OK OK thanks for the incognito spelling correction. It is Halo and I made a mistake.
See? Paranoid again. You think that my comment was a mock of your spelling? It wasn’t. It was a sincere comment, and not intended to point out spelling errors. As I told you before, if I went on a spelling-error hunt, I would return with enough kill to feed the village. Set your spelling error paranoia aside for a bit. I am only interested in content for now.
Did Shah commit crimes or not?
Say No and I will crucify you by listing 100 different crimes committed by Shah!
Do you think you are lucky boy?
Make my day (Clint Eastwood Style)!
So if Shah committed crimes (by any definition), then Shah was a criminal.
Yes or No?
Say No and I will destroy you with proof and logic.
Do you think you are lucky punk?
Make my day (Clint Eastwood Style)!
Oh, I see. You want to play “let’s lead Amir down the dead end tunnel.” You seriously must not know me by now. I sniff out logical traps before the trapper even conceives of them. Now you think you’re gonna trap me like a little monarchist or theist? Tsk, tsk. Let me give you some advice regarding my “catch and release” technique. You must camouflage the trap a little bit better. Leaves, mud, and small rocks work wonders. Try it next time.
Okay, now let me answer your questions. Sometimes I look to my old friend Jesus when in a challenging situation. I ask, what would Jesus say? The little bastard boy always comes through for me.
Did Shah commit crimes? Yes. Is he therefore a criminal? Yes.
Are you happy? Are you shocked that I would answer you so plainly? Enjoy it, because here comes the reprisal: My good and “moral” friend, X, tell me, have you ever committed a crime? Have you ever been involved in a fistfight? Ever shoplift a little piece of gum? Ever speed in your car or motorcycle? Ever jaywalk across a street? Ever do anything that is against a single law?
Be honest with me now, as I have with you, and answer yes as you must. Are you therefore a criminal?
The same applies to myself. I know not a single person that at some point in his or her life has not broken a particular law.
This is what I call “spotting your trap a mile away and cruising around it.” Better luck next time.
Before you cry foul and say “but, but, that’s not the same thing because of the gravity of the laws broken,” I’ll grant to you that there is a difference between the various crimes. Murder is different from stealing gum. So now, I ask, what ruler has not ever deviated from certain laws, and has not ever committed a serious offense? Such rulers, I guarantee, are few and far between, if ever one exists or existed.
It is easy for you and I, a couple of private citizens, to sit in our living rooms, then go to work, then come home, without deviating from certain standards. It is not so easy, when governing a nation is concerned. Sometimes, for the greater good of society, a couple of heads will get cracked open.
Dariush the Great, and other Achaemenid kings that we so miss and cherish, were no different. Dariush grabbed a bunch of rebels by the nuts, crucified them, and then carved the whole ordeal as a rock relief to boast about it! Do you want to tell me whether that is a crime or not? Yet, I love him, and so do you. Why?
This has been true of every ruler that Iran or any other nation has had in history. You know this. What, then, makes one ruler reverent while another despicable? I believe the answer is the motivation for certain actions, the overall state of affairs of that nation, the imminent threats to that nation, and the desire or lack thereof towards a benevolence of that society.
Now you claim that he held power out of selfishness and greed. That is not a matter of fact, but your own judgement call, given the information you have at hand. I tell you, I also have access to much information about him and the regime, and the judgement that I have formed from my data does not lead me to your conclusion. I see the restructuring of government, property, and laws that he enacted, and I see nothing selfish about them. They were the types of goals that one sets for a nation, out of beneficence for its citizens, that can be seen as the motivators.
You have made your judgement, and since it is judgement it is subject to an element of subjectivity. Therefore, I may not convince you otherwise.
Now, as I said before, there are many points of criticisms to which I concede Shah is wide open. There was some element of detachment, some of arrogance, and some of corruption (although it is my opinion that it was those around him that were corrupt, not himself). Admittedly, there was also a significant element of lack of political freedom, which was a huge mistake on his part. However, when properly weighed, his benevolent contribution to Iran far outweighed his pernicious contribution. It is for that reason that I view him in a positive light.
Now, you and I can go back and forth and present favorable and unfavorable actions of this man until we grow beards, but the final judgement that we will each render will probably not be swayed by the other, as it is based upon a final act of subjectivity.
And why did its creator fell out of favor with me? Hmmmmm? Answer professor?
Could it be because of his:
Limited intellect to progress more and evolve more to be worthy of taking over IPC?
Okay, so you want to talk about Liberator now? That’s fine. I’ll play along.
His intellect is not questionable. He is a sharp guy. Just because he didn’t agree with you, you question his intellect? Of course, he has at times made comments that we may condemn as unintelligent. However, so have you. So have I. (Remember Jesus?) That does not make any of us unintelligent as a whole.
His dogmatic fanatical faith in Shah and Monarchy and his bias against everyone and everything Anti Shah?
I admit that he does have bias regarding Shah and monarchy. However, again I must repeat that so do you, and perhaps so do I.
Now don’t try to come across as Mr Impartial in all this. Don’t back up and say “moi?” Recently, you have shown greater anti-monarchy and anti-Shah bias than Liberator ever did in its favor. Oh yes, ninja boy. That sword you swing cuts both ways.
His lack of reasoning with logic?
On the contrary, his command of logic is impressive. He did an excellent job holding you at bay for the longest time. He did as admirable job of defending monarchy as one may expect of anyone. In the end, he fell one step short, because, well because monarchy is flawed and logic could only take him so far.
Your general characterizations of him are flawed.
His defense mechanism to automatically brand all Anti Monarchy forces as Hezbollah?
That was a sad display. It was obviously the result of feeling emotional pain from your unfair treatment of him. He regressed to childish thinking.
Come to think of it, though, you have been guilty of the same temper tantrum throwing childish behavior stemming from rage. In fact, it was your childish reaction that caused the meltdown in this thread.
His lack of will power and motivation to accept responsibility and duty?
A guy that lacks motivation does not start his own blog and maintain it diligently as he has done. If by this comment you mean “lack of motivation and duty towards IPC,” then that is a different matter. He was under no such obligation, and his lack of motivation here cannot be extrapolated to his character as a whole.
His loud mouth and no action?
What does this mean…no action? Everyone in a forum spends time talking (or writing). By nature, not much can be done in a forum but talk. It is intended for communication and exchange of ideas. How can anyone “take action” in an internet website?
Should I keep on going?
What…bitching about Liberator? You haven’t stopped for weeks. Why stop now?
Quote:
“Such claims (calling you a Hezbo) were of course ridiculous.”
No, they are criminal. The term is criminal. Learn it!
Calling someone a Hezbo, or anything else is criminal now? Since when?
It does not matter if Shah killed 100,000 or 10,000 or 1000 or 100 or even one person. Murder is murder and Shah was a murderer. Aside from that, he was also a criminal who committed hundreds of different crimes.
While you are correct that murder is wrong, even if it is just one person, you are incorrect in saying that numbers don’t matter.
Joe Schmoe driving drunk down the street one day and running over and killing a guy, is very different than Genghis Khan massacring town after town. Are you going to sit there and tell me that there is no difference between the two? Killing one person is of course terrible. However, as the number and scale of such horror increases, so does the shame of the perpetrator.
You said previously in this thread (page 11) that:
Shah killed as many as he could, go check the stats!
But now you say that it doesn’t matter how many he killed, whether 100,000 or 1?
Now you say that numbers do not matter? Then why would anyone wish to check any “stats?” Statistics imply significance based upon numbers.
So of course, numbers do matter. Always have, and always will.
Pay attention and pay attention well:
Okay, I’ll try. Promise me no tricks this time, though, okay?
1. To kill for a specific political agenda (remain in power despite the will of the people) is murder and a crime.
2. To kill for a specific group (corrupt Pahlavis) to keep on pillaging a nation, continue corruption and feed off the blood of Iranians is murder and a crime.
3. To kill to supress all other political voices than your own is murder and a crime.
4. To jail, torture and kill political prisoners for their beliefs is murder and a crime.
But
5. To kill to avoid one’s nation to be destroyed (rather than to keep an eye to US orders as a lap dog) is a noble cause and it is justified as killing the enemy in a war.
6. To kill to end tyranny of Islam in Iran and establish a nationalist regime to regain our place in the world and to rise the standards of livings for Iranians is a noble cause and it is justified as killing the enemy in a war.
Mohamad Reza Shah Pahlavi had done 1, 2, 3 and 4, but when it all came down to the final historical moment to save or not to save Iran, he failed to do number 5
Funny, because you blame him repeatedly for not staying and ordering the suppression of the revolution. What would the suppression of the revolution really have meant? Number 5, as you claim, or number 1? It seems clear to me that had he stayed and suppressed the revolution by force (as you wish he had done), then he would have been committing number 1. Perhaps it is true that he had been guilty of committing number 1 prior to the revolution, but again a scale of reference is needed. Had he committed number 1 during the revolution, a whole new catastrophe would have been unleashed, on a scale far greater than what he had dabbled in previously. In the end, it seems, he decided to avoid the bloodshed of thousands of citizens in lieu of maintaining control. Perhaps his decision resulted in far greater subsequent misery and loss of life, but he cannot be faulted for not foreseeing the true consequence of the revolution.
Now, the way that you have worded 1-4, I cannot disagree with those premises. However, the disagreement lies with whether Shah truly committed 1-4, and to what degree.
Of course I disagree with murdering political dissidents and suppressing speech. However, what are the true specifics of the cases of such claims?
Many (in fact most) of these so called “political dissidents” were what some might call terrorists and criminals. That is a fact, my friend. Marxist, Mujahedin, and other Guerrillas that were bent on taking control of the country and implementing their ideology, or die trying and take out as many rivals and innocents as possible. Yes, Shah was fighting these bastard terrorists long before the rest of the world got a true dose.
So then, if that is the case (and I know that it is), then in fact what you are categorizing under 1-4 falls into 5. Interesting how categories work out, when analyzed differently, isn’t it?
Now, a comment or two about number 6:
6. To kill to end tyranny of Islam in Iran and establish a nationalist regime to regain our place in the world and to rise the standards of livings for Iranians is a noble cause and it is justified as killing the enemy in a war.
This statement is a bit ambiguous, in that it does not specify the exact conditions. In this endeavor, it is justified to kill whom? The combatants that oppose freedom? Any muslim that stands in the way? A thousand innocent muslims, if one combatant is among them? The possible scenarios are immense, and each demands its own specific answer. A blanket statement such as this is irresponsible and dangerous.
Another comment about number 6: Kindly substitute the words Iran and Iranian with the words Deutschland and German, and Islam with the word Jews. Now read the sentence, and tell me you don’t hear the echo of applause from a Nuremberg rally.
I agree with nationalism, and I cherish it in others. There is a very fine line, however, between a benevolent nationalist and a psychopath. Be careful where you tread.
If you truly cannot distinguish between numbers 1 through 6 and the difference between a Murderer, a Criminal and a Coward ……….
I think that I have no trouble distinguishing these differences. The question is, what deed gets categorized under which number can be debatable, based upon the circumstances.
then by all means start taking a course in Morality. Back to school you go ……….
Perhaps I will follow your advice, and go to school in pursuit of morality. However, if I do, it will be to teach it; not learn it.
Is that arrogant? Perhaps. Is it true? You know it is.
As I stated above, the killings that Shah had done before 1978 were murders. During and After 1978 they would have been justified killings
I would argue that the converse of what you say is the case. Killing a few (mostly terrorists and Guerrillas) prior to the revolution was justified in order to secure national security. However, when the ordinary citizens flocked the streets, including women and children, to voice their desire for Shah to abandon power, if he had taken an aggressive defensive stance and met them with force then many, many more, and mostly ordinary yet ignorant citizens would have been killed. That would have indeed been filled with 1000 times more malice than anything he did prior to the revolution.
When a person claims that I am a Hezbollahi and IPC is a front business for Hezbollah, then that person and his site has no credibility
Yes, the first thought on my mind was that Liberator lost much credibility with these comments. He damaged his reputation by saying this. However, I understand that sometimes strong emotion rules one’s mind, and if not channeled properly, it can be detrimental for that person even though that person is usually sane and credible. Liberator made a mistake, but I attribute it to his temporary emotional state, and do not view the other 99% of his words as insane.
We all err. We all see red, and dethrone reason with rage. You are no exception to this, and neither am I. I am willing to identify and dismiss such foolishness, without compromising the remainder of a person’s good work. I have done this for Liberator. I have done this for you as well.
That is correct. He had finally snapped. He lost it. I am an expert to push people to their limits. I conduct psychological tests and play mind games. Those who pass, do join my ranks and those who fail are no use to me. Am I cruel? Hell yes! But I need the best to commit to the future Nationalist Revolution of Iran. I want the best, the rest are no use to me!
You say this as if you are proud. Proud of the fact that you brought out the worst in a person. This attribute is not one of delight, but disgrace. You achieved nothing here but flaunt your cruelty and lack of value for friends.
You took a straight up nationalist (who is also a monarchist), a friend, an ally, a student, a proud child of Iran, and without cause abused him so much that he got pissed off, exploded, and left with hostility. You may deny it if you wish, but IPC lost a good member because of it. For what, and why?
I’ll tell you why. You got hurt (boo hoo, cry me a river) because someone close to you in this club chose to pursue a path that was not what you had in mind for him. You threw a big hissy fit because he quit as moderator. Big freaking deal. He quit as moderator, and you unleash such hate, personal attack, and infamy upon him? Of course, the rest is history, and the result is that everyone here got damaged somehow.
You say that you have no use for my disappointment, and you need my logic. I could say the same to you, except that not only do I have no use for your disappointment, but also the rage that follows is actually quite detrimental. You need to control your faculties, and learn to quench your anger. Until then, you will be a loose canon and will further cause setbacks not only for yourself, your club, and your friends, but also your ultimate goals.
I say this to you now, not to discredit and undermine you, but to help you be better than you are. I have told you before (in this thread) that you have the potential to be a great mentor and teacher, but that you need refinement. I say it again, in the hope that you will learn from this unfortunate incident. I said it way back then, months ago, because I could clearly see the path that you were taking yourself and Liberator on. I foresaw months ago that eventually a big bang would happen, tearing apart a valuable relationship over petty differences of opinion. I tried to warn you, but you did not listen.
Perhaps I am a prophet. No wonder I have a prophet as a twin.
Now Professor, how would you handle the situation? How would you make the best of everything? Don’t talk about my flaws, but put forward a solution?
I do not speak of your flaws to belittle you. I do it so that you will identify them and hopefully eradicate them. You ask for my solution. To offer a solution, I must first point out the problem. To offer treatment, a diagnosis must first be reached.
Your diagnosis is excessive rage, utmost pride, impatience, and an overwhelming attraction to vengeance. You may flaunt them as virtues, but they are your undoing.
The solution is for you to come to the realization that such behavior is detrimental to your self-interest (and the interest of others), and to abandon them. The adaptation of temperance is my solution for you.
Make no mistake about what I say. I do not say that you need to avoid or suppress your emotions, and follow only logic and reason. To do that would reduce anyone to an automaton; a robot. Robots are useful, but only as servants and slaves. We don’t need servants and slaves, even if they are slaves of logic.
We need thinking, as well as feeling individuals. Reason and logic are nothing without emotion and passion. Emotion and passion without reason and logic are but turmoil; a ship lost in a storm.
In fact, morality, which you are so in pursuit of, does not exist without emotion and passion. If you doubt this, stay tuned for the future installments of “On Morality,” in which the arguments and proofs will be presented, through the work of Hume.
So then, I do not ask that you suppress your emotions and passions. I ask that you better direct their expressions through restraint and thought to consequence. That is my solution to you, and it is the best advice that anyone has ever given you.
After the recent events in IPC, I am becoming extremely paranoid. I simply cannot trust anyone. I am beginning to think twice before even handing my e-mail, phone or even name to anyone, no matter how safe!
Sounds like you need a food-tester as well, to make sure your meals are not poisoned. I will gladly volunteer for the job, because I think you eat lots of yummy yummy chelo kababs. Let me eat your kabab for you first. If I lived in the age when prominent figures utilized food testers, I think I would sign up for the job. What better job than to sit around and eat the king’s food first? So what if once in a great while it is poisoned? I’ll take my chances while I can.
Seriously, though, if what you say is true, what is the purpose of living? What you describe is the life of a person that lives in constant fear. Fear, if present more than just a little bit, is the undoing of the good life.
I’m not saying that you ought to put your guard down, because you probably have reason not to, as there obviously are some out there that want to get you. However, to never be able to relax, to never be able to trust, to never be at peace, is a life of hell, and probably not worth living.
Throughout our history, “Persian Traitors” were glorious and the main cause of our downfall during the Macedonian Invasion, Muslim Invasion and 1979!
You now compare Liberator to the traitors that betrayed Iran to the Greeks and Muslims? Now who is the delusional paranoid that causes himself to lose credibility?
His saying that you are a Hezbo is not much different than your comparing him to such traitorous individuals. Get a grip, buddy.
What is this “treason” to which you keep referring? Ridiculous! Treason towards what? IPC? IPC is nice, but don’t let it go too much to your head, it’s only a website and a forum. It’s not a damn country! It has no citizens; only members. No one has any obligations towards it. What each individual offers to it is voluntary. You and a select few around you have invested much effort into it, and have an understandable attachment to it, but no one else has that kind of attachment, and may come and go as he or she pleases. Even those select few and yourself, have no civic responsibility towards IPC. What each of you does must be voluntary, and subject to change.
When you speak of “treason” in the context of Liberator quitting his moderator duties (whatever those may be), you make me laugh. I’m sure you make others laugh as well. Keep it real.
No, I am taking you for a person with bias. You are probably one of the most scientific and logical minds, which I have ever met; however, you have a bias towards Shah and the Pahlavis!
Of course I have bias. How could I not? I know enough about him that I have formed an opinion about him, and therefore I have informational bias. I have bias towards everyone I know or have information about. That is just human nature. However, I am open to new information about him or anyone else that I know, and will not suppress re-analysis.
A point of clarification here: My support and gratitude towards the “Pahlavis” is only directed at two Pahlavis, Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah. The rest of the Pahlavis were and are useless to me. I do not want readers to get the impression that I support the Pahlavi family, although I hold no animosity towards them (except for a few).
On the other hand I am a Fair Judge of History. Until this moment, I still say it loud and clear that Mohamad Reza Shah Pahlavi had done many good for Iran. But how can I be a fair historian by allowing my personal respect for this man, obscure my judgment?
Excuse me while a grab a shovel…the bullshit is getting knee high in here…
We all have bias towards figures or ordinary people whom we know. You, on the other hand, are Blind Lady Justice, am I right? No, no bias on your account.
Every time you open your mouth and say something derogatory about “monarchists,” you are epitomizing bias and prejudice. Unless you personally know every single monarchist, and have independently formed a separate opinion on each one of them (all 1-2 million, as you claim), then you need to never again characterize monarchists. To do otherwise is to act with extreme bias.
You and I try to be as fair a judge of history as we can, but please don’t tell me that every bit that we have written regarding Iran’s past history has not had any bias in it whatsoever. Would you have written the same exact articles had you not been an Iranian yourself? Would I? The major events and facts cannot be changed, but how they are presented, in which context, and with what spin is very much dependent upon the author.
I admit that I do have some unavoidable prejudice, because of my Iranian heritage, and the information that I have, when I write about the Achaemenids as well as the Pahlavis. If you wish to somehow deny that about yourself, you are only fooling yourself, and will only fill this room with more bullshit.
Be a man and admit that you have bias; perhaps even more than I do. If you insist on putting yourself up on a pedestal next to Lady Justice, I will kick out the stool from under you.
So yes, Shah had done many good for Iran, but as I have stated, it all comes down to judging a person in times of need. All the good that he had done for Iran on one side, but then again about 37 years of ruling with absolute despotism, megalomania, detachment from the masses, fascism, religious fanaticism, murder, crimes, corruption and finally cowardice ………….. how can I close my eyes?
I cannot worship this man full of character flaws, selfishness and cowardice, the same as the Monarchists do! I still worship Reza Khan and consider him an UberMensch, but Reza Khan was a world away from this man. Mohamad Reza Pahlavi is not worthy of my general respect.
Again, more bullshit.
So Reza Shah was a Saint (as you put it), while his son was a despot? Do you know that Reza Shah ruled with an iron fist, a fist much bigger than his son’s? He didn’t take shit from nothing and no one. He kicked ass, and didn’t even bother to take names. He had the nation shitting itself.
Are you trying to sell me bullshit about how the people of Iran had so much more freedom and no one ever got killed under the father, but that the son took away all that freedom and started to imprison and kill people? We both know that the son was small potatoes compared to the father.
Let me share with you a little personal family story. My great grandfather on my mother’s side was a comrade of Reza Khan in his Cossack brigade prior to his ascension to power. My great grandfather was a close lieutenant of Reza Khan, and helped him in his rise. After becoming king, Reza Khan felt threatened by my great grandfather (for reasons unclear to me) and decided to ship him out. He shipped him and most of his family out to Russia, where they lived for many years in exile. All except for his son, my grandfather, who was in the military at the time. Years later, before WWII, my grandfather had risen to Colonel, wielded enough influence though military service, and enough time had passed that Reza Shah no longer cared, that my grandfather was finally able to go to Russia and fetch back what was left of his exiled family.
To this day, there is much resentment on the side of my mother’s family towards the Pahlavis because of these events.
Nevertheless, you don’t see me cursing Reza Shah. That’s because I know that even though he wronged a portion of my family for probably unjustified reasons (though I do not have the details of the circumstances), I still know that overall he was a good ruler, and that his aim for Iran as a whole was a noble one. I hold the same thoughts for his son.
So, my good Doctor, don’t lecture me about bias. If anything, my personal bias motivates me to dislike this dynasty. My academic bias, however, tells me otherwise, and has come out on top.
Now then, you don’t dislike the son while loving the father because the son was a despot while the father was a human rights advocate. You dislike the son for the opposite reasons you give. You dislike him, because he was in fact not tough enough, not despotic enough to crush rebellions (as did his father), not brutal enough to open fire upon demonstrators, and not savage enough to crack open a few thousand skulls when the need presented itself.
Say this, and I will concede, for I cannot refute that if Shah had been tougher and more brutal, then Iran would have been in much better shape now. Terrorism would not exist on this scale in the world. Islam would not have devoured our noble country. The pointless Iran Iraq war that claimed the lives of a million people would never have occurred, and you and I would have been sipping douq by Mt Damavand.
Say this, and be true. However, please don’t play on people’s need for free speech and political freedom in order to get them to dislike Mohammad Reza Shah, because we both know that is not the case.
Place the emphasis on these next words you speak, and admit that this is the reason you dislike him:
If nothing, he will always remain as the Shah who handed Iran to Islam. This is his worst crime!
Perhaps this was his only real crime. Had he not lost Iran to these jerks, you would have been there kissing his ass right now (if he were alive), and handing him more names of people whose skulls needed bashing.
He was the last ruler of Iran prior to it becoming the disaster that it is today. So yes, he does bear some responsibility for that.
Would you like to become the Traffic Director Cop (Paseban) in IPC to direct the folks to the proper rooms, so they don’t get lost?
I would indeed, but you might freak out and think that I directed a post to a specific room just to “push down one of yours so that others wouldn’t read it and it didn’t get exposure.”
You sick, paranoid, son of a bitch. Ha Ha Ha. I do get a kick out of it when you go completely psycho.
Why don’t you confess?
You are right. It has been a while since my last confession. Where is a damn priest when you need one?
You are defiant of Ahreeman because Office had permanently killed your pet (Susan de Hezbo)! But that was a general decision made by the office as a whole. That was not my sole personal decision!
So you finally did it, didn’t you?
Damn you maniacs! Damn you all to hell (Charlton Heston’s last lines from Planet of the Apes, when he found out about the nuclear annihilation).
Although I will miss the entertainment, I don’t regret your decision. Pets usually have a short life span anyways. I knew that when I purchased him. I was lucky enough when he came from the dead once. What else can I ask for? The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Besides, recently I haven’t had time to play with my pet anyways, so it was of no use to me anymore.
Interesting, though, that about 1 year ago the kooni got placed on trial and executed. Then you came back and blamed them as “Shahollah oppressors, executioners, etc” Yet, now you did the same thing that the Shahollahis did 1 year ago.
Okay, I have taken a great amount of time responding to you in this large post. I did, because many things needed to be said. Doing this keeps me from writing philosophy articles, however. Given my limited time, I need to use it wisely. This conversation was worthy, and so I put other things on hold for a bit.
I must say, though, that I have now said most of what I have to say on the matter, and don’t expect me to go back and forth with you on this. So say whatever you feel you need to say in the next post, and let’s leave it at that. That is, unless of course you say something so new, different, and interesting that I may further address it.
Please, in the future, don’t be such a spas.
Your Official Food Tester
Amir
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage
Naqshe Rostam