Thanks for sharing your perspective. I watched the video attached to your article—it's far more objective than mainstream knowledge. That said, the sources used in the video are questionable at best, reflecting liberal, Westernised Iranians who do not reflect the geopolitical and social reality and historical context on the ground in Iran, at least not completely. These fractured understandings are no accident and are backed by a political agenda. If you're interested in discussing further, feel free to contact me.
I am no expert on Iran by any means, but I found Lavader's video interesting and reasonable hence why I suggested it. As a westerner I can only view Iran through the lense of a European glass.
Your interpretation is entirely correct, and the fact that you were able to discern the reality through such a dense fog of deception and propaganda is truly appreciated. It is precisely for this reason that my critique was directed solely at the video and not at your personal reading of it. I have come to regard you as a person of considerable knowledge and thoughtful judgment, and I felt it was my responsibility to share these observations—simply to offer what I have learned as an Iranian who has lived both in Iran and in the West.
Weird position to be an Orthodox Christian while being Evola's acolyte; considering how he scoff at Christianity. Some things within Evola's writing are still subversive & anti-traditional, including the notion that the warrior/ksathriya class as the ultimate ruler. This isn't aligned with what primordial traditions taught. Nevertheless, the acknowledgement & admiration for Iran is appreciated
I agree with Evola on some things and disagree with him on others. Aristotle disagreed with his mentor Plato. I'm not a fan of Marx but some of his critiques of capitalism are valid. What do you think is the highest form of rulership?
“ As an Orthodox Christian, I am not in favour of a Shia theocracy ruling over my fellow Orthodox Christians in Persia, but as a rightist of thought, it is a more traditional and conservative system, and to see a priestly class regime running Iran is preferable to a merchant class regime that would be in operation if Reza Pahlavi ascended the peacock throne of his father.”
Hence: your attachment to (shia) traditionalism supersedes your solidarity with your fellow Orthodox Christians and, by implication, your attachment to Christian traditionalism. This notion that attachment to traditionalism is, per se, sufficient to justify a sort of romantic cosmopolitanism is nonsense. Need I remind you that Sunni “traditionalism”, as practiced by the MBrotherhood, demands that all lands that were once conquered by muslims be returned to the Ummah. Ask Spanish traditionalists what they think about that! Persian imperialism also subsists, neatly camouflaged, under theocratic “benevolence.” I will be frank with you: I care about European traditionalism, Christian traditionalism, Catholic traditionalism, Orthodox traditionalism. I detest the merchant class and all that comes with it, but I will be damned if that repulsion will move into the arms of Persian traditionalism or any other that extends beyond the old continent. Traditionalism is not an abstract metaphysics. You are attached to YOUR ground, to EUROPA AETERNA, not to somebody else’s. I guess what I am trying to say is that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
PS: I am more and more convinced that what is required is not a mere prise de conscience, but a GROUNDING, in Heidegger's sense of the term. To be grounded. Parochial? Perhaps. But what, exactly, is the opposite of parochial? Cosmopolitan. We have all been, to use Kundera's fortunate expression, "incarcerated by History." Vestiges of the liberal self perdure in many of us, myself included.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I watched the video attached to your article—it's far more objective than mainstream knowledge. That said, the sources used in the video are questionable at best, reflecting liberal, Westernised Iranians who do not reflect the geopolitical and social reality and historical context on the ground in Iran, at least not completely. These fractured understandings are no accident and are backed by a political agenda. If you're interested in discussing further, feel free to contact me.
I am no expert on Iran by any means, but I found Lavader's video interesting and reasonable hence why I suggested it. As a westerner I can only view Iran through the lense of a European glass.
Your interpretation is entirely correct, and the fact that you were able to discern the reality through such a dense fog of deception and propaganda is truly appreciated. It is precisely for this reason that my critique was directed solely at the video and not at your personal reading of it. I have come to regard you as a person of considerable knowledge and thoughtful judgment, and I felt it was my responsibility to share these observations—simply to offer what I have learned as an Iranian who has lived both in Iran and in the West.
Weird position to be an Orthodox Christian while being Evola's acolyte; considering how he scoff at Christianity. Some things within Evola's writing are still subversive & anti-traditional, including the notion that the warrior/ksathriya class as the ultimate ruler. This isn't aligned with what primordial traditions taught. Nevertheless, the acknowledgement & admiration for Iran is appreciated
I agree with Evola on some things and disagree with him on others. Aristotle disagreed with his mentor Plato. I'm not a fan of Marx but some of his critiques of capitalism are valid. What do you think is the highest form of rulership?
“ As an Orthodox Christian, I am not in favour of a Shia theocracy ruling over my fellow Orthodox Christians in Persia, but as a rightist of thought, it is a more traditional and conservative system, and to see a priestly class regime running Iran is preferable to a merchant class regime that would be in operation if Reza Pahlavi ascended the peacock throne of his father.”
Hence: your attachment to (shia) traditionalism supersedes your solidarity with your fellow Orthodox Christians and, by implication, your attachment to Christian traditionalism. This notion that attachment to traditionalism is, per se, sufficient to justify a sort of romantic cosmopolitanism is nonsense. Need I remind you that Sunni “traditionalism”, as practiced by the MBrotherhood, demands that all lands that were once conquered by muslims be returned to the Ummah. Ask Spanish traditionalists what they think about that! Persian imperialism also subsists, neatly camouflaged, under theocratic “benevolence.” I will be frank with you: I care about European traditionalism, Christian traditionalism, Catholic traditionalism, Orthodox traditionalism. I detest the merchant class and all that comes with it, but I will be damned if that repulsion will move into the arms of Persian traditionalism or any other that extends beyond the old continent. Traditionalism is not an abstract metaphysics. You are attached to YOUR ground, to EUROPA AETERNA, not to somebody else’s. I guess what I am trying to say is that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
PS: I am more and more convinced that what is required is not a mere prise de conscience, but a GROUNDING, in Heidegger's sense of the term. To be grounded. Parochial? Perhaps. But what, exactly, is the opposite of parochial? Cosmopolitan. We have all been, to use Kundera's fortunate expression, "incarcerated by History." Vestiges of the liberal self perdure in many of us, myself included.