Iran back in the day

[Gold-Shekel]

Maybe if you're a man.

I'll never understand these men saying things like "oh it's just a cloth on your head, get over it". It's not, it symbolizes how women don't have control of their own body and don't have the right to chose what to do with their body.

I'd like to see men being forced to cover themselves for two months (no matter what weather and other conditions), not being able to go to specific locations (football games etc), needing someone else's permission to leave the country. And then come and talk about how those things "don't really matter".

I like how it's the only thing that matters to people, fuck going to university right? What matters is that women have to wear a headscarf.

Women make 60% of the college/uni population, while under the Shah only a limited number of women could go to Uni (higher society only ofc).

These women you see in the pictures may not have to wear a headscarf, but they were also uneducated. Access to education is the most important thing, if part of your main complaints is that women can't go to soccer matches, your views of the world and what human rights stand for are quite sad.

Uncover your legs so that your empty brain doesn't attract attention is what you are preaching.

[Jehan]

I like how it's the only thing that matters to people, fuck going to university right? What matters is that women have to wear a headscarf.

Women make 60% of the college/uni population, while under the Shah only a limited number of women could go to Uni (higher society only ofc).

These women you see in the pictures may not have to wear a headscarf, but they were also uneducated. Access to education is the most important thing, if part of your main complaints is that women can't go to soccer matches, your views of the world and what human rights stand for are quite sad.

Sorry but your exemple of the percent of women going to university is quite retard.
Back in the time far less women made high study, not only in Iran but everywhere. It has nothing to do with the shah. You can see it in all the countries.
And the high percent of women going to university nowaday in Iran isn't due to the ayatollah policy. I would say it's even the opposit, women know they will have less opportunity in working world so they study harder.

[N1019]

I also wonder whether islamists would've taken over if the democratically elected Mosaddegh wasn't disposed of earlier (by the CIA and SIS). Something tells me they still might've for back in the 1950s people had more admiration for the West in muslim-majority countries than back in the late 1970s or today for that matter.

Yes, it still could have happened anyway. The popular leftist narrative is that Mossadegh was a democratically-elected prime minister but in reality he was appointed PM by the Shah. Iran was never a proper Western-style constitutional monarchy in practice. The democratic part of his rise to power was his election to the parliament, not to the role of prime minister. I believe that distinction is significant. The Shah had the undisputed power to hire and fire. He chose Mossadegh at least partly because he was not a typical Iranian feudal figure like much of the parliament. Mossadegh challenged the Shah's authority, so the Shah's own masters eventually intervened with the assistance of the CIA. Also, it appears that Mossadegh suffered a major fall in popularity during the oil crisis, as the British attempted to leverage their global clout against the country to protect their interests (the British were considering military action but sought assistance from the CIA instead). So in the end, it appears that large swathes of the general population also wanted him out.

Now, the Shah himself was put in power by the British in 1941 after they exiled his father to Mauritius. They weren't very happy with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's becoming the next ruler of Iran, a nation they wanted to control, but they were lacking in options. From the word go, they always reserved the right to get rid of him if necessary. Anglo-American intelligence established close contacts within the Iranian clerical community, some say including with Ruhollah Khomeini. While the average ayatollah was no fan of the Pahlavis, perceiving their modernisation policies as a threat, apparently they were also no fan of Mossadegh, so their help was made available during the oil crisis - for a price, of course. It seems highly likely that those ties were maintained and called upon again in 1979.

A look at Iran from 1900 to 2017 reveals repeated attempts by rulers - either kings, prime ministers or ayatollahs - to push back against Western interference and either reclaim Iran's sovereignty or maintain the upper hand against the imperial powers. On the first three occasions I have in mind, with Reza Shah Pahlavi, Mossadegh and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the empire struck back and Iran got screwed. The fourth example of Iranian push-back has been going on since 1979 but could be brought to a head very soon (see below).

The Ayatollahs are the best thing that could have happened to Iran. Much better than being raped economically, politically and culturally by the West. Death to the Great Satan.

Given the fact that the US-UK hijacked the popular Iranian revolution against the Shah to put the Ayatollahs in power (and ensure the communists and secular nationalists got screwed), that's laughable.

Additionally, the Iran-Iraq war, which killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, probably never would have happened had the Persian monarchy survived.

Furthermore, the attitude of the current regime vis-a-vis the emerging Bush-like aggression of the Trump Administration is going to get the whole country bombed back to the stone age.


On 3 January 2017, before Trump even came to office, a Democrat introduced a new bill to Congress to authorize the use of pre-emptive military force against Iran to supposedly "prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons". Look it up: H.J. Res. 10. Iran is going down.

I fail to see how any of those things have been/will be good for Iran.

[Herr Abubu]

Given the fact that the US-UK hijacked the popular Iranian revolution against the Shah to put the Ayatollahs in power (and ensure the communists and secular nationalists got screwed), that's laughable.

Additionally, the Iran-Iraq war, which killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, probably never would have happened had the Persian monarchy survived.

Furthermore, the attitude of the current regime vis-a-vis the emerging Bush-like aggression of the Trump Administration is going to get the whole country bombed back to the stone age.


On 3 January 2017, before Trump even came to office, a Democrat introduced a new bill to Congress to authorize the use of pre-emptive military force against Iran to supposedly "prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons". Look it up: H.J. Res. 10. Iran is going down.

I fail to see how any of those things have been/will be good for Iran.

And it completely backfired on them, didn't it? Shia mysticist authoritarians is exactly what a country like Iran needed. Much better than some secular monarch who'll spread his buttcheeks if he profits from it. War against Iran is war against Russia and China, and all the smaller countries allied with them. A world war is exactly what this world needs. The Anglo-Americans are losing their grip and are taking quite desperate measures.

[Hexachordia]

We know for sometime now, that Stalin was given greenligh to rule over the eastern mass with their crackpot ideology called marxism under the agreement of YALTA. The world has been set in a downward mode since then. We are heading toward a spiritual and cultural destruction by the post-modernist garbages spearheaded with pseudoscience, alien contact-bluff, racism, atheism, all these garbages were purposefully execrated from the west to ship to the East. They will then deliberately set a stage of war between Russia and Middle East, China and Japan&SE Asia, let us destroy each other. But we must not hate them it is what they want, they need our hate to justify themself. I want all their cultures, and they shall preserve all their heritage for me, their experiences in science and management is to be shared, this my edict of exchange for my forceful forgiving.

[Mraz]

A revolution happens for a reason, what is shown on those fotos is a % of privileged people while the mass wasn't Westernized, didn't have access to education, urban comfort and got peanuts from the State. You can't expect the majority to stay silent and accept injustice.

[Hexachordia]

I serious dislike racism but would not want to see Europe turning non-white either, I just need to oppose racism as much as freedom of speech norm allows. The East was not altogather magical, stop fantasizing about mystical past glory it is why you fools got enslaved by Karl Marx, most indigenous people just deserved to be conquered, but no more major wars, seriously. There are surely minority rogue westerners always try to pit more wars because of diverse occult practices have been persisting, they and megalomaniac communist leaders all need to be warned. Iran has being rich troughout the whole colonial era, except for the aftermath with the war with Russia around 1820s, so was Thailand almost unaffacted, colonialists never really destroy its economy untill Soros did in 1998. COlonialists just helped Japan to develop and nationalist movement against Qin dynasty to happen in China. Whether it has to do the minority cult practioners, just some people have to stand up and talk reason from the eastern side. While we are not blaming everything on the west, or going
vendetta against colonialism(I like it personally), we are not stupid enough to miss the age of information and continue to swallow more neo-con garbages.

[Philip Latinowitz]

Western sugar-coating of decadent Shah regime is quite funny. Secularism was never so widespread among middle and lower Iranian classes as American and British media try to portray.
Average European had no fundamental understanding of Iran's mentality which leads to overly idealized picture of pre-revolution society.

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tr...evolution.html

The stunning photos of life across the vibrant country in the 60s and 70s portray a seemingly cosmopolitan kingdom on the brink of change

unfortunately ISLAM stop all this

[wvwvw]

Iran back in the day was more backward than it is today, save for a minority of Iranians who constituted the corrupt elite of the country, which lived at the expense of the majority of Iranians.