Saturday, December 11, 2004

Liberal But Nationalist And Pro Bush?

A reader, apparently an Iranian one, questioned our being liberal but simultaneously being nationalist and pro Bush. A bout nationalism, I think no political behavior has meaning without being nationalist. What is a moral aim for political activity, if not nationalism? Don’t tell me internationalism and believing in building a better world for all the people on earth is better than nationalism, because if you say so, I would quote Popper (am I right with the spelling?) that anyone who tried to build a heaven or utopia on earth, actually have built hell instead of that. This perfectionists and internationalists are of either 2 major groups: Communists and Islamists, both of whom have committed most brutal atrocities. Internationalism is doomed to lead to something like that and convert to a means of tricking and slaving the masses. Both Communism and Islamism have bean nothing more than a justification for dictatorship. Since 2 only practical types of internationalism deal with dictatorship and slavery instead of liberty, so as a liberal, I see no reason to waste life with either of them.
The same person questioned how is it possible to be liberal but be pro Bush. Being liberal doesn’t necessarily have the same meaning it has in the US. Liberal to us means believing in the value of liberty and democracy, the same thing Iran’s leader, Khamenei, hates and denounces most. There are some values in liberalism that both liberals and conservatives of America agree upon, like freedom of thought and speech and vote and etc. we, Iranian youth seeking to contemplate the meaning of liberal-democracy, can hardly go any further than these basic creeds. What we know about it for sure is that it is a good thing, because the worst person on earth, dictator Khamenei, denounces it. It surely has something to do with equal rights for people of different genders, beliefs, races, languages, religions etc. , the right for the people to choose and criticize rulers, and these basic commodities from which Iranians are deprived of.
Being Iranian, nationalist and liberal, will naturally lead to welcoming bush’s reelection. Maybe his reelection has some bad consequences for American interests, only in the short term and only in the fields of economy, but it absolutely is good for liberals in Iran and all the middle east. The best reason for that is Iran’s totalitarian government supporting and financially aiding his opponent. So the same thing which is unwelcome for American liberals, can be enthusiastically welcomed by Iranian liberals because before being liberal, both of them are nationalist and think of the prophet of their own nation.
Now lets say a little about how and why we, Iranian nationalists claim that Persian gulf should remain Persian. There has been many things told about this matter in all Iranian tribunes, both fascist and liberal, but I want to illustrate the matter with some maps of Iranian empire at different historical eras. In all these maps, Persian gulf have been a portion of Persian/Iran empire but due to week dictators and kings, little by little we lost soil. The last portion of these lost pieces of soil was current Bahrain which declared autonomy by British conspiracy in the era of late king, Mohammad Reza Shah and the next seams to be some Persian gulf islands, Abumusa, Greater Tonb and Lesser Tonb, claimed by UAE.

Maps of ancient Iran in different dynasties. Note that in all maps, Persian gulf is completely surrounded by Iranian territory.


Post a Comment

<< Home