask? Because the majority of Iranian & the Iranian Opposition does reject, refuse, despise, oppose & some straight forward hate the pre 1979 Despotic Monarchy or today's suggested Constitutional Monarchy for the future of Iran. Why? Believe it or not, the majority are not keen on Pahlavis, rule of a tyrant or even rule of a puppet, useless figurehead (Constitutional Monarch)!

You & I or likes of us are keen on Alahazrat, are keen on Reza Khan & 8000 years of our glorious history of Monarchy. You enjoy Reza Pahlavi, Foroud Fouladvand or any other prospect Monarch of the future. I even look @ Reza Pahlavi, Foroud Fouladvand & other Monarchists as fellow opposition members & fellow opposition Monarchists which may play a role in the possible future constitutional monarchy of Iran; however, harsh but true, the majority does not have this view. The majority hears the term monarchy & they panic with mistrust & resentments.

What's wrong with Constitutional Monarchy?

Now, you might say, what's wrong with a parliamentary constitutional monarchy?

This is what's wrong:

1) A puppet figurehead who plays no role except wasting tax payers' money & national budget to support his lifestyle.

2) A puppet figurehead who will technically rule over me & I will have no say to vote him out.

What purpose does Queen Elizabeth, that shriveled up prune serves? The majority does not care if she is there or not! The minority are obsessed to follow gossip columns on Royal Family's events to see who had Charles banged this year (if he can still get it up)!

The Symbol!

So you want a symbol to unite the Iranian people? I promise you, that symbol will not be Reza Pahlavi! The slight name of Reza Pahlavi will divide people furthermore than it is today!

So what do you want? You are looking for a symbol? Just a symbol to put on a Royal Banner & praise it? You want the masses to have a symbol to praise?

Then by all means, why not Haji Kuchike?

Haji has a role, a function & a purpose! Pro creation, Urination & Erection for massive sexual penetration are amongst his roles! Haji is healthy & wealthy! Haji has a usage & he is a productive member of the Iranian Community! Now what role or usage does Reza Pahlavi has? If we truly ponder, we can observe that Haji Kuchike is more productive than RP! @ least Haji gets fully erect yet RP is limp! Long Live Haji Kuchike!

I hereby sincerely propose to get the Iranian Artists to either draw or photograph Haji's portrait, to be put on a banner as The Royal Coat of Arms, & a Symbol of Unity for the Iranian Masses to praise! Haji is a hard worker & I promise the hard working passionate people of Iran will cherish The Haji Symbol more than the RP Symbol! Why not?

And there goes your symbol of unity for the future of Iran. I solved the problem. Hip hip hurray! More power to me!

Symbol of Unity

The greatest symbol of unity for masses of Iran will not be a Shah, yet it will be an actual, factual & realistic symbol of unity which is called Federalism! Federal rights for "All" will guarantee unity amongst all ethnic groups of Iran.


If one is logical, scientific, factual, practical & pragmatic, then one must stick with the most up-to-dated system of government for the masses. Sensationalism & emotions must play no role in this election. Election is the key word. When one has no say & no "Election" power to chose the government of his nation, then that government cannot represent the masses of that nation. The majority must be able to vote the government out. This must happen every four years or six years or so. This cannot happen in a monarchy. The Dynasty will rule forever.

@ least in old times, one dynasty would overthrow another & that's how the dynasties changed. Today, in constitutional monarchies, no such action can happen; therefore, the same dynasty will rule forever until they rot! Look @ Windsors, will ya?!

A Secular, Democratic, Federal Republic is the key to salvation. Specifically for Iran, the only "Symbol" which will unite Iran, will not be a Shah, yet it will be "Federalism", where Minorities, States & "All" the people will have internal autonomy & governorship in different states of Iran. They will look upon Tehran, for foreign policy, international trades & military decisions, yet they will have their internal autonomy to govern themselves. In 21st century, A country like Iran, with many ethnic groups can only survive due to Federalism. Monarchy, Centralism, Elite Rule & single official religion of state cannot satisfy the needs of today's world.

Government of "All" the people, by the people & for the people is the only salvation.


Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Liberator » Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:47 pm

Dear Dr X,

Whereas I am a Constitutional Monarchist, it is my belief that the Monarchy provides:

# an impartial symbolic Head of State above politics, commercial and factional interests; this is very important having Iran's vast diverse inhabitants from Azari to Balooch etc, linking us together amazingly and most valuably.

# a focus for national unity, national awards and honours and national institutions

# the centrepiece of colourful non-political ceremonial and national celebrations

# separate from the Head of Government (the Prime Minister), unlike in some countries where the two are combined, often with difficulty

# able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen etc

# a Head of State completely under the democratic control of Parliament (meaning they the representatives of the people decide if the monarchy continues/changes)

# a constant, lasting symbolic head of the country with links back through our whole history and assured lines of continuity into the future. Able to preserve and represent our ancient past and historical figures to todays generation.

# a worldwide well-known and respected symbol of our country carrying out State Visits and goodwill tours in other countries; this in itself generates a lot of tourism to ones country

# and much, much more that you can probably think of yourself!

The above is from and i've changed/added a few things.

I'm sure you are aware of the definition for the Constitutional Monarchy that most Iranian CM's seek which is that of a monarchy+representative democracy; where Parliament is elected by the people and works for the people. And for the possibility of the abolition of the monarchy to be abolished by a majority vote.

Also I would like to bring to your attention this pieace by Dr. M.M. Eskandari-Qajar which contains a lot of useful information (i'm not a big fan of the Kadjar King's but I cannot judge Dr. M.M. Eskandari-Qajar based on what his decendants did in Iran).

In Defense of Monarchy In An Age Of Democracy
20th Annual Faculty Lecture
Santa Barbara City College
Santa Barbara, California
March 25, 1999

Dr. M.M. Eskandari-Qajar (Kadjar)
Department of Political Science
(Copyright M.M. Eskandari-Qajar, 1999
All Rights Reserved )

[This is a modified version. For the complete lecture please order a printed copy from SBCC, Public Information Office, 721 Cliff Dr., Santa Barbara, CA 93109.]


In the brochure you received as you entered this hall today, I end the synopsis of my talk with the words: "It is time we make a case for Monarchy in the Age of Democracy." But the question you might ask and probably are asking yourself is: Why would anyone think of giving a talk in defense of monarchy, in this day and age, in the first place? And even if one did, how does one defend monarchy today? What is there to defend, especially in contrast to democracy? Monarchy, as everyone well knows is an anachronism, a thing out of place in our modern world. Furthermore, monarchy is something negative. The best thing we can say about monarchy is that we are glad it is no more with us, for monarchy was tyranny; it meant abuse of power; it meant oppression; it meant arbitrariness, it was all the things democracy is not. So why, then, would anyone speak in defense of monarchy, especially when all we need to know about the matter is known and settled?

The implied promise of my talk today is that there may still be something to this story that has not been told well, or perhaps not well enough, and that, to misquote Mark Twain "the story of monarchy's death has been greatly exaggerated," as has the notion that there is nothing positive to say about the matter. And so too with the notion that monarchy has no place in our world today. Quite to the contrary!

Let me begin, therefore, by telling you why I chose this topic:

As some of you know, for me monarchy is a matter of family, of blood, of honor. I bear the name of a royal dynasty proudly, and have often, and gladly, spoken about it, not to brag or feign importance, but to uphold and defend the good there was in that dynasty and in monarchy in general. I also have roots in two cultures and countries that have had some of the longest, uninterrupted traditions of monarchic rule -- over twenty five hundred years in Iran and close to a thousand years in Austria. Monarchism, for any Iranian as well as any Austrian, is not a foreign doctrine or an alien concept, and certainly for this speaker, thus doubly familiar, and in many ways very close to home. In a sense, this subject and my interest in it has made me who I am. But if this were only a talk about a personal matter, there wouldn't be much point to it, and thus I hope I will be able to convince you today that my interest in the subject is also a matter of principle not just one of personal preference or familial identification.

My interest in this topic also stems from my observation that the mere mention of the word monarchy generates interest, if not heated debate, among the most sedate and otherwise agreeable of people. For this reason, I have felt that the subject deserves closer scrutiny, both to discover the sources of that latent passion, but also to clear up some of the misconceptions that are at the root of the negative feelings associated with monarchy. And this last point I feel strongly about. Even if we come to decide, at the end of the day, that we still feel the same about our political convictions, it is quite necessary, in my view, that the choice be an educated one. Furthermore, I feel that the mere act of discussing monarchy as a viable alternative at all -- in this age of democracy -- does a great service to the idea of monarchy. The reason for this is that such discussion allows the notion of monarchy to remain accessible for those who might otherwise consider it passé and out of the question.

On the other hand, I am also fully aware that the case for monarchy is a difficult one to make today, not because the arguments in favor of it lack, but because the time and circumstances in which they could have been made more fully has passed. I am aware of that and yet feel that the case must be made because the loss of the opportunity to establish, reestablish or strengthen existing monarchies, will, in my view, have more negative than positive consequences. That our political imagination should be limited to variations on one form of government only -- namely representative democracy -- stunts and impoverishes the political dialogue beyond repair. It also robs cultures of their rich traditions, many of which are intricately linked with the notion of monarchy from time immemorial.

Finally, concern about political systems is, in a very real sense, my job! I am by training a political scientist, and in that field my emphasis has been and remains political theory, or rather -- if my colleagues in philosophy would grant me that -- political philosophy. As a student of political philosophy I look at political systems critically and try to answer the question for myself and for my students, "Which government is best?" Now I know only too well that prominent thinkers in my field, including Sir Karl Popper, have argued that these big questions have been resolved, and that we now only need to focus on the fine tuning of what we have achieved, but for me the question remains an ever relevant one. I have trouble with anyone proclaiming that we have arrived, and that we need look no further.

So for these reasons and more I have decided to invite you on this short journey with me. It is not a journey, the intended result of which is for you to support monarchy in America (although I could make a suggestion for a candidate for king!). The aim of the journey is for you to be willing to keep an open mind about the possibility of monarchy in the world, and if the case arises to support it as good, and in some cases as necessary, or at the least, not dismiss it out of hand. Should you, however, not all become avid monarchists at the end of this lecture, let me assure you now that the fault lies squarely with the present speaker and his shortcomings, and not with the subject of his choice, monarchy!

A word more, before we go on. Let me clarify a few things at this point that I feel might be on your minds as you have been listening to my introduction. Let me say this clearly and unambiguously: An argument for monarchy, is not an argument against democracy. This should be clear from the start. Now an argument for monarchy can be an argument against democracy, and God knows it can be made, but that is not the argument I am making here. As I will try to show, monarchy, as I see it, is eminently compatible with democracy. In fact, in my view, it enriches it. Now, I understand why lovers of democracy might think a "monarchist" is anti-democratic, it is because democracy came into existence through anti-monarchism, but the reverse need not be true. History shows us that. And so I hope I am alleviating any fears that this could be a tirade against cherished principles right at the beginning. My intention is to add, not to take away!

While we are clarifying, let me clarify this as well. The type of monarchy I speak of in my lecture is not absolute monarchy. I know that the word monarchy brings to mind this kind of monarchy, but that is not the form I speak of. Nor do I speak of monarchy legitimized by divine right. That form too belongs to the past and is more appropriately the subject of historical or anthropological inquiry than it is of political inquiry. I speak of constitutional monarchy, and what the essence of that form of monarchy is, I will clarify shortly in my talk.

* * * * * * *

Monarchy Defined

Equating monarchy with principles associated normally with democracy is neither erroneous nor preposterous. Already in Hegel we saw the outlines of the argument, but in Hegel the point is made in the abstract and with reference to a metaphysical framework, the acceptance of which may not be palatable equally to all today. Thus the question becomes, can one make the case for monarchy in a way that does not rely on such a transcendent framework and show its relevance to today's political reality. I believe one can, but first let me elucidate some misconceptions about the notion of monarchy.

Inevitably when one speaks of monarchy, the picture conjured up in the minds of the listeners is the kind that is referred to as traditional or absolute monarchy. In point of fact, the classical notion of monarchy from which we derive the term "traditional" monarchy, precludes the type of rule that was later described as absolute, that is rule of a king who is above the law and to whose will there is no appeal. That form of government was monarchy only in the literal sense of the term meaning "rule by one," but it was not monarchy in any way the ancients or the medieval thinkers would understand it. For this type of rule they had a separate name, the ancients called it tyranny, the polar opposite of monarchy, and the moderns call it despotism. This is the type of monarchy against which revolutions were fought, and it is also the type of monarchy that was responsible for the strengthening of the arguments in favor of democracy and the republican form of government. Though it still exists today, the days of such a system are numbered, and in the last three decades two of the more spectacular examples of this type disappeared through revolution in Ethiopia and Iran. It is safe to say that the remaining absolute monarchies, unless they move towards constitutional monarchy, will face similar threats and possible dissolution as their Iranian and Ethiopian counterparts did not too long ago.

The type of monarchy I speak of today is not what is commonly referred to as absolute monarchy, but rather a related form called constitutional monarchy, already mentioned earlier in my exposition of the views of Hegel and others. Constitutional monarchy differs from its older sibling in this: it limits the power of the monarch and allows for democratic institutions to exist side by side with the institution of monarchy, both complementing each other rather than canceling each other out. Specifically, in this type of monarchy, the monarch is the head of state, and the form of monarchy is retained, i.e., heredity and primogeniture, but the monarch is monarch by will of the people not by divine right, and the people have sovereignty through their elected parliament and their prime minister who is the head of government, i.e., the head of the executive branch.

Now, this type of monarchy can be strong constitutional monarchy or weak constitutional monarchy. The strong type, as I call it, gives the monarch more executive powers, even to the point of vetoing legislation or dismissing parliament and calling for new elections. The weak kind, gives the monarch mostly ceremonial roles but may retain actual powers in potentia for use in extra-ordinary circumstances. The first still involves the monarch politically; the second involves the monarch mostly symbolically. This last type has been called "bicycling" monarchies, in reference to the informal style the monarchs have adopted in the northern European and Scandinavian countries. The first type is not prevalent in Europe anymore, but still exists in the Middle East and in Asia. Seven of the fifteen countries of the European Union, and half of all Western European countries (EU included) are constitutional monarchies of the second kind today, and unlike traditional monarchy, they have fared extremely well. To underscore the source of the appeal of this kind of monarchy for me, I would like to take you back in history for a moment to talk about its origins and development.

The kind of monarchy where monarchs enjoyed powers of decision-making limited by very few restraints other than those imposed by the monarchs themselves, came under increasing criticism and then fire, in Europe, starting with the Civil War in England and the writings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in the seventeenth century. Precedents for the reduction of the powers of the monarchs were already set in motion with the granting of the Magna Carta by King John in 1215. By 1688, with the Glorious Revolution, the power of the monarchy is limited by an increasingly assertive parliament. With few setbacks, the trend generally continues in the direction of more popular sovereignty, until under the reign of Queen Victoria, the power of parliament is firmly established and continues so to our day. In a last feeble attempt to retain control over her speech to parliament, a speech which by then already was written for her by her Prime Minister, Queen Victoria feigned poor eyesight and declared that she was not able to read the prepared speech, whereupon her Prime Minister replied that he would be glad to read it for her in her stead!

Similar developments also occurred across the Channel, first in France and then a century later across much of Europe. Though the French Revolution showed itself to be far more bloody than the forty years of turmoil the British went through to achieve limitations on their monarch's power, the outcome of both political events was a limited monarchy, which at first offered promise of stability on the continent in similar fashion to its counterpart in the British Isles. However, the lessons learned by the British monarchy were not assimilated well by the French, German, Austro-Hungarian, and finally Russian royal houses, so that when international events added their devastation to the exasperation these regimes had caused within their own countries, they could not help but fall and result in the abolition -- rather than reform -- of the institution of monarchy altogether.

Thus, as a result of their evolution into constitutional monarchies, the British, northern European and Scandinavian monarchies have contributed much more positively and uniquely to the overall well-being of their respective polities than the course taken by the French and central European royal houses. They have done so by adding the crucial dimension of symbolic representation and continuity to their political systems that only monarchy can add. Additionally, by reforming themselves into the kinds of institutions they are now, those monarchies have complemented and strengthened the democracies they are a part of, by enhancing national unity and allowing for a neutral center in the midst of a sea of politically driven change. This aspect of modern monarchy is not lost on the members of those societies and is one of the reasons why these monarchies are still so popular with the citizens of the above named countries.

Allow me to clarify something further at this point. It may sound strange to this or most any audience to hear the British, Danish or Dutch governments referred to as monarchies when, in point of fact, they have always been called democracies, and that this is what they are known as in most people's minds. The strangeness has to do with the fact that "democracy" refers more to a mode of governance than an actual form of government today, and that the proper name for a government that elects all of its members (directly or indirectly) is a republic. Thus, the American republic, the Mexican republic, the French republic. The political systems referred to earlier are democratic indeed but they are not republics. They are not even republics by other names. They are bona fide monarchies, only of the constitutional kind. Not only that, but they are also working monarchies, i.e. they are more than merely representational or ornamental, even though they are not of the strong kind I described earlier. They are also qualitatively different from the kinds of political systems one finds in their neighboring countries, in that they have retained, rather than artificially introduced, an element of continuity with tradition and with the past that allows their citizens to feel the stability of the political system tangibly. This is seen not only in the importance given by those citizens to the symbols of monarchical presence and of monarchy itself, but also in the popularity and high esteem the actual persons of the monarchs in question are often held as well. This presence of and continuity with the past gives a highly prized modicum of reassurance in an otherwise too maddeningly rapid changing world. It also creates an additional source of legitimacy for systems which, absent monarchy, would have to generate it through popularity contests only.

So if this is the type of monarchy I am defending, let us see what arguments can be made in favor of maintaining it where it presently exists, and for restoring it in countries where monarchy once existed. Let us turn to the first task.

* * * * * * *

The Case for Maintaining and Restoring Monarchy

What arguments can be made in favor of maintaining monarchy where it now exists? Why, might we ask, should monarchy even be retained? What benefit is there in retaining an institution that seems to be a leftover from a time gone by?

First let me introduce a caveat here regarding our search for arguments in favor of monarchy. It is impossible to make absolutely airtight and universally acceptable and appealing arguments for any form of government, monarchy or otherwise, and so I will not attempt it here and it should not be expected. That does not mean, however, that therefore this particular form of government is not desirable, nor does it mean that one cannot defend it well. It simply means that in the arena of politics and political philosophy we are dealing with a subject matter that is more protean than that of other realms of inquiry, without making the inquiry less rigorous or relevant. Political arguments are often accepted for additional reasons other than logical unassailability, and over time become accepted truths. Two examples of the kind of "argument" I am referring to are Thomas Jefferson's statements in the Declaration of Independence, that "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal ," [emphasis mine] and Winston Churchill's oft quoted punch line about democracy being "the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried from time to time."

Having said this, let us proceed and look at some of the scholarly work done on the subject of monarchy, to derive some of our arguments in favor of that form of government. There have been few studies in comparative politics or political theory of recent vintage that have asked and addressed these questions. Most of the literature on monarchy and even on constitutional monarchy dates from the first half of this century and from the sixties. The reason for this may well have to do with the fact that what was said of monarchy before, mostly dealt with the traditional type which was, and even more so now is, on its way out, and with the fact that the focus in comparative politics shifted to theories of development and modernization on the one hand, and in political theory to the humbler task of fine tuning representative democracy on the other.

In the sixties, one of the grandees of both comparative politics and political theory, Carl J. Friedrich, declared monarchy moribund and predicted its impending death worldwide. The Dictionary of the History of Ideas, subtitled "Studies in Selected Pivotal Ideas" [emphasis mine], published in 1973, does not even have a separate entry for "Monarchy." Yet in the seventies and more recently in the eighties and nineties a new interest developed in the study of this dying patient, and in America "Constitutional Monarchy" finds itself the subject of entries in the Encyclopedia of Democracy published in 1995, as well as in theoretical debates, in such journals as History of Political Thought and American Political Science Review among others. This to say nothing of the scores of articles and editorials in more popular publications such as The Economist, Time Magazine, and Newsweek, many of them in the last two years. Renewed interest in the subject is also shown in French political thought, where in 1997 a fairly monumental study on political systems was published, devoting fully one third of the study to constitutional monarchy and its present prospects in Europe. In fact some of the more interesting recent arguments in favor of monarchy have come from continental Europe, notably France, and when not from Europe, they have been made about European monarchies by such a wide range of American observers as Garrison Keillor and William F. Buckley Jr.!

Perhaps the most extensive comparative study addressing the question of monarchy's continued popularity was done in 1976 by Richard Rose and Dennis Kavanagh entitled "Monarchy in Contemporary Political Culture." In this study, Rose and Kavanagh present a series of hypotheses, which they then test to find the reasons for the popularity of monarchical regimes in Europe. Although their study focuses on the British political system, the authors adduce plenty of evidence that their conclusions can be generalized to its northern European and Scandinavian counterparts as well and to monarchy in general also.

Two sets of observations they make are of particular interest here in view of my thesis on the importance and relevance of constitutional monarchy today. The first has to do with the relationship between constitutional monarchy and political authority, and how monarchy adds an additional dimension to the "justifications for endorsing authority" under democratic governments. The other has to do with how monarchy has behaved to retain its acceptance in modern polities. Let us look at monarchy and political authority first.

The notion of authority in democratic settings is a complex one. The first to talk about this in modern times was Max Weber. Weber distinguished between three types of authority structures, traditional, legal-rational and charismatic. It is legal-rational authority, i.e. authority based on impersonal rules and regulations, that is associated with democracy most. But impersonal rules and regulations are not sufficient for authority to exist in modern systems. Two additional components are required as Rose and Kavanagh point out: 1) diffuse support for the institutions of a regime, and 2) compliance with its basic political laws. Regarding this second requirement, impersonal rules and regulations help, in that in democracies, laws are considered a manifestation of the will of the people and thus imply their consent even if in fact legislated and promulgated by their representatives. However, the first requirement, that of diffuse support for institutions, is more difficult to achieve. For it to be present universally, there must exist many instances of reinforcement of that support in society. This support is normally provided through agents of socialization, such as school, family, the media, but often it is not focused enough, especially in democracies. For this reason, an institution so intricately linked with the notion of tradition and support of the status quo as monarchy, is eminently predisposed to foster just this kind of support, as long as monarchy itself is not the object of lack of support in the first place. But as Rose and Kavanagh have shown, lack of support is a problem constitutional monarchy does not have in Europe today. Monarchy in this case reinforces democracy and strengthens it, adding a centripetal and necessary aspect to the system's efforts at stability, especially necessary in view of the fact that modern democracy, by definition, is centrifugal and atomistic in its celebration of individualism.

Continuing on the theme of the relationship between monarchy and enhanced political authority in democracies, the authors also argue that "[i]ndirectly, ... monarchy may increase political authority by encouraging a generally deferential attitude among the masses of society toward authority in a variety of social manifestations." One of these "social" manifestations of authority is elites. To test this relationship between monarchy and deferential outlooks, the authors asked respondents whether they agreed that elites are best suited to govern a country . The authors found that "[a] majority agreed that people with the most education and people born to rule make the best governors." This finding meshes well with the established fact that elites, in any political system -- including republics -- naturally expect deference to their decisions, and thus monarchies are doubly useful in enhancing the chances of the political system to instill deference to authority in this particular respect and for the sake of stability that would result from it. For political advisors and practitioners of politics, this last point is of course worthy of note! On the other hand, I am also aware that in a society that relishes its irreverent stance towards politics and politicians, this last point also may not be palatable to all. The point, however, about elites in democracies expecting deference was made by an American writer, David Halberstam, about an American elite, President Kennedy's advisors, and though we may argue that elites need not necessarily get what elites feel they need, the fact that the sentiment is raised in a setting as ostensibly anti-elitist as the American one, is, if nothing else, interesting.

The other observation Rose and Kavanagh make has to do with how monarchy must behave to retain its acceptance in modern polities. Even though the authors find that at times, people welcome an even stronger function for monarchy -- for instance when monarchy presents an additional "restraint" upon the elected executives of their countries -- their final conclusion is that for monarchy to survive and prosper in the democratic setting it must be willing to withdraw from the political fray.

Regarding the "restraint" on government that monarchy presents, since the study was done in England, "government" refers to the elected executive branch. Thus in view of the absence of American style judicial restraints upon the British government, given the peculiar nature of that system, this potential role for monarchy provides for an implied check on an otherwise almost unfettered executive (a point that should be appreciated by an audience used to the American system of checks and balances!) The question then becomes, is this a universalizable principle in favor of monarchy in general, and the answer must be that in cases where an additional, impartial -- because non-political -- check is needed, monarchy is uniquely positioned to fulfill that role. Any other entity in democratic settings, being itself subject to one or another restraint or political pressure, cannot discharge that function when it is most needed, namely in times of disagreement or partisan quarrels among the dominant political groups or among the branches of government.

However, regarding the necessity for monarchy to withdraw from the political fray if it is to survive in today's world, the authors are unequivocal:

A good monarch cannot save an unpopular regime, and a bad monarch is an argument for the establishment of a republic. If a monarch is to survive, he requires the creation of a constitutional order in which he becomes a figurehead. The job of maintaining authority is the task of politicians whose careers are transitory. If a monarch also becomes engaged in this work, his career is likely to be transitory, too.

Though this last point may hold true particularly for the remaining European monarchies, differing views have been raised by analysts of monarchies elsewhere in the world. One of those is Gregory Copley, editor-in-chief of the journal Defense and Foreign Affairs, whose 1990 study on monarchies around the world makes just such a point. While some of his conclusions on monarchy's viability and desirability match Rose and Kavanagh's, and his study focuses mostly on monarchies in exile and their chances at restoration, Copley also addresses monarchical traditions in countries where Western democratic notions may still need time to mature. Commenting, for instance, on the heir presumptive to the throne of Libya, Prince Idris al-Sanusi, now in exile in London, Copley states

Prince Idris, a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed and therefore a spiritual leader as well as a temporal one in Libya, walks a fine line between his devotion to democratic monarchical structures and traditional Middle Eastern monarchy. But he is sensitive toward the traditional roles of leaders in the Middle East.

This sensitivity to tradition, however, does not imply that a restored monarchy in Libya, or for that matter elsewhere in the Middle East, will be autocratic, but rather that once the basics of rule of law and human rights are guaranteed, those monarchies may have additional as well as different ways of reflecting the will of the people compared to the one way by which the West has traditionally done so, the ballot box. The example of Jordan stands out here as the kind of monarchy this relationship would point to. The same sentiments were expressed by its new king, King Abdullah on the occasion of the death of his father the late King Hussein: "Democracy is not something that can be done overnight," he said. "It is a learning experience. It is also a discipline. Because we have a democracy, it does not mean that people can take things into their own hands." The only element missing from this statement to make it capture the tenor of the time is the word "yet," but inevitably that too will become part of the vocabulary of Middle Eastern monarchies, and in so doing they will have preserved themselves as the necessary links between the past and the future I believe them to be. The fact, however, that this readiness for more popular participation is still absent in some of them, does not necessarily make them autocracies of the kind present day Middle Eastern "republics" are such as those of Libya, Syria and Iraq, and yes, also unfortunately, Iran.

Continuing his arguments in favor of monarchy Copley states: "Perhaps what is most significant today is the fact that the differences between modern constitutional monarchies and modern democratic republics are not as great as those who live in republics seem, without reflection, to believe." So what do monarchies add that democracies do not provide, all other things being equal? Copley answers "monarchies afford their people an even greater identification with their head-of-state than elections give to the presidents of republics." And this identification coupled with "the unbroken line of symbols which have been woven ... between monarchs and subjects over centuries," provides for a fulfillment that mere republics cannot achieve.

Last year, The Dallas Morning News published a series of articles on the world's monarchies, largely substantiating the points made above. The question raised for the readers was how can "a system of government that exalts one person above everyone else because of birth instead of talent or achievement" still thrive? "Why has an institution which has outlived its political usefulness still survived?" The answer, according to the historians interviewed, "lies in the ability of monarchs to fashion a contemporary role for themselves, to use their gilded lives as bridges to a more glorious past, to embody country -- to become, in the countries where they still flourish, flesh and blood Uncle Sams." A second reason has to do with the fact that monarchs are symbols of unity. In countries split by ethnic tensions such as Spain or Belgium monarchs flourish because they symbolize the entire nation, and in countries like Iraq or former Yugoslavia, monarchies could flourish for the same reasons once the violent tensions have subsided.

Referring to the success of the monarchy in Spain under King Juan Carlos, the article continues quoting Spanish historian Javier Tussel: "Monarchy works in Spain because we are a very divided country. ... King Juan Carlos stresses respect for regional differences, so that now you feel Spanish, but you can also feel like a Basque or Catalan." The fact that the king recently gave his blessings to the marriage of his daughter to a Basque popular figure of course helped, as did the fact that the king spoke the Catalan language on a visit to Barcelona not long ago, a gesture no Spanish king had done since the Middle Ages.

The same is true of the Belgian king. The article points out that "the Belgian king is one of the few commonalities shared by the country's ethnically and linguistically divided inhabitants. When King Albert succeeded his brother, the beloved King Baudouin, five years ago, he took the oath of office in French, German and Dutch." This may not seem like much to us, here, who are not as aware of the symbolism of language and ethnicity in Belgium and the long ethnic struggles between the Walloons and the Flemish who form modern Belgium, but for the Belgians it made all the difference. Of course a less sensitive and historically aware king may not have been as helpful, and so individual monarchs and their personalities matter. Yet, paradoxically, though reliance on personality is one of the greatest criticisms of monarchy by those used to elective office, in my opinion, this is also one of monarchy's great sources of strength. True, Rose and Kavanagh say "a good monarch cannot save an unpopular regime, and a bad monarch is an argument for the establishment of a republic," but there is also a corollary to this, that a good monarch may strengthen a good regime even further. And who is willing to argue that this is any different in republics. Do personality and individual character and characteristics not matter in republics? In this aspect too monarchy may not be that alien a concept as some make it out to be and the article in turn reiterates Copley's earlier point by stating:

"The old view that democracy and monarchy are fundamentally incompatible has been proven wrong. ... The Scandinavian countries, the Benelux countries [Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg], are among the most ... progressive and highly developed democracies in the world. Yet they seem to have the most consolidated monarchies. Even in Britain, where the House of Windsor is under fire for its imperial lifestyle in an unimperial age, most seem to favor reforming the crown, not abolishing it.

In view of this, the question really should be why aren't there more monarchies in Europe rather than less? Why have countries that traditionally had monarchies like Austria, France, Germany, Russia and Turkey-- to say nothing of Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania or Italy and Greece -- rejected them with such finality and not returned to them when the opportunities arose?

Answers to these questions abound. The reality of the matter is that world-wide only two monarchies were restored in countries that formerly had monarchic traditions: the first example is Spain; the second is Cambodia. The circumstances of Spain's restoration of the monarchy are, of course, peculiar to the case of Spain, since it was Spain's dictator, General Francisco Franco, who actively groomed, and then with his death effected the return of the monarchy to Spain. But as with the case of the restoration of Cambodia's monarchy, the circumstances leading to these two restorations could be used as universalizable principles for the restoration of monarchy in general. In many of the countries were monarchies once prevailed, there are now dictators or strongmen who could be persuaded through Franco's example to facilitate the return to monarchy in order to ensure their own legacy in similar fashion to General Franco's. In many other circumstances, with the present collapse of regimes that formerly were monarchies, the international community could follow its own example when it made it possible for Prince Norodom Sihanouk to return to his country as King Sihanouk. In either case, conditions prevail now in many countries, Yugoslavia, Romania, Albania, Rwanda, Iraq, Libya, Syria, to name but a few, where such a transition modeled on the two examples above could conceivably be achieved, with beneficial outcomes for the countries in question.

Getting back to the question of why so many of the monarchies of Europe disappeared, there is of course the matter of war. The First World War swept away many of the monarchies in question. But why this war and not others before it? Historian Anthony Devere-Summers answers the question this way:

The horrendous cost to human life in the First World War was unacceptable to the people who lost the struggle and received nothing in exchange for that sacrifice. Armed with a greater respect for individual liberty than their forefathers they challenged the military tradition and sabre rattling concept of [the] government that had led to the war. Their monarchies were very much part of that tradition, and they paid the ultimate price in defeat.

And so the Austro-Hungarian, the German, the Russian and the Ottoman Empires fell. In the case of Russia, a revolution was added to the deathblow, a revolution that in great measure became possible because of Russia's involvement in the war. Yet though the monarchies were swept away with the cry for freedom, in their place -- and I might add because of the vacuum created by their absence -- came terrible dictatorships. And then came World War II, and what World War I had left intact of the monarchies in question, World War II finished off, but for very different reasons. Again Anthony Devere-Summers:

The monarchies that fell at the end of the Second World War were victims of either fascism or communism, and only participated in the Second World War by default. Although weakened by the loss of the mighty empires in 1918 which dealt a severe blow to the invincibility of monarchy, they were not unpopular with the ordinary people and only lost power when their opponents resorted to dishonest plebiscites, and intimidation of the masses. Monarchy was not the root cause of the Second World War.

Following these cataclysms came the Iron Curtain, which precluded the restoration of monarchy East of Vienna, and foreclosed the possibility West of Vienna because of the visceral reaction to anything that might even remotely sound like strong centralized government, given the recent madness of Fascism and Nazism. And so valuable time was lost, and alternatives that could have been considered were not because time and circumstances, history, had decided against them. But this was not just the case with the recent losers of World Wars I and II. History also played a strange twist on the prospects for monarchy's restoration in France.

The story of France's monarchy and its fall is the cause celebre of any discussion on the subjects of monarchy and democracy. Many know the intricate detail of the Fall, the Restoration and the Fall again of France's monarchy, but few people know of the events of our century that would answer the question why France does not have a monarchy today. The monarchic system was abolished in France for the last time with the defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 and the capture of the emperor Napoleon III at Sedan. True, for legitimists the reign of the Napoleons did not constitute continuation of France's monarchy, nevertheless France's form of government last was a monarchy under the Second Empire. Then it disappeared. I hold that it need not have, however. And though the two intervening World Wars gave little time for a revival of the debate, when France would face its constitutional crisis at the end of the Fourth Republic, a golden moment for monarchy re-appeared, and it had no less famous a spokesman than General De Gaulle himself.

It is no secret that France's political system with its unique mix of presidential and parliamentary powers, has the strongest presidency among the world's representative governments. De Gaulle with his proposed amendment for direct presidential elections in 1962, cemented that strength into what has often been referred to as France's "elective monarchy." This arrangement, of course, makes perfect sense for a country with the kind of history that France has had. For the French, a strong executive, even under the most revolutionary times, was never a foreign idea. It always brought France together and allowed her to go on. Thus France's fascination with the Napoleons, and thus also her embrace of De Gaulle.

But when De Gaulle created the Fifth Republic, the paradigm he had in mind was not a republican one at all. His mind's eye was on the monarchic past of France and also a possible monarchic future, though as it turned out, instead of ushering her into monarchy again, De Gaulle decided to keep the mantle for himself and ensure for France an elective rather than hereditary monarchy in republican form! The elements of the "monarchical presidency" of France are 1) its national character -- the president of France is the president of all of the French due to the direct election without electoral college; 2) his near imperial power of emergency rule through article 16 of the constitution; 3) the power to appoint the prime minister, and finally 4) the power of the president to dissolve the national assembly almost at will.

The intricacy and peculiarity of De Gaulle's thinking on this subject and its undeniable link to the idea of monarchism is revealed by De Gaulle in several passages from his own memoirs were he comments that the direct election of the president occurred to him because France did not have recourse to "heredity, the sacred rites of investiture or absolutism" anymore to enable her to ensure continuity and legitimacy for herself as she was able to do under the monarchy of the Ancien Régime. Jean-Marie Benoist, one of the participants in a1985 symposium in Paris on the concept of monarchy, explains this feat as follows:

It is thus the form of monarchy, capetian and hereditary, that the constitution of the Fifth Republic achieves by elevating the president to a level that allows him to transcend even the contingencies of a presidential majority. If the president, like the king of France, finds himself to be the president of all the French, then he cannot remain a prisoner of the majority that elected him. To quote Decherf: "To every majority he opposes unity; to every change, permanence."

But the story is still more intriguing than that. Not only was the presidential power in France designed by De Gaulle to mimic its monarchic past, it was actually meant to become a monarchy only of the elective kind. What kept De Gaulle from taking that last step was his hesitancy on whether his choice for king would be accepted by the French. This at least is the official version, but there is a great deal of documentary evidence to support this thesis. It was only when he became convinced that this would not work that he decided to keep the mantle himself.

Here are some of the documents that point to this critical moment for the restoration of France's monarchy only a few decades ago. And here, therefore, is also the proof that monarchy can still happen in France today, i.e. that there is nothing intrinsic in the system that would keep monarchy from replacing the presidency and giving France a constitutional monarchic system along the lines of the British system only with slightly more power for the king of France than the Queen of England has under that constitution.

Benoist quotes the following passages from conversations of various French political commentators with De Gaulle. I think they speak for themselves! Quoting Michelet, Benoist states

I do not think I would be revealing a state secret, if I stated that in the mind of the general the succession that was most logical was that of the heir to the kings of France. This may appear paradoxical and disconcerting, but those in the know realize that there is nothing in this reflection that could oppose itself to the very democratic idea the general has of the institutions. All know well -- one only needs to refer to the letters the general sent at the time to the Count of Paris -- what the general felt about the monarchy. I do not think I am twisting words if I say that the regime he desires for his country is a sort of monarchy, not hereditary, but elective. That much is clear. But it must have no doubt occurred to the general that the Count of Paris had not made himself known enough to the public at large and to the general electorate, and that in the eventuality of an election his success was not sufficiently assured for the general to fully engage himself in the political effort that would have supported the Count.

Citing an interview of De Gaulle with Philippe Saint-Robert, Benoist continues

The general told me as he came in: "We have restored the monarchy. It is an elective monarchy, not an hereditary one." At this point the general looked at me to be sure the point was registered. I protest: "But, mon General, I never thought that one could restore hereditary monarchy."

"Yes you did. And so did I, by the way."

And lastly this from an interview of De Gaulle with Alain Peyrefitte, the author of Le Mal Français: "What I have tried to do is to achieve a synthesis between monarchy and republic. A monarchic republic, I inquire? If you wish. But I would rather say a republican monarchy."

All of this is of course corroborated in other sources as well, notably from an interview with the heir presumptive of the throne of France, Prince Henri of Orléans, the Count of Paris, on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday in 1998. In this interview there is also additional light shed on why the monarchy was not restored in fact by De Gaulle, though it was restored in spirit as we have seen.

Due to the Law of Exile promulgated in the Third Republic in 1886, which forbade the heads and heirs of the Bourbon/Orleans and Bonaparte dynasties to remain in France, Prince Henri found himself in exile until the end of World War II. During the war he had joined the French Foreign Legion under an alias, Orliac, and attempted to fight for his country. But France was defeated before he could join the armed forces and so he remained in North Africa while enjoining his countrymen to resist the Germans by "all possible means." It was at this juncture that De Gaulle, in exile in England, asked the prince to join forces with him in the Free French movement. The prince refused arguing that he was above political factions and that he wanted to represent all the French, the Free French as well as those of and under the Vichy government. The effort backfired badly, and the prince lost out on both scores. He was shunned by Vichy France and by Free France. As Anthony Bailey states, quoting De Gaulle on this occasion: "Had the Count of Paris joined me in London in 1940, he would have become France and we would have done great things together." This pithy comment suggests therefore additional reasons why De Gaulle "doubted" whether the prince had made himself sufficiently known to the French public to assure success in an election. The reasons may have been more personal! Whatever the case may be ultimately, however, what these passages prove is that monarchy was not meant to be counted out from a modern France, and that the possibility is still wide open today.

Throughout in these vignettes one thing becomes clear. Monarchies were not defeated and abolished in the court of reason. They were not put aside because republics had the better arguments. They vanished because of the unleashing of cataclysmic forces that swept them up in their torrential currents. Yet in doing what they did, monarchies were neither more nor less guilty than any other government has ever been with regard to its relations to the rest of the world. It is just that in their case, history was less forgiving!

* * * * * * *


Allow me to lead toward a conclusion the way I began, on a personal note. I began my story by telling you about myself, and how monarchy is an integral part of who I am. It is in my blood, for better or for worse, and my hope of course is that one day I would see the return of monarchy to my ancestral land, Iran ... Persia, and see this return as a blessing for that ancient land and not a burden. Of course I wish the same also for France and for Austria and for Russia. After all I am a monarchist! And so I also wish it for many other countries for which I believe monarchy to be very beneficial without in any way taking away from the progress they have made in the direction of freedom and justice and human dignity. If anything, as I tried to state in this lecture, I think monarchy would greatly add to the richness of this fabric and, yes, ... ennoble it!

In a way I say all of this also with a kind of sadness because I also know that some countries, in all likelihood will never have monarchies, or at least not by any stretch of the imagination. Among those countries I count the United States. And I say it with sadness because I do think that a society is enriched, strengthened and ennobled by such a continuity with the past, perhaps not its immediate past, but nevertheless humanity's past and thus our universal heritage. Of course, I also understand that much of that heritage has been maligned and it has been made fashionable to do so in the name of progress and even in the name of scholarship. But the fact remains that the increasing absence of this ancient institution in the world and the thinning of its ranks has robbed us of a calm and dignified center in the midst of our storm tossed politics, a reminder of principles we still long for but dare not verbalize, at least not consciously. How else do we explain that a people as ostensibly anti-monarchic as that of this beautiful country would refer to the period of the presidency of one of its most popular and charismatic presidents as "Camelot," and mourn, in much the same way the people of the legend did, its premature loss and the tragic death of its "king"?

And so I want to end with a look at Iran and share with you my thoughts on the past and future of that country which is so much a part of me. Persia (as it was then called) and Ottoman Turkey were the first countries in the Middle East to have attempted to create genuine constitutional monarchies. Though Turkey's was even more short lived than that of Persia, interestingly their fates were very similar and interlinked, as were their royal families. Those two histories are brought together for us here, today, in the person of Princess Nadine Sultana who honors me beyond measure with her presence at this lecture.

On September of 1906, the Qajar (Kadjar) king Mozzafar-ed-Din Shah signed the Electoral Law of Persia. Then, on December 30, 1906, a few days before his death, he signed the Fundamental Law of Persia, providing the country with a constitution modeled on the Belgian and French examples. The 33 articles of the Electoral Law and the 51 articles of the Fundamental Law gave the country a bicameral legislature, separation of powers, checks and balances, an executive modeled on the French system with a monarch as head of state [what I earlier called "strong constitutional monarchy"], and guarantees of fair representation and political rights for the people of Persia. This development brought Edward G. Browne the famous chronicler of the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1906 to proclaim jubilantly:

Does history afford many instances of a nation making such conspicuous advances in public spirit and morality in so short a period as were made by the Persians during the period under discussion? I venture to think that parallels will not easily be found.

And though this early victory for constitutionalism would have its setback in 1908-09, constitutionalism would ultimately remain in Persia until its demise through a British engineered coup in 1925 against the legitimate government of Persia under Soltan Ahmad Shah. A discourse on the reasons for this betrayal of the hopes of the Iranian people would go beyond the framework of this lecture, but is well documented in books on the subject and needs no further elaboration here. Suffice it to say, however, that it is most ironic that a country like Great Britain with such pretensions to democracy would have been the engineer of the downfall of Iran's constitutional government. The demise of a constitutional monarchy in Iran, and its replacement by an absolute monarchy after the freeing of the democratic energies and aspirations of the people of that country resulted in pent up frustrations that would manifest themselves throughout the reign of the Pahlavis -- as the dynasty would be known that succeeded the Qajars (Kadjars) in 1925. These tensions finally resulted in the abolition of monarchy altogether with the theocratically inspired revolution of 1979, replacing rule by kings with rule by priests for the first time in Iran's twenty five century long monarchic history.

To the trained observer of Iranian history and politics one point remains clear and easily discernible. Iranians, when given the opportunity would choose to follow an individual who represents strength and stability. It is part of their collective political psyche and part of their national myth. It is also true, however, that Iranians also prefer this individual to be just and heroic and fair-minded, and that they would opt for such an individual, given the choice, over a strongman. This too is part of the national story. We see it in our great epic the Shahnameh or "Book of Kings," in the heroic figures of Rostam and Zaal and Jamshid and Fereidoun, we see it also in what Michael Fischer in his path breaking book on the Iranian Revolution, calls the "Kerbela Paradigm." This paradigm is a struggle for justice embodied in the figures of the early Shi'ite Imams Ali and Hussein, and we see it still in the emotion the name Mossadegh evokes in the minds and hearts of many Iranians, despite the fact that this unusual leader combined in himself both the characteristics of the strongman and that of the just hero for Iranians.

There is also a further irony in the Iranian predicament today. It has to do with the fact that the priests who are now in charge of governing that country, have traditionally opposed unjust rule due to their Shi'ite heritage and have also simultaneously shunned political office due to their quietist bent. This was true of Shi'ite history in Iran from the beginning, even though their leaders, mujtaheds and ayatollahs of great renown, have had important roles in influencing political outcomes in Iran since the nineteenth century when the Qajar (Kadjar) kings made their acquiescence indispensable and their blessings part and parcel of the legitimacy of the monarchy. And yet despite breaking both precedents this time around, they have been embraced by the people of that country enough to be able to maintain themselves in power for twenty years, and now find their rule even acceptable to such lovers of democracy as the government of the United States, if, that is, we are interpreting the recent flirting by this government with the Iranian leadership correctly and the description of its new leader by U.S. authorities and the press as "the elected moderate president of Iran" as sincere.

What is the lesson in these recent developments in Iran for us here today, listening to a lecture on the virtues of monarchy over those of republics? I believe it is this, that despite official proclamations to the contrary, Iran still has a monarchic tradition built in to its very soul, and that this tradition also combines a search for justice and fairness and dignity. What is absent from its political practice today is the form of government that embodies those qualities as well, constitutional monarchy, a form of government fought for by the generation of the last turn of the century and now absent from the political scene of Iran only because the political practice of the decades from 1925 to 1975 was so contrary to those early ideals that it evoked such strong counter reaction; a reaction resulting in a cataclysm that propelled us even further back than where we were pre-1906. The tragedy is further compounded by the fact that the memory of monarchy only remains in a tarnished form in Iran today, if at all, and that there are very few voices that would remind the generation of this turn of the century and new millennium that monarchy is still an option, and not only that but a good option to boot. And so in Iran as in many other countries, lack of memory or knowledge results in lack of political imagination, and lack of political imagination results in less than ideal political circumstances. But that lack of imagination is not just a home grown phenomenon but also one that is encouraged from abroad, and as I have tried to show early on, also present in the literature of some of the most prestigious opinion-making journals in the world such as Foreign Affairs and National Interest, where the recovery of the concept and its realization in practice are actively discouraged by individuals such as Fukuyama in the name of the triumph of their present pet theory which happens to be the triumph of Western liberalism.

And so we seem to lose ground for what is a worthwhile and eminently sane alternative to the present state of politics of that poor country, Iran, as well as many around it and elsewhere in the world. But there is hope, and hope often springs when least expected as with the news of this government's latest attempts to seek a way out of the Iraqi dilemma. It was with great joy that I read an article in the New York Times of January 3rd of this year, forwarded to me by our cousin, Ambassador Farhad Sepahbody-Qajar (Kadjar), former Iranian diplomat and now journalist and writer, that the U.S. government is actively seeking to restore the monarchy of Iraq which was deposed in a violent coup almost forty years ago, bringing us the dementia tremens called the Ba'ath Party and its all-time evil genie Saddam Hussein!

The heir presumptive to the Hashemite throne of Iraq is the 42 year-old Sharif Ali ibn-al-Hussein. He leads the Constitutional Monarchy Movement of Iraq in exile from London. He survived the 1958 revolution that toppled the monarchy, fleeing Iraq as a two year old together with his parents. When asked why monarchy would be a good solution to the Iraqi dilemma he replied in corroboration of many of my earlier points that: "the Iraqi monarchy would be a symbol around which all parts of Iraq would be able to rally because we're not based on any single constituency, nor are we a political party, ... What we look forward to is establishing democratic institutions that would guarantee that all players in politics would be able to participate as they wish."

To achieve this, he has produced a plan for the future entitled the "National Covenant" which would "restore an Islamic monarchy pledged to protect the human rights of followers of all religions and create a free-market economic system, a multi-party democracy and an independent judiciary." All things, I might add, Fukuyama considers only possible under Western style republics. And as to the question of why Iraqis should choose him over other alternatives, he answered: "It was the monarchy that achieved independence for Iraq from the League of Nations mandate," and "Iraq was the first Arab nation to have independence. The legacy of the monarchs compared to the republics that followed -- all of them dictatorships -- have made people much more aware of the positive roles of the monarchy."

Similar circumstances exist for the Iranian monarchy. Only here there are two alternatives Iranians can choose from for a restoration of their monarchy along democratic lines. One is the young Shah in exile, Reza Shah II, whom many Iranians still remember as "Valiahd" or "Crown Prince." An amiable figure untainted by any of the excesses of his father's and grandfather's rule, and willing to lead the country in ways compatible with the accepted principles of democratic government and rule of law. The other, and of course closer to my own heart, that of the restoration of the Qajars (Kadjars) in the person of the heir presumptive of the Kadjar Imperial Family. In either case, as with the possible restoration of the Iraqi monarchy, support by the international community and in particular by the world's most powerful nations would be essential, not as props for decaying regimes nor as puppeteers behind a hollow exterior, but as guarantors of a fair and level playing field to give these new governments a chance to regrow the roots that were denied them by circumstance and international intrigue not too long ago, and ironically in the case of Iran, by the very powers who would now be called upon to redeem themselves for the agony they have imposed on the people of that poor country for so long.

In the end, I too realize, however, that the chances of this form of government to return to Iran soon are not very high, but working towards that realization is not therefore futile. A journey of a thousand miles does begin with the first step said Lao Tzu, and Gregory Copley, in 1990 ended his call for a re-evaluation of the future of monarchies with the words, "Let the debate begin." Since then nine years have passed, much has been written on the subject, and changes have occurred in the world that would give hope to the notion that monarchy's time might come yet again. I wish to add my small voice to that growing chorus for it to become a great symphony once more.

Thank you for lending me your ears and for indulging me to that end so generously with your patience and good will!

Ba Sepaas
Last edited by Liberator on Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Chief Warrant Officer
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 758
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Liberator » Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:58 pm

Here are some famouse quotes on monarchy for those that are interested:

[quote]I devote all my attentions to improving the welfare of my subjects, since I wish to save my soul and go to Heaven.
King Charles III of Spain, 1750.

If a nation does not want a monarchy, change the nation’s mind. If a nation does not need a monarchy, change the nation’s needs.
Jan Christian Smuts, Prime Minister of South Africa 1939-1948.

I am a true servant of my King and country, not only as a dutiful subject but because I am a convinced monarchist, politically and intellectually. I mean by that, quite apart from myself and my relationship to my Bavarian and German fatherland, I believe monarchy to be the most successful form of government that the history of mankind has known.
Adolf von Harnier, on trial for treason, Germany 1938.

If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler. A democratic basis of society might have been preserved by a crowned Weimar in contact with the victorious Allies.â€
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Chief Warrant Officer
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 758
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Liberator » Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:13 pm

King Juan Carlos of Spain - A charismatic landsfigure.

June 12, 2001
Spanish King Champions Democracy

Filed at 10:00 a.m. ET

MADRID, Spain (AP) -- King Juan Carlos I is head of state, supreme commander of the armed forces, a champion of democracy and a globe-trotting advocate of everything Spanish.

Carlos remains popular in Spain for spurning authoritarian rule bequeathed him by Gen. Francisco Franco 25 years ago and guiding Spain's transition from dictatorship to democracy.

A gregarious charmer, he has built personal relations with leaders around the world, including President Bush who starts a European trip in Spain on Tuesday. In April he visited Bush at the White House and called on brother Jeb, the Florida governor, in Miami. He has known the president's father for years.

His official biographer, Jose Luis de Vilallonga, likens the king to a ``traveling salesman'' whose product is Spain. ``He's doing a lot for his country, especially in South America,'' Vilallonga said in an interview.

In what has been nicknamed the ``reconquest'' of Latin America, Spain has become second only to the United States in overall investment in the region. Juan Carlos, 63, is the only Spanish king ever to visit the Americas.

As the 10-year-old son of an exiled pretender to the Spanish throne -- effectively abolished when Spain's Second Republic was proclaimed in 1931 -- Juan Carlos was taken under Franco's wing and groomed to be king. He was crowned on Nov. 22, 1975, two days after Franco's death.

Born in Rome, the son of exiled Don Juan de Borbon y Battenberg, the future king lived in Italy, Switzerland and Portugal before ever coming to Spain. His father had been the pretender to the throne since the death in 1941 of his own exiled father, King Alfonso XIII. He yielded his claim to the crown in 1977 and died in 1993.

Juan Carlos married Princess Sofia, the sister of King Constantine of Greece, in 1974. Her family tree includes two German emperors, eight kings of Denmark, five kings of Sweden, seven Czars of Russia, a king and a queen of Norway, a queen of England and five Greek kings.

``It is a pedigree that gives you vertigo,'' the king said in Vilallonga's biography.

The king and queen have two married daughters and a son, Crown Prince Felipe.

For years, Juan Carlos was kept out of the limelight.

``The young prince fooled everyone,'' Vilallonga wrote in ``El Rey (The King),'' in its 11th edition since 1993. ``He appeared to be in the shadow of Franco, but once the dictator was dead, he ... directed the transition from dictatorship to democracy with a master hand.''

In his first speech, he declared he would be ``the king of all Spaniards'' -- a significant phrase in a country of disparate regions and languages. In Feb. 23, 1981, he stopped a coup by Civil Guards claiming to represent him. He ordered the troops back to barracks and assured Spaniards he would defend their new democracy.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Chief Warrant Officer
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 758
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Why Monarchy has Ended & We Must Start a New?

Postby Ahreeman X » Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:23 pm

Why Monarchy has Ended & We Must Start a New?
November 19, 2005

Dear Viking Warrior & All:

"Whereas I am a Constitutional Monarchist, it is my belief that the Monarchy provides:

# an impartial symbolic Head of State above politics, commercial and factional interests; this is very important having Iran's vast diverse inhabitants from Azari to Balooch etc, linking us together amazingly and most valuably."

If you want to link Azeri, Baluch, Kurd, Turkmen, Arab & others together, make them united & avoid separatist movements, then give them their natural rights & what they have been denied for centuries. Give them something substantial, which is their natural rights. Give them Federalism. Allow them to have absolute autonomy in their own states. And let them be only dependant to Tehran, for foreign policy, military needs & international trades. This is how it has been done fully, in Achaemenid Empire, this is how it has been done partially in Sassanid Empire & this is how it is done in United States of America. Federalism is not a western concept, yet Persian Empire mastered it over 2000 years ago. Federalism was how Darius & Shapour ran their Empire. Once Islam hit Iran, Centralism replaced Federalism! Centralism is another Islamic present for Iran.

Putting a puppet Shah with a monkey ceremonial suit does not unite various minorities of Iran. They want something substantial, so they shall remain in the future "Persian Union". Federalism is the only way to guarantee a united "Persian Union" of the future. Puppet Shahs in Ceremonial Monkey Suits, make good story books but they don't strengthen a united Iran. Cockamamie promises cannot keep Iranian various tribes united. Their ears are full of it!

"# a focus for national unity, national awards and honours and national institutions "

What does this have to do with a monarch? This is Federal Governments job!

"# the centrepiece of colourful non-political ceremonial and national celebrations "

That's what Haji Firuz & Amu Nowruz are for! Pir-e Sadeh, The Sun Goddess Mithra & Yalda Night's Watermelons are also playing the same role!

"# separate from the Head of Government (the Prime Minister), unlike in some countries where the two are combined, often with difficulty"

No, there will be no difficulty because we will not have a president and a Prime Minister, in European manners! We will not have a useless person in a useless position sucking off of the national budget! We will not have a ceremonial cheesy president or Shah! We will have a president, which runs the nation & vice president with various responsibilities as his assistant. That's how it is done in United States of America. No decorative positions for decorative characters!

"# able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen etc"

That's what Red Lion & Sun, Red Cross, art festivals & non-profit organizations are for! Where is the need for a Monarch?

"# a Head of State completely under the democratic control of Parliament (meaning they the representatives of the people decide if the monarchy continues/changes)"

First, I truly feel sorry for that pitiful puppet monarch whom the parliament must decide if they will cut off his salary, title & balls or not! Once upon a time we had:

Cyrus The Great
Darius The Great
Xerxes The Great
Shapour The Great
Yaqub Leis The Great
Shah Abbas The Great
Nadir Shah The Great
Reza Shah The Great

Each of these men ran an Empire or a powerful Kingdom. Now you are suggesting to put a Ceremonial Monkey Suit on Reza Pahlavi or some other Bozo's body, shove some salary in their mouths & tie a Testicle string band around their testicles & give the other side of the string to the parliament to pull or let loose, anytime they want! So the Shah of Iran will become a Trained Lap Dog! He will bark or not, anytime the parliament see fit! This is great! A Welfare recipient Shah! I am sure this is so Traditional Persian! No?

Second, In no constitutional monarchy, which survived the Industrial Revolution & Political Revolutions of Europe in 20th century, parliaments ever voted the Monarch out! Once the Monarch is there, then he will be there until he dies & then his son takes over & the damn dynasty will last forever! In Iran's case the daughter will not take over, because of the Shiite, Bull Shiite, which is the official religion of the future proposed Monarchial State & also the religion of Reza Pahlavi! That's why he is killing himself & doing "Boksovat" to make a baby boy!

So in this proposed puppet Monarchy, European Style (unlike Real Monarchy, Iranian Style), Reza Pahlavi will have a guaranteed yearly salary until he dies! And then the next Pahlavi will take over & all they have to do is to dress up in Monkey Suits as display dolls to sit pretty in the Shah's palace!

"# a constant, lasting symbolic head of the country with links back through our whole history and assured lines of continuity into the future. Able to preserve and represent our ancient past and historical figures to today's generation."

A strong powerful Iran, emerging as a global power with strong economy, military & technology, will guarantee to continue our glorious past history. A strong powerful Iran will make sure that a video game company will not mistakenly pile us up with Arabs, so you have to take time to write a petition, begging them to exclude us from Arabs! Once a powerful "Persian Union" exists, then no one but no one will mistaken us with an Arab state!

There will be no need for a puppet monarch to guarantee that the world will know our history!

"# a worldwide well-known and respected symbol of our country carrying out State Visits and goodwill tours in other countries; this in itself generates a lot of tourism to ones country"

This is the job for Secretary of State or Foreign Minister! Where does the Monarch come in?!

Let me get this right,

So we need to put a ceremonial monkey suit on a puppet monarch & his family & then display them as King & Queen & Prince & Princess in the Imperial Palace. Display them behind the windows for the tourists to come & visit, so they throw us some money?!

Aren't Dancing Bears, Acrobatic Elephants, Jumping Lions, Singing Donkeys, & Monkeys who pick their butts with their index fingers & other talented animals in the circus or the zoo or wild animal parks, play the same role?

Our national historical monuments, our tourist attractions, our amusement parks, our resorts & beaches, our 1001 tourist sites are for this purpose. Now if you insist to put some monkey suits on some people & display them for tourists, then by all means, I will gather 100 nice looking Persian models & dress half of them up as Shahanshahs of various Persian Dynasties & the other half as Shahbanus of the same dynasties. I build a museum of Persian History with halls, each designed for a certain period & displays all these models to greet the tourists & take pictures with them. Kind o like Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas! Why do we need a monarch? It's cheaper this way & it produces more profit via tourism!

"# and much, much more that you can probably think of yourself! "

Of course I can think of 101 ways to make money from tourism, using our 8000 years of history. I can think of 101 ways to teach the world about our 8000 years of history & our glorious past & Persian Monarchy. Once we free Iran & establish a powerful "Persian Union" as a strong Secular, Democratic, Federal Republic, then I will flood your height with tourism money because I have 101 ideas to make money out of tourism. The first one will be to renovate all Historical Monuments starting with Pasargad, Persepolis, Estakhr & etc. & build the exact replicas of how they used to look, right next to them with full staffs of hosts dressed in Persian historical uniforms serving the tourists. I will build hotels, casinos, resorts, restaurants, amusement parks & museums as duplicates of Persian palaces of Achaemenids, Sassanids, Abbasids, Afsharids & Qajar for tourist attractions. I will make Iran bloom with tourist money like it has never been done before. And I will put a brutal, hard-core & innovative economist/businessman such as Camran Mirza in charge of Ministry of Tourism to make sure the ministry will produce 10 times of the original money which we had invested in it.

Then I will get the Ministry of Culture going with future outstanding plays, operas, sound & vision shows, laser shows & big budget movies made about Persian history in our own Parsiwood (our version of Hollywood) near Shiraz. I get the custom designers, decorators, historians, directors, actors, administrators, props, graphic artists & writers in Ministry of Culture to work on these projects & I will put Admzad in charge of Ministry of Culture to make sure all projects will be successful, the world will once again know our culture & history. I shall make sure Ministry of Culture will produce mega profits.

This is how I will shove the Persian Culture, up the worlds Ass! This is how I will revive the Persian Empire via creating the "Persian Union".

Now tell me, why the hell do I need a puppet monarch in a ceremonial monkey suit, like Charles or Elizabeth to show them off to tourists as Dancing Dogs or Persian Donkeys to make a tenth of what I can produce with my projects?!

"The above is from
and i've changed/added a few things."

Haji, I am providing you with logic & you are bringing me quotes from Quran! Well in your case, Holy Monarchial book O La Dee Dee Da!

"And for the possibility of the abolition of the monarchy to be abolished by a majority vote."

Well we both know that once a Monarchy is established, that will never happen! Same as Mullahs, once you give a Mullah 5 Cents, you can never take it back! Once you give a puppet monarch, a monkey suit & a crown & assign them a fixed yearly salary, then you can never get them out of their palace! Look @ Euro_Pee_On Story Book Monarchies & their "Three Little Piggies" Kingdoms!

"i'm not a big fan of the Kadjar King's but I cannot judge Dr. M.M. Eskandari-Qajar based on what his decendants did in Iran"

Actually it is Qajar Kings, not "Kadjar Kings"! What the Frag is Kadjar? Is this word an off shoot of Kachal-jar = Kachal + Jar?!

Also, actually you can, judge Eskandari & present Earls of Qajar Dynasty because they are as worthless as RP & the present Earls of Pahlavi Dynasty!

But do not generalize what their descendants done to Iran! Aqa Mohamad Khan-e Qajar was their descendant! Aqa Khan was the starter of Qajar Dynasty. As I recall, by the end of his reign, our country was still named "The Persian Empire" (Emperaturiye Pars). Aqa Khan kicked Russian, Ottoman & other enemies of Iran's Ass. We still owned: Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, half of Afghanistan, half of Pakistan, parts of Kazakhstan, parts of Russia & Bahrain.

In his historical time frame, he was as great of a man as Reza Khan was in historical time frame. Violent or not, he kept the Persian Empire intact. Actually his job was much harder than Reza Khan's job, because Aqa Khan ran an Empire, kept it intact & still pushed Iran forward; but Reza Khan revived a kingdom, ran it & pushed it forward. I don't know why some people assume the value of the work which Aqa Mohamad Khan-e Qajar has done was less than Reza Khan-e Pahlavi?!

Maybe he was not one of the great Shahanshahs:

Cyrus The Great
Darius The Great
Xerxes The Great
Shapour The Great
Yaqub Leis The Great
Shah Abbas The Great
Nadir Shah The Great
Reza Shah The Great

However, he was a great patriot, strong nationalist & a solid Emperor. How come you call Alahazrat "an Emperor" which he was not, because Iran was not an Empire on 1979, but you call Aqa Khan a Qajar king? Aqa Khan was an Emperor, not a king! Then you critic & trash "All" Qajar Kings, stating that "what his descendants did in Iran"?

How come when you talk about Qajars, you look @ Fath Ali Khan-e Qajar?
How come you don't look @:

Aqa Mohamad Khan-e Qajar, great Persian Emperor?
The last Persian Emperor in history of Iran!

Abbas Mirza Qajar, great Persian General?
The last great Persian General & Fath Ali Khan's son, who fought with teeth & claws with Russians & did not surrender until he was forced by Tehran to surrender!

Iraj Mirza Qajar, great Persian poet?
With many great She'r (serious poems) & Hajv (silly poems)!

How about all the Qajars' worthy veteran prime ministers, diplomats, politicians, classical painters, artists, academics & culture?

and many more....................

It is not fair to trash a whole dynasty because of a worthless number such as Ahmad Shah!
Is it fair for me to trash Pahlavis because of a useless bum like Reza Pahlavi?

Should I disregard legends like Reza Khan or even all the good that Alahazrat done & only talk about Thievery & Corruption of Alahazrat's brothers & Sisters, drug dealings of Ashraf, addiction of Farahnaz, Worthlessness of Farah's children, & uselessness of Reza Pahlavi?

Is it right to trash Pahlavis disregarding the works of the great ones?

Well, I am a Qajar & I am damn proud of my family & dynasty. When I think of Qajar, I think of all the good that they have done, all the Qajar Family's worthy politicians & diplomats whom served during Pahlavis, all the cultural contributions which they have done to Iran & not only about all the worthless Shahs!

There you go ...................

"King Juan Carlos of Spain - A charismatic landsfigure"

There you go again! I am telling you the Industrial Revolution has passed Monarchy by, the same as it has passed Islam by ................ You are clinging to some system of ancient times & dark agaes! Then you bring me examples amongst the democratic kings! You want to tell me that there were also some decent men amongst the kings! Are you assuming that I do not know? Are you forgetting that I am a historian?

Here is the logic,


A selected legacy of a decent few, is not evidence nor justifies a system of government to be just & functional nor progressive.

Your line of reasoning is flawed! This is not proof of righteousness! This is not evidence of progressiveness!

You & your discussions, reminds me of my discussions with Imam Jum'a of Santee Mosque! I bring him logic & facts on why Islam is outdated, a mid evil ideology & why Caliphate aka Velayat-e Faqih or Spiritual Guardianship of Muhammed, Abu Bakr, Omar, Khomeini & Khamenei cannot & will not work in 21st century! Imam in returns, reads me some Quran & brings me examples of some great humanitarian Caliphates & Velayat-e Faqih such as Ali, Hussein & Salah al din al Ayubid! I reason with him with logic & he reads me some Quran!

Now I bring you facts, documents, logic, economy, politics, sociology & reasoning on how to create a system of government from scratch & start a new regime from the base & foundation. I show you facts on why Monarchy is yesterday's story which Industrial Revolution passed it by! I tell you Monarchy died 27 years ago, but then you tell me, oh by the way Juan Carlos is a democratic king & you quote me from Holy Quran of Monarchists site!

I tell you I am proud of our 8000 years history of Monarchy from our first Shah of Susa Dynasty 8000 years ago to our last Shahanshah of Pahlavi Dynasty on 1979. I love & cherish all the goods that they have done & I critic all the disasters that they created. I celebrate all the great Shahanshahs of Iran & our glorious past Empire. I tell you Monarchy is finished & done with. We need to look ahead & look towards tomorrow. What's done is done & it will never come back.

To make Iran, once again a great powerful nation, the same as our past glorious Persian Empire, will never be achieved by duplicating & adopting a system of puppet monarchy from Europe onto Iran! Yet it will be achieved via creation of a new system, back to ancient Persian Federalism, yet via creation of a new economic & social system, by creation of the "Persian Union". A Union which will start from Iran & it will re-cover, all our past states & present independent nations which once has been stolen from us!

We must create a new system and we must run the nation like a corporation. Puppet monarchs, hand kissers, ass kissers, tofeylis, Lap dogs & CIA Beggars will not make this new system! Technocrats, specialists & professionals will make this new system.

This is how it will be done:

A Vision for Iran of Tomorrow

And this is how "The Persian Union" will form:

A Vision for Iran of tomorrow
Part Four: To Change All Social Fabrics ... 38c94#2035

A nation which will run as corporation by economists, technocrats & solid Nationalists. In this nation every part of the system will be run by a "Useful Unit" elected or appointed to that position. There will be no room for "Useless Units" such as ceremonial puppet monarchs, Royal Hi-nesses, spiritual guardian Imams, Religious theocrats, Homeless Media Lords & their Tabloids, Hand/Ass Kissers or any other cheeseball characters! Professionals in each field will run this system.

This is how Persian Empire will be revived, & I promise you, no puppet monarch with rental ceremonial monkey suit, sitting behind the window & displayed for tourists, would have a role in it.

Step by step, Islamic Republic of Iran will disappear & a new True Republic will provide & prepare the primary steps for the creation of "The Persian Union".

My friend, it is time for Iran to be run by Experts & Technocrats rather than Fortune Tellers, Holy men & Puppet Monarchs aka Ramals & Hamals!

Iran of tomorrow will require the latest, most progressive, most scientific, most up-to-dated & most logical system of government, so that the new government can drag Iran out of the 27 plus years, full of Shiite & push her forwards in to the Information Age. Only this system can create the "Persian Union" & revive the "Persian Empire". Nothing but the best for Iran.

As I have stated, I deal with science, facts, logic & evidence. I do not deal with emotion, sensation, formality, Persian Flatteries, Super Natural & Rhetorics.

Prove me wrong, bring evidence, rebuttal my hypothesis, & in other words, talk "Logic" to me. I am a scientific person, the only thing I understand is "Logic". Pardon me, but cheesy line of rhetorics which you revised from a Monarchist site are not "Reasoning" nor they are "Logical". They make a good story book for teenage monarchists born in exile to make them feel good by believing in something! But they do not provide evidence nor they consider as reasoning, in a logical argument.

Levels of Argumentations

Buddy, you know I loves you, but sometimes you are forgetting, whom are you arguing with! You go around cheesy Iranian forums & argue much with many illiterate Hassan, Hussein & Yaqn Ali Baqal. This is good for you to practice debates & argumentations, but have in mind that:

a) The level of argumentation in Iranian forums is 5th grade Elementary School (Shish be payin), that's why you are a master debater in Iranian forums.

b) Now, you are arguing in IPC. This is more like Ph.D. level (Shish be bala)! It is not quite the same, is it?

c) Over there, you encounter Sisi, Joojoo, Soosool, Javi, Kiki, Beni, Ani, Zhila, Zhaleh, Ziba & Dooli Joon! Over there, your argument carries weight because you are a bright young man with good prospects.

d) Over here, you encounter masters of trade, ruthless veterans & some folks like Moi who believes in logic & nothing but the logic. Rhetorics, Stories, Epics, Metaphysics, & other "Compatriotic" episodes, do not work! Ahreeman don't play that! Talk to me Logic & prove me wrong. Believe me, I am beyond fanaticism or dogmatism & I am pro "Change" & "New". Prove me wrong & I will be the first one who will raise The Monarchy Flag, Sing Shahanshah-e Ma Zende Bada ........ songs, call you "Compatriot", polish RP's balls & become a full blown Monarchist! Talk to me science baby, cause I ain't know no God, Rhetorics of Bahr ol Tavil or epics of Shahnameh!


We have 8000 glorious years, history of monarchy. We respect our monarchs, we respect our history, we respect our traditions & we want our monarchs to remain in history with their dignity. We want our last monarch, Alahazrat's memory to remain with dignity. Let's not trash that memory with creating puppet monarchs in ceremonial monkey suits, collecting welfare from the parliament & displayed in Imperial Palace as Circus Dogs for tourists to visit! Lets accept, the world is moving forward & so must we. Monarchy has died on 1979. Alahazrat could avoid 1979, if he would have opened democratic breathing rooms, earlier! Alahazrat could also avoid 1979 by killing 10,000 Islamists in streets of Tehran to avoid the Islamic Reaction! Alahazrat could have stayed his grounds, not leave Iran & avoid 1979! Alahazrat could ..........

Reasons for the birth of Islamic Republic of Iran?

Who ever he was, right or wrong, he was human, he made many mistakes and he also done many good. Alahazrat has passed away. 8000 years of Monarchy has died on 1979. Then 27 years has passed, thats more than quarter of a century! Now we must move forward. Monarchy is dead, may it rest in peace! Can we stick with facts? Time to move on. Time for The New!

And that's Why Monarchy has Ended & We Must Start a New.

That's all folks


Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Ahreeman X » Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:55 pm

Why Ahreeman is Wise?!

Camran Mirza & All:

I truly enjoyed this post:

"To have a government that baby sit people, will result in handicap the nation namely; censorship, multiple controls and monopoly or estate owned services"

"The system of people running people is a fundamental basis of our natural social structure. Governments which control states and monopolize them are only groups of people who like power and control by keeping the poor down and under."

"In the world of capitalism, one only wants to become rich but, in the world of governing and kingdom, one wants to become powerful. I go for the lesser evil, the rich. After all, the riches have saved the world from governing bodies of Nazism and Communism in the past. "

But then again, you do know that I simply love the way your mind works! One of these days, I will dissect your brain, put it in an alcohol jar, in a bookshelf in my library! I believe I have to invent a method to keep a select IPC members' brains removed & kept alive in jars & in my library after they pass away! And when I pass away, Liberator can maintain my brain library!

You Ha Ha Ha Ha Haw How Howl (mad scientist/wolfman laugh)!

The problem with Wanna be Monarchs are that they always manage to gather a group of hand kissers, ass kissers, illiterate, charlatan, Persian Flatterers, losers & bufoons around themselves, so they would look the most intelligent & the most handsome amongst their crowd! But the downside is, that they never evolve!

I, on the other hand, always manage to have a Great Circle of the most knowledgeable & dedicated technocrats, specialists, scientists, economists, philosophers & professionals around myself as friends. I always manage to keep this Super Circle of advanced brains of Iran, off & on the Internet, outside & inside IPC, yet around myself. Unlike the wanna be Monarchs, I always mix & hang with people who know more than me (in various fields) & look better than me; therefore, by standing next to them, I will learn something from them & I will look good! That's why the Monarchs are always bound to fall & that's why Ahreeman is always bound to come out victorious!

Ahreeman Bless

Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA


Return to Iran Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests