ethno-nationalism dissected

In a democracy, the military is one of the most powerful institutions in the country, And precisely because it has so much power, it has to remain under civilian control. The military's job is to defend the country and carry out the policy of the elected government not to decide which policies the government is allowed to implement. The problem starts when people in the military use their organized power to influence political decisions. You don't need tanks in the streets. You don't need a military coup or soldiers taking over government buildings. It is enough for an organized group of military officers to tell the government: if you don't change your policy, we will stop cooperating, we will damage the military's readiness, or we will refuse to carry out the missions we were given. That is no longer ordinary political disagreement. That is using military power to put pressure on the civilian government. And that is exactly what makes organized political refusal so dangerous. An individual has every right to oppose a government policy. He can protest, demonstrate, refuse personally, and accept the consequences of his decision. But when military officers organize as officers, using the power and status they have inside the military, and use that power to try to change a decision made by an elected government — we have crossed into dangerous territory. At that point, the military is no longer just protecting the country. It has become a political player. Some people will say, "But the cause is justified." That doesn't solve the problem. Actually, it makes the precedent even more dangerous. Today, someone may use this power to oppose a right-wing government. But tomorrow, another government might make a decision that the right sees as a national disaster — a diplomatic agreement, a withdrawal, territorial concessions, or the evacuation of settlements. If we accept the idea that the military can intervene when part of it believes the government is making the wrong decision, then who can say that tomorrow the other side won't do exactly the same thing?

This is a great interview. Xi Van Fleet is an inspiration. She was born in China, lived through the Cultural Revolution, and was sent to work in the countryside at the age of 16. After Mao’s death she was able to go to college to study English and has lived in the United States since 1986. In 2021, she delivered a school board speech in Loudoun County, Virginia against Critical Race Theory that went viral and ignited national conservative media attention. She now devotes her time and energy full time to warning about the parallels between Mao’s Cultural Revolution in China and what’s unfolding in America today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIsuGCoKE-Y

Hello everyone, I'm working on a project transform my anti-propaganda resource bank into a full website. Jasper Roest is already helping with code, but we're looking for validators - go over the list, see if there are any broken links, and also rate how convincing each resource is in your opinion. Anyone interested, please comment here. If we think you're suitable we'd contact you. The main bottleneck is, we need people we can trust.

Ruhollah Zam's statements from 8 years ago about the coup and America's cooperation with the Narmak (Qalibaf) group and the attack on Iran under the pretext of supporting the people and empowering the group have gone viral again. I used a popular AI tool to summarize because I have a toddler-level understanding of Farsi. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The "Narmak Circle" Plan and Ties to the U.S.: The video discusses a faction referred to as the "Narmak Circle," alleging that it had formulated plans for the post-Ali Khamenei era or in the event of a potential coup. The speaker claims that this group sought military and political support from the United States to ensure they could seize and maintain power. The "Third Way" and Political Change: Referring to remarks made by Mike Pompeo, the video suggests the possibility of a "third way"—covert U.S. support for a specific faction inside Iran that would align with Western interests. The speaker notes that this group purportedly promised reforms, such as free elections, general amnesty, limiting the powers of the Supreme Leader, and gender equality. The Role of Ghalibaf and Wealth Transfer: The content addresses allegations regarding Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and his alleged involvement in transferring and investing assets outside of Iran. It is claimed that these funds were intended to be injected back into the country to finance the administration of the government once the Narmak Circle assumed power. The video also mentions a perceived decline in trust toward him within certain political circles. Strategic Maneuvering within the Leader's Office: The speaker outlines the group's efforts to manipulate the inner workings of the Leader’s office (the "Bait", an Arabic reference), including attempts to influence the selection of a successor by focusing on Mojtaba Khamenei. Additionally, the video alleges that this faction made agreements with the U.S. to neutralize other opposition groups and share sensitive intelligence regarding military and leadership sites.