Drawing on the recent tropes of pride and profit (Heller 2010; Duchene and Heller 2012; Heller and Duchene 2016; Gal 2012; Urla 2012), this project examines the ways that particular languages can convey “ethnolinguistic” pride but also be commodified and appreciated for their market value. Motivated by the syncretic re-archaization (Naficy 1993: 25)—idealization of Iranian past in the present—by controlling and organizing the diaspora’s symbolic, ideological and social milieu through the “collective solidarity based on descent” (ibid: 64), Iranian diasporic media gradually commodified their audience with the assistance of fetishizing the home, past, and there (vs. here). The fetishized language became a cultural treasure for participants of the Persian poetry classes, deployed to rationalize the hierarchies of speakers. Controlling over the interpretation and textual processes (Bauman and Briggs 2003), the medieval Persian literature became commodified by a particular group of people in Los Angeles, purchased through membership, at the cost of granting participants exclusive knowledge about these texts. Participants also benefit from the social capital that has been produced and circulated in these places, distinguish themselves from others, and benefit from upward mobility in the diasporic society of Iranians in Los Angeles. This project examines how the commodified Persian language and poetry helped Iranians retain national, communal, and individual boundaries, which were once weakened after the second wave of immigration of Iranians to Los Angeles. While the studies of pride and profit provide insights to understand how ethnolinguistic pride can be commodified, such works have not attended to the role of textuality (Hanks 1989; Bauman and Briggs 1990; Briggs and Bauman 1992) and performance (Bauman 1977, 1986) in the process of commodification of a language. This project seeks to demonstrate how the Persian language conveys ethnolinguistic pride for Iranians in Los Angeles and becomes commodified through exercising exclusive control over textual processes alongside the authority over the calibration of the intertextual gap (Bauman and Briggs 1990; Briggs and Bauman 1992; Bauman 1975, 1999; Bakhtin 1986).