RSS

Persidam Delenda Est!

24 Feb

News on the encroaching “crisis” at the Federal level tells us that because of “pending automatic budget cuts, the Pentagon says it’ll reduce its presence in the Persian Gulf. Specifically, removing one of the two aircraft carriers.” 

Now, this is serious stuff, especially for those who think in a Zionist way, which curiously seems to include a LOT more “Christians” than Jews. Even so, we do get a number of Jews protesting the move, ostensibly because it is a threat to Israel. To wit:

A top American Jewish leader on Sunday criticized the Obama administration for cutting its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf region from two carriers to one. He said the move sent entirely the wrong message to Iran about America’s commitment to keep all options, including the military option, on the table in the struggle to thwart Tehran’s nuclear drive.

“I’m personally very disturbed by the withdrawal [of one of the US's two aircraft carriers] from the Persian Gulf, the Arab Gulf, because of the message it sends to the Iranians,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the long-time executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization, in unusually critical comments. “We have to think about how the Iranians perceive it.”

Now, Israel is one of the most capable military nations in the world, and I’d take their secret service over ours any day: they’ve been quite adept at killing off the scientists working on nuclear issues in Iran. They’re nuclear-armed, and could turn Teheran into a parking lot should the need arise. So I am starting to question the anti-Persian animosity as originating in fear for the nation of Israel’s survival.

A different perspective is offered by modern Iranian cinema. See, for example, the 2011 film, A Separation. I hesitate to link you to an online copy, but you can find them. To quote from the following review:

Nader and Simin are middleclass Tehranis whose dispute appears to stem from the couple’s disagreements about staying in Iran.  Simin wishes to leave Iran before their immigration visa, acquired with great difficulty, expires but Nader is reluctant to leave behind his ailing father who is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. The main dispute taken to court, however, is over their adolescent daughter, Termeh. According to Iranian law, children cannot acquire a passport or leave the country without their father’s permission. Nader has given his consent for the divorce but not for Termeh’s departure, prolonging and complicating the proceedings as Simin refuses to leave without her daughter.

I will instead cite some of the dialogue, with my emphasis added. The film opens with Simin and Nader appearing before a judge. Simin, the woman, has asked for a divorce from her husband Nader.

JUDGE (O.S.)
Madame, the things you are saying are not reasons with which you can file for a
divorce, unless there is something else.

SIMIN
Like what?

JUDGE (O.S.)
Like if he is an addict, physically abuses you or does not give you an allowance.

Seems the Iranians agree with traditional Christians that abuse is necessary for a proper divorce, although they have gone beyond permitting divorce only in the case of adultery. There is something else, of course: they have removed the threatpoint, as we will see.

Note that, in the movie, there are only two people in the room, husband and wife, and no lawyers or social workers incentivized to spur divorce. As a result, the wife has not been coached correctly, and responds:

SIMIN
No, he is not an addict. On the contrary, he is a good, decent person…

JUDGE (O.S.)
Then why do you want a divorce?

A perfectly reasonable question, no? Why do women throw away perfectly “good, decent” men?

SIMIN
Because he won’t come with me. If he does I’ll drop my case for a divorce…
(to Nader) Will you come?

NADER
No, I won’t. If it’s important for her to leave, she can.

SIMIN
You give me one reason why we should stay.

NADER
(to Simin)
I’ll give you a thousand. The first one is I can’t leave my father.

SIMIN
But you can leave your wife?

NADER
You brought me here! You filed for a divorce! When did I leave you?!

The reason Nader cannot leave is his Alzheimer’s-afflicted father that he cannot abandon. His wife in unsympathetic to these family values:

SIMIN
It makes no difference to him, whether it is you that is with him or a stranger. He doesn’t even know that you are his son.

NADER
But I know that he is my dad.

The real issue, of course, is the couple’s only daughter, and who will control that particular fruit of the marriage. The wife annoys the judge:

SIMIN
Doesn’t your daughter’s future matter to you?

JUDGE (O.S.)
(to Simin)
So all the children living in this country don’t have a future?

SIMIN
As a mother I prefer that she not grow up in these circumstances. Can I have this right as a mother?

JUDGE (O.S.)
What circumstances?

(Simin falls silent.)

JUDGE (O.S.) (CONT’D)
Is your child better off here with both her parents or there without a father?

So, let’s get this right. Assuming the film depicts the Iranian family courts correctly, not only does a woman need to present a case for WHY a divorce should be granted, unless her husband assents, but the judges actually consider fathers important to the development of the child. What are they, stuck in the world of 1960, before Ronald Reagan signed the first no-fault divorce law?

JUDGE (O.S.)
(to Nader)
Are you willing to grant her a divorce?

NADER
If she prefers going abroad to live to her husband and child, then I have no objection to a divorce.

JUDGE (O.S.)
Like I said, this is your personal problem. For a divorce, you need his consent.

SIMIN
If he consents to a divorce, what happens to my daughter?

JUDGE (O.S.)
You have to agree on everything. How old is your daughter?

SIMIN
She’ll be eleven in two weeks.

JUDGE (O.S.)
She can only come with you if her father gives his permission. If he doesn’t then she can’t leave.

Serious stuff. But the script online at Sony is different from what I recall as the subtitles on the screen. I found a transcript of the subtitles:

SIMIN
He can take everything, just give me my daughter

NADER
I’m entitled to our daughter, she doesn’t want to come with you anyways

Now, what does the judge have to say to this reactionary assertion that the father is “entitled” to his daughter?

JUDGE
He has rights to your daughter too …

And that’s why we need two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. A theocratic, reactionary state like that cannot be allowed to continue. Where is a modern Cato to rise in our Senate and demand: Persiam Delendam Est!

About these ads
 
11 Comments

Posted by on February 24, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

11 responses to “Persidam Delenda Est!

  1. Wake

    February 24, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    A couple of years back, there was another Iranian film/documentary about a couple divorcing; with plenty of details about the countrie’s law and legal procedures. I’m divorced and live in Western Europe. Some other divorced guy – a lawyer – made a comparison of my country with Iran and came to the following conclusion: Iran treats divorced mothers better than the West treats divorced father. Sobering.

     
  2. infowarrior1

    February 24, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    A country not entirely taken over by satan. I am glad and I applaud the iranians on this part.

     
  3. Jacob Ian Stalk

    February 24, 2013 at 5:07 pm

    Great find, this film.

    Despite the oppression of Islamic statism, the sense and stability of thought in the minds of Iran’s intelligentsia is encouraging. The more I learn of their work – their maturity, courage, steadfastness, manner of moral exposition, and their understanding of the degenerative sickness of the secular West – the more hopeful I am for them as a people. The foil they seem to so easily provide against feminism is refreshing, and reaching an ever-wider audience. I thought perhaps that the US might use this as a reason to continue the political siege of Iran but it seems the costs of maintaining that moralistic charade (both in the Gulf and at home with expensive feminist policies) are making it impossible.

    I hope the deliberate irony in your closing paragraph isn’t lost on the feminists. They tend to take (and quote) things from the Manosphere literally when it suits them.

     
  4. electricangel

    February 25, 2013 at 9:02 am

    @Wake,

    Just the fact that there are no lawyers involved, and that the presumption is that the father has rights to his child, means that Iran would have to be better in this regard. I’m sorry you were put through the divorce ringer.

    @IW,

    I quote Peter Kreeft, Catholic theologian:

    Where is the culture of death coming from?

    Here. America is the center of the culture of death. America is the world’s one and only cultural superpower.

    If I haven’t shocked you yet, I will now. Do you know what Muslims call us? They call us “The Great Satan.” And do you know what I call them? I call them right.

    @Jacob,

    Persian women can be beautiful. I have met a small sample, and each was lovely. I think that, despite the restrictions, the overall organization there leads to a lot less “manjawing” than we see in feminized cultures.

     
  5. Will S.

    February 25, 2013 at 11:23 am

    I’ve long wanted to see that movie, ever since I heard about it, a couple years back; now I really want to!

    Let us pray the Iranians remain more sane than us in the West in such matters, and let us pray the Obama administration removes the other carrier, leaving the Iranians alone, like they ought to.

     
  6. JCLogos

    February 26, 2013 at 8:16 am

    An especially poignant moment at the part where the husband says “But I know he is my father”.

    My paternal grandmother was diagnosed with senile dementia ten years ago, and now she’s reverted to “her second childhood”, as my father says. She struggles to remember the names of her 8 children, has forgotten the names of all her 30 plus grandchildren and has forgotten completely that her dear husband died 25 years ago. I thank God that my mother has never given my father shit about my grandma, though I have seen some disapproving looks once or twice. She always shut herself up and said, “God watches. I want my sons to remember me like my husband remembers his mother.” I pray that my soon-to-be wife will have the same attitude.

    Oh, and this seems a bit pedantic, but the Latin in the blog title is wrong, sir. It should be “Persia delenda est”, since “Persia” is the subject of the predicative gerundive in the sentence. If you were following Cato Maior’s quote, it would be “Ceterum censeo Persiam delendam est.” That’s an accusative with infinitive construction. Or it could be a clever play on the word “insidia”; I’m not sure (:

     
  7. electricangel

    February 28, 2013 at 10:13 am

    @JCL,

    Yes, it’s a particularly touching moment. The idea of two become one flesh, one recognized in law in the West, is the weakest link in the family. The next is the father-child link, and yet we have poured acid on those links.

    As to your knowledge, we love pedants, here, at Patriactionary! I used Google English-Latin, which did not give me the Delenda Est I wanted. So, I went from Spanish, but butchered it. If I might keep you on call for future consults, that would be useful. I’ve corrected within the post.

    My classical language was the language of the polis, not the empire.

     
  8. oogenhand

    March 12, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    There is a very easy reason why the Population Controllers prefer feminism over MRM. Suppose you have 100 women and 100 men. If you turn 80 women into career feminists, only 20 women can be impregnated, regardless of the number of men. If you turn 80 men into pornography viewers, the remaining 20 men can still impregnate all the 100 women.

     
  9. oogenhand

    March 13, 2013 at 11:59 am

    It also explains the paradox that the same “feminists” allow gendercide in China and India, as well as sterilization targetting women.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/whos-behind-indias-barbaric-mega-sterilization-camps

    It all boils down to elimination of fertile wombs.

     
  10. electricangel1978

    March 14, 2013 at 10:27 am

    @oogenhand,

    Rather shocking link you posted. As a Papist, I’m opposed to artificial birth control, but then that’s in a context of people who understand how to proceed with NFP. I did not know that paying people to be sterilized was illegal in the USA, but I wonder how long that law would hold up in the face of the population controllers?

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 239 other followers