Iranian Protests

Of all the world's people, the ones that I find hardest to understand are the Iranians. I knew many in the 1980's. They had a fervor about something but I couldn't tell what. I would have asked, but many seemed angry. I also knew some who disagreed with the fervent ones. They acted as if they were in danger. I had to be careful what I said to them with other Iranians present. I am not discreet and intrigues confuse me, so I held my tongue.

Intrigues and secrecy seemed to surround the Iranian students whom I met at the University of Washington. Many were also gifted at an oriental sort of diplomatic circumlocution. Only a few who were mostly science and engineer students seemed untroubled by the changes in their country. Probably those few were from wealthy families or had established ties in this country and did not have to return if things got bad at home.

Anyway, there is again fighting in the streets. I hope that we are aiding the dissidents, in very discreet ways of course. Our government should make statements of support for their cause. They are fighting for freedom, which we can understand and which all people deserve. Perhaps the Iranian students that I knew in the past were troubled by the fact that they were being torn between an anti-American faction and a pro-American faction. The anti-American faction was radically socialist and Islamic, an unattractive alternative. The pro-American faction represented the pre-revolutionary status under the Shah, was also unatractive. They had just successfully ousted The Shah because they wanted change. Trouble was, they didn't seem to like the change they were getting.

Update of goings on in Iran:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091226/D9CR03OG0.html

The Wanderings of Careless Thought or It's My Blog and I Can Say Whatever I Want

With regard to the last post, it occurs to me that just as St. Thomas subordinates authority and even reason to the traditions of the Catholic church; so too does the elitist environmentalist cabal subordinate reason and tradition to their all encompassing faith in their cause. For this reason, environmentalism has been called a religion. However, like the character of Daedalus in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, when asked, as he refused to serve the Church, had he become a Protestant; we must ask, why would environmentalist refuse to serve one system of beliefs to adopt another that makes no sense?

That is to say that although James Joyce's character abandoned the Church, he believed that, unlike Protestantism, it's teachings formed an internally consistent and logical set of beliefs. Why would he abandon that for the irrational? (His abandonment, I guess goes deeper, the exploration of which is partly what the book is about and a little deep for me) The organization of a free human society naturally forms a means of exchanging goods and services that is logically consistent in its basic tenants and practices. Because our system with division of labor and private property, allows more saving (non-consumption), which becomes the capital goods for further advancement, we call it capitalism (although Marx coined this as a term of derision). So-called revolutionaries have always opposed this system because of the unequal distribution of those goods and services that inevitably results. The second reason that some revolutionaries of today want the downfall of capitalism is that they see it as the root cause of changes for the worse in the flora, fauna, and other endowments of planet earth. However, I assert that neither of these two objections have ever passed the muster of rigorous evaluation. (Which you won't get here either; only musings.)

Revolution is a temporary redistribution followed either by return to the status quo or chaos. Until capitalism is reestablished, the material standard of living of most people suffers. The environmentalist objection seem to imply an ultimate return to a natural state as hunter gatherers. There probably never existed an idyllic natural state as some envision and the proponents only conjure it up because they don't believe that it would actually ever come to pass. For my part, I wouldn't mind a life of hunting and gathering, although it would require an approximately 99% global population reduction. I believe that in the final analysis, the second revolutionary objection collapses into the first. i.e. redistribution of prosperity favoring some particular group of which they consider themselves a part. With their newfound ill-gotten goods, they might build a park or two. Taken to the logical conclusion, the destruction of capitalism could lead to my idyllic hunter gatherer condition. They might need their parks to pitch a tent; they couldn't hack it.