Statements of the Supreme Leader

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

I extend my greetings to all the dear brothers and sisters who have made the effort to join this intimate and sincere gathering, and I thank all of you. Especially to these dear young people who, it seems, have traveled a long way on foot from 'Doroud' to here. God willing, you will be successful, and God willing, this opportunity for a friendly meeting will be a source of good for Islam and Muslims.

This session is a cultural session. The officials and staff of various cultural sectors of the country, from the press, radio and television, education, and the artistic and cultural institutions of the Islamic Republic, are present here. I consider this opportunity valuable for a brief discussion on the cultural issues of the country, and foremost among these issues is the acute ongoing issue of our system in the last three or four years—since after the war until today—namely the creation of a cultural front by the enemy and the renewed and organized cultural invasion by the enemy.

Firstly, let us state that 'cultural invasion' is different from 'cultural exchange'. Cultural exchange is necessary. No nation is independent of learning from other nations in all fields, including cultural issues—those issues collectively referred to as culture. Throughout history, nations have learned manners of living, ethics, science, clothing, social etiquette, language, knowledge, and religion from each other. This has been the most important exchange between nations, even more important than economic and commodity exchange. It has often happened that this cultural exchange has led to the change of religion in a country! For example, in East Asia, the most significant factor that brought Islam to these countries—including Indonesia, Malaysia, and even significant parts of the subcontinent—was not the invitation of missionaries, but the comings and goings of the Iranian people. Iranian traders and travelers set out, traveled, and it is in the shadow of these comings and goings that you see a great nation that today is perhaps the largest Islamic nation in Asia—namely Indonesia—has become Muslim. Islam was not initially brought to them by religious missionaries or by sword and war! Islam was brought by these comings and goings. Our own nation, over time, has learned many things from other nations, and this is a necessary process for keeping knowledge and cultural life fresh throughout the world. This is cultural exchange and it is good.

Cultural invasion is when a political or economic entity attacks the cultural foundations of a nation for its political purposes and to enslave a nation. Such an entity also introduces new things into that country and nation, but by force, with the intent of replacing them with national culture and beliefs. This is called invasion. In cultural exchange, the goal is to enrich and complete the national culture. But in cultural invasion, the goal is to uproot and destroy the national culture. In cultural exchange, the nation that takes something from other nations seeks out pleasant, appealing, good, and desirable things. For example, it learns knowledge from them. Suppose the Iranian nation goes to Europe and sees that they are people of hard work and risk-taking. If it learns this from them, it is very good. It goes to the far east of Asia and sees that they are people with a work ethic, interested in work, eager to work. If it learns this from them, it is very good. It goes to a certain country and sees that the people of that country are punctual, orderly, disciplined, loving, have a sense of etiquette and respect. If it learns this, these are good things.

In cultural exchange, the matter is like this. The learning nation seeks out the correct points and things that complete its culture from others. Just like a person who is weak and seeks suitable food. It consumes the right medicine and food to become healthy and eliminate its deficiency. In cultural invasion, the things given to the attacked nation are not good things, but bad things. Suppose the Europeans, when they started the cultural invasion in our country, did not come to spread their punctuality, courage, and risk-taking in matters, or scientific curiosity and inquiry among our nation and try with propaganda and research to make the Iranian nation a nation with a work or scientific conscience. They do not do these things! They introduced sexual immorality into our country. Our nation, over thousands of years, was a nation with sexual propriety; that is, the observances related to men and women, and this has been throughout the Islamic period. Not that no one made mistakes and transgressions; mistakes always happen. In all periods and in all fields, human beings make mistakes. Mistakes exist, but a mistake is different from something becoming a social norm!

Our nation was a nation free from widespread debauchery and revelry and gatherings of merriment and these things. These activities were specific to the nobility and kings and princes and princesses and the like, who would revel and stay awake from night till morning. The Europeans, their taverns were always open throughout the night and day and all year and all history. This is the history of Europe. Whoever wants, can go read and see. They wanted to introduce this into our country and did so as much as they could.

In cultural invasion, the enemy seeks to introduce that point of its culture to this nation that it wants. It is clear what the enemy wants! If in cultural exchange, the nation that takes something from foreign culture is likened to a person who buys suitable food and medicine in the market to consume; in cultural invasion, the nation under attack should be likened to a patient who has fallen and cannot do anything himself. Then the enemy injects him with a syringe, and it is clear what kind of syringe the enemy injects! This is different from the medicine and treatment that you yourself go and choose and introduce into your body willingly. This is cultural invasion.

So, cultural exchange is by our choice; but cultural invasion is by the enemy's choice. We engage in cultural exchange to become complete; that is, to complete our own culture. But cultural invasion is carried out to uproot our own culture. Cultural exchange is one of the good things; cultural invasion is one of the bad things. Cultural exchange occurs during the strength and capability of a nation; but cultural invasion occurs during the weakness of a nation. Therefore, you saw that the colonizers, wherever they wanted to enter in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, before their politicians and soldiers and Cossacks entered, their Christian missions and missionary delegations entered! They first Christianized the Native Americans and Africans, then put the noose of colonialism around their necks. Then they displaced them from their homes and ruined them!

In our own Iran, look at the end of the Qajar period! See how many priests set out from Europe and came here with the intent of Christianizing the people! Of course, they, like a clumsy thief who hits a haystack, did not understand where to go to promote Christianity. They did not succeed; but their intent was this. It cannot be said that the capitalists and international plunderers are believers in Jesus Christ! What do they know about who Christ is?! In environments where there is a national culture that defends—defends its own dignity—the first task is to take that culture from them. Just like if a group of soldiers wants to attack a fortified castle, the first task is to flood the base of this castle; perhaps its walls will collapse. They weaken the walls of this castle in any way they can. This is the first task. Or they put the castle's defenders to sleep. As Saadi says in that story, in the Gulistan, 'The first enemy that attacked them was sleep!' Sleep was their first enemy. After this internal enemy—sleep—closed their eyes and numbed their hands, the enemy came and tied their hands and took whatever it wanted!

This is how they act in cultural invasion.

When did this cultural invasion start? Specifically, it started during the reign of Reza Khan. Of course, before him, the groundwork had been laid. Many things had been done: dependent intellectuals had been planted inside our country. I do not know if the young generation of ours and the revolutionary generation have read the history of these one hundred and fifty, two hundred years correctly or not? My concern is that today's revolutionary youth do not know after what period we are engaged in such a great movement in Iran today. Read the history of these one hundred and fifty, two hundred years—since the mid-Qajar period; since the Iran-Russia wars—and see what events have passed over this country.

One of these events is the creation of a dependent intellectual movement. We cannot say that we did not have intellectuals in Iran. There have always been intellectuals in all eras and periods; people who saw ahead of their time and thought and acted accordingly. But the West, which was dominant in technology and science, when it wanted to establish its base of dominance in Iran, entered through intellectualism. From Mirza Malkom Khan and the likes of him, to Taqizadeh, this is the intellectualism of the Qajar period that was born sick.

Iranian intellectualism, unfortunately, was born sick and dependent. A few who were sincere and pure got lost. The rest were dependent. Some were dependent on Russia of that time—like Mirza Fathali Akhundzadeh—or dependent on Europe and the West—like Mirza Malkom Khan and the likes of them. These things had been done inside Iran; but they had no impact. The person who took the biggest step in favor of Western culture—in fact, in favor of Western domination over Iran—and in favor of colonialism by England at that time was Reza Khan. You see how disgraceful these actions are today, that a king comes and suddenly changes the national dress of a country! For example, if you go to India or travel to the far corners of the world, nations have their own clothes; they feel proud; they do not feel ashamed. But they came and suddenly said: this dress is forbidden! Why? Because with this dress, one cannot become a scholar! Amazing! Our greatest scholars—Iranian scholars whose works are still taught in Europe today—were nurtured with this culture and in this environment. What impact does clothing have? What kind of talk is this?! They proposed such ridiculous logic. They changed the dress of a nation. They removed women's veils. They said: 'With a veil, a woman cannot become a scholar and participate in social activities.' I ask: with the removal of the veil, how many women participated in social activities in our country? Was an opportunity given for our women to participate in social activities during the time of Reza Khan and Reza Khan's son?! Opportunities were not given to men; opportunities were not given to women either. The day Iranian women entered social activities and lifted the country with their two capable hands and dragged the men of this country to the fields of struggle, they came to the fields with the same veil. What negative impact does the veil have?! What impact does clothing have in preventing the activity of a woman or a man?! The main thing is how this man feels; how he thinks; how much faith he has; what motivation for social or scientific activity has been placed in him? This ignorant, illiterate, bully of a man—Reza Khan—came and placed himself at the disposal of the enemy. Suddenly, he changed the dress of this country; changed many traditions; banned religion! He did things that you have all heard and were done during the Pahlavi era; that too with bullying. He became the beloved face of the West—that is, the colonizers.

This had nothing to do with the general public of the West. The public opinion of the West was unaware of all these things. This was the work of those politicians. The invasion started from there and in the new era of Pahlavi, it took on various forms. That is, in the last twenty or thirty years of the Pahlavi rule, this invasion took on more dangerous forms that I do not have the opportunity to explain all of them now.

When the Islamic Revolution came, it was like a fist hitting the chest of the invader; it pushed him back and stopped the invasion. In the early days of the revolution, you suddenly saw that our people, in a short period, felt fundamental changes in their morals: forgiveness increased among the people; greed and avarice decreased; cooperation increased; inclination towards religion increased; wastefulness decreased; frugality increased—these are culture; these are Islamic culture—youth thought of activity and work, pursued effort; many who were accustomed to urban living went to the villages; they said: 'Let us work. Let us produce.'; pseudo-jobs that had grown like weeds in the economic life of the people decreased. This was related to the first one or two years of the revolution. This was related to the same time when the daily efforts of the enemy to sow the seeds of negative morals had stopped and a tendency and attention to Islam had arisen. Again, that culture and morals and Islamic manners that were in the essence of our people were revived in them. Of course, it was not deep. Depth is found when the subject is worked on for several years. This opportunity did not arise and that invasion gradually and slowly resumed. The invasion started in the middle of the war through propaganda tools and wrong and misguided speeches, and our own people's mental and spiritual sediments and residues were effective in its influence. But again, the heat of the war was a barrier until the war ended. After the war, this new front seriously got to work. The enemy calculated and understood that the Islamic Republic could not be destroyed by military invasion. The previous calculation had turned out wrong. They saw that it could not be done with economic blockade either. When a nation is economically blockaded, if that nation is a content, patient, self-reliant, and God-reliant nation, will it be defeated? Never will it be defeated! We have experienced this in historical passages—in the past—and other nations have experienced it too. It is not exclusive to us. They saw that it could not be done with economic blockade either. They understood that they must bombard our rear. If we want to liken it, it is like when a military group is engaged in fighting the enemy at the front, its food comes from the rear, fresh forces come from the rear, supplies come from the rear, friendly letters from parents and friends come from the rear. As long as the rear is intact, this force at the front line can fight. If the enemy comes and bombards the rear; food is destroyed, supplies are destroyed, fresh forces are destroyed; the letter 'thank you' is destroyed, the parents who say 'bravo' and 'well done' are destroyed; how will the person fighting at the front have the power to fight? He will struggle for two days; but he will be destroyed. Our rear, in the struggle of the Iranian nation against the bullying of global arrogance, was our 'culture'. Our rear area was Islamic ethics, reliance on God, faith, and love for Islam. That is, the love of a mother who has lost four sons and says I gave these in the way of Islam, and she is satisfied with this. I have seen families up close—I have gone to their homes and talked to fathers and mothers. It is not a narrative; I have seen it up close. A family that had two sons, both were martyred. A family that had three sons and all three were martyred. Is this a joke?! Is this calamity bearable?! This father and mother should go mad with grief. Then, the mother, who has more intense emotions, says with full power: 'We gave these in the way of Islam, and we have no words.' Amazing!

So the effect of Islam is this! The effect of faith in God is this! The enemy understood this. A father and mother tell their young son 'You are still sixteen, seventeen; go study; go play; enjoy yourself. Your brother went and was martyred.'; the young man says: 'No! I must fulfill my share for Islam.' This is a phrase we have seen in the wills of martyrs and heard from the fathers and mothers of martyrs and families. The effect of Islam is this.

One day Imam said: 'Today Islam needs your help, young people.' In the afternoon, I came to the streets and had some work. I saw it was like the early days of the revolution and people were moving towards Paveh. This incident and this scene were repeated many times until the end of the war. Whenever the name of Islam and the command of the Imam reached the people—the command of the Imam was the command of Islam and the people valued the Imam for Islam—suddenly you saw this nation boiling and bubbling. The youth left the city, the village, the university, the market, the work and business, the football field, everything and went. For what? To put their lives at risk of death! This is no joke! The enemy was not blind. The enemy saw these things, analyzed these things, and understood this nation has a rear. It understood that as long as that rear exists, this nation cannot be brought to its knees with economic blockade and military blockade or whatnot. So, that rear must be bombarded; its culture, its ethics, its faith, its sacrifice, its belief in religion, its belief in leadership, its belief in the Quran and jihad and martyrdom; these must be destroyed. And it started.

After the war, the environment was also suitable. Because the blazing furnace of war occupied the youth; attracted them to itself and their ears were not open to these words. When that furnace was extinguished, a suitable environment arose and they began to plan extensively and used various tools.

When I look at the diversity of the enemy's tools, I understand how important this issue was to them! One of the things was to belittle and isolate the revolutionary literary and artistic movement in the country. This was one of their actions. One of the important things the revolution did was to train a number of cultural elements, literati, artists, and those with cultural authority, and thanks be to God, they are not few. Many poets emerged; many storytellers emerged; many precise Persian-writing authors emerged and thanks be to God, they are there. From the beginning of the revolution until now, thirteen years have passed. You look and see which thirteen years in our cultural and historical life have been able to produce first-rate personalities? Of course, these are still far from becoming first-rate personalities; but those who will become first-rate personalities are many in this collection that the revolution has created. The motherland of ours, during the despotisms of the late monarchy, had become barren and sterile. Truly great people, great writers, great artists, especially in some artistic fields, were not nurtured. But today we see among our young children, many good filmmakers, good playwrights, good directors, good poets, and good storytellers. It is the revolution that freed these forces.

One of the enemy's actions was to isolate these faithful groups. The youth is inexperienced. As soon as he sees in an official institution of the country—for example, in a cultural center of the country—two people frown at him, ignore him, belittle him; it affects his movement and slows him down. Or for example, when he sees that in the so-called literary and artistic magazines of the country, faces opposed to this method and line are highlighted, praised, this young man becomes disheartened and loses his spirit. When a filmmaker takes his work to centers that can use him and do something so he can continue his work; but they ignore him and say: 'No sir; we do not accept this. We do not accept it this way', and then at the same time sees all kinds of works that are artistically inferior to his work but because they do not have Islamic content are accepted by them; this young man will naturally become isolated and hopeless. Many times, from the depths of my heart, my heart has burned and melted for these faithful and revolutionary young people. Many times I have regretted why such good young people should be ignored!? They are in no way inferior to those who are known as artists in certain places. In many matters, they are much better than them. But they are ignored. When one thoroughly investigates the matter, one sees the root reaches a malicious will somewhere! The officials are also unaware. The cultural officials are good people; but at the higher levels, they are unaware of the actions taken at the intermediate levels. Therefore, this young man, this group of young people, and these currents are made hopeless.

Among the other methods that the enemies used in international forums is this—I truly feel this and it is one of those silent pains. One wishes everyone would clearly understand these things—that when a film or artistic products of Iran are presented, works that show this revolutionary spirit in them are ignored! This international forum, for example, and apparently, is a non-political forum; but the reality of the matter is not like this. You have seen what international forums do! You saw what the Security Council and the United Nations did with Bosnia and Herzegovina! You saw what the 'ICAO' organization did in the case of our airplane that America shot down. The Americans themselves reported and said 'The ICAO report was prepared in cooperation with the US military'! Well, 'ICAO' is supposedly an impartial international organization. If we had said that day 'ICAO wrote this report with bias', some would have said: 'You are very pessimistic. You have overdone it! ICAO is an impartial organization. What does it have to do with America and you?!' Here you go! Now three, four years have passed, the Americans themselves admitted and said that the 'ICAO' report was prepared by the US military and in summary, America is not guilty in the downing of the Iranian Airbus! International forums are like this.

Another of these organizations is called 'Amnesty International'. Apparently, it has no political motivation—for example, no hostility towards so-and-so. Now Amnesty International is silent! In Bosnia and Herzegovina, they kill thousands of Muslims and they fall like autumn leaves on the ground, these people are nowhere to be found; but when we capture a malicious spy and a wicked informant and a death sentence—which is much less and smaller than his crimes against this nation—is issued for him, Amnesty International turns the world upside down saying that in Iran, such and such happened! Are these impartial?! Are these non-political?!

The same issue is with our films, our plays, our special children's works, and other cases in these international artistic forums. How can anyone close their eyes and say 'These are non-political'? Why in all these cases where they awarded prizes, is there not a single revolutionary work? Do we not have revolutionary films?! Do we not have revolutionary poetry?! Do we not have revolutionary plays?! All these revolutionary products that our young people have made, none of them have artistic value?! I suspect that if they dare, they are even willing to give the Nobel Prize to one of these anti-Islamic and anti-revolutionary elements; to make them famous in the world; to isolate revolutionary elements! Is this not cultural invasion?!

Cultural invasion, like cultural work itself, is a quiet and silent action. One of the ways of cultural invasion has been to try to divert faithful young people from their passionate adherence to faith, which is the same factors that maintain a civilization. The same thing they did in Andalusia, in past centuries. That is, they engaged the youth in the world with corruption, debauchery, and drinking. This work is being done now too. I have said many times: when some look at the street and see women whose hijab is somewhat improper, their hearts bleed. Yes; this is a bad thing. But the main bad thing is not this. The main bad thing is what you do not see in the street! Someone said to someone: 'What are you doing?' He said: 'I am playing the drum.' He said: 'Why does your drum not make a sound?' He said: 'Tomorrow my drum will make a sound!' The sound of the collapse of faith and belief resulting from the hidden and secretive invasion of the enemy—if you, the nation and cultural elements, are not awake—God forbid, will be heard when it is no longer curable! If our war veteran youth are surrounded; if they first put a video in his hands and then force him to watch obscene sexual films; stimulate his lust and then drag him to several gatherings, what will happen?! When there is an organization, they corrupt the youth at the peak of youthful energy. And now the enemy is doing this.

I have news from the provinces. I have news from various cities of the country. They give us such news. There is not a day or night that we do not hear such news. Who does these things? The enemy! The youth becomes debauched and loses his faith. At the beginning of the matter, even that young man cries; but gradually they take him like this. They corrupt our schoolchildren, our high school students, even our middle school children, like this. They find individuals who bring drugs and inappropriate pictures to school. I want to ask you: if a school principal is sensitive to the corruption of five hundred or six hundred or a thousand teenagers entrusted to him and twists the ear of someone who has become a tool of the enemy and brought heroin into that school, what should we say to this school principal? Should we say: 'Sir, you acted against freedom? What kind of method is this? You are anti-freedom?!' Is this correct? Is it correct to say to a school principal who says 'A thousand young people have been entrusted to me; I do not want to hand them over to their mothers and fathers as heroin addicts tomorrow' that: 'No! You must allow them to choose for themselves! Whoever does not want, should not use it! You go and talk about the harms of heroin!' This is a part of cultural invasion. They accuse the Islamic system of being 'militant and not giving freedom.' How do we not give freedom?! In which country do you find so many magazines and newspapers and publications? Are all these owned by the government? The official newspapers of the country openly and explicitly question and criticize the government's policies. The government listens with great magnanimity and responds. Currently, in Iran, magazines are published that if someone has a little familiarity with the cultural elements of the country from the past and knows who the royal artists are; who the royal penmen are; who the devotees and servants of the royal apparatus are; who the intimidated are; who the American friends are; knows where the money for these magazines comes from! It is guessable. We are not unaware either. I am not unaware; the apparatus is not unaware either. These are published; we do not interfere with them. We are not afraid of a magazine writing four words! We also write.

The freedom of the press, as much as it exists in Iran, does not exist in other countries. The apparatus, in Iran, in the field of press freedom, is oppressed. The reason is that this gentleman has been given freedom; then he has filled a magazine, a newspaper, with criticism of the apparatus and in these criticisms, repeatedly, like a refrain, repeated that 'They do not give us freedom; they do not give us freedom!' If there is no freedom, how did you write these?! Today in this country, who has been branded with a hot iron for 'Why did you write that article? Why did you publish that newspaper?' Yes; if someone is a press criminal—whoever it is—a criminal is a criminal. Whoever commits a crime that the law has defined as a crime will certainly be punished. One of the punishments that is also provided for in the law is the suspension of a newspaper in which that crime is reflected. This is another discussion. But in speaking, there is freedom. As soon as the apparatus is sensitive, they attack it as 'There is no freedom.' The enemy's expectation is that the writers of the cultural movement dependent on global arrogance write whatever they want and the writers supporting the system and the Islamic faction and movement do not respond to them! Their expectation is this! If they respond, they say: 'There is no freedom. You intimidated us!' This is the atmosphere that the enemy creates. Some are naive and are deceived. Many are without malice, in a current aligned with the enemy's current without understanding what they are saying and doing.

From all these words, I want to conclude one sentence. Today, when I came to speak, I thought to myself: if I can say one thing to you dear brothers and sisters, I have said my word. That thing is that in the face of invasion, the faithful elements of our own can stand. Honor the faithful elements of our own wherever they are. This is my word. I say to the cultural officials of the country, from the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Islamic Guidance, to the Islamic Propagation Organization, to the other institutions and cultural agencies of the country: rely on the faithful elements. I do not mean that if someone is not a revolutionary youth, take his hand and put him out; no. Who says such a thing? Give space. Give space to everyone. Whoever wants to work for this nation, let him work. I say do not allow the isolation of the faithful elements.

If one day an enemy attacks a country militarily. Who stands against him? The one who is most attached to his land; most attached to his nation; least attached to worldly adornments; feels more responsibility and is more committed. Such a person goes and defends. You saw who went and defended during the war. Our main field was filled by the Basij. Basij means this; it means the faithful, revolutionary element interested in the fate of the homeland, interested in the fate of the country, and a self-sacrificing individual. He went to the middle of the field and with sacrifice, brought the enemy to its knees.

In the cultural field, it is the same. The element that is attached to the royal apparatus and his heart beats for those days does not come to defend the Islamic system and culture. Why should we be unaware?! The one who defends the Islamic culture and the dignity and existence of this nation and stands against the enemy's invasion is the one whose heart beats for Islam and loves Islam and Iran. Some who have no religion, have no patriotism either; they do not accept Iran either. The one who approves and encourages the domination of America over Iran is not a patriot. Those who applauded for the American-imposed election of that lady in Nicaragua, what does their action mean? From here, they said 'bravo' and 'well done' to those who surrendered to the imposition of the Americans in Nicaragua! Do these people not have their hearts set on America?! Do these people with their poisonous pens come to defend the national and Islamic and Iranian culture against the enemy's invasion?! It is clear that they do not! It is clear that this is the enemy's fifth column! This works for the enemy. This wishes for the return of the Americans! This wishes for the return of the system dependent on America and global arrogance and the bullies. Will this work for the Islamic system? Will it strive? It is clear that it will not! This is a clear truth. You who are responsible for affairs in radio and television must be careful about this matter. You who are responsible for affairs in newspapers must be careful about this matter. You who are responsible for affairs in the Islamic Propagation Organization or in the Ministry of Islamic Guidance, or in Education and Higher Education, or in various cultural institutions, must be careful about this matter. Of course, everyone is responsible. By responsible, I do not mean the head. 'All of you are shepherds and all of you are responsible for your flock.' Everyone is responsible. Be careful about this meaning.

This nation, to preserve its dignity and true and human and Islamic and revolutionary and national culture, needs struggle and resistance and standing against the enemy's invasion and attacking the enemy's weak points. This can be done by our own people. My word is only this. I say: if you want the art of this country to grow and rise, rely on the young faithful artist. He can defend Islam and the revolution and this country. Otherwise, that director or producer who, when making a film, thinks in advance that 'I will include this point in this film to target one of the pillars of this system's beliefs' does not defend Islam and the revolution! With the specific language of film and in the way that is possible in film, he does his work. That is, he does not suffice with not helping the revolution. He makes a film to attack the revolution! From the beginning when he makes this film, or writes this story, his goal is to question the efficiency of the Islamic system and say: 'This Islamic system is not efficient.' From the beginning when he writes this article or produces this artistic work, his goal is to show that this government is not efficient; it does not have the ability to manage. Is this serving the interests of this country or betraying it? Can this be relied upon?! It is clear that it cannot be relied upon! Of course, we have not decided to introduce those who we think do not serve or betray one by one to the law; no. There are still many things in this country in the cultural field that need to be done. My point is that in cultural environments, rely on the faithful forces. These are a barrier against cultural invasion.

We hope that Almighty God will grant you and our good, faithful, and righteous young people success and that these young people will not be discouraged by the unfavorable nature of some environments. God willing, they will continue the right path and the path of the revolution and the path of service, and God willing, they will believe in the culture and art and literature of this country.

Peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings.