Ahmadinejad’s Rhetoric


Jahanshah Rashidian
by Jahanshah Rashidian

In his recent speech, President Ahamadinejad called his critics “goat”.

Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric reminds to Iranians a language of a thuggish member of the Revolutionary Guards Corps or that of a masked bouncer of Morality Police while beating and belittling people.

Ahamadinejad ‎spews odd words out either, in his view, to distract his audience or in an attempt to humiliate his critics. He does not seem to be enough intelligent to understand the logic of his opponents or the meaning of his words.

Although, Mr. Ahamsdinejad has to follow a psychiatric treatment, but some times he acts if he were not aware of his mental problems. Apparently, he feels that he is not accepted by his own people; therefore, he attempts to banally mask his incompetence for his position. This lack of self- confidence makes his attitudes more aggressive and ridiculous and by trying to boast his intellect, he sinks himself into a hectic and incoherent rhetoric in which he scares people to justify his alleged skill.

President Ahmadinejad knows, like any of his colleagues, that he is nothing but a petty puppet in the hand of the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, but he boasts as a cult leader, and as real cult leaders, he is not to recognise the individuality or rights of any critic.

The hallmark of such a leader’s manoeuvre is based on charm and charisma, but the poor man has no charisma at all. This is exactly what his psychopathological problems come from.

To compensate his incompetence, he needs to seek refuge in his unreal world. Ahamadinejad views himself the direct vassal of the Imam Mahdi or Twelver Imam, for whom he prepares the reappearance after more than a thousand years of occultation. He propagates the idea that he is being in permanent contact with him and receiving advice from him. His pathological allegations go so far that he claims "the Imam protects him with a halo of light".

Ahmadinejad cannot accept critics, he mocks and enjoys that everything is owed to him as a right. Preoccupied with his own fantasies, he must always be the centre of attention. He boasts that he advises international leaders and he know more than any one. He presents himself as the "Ultimate One": enlightened a vehicle of the Mahdi, a God’s gift to Muslims, a genius leader, and in the same time the most humble of the humble. He has an insatiable need for adulation and attendance. His grandiosity is of course a defence against inner emptiness, depression, and a sense of insignificance. Paranoia often accompanies the grandiosity, reinforcing the isolation and then he needs for protection against a perceived hostile environment. In this way, he pre-emptively attacks any “enemy”.

Ahmadinejad’s personality disorder is not only due to his family background or his hideous looks, which could, at worst, build a Complex of Inferiority. His aotstanding characteristic is another phenomenon, one deeply anchored in religiosity. As such, he is an Islamist who became a lumpen. “Lümpen” or lumpen is a German word used in Marxist literature to describe a fanatic who is normally from a working class, but politically is a right-wing thug. So, both Islamism and lumpanism are simultaneously character formation of such an Ahmadinejad phenomenon.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s language disorder is of course a sign of his personality disorder, but his attitudes are predominated by effects of his Islamist-lumpanism. In general, personal disorder comes in every shape and form. No specific social category of people seems to generate more psychopaths than others. The psychopaths can be as good looking and clever as the next person with an Ahamadinejad’s looks and intelligence.

There was personality disorder by some other religious seniors of the IRI. For example, Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the IRI, was sociopathic. Despite of many advisors, he never learnt to conform himself to normal norms; his stiff glance, his dumb and mechanical gestures, the lack of his emotional traits in face, the week command of his rhetoric were all symptoms of his personality disorder. Islamic seniors like Khomeini, Rafsanjani, Khatami, Khamenei, Bani sadr, Soroush, Moein… are traditionally right, conservative and retrograde, but were not considered lumpen, as Ahmadinejad.

What mainly distinguishes Ahmadinejad from them is his outstanding lumpanism.The lumpanism is his main characteristic. This is not his only vice, but added to it his Islamism, makes out of him an Islamist lumpen, a phenomenon which can be more typical. Ahamadinejad’s Islamism, cannot offer plausible rationalisations to the real problems. This brings him into increasing conflict with the realities. His constantly deteriorating behaviour can be threatening even for his surroundings and we can witness more signs of abnormality in his attitudes, language lapses, and ridiculous gestures.

Dr. Mas'oud Noghrehkar, an Iranian psychiatrist, classifies his mental disorder in a series of articles as suffering from schizophrenia and effective narcissism.

Ahmadinejad has all typical symptoms of both social and pathological dysfunctions combined, as a product of them, he proves to be a perfect symbol of Islamist-lumpanism


Recently by Jahanshah RashidianCommentsDate
Journée Internationale des Femmes
Mar 08, 2010
Stop Indian Gasoline for Mullahs’ Repressive Machinery
Feb 04, 2010
Iran Fails United Opposition
Jan 20, 2010
more from Jahanshah Rashidian

Yes he is a lumpen...

by Rosie T... (not verified) on

who scored very high on his university entrance exams, in something like the top one percent, while coming from a lineage of goats, a gifted lumpen but a lumpen nonetheless...
but my question still is IS HE RELEVANT when Rafsankhamenei are already discrediting his Holocaust ideas and replacing them with worse ones?

Jahanshah Rashidian

R:Kal mamad

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Agree, Mr. Ahmadinejad is one of the worst examples of Islamist-lumpanism in this regime and even a burden on the shoulders of his brothers.

Jahanshah Rashidian

R: Anonymous 8

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

I have already condemned Bush administration for its unchained liberalism, for its Iraqi invasion, for its US traditional hegemony, and lack of respect for democracy and sovereignty of other nations.  The IRI is not the unique evil and I do not care if some evils are friend or enemy to each other. Evil is evil because of its nature. However as Iranian, we are more concerned about the evil at home--who  more evil is in the world is not our immediate concern.

So whatever my or your reply is to this question, no matter if Bush's invasion caused more lives in Iraq or IRI's repression does in Iran, it does not change the fact that the IRI is a criminal. anti democratic, reactionary regime, and is hated by an increasing majority of Iranians, even Muslims.

So, once more, as Iranians, this IRI is our core problem and it shpould not be masked for us through diversionary polemics . 

Rosie T.

Well, Carpenter has a point on this one/Daryush too...

by Rosie T. on

My dear "hamvatan" Carpenter, with whom I RARELY agree about ANYTHING, makes a crucial point here.  Is Ahmadinejad even relevant at all anymore?  Rafsanjani was appointed to the Council of Experts whose function I understand is to vet future candidates for Presidency. So essentially he's ABOVE Mahmood now. And what does he, the bazaari pragmatist, take up as one of his first pet issues? To ensure the faithful at the Friday afternoon sermons that Mahmood was WRONG, that Mahmood is not CREDIBLE, because of COURSE there was a Holocaust, a MAJOR one in Europe.

Yes, there was one. And it was good. It failed only in leaving enough unexterminated Jews to infest the Middle East.

I am not a Zionist. I believe along with Edward Said in a one-state solution. So my point here is not the protection of the state of Israel. And I'm not paranoid enough to assume that if/when there is another Holocaust (there have already been several since the first one thus named, there already is one in Sudan), it will necessarily target Jews. My point again is, Mahmood RELEVANT anymore or is he already a relic? I don't know WHAT Khamenei and Rafsanjani have up their sleeve with this rhetoric but I  suspect it ain't a second term for Mahmood.

 On the other hand, Daryush also has a point.  It's not ONLY up to Khamenei.  It seems to me that the Reform movement flourished of its own momentum, but that Khamenei made sure there were JUST ENOUGH hangings, stonings, arbitrary incarcerations, etc. so that IF the geopolitical or internal political landscape shifted drastically, a return to totalitariansm would be easily effected. And that shift happened and Khamenei was ready....personally I hold my own appointed "President" Bush and his puppeteer Dick responsible for this, through the military flanking of Iran on both sides.  Intentionally or unintentionally (and with both of them having severe "personality disorders", indeed it's difficult to say), it seems they, more than anything else, killed the Reform movement.

But...Khamenei...was ready... 
Robin Goldsmith


Jahanshah don't avoid the question

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on

EITHER you do condemn Bush for killing MORE people or you do not.

If you do, please show me all your writings and blogs that condemn George Bush. If you don't, than at least you are honest.

If you are dishonest, you will avoid answering this question like you normally do.


They are the same kind

by Alborzi (not verified) on

Its really interesting their tactics are quite similar.
I wonder if Ahmadinejad studies Bush or that comes to these fanatics naturally



by Kal mamad (not verified) on

Mr. Ahmadinejad used the word goat to avoid disrespecting the audience. In Iranian culture the use of words such as Ahmagh, Olaagh, Khar is like disrespecting the people that are present. If the person is deemed to use the above words, he or she would say "balaanesbate shoma" and then throws the word.
Disclaimer- This is just to clarify the usage of the word “Bozghaleh” in Persian and that’s all. The author, Kal Mamad, denies any support for or having any association with Mr. Ahmadinejad.


Does anyone take Ahmadinejad seriously?

by john Carpenter (not verified) on

All the roads lead to Khamenei.
Why would anyone listen to Ahmadinejad?
People are just plain stupid.
Iranian is ruled by a spiritual leader. The media only listens to a Iranian President who holds no power in Iran. The only thing the president in Iran can do is make speeches.


Secular State

by Mahin (not verified) on

A secular state will be even better for religions because democracy and human rights replace old problems due to religions.


He is reactionary

by Daryush on

I think it's hard to talk about the Iranian situation. I don't agree that the revolution was good or afterwards it was handled properly. What I do believe is that the regime is passing its infancy and gradually maturing up. I don't hold all the Iranian problems on this or that, specifically. Looking at the entire picture, there are many things that need to fall in order for the Iranian society to upgrade to a better socio-political realities that are based on human rights and democracy. I don't believe that if today we had any other regime in Iran; they would be a democratic one. So the problem to me is not all IRI or Ahmadinejad. By the way, rarely even in the US, you'll see three presidents so different than one another as Rafsanjani, Khatami, and Ahmadinejad. (Not to mention Khamenei). So that to me shows that the government, although bad all together, has many promises for the future. I am not pessimistic that the regime will remain static and what you see is what you get. I believe that most probably Ahmadinejad will be gone and the next president could be much softer on many social issues. But some of these issues are not exclusive to IRI, the religious sector of the country that is not very small, is sometimes even more fanatic than the IRI representatives. I guess is the matter of opinion to whether see hope that evolution is possible, or revolution is a must. I just know for myself as a matter of fact, that there is a lot of power hungry Iranians who are waiting to gain the power to dominate their turn of stealing our wealth. I don’t see a guarantee that we will be better off with another revolution or a “Secular” dude won’t take arms and begin his turn to kill all the opposition voices. To me what we have invested for this regime (with blood and sacrifices) are huge. Let's give it time to blossom and see where it goes. French revolution took 50 years to blossom. Iranians are getting more educated and it is becoming harder and harder to fool them, so there is definitely hope.

Jahanshah Rashidian

R. Daryush

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

No matter who killed more, I do not like any of them. Hitler and Staline might have been even more criminal, but it does not justify Ahamdinejad at all, unless you believe in the ideology.  


Who has killed more

by Daryush on

Who has killed more? Bush or Ahmadinejad?

Jahanshah Rashidian

From Ahmadinejad to Bush

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

I agere with the first two comments that the question of Bush's cpmpetence needs to be hugely analysed too!


Closest example of Ahmadinejad in the West: Bush

by farrad02 on

Closest example of Ahmadinejad in the West: Bush!


You might be right

by MeyBokhor_Manbarbesuzan on

but the sad thing is that for most of the blog, it would sound more credible if one replaced Ahmadinejad with Bush, Islam with Christianity, and IRI with the US government.

The tragedy is that the latter is a so-called democracy with no excuse for a person like Bush leading the country.