You Can’t Always Get What You Want

I am not an accelerationist. I believe it is our duty to fight and advocate for those policies which are in our interest, and support those who claim they will implement said policies. Now, I do not vote, as voting is a fruitless ritual, but there are still political candidates I support in the way that I am able to. Unfortunately, even when the candidates we support win, this support is always betrayed, and oftentimes we would be better off had our opposition won. When I celebrated the candidacy of Mark Carney, I did so not out of support for the man or his policies, but as a Liberal candidate he had greater freedom to implement right wing policies that the Conservative candidate would have. When a Conservative retards mass immigration, he is denounced by the culture as racist, xenophobic, and the second coming of Hitler. Yet when a Liberal advocates and even implements these same policies, he is simply acting in the best economic interests of the country. Since I am not wed to party politics or elected officials, I care not who implements the policies I seek. I still do not trust Carney and I know long-term he is an enemy (in the Shmittian sense), and out of principal I would have preferred a Conservative electoral victory.

When we look to the United States we see no exception. Supposedly by this time in Biden’s presidency, his administration had deported more illegal immigrants than Trump has, although credit where it is due, a Republican presidency does cause a chilling effect which discourages illegal border crossings. With Trump we have a salesman, one who could sell far reaching policies that go against the interests of his most devoted followers and yet these same followers will defend him, even to their own deaths. Trump wants to implement a federal database which contains information on all Americans, and he has selected Palantir to run it.¹ Such a database should be alarming to Americans, especially the libertarian kind, many of whom support Trump. Again, one only need to imagine how conservative Americans would have reacted if this same policy were to have been implemented under the Obama or Biden administrations. This is how democratic politics functions; both parties share the same overarching agenda, but they willingly swap places when they require a certain policy enacted that would tarnish them in the eyes of their supporters.

I do not support the Islamic Republic of Iran. Just from the official name of the state, as an opponent to both Islam and republicanism, an Islamic Republic would hardly be a country I would hold in esteem. Yet I do feel a degree of fidelity to the Persian nation, its history and civilization. The Persian state has endured for over two millennia in one form or another, with expanded or diminished borders. We in-part can thank Persia and their Zoroastrian faith for the revelation to the Hebrews of the existence of Satan as a personal force. Of course this is not to say that Zoroastrianism itself is true, only that it preserved elements of Truth that were revelatory to the Hebrews and those who recorded Scripture. In the modern Islamic Republic, there are numerous religious minorities, many of which are represented in Iran’s parliament, including Christians and Jews, Christians and Jews we should note support the government as it is constituted today.

Of course I would like to see the return of monarchy to Persia. From what I know of the late Shah Reza Pahlavi, he was a good but misguided ruler. The Shah was enamoured with the West and liberal decadence. Had his rule persisted, by the 21^st Century we could have seen an Iran that espouses the same moral outlook as modern Europe or the United States. This is why, paradoxically, many Western liberals bemoan the revolution that toppled his government and would like to see one of his descendants become sovereign over Iran today. It is a bit trying to be a monarchist in the ilk that I am and find myself tangentially aligned with those who oppose most if not all of my values. But again, paradoxically, we see a case of political policies being enacted by those of whom we would normally be opposed to. The same of course occurs in Canada, with countless Liberals celebrating King Charles III and his royal visit to this Dominion which is seen as an affirmation of Canadian sovereignty in light of Trump’s 51^st state comments. Of course, a year prior, these same Liberals would be arguing for Canada to become a republic, crying for the “British King” to stay out of Canadian affairs. And of course, we are treated to Canadian Conservatives, in opposition to “Liberal monarchism” becoming staunch republicans in, of course, the American fashion. Only Canadian liberals can make nationalism and monarchism unsightly in my eyes.

I want Iran to persist and to thrive. I do not think that is possible under the Ayatollah and the Mullahs. Ultimately, the centrality of Islam as a political force in Iran has resulted in many excesses, even those of a liberal quality. Apparently, Iran has its own form of DEI, wherein Persians are excluded from positions of power and influence in favour of minorities, so long as they are Shia Muslim. Being an “Islamic Republic” is detrimental to Iran and to the Persian people, for the state does not exist to benefit the Persian people as Persians but Islam instead. As with the Soviet Union which existed to achieve Communism, the nations be damned, likewise with Iran and the advancement of Shia Islam. As we see many Persians abandon Islam for secularism and even Christianity, the less the state considers their interests and thus, the Shia minorities become more worthy than the majority. Yet if Iran is to improve, it must do so from within.

As the Iranian state currently exists, it should continue to likewise do so, until it is deemed unfit to fulfill the expectations the Persian nation has of it. The toppling of the Islamic Republic in favour of a return to a Western-backed monarchy will only see the enslavement of the Persian people to foreign powers which care not for them as a people or a civilization. If the Persians are destined to be servants (as it seems for now they are), it is better they be servants to a master you know and are related to than one who is utterly alien. Now that it seems likely that Israel and the United States will destroy Iran, and may even restore the House of Pahlavi, this is not something I can celebrate. To accomplish this feat, it is likely that millions of Persians will die, as well as Christians (who are mostly Armenian), as once the centralizing power of a Middle Eastern state fails, the dangerous elements are loosed and these elements often aspire to genocide. Of course, Persians are not Arabs, but the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire saw the Turks engage in a genocide of their own. It will take decades if not a century for a restored Persian monarchy to exercise the same domestic sovereignty that the Islamic Republic enjoys, and once this power has been achieved there is no guarantee the monarch will function in the interests of the people whom God has entrusted him with, especially if his power is imparted from abroad.

Reform is always preferable to revolution or conquest. Conditions may improve or decline, but they seldom stabilize or improve the lives of the people who have to live through such shifts. In the long term, such shifts may yield beneficial results, but said results are possible through reformation as well, without the infliction of suffering. We are already seeing an Iran that is becoming less Islamic, and more Christian. The government of Iran is losing its reason to exist, just as what occurred in the Soviet Union, yet instead of permitting nature to take its course, as it were, the Israelis and the Americans are hellbent on destroying a declining enemy, so that they, not the Persians, can dictate what their future will hold.

The animosity between Jew and Persian is longstanding, even Mohammad Reza Shah stated that in America it was Jews that controlled the media and the banks (comments which it has been claimed resulted in the West declining to aid him during the revolution). As for the Jews, they, to this day, maintain a list of nations that they feel have wronged them, and they curse them. These nations include Persia, Rome, the Byzantine Empire, and even the Russian Empire. Once a nation has labelled “Amalek” it is fit only for subjugation or destruction to the Jewish mind. Middle Easterners, given their proximity and familiarity with both Ashkenazi and Sephardic culture and beliefs, are naturally distrustful of Israelis, especially given Jewish actions taken prior to and after the establishment of Israel. The Persians, even under the Ayatollah, are not irrational actors. By feigning irrationality, they are afforded isolation and protection, just like the North Koreans are, only the Koreans have nuclear weapons as a deterrent to actual conflict. Had Iran maintained their nuclear weapons program, maybe this conflict would have been prevented, as a strategic balance would be achieved. If nothing else, Pakistan proves that an Islamic state, even one that supported the Taliban and other groups hostile to Israel, can possess nuclear weapons and not use them. Without an Iranian bomb, Israel’s security, but also its regional hegemony, is secured, as although the Gulf States may have a larger economy and Iran a greater population, Israel has a greater power, and the support of actors of a far greater power still, and unfortunately, the time at which that power could be challenged has passed.

1https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/palantir-to-create-vast-federal-data-platform-tying-together-millions-of-americans-private-records-stock-jumps/articleshow/121521062.cms?from=mdr