Eye On Iran

[Rasputin]

Only a couple of weeks ago an official of the grandly titled “Directorate of Management and Support of the Information Technology Network” announced that 10 millions of internet sites have been blocked by various government agencies using the filtering techniques. Moreover, he added that more than 90% of the blocked sites have had “immoral” contents. This leaves about 1 million sites that have been blocked for other reasons. In other words, the government admits that it is denying its people access to about one million internet sites for which it cannot claim any ethical or moral justifications.

But even the government’s criteria used for the other 9 million blocked sites should not be taken on its face value. It’s vocabulary of “immoral” sites do not refer only to sexual or porn sites, but cover a vast range of services and information available on the net that otherwise are regarded as harmless or even useful and necessary.

For instance, chat rooms, dating sites and virtual internet communities are all regarded as immoral. And how do they filter these millions of websites? By using keywords. One may think of many keywords that can be applied for filtering of “immoral” sites, but in the list that the Iranian government uses for this purpose one word stands out: women! That’s true – in the vocabulary of the officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran, “women” is a dirty word, and all internet sites dealing with women’s issues have been deemed to be immoral, and banned.

While this attitude towards women is part of the overall gender apartheid policy of the government, which has meant a string of specific discriminatory laws and regulations against women, it also shows that even when issues like freedom of speech is concerned they suffer the most. Indeed, in matters of artistic expression, women in Iran have been particularly hard hit. One area that this is very evident is in the music and singing professions.

Since the advent of the Islamic Republic, women have been barred from singing in public or to male audiences. They even could not publish their music for general release, though there have been some limited relaxations recently in this regard. As a result, not only thousands of talented women have been denied their right of free expression through their music, but also an entire generation has been deprived of the female voice in the nation’s music, while the music in general has been severely restricted to certain genres.

Restriction on the freedom of expression in art and literature of course goes far beyond music. The film and performance arts are subjected to severe restrictions, not only in their contents but in forms too. Dance has been virtually banned, especially for women. And in films, the official ban on female form, and physical contacts between actors of opposite sex, has created some of the bizarre and at some points hilarious scenes in the Iranian movies. Mothers could not hug the long lost sons coming home, men could not rescue their female relatives in case of fire or accidents, and women always appearing in their compulsory hejabs even in the privacy of their bedrooms.

In addition to women, other sections of the society who are subjected to discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity or belief too, suffer more from restrictions on freedom of expression. Religious minorities suffer various restrictions, and some like the Bahais are denied any freedom to express themselves at all. And while ethnic groups can speak and publish in their own language, they are restricted in expressing their identity through arts, dance and music.

All in all, restriction on the freedom of expression is widespread in the Islamic Republic of Iran and covers all forms of communication. Its effects on political discourse and on literature, art and music are more prevalent. Also, it affects women, religious minorities and ethnic groups more. The government not only controls all forms of conventional media but is also trying to reign in on the electronic means of communication. Access to the internet from inside Iran is very much restricted. And any breach of the restrictions put on the freedom of expression may be punished severely by imprisonment, lashing or even execution. No wonder that very seldom the outside world hears voices from inside Iran.

* This is the text of the keynote speech delivered at the Voices from Iran event organised by the international human rights group Article 19 in London on 27th September 2006.

[Rasputin]

hajiagha-ism

ranian official on women, sex, and chauvinism in the West

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1279wmv&ak=null

[Rasputin]

Iran behind Rice's Mid-East tour

Why did Condoleezza Rice come to Israel and the West Bank earlier this week?

By all accounts, the US secretary of state had no fresh ideas to offer to revive what used to be called the Middle East peace process.

Both the Palestinian and Israeli sides have governments too weak to handle any major initiative.

Aides on all sides played down the prospects of any progress. It seems they were right. So why come at all?

Many Arab and Israeli commentators have found the same answer: Iran.


Consternation

As the columnist Saul Singer wrote in the Jerusalem Post on Friday: "Every time the White House decides to confront a rogue regime, the state department decides it's time to build a coalition."

Another writer, Abdallah Iskandar, put it this way in Al Hayat newspaper on Monday: "Condoleezza Rice arrives in the region today. Her announced aim is to revive the Middle East peace process and stiffen the Arab position against Iran.



Could Iran be the next military test for the US?

"In other words, the US administration is linking the Middle Eastern conflict to the Iranian file."

Indeed state department counsellor Philip Zelikow seemed to give the game away in an address to a Washington think tank on 15 September.

"For the Arab moderates and for the Europeans, some sense of progress and momentum on the Arab-Israeli dispute is just a sine qua non for their ability to co-operate actively with the United States on a lot of other things that we care about."

No mention of Iran, but the implication is clear.

Give US friends cover, at least by appearing engaged on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

But it is an approach that causes consternation on both sides of the Arab-Israeli dispute.

For the Israelis, they worry that they may be forced to make concessions to the Palestinians, to support this wider anti-Iran coalition.

For Arabs, the concern is that it is all for show.



Henry Kissinger has argued for a tough line on Iran

There is a need, as Philip Zelikow put it, for a "sense of progress" in the Arab-Israeli dispute, in order to reassure US Arab allies. A sense of progress, but no actual, real progress.

If Iran was the real reason behind this visit, there is another implication.

If the US wants to pursue the diplomatic route in the dispute with Iran, Arab support is not exactly critical.

The only Arab country on the Security Council is Qatar, hardly a crucial vote to be lobbied for.

No, the logic of this line of reasoning is that military action against Iran is now being very seriously considered in Washington.

Familiar argument

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has now been unmasked, by Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial, as someone to whom President George W Bush turns for advice.

So his words should be taken very seriously.

In an article in the Washington Post two months ago, Dr Kissinger argued for taking a tough line against Iran's nuclear programme.

Otherwise, he warned, "every country... will face growing threats, be they increased domestic pressure from radical Islamic groups, terrorist acts or the nearly inevitable conflagrations sparked by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction".

It sounds almost identical to the argument put forward by Vice-President Dick Cheney on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. Only tough action will make us safe.

The implication of that theory is already being played out in Iraq.

There is growing evidence Iran may be its next test.

[Rasputin]

An American and an Iranian

An American: "You could do worse," a memory of the Brooklyn Dodgers, even though he was born in 1972, in his heart - New York, Chicago, Van Horn, Texas, walking down the street not far from Ben Franklin walking down the street, 1932 (no particular reason, other than: a Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt, 'Hey, mac', stick-to-itiveness), the blue sky of San Francisco and the American songs that came into him as a result, train tracks that are poetic and also a sad thought of buffalo and Indians, pie (apple or not), "Well, I suppose that's the way it goes, there's no getting around it, it's just one of those things," Spoon River Anthology, heads or tails, restaurants that serve a cup of coffee before anything has even happened yet, a smile and a wave and a handshake, a feeling that he could walk into any drinking establishment in America and sit down and ask for a beer and sit there and drink it, no matter what was happening outside the place and no matter what was happening inside the place, and the truth is he probably couldn't, but still: a feeling that he could that is an American feeling.

An Iranian: Something in the language that goes far back, a love of nature that's not even a love, it's more like breathing, "Children" as the way men refer to each other, parsley, a man kisses a man on the cheek, a pause in the conversation contains sorrow, but since it is shared it is practically love, pants on a hot day and not shorts, Persepolis, a political thought is always close at hand - it doesn't need to be spoken, everybody already know it's there, everyone rises when someone comes into the room and he tells them to stay seated and he would have done the same himself, prison and how it's not a faraway thing, tea is the thing running through the course of a day, the deep fire of revolution after revolution, a knowledge that he could be walking down any street in the world and happen to meet a countryman and if they were approaching a door, he would say, "After you," and so would the countryman and they would pause there in front of the door longer than anyone on the street might expect.

America is the man he wanted to be when he read books - able to joke with an American woman, to dream in an American twilight, to look around at the people of America and tell them something that showed that he knew how hard they were trying, that he was paying attention to it. He was paying attention to even the parts of America that were nowhere to be found at home. At home there was no mention of World War II and the names of places where American soldiers had fought. But those names were among the things in the air when he stepped outside, and in order to know the people, he had to know them, not just as names, but as stories. He had to know them as the stories that helped Americans remember who they were, told in an American voice.

Iran is the man he wanted to be when he listened to his father talk with his friends - able to make even sarcasm sound sincere, to talk of pain as though it were nothing more than pain and even to laugh about it sometimes, to value one another's presence in a room as the beginning of a new and good country. Being around one another was enough because of what everybody came into the room with. They came in with their hearts and with the understanding that that room was as good a place as any for letting their hearts out, which might mean pontificating or poem-reciting, and would almost certainly mean singing before the end of the night.

The America and the Iran inside him were good friends. They didn't know each other personally, but they were good friends the way that two men who understood their own desperation towards life didn't have to know each other to be good friends. They were two old men sitting on a park bench and they were two babies playing on the grass. They didn't know anything past today and they knew everything going back in time. What they shared was things and not the names of them.

They were friends in ways they didn't know themselves, because names were something that people could get stuck on. But there were times when he felt the wonderfulness of his presence in the world, and everybody's, and he felt inside him one-hundred percent of both, America and Iran. They didn't crowd each other out when that happened; they just made more room for each other, like gentlemen.
They weren't two men who could fight anyway, even if they wanted to. They were the kind of men who knew what they were really fighting if they fought. It was themselves, and all the pain and sorrow that a man accumulates by living. It was the kind of thing that even if they forgot, they would remember again when they looked in each other's eyes.

All this was true even though when he did listen to his father talk with his friends, and they spoke of prisons and revolutions, the talk always came back to America. They weren't talking about the America of the Brooklyn Dodgers either. They made it a point not to. They didn't even know who the hell the Brooklyn Dodgers were, and they still made it a point not to. And when he was a boy, he would go to school with that talk inside him, and the American kids would ask him: What about this stuff with the Americans over there? What about this stuff with holding them hostage like that?

All right, he would think, you want stories? You want stories of men looking their executioners in the eye? You want to hear about them smiling at their torturers? You want to hear about what the hell a dictatorship is, and why the hell America is helping out the guy who ran it, after all this time that the people in Iran have been trying to get rid of him, and how now they were saying, give him back to us to face his punishment, and you can have your people back? But when it came out, it came out like a real story, and he knew that a story wasn't told well if it was told with the teller angry at anyone, least of all the listener, so he told them the only other way there was to tell them: with a belief that they would understand. And they did. They would nod and say "Okay" and he would feel glad to be the one telling Americans. He didn't have anything against Americans when he was doing that, and that was the beginning of becoming one. It wasn't a question of the food they ate or the clothes they wore, it was a question of two boys liking life over death in a school library in America, and running outside to recess a little more excitedly because of that.

He remembered the day he had officially become American, standing in a government building with his family among a crowd, exchanging one piece of paper for another. The piece of paper had meant nothing to him, but coming back outside to their gray city in the late afternoon as the people were going home had meant everything, for no other reason than that he had never before seen that moment of America.

And afterwards, he had thought of his mother, crying in a room full of everybody celebrating. She had known that it was just a piece of paper too, but she had cried because that feeling of coming outside to the city had been Iran for her, that feeling that had included her mother and father and sisters and brothers, coming outside in the morning and the evening, and he had felt good to see her tears because they were the closest he had come to Iran in a long time.

[Rasputin]

As a a boy, it was often death that did that. He would be going along with American thoughts of an American girl in his class, and then all of a sudden, a death would bring Iran to their house in a way that was darker and older but also more poetic than anything he felt ready for. Oh boy, he would think, I don't know if I have enough for this. I don't know if I've been preparing for this here in America.

It could be a death in America or in Iran. It could be pictures in the Iranian newspapers of the war dead. Their house would only change a little with those. He would look at those pictures and he would wish he knew Farsi better because he wanted to tell those boys how he felt when he saw their pictures in a way that they would understand. But if he paid attention to the feeling, he would see how their lives had been happening in Farsi here in America. It didn't matter what their town was called or what street they lived on, their lives were happening in English too, it was just that at a time like that, he would look up from the newspaper and see the world that those boys were leaving. He didn't have to be a poet in Farsi for that.

But poetry helped, the American poetry that he was learning more of each day, from books and from everywhere else. That poetry was important because walking down the street to get a cup of coffee was important. A young man didn't have to want to be American, he just had to walk out of his apartment and down the stairs and out to the street until the street and the stairs and the room had gotten inside him. America would get inside him along the way. He didn't have to greet the building manager in a particularly American way. He just had to be glad to see him, enough that he would think about him a little out in the street, in the context of his effort to make something out of a day and in the context of everybody's effort to make something out of a day, and then the words would come.

The words were what started the story, and he wanted to know them because he wanted to tell Americans how he felt when he saw them in a way that they would understand. With Americans, it wasn't language that got in the way, but how he looked, so he had to make sure that his words sang with the rhythm of America. He wanted Americans to sing around him, even if that meant that one of the things he would hear in the singing was the same voice that would have excluded him from the song, and might still. I'll wait till I hear it for sure, he would think. I know it can seem like that voice is everywhere sometimes, but I'll wait until I hear it for sure, and then when I do, I'll try to remember that they may not have heard any other songs, they may not know that they're singing in Iran right now. There's nothing to do but to show 'em.

America and Iran could do whatever they wanted as places outside of him. They couldn't touch the America and Iran inside. They couldn't touch the way he felt to see the light at the end of a day and how he could be talking with Americans or Iranians and he would feel like he was doing what that light wanted him to do either way. It was always ready to adjust accordingly, carrying in it the memory of a different past. That's a heart, he would think. That's a heart doing it's job. It's a little thing taking place in a little room, but that's true for anybody doing their job. The good thing is that it can do its job anywhere. It's a good feeling knowing that his heart can do its job in two different places like that. They could try to make it so that his heart couldn't do both, but what they didn't know was that when it came right down to it, it was a concurrent affair, that he was Iranian at his most American and American at his most Iranian. And he had learned it from poetry, the way the poetry of one suddenly opened up the poetry of the other. It didn't have to be the poetry of written poems, but the poetry of the people living, even when included in that living was a lostness that could think that the whole problem lay with the people over there. They could think that as much as they wanted, they could think they weren't doing anything to their own sunny days when they diminished the sunny days of the other, but the proof of it was inside him on sunny days and cloudy days, because when he could get the American and the Iranian straight inside him, he wouldn't be asking for much more from the world, whichever kind of day it was.

[Rasputin]

Iran issues blacklist of 'Zionist firms'

In an effort to increase economic pressure on Israel, the Iranian government has published a blacklist barring trade with international companies that are said to be "affiliated to the Zionist regime and Israeli stockholders."

Speaking to the Iranian parliament on Sunday, Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki told deputies that Teheran was committed to bolstering an international Islamic embargo against the Jewish state.

"Imposing sanctions on Israeli companies or firms in association with the illegal Zionist regime's interests is a legal responsibility and duty," Mottaki said, according to a report by the state-run Iranian news agency IRNA.

According to the report, which also appears on the Iranian Foreign Ministry's Web site, Mottaki presented parliamentarians with several booklets that had recently been published by his ministry in an attempt to single out corporations with whom Iran and Muslims worldwide should have no commercial or economic dealings.

Citing Article 8 of legislation entitled "Support for the Islamic Revolution of the Palestinian People," Mottaki said that Iranian law "bans economic relations with any company, institution or firm affiliated with the Zionist regime anywhere in the world."

He added that the Iranian Foreign Ministry had recently taken various steps "inside and outside the country to prevent patronage of Israeli goods," and that it was working on the issue with other member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Mottaki also said that Iranian diplomatic missions "in various countries, particularly Lebanon, Syria, New York and European capitals" were making a concerted effort "to publicize Israeli companies or those affiliated to the regime." This, he said, was consistent with Iran's "clear and firm stance on the Zionist regime's policies and its opposition to the regime."

Reached by telephone, Hamid Babaei, press attache of the Iranian Embassy in London, confirmed that the Iranian Foreign Ministry had indeed published a blacklist of Zionist firms, but he declined to provide further details

[Rasputin]

Eye of the Storm: Rafsanjani revelations

While President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to vehemently deny the Islamic Republic's desire to develop nuclear weapons, his defeated rival in last year's presidential election has come out with sensational revelations that portray a completely different picture.

The defeated rival in question is Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a businessman-cum-mullah who occupied the presidential chair for two consecutive four-year terms between 1989 and 1997. However, the revelations he made last week relate to 1988, when he was Speaker of the Islamic Majlis (parliament) while also acting as the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Republic's armed forces on behalf of Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini.

The centerpiece of the revelations consists of two letters. One, written by Brig.-Gen. Mohsen Rezai, then commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is addressed to Khomeini. The other is Khomeini's reply.

In his letter, Rezai, whose forces had just suffered terrible losses as a result of chemical attacks against them by the Iraqis, informs Khomeini that unless supplied with a range of new weapons, his forces would not achieve the goals set for them. These goals included defeating Saddam Hussein, installing a Khomeinist regime in Baghdad, proceeding to "liberate" Jerusalem and wiping Israel off the map.

Rezai asks Khomeini to provide his forces with 300 new fighter-bombers, 2,500 tanks, 300 attack helicopters and, last but not least, laser-guided missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

In his reply, Khomeini endorses Rezai's analysis and evokes the possibility of ending the war by accepting United Nations Resolution 598, which the Islamic Republic had systematically rejected as a "Zionist-Crusader" concoction. In fact, shortly after the exchange of letters, Khomeini announced that he was "drinking the poison chalice" by accepting a cease-fire with Saddam Hussein, thus ending the eight-year war in August 1988.

The fact that Rezai's analysis carried weight with Khomeini was not solely due to the brigadier-general's status as a war hero. The event that rendered the analysis irrefutable was the battle that a US task force, ordered into the Gulf by president Ronald Reagan, had fought with the Islamic Republic's navy over the control of the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran had started attacking Kuwaiti oil tankers with the claim that Kuwaiti oil money was financing Saddam Hussein's war machine. The Reagan administration had tried to protect the tankers by putting them under the American flag. That, however, had not stopped attacks by the Islamic Republic. Washington had tried to reason with Teheran by sending a series of warnings to Khomeini through the Swiss embassy in the Iranian capital. Soon, it became clear that Khomeini would ignore the warnings while seeking to expand the conflict by ordering air raids on Saudi oil installations.

Reagan decided to send the US task force into battle. That led to a series of engagements in 1987 that ended with the sinking of half of Iran's navy, the dismantling of Iranian missile batteries on 16 islands, and billions of dollars of damage to Iranian offshore oil installations. Khomeini got the message and immediately halted attacks on Kuwaiti tankers and Saudi oil installations.

THE QUESTION is: Why did Rafsanjani decided to publish the two top-secret letters?

The immediate answer is that he wants to refute claims of "cowardice" and "collusion" with the US, made against him by Ahmadinejad. The current president and his entourage have accused Rafsanjani of having persuaded Khomeini to stop the war against Saddam at a time when the Islamic Republic was on the verge of conquering Iraq and moving on to destroying Israel. Ahmadinejad's spiritual master, Ayatollah Muhammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, has claimed that sometime in 1988 the Hidden Imam, a messiah-like figure in Shi'ite lore, was getting ready to return and lead the Islamic forces to final victory in Jerusalem. Thus Rafsanjani, by persuading Khomeini to end the war prematurely, allowed Saddam to remain in power for another 15 years while prolonging the life of the "Zionist stain of shame" in the heart of the Muslim world.

Ahmadinejad and his entourage claim that Rafsanjani had made a deal with the Americans in the context of secret talks that were later revealed in the Irangate scandal. Rafsanjani's eldest son, Mahdi, had visited the White House in Washington in 1986 for talks with members of the Reagan national security team, notably Lt.-Col. Oliver North. According to Ahmadinejad's entourage, the Americans had promised to back Rafsanjani's bid for presidency in Iran in exchange for his persuading Khomeini to end the war with Iraq.

Rafsanjani now wants to do two things. First, he wants to make it clear that the decision to end the war was made by Khomeini on the advice of his military commanders, and had nothing to do with any alleged secret deal between Rafsanjani and the Americans. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Rafsanjani wishes to discredit what he sees as Ahmadinejad's strategy of deliberately provoking a conflict with the US that the Islamic Republic cannot hope to win without first acquiring a nuclear deterrent.

The revelation that Iran began seeking a nuclear deterrent as early as 1988 is nothing new to seasoned Iran-watchers. The Iranian Atomic Energy Commission, which had been closed on Khomeini's orders in March 1979, resumed work in October 1988 under an assistant to the president of the Islamic Republic. In February 1989, Teheran hosted a seminar on nuclear technology. In 1993, the new national defense doctrine, compiled on Rafsanjani's orders, identified a nuclear deterrent as one of the three pillars of Iran's military strategy - the other two being a massive land army and the largest stockpile of missiles in the Mideast.

Rafsanjani's message is simple: the Islamic Republic needs a sophisticated strategy to counter regime change moves against it by the US and its allies. Such a strategy should include a nuclear deterrent. But for it to be pursued successfully a great deal of tact, experience and realism would be needed - something that Ahmadinejad singularly lacks while Rafsanjani has in abundance.
Always a fighter, Rafsanjani seems to have absorbed the shock of his defeat in last year's presidential election and is planning a comeback.

But can he wait another 30 months before taking on Ahmadinejad in a second presidential election? The answer is probably no. Rafsanjani hopes to lead an anti-Ahmadinejad coalition in next December's elections for the Assembly of Experts, the body that can choose or dismiss the "Supreme Guide." If Rafsanjani wins control of the Assembly, he would be able to control the incumbent Supreme Guide Ali Khamenehi, and use his virtually unlimited constitutional powers to turn Ahmadinejad into a lame duck. And if Khamenehi refuses to cooperate with the new majority, Rafsanjani could engineer his dismissal in the assembly.

All this might have been of little or no concern to the outside world were it not for two facts: The Islamic Republic has had a secret nuclear program for almost two decades while taking the International Atomic Energy Agency for a ride. Secondly, Iranian leaders who felt no discomfort in discussing the use of nuclear warheads two decades ago do not seem to have abandoned their strategy of reshaping the Middle East after their fashion.

[Rasputin]

God-dependency

There is a huge social problem that causes other social problems. The root cause is often neglected but the results are out there to see. And here I am especially talking about the Middle East. This huge social problem is god-dependency. Take some time and reflect on this and it may not seem that distant an issue even for Iranian-Americans, who are more independent-minded and secular.

Many peoples are socially and culturally (due to centuries or millennia of non-practical education, or lack of any appropriate education at all) inept to be the masters of their own fates and lives, so they always try to resort to one God or the other, or a combination of them. This social problem is present in almost any people, though much stronger in some and weaker in others. Probably Arabs and all Muslims are highly god-dependent, while East Asians may be the least god-dependent. Americans have a different view of God, one who has much smaller interference in everyday life, but who is wrathful at times.

This problem of god-dependency is not just about the one and only God we usually refer to. It's more about a Psyche of gods, which is not written or accepted as such, but it is practiced with utmost care and adherence. For centuries and even beyond Muslim peoples have had to deal with various gods, who at times brought satisfaction and joy to the masses, and at times betrayed their expectations.

God-dependent peoples even feel the need to have several gods, who are more or less approachable, powerful, or dependable. This type of culture goes back far beyond Islam, Christianity, or probably even Judaism. It's been common for a long time to have one almighty and distant powerful God who never dies, another one who will appear in the future and will tidy up the world for the suffering ones, and another one who is in power now at some place for some people.

A few examples may clear up things a little bit. There have been times for Iranians when they had all these three gods together and there have been other times when they did not. And Iranians, being so scattered around, speaking various languages and having different habits, often had one or two of these gods different from one another. But I think it's okay to assume that Iranians' last serious man-god was Khomeini. The only almighty God has always been there ever since accepting Islam (Sunni at first, Shia later).

Ever since becoming Shia, Iranians have had the future god in the person of Mahdi, the twelfth Imam. Khomeini was the last man whose earthly authority could not be questioned, whose face was seen by people on the surface of the moon, and whose abilities were recited by various believers to have been miraculous. Khomeini's devotees could do unimaginable things, among which giving up their lives at Khomeini's will, without questioning or doubting.

Doubting the man-god's decision was considered a sin, a shame, a disgrace, and nevertheless a dangerous undertaking for the unbelievers who happened to be among the many believers. Iranians even had more than usual babies born simply because Khomeini told them so.

Let's give examples of Arabs. Arabs have had so many gods of their own. The latest one is Bin Laden. That's no doubt, but because of Bin Laden's unfavourable surroundings, he is unable to exert the influence Khomeini did.

One really hilarious thing I recently discovered was that Ahmadinejad seems to be that one man-god for some Arabs. But he's not much of a deal in Iran. Iranians have just had quite a disappointment with their recent man-god they probably still remember the lessons and are less amenable to man-gods and quite suspicious, for now.

Why to say all this? Well, we can compare why Westerners, and Far-Easterners are doing well, while Middle-Easterners are not. Because Middle-Easterners are the last large number of people who are still waiting for gods to do things (miracles) for them. They haven't yet learned to entrust themselves and take care of their own lives and futures. And this is a serious problem indeed.

Gods are not dead. They never die as a concept, because there is always one who is out there watching, one who will come in the future, and one earthly one who presents himself as the only able man of the wrathful God who is here to solve problems. But we can kill our own dependency on gods inside us and let ourselves free of them, at least of the earthly ones.

The only non-man God is harmless as long as he is not represented by a man-god on earth. And the future god (Jesus, Messiah, Mahdi and several other less known ones) is okay, though the Israeli-Palestinian issue can, to some extent, be blamed on his presence, or actually his perceived presence on people's minds.

It's a good start to try to face this weakness within ourselves and accept the fact that God has given us enough powers and resources to be able to do things without a need for any man-god, or dictator in one simple modern word.

[Rasputin]

تهران
يادداشت های شهر شلوغ
كارمندان بانك ها بعداز ماه رمضان هم بايد روزه را نگهدارند!
مانع تراشی جديد بر سر راه سفر دانشجويان غير خودي
در خانه ويلائی كوچه قباديان چه می گذرد؟
برو بچه ها، اين روزها، موبايل ها را پاك می كنند!
تحريك های امنيتی استادان تازه به دانشگاه آمده
مرده خوری شنيده بوديد، اما اين يكی نوبر است
سيامك زند






سفر بی سفر

در اواسط مرداد بخشنامه ای به دانشگاه ها فرستاده شده كه مطابق آن نبايد به هيچ دانشجويی برای سفر سياحتی پاسپورت داده شود و در صورت ضرورت چنين سفری، بايد وديعه ضمانتی بين 5 تا 15 ميليون تومان افزايش يابد. اين ممنوعيت و افزايش وديعه شامل مسافرت های زيارتی و يا شركت در كنفرانس های علمی نمی شود، كه عمدتا شامل آن گروه از دانشجويان خودی می شود كه از فيلتر حراست و بسيج دانشگاه عبور كرده باشند. البته هنوز برای آزمون تافل يا "جی ار آی" پاسپورت های چند روزه صادر می شود.

بانك ها

ساعت كار بانك ها كه فعلا به بهانه ماه رمضان شده از ساعت 9 صبح تا 2 و نيم بعد از ظهر و پنجشنبه ها نيز از 9 صبح تا 1 و نيم بعد از ظهر. فعلا با اين تغيير ساعت ناهار اداری را حذف كرده اند و زمزمه آنست كه بعد از ماه رمضان هم اين تغيير ساعت همراه با حذف ناهار كارمندی ادامه يابد. علاوه بر در آمد سروصدای مردمی كه نمی توانند مطابق ساعت كاری فعلی به كارهای بانكی شان برسند، كارمندان بانك هم از ناهار اداری افتاده و با ادامه اين برنامه، پس از ماه رمضان بايد خودشان يك فكری برای ناهارشان بكنند! اسم اين طرح را گذاشته اند صرفه جوئی اداری!

خانه مشكوك

در كوچه قباديان شرقی واقع در خيابان جردن خانه ايست كه از ساعت 8 صبح رفت و آمد به آن آغاز می شود. ابتدا در محل شايع شده بود كه اين خانه متعلق به رياست جمهوری است و برخی كارهای اداری رياست جمهوری در آن انجام می شود اما بتدريج و با توجه به اينكه رفت و آمد كنندگان به اين خانه اغلب سرو وضع يكسان و رفتاری امنيتی دارند و گهگاه نيمه شب هم برخی رفت و آمدهای پنهان به آن صورت می گيرد، مردم به اين نتيجه رسيده اند كه اين خانه يكی از بازداشتگاه های اختصاصی امنيتی بايد باشد و يا يك اداره امنيتی.

خانه ويلائی است و معمولا سرنشينان اتومبيل های پژو، مزدا و "ون" پس از ورود اتومبيل به داخل حياط خانه از آنها خارج می شوند.

شناسائی دانشجويان و جوانان

از اول سال تحصيلی، در كلاس های دانشگاهی، برخی استادها كه تازه سرو كله شان در دانشگاه ها پيدا شده به شيوه ای امنيتی سعی در شناسائی فكری و سياسی دانشجويان را دارند. آنها بصورت تحريك آميزی در خلال درس و مباحث درسی نظرات تحريك آميزی را عليه فعاليت سياسی دانشجويان، انجمن های اسلامی، احزاب سياسی و... طرح می كنند تا دانشجويان موضع گرفته و نظر مخالف بدهند. استاد نه تنها مخالفتی با اين اعلام نظردانشجويان نمی كند بلكه ديگران را هم تشويق به ابراز نظر می كند، اما اخيرا در چند نمونه دانشجويان به حراست و كميته انضباطی فراخوانده شده و در ادامه همان مباحث سر كلاس از آنها بازجوئی شده است. من نمی دانم از جان ناداشته طبری ديگر چه می خواهند. چون يكی از سوژه ها برای تحريك دانشجويان به اعتراض و يا اعلام نظر، توهين به طبری و بويژه قبول اسلام توسط اوست.

اين شيوه شناسائی جوانان در برخی محلات شهرتهران نيز رايج شده است. مثلا روی ديوارها می نويسند برای شنيدن افشاگری های جديد مثلا فلان جمعه، ساعت فلان بيائيد به فلان نقطه در كوه ها و ارتفاعات شميران. برای آنكه جوان ها شك نكرده و به اين محل بروند، روز بعد روی اين شعار را با رنگ سياه می كنند و دوباره روز بعد همان مضمون در نقطه ديگری از محله، روی ديوار نوشته می شود. برای تحريك بيشتر كنجكاوی ها، حتی نمی نويسند موضوع افشاگری چيست.

اتهام: جوانی!

جديدا پليس جوان ها را در خيابان نگهداشته و موبايل های همراهشان راكنترل می كند. در يك مورد ديدم كه جوانی، وقتی پيش خواست موبايلش را كنترل كند كارت آن را در آورده و بلعيد. اغلب بروبچه ها، حالا مخصوصا وقتی به ميهمانی می روند كمتر فيلم در موبايل ها نگه ميدارند، زيرا ريختن به خانه ها به بهانه كنترل منكراتی هم زياد شده و هر بچه ننه ای در محلات شده مفتش بسيج و سپاه.



امنيت درتهران

اين امنيتی كه من می خواهم بنويسم با آن امنيتی كه حكومتی است و سياسی، خيلی فرق می كند.

1- چند ماه پيش يكی از ارامنه محله ما فوت كرد. آگهی فوت او در روزنامه ها منتشر شد، حالا عده ای به آدرسی كه در روزنامه منتشر شده بود نامه می نويسند و برای رضای خدا و روح او كمك می خواهند. نه يكی و نه دو تا و ده تا. الان يك آرشيو از نامه ها درست كرده اند كه خيلی خواندنی است. درميان اين نامه ها، شايد خواندنی ترين آنها نامه يك مرد موجی جنگی باشد. اين بابا تمام مدارك پزشكی اش را باضافه تمام فاكتورهای صرف نهار در راه شهرهای مختلف را فرستاده است. مدتی از او خبری نبود، تا اينكه اخيرا دوباره چند فاكتور جديد با مهر چند رستوران در بوشهر و عكس هائی از درماندگی و دربدری خودش در تهران و همدان فرستاده و دوباره عاجزانه تقاضای كمك كرده است. حدس می زديم كه روانی است و يا روانی شده، تا اينكه چند روز پيش خودش مستقيما رفته در خانه همسر آن ارمنی فوت كرده كه همراه با دختر جوانش با هم زندگی می كنند. از همسايه ها سراغ آنها را گرفته و آنها هم با ديدن سر و وضع او مشكوك شده و گفته اند كه اين مادر و دختر از ايران رفته اند و ديگر اينجا نيستند. از آن روز به بعد اين مادر و دختر از بيم و نا امنی خواب ندارند. به كلانتری محل مراجعه كرده اند، آنها توصيه كرده اند دنبال نكنيد كه ماجرا بيشتر بيخ پيدا می كند و دشمن تراشی می شود!



2- يكی از همكاران اداری ام چند روز پيش با ترس و دلهره تعريف كرد: كنار ساختمان ما يك ساختمان نيمه كار است. در اين ساختمان يك سرايدار زندگی می كرد به اسم ناصر. مادرم برای اينكه كمكی به اين آدم كرده باشد گاهی پول می داد كه برايش خريد كند. حالا اين ساختمان فروخته شده و صاحب جديدش سريدار را جواب كرده است. مادرم هم مدتی پيش در گذشته است. مدتی است آن سرايدار كه ساكن كرج شده و ترياكی هم شده، مرتب تلفن می زند و طلب ارث دارد! و از آن مسئله ساز تر اينكه می گويد بايد داماد ما بشود!

[Rasputin]

Iran's clerics caught up in blogging craze

The craze for blogging in Iran has reached an unlikely set of adherents - the country's conservative Islamic clerics.
Following the example of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ayatollahs, seminary students and theologians are receiving training in setting up their own weblogs.

Courses run by the newly-established office of religious weblog expansion have begun in the holy city of Qom, the traditional home of Iran's religious establishment. Students more used to poring over the theological nuances of the Qur'an will receive instruction on practical matters such as blog content and technical support. Some 300 clerics, religious students and writers have been signed up.

The arrival of the religious ruling class on Iran's blogosphere is ironic in view of the harsh crackdown launched by the authorities against bloggers who have used it to voice political dissent. Scores of bloggers have been jailed in recent years while many sites have been blocked using US-made filtering technology.
Iran is estimated to have between 75,000 and 100,000 bloggers, most of them avoiding politics to concentrate on matters like social affairs, culture and sex.

The trend began among the political reformist movement in 2001 as a response to the closures of dozens of liberal newspapers and magazines on the orders of religious hardliners. It has since become a phenomenon among the computer-savvy younger generation.

Mr Ahmadinejad jumped on the bandwagon last month when he launched a blog attached to his presidential website. His first entry set out his personal background and political philosophy and asked if the US and Israel were intent on starting a third world war.

[Rasputin]

Will Iran follow N. Korea's lead?

Days before North Korea reported that it had conducted its first-ever nuclear test, it stated why it would defy the world to join the nuclear club.
"The US extreme threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure compel [North Korea] to conduct a nuclear test," the Foreign Ministry in Pyongyang warned last week.

That reasoning resonates in Tehran - even though comparisons are limited between North Korea and Iran, which is still a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

"More pressure [from the US] against Iran will accelerate the nuclear project of the country," says Saeed Laylaz, a political and security analyst in Tehran who says that American actions will determine Iran's strategic choices.

"Because the regime is convinced that the US wants to [change the regime], they believe they have a temporary opportunity to protect themselves [using] a nuclear program as a shield," says Mr. Laylaz. "If the US can convince [Iran] they are not going to collapse the regime ... then they will be ready to cooperate much better and more constructively than now."

Iran ignored an Aug. 31 UN deadline to suspend uranium enrichment. A sanctions resolution was to be worked out this week, before the North Korea test.

Months of negotiations that included a broad incentives package have stalled over demands that Iran first suspend enrichment. While restating its position Tuesday that all nuclear weapons should be abolished, Iran has been virtually alone in not calling for tough sanctions against North Korea, or condemning the test.

"North Korea's nuclear test was a reaction to America's threats and humiliation," Iran's state-run radio said. "Not only did the United States not lift the sanctions it had imposed ... it even increased the diplomatic pressure. Such pressure finally led North Korea to conduct its nuclear test."

Some defense analysts have warned of a similar dynamic taking root in Iran, especially under the nationalist leadership of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly said Iran would not give up nuclear technology.

"Logically speaking, it does make sense for Iran to explore how it can maximize its security benefits from the current nuclear discussion," says Kaveh Afrasiabi, a past adviser to Iran's nuclear negotiating team, contacted in Boston.

"The threshold will come if there is an escalation of the security situation, prompting Iran to set aside its misgivings about nuclear weapons," says Mr. Afrasiabi.

"It all boils down to questions of national security," says Afrasiabi, adding that Iran sees reason to fear the US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. "It is unrealistic to expect that Iran would not feel any security paranoia as a result of these military build-ups, and there is no sign of it abating."

Comparisons are limited between North Korea - which withdrew from the NPT in 2003, kicked out UN inspectors, and stated its weapons ambitions - and Iran, which says it aspires only to peaceful nuclear power.

Both have been targets of US-led pressure that has grown since President Bush lumped them in his "axis of evil" with Iraq. But countries like China and Russia have balked at imposing sanctions.

A host of Western officials expressed frustration with Iran last week. Top European negotiator Javier Solana warned that his "endless hours" of talks had been fruitless: "This dialogue ... cannot last forever, and it is up to the Iranians now to decide whether its time has come to an end."

Experts point out key differences in the two cases. For years, North Korea has been much further along in its programs, and Western intelligence has long believed that Pyongyang had enough highly enriched uranium for several nuclear devices.

By contrast, Iran froze its fledgling enrichment activities for 2-1/2 years while it negotiated with Britain, France, and Germany. Those talks failed, and last April, Mr. Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had achieved low-level enrichment of a few grams of uranium - a step that could fuel a reactor if done on an industrial scale.

But Iran and North Korea focus on expanding ballistic-missile programs. Iran's Shahab series is based on North Korean designs and expertise. Missile tests in July further isolated Pyongyang; recent tests by Iran have also raised eyebrows.

It is also widely believed that North Korea has passed on nuclear and other scientific know-how; North Korean experts in the construction of reinforced underground bunkers visited Iran late last year.

"Iran has been very careful to match outside pressure with incremental, small steps," says a veteran political analyst in Tehran. But if the West "increases pressure in a tangible way - such as sanctions or an oil embargo - there could be a strategic change, because surrender is out of the question with this present government."

If pressure grows "from many sides, and Iran is completely isolated," says this analyst, "it would give the upper hand to [factions] that seek some kind of extraordinary thing as a deterrent, like a bomb."

Still, Iran understands the risks of following North Korea, though nearby Israel, Pakistan, and India all have nuclear arsenals. They are "well aware there would be a domino effect, and a nuclear arms race in their own region," says Afrasiabi.

"The North Korea crisis has been manna from heaven for Iran," says Afrasiabi. "It puts Iran on the back burner, and the Iranians can legitimately say: 'We have renounced weapons; we have cooperated with the IAEA; we are negotiating. So why impose sanctions on us, while North Korea can get away scot-free?'"

And there may be another message received in Tehran: "If you want to be alive, you have to be strong," says analyst Laylaz. "This is the main, first, and last lesson [for Iran] from North Korea."

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Cleaning up politics

The Netherlands -- Iran, a country with a rich and old political history has seen many governments come and go, statesmen have been loved and hated. All government call for political opposition, political activism and counterweight organizations. In Iran these institutions of opposition have been created, developed, banned, used or forgotten. Iranians seem to have become used to revolt and on the other hand also to suppression that it almost seemed natural that every voice that ever came near to criticism against the regime was smothered.

This socio-political evolution has resolved in a certain cynicism that has grown over the past years among Iranians of the older generation that grew up with names like Mosaddeq, Tudeh, Mojahedin, Pahlavi, Savak, Ayatollah Khomeini and political assassinations. To this generation, every political involvement carried a scent of "dirty", "non-integrity" or trouble in general. The Persian saying "Siasat kasifeh" (politics is dirty!) expresses the old image Iranians used to have of politics, politicians and political activists. It was also due to this same "dirty" politics that almost thirty years ago an exodus of Iranians left to mainly the United States and Europe to find a new place to live, work and continue their political opposition activities.

Some of these Iranians living abroad lost their interest or passion in politics and became milder in their convictions. Some continued their opposition activities within their own party or movement and some continued their activism in other ways. The few who continued their opposition activities have become a small group of "veterans" or "dinosaurs" as they are called by the new generation Iranian political activists living abroad. Their mostly black- and- white way of thinking and strong ideological conviction is that which characterizes them the most. Because of this the Iranian opposition has always been fragmented into political splits.

Now, the twentieth century has opened doors to many ways of communication and information through satellite television and the internet. For the few Iranians who are willing to pay the price of being a "dirty political activist" the internet has given a new impulse to reach their message across to larger groups. On the other hand, the Iranian political opposition of 2006 face a new challenge today, namely difficulties of ideological diffusion, party-sclerosis and the culture of the younger political (mostly students) activists in Iran.

The ruling image of the old-fashion Iranian political activist is that of someone who has a strong idealist and ideological conviction, who mainly and sometimes even unconsciously thinks in terms of black and white and whose opinion is usually negative about other political party's or organizations. Sometimes party's that support the same ideological thought even rule out the possibility of cooperating together to reach a common goal!

This diffusion of idealisms in the past has often leaded to disappointments and frustrations for the political activists, but also for the Iranian non-activist population. The most edgy and perhaps also tragic example of this distrust among political activists are the "character- bashing-campaigns" that American- Iranian political activists show on their satellite television programs, where everyone actually tries to disgrace each other as if they were all in an electoral campaign, or a free-fight competition!

The new generation of Iranian political activists, that mainly consists of students in Iran and a very small amount of young individuals living abroad. These are mostly children of the political refugees who left Iran during the past thirty years. This new generation can be characterized by a strong sense of urgency, lack of a network and a lack of knowledge of political history. Some are organized in student organizations and some express their involvement under a less political colored umbrella such as human rights activism and urge for democracy and more individual freedom. They are passionate, motivated and in need of guidance.

The new means of communication that has finally brought the old and the new political activists together can turn two ways after a while. The first scenario would be that the old would be able to teach the new political activists about the historical and political background of social and political phenomenon in Iran. They could also provide the (inside Iran) new activists with a large and trustworthy network.

The new political activists could teach the old political activists to reach out together to reach a common goal instead of holding tight to their own ideological convictions. This synergy of old knowledge and new strategies and energy could create an arena in which Iran's political opposition could perhaps one day be an added value to the Iranian people to offer them some kind of alternative to the Iran they live in today.

The second scenario would be that the older political activists would only take advantage of their newly found arena to censure each other and create more diffusion and partysclerosis that would only disappoint and de-motivate the new political activists. The (mostly inside Iran) new political activists would then have no other option than to exclude Iranian political activists living abroad who could at least have brought their message across to the international arena.

The new political activists, mainly students in Iran, see and feel the need for political change everyday; it is in their direct interest to have support and attention. Political activists living abroad do not share that sense of urgency to act within a problem- solving mindset that the new political activists do have. This alarming fact could only lead to a cultural gap between the old and the new political activists resulting in more fragmentation.

According to an old saying unity is more than an accumulation of parts. According to another old saying all small drops of rain could create a river and this river could destroy any obstacle that would want to stop it from reaching the sea. Would it not be a synergetic and strategically wise decision for Iran's opposition party's, groups or individuals to gather their powers, means and visions aiming only to reach one common goal, instead of wasting their knowledge and energy by disregarding cooperation? Eventually all drops of rain long for the same vast blue sea.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Don't wait for help

The absence of responsibility and accountability among our citizens is one major source from where our problems arise. Today, every problem is blamed on the Mullahs or the government. It is often ignored that the responsibilities of building the edifice of order and solidarity in our society lies mostly in the hands of the people. We have chosen to play the game that the government has put forth in order to eliminate consonance and harmony among the people. The government realizes that with the existence of a solidified movement among the people, cooperation of the people with the unjust laws of the government will cease to exist, since they are all suffering in the same hell manufactured by the government itself.

The creation of a corrupt government, economic and social injustice, poverty, and financial crisis for thousands of families that has forced many of our youth into depression, addiction, suicide, and prostitution, are some factors of that manufactured hell. We have unconsciously become slaves to a system in which we are willing to slump one another in order to survive that hell. Until the day we wake up and realize the truth behind our sufferings and take responsibility for our own actions we will never comprehend our weaknesses that lead us to our state of slavery.

Our problem lies in our dependence on the government. We seek government intervention to discipline us and regulate our activities while we remain emasculated. We refuse to realize the need to detach ourselves from the system and to create a state of anarchy and self-help. As Gandhi said, "The moment the slave resolves that he will no longer be a slave, his fetters fall." We are facing similar conditions as slaves. Slaves are ruled by relying on, cooperating, and obeying their masters' orders yet, they blame the masters for their misery.

Today Iranians in Iran are in a similar situation. For the time being, they are distancing themselves form politics and political activism for good reasons. As a friend of mine in Iran told me, "The Iranians outside of Iran are more politically active than us inside the country. Today people are mostly trying to make a living and are attempting to make the best life out of their limited freedoms and opportunities." This is quite understandable since they have been the ones suffering for so long. If they are not engaged in political activities, they are at least undeniably involved, in everyday social activities such as interacting and socializing with others; trading, driving, working, and many other day-to-day means of communication. During some of those social activities, negligent mistakes are made that are blamed on the government.

A simple and concrete example is the way of driving and traffic in Iran, especially in Tehran, which is rated one of the worst in the world. If one lacks the discipline to drive in a single lane, signal when changing lanes, stop at red lights, and not drive against traffic or go reverse on highways, how is that the fault of the government? Some may argue that the government does not enforce the laws because of corruption and bribery. That may be true, but do we really need the government to enforce the laws and even punish us for not following our own commonsense? As always, Gandhi had the right idea; "Independence means voluntary restraints and discipline, voluntary acceptance of the rule of law," a vision that appears to be quite unfamiliar to most.

Another problem is scamming others in order to make easy money. Some may also blame the government for this unjustifiable act by claiming that the bad economy created by the government has forced people into such acts of desperation. That still does not justify the exploitation of your brothers and sisters in order for you to make a living.

To add to the list of problems, our greedy entrepreneurs and investors take money from Iran to setup factories in China or India for the inhumane exploitation of cheap labor or for investing the money in Dubai just to maximize profits similar to the U.S. and western corporations. Why not setup factories inside the country and employ the Iranian people with decent amount of wages? Why not serve the Iranian people for once?

Yet another problem comes to mind. Inside Iran, people have the desire of purchasing foreign made products, which ultimately destroys our indigenous businesses. Why not purchase domestic products and support the workers inside the country instead of unknowingly supporting the system of corporate globalization that exploits other developing countries. To that some might argue that the domestic products do not have good quality. Well why not give them a reason to enhance their quality? Why not give them incentives for producing better quality products? Why not be satisfied with the idea of fighting poverty rather than owning high-end quality products? Except that this suggestion has no real meaning to the masses of our people especially the wealthy.
The truth is, we want products that are labeled as Armani and Gucci, Mercedes and MBW so that we could compete in our endless emulation with others. Since we, as Iranians, are so superficially judgmental about others and how they dress, what they drive, what they eat, where and how they live, we have become prisoners and victims of our own materialistic perceptions. We are unable to live simple as our less fortunate brothers and sisters, unable to adopt modesty and eradicate our avariciousness, unable downgrade our expectations, and relinquish our selfish desires. It is definitely possible but not yet tried, at least not by a significant number.

One admirable activity that does take place in Iran and gives me much hope is during the Muslim month of Ashoora in which a couple of households in every neighborhood feed hundreds of people at their own expense. This is a noble act done by some wealthy Iranians and it should be done more often than just during Ashoora. During the days of the feeding, the entire neighborhood from kids to elders, volunteer to help and assist in the event, completely independent of the government.

This is a simple illustration that neighborhoods can organize and be active. Not politically but merely through assisting the ones in need. They can use the same tactics for raising money for different purposes such as education for children and health care for the sick, supplying food and shelter for the homeless, rehabilitation programs for addicts, etc. They can also cooperate with other neighborhoods through trade and assistance, organizing local events such as educational meeting, forums and many other grass-root activities that sooner or later will open our eyes to the real question: Do we really need the government?

In my Opinion, until we are able to unite and create a large cooperative network among ourselves, it does not matter what kind of a revolution or government we adopt, we will still be chained down by our rooted cultural and social incongruous habits. We mind as well get to work with the existence of the current government and employ more energy and enthusiasm into bringing cultural and social change by methods of self-reliance, self-management, and public cooperation.

So you see, our problems are beyond politics and government. They are emblems of our need to simply eradicate our reliance on the government, enhance our sense of solidarity with each other, rely on ourselves, act according to our good-will, lessen our expectations and greed, assist others in times of need, organize locally and try to expand our reach to all of our humanity globally.