4 ms·

There's a certain strain of political outlook exemplified by an article like this, commonly categorized as "post-colonial", that ironically morphs itself into i

There's a certain strain of political outlook exemplified by an article like this, commonly categorized as "post-colonial", that ironically morphs itself into increasingly complex and implausible shapes to explain why all of the bad things are caused by the "first world" and nobody else has or will ever have any autonomy as an agent in the world. The other aspect of irony to this is that this worldview is cultivated uniquely in bourgeoisie Western spheres to be championed by chosen avatars of the parasitized people completely Westernized outside their disdain for Western culture. What we really need is a Canada-infused Iranian with a Western worldview telling us what the Iranian people truly want -- how absurd. The final and greatest absurd irony latent here is that in the minds of proponents of these conspiracy theories, the US and other Western powers go from bumbling buffoons that can't socially engineer their way out of a paper bag when you can see/prove it (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) to master machivellian puppeteers when you can't.

joemazerino 3y ago
You didn't know? Everything bad is the West's fault. Meanwhile Iran's secular base disintegrates rapidly while the fundamentalist Islamists increase their stranglehold on their people.
- boringuser2 3y ago
  The people clearly support the Iranian government. Whether or not you or I have anything to say about that is pretty irrelevant as I am not an Iranian citizen, and you are unlikely to be one. von Mises once said that every government is fundamentally democratic because even the most autarchic government requires the governing consent of its people. This is clearly true. This whole "people in the West get to decide whether or not a government is valid, but also they are evil bad guys" thing is really getting old.
  - enkid 3y ago
    This is absurd nihilism. If we change the meanings of words then any sentence can mean anything and stating "every government is democratic" is a clear example of that.
    - boringuser2 3y ago
      It's a metaphor meant to help you understand that the conceits with which you have been raised, namely that Democracy is a sacred system held only teneuously by a few Western states and that the narrative that there are oppressed peoples that are held hostage by their state and we must help them are geopolitical lies you've fallen for. Really smart people frequently use these metaphors that bust unquestioned cultural mores. Comparison is a very powerful tool.
  - davidguetta 3y ago
    People are stupid and thats the point. The weste had the chance togo through a science-fueled phase which won the minds against religion and so as a CONSEQUENCE people were convinced. Now the biggest wave is religious fundamentalism (whatever that means by the way) so people follow that as the sheeps they are. Democracy is the best system at the exception of the others, but its not perfect and can be challenged or abused
    - boringuser2 3y ago
      I don't accept your premise, the idea that Democracy is particularly good or special isn't so obvious to me, but it's such a contentious discussion given that the US has armed itself to the teeth with the concept that it is democratic propagandistically that I can't belabor it. Largely, I would caution you to regain the wisdom of the West's greatest forebears and arm yourself with the knowledge that you don't actually know very much at all.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > the US has armed itself to the teeth with the concept that it is democratic Pure democracy turns into majoritarian, partisan anarchy. We’ve known this since Athens. But it’s forgotten by modern Americans, for whom more democracy is seen as good for its own sake, and that leads to foreign policy mistakes by our elites. That said: countries with democratic elements have clear advantages in economic development, scientific output and tendency towards peace (as well as effective warmaking). We should want more democracy, for moral and self-interested reasons. But your narrow point, that simply promoting more democracy everywhere, all the time is counterproductive, is accurate.
        boringuser2 3y ago
        I'm not happy with your explanation because I feel it demonstrates that even an ostensibly smart, reflective person isn't outside their own cultural bias. I can disprove your conception in about a half of a second by citing the economic, social, political and technological miracle, that no democracy has even come close to replication thereof, that was ... 1930s Germany. FDR was also inspired himself by similar autarchic methods of government, and saw the US through a devastating conflict with a fierce (and even technically and strategically superior) enemy. Then we trip the programming and conversation goes buck wild. Suffice it to say, merely because the West is exemplary and it happens to be in the current thrall of a political order doesn't mean this political order can be credited with the Wests exemplary status.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > people clearly support the Iranian government Relative to anarchy, sure. The problem with this construction is it deterministically leads to anarchy, from time to time, which is miserable not only for the people involved but also for all of their neighbours. The point of peaceful transitions of power is avoiding that interregnal anarchy.
  - CMay 3y ago
    Western countries are not run on direct democracy, because it is known to fail quicker. They're representative systems. What you are essentially talking about is mob rule (direct democracy) which is a risk for any government, but for it to really manifest in a way that threatens the state it has to fail to balance the basic needs of the people and also become out of touch with any of their strong expectations which go beyond the basic needs. If people have low expectations and have adapted to their environment, then it's not that much of a threat. This gets further solidified by punishing anyone that goes against the state and censoring any information that is inconvenient. Many authoritarian governments have failed to be comprehensive in handling those aspects, but increasingly the oppression and control of people is becoming perfected. The assumption that all people everywhere have sufficient opportunity, free communication, education and numbers to successfully push back against their government and thus it is always their fault that their government exists seems like a result of overlooking the very long study of imbalances in power between people and government. You cannot leave this to an assumption as an uncontestable law, which is precisely why the United States is setup the way it is to make sure the people have power and communication in order to check the government.
_3u10 3y ago
As someone who left Canada for the “3rd world” and sees people crying about how awful it is in the happiest country on earth, let me just say it’s as awful as everyone says, please don’t come here or help us we certainly aren’t happy leave us to our misery.
orwin 3y ago
The Shah couldn't have taken the power without US help. It's one of the US few success, Pinochet being the second. Obviously it's easier when you have internal support. Basically the Iranian conservatives were divided. The Shah was unlikeable (or untrustworthy I think, if I remember correctly), so the old feudal/clannish/agrarian society wouldn't really support him. The industrialists liked him better, and the islamistes didn't respect him. He had one advantage: a semi-legitimate claim that a majority would recognize. He promised the 3 guarantees once in power, and since he had the political acumen of a 12 yo, the Cia handed the negociations for him (this is a 3rd-hand story). The coup worked, but he gave too much of his power after that, and basically handed the state to islamists (his political acumen didn't improve with the years). That's the story I heard from an Iranian. I choose to believe it until all is declassified.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > The Shah couldn't have taken the power without US help. It's one of the US few success, Pinochet being the second. Can you explain this? I wouldn’t call Iran’s situation or Pinochet good outcomes at all, but are you meaning that the US achieved what it intended too, so was therefore successful?
  - orwin 3y ago
    Yes, it was two very successfull CIA operations. I mean, i often argue with a friend who think that the CIA best operations are those we don't know, but imho it's conspiracy thinking, and the CIA was caught, many, many times. Also there was no real proof for the Shah that the CIA was this involved (until like 5 years ago when the CIA just declassified and admitted it), which to me is quite impressive.
anigbrowl 3y ago
the US and other Western powers go from bumbling buffoons that can't socially engineer their way out of a paper bag when you can see/prove it (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) to master machivellian puppeteers when you can't. Asinine argument. Colonial/aggressive powers do well at first because seizing the initiative gives them the advantage of surprise and dismayed targets take time to catch up. The same approaches work less well later because counterparties are wiser to the dynamics and the initiative is harder to seize. Same reason 9/11 only worked once and subsequent large-scale operations by Al Qaeda failed.
- _3u10 3y ago
  Could you remind me who is running Afghanistan these days? The name of the group is on the tip of my tongue.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    You have failed to understand the point. The Taliban are running Afghanistan again because they learned the lessons of previous conflicts. It's not that the US is clueless as GP avers, but that others have caught up and tactics which previously worked no longer give the S the edge that they used to. GP was suggesting that the US can't bear responsibility for previous actions because it has bumbled in more recent times, an elaboration of the 'I'm baby' defense.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
flimsypremise 3y ago
So.. what's your argument here? That the coup didn't happen? That it wasn't backed by the US and Britain? That is was good actually? this is the general strategy of people who don't want to face up to factual terrible things that contradict their ideology. They speak in generalities to avoid confronting any inconvenient truths.

joemazerino 3y ago

You didn't know? Everything bad is the West's fault. Meanwhile Iran's secular base disintegrates rapidly while the fundamentalist Islamists increase their stranglehold on their people.

boringuser2 3y ago
The people clearly support the Iranian government. Whether or not you or I have anything to say about that is pretty irrelevant as I am not an Iranian citizen, and you are unlikely to be one. von Mises once said that every government is fundamentally democratic because even the most autarchic government requires the governing consent of its people. This is clearly true. This whole "people in the West get to decide whether or not a government is valid, but also they are evil bad guys" thing is really getting old.
- enkid 3y ago
  This is absurd nihilism. If we change the meanings of words then any sentence can mean anything and stating "every government is democratic" is a clear example of that.
  - boringuser2 3y ago
    It's a metaphor meant to help you understand that the conceits with which you have been raised, namely that Democracy is a sacred system held only teneuously by a few Western states and that the narrative that there are oppressed peoples that are held hostage by their state and we must help them are geopolitical lies you've fallen for. Really smart people frequently use these metaphors that bust unquestioned cultural mores. Comparison is a very powerful tool.
- davidguetta 3y ago
  People are stupid and thats the point. The weste had the chance togo through a science-fueled phase which won the minds against religion and so as a CONSEQUENCE people were convinced. Now the biggest wave is religious fundamentalism (whatever that means by the way) so people follow that as the sheeps they are. Democracy is the best system at the exception of the others, but its not perfect and can be challenged or abused
  - boringuser2 3y ago
    I don't accept your premise, the idea that Democracy is particularly good or special isn't so obvious to me, but it's such a contentious discussion given that the US has armed itself to the teeth with the concept that it is democratic propagandistically that I can't belabor it. Largely, I would caution you to regain the wisdom of the West's greatest forebears and arm yourself with the knowledge that you don't actually know very much at all.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > the US has armed itself to the teeth with the concept that it is democratic Pure democracy turns into majoritarian, partisan anarchy. We’ve known this since Athens. But it’s forgotten by modern Americans, for whom more democracy is seen as good for its own sake, and that leads to foreign policy mistakes by our elites. That said: countries with democratic elements have clear advantages in economic development, scientific output and tendency towards peace (as well as effective warmaking). We should want more democracy, for moral and self-interested reasons. But your narrow point, that simply promoting more democracy everywhere, all the time is counterproductive, is accurate.
      - boringuser2 3y ago
        I'm not happy with your explanation because I feel it demonstrates that even an ostensibly smart, reflective person isn't outside their own cultural bias. I can disprove your conception in about a half of a second by citing the economic, social, political and technological miracle, that no democracy has even come close to replication thereof, that was ... 1930s Germany. FDR was also inspired himself by similar autarchic methods of government, and saw the US through a devastating conflict with a fierce (and even technically and strategically superior) enemy. Then we trip the programming and conversation goes buck wild. Suffice it to say, merely because the West is exemplary and it happens to be in the current thrall of a political order doesn't mean this political order can be credited with the Wests exemplary status.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > people clearly support the Iranian government Relative to anarchy, sure. The problem with this construction is it deterministically leads to anarchy, from time to time, which is miserable not only for the people involved but also for all of their neighbours. The point of peaceful transitions of power is avoiding that interregnal anarchy.
- CMay 3y ago
  Western countries are not run on direct democracy, because it is known to fail quicker. They're representative systems. What you are essentially talking about is mob rule (direct democracy) which is a risk for any government, but for it to really manifest in a way that threatens the state it has to fail to balance the basic needs of the people and also become out of touch with any of their strong expectations which go beyond the basic needs. If people have low expectations and have adapted to their environment, then it's not that much of a threat. This gets further solidified by punishing anyone that goes against the state and censoring any information that is inconvenient. Many authoritarian governments have failed to be comprehensive in handling those aspects, but increasingly the oppression and control of people is becoming perfected. The assumption that all people everywhere have sufficient opportunity, free communication, education and numbers to successfully push back against their government and thus it is always their fault that their government exists seems like a result of overlooking the very long study of imbalances in power between people and government. You cannot leave this to an assumption as an uncontestable law, which is precisely why the United States is setup the way it is to make sure the people have power and communication in order to check the government.

_3u10 3y ago

As someone who left Canada for the “3rd world” and sees people crying about how awful it is in the happiest country on earth, let me just say it’s as awful as everyone says, please don’t come here or help us we certainly aren’t happy leave us to our misery.

orwin 3y ago

The Shah couldn't have taken the power without US help. It's one of the US few success, Pinochet being the second. Obviously it's easier when you have internal support. Basically the Iranian conservatives were divided. The Shah was unlikeable (or untrustworthy I think, if I remember correctly), so the old feudal/clannish/agrarian society wouldn't really support him. The industrialists liked him better, and the islamistes didn't respect him. He had one advantage: a semi-legitimate claim that a majority would recognize. He promised the 3 guarantees once in power, and since he had the political acumen of a 12 yo, the Cia handed the negociations for him (this is a 3rd-hand story). The coup worked, but he gave too much of his power after that, and basically handed the state to islamists (his political acumen didn't improve with the years). That's the story I heard from an Iranian. I choose to believe it until all is declassified.

lostlogin 3y ago
> The Shah couldn't have taken the power without US help. It's one of the US few success, Pinochet being the second. Can you explain this? I wouldn’t call Iran’s situation or Pinochet good outcomes at all, but are you meaning that the US achieved what it intended too, so was therefore successful?
- orwin 3y ago
  Yes, it was two very successfull CIA operations. I mean, i often argue with a friend who think that the CIA best operations are those we don't know, but imho it's conspiracy thinking, and the CIA was caught, many, many times. Also there was no real proof for the Shah that the CIA was this involved (until like 5 years ago when the CIA just declassified and admitted it), which to me is quite impressive.

anigbrowl 3y ago

the US and other Western powers go from bumbling buffoons that can't socially engineer their way out of a paper bag when you can see/prove it (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) to master machivellian puppeteers when you can't. Asinine argument. Colonial/aggressive powers do well at first because seizing the initiative gives them the advantage of surprise and dismayed targets take time to catch up. The same approaches work less well later because counterparties are wiser to the dynamics and the initiative is harder to seize. Same reason 9/11 only worked once and subsequent large-scale operations by Al Qaeda failed.

_3u10 3y ago
Could you remind me who is running Afghanistan these days? The name of the group is on the tip of my tongue.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  You have failed to understand the point. The Taliban are running Afghanistan again because they learned the lessons of previous conflicts. It's not that the US is clueless as GP avers, but that others have caught up and tactics which previously worked no longer give the S the edge that they used to. GP was suggesting that the US can't bear responsibility for previous actions because it has bumbled in more recent times, an elaboration of the 'I'm baby' defense.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

flimsypremise 3y ago

So.. what's your argument here? That the coup didn't happen? That it wasn't backed by the US and Britain? That is was good actually? this is the general strategy of people who don't want to face up to factual terrible things that contradict their ideology. They speak in generalities to avoid confronting any inconvenient truths.