Iranian Street Uprisings

I remember in 2011, among circles of friends or international co-workers, we sometimes discussed the so-called Arab Spring. Back then, people were excited that these series of bottom-up social uprisings would bring a whole wave of democracy and liberalism to the Middle Eastern countries and wipe the long-standing dictatorships; some of whom backed by the western states, as well. I was personally not very hopeful that Arabs would be rewarded with any freedom in results of their noble endeavors, even if they succeed toppling down their strong dictators or authoritarian regimes. Eleven years thereafter I, in my lack of hope, was arguably right. Egypt is more oppressive, Iraq is much more chaotic and not that democratic and free, Libya is a failed state, Syria is in civil war, and so on.

You see, democracy and liberalism are not achievable over night, rather are the results of decades of social evolutions (and not revolutions), during which democratic institutions are developed and nourished. Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder in their studies "Democratization and Civil War" (2008), using a statistical analysis, argue and confirm their hypothesis that in the aftermath of the collapsed authoritarian regimes and in the vacuum free from a centralized power and order, an initial stage of chaos is inevitable.

Only a strong leader or powerful political opposition group may bring this boat of the revolution back to the shore safe and sound from that chaotic journey. However, dictators and authoritarian regimes are normally effective, through years of being in absolute power, in eliminating all notable leadership in the oppositions.

The Iranian authoritarian regime, over four decades, has eliminated or politically paralyzed notable opposition including all technocratic leaders, political elites, social leaders, even most notable religious leaders. It is hardly arguable that the Iranians, mostly millennials, have achieved much in collapsing the Akhunds' authoritarian regime thus far, however even if they truly succeed, I am sadly not optimistic that it would be much of an achievement en route to freedom and liberalism; should anyone care in the first place.

.

Numerical Fraud

When you see someone uses numbers and percentages while arguing about something, you need to ask yourself, and ask them if time and place allow, first to give you the exact address of the survey or research or other forms of publications where these numbers are coming from. Second, we all need to know that some percentage says very little, even despite being large, sometimes of any association between two factors, issues, or phenomenon.

Statisticians apply complex mathematical and econometric models over “large” and multi-faceted data just to be content with some ceteris paribus relationship between two factors, meaning everything else constant (i.e. ignored). Then they use other complex mathematical tests to reject themselves, within some statistical confidence, e.g. 95% (by the way, that doesn’t mean they would be 95% sure). Only then, they may say there might be some correlation, and not causation, between the two factors.

Let me put it this way, it’s way more efficient to say your opinion about something if you have the courage and not be afraid of being incorrect. Do not be tempted to deceive people with numbers. That’s fraud.

Group Identity

Among the many reasons I despise group identities, because of which and with reasonable pragmatism, I am willing do anything to avoid being associated with such identities, are the most often-seen properties of such identities, that is neglecting the evils and weaknesses and shortcomings of the groups, while only ever and everywhere bragging of and showing off the virtues of it.

But I also understand that any hope of a group that has an ability of self-criticism, or at least an ability of being objective with its “good” and “bad”, is a hope in vain.

Groups, religious or nationalistic or linguistic or ethnic or you name it, are founded based on a principle of “we-are-essentially-and-necessarily-better-than-them”; and hence that is the morality of it. You can’t speak reason with a group representative, who is “morally superior”.

All too human

We humans are so strange creatures. We are afraid of living alone, mostly because we are incapable of taking care of ourselves but also because of the stigmas around that person who is lonely.

But again, we despise each other and each others’ habits and way of living. We create religion just to show our hate towards the other religions, we become fascist to kill others, we start the cult of veganism because we don’t like others’ food, not that we really embrace the discomfort of getting ourselves separated from the modern life; which has supposedly destroyed the planet. We hate our roommate’s music, and they sufficiently hate back our stuff…

We humans are strange. I personally don’t hate us for that. It’s just the way it is.

Family

The purpose of establishing a family is not happiness, has never been in fact; though it has been used as a means to achieve happiness as well.

Family is the nucleus of the traditional society built on a patriarchal system, where the skeleton has been land ownership transferred to successors through the name of the patriarch. The larger the ownership, the higher demand for a stronger family.

If you have a choice, seek your quest for happiness anywhere but in a founding a family, not unless you have a lot of property!