Parham 𓃬☼₿'s avatar
Parham 𓃬☼₿
parham@nostrplebs.com
npub1tpfy...c7nu
#Bitcoin #Chefstr 👨‍🍳 #Alchimia 🧙‍♂️ #MuayThai 🥊 Tutor by Passion | Marketer by Profession | Freedom Tech Advocate
Something remarkable is happening in #Iran right now. In the aftermath of state violence—after young protesters are killed—many families are choosing to mourn in a way that quietly breaks expectations. They still wear black. The grief is visible. The loss is undeniable. But instead of ritual lamentation and orchestrated weeping, you hear percussion. You see clapping. And then, you see dance. Some call it a “dance of mourning.” And no, it’s not denial. It’s not a party. It’s something far more layered—and far more powerful. To understand why this matters, you have to understand the backdrop. For over four decades, the Islamic Republic has cultivated a very specific aesthetic of grief. Mourning has been stylized, ritualized, and politicized. Public sorrow often comes with a script—chants, elegies, martyrdom imagery. Grief, in many ways, has been choreographed. What these families are doing is stepping out of that choreography. They haven’t abandoned sorrow. The black clothing remains. Faces are heavy. The air carries that unmistakable density of fresh loss. But then the rhythm begins—hands striking drums, palms meeting in unison. Bodies begin to move. Not wildly. Not euphorically. But deliberately. When a mother dances at her child’s funeral, she isn’t saying she doesn’t hurt. The pain is right there, visible in every gesture. But she’s also saying something else: You don’t get to own this moment. You don’t get to turn my child into your symbol. You don’t get to dictate how I love, how I grieve, how I remember. That shift changes everything. Rituals are never neutral. They carry power. They shape meaning. When people alter the ritual—even slightly—they alter the story. By introducing rhythm and collective clapping into spaces long dominated by lamentation, these families reclaim authorship. The body itself becomes a statement. It says: you may have taken a life, but you will not define it. There’s something deeply human happening here, too. Trauma freezes the body. It locks grief inside the chest. Rhythm does the opposite—it moves energy. It synchronizes people. It creates a pulse that says, we are still here. The scenes are haunting precisely because they hold contradiction so openly: black clothes, tearful eyes, and yet steady percussion echoing through the space. It’s not joy replacing sorrow. It’s sorrow finding motion. In many cultures, funerals include music or even dance. But in Iran’s current context, this carries extra weight. When a state has spent decades promoting a singular, sanctified model of mourning, any deviation becomes quietly political. Choosing percussion over prescribed lament becomes symbolic independence. It signals that culture isn’t fixed. It isn’t owned. And maybe that’s the most striking part. This isn’t loud resistance. It’s not slogans or confrontation. It’s intimate. It’s about reclaiming meaning at the moment of farewell. The message feels clear: yes, you caused this loss. Yes, the grief is real. But we refuse to let death dictate the entire atmosphere. We refuse to let darkness be the only language available to us. There’s a melancholic gravity in these gatherings. The dancing isn’t celebratory in a shallow way. It carries weight. It honors the wound. But it also insists that the person who was lost was alive—vibrant, rhythmic, embodied. And so they are remembered in motion, not only in silence. That’s why this phenomenon feels so powerful. It holds two truths at once: profound sorrow and unbroken dignity. It doesn’t erase grief. It reshapes it. Sometimes resistance isn’t about shouting louder. Sometimes it’s about changing the rhythm—while still dressed in black—and moving anyway. #dance_of_mourning
Long read. But I hope you’ll stay with it. I’ve been thinking a lot about anger. About what it does to people. About what it turns into. When people lose their country, their safety, sometimes their loved ones, anger is not surprising. It’s human. It doesn’t belong to one nationality, one religion, or one region. Pain produces anger everywhere. The real question is not *who feels anger*. The real question is: *what does that anger become?* Over the past years, I’ve watched many Iranians in the diaspora protest, organize, lobby, write, speak, march. I’ve seen grief in their faces. I’ve heard stories of prison, of loss, of exile. The anger is real. And yet, what stands out to me is this: That anger rarely turns into destruction of the societies that hosted them. It turns into something else. It turns into demands. Into petitions. Into organized rallies with permits. Into meetings with lawmakers. Into carefully written op-eds. Into human chains and candlelight vigils. It turns into claim‑making. Why? Part of the answer lies in political identity. Many Iranians who left after the revolution — and especially those who left more recently — did not simply migrate for economic reasons. They left because of political repression. Because of compulsory ideology. Because of a system where religion and state were fused, and dissent was punished. When you experience political Islam as a governing force, it often changes how you think about religion in politics. For many in the diaspora, identity becomes less about religious belonging and more about civil rights, citizenship, and dignity. “Iranian” becomes cultural, historical, linguistic. Not theological. That shift matters. When your political framework is rooted in secular democratic ideals — even if you are personally religious — you don’t see the host country as a civilizational enemy. You see it as a space. An imperfect one, yes. But a space where speech is possible. Where protest is legal. Where the police are not automatically instruments of ideological enforcement. And something subtle happens in that space. A social contract forms. When people feel that their dignity is recognized, that they can speak without disappearing, that their children can grow up without fear of morality patrols or prison sentences for tweets — they don’t want to burn that space down. They want to use it. To advocate. To pressure. To persuade. To mobilize public opinion. A migrant who feels protected often becomes protective of the system that protects them. We saw a powerful example of this recently in Australia. During a violent attack, a Muslim man put himself at risk to help disarm the attacker. Afterwards, the Prime Minister described him as “a true Australian.” In that moment, identity was defined not by origin or religion, but by action — by the choice to protect the very society that had offered protection. This doesn’t mean anger disappears. It doesn’t mean trauma evaporates. It means anger is channeled. Disciplined. Directed. There’s another layer too: integration. Many Iranian migrants, particularly in Europe and North America, are highly educated and professionally integrated. They build businesses. They work in medicine, academia, tech, art. They are economically woven into the fabric of their host societies. Belonging changes behavior. Where belonging is weak, alienation can grow. Where alienation grows, identity can harden. In some communities around the world, especially among second- or third-generation migrants who feel neither fully accepted nor fully connected to ancestral homelands, anger can become untethered. Ideology can step in to provide clarity, pride, even superiority. But where belonging is stronger, anger is more likely to be translated into civic participation. And this is what fascinates me most: The transformation. Grief becomes organization. Rage becomes rhetoric. Trauma becomes testimony. Exile becomes advocacy. Instead of attacking the nearest symbol of power, the energy is redirected toward the source of injustice back home — through sanctions debates, human rights campaigns, media work, coalition building. This is not moral superiority. It’s political culture shaped by experience. When you flee a system where power was absolute and unaccountable, you begin to understand the value of institutions, however flawed. You understand courts. Due process. Free press. Civil society. You don’t romanticize them — but you recognize their absence. And so anger becomes structured. It becomes a demand for accountability. A demand for freedom. A demand for dignity. Not a fire for the sake of fire. I don’t think this transformation is about ethnicity. Or about being inherently “better.” And it certainly isn’t about painting entire religions or populations with a single brush. Human beings are more complex than that. I think it’s about what framework holds your anger. If your framework tells you the world is divided between believers and enemies, anger may look one way. If your framework tells you legitimacy comes from citizens, rights, and law, anger looks different. It becomes civic. And maybe that is one of the most powerful — and least discussed — stories of exile: That people who were pushed out by repression sometimes become some of the most disciplined practitioners of democratic claim‑making. Not because they are calm. Not because they are not hurting. But because they have learned, painfully, what happens when anger is monopolized by power instead of channeled by rights. And so they choose — deliberately — to turn rage into a voice. Not a riot. A demand. #nostr #iran image
#BBC News just labeled the Iranian regime’s 22 Bahman (Feb 11) rally a “family festival.” Let that sink in. 22 Bahman is not a celebration. It marks the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution — the moment that ended freedom in Iran and ushered in decades of repression, executions, censorship, and state violence. For the regime, it is a carefully staged display of loyalty; for millions of Iranians, it symbolizes the loss of their country. Framing this day as a “family festival” normalizes an authoritarian regime while conveniently ignoring the recent massacre of tens of thousands of protesters whose only crime was demanding basic rights and freedom. This isn’t neutral journalism — it’s propaganda laundering. It’s misleading. It’s deeply insensitive. And it legitimizes state violence and mass murder. Worse, it mocks the very struggle Western values claim to be built on: the fight for freedom, dignity, and human life. If freedom matters — and it does — this kind of coverage must be called out. People deserve truth, not sanitized narratives that protect power and erase victims. #AyatollahBBC #nostr
#GM #nostr Valentine’s Day. Iran. 40,000 deaths for liberty. Love, paid in blood. image
I don’t know if you’ve heard about the Huda Beauty situation or not, but here’s the story. This brainless influencer shared a video from a pro–Islamic Republic regime march where people were tearing up photos of Trump and the Israeli flag. Almost immediately after that, a campaign to throw away Huda Beauty makeup went viral, and—unbelievably—her stock tanked as well. Then Huda comes out and says she “didn’t know what she was posting” and wasn’t aware of the real context behind it. A perfect example of how influencers don’t just lack empathy, but also lack the brainpower to tell right from wrong. She tried to strike a left‑liberal pose and ended up backing the terrorist Islamic Republic regime, just because it’s anti‑Israel. And yes, Huda Beauty comes across as openly antisemitic.
Iran Blackout Massacre — personal record. During the blackout, this was my whole world: One screen. One satellite channel. Opinion-heavy coverage. Competing narratives. No messages. No updates from friends. No way to verify the numbers being reported. Between fragments, footage, and talking heads, I kept looking for something solid. Mostly, I waited. Waiting to learn how many people had died. Waiting to see if things would escalate into open war. Waiting for anything that could cut through the silence and feel reliable. Hours stretched into days. Anxiety became routine. Stress turned into background noise. Sleep disappeared. Every night: half-awake. Every morning: unfinished. Not knowing was worse than knowing. The quiet was heavy. The uncertainty was louder than any headline. This isn’t analysis. This isn’t politics. It’s memory. This is what digital darkness felt like. #iran image
Many so-called “leftist” activists love to preach about human rights. But in reality, their morality is selective, political, and deeply hypocritical. Here are 9 uncomfortable truths: 1. They stay silent when Islamist or authoritarian regimes murder their own people — like in Iran — but scream when the West is involved. 2. When Muslims kill Muslims, it’s suddenly “complex.” No outrage. No urgency. No solidarity. 3. Antisemitism is tolerated in their circles. Jewish lives don’t seem to matter as much. Dead kids in Gaza trend. Dead kids in Ukraine don’t. Apparently, not all children are equal. 4. They are obsessed with being “anti-West,” even if it means defending dictators and extremists. 5. They fear being called “Islamophobic” more than they fear injustice. 6. Their empathy is selective. Some victims get headlines. Others get erased. 7. Most of them are intellectually lazy. They repeat slogans, follow trends, and never think beyond hashtags. 8. Greta and influencers like her are part of the problem: loud against the West, quiet about China, Iran, Russia, and real oppression. 9. They talk about justice, but practice double standards. They talk about equality, but rank human lives. This isn’t activism. This isn’t morality. This is ideological tribalism. They don’t stand for humans. They stand for narratives. And if your compassion depends on politics, you don’t have compassion at all. Human lives are not props. Human suffering is not a trend. Enough hypocrisy.
امروز بدنم خسته است، قلبم سنگین است، اما هنوز می‌تپد.
خاطره‌ای در ذهنم مانده است: چند سال پیش، در جمع دوستانی از دوران دانشجویی که همگی خارج از ایران تحصیل کرده‌اند و در دسته “طبقه متوسط تحصیل کرده” قرار میگیرند، صحبت از حمایت من از دودمان پهلوی شد. واکنش همه‌شان نگاهی آمیخته به تعجب و تمسخر بود؛ با لبخندی کنایه‌آمیز میگفتند: “ما که مدتهاست از پهلوی عبور کرده‌ایم!” به آنها گفتم: “فاصله‌ی پنجاه‌ساله‌ی حاکمیت آخوندی در برابر دوهزار و پانصد سال شاهنشاهی، چیزی در حد یک عطسه است و مطمئنم روزی همگی شگفت‌زده می‌شوید وقتی بفهمید مردم خیلی وقت است که انتخاب خود را کرده‌اند.” پهلوی ستیزی یک بیماری لاعلاج نیست؛ ریشه‌اش بیشتر در ناآگاهی تاریخی و کینه‌های به‌جامانده است؛ کینه‌هایی که گاه از این می‌آید که گاه فلان عمو یا دایی چپ‌گرا در دوران پهلوی زندانی بوده، در حالی که همان چپ‌ها و مجاهدین بعدها به دست آخوندها سلاخی شدند. همین دوستان به ظاهر فرهیخته که امروز به هویت ایرانی مدرن خود می‌بالند، بهتر است به یاد بیاورند که آنچه امروز به عنوان فرهنگ و هنر مدرن به آن افتخار می‌کنند، حاصل تلاش‌های بی‌وقفه‌ی رضا شاه کبیر، شاه فقید ایران و شهبانو فرح پهلوی است. امیدوارم روزی از این پیش‌فرض‌ها رها شویم و دشمن واقعی این سرزمین را درست بشناسیم؛ دشمنانی که چیزی جز سه جریان فاسد نیستند:  ملا، چپی، مجاهد. ‌پاینده ایران. دی‌ماه ۲۵۸۵.
Today, Iran lost one of its true giants. Bahram Beyzayi was not just a filmmaker or a playwright — he was a national conscience. A man who carried the weight of history, myth, and truth on his shoulders, and never set it down, no matter the cost. “Bashu, the Little Stranger” remains one of the most humane films ever made in this land. Created in the middle of the Iran–Iraq war, it refused the language of hatred and destruction. Instead, it spoke for children, for the displaced, for those whose lives are shattered by war. It was a brave, clear cry for peace at a time when silence was safer. Beyzayi never bowed to power. He did not compromise, he did not flatter, and he did not submit to censorship. For that courage, he paid with years of exclusion and exile. In the final decades of his life, far from home, he continued his work and research at Stanford University, carrying Iran’s stories, myths, and wounds with him wherever he went. He lived with dignity, and he created with responsibility. He taught us that art is not decoration — it is memory, resistance, and truth. Today, we mourn not only an artist, but a guardian of Iranian culture. A national hero whose voice will never fade. Rest in peace, Bahram Beyzayi. Iran remembers.
This chart isn’t “economic misfortune.” It’s theft. In the 1970s, before the Islamic Revolution, 1 USD bought ~7 Iranian rials. Today it buys 1,300,000+. That collapse wasn’t an accident. It was designed. They printed. They stole. They lied. You paid. A state–clerical mafia took control of the money and used it to fund itself: endless proxy wars, patronage networks, repression, and corruption so deep it burned the future of an entire generation. While young people lost opportunity, mobility, and hope, the regime exported inflation and imported violence. This is how it works: Print money to fund power Debase savings to hide failure Push the cost onto citizens Wrap it in ideology You worked → they debased. You saved → they inflated. You stayed → they robbed you slowly. This isn’t unique to Iran. This is fiat money behaving exactly as designed when captured by unchecked power. Opt out. #Bitcoin exists. No slogans needed — just facts: fixed supply, no central printer, no permission, no insiders. You hold it yourself or not at all. No cleric, general, or bureaucrat can dilute it to pay for their wars. #Bitcoin doesn’t fix corrupt states. It cuts them off from their favorite weapon: the value of your labor. If your money can be printed, it will be stolen. #bitcoin isn’t an investment. It’s an exit.
در مزرعه، هوا دیگر قابل نفس‌کشیدن نبود و جویبارها خشکیده. انبارها خالی، دل‌ها تهی. خوک‌ها دوچندان می‌خوردند و سگ‌های هارشان هر اعتراضی را می‌جویدند. حیوانات عادی می‌دانستند: تقابل بعدی نزدیک است؛ و این‌بار، مزرعه طعم خون را خواهد چشید. #مزرعه_خاموش #حیوانات_خسته #هوای_سنگین
AML, CFT, MiCA, AMLA — the alphabet soup of control. They say it’s about “security.” They say it’s about “protecting the system.” What they mean is: they want every coin, note, and byte under surveillance. A €10K cash limit today, KYC on every wallet tomorrow, “digital euro” the next day. Piece by piece, they’re weaponizing compliance until privacy itself is illegal. Big Brother in a suit, holding a spreadsheet instead of a gun. This is Financial 1984, executed by central bankers and endorsed by the bureaucrats who sold their citizens for data. They can ban cash. They can license “approved” wallets. They can track every transaction. But they can’t stop Bitcoin. Bitcoin is math. Bitcoin is freedom code. Bitcoin doesn’t need permission, doesn’t ask forgiveness, and doesn’t care about their decrees. It’s time for Europeans to wake up — the cage they’re welding is digital, invisible, and permanent. Run your node. Hold your keys. Trade peer to peer. Stay ungovernable. #bitcoin #nostr