Q&A on the Woman, Life, Freedom Movement / Sunday, 06th November, 2022

Interview with Dr. Reza Hazeli

Sociologist and Thinker in the Humanities

When to set up a chat:

October 22, 7760 Mithraic, 1401 solar

Questioner:

Sohrab Esfandiar – Fellow of Mehr Association of Iran

Considering the fateful and inflammatory situation in which we are living (after the governmental murder of the Kurdish girl of Iran, Mahsa/Jina Amini), we decided to conduct a conversation with Dr. Reza Hazeli, the director and head of the Mehr Association of Iran, about the current revolutionary movement in our country.

Mr. Hazelly, you presented the strategic and methodological idea of the Iranian Revolution in a detailed note a few years ago, and in order to do so, you discussed issues such as the formation of a government in exile and the Revolutionary Headquarters, and in parallel with those organizing actions inside the country, such as the formation of urban and rural committees of the Iranian Revolution under the supervision of the Provisional Government in Exile and the Headquarters of the Revolution, which have not been implemented to this day. The way that is necessary and necessary and which is mentioned in your article is not possible for the time being. With this introduction, I would like to raise a few questions about the recent uprising that began in September and its unprecedented dimensions and continuity, which has once again ignited the fire of hope among Iranians…

• Some people say that revolutions with leaders and leaders are past and these cases are related to the twentieth century, today the methods of leadership have changed. These people, however, do not answer that we have not yet had a leadership structure, have our uprisings been successful in recent years, and with the current situation without a leader, can we imagine a positive prospect for the uprising? And another point that is often discussed is about the dispersion of movement and the lack of a head, which is seen as the strength of movement. While dispersion and dispersion may be useful because of its decentralized nature, which makes it less possible to suppress, dispersion without direction and without purpose will cause waste of forces, discouragement, chaos, and inefficiency. What is your response to these considerations, Mr. Hazelley?

Greetings to you, Mr. Sohrab Esfandiar. Yes, I wrote the article “The Iranian Revolution or Iranian Metamorphosis, Both Ideology and Methodology” about seven years ago, and about three years ago, I discussed it extensively in the media, and I was attacked a lot, because at that time, the discourse of civil struggle was being discussed through applause, whistling, dancing, candle lighting, etc. The discourse prevailed, and it was certain that this was a reformist way for the continuation of the Islamic Republic to put the people in power in some way, and at that time, people accepted this. At that time, the reformist discourse was that we don’t need a leader, “every Iranian has a leader” and a series of populist words and sweet words, and of course, those sweet words in which there is a poison in all of them. I would like to say to you that the people of Iran are simple people. On average, the Iranian people are people whose IQ (analytical power) is close to 84. These people are very quick to believe, contrary to what they think, and these people are strongly influenced by the media, and they accept everything easily, and the intelligence agencies play with them. What I want to tell you is that the essence of revolutions in the 21st century has not changed in any way. To say that we do not need a leader in modern revolutions is nothing more than nonsense. It’s like saying that in modern companies, we don’t need a CEO or a director, for example! In fact, these are a series of populist and demagogic statements, and there are those who are propagating that they want this revolution not to take place or for the movement to fail. All the revolutions that took place in the 21st century have had a leader, and now either you saw this leader (in front of the scene), like the revolutions of the 20th century, when you saw the leader, or you did not see these leaders, and these leaders were intelligence agencies that operated in secret. Many naïve people think that what happened a few years ago under the name of the Arab Spring was spontaneous. I must say that no, the intelligence agencies played a role in organizing it. There is no spontaneous work that does not have a leader. Even in the same neighborhood, let alone in several Arab countries, from one to the other and that at the same time. Well, people are usually naïve and naïve, and they believe some of these things anyway. The reality is that nothing has changed, the revolution is in fact the product of a process and needs parents, and a child cannot be born without parents. You can’t say that in the 21st century, for example, the children who are born don’t have parents! Even with genetic engineering, they eventually have to take a cell from the parents and play with it in such a way that the child is created artificially. Therefore, the father cell and the mother cell are needed. In order for the revolution to take place (in principle), the father plays the role of the leader, and the mother is the land, the country, and the geographical area in which the revolution takes place, and the child that is born (the sweet child of the revolution) is the product of these two. You should know that you will not do anything without any idea, without any leadership, without purpose and organization, and in fact, if there is no leadership in revolutions, it will cause chaos, it will not lead anywhere, and it will not lead to victory. Revolution is a kind of war. Those who have gone to the army know very well that you cannot fight without command and leadership. It is not possible to form a military battalion, it is not possible to form a military brigade when there is no battalion commander or brigade commander. And without it and without the plan that they have, you cannot fight. Without a commander you will have a mess. You will have an aimless, wandering gang. This is what we are witnessing now in the Iranian Revolution of Mahsa Amini. This good revolution, which started with the good slogan of woman, life, freedom, suddenly went in a direction where you can see that the slogans were changed to things like: “No, no, no… It has been drawn in the House of the Leader! This means that the leadership was badly conducted, which means that the organization was bad, or that the intention was to create chaos in Iran. You should know that the program that exists to control the countries of the Middle East is Controlled Chaos, i.e. Controlled Chaos. Those who claim that revolutions and movements do not need leadership are divided into two groups: one group who are really naïve and ignorant and do not know that without this case, no movement, no company, no company, no military battalion, no revolution will be victorious. That is, without leadership, organization, and purpose. This is the basis of the thinking of those who have studied management and leadership. So, either they are naïve and do not know, or in the second case, they are the ones who have the task (mission) to (consciously) implement the policy of the centers of global power regarding the Middle East, including Iran, which is in fact a policy of controlled chaos. They know very well that if there are protests and these protests do not have a leader, and any group comes and gives its own slogan, it will lead to chaos. In such a case, in addition to the people not winning over the central government, this (chaos) will cause a civil war, and in this chaos, terrorist forces can enter Iran through the borders. This is the same situation that arose in Syria, where with the same stupid slogans, the simple-hearted Syrian people were deceived and said that there is no need for a leader, everyone should come and speak their minds. Well, the result was chaos, chaos, and then the terrorist forces of ISIS were transferred to Syria by the Turkish intelligence organization, and that civil war ensued, which severely weakened, destroyed, and destroyed Syria, Israel’s greatest enemy. The government did not change, what was done was the disintegration of the country and the destruction of the country. The movement did not achieve its goals and entered a civil war. What we are seeing now is that some people are trying to implement this scenario in Iran, and these are the same people who say that leadership is not necessary. This Iranian revolution, which I wrote about and emphasized a few years ago, has now just reached it after a few years and has come and raised it. I must say that this Iranian revolution must have a leader, and this Iranian revolution must be carried out by a leader who has, firstly, the knowledge and the ability to do so, and secondly, has a broad platform. Our problem has become like a closed circle in the sense that those who have broad tribunes, either cannot or do not want to lead, or have orders not to lead, and are paid not to lead, and those who can and have an idea to lead do not have a large tribune, and this problem has been a problem that we have had for the last 44 years. In the continuation of the answer to your question, I must mention another point, that you talked about the dispersion of the movement, which is a mistake that the prince is fueling and saying that if the movement is dispersed, it is not possible to suppress it. But the problem is that in such a case, it is not possible for him to win! You should pay attention to this point, yes, it is difficult to suppress the guerrilla war, but you should know that scattered and partisan war does not have a victorious side. In other words, neither the people nor the government will win. This wave of war is causing chaos, which is the controlled chaos and what the globalists want, including their representative, Prince Reza Pahlavi. That is, chaos inside Iran. Therefore, this is why he refers to the decentralized movement. The revolution must be centralized and (ultimately) by taking over the centers of government, i.e., the parliament, the radio and television, prisons, the Supreme Leader’s office, the presidency, the judiciary, etc. to be completed. And especially the Majlis, which is the people’s house, and the people must gather in front of its building and take it. Therefore, if someone thinks that he can change the government by spooning and chanting slogans in his own neighborhood, on the rooftop, in the basement, or in the street, he is misguided, and he is in fact doing what Mir Hossein Mousavi did. In other words, the deviation of the people’s movement. In other words, the same silent demonstrations that Mir Hossein Mousavi and others like Sazegara and Makhmalbaf used to say in order to control the people’s anger. That is, the same demonstration in the desert that Sazegara used to say, go and demonstrate in the desert! Even now, the prince says the same thing, on the rooftop, at the end of the alley, at the head of the neighborhood, and in a scattered manner. This means that it is actually a show. This means putting people to work. This means that the movement will not be victorious, or that it is in fact a tool and a show of use of the people for the changes that are taking place behind the scenes and that are carried out by the intelligence agencies. Therefore, what I want to say to you is that no, you do not have a single revolution that has been won in a decentralized manner and without the capture of government centers. You do not have this in the American Revolution, nor in the French Revolution, nor in the Russian Revolution, nor even in the Islamic Republic Revolution, nor in the Constitutional Revolution, nor in the color revolutions. Even in modern color revolutions and the 21st century, such as the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, we see that revolutionaries gathered in Ukraine Square and took over the Ukrainian parliament. Even during the Rose Revolution in Georgia, people gathered in the Georgian parliament and took over the parliament. These words that the revolution should be scattered are in line with cooperation with the new world order and the centers of power for civil war and chaos in Iran.

If we accept that a revolution is impossible without a leadership organization and a coherent political discourse on the part of the opposition, what characteristics do you think a correct and efficient leadership should have for the victory of a movement?

The right leadership must have ideas. Again, what the naïve and naïve intellectuals of Iran think is that the era of ideas and ideology is over, while paradoxically calling themselves globalists, that globalization itself is a full-fledged ideology in the economic, social, political, and cultural fields. I must say that no, as long as human beings exist, there will be ideas and ideologies. As we say in Persian literature: “O brother, you are all thoughts, the rest is bone and root, and just as Plato correctly believed in the world of ideas and the world of parables, and just as in fact, Plato’s teacher Zoroaster also believed in the world of Fara-Vashi and the world of Minoan, which is the world of ideas and minos. Nothing has changed today, and these principles are still in place. Therefore, the issue is not the idea and ideology, the issue is the burden of the idea and ideology as to whether it has a constructive burden or whether the rain is destructive and destructive. For example, in the case of Islam and Islamic ideology, we saw that it had a destructive and destructive burden. As for the qualities of a leader, I must say that he must have an idea. It should have a national idea. The idea for the modernization of Iran, the country of Iran, and the lands of the Iranian civilization, including Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and the occupied Iranian territories such as Talesh which is occupied by Baku, such as Kurdistan which is occupied by Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, and like Bahrain, and like Baluchistan, Pakistan, and other Iranian lands that are outside of Iran, should also have ideas. The idea of returning from the path of civilization from the bankrupt Abrahamic civilization to the Indo-Iranian and European super-civilization, and in addition to this idea, it should have a wide tribune and a tribune of tens of millions of people that can make its voice heard to the people, and this vast tribune is an issue that unfortunately many people who have ideas in Iran, including us, are deprived of having and because of the vast costs that this The tribune is given to people who promote the ideas of the new world order and the ideas of the new order in the Middle East, which is the crushing of Iran, the crushing of Iranian civilization, the continuation of the Brzezinski or Abrahamic Green Belt Project, and the Islamization of the countries of Iranian civilization. Therefore, the leadership must: 1. Have an idea, something like the manifesto of the Iranzamin think tank. 2. It must have a platform and a media of tens of millions that can unite the thoughts of the society and acquaint the people with its ideas.

• In the absence of a nationwide cohesion and order in the uprising, there are weaknesses that are sometimes lost under the influence of popular emotions and the regime’s crimes. The lack of a clear side of account and leverage for the regime from a legal-political perspective as a successor to the government, and at the same time the lack of support of the people and the movement in terms of political management in the age of communication, and the comparison of this situation with the reactionary revolution of Bahman, when communication facilities were limited but the organization and management of the movement was more calculated, has become very annoying, strange, and ironic. The question is whether this lack of centralization of the leadership and the lack of a definite direction that would strike at the regime step by step in various ways (such as intelligently directing the protests and preparing the ground for strikes) is created naturally or artificial, and with a specific intention and intention, this political stagnation (especially from outside Iran, where the space is more open) is fueled?

You wonder why in the 1979 Revolution, although there were fewer communication devices, there was more order, was because in the 1979 Revolution, intelligence agencies played a greater role. You should note that the 1979 Revolution was a show. The 1979 Revolution was not a real revolution. The 1979 Revolution was a show that was actually performed by intelligence agencies that had influence in SAVAK and in the army, such as the Mossad’s Zeitoun Network, and like the members of this network, Mr. Fardoost and Mr. Qarabaghi. Declaring their neutrality, declaring their support for the revolutionaries, who in fact did everything to bring the radical Islamists to power in accordance with the Brzezinski Green Belt Plan, which was a grand plan for the Middle East. Therefore, intelligence agencies were involved. Even now, you should know that in the same movement, Mahsa Amini, even though they say that she has no leader, I must tell you honestly that in fact, Western intelligence agencies have taken over her leadership. In the absence of a popular and national leadership, intelligence agencies are now the first word in this movement. It is not the case that if a populist like the prince comes and says that every Iranian has a leader and you don’t need a leader, the intelligence agencies will also come and believe him and abandon this movement and not remove its order from the face of the earth. No, they have a new order, they have an agenda for Iran and the Middle East, and if a movement emerges that does not have a charismatic and powerful leader, they will not allow the leadership of this movement to remain on the ground, and the intelligence agencies will lift its leadership. In the Mahsa Amini movement, when they saw that there was no leader, and because they saw that the people were just upset and that the people were really coming inside and there was no general leadership and they wanted to organize themselves, immediately and very soon the intelligence agencies took over the leadership of this movement and this Hollywood show was formed. Hollywood actresses who had no idea who Mahsa Amini was were asked to come and send a message to Mahsa. All the politicians, the MEPs, this enormous and massive coordination that you have seen, this is not a coincidence. This is not because, for example, they followed the news and were upset by the killing of a girl in Iran, for example. Every day, thousands of innocent people are killed around the world, every day thousands of innocent girls are killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, each of whom is like Mahsa Amini. But why was the reaction abroad to the murder of Mahsa Amini so widespread? Because they saw that there is no leader, there is no charismatic, knowledgeable, and knowledgeable leadership, so the intelligence agencies said that we will come and take the leadership of this movement, we will determine its slogans so that national slogans will not be chanted at once, my life will not be sacrificed for Iran, the flag of the lion and the sun will not be raised, and we will try to disguise this movement as a feminist movement only. However, the movement is not feminist. The movement that has taken place is about the issue of hijab, and hijab is a law of Abrahamic jurisprudence. This movement is a war between Iranian values and human civilizational values and the values of Abrahamic religions. Otherwise, many of those who came to the issue of the hijab do not even know and may not even be completely familiar with feminism. But the fact that the intelligence agencies came and gave it a feminist color means that they are preventing the nationalization of the movement. They should prevent the movement from becoming Iranian, and this means taking the initiative of a movement that lacks leadership. In the 1979 Revolution, in addition to the intelligence agencies, we also had a leader named Mr. Khomeini. Yes, Mr. Khomeini was a reactionary and backward person, but Mr. Khomeini was an extremely charismatic and influential leader. Therefore, the intelligence agencies could not assume the leadership on their own. He also did not allow all control of the movement to fall into their hands. But now, because we don’t have a leader and the people in the opposition are weak leaders, like the prince himself, the leadership of this movement has completely fallen into the hands of the intelligence agencies. Whatever slogan they want, they can put in the mouths of the people through their tens of millions of media outlets, and you can even see that all the artists who cooperate with these organizations, including Ms. Golshifteh Farahani, are now obliged to fight against the national elements in this movement. They should fight with the flag of the lion and the sun and with the Iranian identity. Like Mr. Shahin Najafi, they have a duty to fight with the slogan “I sacrifice my life for Iran,” and all those who organize this show and the orchestra of the centers of power and their media have a duty to fight against the nationalist elements in the Iranian freedom movement. Whether it is like Ms. Golshifteh Farahani through the flag or like Mr. Shahin Najafi with the slogan “I sacrifice my life for Iran.” They came and made the slogan of the Woman, Life, Freedom movement only feminist, and since this movement will not have a plan for the future of Iran, and it is a movement that sees the world only with 50 percent of the population and with one eye, not with two eyes, and its vision is limited, such a movement cannot be the first word for a society like Iranian society, and especially for the traditional Iranian society. I hope that I have answered you so that you will know the difference between these movements and why in 1979 there was more order, even though there were fewer communication devices. In my opinion, there is less order now and the slogans have reached a point where they are swearing at Neither this nor that… to Mr. Khamenei. This is because of the lack of leadership and the intelligence agencies have taken over it, and remember that the main task and goal, when the intelligence agencies take the leadership of a movement, is to implement the new world order on that country, and the new world order on Iran is chaos and civil war for terrorists to enter. That is why they do not allow the protests to be centralized, and they say that they should be decentralized and dispersed, because if they are decentralized, terrorists can be brought into Iran. You cannot find a single revolution that has been victorious anywhere other than the capital. There is not a single revolution in the history of revolutions like this. And decentralization is only because of the civil war and chaos that must be created, and this is the agenda of the intelligence agencies, with which unfortunately people like Prince Reza Pahlavi are also cooperating.

• Even in the case of slogans, we see that without a clear leader, qualified and healthy, there is no clear slogan and a specific goal in society, and the society is wandering despite the roar. A purposeful slogan also needs targeted and focused leadership to expand at the national level. It is true that women, life, and freedom have become the socio-cultural slogan of the movement, and in a way, its identity card and fingerprints, and because of its feminist and progressive theme, it has become a source of prestige and pride for Iranian society in the world, but as Your Excellency and others have always said, a political revolution needs one or two specifically political slogans. In fact, the essence of the slogan is not constructive alone, its function is important. Even if the most progressive slogan is given, but there is no possibility of its implementation in its material context, it will not yield results. Therefore, one must choose a slogan and a goal that is firstly in accordance with the problem and second, its realization in the current situation is not idealistic according to the ability and capacity of the society. In your opinion, in the radical struggle against the inhumane and anti-patriotic regime of the mullahs, what is the best goal, slogan, and with what characteristics does it have the best cut, and it can create the most solidarity among the people and also have political and practical content?

Yes, this movement started with the beautiful slogan of woman, life, freedom, which in Kurdish is called gene, life, freedom. This is a slogan that was first raised by Abdullah Ocalan in the advanced and modern socialist movement founded by the PKK. He said that until women are freed, until this nation is freed from captivity (women), in fact, human beings will not be freed. It was a very beautiful slogan with which the movement began. But as I mentioned to you, again because of the lack of leadership, again because of the lack of formation of the Headquarters of the Iranian Revolution, which I mentioned in my article, because of the lack of sloganeering and policy-making, which should be done by the scholars of political science, sociology, and philosophy and not by the people of the streets and alleys, unfortunately, the slogans went into a deviant state. Of course, like Sadegh Hedayat, I believe that you have the right to curse as well. You have the right to be angry, and you have to be angry when they trample on your rights. But when you carry out a revolution, those slogans and policies must manifest lofty goals, and they must not fall into the hands of people who want to angrily chant slogans such as: No Invari, No Onuri, … In the leadership house or cannons, tanks, personnel carriers, all in … They should chant the leader. Such slogans will embarrass the revolutionaries, although those people have the right to vent their anger anyway, but what I am saying to you is that these slogans cause chaos in the movement and will not lead the movement to victory. This is yet another reason for the invalidity and rejection of the opinion of those who say that we do not need a leader, a policy-making council, and a revolutionary council. Well, the result is that the movement goes wrong and descends into chaos. Again, in response to this question, I say that these people who insist that we do not need to draw a line and organize are all trying to cause chaos in Iran. Pay attention to this and I will emphasize this. The goal is to create chaos or chaos in Iran. This is the agenda of the centers of global power in the countries of the Middle East. Like the chaos they created in Iran, like the chaos they created in Afghanistan, as they created in Syria, and as they created in Libya for years. This Controlled Chaos is an agenda of think tanks. Western academic think tanks and that is why they say that you do not need a leader. Can you do anything without leadership? It is like having a child and you say that he was born without a father. Only one person claimed that he was born without a father, which of course is doubtful in his claim and it seems that he was the Messiah! But what I want to say is that nothing can be done without leadership. Without organization and purpose, only the country will be dragged into chaos, and all those who repeat this, knowingly or unknowingly, are serving this goal of the centers of power. As for the nature of the movement, I must say that this movement is a movement against Abrahamic values and the compulsory hijab. This feminist flavor and glaze is applied to it by Western commentators. Feminism is a phenomenon of postmodern society, and you can’t talk about feminism in a traditional society. This is scientifically wrong. Therefore, a society that has not even been modernized until it reaches the postmodern era, feminism cannot exist in its proper form. Therefore, the feminist movement cannot be created in it. This is exactly like saying that a society that has not been industrialized wants to produce an industrial product, for example. You cannot produce industrial goods until you industrialize society. Therefore, I do not consider this movement to be feminist. I consider this movement to be a battle against the imposed and coercive values of Abraham, and I do not accept the feminists’ view of this movement. Moreover, I do not generally accept the views of extreme feminists in postmodern societies. Many of the restrictions and discrimination that have become prevalent against women were in fact after the emergence of the Abrahamic religions, namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and had nothing to do with men. Prior to these religions, women in history sometimes even had more rights than men, because we have a period of patriarchy or matriarchy in human history, in which women had more rights than men, and evidence of this has been found in archaeological excavations. But after the Abrahamic religions that were not only built by men, but also by women, such as Khadija, who if Khadija was not a Jew who read the Torah to Muhammad and supported him financially, perhaps Islam would not have emerged at all, in fact, after these religions, in which women also played a role, restrictions were placed on women. I don’t see the world from a feminist point of view, and I don’t necessarily see the feminist perspective as the right one. What is more, the feminist perspective is a limited one. It is a vision that sees the world only through the eyes of 50 percent of human beings, i.e. women. It is a view that does not see the world as complex and only discusses the gender factor in it, and does not pay attention to economic factors, social factors, cultural factors, and the imposed values of Abrahamic religions. The feminist view is one of the isms that even postmodern societies will realize in the future that it is not the right view. As for the slogans, the slogans that I propose are that we complete the incomplete slogan of woman, life, and freedom and add to it suffixes and prefixes that can define our will in the movement and what is our desire in the movement?

– Woman, Life, Freedom – The Iranian Revolution

– Woman, Life, Freedom – Iranian Government

– Woman, Life, Freedom – Iranian Laïcité

– Woman, Life, Freedom – The Chosen Kingdom

– Woman, Life, Freedom – Iranian Civilization

– Woman, Life, Freedom – Iranian Identity

– Freedom, Life, Woman – I Sacrifice My Life for the Homeland

And like these, it means that the element of Iranian identity, Iranian civilization, and homeland must be discussed in it so that the will of the society is determined and the intelligence agencies cannot ride on these slogans and give them the direction they want and the new world order wants for us.

• Can the dynamism and fluidity of today’s Iranian society and this demand for freedom, which is still vague and crude and does not have a single definition and alternative based on the concepts of political science, lead to the reproduction of tyranny in a different kind and guise, if the regime is overthrown? In this case, will the mostly young and relatively informed Iranian society, which is disgusted with coercion, accept another dictatorship, which will deny the people the freedom of activity of parties, organizations, and the media, and suppress dissenting opinions? What is your response as a sociologist and politician to this ambiguity?

Regarding this question and this duality of freedom and dictatorship that you raised and examined the movement from this point of view, I would like to introduce you to another glass. Glasses other than the glasses that the media of Western intelligence agencies give you. It is not a question of freedom and dictatorship. The problem is that in Western countries, and especially in societies that are entering the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Transhumanism, freedom no longer exists in that way, and we witnessed in the case of Corona and the issue of COVID-19 that arose, a digital tyranny that prevailed throughout the Western world, and this tyranny violated human rights, and incidentally, even human relations and the distances between them. He dictated and imposed dictatorship. In fact, there was a medical dictatorship that had occurred in Western societies and still exists today, and of course the excuse for that was the Corona virus, but the main reason for this is the decline of the role of human beings in an era when humanism is over and it is moving towards transhumanism. When you say that the youth are tired of dictatorship, I tell you that the youth are tired of the Abrahamic values. Unfortunately, life is a kind of compulsion and we do not have absolute freedom in life. It’s not up to us. Even Western thinkers say that we in the West only feel free, not freedom itself, and people only think that they are free, and this is really the case. The Western media is so advanced that it instills a sense of freedom in Westerners, not real freedom. And whenever there is a crisis like the Corona issue, then people realize that their feelings and freedom are actually tied to a hair. Our problem is not dictatorship and freedom. Our problem is the human process. Our problem is growth and development. The cultural, social, spiritual and psychological growth and development of the Iranian human being and man is in the context of history, and this human growth must be accomplished by you in Iranian society by changing the course of civilization from the Abrahamic civilization or what I call Abrahamic-Islamic savagery and its backward values, to the Indo-Iranian and European supercivilization and its transcendent values. If it is otherwise, first, the country will lose its identity and will be in the service of globalization. Secondly, you will never experience freedom, because slavery in globalization is another kind of slavery for companies that have big capital. Multinational companies and a series of puppet consumers who control their every behavior, their speech, and their actions in the process of transhumanism, and especially in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Therefore, as you said, Iranian society is tired of dictatorship and needs freedom, I must say that Iranian society is tired of Abrahamic values and needs constructive Indo-Iranian and European values and modern human values. And in order for society to reach that level, we may actually need a good dictatorship as part of this process. Like what Reza Shah did. Reza Shah was undoubtedly a dictator, but no one got tired of Reza Shah’s dictatorship except foreign countries, except Britain, why? Because he was working for the benefit of Iran. Therefore, what I am presenting to you is that it was the dictatorship of Reza Shah who wanted to change the direction of civilization in Iran and introduced modern values such as laïcité into it. Such a dictatorship is positive. And yes, the Islamic dictatorship and the Abrahamic values are also presented as a negative dictatorship. I believe that dictatorship is also discussed by many political schools, including socialism, such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is discussed in communism. So remember that dictatorship is not necessarily bad or good. See dictatorship in relation to rain. And I believe that contrary to what the media instills in you, the problem of Iranian youth is not dictatorship, but of Abrahamic values. On the question of freedom, I would add that I see freedom as democracy. I believe that freedom should be given step by step. I believe that a nation that has not had the opportunity to have access to proper education, if you give it a sword, it will hurt itself first of all. It’s like giving a 15-year-old a rifle or a shotgun and telling him to go hunt for example. Are you paying attention?! You must first get the child to a stage so that he can go through a period of time and then he can use a weapon and go hunting. Do not look at yourselves or a few. We have a series of parameters. We have a series of indexes. We have a series of indicators. The index of general education, the index of public culture, the index of per capita reading, the index of IQ, and other indicators, if you put these together, you will see that this society is not ready and does not even know itself or its history and past when it comes to knowing itself. In the past 44 years, this society has found itself in a situation where it is not ready for you to give it freedom all at once. All of a sudden, you have created chaos, and this chaos is the same chaos that the centers of Western power want with controlled chaos. Therefore, democracy, like freedom, must be given to the people in a process, freedom must also be given, but in a process and after it reaches a desired level, not immediately. This is the reality and it is the bitter reality that exists. Now, I’m telling you this frankly and directly, and other people are playing with words. That is, all those who talk about freedom and democracy know this fact, but someone will come and tell you this directly, and someone will not say it because he knows that people usually do not understand this and his feedback may not be good in society. You know, if you tell a little child that you’re small, well, it’s natural for him to get upset and say, “No, I’m big.” You must have seen that when we tell small children this, they tell us that no, I have grown up now, and this is the case. In other words, here too you have to say to the child (the people of Iran): No, you have grown up and these politicians and political activists of ours talk to the people in the same way, but I say frankly to the child, no, you still do not know yourself, you do not know your society yet, and you are not yet familiar with the complexities of this world. Therefore, if an interim government is formed from people who are patriotic and know Iran and know the world, we should expect that you will be given freedom and democracy in a process. In a process where we go through the transition period and you reach a degree of maturity. I must also highlight that these Abrahamic and Islamic values imposed on our country and on Iranian society come from the military occupation of Iran, and this is different from dictatorship. The military occupation that actually started from Qadisiyyah and Nahavand, and then continued with the Umayyad Caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate, and other Islamic caliphs, until it reached the Islamic Republic, which is also a de facto Sayyid Khan, and in fact, they are the descendants of the same invaders who attacked Iran. So what I have to say about this is that this is different from dictatorship. The imposed values of Ebrahimi that I am talking about have nothing to do with dictatorship. Rather, it is related to the military occupation of Iran and has been forcibly entered into it. From an alien. Dictatorship arises from the heart of society itself. For example, you assume Reza Shah. Yes, he was a dictator. Or, for example, suppose that all our Shahs were mostly dictators. But they were from the heart of our society. In the Sassanid era, for example, we had a dictator. These are things, but they are not military occupations, that is, they have not come to attach something that does not belong to your body and change your body. You see, a dictatorship means that there is a body that (the dictator) tells to do this or to do that. But the imposed values of Abraham and the occupation mean that you want to change that body (country, civilization, culture). That is, supposedly he cuts your hand and puts a prosthetic hand in its place. It is something else that goes beyond dictatorship. Therefore, you should know that what I emphasize, and which I always refer to as imposed values, and (to correct and correct it) about the change of civilization from the Abrahamic civilization to the Indo-Iranian and European super-civilization, is in fact because of this point (this difference and this confusion of the topic).

• Mr. Farhang Ghasemi, the leader of the Social Democratic and Secular Party of Iran, in a recent interview with Mehr Iran TV and you personally, spoke about the need for the unity of the secular forces. Is it possible to cooperate and harmonize between the Iranist movement and its spectrums, as well as the pluralistic groups of Iranian nationalists? If yes, what should be done to form this national and secular political bloc so that we do not lose time any more? And what can be the role of each group, party, organization, and individual to facilitate the process of forming this central core? Probably the biggest point of separation between nationalists and Iranians is the disagreement over the system and form of government of the future Iran. Iranians tend to be monarchists, and nationalists are mostly republicans, and perhaps this is the reason for the convergence, right?

Yes, we have some differences. Since the dominant thoughts of these friends are the dominant thoughts of postmodern European societies, they see some things in a different light. The vision of the Mehr Association of Iran, the vision of the Mehr Media of Iran, and the vision of the Manifesto of the Iranzamin think tank, with the utmost respect for modernism and its achievements, and with the utmost respect for the French Revolution and the postmodern movements that exist in postmodern Western societies, have the utmost respect but a little bit of perspective with these. We believe that Iran is not a normal country. Iran is not Burkina Faso. Iran is a country that is the oldest, if not one of the oldest countries in the world, and the political tradition in it must be preserved, but this political tradition must be modernized in it. That is, you must come and change the nature of the political tradition of the kingdom and turn it into a republic. This should be modernized, not for you to come and rebuild Iran from scratch like a newly established country that has a hundred years of history, for example, and treat it like a society without an identity. The second problem and disagreement that we have with these friends is that these friends act on the basis of nationalism and we on the basis of Iranianism. Nationalism has nothing to do with the identity and direction of Indo-Iranian civilization. Nationalism considers anyone inside Iran to be Iranian, because it is based on soil. In other words, if the number of Iraqi immigrants in Iran reaches 10 million tomorrow, for example, these 10 million Iraqi Arabs will be considered part of Iranian nationalism, and if tomorrow, for example, 40 million Chinese are exported to Iran, these 40 million Chinese will also be considered part of Iranian nationalism. Because he sees things in the form of dust. But we see things as blood and dirt, as they are today in German law. In other words, we do not believe that anyone who enters Iran is part of the Iranian nation and part of Iranian nationalism. We believe in the historical identity of Iran. We believe in the authenticity of Iran’s history. We believe in the Iranian civilization in line with the Indo-Iranian and European super-civilization, and we believe in these values that separate the Iranian civilization from the Abrahamic civilization. I am sure that if our friends also do research, they will reach our results. Our vision includes more functions from a scientific and philosophical point of view. We present different factors, different catalysts, and more scientific and philosophical indexes and indicators in our analysis. Their vision is simple, it’s very simple. In other words, they themselves say that this cat is our Iran. We do not believe that this cat is our Iran. We also consider Iranian people outside of Iran to be Iranians. Like the Afghans, like the Tajiks, like the Talesh in the occupied Talesh in Baku, like the occupied Kurdistan in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, etc. We also consider such people to be Iranians. In the eyes of these friends, there is a country and they have drawn a line and say that this is Iran. We have a civilizational vision. We propose the Iranian civilization in line with the theory of civilizations of Samuel Huntington. The vision of these friends is more limited, and they have a national perspective, not a civilization. Therefore, there is a lot of difference, but the talks are being held for convergence, and I hope that it will reach a place in the future. However, the conversations we have had so far have not yielded very brilliant results.

• What are the necessary measures to control security and provide a suitable environment during the transition period, to preserve freedoms, to cover the basic needs of citizens’ lives, and to protect the borders? After all these years of bloodshed and slaughter that has been inflicted on us by the regime, by what mechanism can we prevent further bloodshed and ensure relative calm in the critical period of transition until the beginning of the first elected government in Iran, and perhaps to the affiliated and biased forces that have lurked and whose goal is to disrupt the peaceful and democratic transition to a new system and to catch a fish from the water? It is muddy, did it not allow for disturbance and chaos?

In political science, we have a definition that the transition from totalitarian governments to a democratic government must be done through authoritarianism so that this government is stable and the country does not suffer from chaos, chaos and disintegration. The best example of this can be seen in the former Soviet Union, where the communist totalitarian regime in the former Soviet Union suddenly entered the liberal democracy of the Yeltsin era without transitioning from an era of authoritarianism, causing the country to break up into 15 countries and plunge into chaos and chaos. Even to this day, we see that there is bloodshed and war between the republics and their satellites. Therefore, for a peaceful transition from the totalitarian government of the Islamic Republic to a democratic, nationalist, Iran-loving and Iranian-oriented government, we propose that this transition period should be carried out through the Iranian military and their more authoritarian interim government. This will prevent the transition period from being like the 1979 and will not be dragged into chaos and civil war between different armed groups with different ideologies and ethnic wars. With military discipline and discipline, a provisional and authoritarian government should be formed, which was gradually formed during the period of this provisional government, and in the Constituent Assembly, representatives of various political parties and groups should participate freely and determine the type of future government of Iran. The type of government that we are emphasizing should be elected and not hereditary, whether it is either an elected monarchy or a republic, and so on. Our emphasis is on the chosen kingdom. Otherwise, if the more authoritarian armed forces are not in charge of the transition period, what we will see is that with the formation of a new government, with the purges that must be carried out and the purges that are carried out in the military forces, the country will remain defenseless, and at this time, terrorist forces will enter Iran through intelligence agencies such as Turkey’s MIT or Pakistan’s ISI and plunge Iran into a civil war. And they are dragging on an ethnic war, and not only will a new government not be established, but in fact, Iran will be completely lost and will have the same fate as Syria, and by the way, it is at that time that the Islamic Republic will also show stubbornness, and it is even possible that it will take control of parts of Iran and still maintain its position in a way, as Bashar al-Assad did. Therefore, the transfer process must be carried out with the participation of the Islamic Republic’s own military, which gives them security, life, and financial guarantees that they will not be executed tomorrow, or if they cooperate, they will not kill them and confiscate their property. But if they cooperate to make this transition peaceful, they will be pardoned, and their past will be pardoned and forgiven. They contribute to the transition process and security during the transition period so that a new government can be formed. This is our plan for the transition period. The fact that you say that opportunistic groups may also take advantage of this opportunity, it should be said that this possibility is always possible. When you cross the street, it is possible that God forbid a car will hit you. So you can’t stop crossing the street at all because of this. You see, the danger is always there, but the problem is that we try to reduce the probability of danger, that is, if you want to cross the street, first look to the right and left to avoid the car, and then walk over the pedestrian lane, but you still cannot guarantee 100% that there will be no danger. We can never reduce the probability of such a possibility to zero, but scientifically we just have to reduce the probability of its occurrence.

• What lessons can we learn from the experience of 1979 and the Constitutional Revolution (two previous revolutions in Iran, one of which was relatively successful and the other was disastrous) for the sake of this movement and the fruitlessness of this movement and the efforts of the youth and adolescents, i.e., the liberation of the country and the achievement of a modern structure and national and patriotic sovereignty that considers the interests of all Iranians and their fundamental rights as its red line?

The lessons that should be learned from the two previous revolutions, namely the good constitutional revolution and the reactionary revolution of 1979, which of course the 1979 revolution was good at first, and later, with the maneuvers of the intelligence agencies, they took this revolution in a bad direction, i.e., in the direction of the Brzezinski Green Belt. But in any case, there are lessons that we can learn for today: 1. The movement and the revolution need a leader to win (because both of these revolutions were victorious), and unless there is a leader, a goal, and an organization, you will not do anything. 2. You need ideas. The idea of the Constitutional Revolution was to condition power, and their demands were clear. In the Islamic Revolution, in continuation of the slogan of independence, freedom, they said what they wanted, and they wanted the Islamic Republic, and they said that. This is what we do not see in today’s revolution. In other words, after women, life, freedom, nothing else is added, which I have now put a series of slogans on my social networks, such as: Woman, Life, Freedom – Iranian Revolution, Iranian Government, Elected Monarchy, Iranian Identity, etc. Therefore, we do not see a specific demand. Therefore, apart from the issue of leadership, the people’s will must also be clear, as was the case in these two revolutions. The third lesson is that both of these revolutions were victorious in the capital and were concentrated. You do not know of any revolution that has been achieved in a decentralized manner, and the current revolution must be victorious in the capital. Both the Constitutional Revolution was accompanied by the military occupation of the capital and the parliament (the conquest of Tehran by the Iranian armed tribes) and the 1979 Revolution, which was actually in the capital, when the declaration of neutrality and the movement of Khomeini’s entry was carried out and the Revolutionary Council was formed. These three things mean: 1) leadership, 2) a specific desire for what they want, and 3) where they should be in order to win. But what should we do so that the revolution does not deviate if it wins? In other words, what other lessons can be learned in order not to deviate from it? One is that revolutions must be based on Iranian identity and the name of Iran must be included in them. National is also useless because everyone interprets national in one way or another. The name of Iran, Iranian identity, and Iranian civilization must be heard in it, and this is what was not present in the 1979 Revolution, and it is what was less important in the Constitutional Revolution, that is, it was discussed but less. You have to mention the name of Iran and the Iranian identity. The historical owners of this country, those who built the history and civilization of Iran and were killed for it, have the right, they have the right to water and flowers, and their names and their culture should be mentioned in the revolutions. The next issue to consider is to pay attention to modernism. In other words, our Iranianism should not suffer from white reaction. It should not be based on racism and self-superiority, like these Iranianist movements, 90% of which were formed by the CIA for reaction. We want our revolution to be modern, and we do not want to bring any religion, including Zoroastrianism, and turn it into the official religion of the country and establish a religious government of the Zoroastrian type. No, we must also observe the principles of laïcité for all religions, including Zoroastrianism and Mithraism. Therefore, modern principles such as laïcité should be taken into account, and not only secularism, which is a form of tie-up Islamic government and a tie-up religious government like Mr. Erdogan’s. Or a government that is wanted by the reformists to come and wear a tie and interpret the Qur’an with a tie. Therefore, in this revolution, modern principles, including laïcité, must also be considered. Also, democracy or national democracy, which means the democracy of people who consider themselves Iranians and have an Iranian identity, should be taken into account, and their votes should be considered in the councils and in the parliament, and the real representatives of the people should participate in various processes. Another issue is the issue of social justice, which I hope will be taken into account in the next Iranian Revolution, so that we can take into account the injustices, discriminations, and social and cultural problems and disorders that arise from the absence of this issue.

• Considering the historical experiences and the gradual transition of societies to modernity, civilization and comprehensive and coordinated promotion of development, perhaps the most important feature of the future system after the successful overthrow of the religious fascism ruling Iran, should be the possibility of its flexibility and reformability. In other words, the mechanism of the posterior political structure should allow us to move from the evil Islamic Republic to a structure that will put important and transformative measures on the agenda in a democratic, scientific, and gradual manner, without the need to carry out another revolution and submit to its risks and efforts. against political power) without haste and thoughtfully. Beyond all the shortcomings and shortcomings, as an expert in the field of political thought and philosophy who is well acquainted with the history of Iran from ancient times to the present, how much do you hope for success in this field? (That the future system has such an important feature?)

As I have said before, we must form a new system step by step and step by step that is based on Iranian identity and modernism. This system, as I said, must evolve. In other words, the Islamic Republic must move from totalitarianism to military and national authoritarianism, and from military and national authoritarianism to national democracy. When a provisional military government is formed, because its name is temporary, the length of its period of activity must be mentioned so that no one can extend this period (at will). For example, if he says, let’s turn 5 years into 10 years! We must say that under no circumstances and without any conditions, for example, in a period of five years or 10 years, the provisional government must be dissolved and we must enter the democratic process. When you specify a non-renewable term in the law and say this openly, at the end of that period the provisional government will automatically cease to be competent and we will enter the democratic process. In the democratic process, since the people are present and can elect and present their representatives and their views in urban councils, village councils, provincial councils, and parliaments (the National Assembly and provincial assemblies), the people themselves will act as a lever to control that government/government or group that has been formed so that that group (party) or group will not take over the government forever and when they themselves If the people participate in this process, they themselves will become a brake for those who formed the interim government so that they will come down, and then other people will have to be replaced. When you put the basis of the government on the elected government, whether it is an elected monarchy or a republic, and you base the transition process on the fact that the provisional government should and should be dissolved and entered into a democratic government within a certain period of time, then you can use the leverage of checks and balances, which is defined in political science, that is, through the leverage of popular supervision and of course the free media, you can stop those who want to leave power. They take advantage of it.

• At the end of the day, and in the days when the national ferment is going on in our homeland more or less in the month of October 19770, which is the time for the preparation of this dialogue, if you have an intimate conversation with our compatriots, the tired and suffering people, and the militant youth of Iran, regardless of organizational, strategic, and theoretical discussions, we would be happy to have your petitions for registration in the Mehr Iran database…

My last word is to know yourself. Get to know Iran. Get to know the Iranian civilization. And I would like to return to your presence by changing the direction of a civilization from the imposed Abrahamic civilization to the true Indo-Iranian and European super-civilization, which includes Iranianism and modernism at the same time. This is the only thing I can say, and as a good conclusion, I am sure that the morals and conditions of our disordered society will be changed by a temporary period that will meet its basic needs on the basis of Maslow’s pyramid. It’s very simple. I can tell you that there are a number of characteristics that humans have in common with animals. For example, a dog that is hungry barks, barks, barks, and may even bite its owner. The thing is, there are very few people who are self-reliant and can tolerate bad situations. Most of them are not. Most people get angry when their needs are not met, and this is socially normal. This is not because of the evil of Iranian society. This is because the needs have not been met. When the needs are met, this same society will change its relations and its structure will change. So don’t think that these are immutable things. No, these can be changed even in a short period of time. If social freedoms are given to Iranian society, many people will change in a short period of time, and you will see this.