Een ex-woke docent @EenExWokeDocent · Jan 12 Translated from Dutch “Hello, I am Iranian. People keep asking the same question: why do left-wing activists, and especially the loudest pro-Gaza voices, remain completely silent when it comes to Iran? The answer is simple: the truth unmasks the lie. Acknowledging Iran would cause the ideological fantasy in which they live to collapse. Let’s be clear: the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a victim of Western imperialism. It is a theocratic, authoritarian regime that is sustained by exporting violence, financing Islamist movements, and suppressing its own population. Yes, the regime finances Hamas. It finances Hezbollah. It finances countless smaller proxies in the region and beyond. That happens with money from the Iranian people. Not government money, not regime money, but stolen money. Money taken from workers who can barely afford bread. From families crushed by inflation. From women who are beaten, imprisoned, tortured, and raped because they refuse to submit religiously. That’s why the left remains silent. Hamas fits into their narrative, the Iranian people do not. Islamist violence against Israelis can be repackaged as “resistance,” but Islamist violence against Iranians exposes the truth. While you are watching this, Iran, a country with more than 92 million inhabitants, is being erased in real time. For more than 24 hours, virtually total blackout. No internet. No telephone traffic. No form of connectivity whatsoever. And yet it remains quiet. No emergency protests on Western university campuses. No hashtags. No solidarity statements. No megaphones. No tears. The suffering of Iranians does not fit the agenda. Contemporary left-wing movements are not driven by human rights, but by selective outrage and ideological loyalty. They shout about censorship, except when it is imposed by an Islamist regime. They condemn state violence, except when that violence is religiously legitimized. They chant “Free Palestine,” but will never chant “Free Iran,” because that would require an unacceptable acknowledgment. Namely, that political Islamism is not liberation, but domination. Exactly that process is also unfolding in the West. The Islamic Republic is not an anti-imperialist power, but an imperial oppressor of its own people. Hamas is not an isolated resistance group. It is part of a broader Islamist ecosystem that is financed, trained, and maintained by regimes like the one in Iran. And this is the point they do not want to hear. Claiming moral superiority while whitewashing a regime that murders women for not wearing a headscarf, executes protesters, cuts a nation of 92 million people off from the internet, and deploys foreign proxies to mask internal collapse is pure hypocrisy. Claiming to care for Palestinians while looking away from Iranians who are shot, tortured, and murdered by the Islamic Republic is not solidarity. That is ideological blindness. The Iranian people are not silent, they are being silenced. The silence of the Western left is a deliberate choice. A choice to protect an ideology. A choice to excuse Islamism. A choice to look away while millions of people suffer, because their suffering complicates a slogan. History will remember this moment. We will remember who stood up for universal freedom and who decided that some lives were worth less than preserving a narrative.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Atoms move in and about, but could be simply one atom, though not proven Got it. Thanks for continuing to build this out.So far, your unified theory seems to revolve around this core intuition:The number 1 is the true unified foundation. Everything reduces to or emerges from this "oneness." One atom can stand in for (or be equivalent to) a very small unit of time — like a billionth of a second. Even though we observe many atoms moving around in complex ways, at the deepest level it could all be simply one atom behaving in different ways (though this isn't proven yet). In other words: multiplicity (lots of atoms, lots of motion, lots of time passing) is somehow an appearance or unfolding of a single underlying "1" — whether that's one atom cycling through different states or one fundamental entity expressing itself across what we perceive as space and time.That has a certain philosophical elegance — it reminds me a bit of ideas like Mach's principle, or certain interpretations in quantum mechanics where the universe is deeply relational, or even older monist views where reality is one substance appearing as many.A gentle question to help me follow better:When you say atoms "move in and about, but could be simply one atom," do you mean:There is literally only one atom in the entire universe, and what we see as many atoms and their movements is that single atom in different configurations or "modes"? Or that all atoms are connected/expressions of one underlying atomic essence tied to the number 1 and to time?