بی اعتنا به ماه و فصل،

و سنت و مراسم،

طبیعت فرهنگ آدمی،

با جوانه ی اندیشه ای نو،

به آنی بهار می شود.

بهار رسیده است!

افکار را، از افسانه های کهنه ی باستان پرستانه،

این ابزار یهودیان برای ایجاد جدایی،

خانه تکانی کنیم،

به نوگزینی گمان و گمانه ها،

در سرشت و سرنوشت مردم ممتاز شرق میانه بپردازیم

کنده ی پوسیده ی باستان ستایی را،

که راه بند اتحاد ملی و منطقه ای

و طلب کار میراث دروغین از مسلمین است،

از پیش پای دانش تاریخ برداریم

و به ساقه ی بالنده ی «تاملی در بنیان تاریخ ایران»،

نور و نم برسانیم.

در جای این شادمانی ها، که همزمان با جشن پوریم،

فراهم کرده اند،

عزای امحاء کامل اجدادمان را،

در آن قتل عام پلید بگیریم

و اجازه ندهیم خون آن همه خردمند،

در توطئه ی سکوت و نیز صحنه آرایی آیینی و تاریخی

یهود ساخته، یکسره لوث شود.

شکوه شرق میانه ی کهن پیش از پوریم،

و وام آدمی به سعی ساکنان آن،

در نوگشایی دشوار جاده ی تمدن را باز گوییم

و بیان کنیم که آن مردم ممتاز،

در کشتار کین توزانه و کامل پوریم،

یکسره نابود شدند.

و از باز آفرینی سلیم اسلام،

پس از آن نسل کشی تمام،

همه جا، به کفایت و تکرار، روایت کنیم....

عید برملا شدن جنایات پوریم

و نوسازی بهارانه ی فرهنگ و هویت ملی،

بر دشمنان جعل و دروغ، مبارک باد!

+ نوشته شده توسط ناصر پورپیرار در سه شنبه يکم فروردين 1385 و ساعت

Except a very tiny minority, there is not too many people believing in socialism and states economy, so we are all walking in the same road either by choice or necessity approving the free market system, so what is the major differences? If people like myself are in favor of long term plans and semi managed economy and would like to see the governments--- I mean responsible and accountable governments and not Elham Aliove’ style--- to be involved in major long-term economical and educational plans are opposed to free market? I choose to be this way because I want to get more for my money, I want to be better investor and I think the Neoconservatives one are not smart investors. I will try to show that not only we are not better than them (Neoconservatives believing in unrestricted, wild, market) but also even more selfish but for good reason. Since I was 14 years, I am a ferocious reader, not as crazy as Nikfar even reading bottles label.

People might argue that I am wrong when I say that all of us are selfish and pursue our own self-interest, to those I have to find a solid theoretical foundation for my case.

I always thought why some people are thirsty for knowledge, knowing that knowledge not only does not bring them an ordinary pleasure but also causes more troubles. {Zabane sorkh (more knowledge)—sere sabz midahad bar bad} and when we notice something, we take an action and actions most of the times brings troubles. Did we forget how many doctors, engineers and others went to prisons and large numbers of them never came out alive? Not only that they were being punished inside the prison but also were being criticized outside all over, being called reactionary, revisionists, anti revolutionary, if they just had their own business and cared about their own life not only they would save themselves but also had very comfortable life but they did not. Are the intellectuals, scientists, mathematicians, artists, philosophers, social thinkers, activists, politicians, educators, poets and others are masochists or what? Well the more I read about the nature of knowledge the less I understand its causes. There was no one to have an answer to this question. Tow years ago, I just find out the answer to my question that always was in my head. It was in one of Bruce Fink’s book on Lacan's seminars. It is “ Reading Seminar XX, Lacan’s Major Work on Love, Knowledge, and Feminine Sexuality.” Edited by Suzanne Barnard and Bruce Fink, published by State University of New York. Lets read it together and this is my Norooz gift for you all. As we Azerbaijanis say " varini veran otanmaz.” One should not be ashamed of offering what one has." It says” In his discussion of Aristotle, Lacan, says that knowledge finds its motor force is a deficiency of jouissance. We find the pleasure available to us in life inadequate, and it is owing to that inadequacy that we expound systems of knowledge--- perhaps, first and foremost, to explain whey our pleasure is inadequate and then to propose how to change things so that it will not be. You can’t 6take the lack out of Lacan (as Shelly Silver used to say): knowledge is not motivated by some overflowing of life, some “ natural exuberance.” Monkeys’ may show signs of such exuberance at various moments, but they do not create logics, mathematical systems, philosophers, or psychologist. Knowledge, according to Lacan, is motivated by some failure of pleasure, some insufficiency of pleasure: in a word, dissatisfaction.
Is it true that our jouissance is lesser than other people or other animals? Do we really see other people around us who seem to enjoy more than we do? Perhaps occasionally. The argument often has been made that racism, sexism, homophobia, and religious intolerance are base on the belief that some other groups enjoys more than another group does. Whatever that group may be. Yet that belief usually is based on next to nothing; racists have rarely, if ever, seen any such thing in the people they discriminate against, but that does not stop them from believing it.”

When I read all these in a book just 190 pages, I put is aside, It was too good book to be read. It answered lots of my questions; such as why, true geniuses had such a miserable life. What made Nietzsche a madman? Why polymaths like Charles Sanders Peirce had such a miserable life and why a geniuses like Howard Hughes—the founder of Hughes Aircraft Corporation--- was officially declared mad and crazy?

Not long ago when I read Allan Bloom’s book--- one of the intellectual leader of our dear friend Roozbeh-- “ Giants and Dwarfs “ in it I read the followings.” What distinguishes Kojeve’s treatment of Hegel is the recognition that for Hegel the primary concern is not the knowledge of anything outside himself--- be it of nature or history--- but knowledge of him… “ Reading this reinforced the conviction that Hegel and Lacan was at the same tack talking the same thing about desire for lost object that is truly real engine behind any changes.

One might say, so what, what all these has to do with being a Neoconservatives or opposing it. Well, selfishness. When I say, I would rather education and mass transport system to be available to large number of people, I am thinking about my own interest, because after all I have a daughter and a son that one day they will get marry and I would like to see them both happy, also education by itself does not make one happy, but increases the chance and probability of my children to find the right person with higher education with sound mind On mass transportation, I would like not to see myself crippled for rest of my life in a bed, because an asshole drunk driver did not know how to control his / her drinking, the mass transportation reduces my chance of being crippled by an idiot. These are just two simple examples of, why I would like to see others to be in a better position, if I was living in vacuum, I did not gave a damn, if the rest of the world were dead or alive. I can give you ten thousands other evidence that if the others were in better position our lives would be better, after all vast majority of educated people are tolerance of our sex, race, color, age, nationality and we all posses all of these attributes, so why not work for a community that is not going to judges us based on who we are.

Mr. Ghuddosi: You see I am even more selfish than you are, but I like to invest my capitals not in one but in different sectors, so if one fails the other may compensate, the Neoconservatives economist are not the smartest investors, because they put all their eggs in a single baskets and does not take into account the unpredictability of life, they may gain a couple thousand dollars here and there but may ended up paying millions of hospitals and medication costs

PS 1: The evidence on this matter of selfishness is so strong that professor Edward Wilson---the world best known entomologist and pioneer in sociobiology and biodiversity---- that have spent thirty years researching ants etc—says that even altruistic acts of insects, animal and martyrdom of human are all based on selfishness. They sacrifice their life to propagate their genes, assuring the survival. Unfortunately the sociobiologists does not take into account the psyche, they mostly favor the biological foundation of sacrifice and not psychology

PS2: This word of selfishness (neutral selfishness, the one that ethics guides the act) might sound pretty ugly, but in my opinion, the message of the all prophets was that you are responsible only for your own life and you need to leave the rest for God. Scientifically it is true, but at the same time all religions forbids the seven sins If these two and other religious and secular principles were followed by most people the world would be a better place to live in. So if being neutral selfish were accompanied with staying away from the seven sins, the God’s formula must be working.