Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Passing of the Shah

The Radical Royalist marks the passing of Iran's last great ruler before the fundamentalist "Islamic Republic" takeover. His Majesty Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, King of kings and Light of the Aryans, came to the throne in a time of great uncertainty but led his country to its peak of prestige, power and prosperity and done while keeping peaceful relations with the major powers of the world. His overthrow was a disaster of the first order and marked the first time that terrorists of the stripe we have come to know too well were able to take control of an entire country. Iranian society was never so free and open as when he was on the throne and if he could at times be harsh we can see only too clearly today exactly why the enemies he was dealing with were worthy of such treatment. May he rest in peace and may his memory be one day vindicated.

Free Iran!


  1. May the Monarchy be restored to the Iranian nation and people

  2. Do you have any opinions on the question of the Qajar dynasty?

    Much of the hostility to the "West" which is felt in Persia arises from the feeling that the Pahlavis were an imposition.

  3. None that are strongly held. If the monarchy were restored under the Qajars rather than the Pahlavis I would still consider that a vast improvement. My usual support for the Pahlavis stems from their being the last dynasty to hold power, questions regarding who should occupy the throne is a matter for them to decide. Not being of the same people or religion as themselves I would certainly not hold my judgment superior to them. I might have a stronger position on it but for the fact that in one dynasty overthrowing and replacing another is far from unknown in their history.

  4. the anti american hostility arose because of the 1953 incident with Mossadegh as prime minister.

    it should be noted that Mossadegh was a member of the Qajar royal family, and was not opposed to monarchy in general, perhaps he just had a vendetta against the Pahlavis for overthrowing his family

  5. I know his widow wrote a memoir about her life and the Shah a few years ago. (Beautiful photos of her and the royal family included)

  6. How unfortunate. I don't know too much about the Shah, but from everything I have heard, he was, indeed, very much to be preferred to those who replaced him.

  7. I think that the Carter Administration has a lot to Answer for in any regard. America in general has always thought that "Regime Change" in a nation is good if it takes the form of a republic replacing a Monarchy,a nd further has always held to the notion that if theyhelp a group of Revolutionaries overthrow their King, not omly will the Nation magically become more Free, more Tolrant, and more prosperous, but the new Revolutonary Government will automatically be Greatful to America and support it withotu WQuestion, and soon thereafter will adopt American Ideals and Principles. Soon after that, the Nation will become a sort of Miniature United States.

    Its based on the Doctrine of revolutionary Perfection that Many Americans tend to believe in. And its failed each time its been implemented.

    However, part of the Mythos behind America is that Ameica is Free because America is a republic, or now a Democracy, and thst all Kings are Tyrants, and this must be Justified int he Minds of Most Americans so they naturlaly oppose all Monarchies.

    The same tended to happen in Veit Nam, whn the Emperor was deposed thanks to the United States meddling in a rigged election. That didn't work out as planned either.

  8. I agree with what Zarove says here. Being so attuned with monarchies throughout the world, I really don't see or understand the average American mentality.

    In the last few days, though, I had horrible arguments with an American of typical mentality about Iran. He screamed and yelled, throwing tantrums insisting it MUST be a democracy. Nothing else will do.

    I was going to ask whether he could tell me the actual name of the Shah before he made such domineering pronouncements about what government Iran could be allowed to have by his permission?!

    Notice how abrasive such un-illumined Americans are about forcing their carved into steel ideas onto whole nations.

    Their private and usually completely UNEDUCATED perspectives are so dictatorial that one wonders what is truly behind all this insistence on "freedom".

    I suspect it's a mask these people wear, behind which lurk all sorts of darkness. I believe souls that are from the side of good can easily respect monarchical systems.

    Now, notice the complete difference of attitude expressed in the text of the post. Showing flexibility and admitting right away that Iran is not his expertise, knowing neither the people or the religion, our host here said he doesn't know the details of exactly who should be on the throne, but supports the general concept of monarchy.

    To me this is a big commendation about how sane - ! - and rational monarchists are: in contrast fans of "freedom" are rigid and narrow to the extreme, refusing to read even one book about Iran or even articles. They refuse to pronounce the country's name as it should be: "ee-RAHN". Instead they say with an obnoxious sounding twang: "EYE-RAN".
    If corrected, they go right back, refusing to acknowledge their mistake. Yet these are EXPERTS on this very ancient, proud civilization reaching back over 3,000 years ago.

    America is a child at 200 years old and acts it so often!

    These critics of monarchy have never heard of for example, the Sassanians, a fabulous dynasty. Later dynasties after the Arab conquest referred back to the Sassanian Shahs as the model for all Persian Monarchs.

    No, these yankee types are so sure they are right that they will brook NO challenges!

    So thoroughly convinced of democracy's sole claim to exist are they by the American educational system, media, etc.
    Further, these unpleasant types have no sense of humor and despotically insist on imposing democracy on the entire world as the sole solution to the problems of vastly differing peoples, cultures and especially faiths.

    Notice how our advocates of monarchy on this site have wonderful senses of humor AND gently laugh at themselves while making their superb points.

    Which governing style is more appealing, if one weighs the people who propagate them?
    Yet what a persecution there is of those who stand up for monarchies! I am still bleeding from the attacks!!

    Seriously, I'm glad the Shah is being remembered. He richly deserves the tribute, as this was a very, very good soul.

    Reminder again: there is so bandied about - and brainwashed in, I think - about how horrible his intelligence agency Savak was. They weren't as bad as the image was projected to be. Further they were trained by Mossad, a terrible choice.

    If you know about Iran in those decades, the problem was Tudeh and more radical parties, such as the Fedayeen-i-Khalq who advocated armed revolution.
    I wrote a long study of the Left in Iran, and SAVAK was mainly against THEM. Pretty successfully managed to keep them under control, despite much agitation from Soviet russia right across Iran's long northern border.
    No one remembers any of this, however...

  9. True, and this is why so many people were shocked when exercises in democracy in the last few years in Palestine, Iraq and Syria etc only brought even more radical and anti-American parties to power. One of the biggest problems is that Americans are, and have always been, very bad about believing their own "propaganda". They tell themselves that democracy and republicanism are the answer and if only they can deliver these things to the rest of the world the people will be grateful and go on to a future of freedom and prosperity. However, rest assured, like other phases this too will pass, either because some other trend will replace it or the US will go broke and will no longer be able to change any regime in the world -perhaps not even its own.

  10. Well said, and so true!

    Algeria too: a vote brought into power an Islamic - not radical even - govt. but that was too much for all these European and American advocates of 'democracy' who promptly meddled to push them the religious-based regime out of power.

    Why so much American-European forcing of secular governments and systems on peoples who have no real interest in them?
    For example in Afghanistan under American occupation, guess who has been "brought back" in droves to run the American-installed regime?
    That's right, the former Communists. I was just hearing in detail about this from an Afghan sharp observer.

    Nowhere in the American press has it once been mentioned that the same cabal that the US spent millions and billions - SUPPOSEDLY, I'm not sure about those claims -
    to overthrow are the very ones who have been aggressively drafted by American policymakers to staff this Karzai shadow of a govt...

    The American Way seems to equal one thing: shunn any foreigner who is at all following their religion. Patronize and trust ONLY: Communists, socialists, atheists, many of whom took refuge in Russia.

    The former King, Zahir Shah, was eliminated as a figurehead monarch even. Though he was right on hand at a big council in Afghanistan, the US envoy, the Trilateralist type Z. Khalilzad, shouldered him aside and caused a secular nobody, Karzai, to win control of the new govt. in 2002.

    In all these countries, American policymakers outright refuse to allow any religious or traditional government which may show independence from U.S. demands.

    How 'demon-cratic' are the US power elite circles, and the mindset of the American public is so sculpted that few even see a reason to make any protest on behalf of these various countries and peoples.

  11. I cannot help but think of Viet Nam. The US (or US agents at least) aided in the downfall of the last Emperor as "Chief of State" and championed Ngo Dinh Diem as the "democratic" leader of S.E. Asia. But, especially if you go by what the controversial Madame Nhu said, the U.S. turned on them because they were too religious (Catholic) and anti-communist. Of course once Diem was gone there was really hardly any period of stable government in Saigon in all the years after.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...