3 ms·

This is an extremely important, often overlooked, point. I also know of many "educated Iranians" living in the US who voice their opinion as GP suggests, and ar

by tgma 1y ago

This is an extremely important, often overlooked, point. I also know of many "educated Iranians" living in the US who voice their opinion as GP suggests, and are self-proclaimed to be anti-regime. However, they travel to Iran to visit family and friends twice a year and take an iPhone or two on their way to gift them, directly benefiting the Mullah's system. I don't think a jew would have gone back to Nazi Germany to visit family, so I would take "hate the government" with a grain of salt when everything you do benefits the same establishment. Some even line up to vote for sham Presidential elections of the Mullah regime, whose turnout legitimizes the regime, while inside the United States! Being Stanford educated does not prevent this seemingly cognitive dissonance or perhaps deception; it actually makes that more likely.

lukan 1y ago
"I don't think a jew would have gone back to Nazi Germany to visit family" Then I recommend some history books. Family ties can be strong and the persecution of the jews was not always as violent and open as it was during the war. It was more systematic discrimination in the beginning, so of course people still travelled back and forth. Uprooting a whole family is not a simple thing. "Some even line up to vote for sham Presidential elections of the Mullah regime" What else they are supposed to do? That is a small option of influence and they use it. You think the Mullahs would loose their power if people just would not vote for them? If that would be true, they would be a democracy.
- tgma 1y ago
  > If that would be true, they would be a democracy. I am positing perhaps they are a democracy. Many of the "educated people" in question that the GP suggests "hate" the government, may say so but their actions nevertheless are directly and indirectly benefiting the Mullahs. Democracy does not mean good, or effective, or not evil. It might be a collective compromise towards mediocrity and stagnation.
  - lukan 1y ago
    "I am positing perhaps they are a democracy." Then maybe take a closer look into how their system works. Every candidate has to be approved by the Mullah's. So the Mullah's are effectivly in control. Still, there are differences with the candidates. Would I vote under such conditions? No idea, I am struggle to find a party representing my views and I am in a western democracy.
    - tgma 1y ago
      The Democrats in the US have Superdelegates effectively vetoing candidates. So is the media and funding apparatus and the deep state by holding potential blackmail material. To be clear, I am not defending their system. I am suggesting democracy is not a panacea that automatically guarantees prosperity. Far from it.
      - lukan 1y ago
        "I am suggesting democracy is not a panacea that automatically guarantees prosperity. Far from it." No, but I would say it is a precondition for broad prosperity. When the wealth and power lies concentrated with small minority, they tend to use their power to keep it that way. If power is distributed, so will be the wealth usually. And yes, I do see some problems with western democracies as well.
        tgma 1y ago
        I don't think that is necessarily true. First, I don't agree with the implicit premise of your statement, i.e. that democracy does not lead to concentration of power. Second, I don’t think it has been a requirement throughout history. Rule of law is much more important to success and prosperity than fetishizing a mechanism to vote in the head of state. There has been many successful instances of prosperous monarchy in Iran and elsewhere throughout history. The rich Persian Gulf states are prosperous monarchies. Iran was too, a constitutional monarchy, uprooted by Islamic-Marxist ideology partially in the name of “social democracy,” as if that’s a virtuous goal. What they ended up is Mullah. Chaos and tyranny, as Hamilton and Adams would predict.
cylemons 1y ago
> I don't think a jew would have gone back to Nazi Germany to visit family That is because they wouldn't be having a family in Germany since they would be dead
kelnos 1y ago
What a weird take. Family is important; I think it's a great thing that these people can maintain their family ties and even visit them. Hell, this is a great avenue to bring outside perspectives into the country. Not sure how bringing a family member an iPhone is "benefiting the Mullah's system". It's a rounding error. And those family members are well aware that they can't get an iPhone in the usual way. > I don't think a jew would have gone back to Nazi Germany to visit family They might, though, despite the risk! And this isn't really a great comparison, since a Jewish person visiting Nazi Germany to visit family would run a high risk of being found out and sent to a camp (along with the family they're visiting) and killed. I don't think that sort of thing would likely be the case for an Iranian expat visiting family in Iran.

by tgma 1y ago

lukan 1y ago

"I don't think a jew would have gone back to Nazi Germany to visit family" Then I recommend some history books. Family ties can be strong and the persecution of the jews was not always as violent and open as it was during the war. It was more systematic discrimination in the beginning, so of course people still travelled back and forth. Uprooting a whole family is not a simple thing. "Some even line up to vote for sham Presidential elections of the Mullah regime" What else they are supposed to do? That is a small option of influence and they use it. You think the Mullahs would loose their power if people just would not vote for them? If that would be true, they would be a democracy.

tgma 1y ago
> If that would be true, they would be a democracy. I am positing perhaps they are a democracy. Many of the "educated people" in question that the GP suggests "hate" the government, may say so but their actions nevertheless are directly and indirectly benefiting the Mullahs. Democracy does not mean good, or effective, or not evil. It might be a collective compromise towards mediocrity and stagnation.
- lukan 1y ago
  "I am positing perhaps they are a democracy." Then maybe take a closer look into how their system works. Every candidate has to be approved by the Mullah's. So the Mullah's are effectivly in control. Still, there are differences with the candidates. Would I vote under such conditions? No idea, I am struggle to find a party representing my views and I am in a western democracy.
  - tgma 1y ago
    The Democrats in the US have Superdelegates effectively vetoing candidates. So is the media and funding apparatus and the deep state by holding potential blackmail material. To be clear, I am not defending their system. I am suggesting democracy is not a panacea that automatically guarantees prosperity. Far from it.
    - lukan 1y ago
      "I am suggesting democracy is not a panacea that automatically guarantees prosperity. Far from it." No, but I would say it is a precondition for broad prosperity. When the wealth and power lies concentrated with small minority, they tend to use their power to keep it that way. If power is distributed, so will be the wealth usually. And yes, I do see some problems with western democracies as well.
      - tgma 1y ago
        I don't think that is necessarily true. First, I don't agree with the implicit premise of your statement, i.e. that democracy does not lead to concentration of power. Second, I don’t think it has been a requirement throughout history. Rule of law is much more important to success and prosperity than fetishizing a mechanism to vote in the head of state. There has been many successful instances of prosperous monarchy in Iran and elsewhere throughout history. The rich Persian Gulf states are prosperous monarchies. Iran was too, a constitutional monarchy, uprooted by Islamic-Marxist ideology partially in the name of “social democracy,” as if that’s a virtuous goal. What they ended up is Mullah. Chaos and tyranny, as Hamilton and Adams would predict.

cylemons 1y ago

> I don't think a jew would have gone back to Nazi Germany to visit family That is because they wouldn't be having a family in Germany since they would be dead

kelnos 1y ago

What a weird take. Family is important; I think it's a great thing that these people can maintain their family ties and even visit them. Hell, this is a great avenue to bring outside perspectives into the country. Not sure how bringing a family member an iPhone is "benefiting the Mullah's system". It's a rounding error. And those family members are well aware that they can't get an iPhone in the usual way. > I don't think a jew would have gone back to Nazi Germany to visit family They might, though, despite the risk! And this isn't really a great comparison, since a Jewish person visiting Nazi Germany to visit family would run a high risk of being found out and sent to a camp (along with the family they're visiting) and killed. I don't think that sort of thing would likely be the case for an Iranian expat visiting family in Iran.