...

The Shah's support for Israel (and indeed for the Kurds) was one of the reasons people saw him as a "fascist dictator". Independence and equal rights for non-Arab peoples in the ME is not part of the left-wing agenda.

When it comes to Iran I an an unabashed monarchist. I believe the Iranian monarchy under the Shah was not only the best political system for Iran to become a modern country at the time but also the best political system for Iran to prosper forever. I know the Shah was a great man and I will never forgive the left-wing protesters for assisting in destroying the monarchy nor for the wars and violence the new regime created in the middle-east.

You are an American and you obviously believe in self-determination. That's part of being an American.

I believe the principle if excellent but it also doesn't apply to all countries.

I have no ideological problem with a parliamentary monarchy where prime minister and government are ultimately elected by the people and only rubber-stamped by the crown. In fact, if it leads to greater stability and a more responsive government I am all for it.

But I don't believe the US were the Shah's puppet masters.

Under the Shah Iran was ahead of the US in many ways including women's rights and desegregation. The oil deals benefitted both countries and even Mohammed Mossadegh, whom many on the left see as an anti-American hero, never accused the US of anything. He remained a loyal supporter of the Shah before and after the so-called "coup". He was elected prime minister, the Shah fired him, and he accepted both the vote and the Shah's decision. That was it. The Shah had the right to use allied forces to enforce his decisions.

For the Shah's opponents on the left Mossadegh is a hero. For the Shah's supporters he remains a loyal follower of the Shah. Mossadegh's anti-Shah credentials were entirely the invention of the opposition. The current Iranian regime doesn't celebrate Mossadegh because he was loyal to the Shah (and opposed to the big land owners and clerics) and because he was pro-American, something the left love to overlook.

The Shah was demonised by the left because his reforms weren't fast enough while the left-wing opposition allied with those who were most opposed to the reforms. But if the left hadn't supported the clerics (who were the big land owners!), the social reforms would have proceeded further and people would have had little to complain about.

Liberals claimed and perhaps still claim that the Shah's reforms were only pretence, that he granted equal rights to women and undertook land reform only to fool people into supporting his brutal dictatorship.

But for some reason the people who finally toppled the Shah were not those who supported the reforms but those who opposed them. Had the Shah wanted to pretend to support what his enemies wanted, he shouldn't have chosen land reform and equality for women.

The Shah took a grave risk by opposing the rich and powerful (and inhumane) clerics, relying on his power and his people to enforce the reforms.

This just goes to show that no matter how loud the left scream about secularism, gender equality etc. etc., when it comes down to it, they will ALWAYS support the nasty religious freaks who think women are the slaves of man and homosexuals should be executed.

And that is exactly what I cannot forgive. That socialism ideology is one thing. But this support for the worst among humanity is unforgivable.

That was why I phrased it the way I did.  I think most of the Monarchies in Europe fall into that category.

Nor do I, however, we did exert a great deal of control and that was how Carter was able to dethrone the Shah.

No, they do not care about the religion or politics of anyone they support.  They are just envious of the power they wield so they idolize them.  That is why Stalin is being resurrected and there are so many bigots on the left.  Birds of a feather.

Of course, which way do most University lean?

For radical left-wingers are for land reform and women's rights but against those who implement land reforms and guarantee women's rights.

For a radical left-winger the fastest way to land reform and women's rights as they understand them is support for rich land owners who happen to be clerics, who don't share and who treat women like slaves.

When a radical left-wingers says "land reform" he means protecting the supposed rights of clerics to control all the land, and when he says "women's rights" he means "no rights".

Ask a radical left-winger is he supports the socialist kibbutzim in Israel or the Arab land owners in "Palestine".

That is part of it... a bigger part of it and the very basis of their religion is the faith in the equality of all "cultures". If you see a competition between two identical groups and one is absolutely dominating, the only two possibilities are:

A. The winning group is better, and the losing group is worse.

B. The winning group is cheating, and the losing group is being victimized by said cheating,

But A makes you a racist, because it is impossible for a culture that treats women like property and preaches violence and intolerance is in any way inferior. Thus they must be oppressed and cheated out of their "fair share". The only proof needed that someone is doing something "wrong" is for them to be successful. The only proof of someone being a victim is for them to be unsuccessful. Being poor makes you de-facto the victim, losing the jihad you started makes you de-facto the victim, any kind of failure makes you a victim and any kind of success make you a victimizer.

Also they have a deep faith in the notion that "abuse begets abuse". If a certain culture abuses women then the only possible explanation is that someone else is abusing them... if the initial abuse is stopped they will stop abusing women. If they produce suicide bombers, then the only possible explanation is that they have suffered such horrible abuses that drove them to that sort of extreme. Since we have previously established that they "must" be victims and that the west must be the cause, then if the west would only stop victimizing them then the cycle of abuse will end and they will stop abusing women.

Another fundamental aspect of their religion is the Faith in communism despite overwhelming evidence against it. They believe that economy is a 0 sum game, that if the rich get poorer then the poor would get richer.

I agree, but see that as a correlation from the first.  After all, there is a lot of strife (and wars) that result from the clash of cultures.  Making them all "equal" in their minds means that no one has to fight!  Everyone can go around abusing whomever they degrade.

That is why liberalism is like a lobotomy.  It is easier to believe in when you use no cognitive processes.