Podcasts about khomeini

Acquista il mio nuovo libro, "Neanche Nietzsche era un superuomo": https://amzn.eu/d/0hN113ZXIl regime dei Guardiani della rivoluzione dovette affrontare, negli anni '80, diversi problemi, tra cui la guerra con l'Iraq.Diventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/dentro-alla-storia--4778249/support.

Acquista il mio nuovo libro, "Neanche Nietzsche era un superuomo": https://amzn.eu/d/0hN113ZXNel 1979 lo scià venne cacciato dall'Iran e il potere venne rapidamente assunto dall'ayatollah Khomeini.Diventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/dentro-alla-storia--4778249/support.

You’re listening to American Ground Radio with Stephen Parr and Louis R. Avallone. This is the full show for July 10, 2026. We open with a Senate map conversation nobody on the left wants to have — Democrats need to win every single toss-up race in November to take control of the chamber, while Republicans need only one. We walk through the Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball projections, the four toss-up races that will decide everything — Alaska, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, and North Carolina — and why Republican overconfidence is still premature even with the structural advantage. We also explain why Graham Plattner's implosion in Maine may not be the gift Republicans assumed it was, why Roy Cooper is very likely to pick up North Carolina, and why Ken Paxton is making a race in Texas far closer than it has any business being. In our Top 3 Things You Need to Know, President Trump refused to sign the bipartisan housing bill — saying he won't put pen to paper until Congress passes the SAVE Act — but the bill will become law without his signature anyway, and House Republicans plan to celebrate its passage regardless. Then Trump fired the remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission, citing the Seila Law decision as precedent and issuing a statement that the president reserves the right to remove individuals not fully aligned with the task of securing America's elections. And eight men from across the country — Ohio, Nebraska, Missouri, Washington, California, and West Virginia — have been indicted for plotting a drone and sniper attack on the UFC fight at the White House lawn, with all eight now arrested and facing life in prison. We also cover Joy Behar warning that President Trump is practically destroying democracy — and we note that the one place in America where a democratic election result was genuinely made null and void was the 2024 Democratic presidential primary, where Kamala Harris never won a single vote outside the convention floor. The Democrat Party is the party of projection. Whatever they accuse you of doing, they have already done. Our American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson answer a listener question about Type 1 and Type 2 fun — and the conversation becomes a beautiful tribute to feral childhood. Type 1 fun is a roller coaster — thrilling in the moment, forgotten by morning. Type 2 fun is hiking in sleet, throwing rocks at alligators on the bayou, going off into the woods alone for hours while your parents had absolutely no idea where you were. The kind of fun that shapes you, scares you, and becomes the story you're still telling at 50. Teri and Kimberly worry that today's children — tracked by phones, sheltered from consequence, raised on Dateline — are growing up on Type 1 fun and missing the Type 2 experiences that built the people they became. We dig deep into California's 2022 decision to decriminalize loitering with intent to commit prostitution — signed by Governor Newsom on the grounds that 56% of those arrested were Black women, making it, in his telling, a racist law. The results, documented by City Journal and investigative journalist Abigail Schreier, are exactly what common sense predicted. Prostitution spiked immediately. Human trafficking followed. LAPD officers at the 77th Street Station rescued 123 children in 2024 — nearly eight times the number rescued in 2022, the year before the law took effect. Police now report seeing 14-year-old girls in G-strings on Los Angeles streets and having no legal authority to intervene. We make the case plainly: the left is not trying to reduce crime. It is trying to reduce the number of people arrested for crime. Those are not the same thing — and the difference is being paid for by the most vulnerable people on the streets. We also revisit a 1950 speech by Joseph McCarthy — and note that whatever his excesses, his core distinction holds up: there have always been two kinds of Democrats, the millions of loyal Americans who vote the ticket and want safe neighborhoods and stable jobs, and a small activist class that has been dragging the party toward something that looks less like democratic socialism and more like the thing McCarthy was warning about. The question in 2026 is whether that activist class is still the minority. Then it's Fake News Friday — including a California HOA fining residents for flying the American flag, activists pushing schools to teach Black English and girl math, Adam Sandler officiating Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's wedding, a BB gun attack on a mosque that turned out to be carried out by a Muslim man, Iran threatening to kill President Trump at Khomeini's funeral, a new Broadway musical called Dolly about Dolly Parton, and CNN airing a quote from a fake congressman who runs a parody account. Justin Trudeau is now a backup dancer in a Katy Perry video. Spoilet Alert: that one's real. For our Bright Spot, weekly unemployment claims came in at 215,000 — with the January through July average of 213,000 representing the lowest sustained jobless claim numbers since 1968 and 1969, when the country had a third fewer people and the Vietnam draft was pulling hundreds of thousands of men out of the civilian workforce. We call it what it is — a labor market that is outperforming history in a country that was told it couldn't. And we close with words of wisdom on patriotism — from Calvin Coolidge, Edward Abbey, Adlai Stevenson, and Charles de Gaulle. You've got to love your country enough to tell the truth about it, defend it when it's right, and fight to make it better. May your pursuit of happiness bring you joy. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Cultivating the Craft of Complex Story-telling: Irony and Compassion Corruption and Beauty …myriad voices animating the guiding astro*mytho*politico narrative Initiating/Honoring the Wizard Mars within us all…. And the danger when we don't. Fifa, Khomeini's Funeral Graham Plattner Dr Safiya – July 11th global call for his release by Israel BBC: Lawyer says detained Gaza doctor was severely beaten in Israeli jail https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c07yy3pgrlmo The post Irony and Compassion  appeared first on KPFA.

Send us Fan MailA regime can use ballots, slogans, and revolutionary language and still build a cage. We dig into why the Islamic Republic of Iran stands out as a totalitarian theocracy that fuses modern surveillance and bureaucracy with claims of divine rule, turning dissent into “blasphemy” and private life into a policing project. If you want to understand the morality police, censorship, persecution of minorities, and the legal machinery that makes the supreme leader untouchable, we connect the dots in plain terms.We also revisit the 1979 Islamic Revolution with clear eyes: overthrowing the Shah did not guarantee freedom, and the coalition that sought self-determination was systematically betrayed as Khomeini's clerical faction consolidated power. From there, we test the regime's favorite talking point, “anti-imperialism,” against what it actually exports: proxy power. We walk through how Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran-backed militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen reflect a repeatable model that undermines sovereignty and deepens humanitarian crises, even when packaged as “resistance.”Then we tackle the hardest questions: the Iran nuclear program, the West's temptation to treat an ideological theocracy like a normal negotiating partner, and why nuclear weapons capability could raise the odds of regional proliferation and reckless proxy escalation. We also address the regime's antisemitism and fixation on Israel as ideology rather than mere policy, and we end where the stakes are most human: the Iranian people. From the Green Movement to Women Life Freedom after Mahsa Amini, we highlight the courage of protest and the brutality of repression, and we ask what real solidarity should look like. If this conversation sharpens how you see Iran, subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review. What's the most dangerous myth you still hear about the Iranian regime? Support the show

Iranian Christian Reveals: Why His People Are CELEBRATING the War | The Ideologees Ep. 21   IRAN IS HAPPY WITH THE WAR   In this powerful episode, host mistermarkgee and co-host Roger Moore sit down with Vahid — an Iranian Christian,, and church minister now based in Luton — for one of the most important conversations we've had on this podcast.   We cover:

IRAN IS HAPPY WITH THE WAR   In this powerful episode, host mistermarkgee and co-host Roger Moore sit down with Vahid — an Iranian Christian,, and church minister now based in Luton — for one of the most important conversations we've had on this podcast.   We cover:

Welcome to the first episode of True Thirty 30 | a new weekly conversation where Joey and his Producer Sean X break down the biggest stories, questions, and cultural moments shaping the week.In this episode, we discuss Iran, rising gas prices, tariffs, farming pressures, and the symbolism behind the “Golden Calf” controversy. We also talk about diesel prices, California regulations, global trade pressures, and the strange state of modern political culture.TIMESTAMPS0:00 Welcome to True Thirty 0:42 Iran War Questions 1:03 Gas Prices and Taxes 2:47 California Gas Island 3:41 Farmers Feeling the Squeeze 5:05 Tariffs Fertilizer and Margins 7:10 No End in Sight 8:01 Asymmetric War Explained 12:06 Hormuz and Global Ripple 13:29 Trump China and Ceasefire 14:57 Generational Farms at Risk 16:32 Golden Calf Statue Story 22:50 Wrap Up and SubscribeFULL TRANSCRIPTJoey Dumont: Hello, everyone. We are doing something called True Thirty 30, which is basically an idea of our members reaching out to us over the weekend with stories that they thought were either crazy, unfounded, or they wanna know more about. So that's what we're doing today. Some of the subjects, we're gonna cover the Iran war for all the obvious reasons.Joey Dumont: We're gonna talk a little bit about some of the deleterious effects of that war specific to farming. And we're gonna end the conversation with the golden calf discussion. In case you guys don't know what that is, you will soon find out. So I'm here with my producer, Sean X, and we are gonna go through these topics, um, as best as possible.Joey Dumont: Hey, buddy.Sean X: Hey. How you doing?Joey Dumont: I'm doing well. It's a happy Monday.Joey Dumont: So I don't know, why don't you share some of the comments we got specific to the... Well, they wanna know more about what's going on in Iran.Joey Dumont: For the most part, people have said, “Okay, what's the nuance with the war going in Iran?”Joey Dumont: Because we keep on hearing it's on again, it's off again. It's affecting prices. It's not affecting prices. Yeah.Joey Dumont: So The New York Times has Iran war long-term energy discussions specific to Iran defended its demands for a peace deal, and President Trump called them garbage.Joey Dumont: Mr. Trump said he wanted to suspend the federal gasoline tax. So obviously everyone knows that gas has been affected by the Straits of Hormuz being shut down because of this war. We're now seeing gas prices at what, six- Six, si- six.Sean X: It's $6.35Joey Dumont: For regular?Sean X: For regular in San Francisco. Yeah. It's $6.74 for premium, and it's-Joey Dumont: And diesel fuel is anywhere between 7 and 8Sean X: $7.80 for diesel.Joey Dumont: Um, a lot of it is from California policies, and some of it is from the pipelines or gas can't reach us. Yeah. We're a gas island. If a refinery goes down, we're screwed. So for the most part, we pay the worst gas prices, so we're feeling the biggest effect here.Joey Dumont: So we are up over a dollar compared to the rest of you folks out there in the United States of America.Joey Dumont: And Donald Trump wants to suspend the gasoline tax, which is how much? It's eight-Sean X: 18 cents.Joey Dumont: 18 cents.Joey Dumont: So- Do, do you know what 18 cents means for those of us in California?Joey Dumont: With the gas prices I just mentioned, it's 2 to 3%. Yeah, every little bit helps, but it's really our California regulations that are the things that are screwing us.Joey Dumont: I read a meme recently that said, uh, “Donald Trump is so awesome that my truck only used to hold $59 worth of gas and now it holds $130 worth of gas.”Joey Dumont: Which I thought was brilliant. Um, so whoever wrote that, good for you. Um, but yeah, the, the gas tax is not gonna help us and- for us, . No.Sean X: It's, it's not gonna help us.Joey Dumont: Like, what we need help with is all the regulations in our state- Yeah ... and let that make us... A lot of people don't understand.Sean X: We use different gasoline here.Joey Dumont: We do. We do. And it's actually called CARB, um, which stands for California Air Resources Board, in case you guys have never heard of it, ‘cause I sure haven't. And it basically means that our gas burns cleaner, reduces smog, lowers certain pollutants, and it's chemically different from gasoline used in the rest of the country.Joey Dumont: So when they say that we're a gas island or a, an actual island on its own, that's what they mean by our taxes. So yeah, I don't think the, uh, suspending the gasoline tax is gonna work. And by the way, he has to get congressional approval to do so. So there's another wrinkle.Joey Dumont: Dude- Uh, we'll see ... we need, we need, we need more help th- than from the federal government.Joey Dumont: So those are all problems, I can say that we have an issue with.Joey Dumont: But As we know, this is affecting everyone, not only the day-to-day people, but farmers specifically because a lot of farmers use diesel fuel as opposed to regular fuel. And, um, so let's talk a little bit about that, dude. I just moved back to Minnesota to be with my mommy, uh, for her 86th birthday, and, uh, it was cool.Joey Dumont: And I don't know, I think most of our listeners understand that I grew up there. I've been in California for now 44 years, and I have a lot of buddies both from high school here in California, as well as the people I grew up with in Minnesota who are in the farming business.Sean X: Yeah. They're also tend to be more conservative than out, uh, out in California.Joey Dumont: I mean, it's- All my friends from Minnesota are Red Hatters. Not all, but most. And then most of my relatives are Red Hatters as well. I've been talking to them for the four years that I've been reporting on politics. They come to me because they say I don't judge them, and that, you know, they know I love them.Joey Dumont: And so they're just like, “Joey, what's actually going on?” Yeah. And that's kind of why we wanted to start this program as well, is that it's, if I'm reaching out to my Republican friends all the time on a DL basis, which is kind of funny, um, they don't explain to everyone else, “Hey, I called Joey.Joey Dumont: I wanted to know what's going on.” That's really what I try to do with my friends and relatives the other side of the aisle, if you will.Joey Dumont: And what we tried to explain to them specific to gas is that I have a buddy of mine who's a soybean farmer, in the Midwest, and he called me previous to the election and said, you know, “What do I need to know?”Joey Dumont: And I tried to explain to him, I said, “Hey, buddy, look at where you're getting your potash,” because I knew he was actually getting potash. Potash, about 80% of our potash comes from Canada. In Project 2025, the Trump administration announced that they actually did want to tariff potash. And I told my buddy, I said, “Hey, just if you can, try to find another source.Joey Dumont: Look at supply chain issues. Figure out that specific to your EBITDA,” because farms, if you guys don't know out there, farmers run at a very small margin to begin with. And if there's increased prices specific to tariffs, which is on the potash, the Mexico-Canadian free trade agreement that Trump actually launched in 2017, which was a good free trade agreement, he blew it up, said it was the worst deal ever, and now we have supplies specific to John Deere, other maintenance issues that are going across the borders of Mexico and Canada, which is also putting up their prices.Joey Dumont: And some of the things that I talked about specific to the numerous farmers that I've talked to over the last month- Is that the Farmer Bureau is actually saying that, and I'll just repeat it here, “Fertilizer pre-booking rates up 19%. 70% of farmers being interviewed are unable to afford all the fertilizer they need,” so they're actually planting less, “And farm diesel prices have increased by 46% since the end of February.”Joey Dumont: So nearly six in 10 farmers report worsening finances, rising fertilizer, fuel cost during plant season, and the immediate economic assistance to keep these open is probably gonna help this year, but they're worried, they're very worried about next year. Yeah. So that's the big-Sean X: So, well, a lot of them, as you said, they pre-book.Joey Dumont: So they'll pre- Well, they're running out. That's the problem.Sean X: They'll order, and now it's running out. Yeah. So now the effects are hitting them. Yeah. So what, what were their main concern to you? What, what are they asking you?Joey Dumont: They're just asking me what I think based on my reporting, based on the homework we're doing here at True Thirty to figure out, you know, what do you guys see an end to this war?Joey Dumont: President Trump has said very publicly that there is so much disarray in Iran that there is actually no leadership to negotiate with. And if you read up on this, the Iranian leadership specifically are a Basarashi-Sean X: Well, that is a problem when you bomb their leadership.Joey Dumont: I- Well, he did mention that. He did mention that. He didn't kill the people they wanted to replace, Khomeini. But, uh, yeah, I, I, I don't see an end to the war. Obviously, there's a lot of people talking about that. We've had some war correspondents on the show to talk about the externalities of this war and the longevity and the possibly forever war specific to anything in the Middle East based on our history, based on us being the United States.Joey Dumont: I think what we're gonna try to explore here at True Thirty, some of the experts we're bringing on in the next couple months will be talking about what they have referred to as a asymmetric war, and the war is no longer about kinetic destruction.Sean X: Joey. What do you mean by,, asymmetric war?Joey Dumont: Great question. So asymmetric war in this sense is that historically kinetic war, we have big battleships, we have destroyers, we have the biggest military in the world.Joey Dumont: Iran's known this for as long as it's existed. So the way they fight us means the asymmetry to what we're doing. So if we're launching at $4 million-Sean X: It's not, it's not equal. Yeah. Like, it's like if we, we can't- It's not equal ... we can't launch $10 million missiles at $10,000 drones all day.Joey Dumont: There you go.Joey Dumont: That's it. Okay. That's a big piece of it. There's also something called mosquito boats. So there's these little tiny boats with engines and people and guns, and they go after the big boats, like our destroyers, and that's how they're actually taking Straits of Hormuz under siege, if you will.Joey Dumont: They only- So basically, they're not blowing up anything now, but they're, they're essentially taking it hostage because of these things.Joey Dumont: Through strategies that involve less dollars. Yeah. They have mines-Joey Dumont: A lot less dollars ...Joey Dumont: they plant a bunch of mines in the Straits of Hormuz because there's most of the narrow ways, some actual throughput is, like, two miles wide. It's very narrow, so they can actually take from the ground, from the coasts and defend it.Joey Dumont: They can defend it with the mosquito boats that I was talking about. They can defend it with drones. And then something that not a lot of people talk about is the topography o- of Iran to begin with. It's approximately four times the size of Iraq, and I mention that because when we had a surge in Iraq, um, I think we had 170,000 soldiers during the surge, 150,000 now.Joey Dumont: And one of the big things, and I think this, we learned this in our interview with Tom Shanker, uh, the New York Times war correspondent.Joey Dumont: Dude, that was a great interview, man.Sean X: Yeah, he's so smart.Joey Dumont: I think you were right about Bibi. I think, like, he convinced Trump- that's my guess. I have to, I, I think- Yeah.Joey Dumont: Like, I'm sorry, man. It's like, dude, someone said, somebody said “If we go into Iran, the people will rise up.” Yes. The problem is the people had just risen up, and they got slaughtered. Wow, that's- I mean, if you take out 10 to 20,000 protesters, guess what? All the people that are likely to lead the charge are gone.Joey Dumont: Wow. And yes, and, and people see people being slaughtered, that's not good for them either. So yeah, I mean, that's what I mean by asymmetric war, buddy.Joey Dumont: That's where we are today.Joey Dumont: Dude.Joey Dumont: So I think one of the things that we can admit across the board is that we, America, have proven to be unbelievably powerful in our military might.Joey Dumont: So what we did in Venezuela, where we swooped in and pulled out Nicolás Maduro in the middle of the night, put him in Rikers Prison, maybe one of the most efficient, wonderfully produced smashes-Sean X: Efficient leadership changes, yeah.Joey Dumont: Yeah, I mean, just... Well, I mean, it actually, the regime change didn't happenJoey Dumont: I think that was where Donald Trump got very excited about how he can go into other countries. And with Netanyahu coming in specifically to his war room and saying, “Hey, I think we can go-” Iran's weak. I think we can get them today.Joey Dumont: Let's go after them. Obviously, that's what took place on February 28th. Now we're seeing, you know what? Eight, seven, eight weeks later, , this very small military excursion, as he called it, has moved into a full-blown war.Joey Dumont: But back to my Republican friends and farmers, everything they mentioned to me in my one-on-ones with them, their fertilizer, their diesel fuel, their supplies, their maintenance, they're scared-Joey Dumont: they're going under. These are places that operate on, like, a 3 to 5% margin if they're lucky.Sean X: Yeah, now it's going up.Joey Dumont: And we're talking about 20... Yeah, and you're talking about, expenses that are just through the roof. Yeah. We talked about the farmers. There's also global aspects of this. Yeah.Joey Dumont: I mean, the Strait of Hormuz closing is most important to Japan, South Korea, China, and India. Yeah.Sean X: And you mentioned to me, one of, one of our members was literally asking about... Because they are international- Yeah ... they were asking about the international effect that this is having.Joey Dumont: Well, Prime Minister Modi actually asked all of his 1.4 billion citizens to cut back on gas and anything to do with,, fertilizer or anything to do with the things that we now have a shortage in.Joey Dumont: LNG, if, for those who don't know-Sean X: Liquid natural gas ...Joey Dumont: it's liquefied natural gas. Liquified natural gas is something that most people have never really talked about but please understand it's this: what we use LNG for is fertilizer, intensive food, electronics, textiles, plastics, household utility bills.Joey Dumont: Again, guys, what we're gonna try and do is bring some experts on the show to talk to these specifically. We're gonna bring some economists on, and we're gonna talk about the longevity of this war. Is it possible with the ceasefire? What does that mean?Joey Dumont: Well, uh, the, the nature of warfare has changed. I, it- People, and this is where I'll totally agree with Republicans, like people are growing frustrated with a war that is literally only 60 days old.Sean X: Yeah. It's just the fear of the effects long term.Joey Dumont: So Trump is going to China. What do you think he hopes to accomplish there?Joey Dumont: I think he hopes to accomplish some type of a trade deal. I don't know if he's gonna jump down on the, the tariffs or not, but I do know that this Iran war is not helping his negotiations with XiJoey Dumont: because obviously America is the biggest foe of China. I do know that there's rumor around the campfire that Donald Trump is trying to negotiate numerous deals specific to tariffs and opening up more markets here in America that he's shut down based on his, 100% or 145% tariff, I think, in the beginning of his first or second administration.Joey Dumont: The sad part about all this is that there's, there's no end in sight with anything to do with what's going on in Iran. Lebanon obviously is a big issue with that because Donald Trump wants to negotiate with Netanyahu to say, “Hey, we need you to stop bombing in Lebanon because that's part of our ceasefire agreement, and you're violating that.Joey Dumont: And if that's violation, if that continues to happen, then the ceasefire itself stops, and then we're right back to a kinetic war.” Bibi isn't listening. Let's just say that. Bibi's not listening. He's doing what he wants to do because he got us into this war, I think, and I don't think he wants us to leave anytime soon, and this is more of his issue specific to his place in the Middle East and the surrounding countries that have not been a big fan of him for many years now.Joey Dumont: So yeah. Yeah.Joey Dumont: I, I don- I wish I had better news for my friends, specifically in the farming business because it is... It's been really scary to talk to some of these people. And then, you know, the one-on-one conversations are different than the stuff we're reading from.Sean X: Yeah.Joey Dumont: Sitting down and talking with farmers who have, you know, third, fourth, fifth generation, farms that they're very proud of.Joey Dumont: And these are not big farms, by the way. These, you know, 1,000 acres, 2,000 acres. These are not huge farms. The farm my, my grandpa used to work when I was growing up I think was 400 acres. Um, and these are the typical farmers you read about growing up. You know, they jump on their tractors-Sean X: Yeah, these aren't, these aren't the big agribusinesses.Joey Dumont: No. These are your mom-and-pop farmers- These are mom-and-pop farmers ... just trying to, you know, waking up at 5:00 every morning- Yeah ... working 18-hour days.Joey Dumont: Yeah. Yeah. All day, every day till the sun drops, and then they go back and eat, and then they re- rinse and repeat. Yeah. And they're very s- they're very scared because, again, these are generational, and these farmers that I talk to specifically don't have any other skills.Joey Dumont: They've been doing this their whole life. They were born and raised on these farms. They watched their father go through exactly what they're now going through. There is some diversification in s- there's some big pig farmers that I talk to that are doing well on that, but the guys that are planting soybeans, corn, and wheat, and the typical commodities, they're very scared for all the aforementioned reasons, right?Joey Dumont: The fertilizer itself, the price of their supplies, their maintenance, the upkeep on their tractors, their combines, all that stuff, it's, it's pricey and it's, and it's scaring them.Joey Dumont: Okay. We'll get an update, on that issue. Yeah.Joey Dumont: One of the other big questions that I've got right in front of me from one of our members, and many people ask this, what is about this golden calf?Joey Dumont: It's probably good to end this on a little bit of a whimsical piece. So in case you guys don't know, Donald Trump had a golden statue erected in his honor at Doral, which is one of his golf courses here in the United States. It's 22 feet. It weighs seven tons. And if you guys aren't aware of the old story specific to the Bible-Sean X: With MosesJoey Dumont: Yeah. So- ... Exodus 32, I'm a recovering Catholic, so I know a little bit about this story. Um, it was when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the Bibles, or excuse me, with, with- The Ten Commandments ... Ten Commandments Ten Commandments. And he saw this golden calf that Aaron had a- had built for the staff because they needed an, an idol to worship.Joey Dumont: Moses was pretty pissed, to paraphrase. And he shattered the tablets, and then he melted down the golden calf, and he made all of the Israelites drink it. So not happy about that. Fast-forward to 2026, Donald Trump has erected a calf. Now,Sean X: who g- who gave, who gave this to him?Joey Dumont: Uh, it was a gift, and the Pastor Mark Burns was the one orchestrating this piece at the Trump National Doral in Miami, and he said this, to quote, “Let me be clear. This is not a golden calf,” he said. “This statue is a celebration of life. It is a symbol of resilience, freedom, patriotism, strength, and the willpower to keep fighting for the future of America.” Now, this was the statue from Trump's attempted assassination in Butler, Pennsylvania, which was obviously awful.Joey Dumont: Where he said, “Fight, fight, fight.” And they wanted to capture that moment for the remainder of time to prove how brave he was in, in the circumstance. He was pretty brave or foolish, but he was.Joey Dumont: If the pastor has to say, “This is not a golden calf”- Yeah ... that's an issue. Yeah. Like, you know, it, it's r- it reminds me of when Trump did that post a couple weeks ago, and he took it down because there was controversy of it.Joey Dumont: The Jesus post?Joey Dumont: The Jesus post. Yeah, yeah. He's like, this... You know, and then he comes out and he says, “I'm not being Jesus here.” Right. It's like, you know, don't tell people to not believe their eyes. So when I look at this 22-foot golden monument to Trump, like, how is that not a golden calf?Joey Dumont: Well, it is... And I think that's the funny thing, too, is check this out.Sean X: So there was a show called The Boys, and- Oh, my God ... have you seen it?Joey Dumont: Oh, it's a great show. My mom watches it. Okay. So- She's 85, by the way- All right ... watching superhero stuff.Joey Dumont: So Eric Kripke is... I guess he put, “What the fuck? Seriously?” And this idea, this is what he wrote on Instagram- So who, who is he? ... over the weekend.Sean X: Who is... He's one of the actors.Joey Dumont: He's the showrunner.Sean X: He's the showrunner.Joey Dumont: Okay, got it. And he said, “Seriously, what the fuck?” over a split image of a golden statue of Homelander from episode six of The Boys and the golden statue of Donald Trump. So in the sixth episode of the show features a larger than life golden Homelander statue.Joey Dumont: The psychotic leader of The Seven proclaims that he is the new Messiah following a visitation by an angel. So the showrunner, this was July of 2025, and he's saying everything that we put in here as parody about a ridiculous man trying to be the Messiah has now come to fruition. Except-Sean X: I've seen that.Joey Dumont: The craziest thing about it is- Except it happened here ... if you look at that statue that they had in that episode, I mean, it's obviously not the same pose as Trump- No ... but- It's so close ... it is so clo- Dude, it is so close He's got his arm out like this. He's got...Joey Dumont: and maybe because that was the JC being on the cross, all that.Joey Dumont: So, so they're like- But it's the same fucking A ... this is not a golden calf. Trump is not Jesus in this post. No. The, the showrunner for The Boys has basically come out and say... Now, the character on the show, the character on the show is one of the worst characters, right?Joey Dumont: Well, he's the Antichrist in this story.Joey Dumont: He's the Antichrist.Joey Dumont: But this is, and this is Pastor Burns again, to continue this quote, “We worship the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone,” he wrote on his social media. “Honor is not worship. Respect is not idolatry, and celebration is not bowing down to a false god.” So again- This is not a golden- It's right out of Central Casting.Joey Dumont: If you wanted to write a script- about what not, what isn't real while you're actually looking at what is real. This just took place in our life as citizens of the United States of America, and yeah, I don't think, I don't think there's enough, there's not enough jokes. I mean, the good news is there's plenty of jokes now.Joey Dumont: The memes are going everywhere with this. But the idea too, in case you haven't heard this, was that Donald Trump, who's never actually opened a Bible much less ridden it-Sean X: No, he opened a Bible. I saw him open a Bible.Joey Dumont: All right, true. But he's never read it.Joey Dumont: He opened the Bible that he held upside down- Down.Joey Dumont: True, true, true ... if you don't remember. He held it upside down when he was front of the church and he opened the Bible that he put, the Declaration of Independence in and the Bill of Rights, ‘cause he sold that once.Joey Dumont: Well, in his defense, in his defense he's probably never seen a picture of Jesus, so if he didn't think- ... he looked like Jesus, it, it actually might have been part of it. But I also heard this, and I have nothing to confirm this is true or not, but they said that either Caroline Leavitt or one of his comms people said, “Hey, Mr. President, say that the f- photo was doctored and that you had nothing to do with that.” I don't know if that's true, and then he came out and said, “Oh, I was supposed to be a doctor.” So I don't know if that's true or not, but it's one of those things where I just can't get over how silly this whole thing is and how...Joey Dumont: I thought it'd be good just to, uh, yeah- Yeah ... run this story through the ringer to- Yeah ... bring our- So- ... bring our members some fun-Sean X: That's the- ... on a Monday morning ...Sean X: true Thirty this week, and let's end it on this-Joey Dumont: Sounds like a good idea, buddy ...Sean X: pathetic note of the golden calf.Sean X: Thank- Thank you guys forJoey Dumont: listeningJoey Dumont: thank you. Thank you, Joey. Cheers. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.truethirty.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Iran Crisis series, Helena Cobban sat down with Professor Richard Falk, international law scholar and JWE board member, for a wide-ranging conversation that spanned nearly five decades of history. Recorded on April 29, the discussion moved from a remarkable personal meeting he had with Ayatollah Khomeini in January 1979 to the crisis of international law and the nuclear non-proliferation debate that are both unfolding right now. This was latest episode in our continuing series on the Iran Crisis. Find the multimedia records of this episode and all its others at this Online Learning Hub on our website.Support the show

In this episode of The Missions Show, Alex and Scott sit down with Dr. Daniel Shayesteh. Dr. Shayesteh shares his powerful journey from a radical Muslim involved in the Iranian Revolution to a follower of Christ. Raised in a devout Islamic context that viewed Christianity as corrupt, he rose to prominence as a religious figure and political activist under Ayatollah Khomeini. But after witnessing deception and oppression, he became disillusioned, was imprisoned, and narrowly escaped execution before fleeing Iran. In Turkey, Shayesteh's academic studies and unexpected encounters with Christians began to reshape his worldview. Drawn initially by practical needs, he encountered the love, freedom, and relational nature of God in Christianity, ultimately leading to his conversion. His story highlights the transforming power of the gospel and challenges believers to engage Muslims with truth and compassion. Dr. Daniel Shayesteh leads the ministry Exodus From Darkness. Key Topics: Background in Islam and role in the Iranian Revolution Disillusionment with Khomeini's regime Escape from Iran and life in Turkey Comparative study of religions Encounters with Christians and conversion Missions implications for reaching Muslims We recently made some upgrades to our studio and we needed a table that didn't just look good on camera, but could handle the demands of a production studio. That's why we partnered with Oak Park Tables. Oak Park Tables, located right near us in central Pennsylvania, makes hand-crafted legacy furniture that lasts, looks beautiful, and shares our values. If you need a beautiful signature piece of furniture, we highly recommend checking out Oak Park Tables. Find them at oakparktables.com Do you love The Missions Show? Have you been blessed by the show? Then become a Premium Subscriber! Premium Subscribers get access to: Exclusive bonus content A community Signal thread with other listeners and the hosts Invite-only webinars A free gift! Support The Missions Show and sign up to be a Premium Subscriber at missionsshow.com/premium The Missions Show is powered by ABWE. Learn more and take your next step in the Great Commission at abwe.org. Want to ask a question or suggest a topic? Email alex@missionsshow.com.

Dalam episode ini, Nasir Tamara membagikan perspektifnya sebagai pengamat Timur Tengah yang pernah dekat dengan lingkaran kepemimpinan Iran. Ia mengulas bagaimana Iran mampu bertahan, berkembang, dan menjadi kekuatan besar di tengah tekanan global. Dari sisi politik, strategi, hingga budaya, obrolan ini membuka sudut pandang yang jarang dibahas. Insight yang tajam dan pengalaman langsung membuat diskusi ini terasa kuat dan relevan. Simak selengkapnya!

When the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini received Western media in a small French village in 1978, he sat cross-legged in his robes and black turban under an apple tree in the garden. They described him as “on another planet,” with “eyes of steel,” and compared him to an Eastern sage or ascetic guru. French philosopher Michel Foucault, most famous for his penetrating analysis of power, knowledge (and punitive coercion) was there as well. He called the holy man “an old saint in exile” who had no personal political ambitions. Visiting Iran during the revolution, the philosopher was captivated by what he called a new form of “spiritual politics” that he saw as “advancing toward a luminous and distant point.” Foucault dismissed Iranian feminists who warned of the true dangers of an Islamic state being established once the autocratic king—the Shah—had been overthrown. Today, as the reckless and destructive American and Israeli war against the Iranian regime continues, Julian revisits the political history of Iran and the complex regional power struggles between nationalists, monarchists, communists, and Islamists that played out on the Cold War stage. He examines the connections between the controversial 1953 CIA coup d'etat and the hugely popular 1979 Islamic Revolution, which led to the one-party totalitarian theocracy that dominates the Iranian people to this day. How did so many within Iran and in the West, including the most influential radical philosopher of his time, misperceive Khomeini and his ruthless intentions? Show Notes Foucault: What Are The Iranian's Dreaming About Did Foucault Disregard Iranian Feminists? Dr. Taimur Rahman's Red Star Lectures The CIA Coup That Never Was Iran's Decade of Assassinations Bayandor: Iran and The CIA Foucault's Iranian Folly Foucault and the Question of Orientalism The Shah, by Abbas Milani Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Amerika’s militaire prioriteit in de Straat van Hormuz en de Golf heeft een opmerkelijke achtergrond. Het is de erfenis van een president voor wie Iran een obsessie werd. Gebeurtenissen daar overrompelden hem keer op keer. Jimmy Carter zou uiteindelijk ten ondergaan door de impact van die wederwaardigheden op de binnenlandse verhoudingen in de VS. Niettemin is zijn Carter-doctrine tot in deze tijd richtinggevend gebleven. Tot Donald Trump ‘m op zijn kop zette. *** Deze aflevering is mede mogelijk gemaakt met donaties van luisteraars die we hiervoor hartelijk danken. Word ook vriend van de show! Heb je belangstelling om in onze podcast te adverteren of ons te sponsoren? Zend ons een mailtje en wij zoeken contact. *** Carter begon als typische binnenland-president. Maar in de tweede helft van zijn termijn ging zijn wereldwijde rol meer en meer domineren. Ongelukkig symbool daarvan was het oud en nieuw-feest van 1978. Hij hield een tafelrede in het keizerlijk paleis in Teheran en vierde er de wijsheid en het leiderschap van zijn machtige bondgenoot, sjah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi . Hiermee bouwde hij voort op de Nixon-doctrine, maar dat moffelde hij maar liever weg. Toch was het niet zo vreemd wat hij deed. Het Midden-Oosten stond immers voor een grote politieke omwenteling en juist Carter hoopte daardoor eeuwige roem te vergaren. President Anwar el-Sadat van Egypte was de andere, nieuwe en grote bondgenoot van Amerika. Die verbaasde iedereen door in november 1977 naar Jeruzalem te reizen en Israël een vredesregeling aan te bieden. Dat lukte na intensieve onderhandelingen in Camp David, geleid door Carter. De president had zich nu als vredesstichter en beschermer van machtige bondgenoten in een naar vrede smachtend Midden-Oosten geprofileerd. Iran, Saoedi-Arabië, Egypte en Israël keken allemaal naar Carter om die kansen op vrede te realiseren. En wie zou het dan in 1980 het nog wagen tegen zo'n president met zo'n legacy campagne te voeren? Het jaar 1979 ging alles mis. De sjah werd ten val gebracht door massaal verzet tegen zijn repressieve bewind. De Sovjet-Unie manipuleerde een burgeroorlog in Jemen, waardoor de toegang tot het Suezkanaal bedreigd werd. De troebelen in Iran leidden tot een heftige olieprijscrisis, die in Nederland het kabinet Van Agt-Wiegel zwaar in de problemen bracht en in het Verenigd Koninkrijk Margaret Thatcher aan een electorale overwinning hielp. Carter kwam zeer in de problemen doordat zijn beleid van deregulering van olie en benzine van dat voorjaar door die prijsexplosie geruïneerd werd. De Amerikanen gaven hem de schuld dat er plotseling tekorten aan gas en heel dure benzine aan de orde van de dag waren. Hij reageerde daar sober en onmachtig op en verergerde zo de impact op zijn gezag. Ineens zag de enige Republikein die zich al lange tijd gemeld had als tegenkandidaat voor 1980 zijn aanhang enorm groeien. Ronald Reagan leek gelijk te hebben met zijn felle maar eenvoudige kritiek op Carter als een technocraat zonder besef van de economische zorgen van het volk. In de herfst kreeg Carter nog meer klappen voor zijn politieke agenda. In Teheran werd de Amerikaanse ambassade bezet door felle aanhangers van de nieuwe machthebber, ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Een maand later greep het Kremlin in met een coup in Afghanistan. De bondgenoten van Amerika raakten in paniek. Pakistan en de Golfheersers zagen nu én revolutionair Iran én Moskou aan hun grenzen oprukken. Hun vertrouwen in Carter stond op het spel. In Amerika kreeg Carter wel weer meer steun, omdat men in zo'n cisis en bij die gijzeling naar de president keek als de nationale leider. Daarom benutte hij zijn State of the Union van januari 1980 om zijn presidentschap een nieuwe kleur te geven. Hij kwam met de Carter-doctrine. Nooit eerder noemde een president de Straat van Hormuz in zo'n speech. Nooit eerder werd de vrije doorgang daarvan als nationaal belang van Amerika bestempeld – en de daarbij behorende plicht de Golfstaten te beschermen. Maar opnieuw werd Carter vanuit Iran overrompeld. Een poging de gijzelaars met boots on the ground te bevrijden mislukte. Saddam Hoessein van Irak begon een oorlog tegen het bewind van Khomeini. In plaats van stabilisatie kwam er aan de Golf nog meer onrust en geweld. Jimmy Carter verloor in november met enorme cijfers van Reagan. Vooral door diens uitgekiende campagne tegen het economisch beleid van de president. De nobele vredesdromen van de vrome pindaboer bleven buiten beeld. De heersers aan de Golf zetten zware druk op Washington om de Carter-doctrine niet te laten vallen. Reagan onderstreepte dat de bescherming van Saoedi-Arabië tegen gevaren van buiten en van binnen de regio tot dat nationaal belang behoorde. Die strategie leidde onder George Bush senior tot de Golfoorlog tegen Irak. Carters fundamentele besluit over de Straat van Hormuz zou het Amerikaanse beleid blijven domineren. Tot Trump, die van een defensief principe een agressief beginsel maakte. *** 574 – Hormuz: eeuwenoud brandpunt van de wereld 515 – De heftige strijd tussen Israël en Iran 315 - Vrouw, leven, vrijheid: oorzaken en achtergronden van het straatprotest in Iran. En: de rijke Perzische cultuur 76 - Rudi Vranckx: Het Midden-Oosten is het Vietnam van onze tijd 377 - Golda Meïr, Israël, triomf en tragiek 510 - Brezjnev, Poetin en hun rampzalige oorlog. Lessen voor nu uit 1980 484 - Hoe Trump chaos veroorzaakt en de Europeanen in elkaars armen drijft 447 - Als Trump wint staat Europa er alleen voor 513 – Tanks rollen door Washington DC, 250 jaar US Army 567 - De geschiedenis beukt op Europa's deur. Caroline de Gruyter over zondagskinderen in een ruige wereld 138 - In het voetspoor van Amerikaanse presidenten (met oa: Jimmy Carter op fietsvakantie in Nederland) *** Tijdlijn 00:00:00 – Deel 1 00:30:43 – deel 2 00:59:17 – Deel 3 01:17:21 – Patrick Nederkoorn 01:28:21 – EindeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Subscribe now to listen to the entire 22-minute episode (or preview 7 minutes). President Donald Trump is not the first president to consider seizing Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf. Forty-six years ago, Jimmy Carter and his national security team mulled deploying troops to take the oil-critical island to compel Iran's revolutionary government to free more than 50 Americans held hostage at the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Today, the idea behind any such attack would be to force open the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran closed to most tanker traffic after the U.S. and Israel started bombing on Feb. 28. In this episode, historian Jeremi Suri reflects on Carter's bind and the potentially disastrous consequences if Trump deploys boots on the ground. Jeremi Suri teaches at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He cohosts 'This is Democracy' podcast and co-writes the Democracy of Hope newsletter. Subscribe: www.historyasithappens.com

You just never know what's gonna come out of Jimmy Failla's mouth! It's episode #910 of The ANEZ SEZ podcast...

Em 1979, o mundo assistiu atônito a uma transformação radical: uma monarquia milenar e em acelerado processo de ocidentalização foi derrubada por uma revolução liderada por clérigos. No centro dessa mudança estava Ruhollah Khomeini, um homem que ostentava o título de Aiatolá. Mas o que esse termo realmente significa? Neste vídeo, mergulhamos na complexa estrutura do Islã Xiita para explicar a hierarquia do sagrado. Você entenderá a diferença entre um líder religioso comum e um Aiatolá — o "Signo de Deus" — e como décadas de estudo em seminários teológicos se transformam na capacidade jurídica de interpretar a vontade divina. Exploramos a ascensão de Khomeini, o exílio, a queda do Xá Reza Pahlavi e a implementação da "Tutela do Jurista", o sistema que colocou o clero acima das instituições democráticas. Além disso, analisamos como essa autoridade transcende fronteiras, influenciando grupos como Hezbollah e Hamas, e moldando o chamado "Eixo de Resistência" contra o Ocidente.

Hello Interactors,This one attempts to balance the privilege of cold analytical escapism with the gruesome rehumanization of past, present, and future atrocities. I end up trying to make sense of the political psychology that leads to such jubilant violence. While it can be understood, its the very intelligibility that makes it so intolerable. PRESSURE, POWER, IMPUNITYIn 1965, as my umbilical cord was being severed in Iowa, U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were cutting the ears off innocent dead Vietnamese children. And their parents. The shriveling cartilage served as “proof” they were killed. They'd string them into necklaces or hoard them in “ear bags” as trophies. Their commanders demanded a tally. This morbid ritual, born from the military's obsession with numeric “success” metrics amid “search and destroy” orders, exposed not just individual moral depravity but a systemic disregard for human life.Such barbarity serves as just another example of America's enduring pattern of defying Geneva Conventions on civilian protections, proportionality, and prohibited weapons. These atrocities are wrapped in bureaucratic euphemisms like “collateral damage”; all to evade accountability and perpetuate unchecked imperial violence.When barbarity returned like a boomerang to hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, the term “collateral damage” was absent. But “search and destroy” came back. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force authorizes the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” These expanded interpretations of and the idea of a “continuing, imminent threat” led to doctrines that allowed drones and bombs to be used as sanctioned forms of force across borders. Targeted killings are domestic justifications that override attempts at global legal constraints.As my own kids were being born in 2004, U.S. drones were flying across the skies over Afghanistan, Yemen, and beyond, vaporizing wedding parties, schools, and outdoor markets, shredding innocent men, women, and children into mangled flesh mixed with bone fragments. These ‘Hellfire missiles' were sold to the public as possessing surgical precision. These “precision” killings, justified as “targeted” under the euphemism of “signature strikes,” leave behind charred craters, orphaned survivors screaming amid the rubble, and “double taps” that slaughter first responders rushing to the scene. And here again the body-count calculus of modern warfare dehumanizes the dead as mere “collateral” in an endless cycle of remote-control atrocity.However, unlike in Vietnam, groups controlling casualty numbers and combatant definitions created incentives to undercount civilian deaths to bolster the claims of legal precision. Because such reasoning was long classified, external scrutiny relied on leaks and sporadic court‑ordered disclosures.Obama deployed 10 times more drones than Bush. They all occurred in legal grey zones. They were justified through broad claims of self‑defense against “imminent threats” from non‑state actors operating in countries not formally at war with the United States. Legal assessments have found that many attacks did not meet the threshold of an “armed conflict” — meaning strikes there should have been constrained by international human‑rights law — thus violating requirements of necessity, last resort, and proportionality.Recent incidents, like the Iranian Khamenei killing, further expose gaps between law and practice. In the case of the 2020 killing of Iranian General Soleimani, scholars argue that the official rationale failed to meet the UN Charter's Article 51 requirement of an actual armed attack. Since then, the U.S. and its allies have instead advanced an even more squishy view of “imminence” to justify anticipatory defense against imagined potential threats. Critics say these interpretations transform what was intended to be a narrow exception into a license for routine, preemptive killing.The U.S. government is seemingly unequaled in its interpretive flexibility of law. Rather than submitting to adjudication, they practice “norm‑shaping” noncompliance. This involves acting first, then using rhetoric and diplomatic influence to normalize or justify those actions. Research on the UN Security Council demonstrates how veto rights, opaque bargaining, and diluted resolutions enable permanent members to escape condemnation while weaker states are disciplined. In effect, international law becomes a language powerful states can manage, not a rulebook to obey.U.S. operations in Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and elsewhere are often positioned as short-term “strikes” meant to sustain “rules-based order.” But the U.S. doesn't have to behave orderly. Moreover, these actions show a longstanding system where the law on force sustains hegemony. Though the justifications shift — from humanitarian intervention in Kosovo and WMD prevention in Iraq to “responsibility to protect” in Libya or preemption against terrorists or nuclear programs in Iran — the underlying logic is the same. You can see why the U.S. systemically refuses to ratify the 1998 Rome Statute. This treaty established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and grants it jurisdiction over the most serious international crimes — genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression — committed by nationals of states parties or on their territory. It was created after ad hoc tribunals like as those in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to ensure accountability. But by remaining outside the Rome Statute (while accepting some of its principles in domestic law), the United States — along with Israel, Russia, and Sudan — avoids the ICC's adjudicative authority over its own personnel and operations. The U.S. (and three other states) has essentially insulated its use of force from external legal accountability.This suggests a deeper political culture where U.S. force is assumed to be protective and exceptional. When national security conflicts with legal limits, they are negotiable, and most Americans accept this as normal.The stability of these justifications over time suggests a shared worldview and America's place in it. It's a settler-imperial, racialized imagination of place that makes some regions dangerous and disorderly, while viewing U.S. power as the necessary instrument for security and progress.STRUCTURES OF SPATIAL SUPPRESSIONTo get a better grasp of how legal gray areas become permanent features of the geopolitical landscape, we need to look beyond the law and explore the spatial imaginaries that come before it. The “lawless power” I describe is not merely a failure of international oversight; it is the modern expression of a settler-imperial logic that has long used the map as a weapon. This logic functions through what historian Patrick Wolfe termed a “logic of elimination”: a systemic drive to clear space for a dominant order by rendering the original inhabitants of that space invisible, irrelevant, or “out of place”. The bridge between the “body-count calculus” of Vietnam and the “Hellfire missiles” of today lies in the historical practice of declaring territory terra nullius — land belonging to no one. By portraying Indigenous lands as “empty” or “underused,” settler-colonial legal fictions justified removal and massacre as “regrettable but necessary” steps toward progress. This spatial erasure serves as the architectural blueprint for modern drone warfare. Just as 19th-century maps rendered Native peoples “spatially absent” to normalize dominion, modern military doctrines use “bureaucratic euphemisms” to turn vibrant communities into “trouble spots” and “problem-spaces” for management.When a “signature strike” occurs, the target is not a legal subject but a “pattern of life”. This is the ultimate form of algorithmic governance, where the individual is erased by the data-point before the missile is even fired. By defining specific regions as inherently “disorderly,” the U.S. creates domestic justifications that override attempts at global legal constraints. In this framework, regions treated as a modern “frontier” — a zone where ordinary rules of necessity and proportionality are “negotiable”.This “geometry of dominion” is not exclusive to foreign policy; it is mirrored in the way U.S. power organizes its own domestic heartland. George Lipsitz's concept of the “white spatial imaginary” explains how space is arranged to prioritize the exclusion and property rights of the affluent while subjecting communities of color to displacement and surveillance. We see this in the physical “concrete” of urban planning:* Highway Infrastructure: Interstate routes were systematically redirected to demolish poor white, Black, and brown communities, ensuring affluent white residents could “get home faster”.* Nuisance Abatement: In cities like Los Angeles, nuisance laws are used to “preemptively reclaim” areas through speculative policing and banishment, enacting a fantasy of dominion over racialized bodies.* Racialized Sorting: The world is sorted into “secure cores” and “unruly peripheries,” a dynamic that scales from the “redlined” neighborhood to the “sanctioned zone” or “reservation”.In both the urban grid and the global borderland, the goal is this: to produce order for some while underwriting “legally malleable violence” on “others”. The “collateral damage” of an Afghan, Palestinian, or Iranian village is the international equivalent of the “nuisance” of a demolished neighborhood. Both are viewed through an imperial lens that deems certain lives “disposable” for the sake of a broader, racialized security. This spatial sorting creates the infrastructure of impunity. When a region is mapped as a “zone of exception,” the violence committed there ceases to feel like a violation; it feels like “maintenance” of a “rules-based order”. This explains why the U.S. can “practice ‘norm-shaping' noncompliance,” acting first and using diplomatic influence to “normalize” the act afterward. The settler-imperial imagination flattens distant worlds into “mappable, legally alienable parcels” of land management. Whether it is the “search and destroy” missions of the 1960s or the “precision” killings of the 2020s, the underlying logic is to secure the “place” of the empire, the “place” of the other must be erased.Once the world is spatially divided into “ordered property” and “disorderly wards,” it becomes easy for the citizens of the empire to grow comfortable with the authoritarian's embrace. Dispossessions become necessary to sustain a system where the “other” is already spatially and legally absent. Their suffering barely registers as a tragedy. It's just the cost of a “righteous” mission.PROPHETS OF POLITICAL POWERSpatial erasures don't just reorganize the land; they reorganize the human psyche. When a society “sees like an empire,” it adopts a specific cognitive map that determines who belongs and whose lives are disposable. This “architecture of absence” is maintained by a set of psychological formations that transform the fear of a “disorderly” world into a mandate for righteous violence.Political psychology shows how when people experience the world as dangerous and uncertain, they become more attracted to strong leaders, rigid hierarchies, and harsh treatment of “threatening” others. This cluster of attitudes is the essence of authoritarianism. It is not just a set of ideas but a way of managing fear and uncertainty. Authoritarianism is especially potent when it fuses with nationalism and religion. Then it becomes “messianic authoritarianism”: the sense that “our” nation or faith community has a special mission in history, is under constant attack, and must therefore be defended at all costs, even by breaking ordinary rules. In this mindset, law and institutions are not neutral constraints; they are either tools for the mission or obstacles to be overridden.Research on authoritarianism finds a common psychological “core” across left and right: a desire for enforced conformity, punishment of deviants, and centralized control, particularly when people believe they live in a dangerous world.(14) When this core is wrapped in national or religious stories of chosen-ness and persecution, it becomes a powerful justification for violence and impunity. Leaders who promise order, purity, and redemption can present extreme measures as necessary acts of protection.Over time it builds a collective narcissism: the belief that “our” group is great but unfairly unrecognized and disrespected by others. This is different from healthy hometown pride. It is fragile, defensive, and quick to see insults everywhere. Studies show that collective narcissism predicts hostility toward out‑groups, support for aggressive policies, conspiratorial thinking, and backing for populist and authoritarian leaders. People who feel their group's greatness is denied are more willing to tolerate or endorse harm, so long as it is framed as restoring respect and status.In religious Zionism, White Christian nationalism, and Khomeinist Shi‘ism, these dynamics are visible through different meanings. Religious Zionist currents interpret control of the land as a non‑negotiable step in a divine redemption process, making territorial compromise feel like a betrayal of a given god's plan, not just a political choice. Christian Zionist and White Christian nationalist discourses in the United States have portrayed the nation as founded by a Christian god, under siege by secular and racial “others,” and uniquely tasked with defending Israel and Christian civilization. Leaders like Donald Trump have been cast as “instruments of god” because of specific policies (for example, on Israel or Iran), even when their personal conduct contradicts ordinary religious standards. The mission outweighs the man. Khomeini's project in 1979 Iran framed the revolution as rescuing Islam from corruption at home and humiliation abroad, casting the new state as the vanguard of an oppressed community engaged in permanent struggle. Even as his regime oppressed…and still does.(16)Across these cases, the same psychological building blocks appear:A world narrated as dangerous and full of enemies.A group identity that is both superior and victimized (“we are great, but unrecognized and under attack”).A leader who claims to embody the group and its destiny.A willingness to override normal legal and moral limits in the name of survival and redemption.Political psychology also clarifies how these movements treat opponents. When group identity becomes sacred and narcissistic, critics inside the group are labeled traitors, and external critics are portrayed as existential threats. Research shows that collective narcissism and authoritarianism are linked to dehumanization of out‑groups and even justification of political violence; seeing others as less than fully human makes it easier to ignore or excuse their suffering.(15) This helps sustain the kinds of selective empathy and invisible harms I've described. Some deaths are tragedies, others are regrettable but necessary, and others barely register at all.These patterns are not confined to a few extremists. Everyday citizens can be drawn in because messianic authoritarianism offers psychological rewards. In times of rapid change, economic insecurity, or cultural displacement, people often experience self‑uncertainty: a shaky sense of who they are and where they belong. Joining a tightly defined, morally exalted group — with clear enemies and a clear mission — can resolve that uncertainty. Research on uncertainty and extremism shows that people in this state are especially attracted to groups and leaders that provide simple, absolutist answers and sharply draw the line between “us” and “them”.(14) Messianic narratives deliver exactly that.Once in place, these psychological formations feed directly into infrastructures of impunity. If one believes the nation is uniquely chosen yet unfairly treated, international law and human rights norms can be reimagined as biased constraints imposed by hostile outsiders, rather than shared rules. If one experiences politics as a siege, then surveillance, occupation, or lethal force are not lawless; they are “defensive” acts that outsiders cannot judge. Authoritarian dispositions, collective narcissism, and uncertainty‑driven group identification supply the emotional energy that keeps unequal legal arrangements and racialized security practices politically acceptable.We're living in a world now where legal impunity and structural violence are not sustained only by special interests and institutions. They are also held up by recurring psychological patterns rooted in fear of danger, longing for certainty, wounded pride, and the seductions of belonging to a “chosen” community. Messianic authoritarian projects in Israel, the United States, and Iran differ in theology and history, but they draw on similar psychological wells to make extraordinary violence feel not just permissible, but righteous.Throughout history those claiming victory have found that while they may be able to occupy a territory, they cannot “win” against a people who remain connected to it. The presence of 575 Indigenous nations (and 1200 tribes and villages) with government-to-government relations with the U.S. is testimony. Topophilia is a heavy weight. Those killed aren't coming back, but those who remain or have been displaced do. In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, “No one won the last war, and no one will win the next war.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

France's balancing act in the Middle East war. Convincing women to run in France's local elections. And the French village where Iran's first supreme leader spent his last months in exile. France has deployed navy vessels to the Mediterranean and Red Sea to protect countries attacked by Iran in retaliation for strikes by the United States and Israel. It says it is staying out of the war, maintaining a "strictly defensive" stance to support its allies and protect its interests in the region. Defence expert Guillaume Lagane, who teaches international relations at Sciences Po Paris, examines France's position and the delicate balancing act it is pursuing. (Listen @2'45'') France heads to the polls on 15 and 22 March to elect its mayors and town councillors. We already know that half of the councillors will be women, after a 2025 law imposed gender-balanced lists in every one of France's nearly 35,000 communes. Putting forward an equal number of male and female candidates can be challenging in a village like Fresnes-lès-Montauban in northern France, where non-profit Elles Aussi is helping encourage women to run. Julia Mouzon, founder of the Elues Locales network that supports and promotes women in politics, talks about the collective achievement of getting gender parity on electoral lists – and why there are still so few female mayors. (Listen @18'25'') The small town in France where Iran's first supreme leader, Ruhollah Khomeini, spent his last months in exile, preparing his return to Iran at the height of the 1979 revolution. (Listen @12'35'') Episode mixed by Cecile Pompeani and Arthur Devillers. Spotlight on France is a podcast from Radio France International. Find us on rfienglish.com, Apple podcasts (link here), Spotify (link here) or your favourite podcast app (pod.link/1573769878).

Ray Takeyh, senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of The Last Shah: America, Iran, and the Fall of the Pahlavi Dynasty, joins the show to talk about the origins, evolution, and possible future of the Islamic Republic of Iran. What forces produced the 1979 revolution, and how did it reshape Iran's political and religious order? What are the psychological and sociological impacts of this revolution? How have the regime's leaders interpreted and sustained the revolutionary project, and what have the major challenges been? As Iran enters a new and uncertain phase under Mojtaba Khamenei, can the Islamic Republic endure, or is there a potential for future revolution in Iran? ▪️ Times 02:07 Living through the Islamic Revolution 04:12 A diverse Iran      05:50 How did the revolution succeed?  14:06 Khomeini & Khamenei 20:46 Too cautious  22:35 Dynastic succession   34:00 Iran vs. Venezuela 38:35 Regime resiliency  44:30 Beginning of the end   50:14 Threshold states Follow along on Instagram, X @schoolofwarpod, and YouTube @SchoolofWarPodcast Find more content on our School of War Substack

Depuis sa résidence de Neauphle-le-Château, l'Ayatollah Khomeini prépare l'un des plus grands bouleversements du XXᵉ siècle. À son retour en Iran, en 1979, il met un terme au régime du Shah et fonde la République islamique. Visionnaire pour les uns, despote pour les autres, il érige le chiisme en doctrine d'État. Revivez les coulisses de cette révolution spirituelle et politique, née dans le silence de l'exil. Crédits : Lorànt Deutsch, Bruno Calvès.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Tara breaks down the latest threats surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, including claims about Iranian mine-laying vessels and sleeper cells. She challenges mainstream media narratives, questions leadership in Iran, and highlights what she calls propaganda reporting that misleads the public. From U.S. military strikes to alleged Iranian plans, Tara explains why some headlines don't align with the facts and why verification matters. She also dives into how misinformation spreads and the role of AI in monitoring global events. SEGMENT SUMMARY: Tara opens with coverage of the Strait of Hormuz, emphasizing U.S. military action against sixteen Iranian mine-laying vessels. She notes the importance of the strait, which channels 20% of global oil flows, including a large portion of China's imports. She critiques media reports claiming Iran might mine the strait, arguing that all such vessels have already been destroyed and the intelligence to monitor the area is unmatched. Tara draws parallels to past misinformation, like the repeated “deaths” of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, to illustrate the difficulty of verifying claims in conflict zones. The discussion turns to Iran's leadership, questioning the reported activities of Khomeini's son and dismissing many news claims as propaganda. Tara emphasizes that without verifiable proof of life, reports about leadership changes and threats should be treated with skepticism. Tara also touches on historical U.S. military actions in the Middle East, including Libya, and underscores the importance of credible intelligence and monitoring. She stresses that mainstream media, including major outlets, have often repeated unverified claims, amplifying misinformation. The segment concludes with commentary on media narratives around Trump's Iran strategy, claiming that military objectives have been met successfully despite negative press. Tara warns listeners to critically evaluate reports, especially those predicting threats that cannot be realistically executed. KEY TOPICS: U.S. military strikes on Iranian mine-laying vessels Strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz Media coverage of Iran and conflict reporting Verification challenges in conflict zones Iranian leadership and propaganda narratives Role of AI in monitoring global events Misinformation about military threats and political agendas SOCIAL MEDIA POST:

Savage discusses "Trump's war," questioning when it will end and warning it is the biggest U.S. military operation since the 2003 Iraq invasion. He explains that Americans hate war and that prolonged conflict could shatter the global economy, destabilize the Middle East, and doom Republicans in the midterms. He warns about the consequences from oil shocks, Russian involvement, potential escalation into a world war, and domestic terror. He then discusses Iran's Persian history before it was seized by radical Islam. He points to President Jimmy Carter and U.S. liberals for the 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah and empowered Khomeini. He encourages listeners to pray for peace and the President as he leads in this uncertain conflict. 

This week we talk about Khamenei, Trump, and Netanyahu.We also discuss Venezuela, Cuba, and cartels.Recommended Book: Plagues upon the Earth by Kyle HarperTranscriptAli Hosseini Khamenei was an opposition politician in the lead-up to the Iranian Revolution that, in 1979, resulted in the overthrow of the Shah—the country's generally Western government-approved royal leader—and installed the Islamic Republic, an extremely conservative Shia government that took the reins of Iran following the Shah's toppling.Khamenei was Iran's third president, post-Shah, and he was president during the Iran-Iraq War from 1981-1989, during which the Supreme Leader of Iran, the head of the country, Ruhollah Khomeini sought the overthrow of then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Khomeini died the same year the war ended, 1989, and Khamenei was elected to the role of Supreme Leader by the country's Assembly of Experts, which is responsible for determining such roles.The new Supreme Leader Khamenei was reportedly initially concerned that he wasn't suitable for the role, as his predecessor was a Grand Ayatollah of the faith, while he was just a mid-rank cleric, but the constitution of Iran was amended so that higher religious office was no longer required in a Supreme Leader, and in short order Khamenei moved to expound upon Iran's non-military nuclear program, to expand the use and reach of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in-country and throughout the region, and he doubled-down on supporting regional proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza, incorporating them into the so-called Axis of Resistance that stands against Western interests in the region—the specifics of which have varied over the decades, but which currently includes the aforementioned Hezbollah and Houthis, alongside smaller groups in neighboring countries, like Shiite militias in Bahrain, and forces that operate in other regional spheres of influence, like North Korea, Venezuela, and at times, portions of the Syrian government.Khamenei also reinforced the Iranian government's power over pretty much every aspect of state function, disempowering political opponents, cracking down on anyone who doesn't toe a very conservative extremist line—women showing their hair in public, for instance, have been black-bagged and sometimes killed while in custody—and thoroughly entangled the functions of state with the Iranian military, consolidating essentially all power under his office, Supreme Leader, while violently cracking down on anyone who opposed his doing whatever he pleased, as was the case with a wave of late-2025, early 2026 protests across the country, during which Iranian government forces massacred civilians, killing somewhere between 3,000 and 35,000 people, depending on whose numbers you believe.What I'd like to talk about today is a new war with Iran, kicked off by attacks on the country from Israel and the United States that led with the killing of Khamenei and a bunch of his higher-up officers, how this conflict is spreading across the region and concerns about that spreading, and what might happen next.—On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched a wave of joint air attacks against Iran, hitting mostly military and government sites across the country. One of the targets was Khamenei's compound, and his presence there, above-ground, which was unusual for him, as he spent most of his time deep underground in difficult-to-hit bunkers, alongside a bunch of government and military higher-ups, may have been the rationale for launching all of these attacks on that day, as the attackers were able to kill him and five other top-level Iranian leaders, who he was meeting with, at the same time.This wave of attacks followed the largest military buildup of US forces in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq back in 2003, and while military and government targets were prioritized, that initial wave also demolished a lot of civilian structures, including schools, hospitals, and the Grand Bazaar in Tehran, leading to a whole lot of civilian casualties and fatalities, as well.In response, Iran launched hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones at Israel, and at US bases throughout the region—these bases located in otherwise uninvolved countries, including Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Iranian missiles and drones also hit non-military targets, and in some cases maybe accidentally hit civilian infrastructure, in Azerbaijan, and Oman, alongside a British military base on the island of Cyprus.The Iranian president apologized in early March for his country's lashing out at pretty much everyone, saying that there were miscommunications within the Iranian military, and that Iran wouldn't hit anyone else, including countries with US bases, so long as US attacks didn't originate from those bases.Despite that apology, though, Iranian missiles and drones continued to land in many of those neighboring countries following his remarks, raising questions about communications and control within the now-decapitated Iranian military.This new conflict follows long-simmering tensions between Iran and Israel—the former of which has said it will someday wipe the latter from the face of the Earth, considering its existence an abomination—and long-simmering tensions related to Iran's nuclear program, which the government has continuously said is just for civilian, energy purposes, but which pretty much everyone suspects, with a fair bit of evidence, is, in parallel, also a weapons program.Iran's influence throughout the region has been truncated in recent years, due to a sequence of successes by the Israeli military and intelligence services, which allowed them to hobble or nearly wipe out traditional Iranian proxy forces like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, which have collectively surrounded and menaced Israel for decades.Those menacing forces more or less handled, Israel has become more aggressive in its confrontations with Iran, exchanging large air attacks several times over the past handful of years, and the US under Trump's second term continues to see Iran as the main opposition to their efforts to build a US-aligned counterbalance against Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East, with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and increasingly entities like Qatar and the UAE playing ball with the West, while Iran and its allies stand firm against the West.Trump has regularly threatened to act in Iran, usually waiting for the Iranian government to do something really bad, like that recent massacre of civilians following those large anti-government protests in late-2025, early 2026, and that to some degree has served as justification for the massing of US military assets in the region, leading up to this attack.Now that the attack has launched, a new war triggered, the question is how big it will get and how long it will last.For the moment, it looks like Iran's government and military is very much on the back foot, a lot of their assets taken out in that initial wave, and they're still scrambling to put someone in charge to replace Khamenei and those other higher-ups who were assassinated at the outset of this war—that'll likely change soon, maybe even before this episode goes live. But whomever takes the reins will have quite the task ahead of them, probably—according to many analysts, at least—aiming to just hold out until the US runs out of ammunition, which is expected to happen within a week or so, at which point Iran can launch surgical attacks, aiming to make this war too expensive, in terms of money and US lives, for the Trump administration to continue investing in, as money and lives are especially expensive in an election year, which 2026 is. So the idea is to grind the US down until it makes more political sense for Trump to just declare victory and leave, rather than allowing this to become a Vietnam or Afghanistan situation for his administration.It's also generally expected that when the US pulls out, Israel probably will too, as they've already made their point, tallied a bunch of victories, and set Iran back in a lot of ways; they could walk away whenever they like and say they won. And Iran would probably be incentivized to, at that point, avoid doing anything that would lead to more punishment, though they would almost certainly immediately begin rebuilding the same exact centralized, militarized infrastructure that was damaged, the only difference being they would have someone else on top, as the Supreme Leader. Relations could be even worse moving forward, but it would probably be at least a few years before Iran could do anything too significant to their regional enemies, which I guess if you're Israel does, in fact, represent a win.But considering the unlikelihood of permanent change in Iran, the big question here, in the minds of many, is what this war, this attack, is even for.For Israel, the main purpose of any attack against Iran is to weaken or destroy an enemy that has made no secret about wanting to weaken and destroy them. For the US, though, and the Trump administration more specifically, the point of all this isn't as clear.Some contend that this is another effort to steal attention and headlines from the increasingly horrifying revelations coming out of the investigation into the Epstein files, which seem to indicate Trump himself was involved in all sorts of horrible, pedophilic sexual assault activities with the late human-trafficker.Some suspect that the apparent victory in grabbing former Venezuelan president Maduro from his own country and whisking him away to the US without suffering any US casualties has emboldened Trump, and that he's going to use the time he's got to take out anyone he doesn't like, and may even specifically target authoritarian leaders who will not be missed—who oppress and kill their own people—because then it's difficult for his political opponents to call him out on these efforts.Most Venezuelans are happy to see Maduro gone, and many Iranians celebrated when Khamenei was assassinated. Trump has publicly stated that he intends to go after Cuba, next, and continues to suggest he wants a war of sorts with Mexican and south and central American cartels, which follows this same pattern of demonstrating a muscular, aggressive, militarized United States doing whatever it wants, even to the point of kidnapping or assassinating foreign leaders, but doing so in a way that is difficult to argue against, because the leaders and other forces being taken out are so horrible, at times to the point of being monstrous, that these acts, as illegal as they are according to internal laws, can still seem very justified, through some lenses.Still others have said they believe this is purely an Israeli op, and the US under Trump is just helping out one of Trump's buddies, Israel's Netanyahu, who wants to keep his country embroiled in war in order to avoid being charged for corruption.The real rationale could be a combination of these and other considerations, but the threat here, regionally, is real, especially if Iran continues to lash out at its neighbors.This part of the world is renowned for its fuel reserves and exports, and every time there's a Middle Eastern conflict, energy prices rise, globally, and other nations that produce such exports, like Russia, benefit financially because they can charge more for their oil and gas for a while—gas prices in the US have already increased by 14% over the past week as a result of the conflict—and those increases also then the raises the price of all sorts of other goods, spiking inflation.Another huge concern here, though, is that this part of the world is highly reliant on the desalination of water just to survive; massive desalination plants, most located along the coast, where they are very exposed to military threats, are at risk if Iran and Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or Oman start firing at each other in earnest.About 90% of Kuwait's drinking water comes from these sorts of plants, and about 86% of Oman's and 70% of Saudi Arabia's do, as well.Earlier in this war, a US strike damaged an Iranian desalination plant, and the Iranian foreign minister made a not-so-veiled threat against such plants in neighboring countries, saying the US set the precedent of attacking such infrastructure, not them.Worth noting here, too, is that many desalination plants are attached to power stations, located within the same facility, so attacks on power infrastructure, which are already common in any conflict, could also lead to more damaged desalination plants, all of which could in turn create massive humanitarian crises, as people living in some of the hottest, driest parts of the world find themselves, in the millions, without drinkable water.The potential for a spiraling humanitarian disaster increases with each passing day, then, which would seem to increase the likelihood that someone will stop, declare victory, and move on to the next conflict. But there's always the chance the one or more of the involved forces will clamp down and decide that it's in their best interest to keep things going as long as possible, instead—and in this case, it would likely be Iran playing that role, locking the US and Israel and their allies into a grinding, long-term conflict that no one would actually win.Show Noteshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_Resistancehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_state_funeral_of_Ruhollah_Khomeinihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacreshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khameneihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Ali_Khameneihttps://www.eurasiareview.com/08032026-strikes-continue-despite-iranian-presidents-apology/https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-rejects-settling-iran-war-raises-prospect-killing-all-its-potential-2026-03-08/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/irans-retaliation-began-us-officials-scrambled-arrange-evacuations-2026-03-07/https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/mapping-crisis-iran-visual-explainer-2026-03-06/https://apnews.com/live/iran-war-israel-trump-03-08-2026https://apnews.com/article/iran-israel-us-march-8-2026-f0b20dbffaea9351ae1e54183ffe53ffhttps://apnews.com/article/iran-war-desalination-water-oil-middle-east-12b23f2fa26ed5c4a10f80c4077e61cehttps://apnews.com/video/trump-says-us-will-turn-attention-to-cuba-after-war-with-iran-91c3f239c18349fdb409f901c50b7e71https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/03/08/world/iran-war-trump-israel-lebanonhttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/08/us/politics/trump-russia-ukraine-iran-war.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/07/us/politics/iran-war-first-week.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/03/08/opinion/iran-war-ayatollah.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

Iran has a new Supreme Leader, the hardline son of Khomeini, the previous leader who was killed in the latest strikes from the US and Israel. Amos Guiora, Professor of Law at the University of Utah SJ Quinney College of Law and an expert in counterterrorism, international law and global politics, shares his insights on what this move means and what comes next.

This week on the Mark Levin Show, President Trump will go down as one of the greatest President's in history. He strengthened the border, the military, NATO, and is protecting us from the Iranian regime. The Marxists, Islamists and neo-fascists, like Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson, are the enemies from within. They undermine Trump, the military, and our national alliances. Those who mock Israel's rhetoric of liberation either do not know or choose to ignore: Persians are not Arabs. There's an enemy within the United States - Congressional Democrats, Marxists, Islamists, and figures like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Steve Bannon, and others. They are undermining a spectacular, ongoing military peace mission, Operation Epic Fury, against an Islamist Nazi regime in Iran. The operation has achieved rapid success in just five days, including the death of Khomeini, destruction of Iran's leadership, air force, and navy, and the elimination of a key figure who plotted an assassination attempt against President Trump. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

جمهوری اسلامی ایران، آسیب شناسی یک انقلابThe 1979 Iranian Revolution and the emergenceof the Islamic Republic are best understood not as a simple regime change, but as the outcome of a deep “civilisational identity crisis” and a widening gap between state and society in twentieth‑century Iran. Rapid, top‑downmodernisation under the Pahlavi monarchy – funded by oil, driven by urbanisation and higher education, and enforced by an expanding security apparatus – created new social groups and expectations without opening up meaningful channels of political participation. The 1953 coup and the Shah's security dependence on the United States structurally damaged the monarchy's legitimacy and inscribed a sense of foreign interference and humiliation into Iran's political memory. Against this background, intellectual currents such as Jalal Al‑e Ahmad's “Westoxification” and Ali Shariati's revolutionary Islam fused religious identity, social anger and anti‑imperialist sentiment into a shared language of protest. Dense clerical and mosque networks, amplified by Khomeini's taped sermons and media exposure from exile, provided the organisational infrastructure that allowed Islamists to dominate and then appropriate the revolution. The new constitution institutionalised a dual system, combining republican institutions with the doctrine of velayat‑e faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist). This produced a hybrid order in which elected bodies operate under the shadow of powerful unelected institutions, enabling a “parallel state”, blurred accountability, and a built‑in tendency to deflect blame. Pathologically, the Islamic Republic behaves less like a normal consolidated state and more like a permanent revolutionary project that needs ongoing crisis and external enemies to sustain its identity. Meanwhile, Iranian society has become more urban, educated and culturally secular, making the structural conflict between a revolutionary theocratic state and a modern, plural society the central tension shaping Iran's politicalfuture.انقلاب ۱۳۵۷ و پیدایش جمهوری اسلامی را نمی‌توان فقط یک تغییر حکومت دانست، بلکه باید آن را نتیجه یک «بحران هویت تمدنی» و شکاف عمیق میان دولت و جامعه در ایران قرن بیستم دید. این انقلاب در بستری شکل گرفت که در آن، مدرنیزاسیون شتابان و آمرانه حکومتپهلوی – همراه با درآمدهای نفتی، شهرنشینی، گسترش آموزش عالی و گسترش دستگاه امنیتی – بدون گشودن فضای سیاسی و ایجاد نهادهای پایدار نمایندگی، طبقه متوسط جدید و توده‌های شهری را بدون صدای سیاسی رها کرد. کودتای ۱۳۳۲ و وابستگی امنیتی شاه به آمریکا مشروعیت حکومت را از همان ابتدا مخدوش کرد و تجربه تحقیر و مداخله خارجی را در حافظه جمعی و در ناخودآگاه سیاسی ایرانیان نشاند. در این بستر، گفتمان‌هایی مانند «غرب‌زدگی» جلال آل‌احمد و اسلام انقلابی علی شریعتی، ترکیبی از هویت دینی، خشم طبقاتی و احساس وابستگی به غرب را به زبان مشترک اعتراض تبدیل کردند. شبکه‌های مساجد، روحانیت و نوارهای سخنرانی خمینی، زیرساخت سازمانی بسیج را فراهم آوردند و به اسلام‌گرایان امکان دادند انقلاب را پس از پیروزی قبضه کنند. قانون اساسی جدید با ترکیب جمهوریت و ولایت فقیه، ساختاری دوگانه ایجاد کرد: نهادهای انتخابی در کنار نهادهای انتصابی قدرتمند. این دوگانگی به پیدایش «دولت موازی»، مسئولیت‌گریزی ساختاری و نیاز مزمن نظام به بحران و دشمن خارجی انجامید. جمهوری اسلامی بیش از آن‌که از کارآمدی و رفاه مشروعیت بگیرد، خود را «انقلابی دائمی» تعریف کرده و برای حفظ هویت خود به بازتولید تنش داخلی و خارجی نیاز دارد. در مقابل، جامعه ایران به‌تدریج سکولارتر، متکثرتر و مدرن‌تر شده و شکاف میان جامعه و رژیم به مهم‌ترین محور آینده سیاسی ایران تبدیل شده است.

Khomeini's return from exile in 1979 wasn't just history, it was prophecy coming alive. From overthrowing the Shah to the US Embassy hostage crisis, Iran rose as a key player in the Last Days. Bible prophecy warns of Persia (Iran) and its role in global conflict. Ezekiel 38 names nations aligned against the world—and Khomeini's actions were the beginning.This is spiritual, watch and see how history and prophecy collide, and why the signs of the Last Days demand your attention.———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, there's an enemy within the United States - Congressional Democrats, Marxists, Islamists, and figures like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Steve Bannon, and others. They are undermining a spectacular, ongoing military peace mission, Operation Epic Fury, against an Islamist Nazi regime in Iran. The operation has achieved rapid success in just five days, including the death of Khomeini, destruction of Iran's leadership, air force, and navy, and the elimination of a key figure who plotted an assassination attempt against President Trump. Also, the truth about war powers - no president, of either party, has accepted the constitutionality of the 1973 War Powers Act.  The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Act's constitutionality and likely never will.  The first draft of the Constitution provided that Congress would have the power to make war. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention rejected that language and changed it to declare war. To declare war does not result in making war. The only power Congress has to prevent a military operation is the power of the purse.  Other than the vice president, the president is the only federal official elected by the entirety of the people.  In addition to the institutional impossibility of war powers and decisions in the hands of a multi-member body like Congress, the president is the only official who was elected to, among other things, serve as commander-in-chief. Later, Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations calls in and describes the ongoing operation against Iran as progressing positively, with Israel and the US achieving near-complete air superiority over Iranian skies, enabling them to neutralize threats effectively.  Iran's regional attacks and desperation have backfired, uniting moderate Arab countries in strong opposition to Iran, as seen in recent Security Council sessions.  Afterward, after Pearl Harbor, the isolationist movement quickly dissolved, with figures like Charles Lindbergh shifting to support the war effort. In contrast, today's group of Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson and their ilk, refuse to unite behind Trump, the military during the ongoing military campaign. They act like propagandists for the enemy, providing aid and comfort. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Brandon Weichert discusses US interference in Iran, specifically the 1953 coup and Ambassador Sullivan's 1978 memo suggesting the Carter administration replace the Shah with Khomeini. 1.

innercityleft.com Support us at patreon.com/innercityleft Follow us on IG @InnerCityLeft Purchase Amoja's book of poetry here

pWotD Episode 3224: Ali Khamenei Welcome to popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 2,738,521 views on Saturday, 28 February 2026 our article of the day is Ali Khamenei.Ali Hosseini Khamenei (19 April 1939 – 28 February 2026) was an Iranian cleric and politician who served as the supreme leader of Iran from 1989 until his killing by US and Israeli forces in 2026. Khamenei previously served as the president of Iran from 1981 to 1989. His tenure as supreme leader, spanning 36 years and six months, made him the longest-serving head of state in the Middle East at the time of his death and the longest-serving Iranian leader since Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.Born into the Khamenei family, he studied at a hawza in his hometown of Mashhad, later settling in Qom in 1958, where he attended the classes of Ruhollah Khomeini. Khamenei became involved in opposition to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, and was arrested six times before being exiled for three years by the Shah's regime. Khamenei was a mainstream figure in the 1978–1979 Iranian Revolution, and upon its success, held many posts in the newly established Islamic Republic of Iran. In the aftermath of the revolution, he was the target of an attempted assassination that paralysed his right arm. There had been continued assassination threats against Khamenei by Israel. Khamenei served as the third president of Iran from 1981 to 1989 during the Iran–Iraq War, when he also developed close ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). After the death of Khomeini in 1989, Khamenei was elected supreme leader by the Assembly of Experts.As supreme leader, Khamenei supported Iran's nuclear program for civilian use while issuing a fatwa forbidding the production of weapons of mass destruction. Khamenei favoured economic privatization of state-owned industries and, with oil and gas reserves, transformed Iran into an "energy superpower". His foreign policy centered on Shia Islamism and exporting the Iranian Revolution. Khamenei played a pivotal role in the development of the IRGC, transforming it into a primary tool for domestic control and regional influence. Under Khamenei, Iran supported the "Axis of Resistance" coalition in the Syrian civil war, War in Iraq, Yemeni civil war and the Gaza war, as well as Russia during the Russo-Ukrainian war. A staunch critic of Israel and of Zionism, Khamenei supported the Palestinians in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict; his rhetoric included calls for Israel's destruction and antisemitic tropes. Under Khamenei, Iran was involved in proxy wars with Israel and Saudi Arabia; in 2025 and 2026, tensions with Israel and the United States escalated to a 12-day armed conflict and ongoing strikes.Identified as a pragmatic hardliner, Khamenei sidelined leftist factions, moderate clerics, and political dissidents, while occasionally easing restrictions when the regime's stability or legitimacy had been threatened. His leadership had been closely associated with the expansion of state militarization and the consolidation of power within the office of the Supreme Leader. Khamenei had also faced many protests, including the 1999 Iranian student protests, the 2009 Iranian presidential election protests, the 2011–2012 Iranian protests, the 2017–2018 Iranian protests, the 2018–2019 Iranian general strikes and protests, the 2019–2020 Iranian protests, the Mahsa Amini protests, and the 2025–2026 Iranian protests. Journalists, bloggers and other individuals were put on trial in Iran for the charges of insulting Supreme Leader Khamenei, often in conjunction with blasphemy charges. Their sentences included lashing and jail time; some of them died in custody. He was also known by the title Ayatollah and was considered one of the leading Shia Muslim marja' in the world. Khamenei's critics viewed him as a repressive despot responsible for repression, mass murders and other acts of injustice.On 28 February 2026, Khamenei was killed in an airstrike during the 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 07:29 UTC on Sunday, 1 March 2026.For the full current version of the article, see Ali Khamenei on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Salli.

durée : 00:58:48 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit - À partir de 1980, l'ayatollah Khomeini prend le contrôle total du pouvoir de la République islamique d'Iran. En quelques années, le Guide suprême, servi par le corps des gardiens de la révolution islamique, réprime dans le sang les différentes oppositions au régime. - réalisation : Maïwenn Guiziou, Thomas Beau, Jeanne Delecroix, Jeanne Coppey, Raphaël Laloum, Chloé Rouillon, Sidonie Lebot - invités : Chowra Makaremi Anthropologue et réalisatrice de cinéma française d'origine iranienne Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:58:48 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit, Maïwenn Guiziou - À partir de 1980, l'ayatollah Khomeini prend le contrôle total du pouvoir de la République islamique d'Iran. En quelques années, le Guide suprême, servi par le corps des gardiens de la révolution islamique, réprime dans le sang les différentes oppositions au régime. - réalisation : Thomas Beau - invités : Chowra Makaremi Anthropologue et réalisatrice de cinéma française d'origine iranienne

SPONSORS: 1) AMENTARA: Try Amentara's Blue Lotus Extract Gummies for a euphoric, relaxing experience—visit www.amentara.com/go/JULIAN and use code JD22 for 22% off your first order. 2) MIZZEN & MAIN: Get 20% off your first purchase at https://mizzenandmain.com with promo code JULIAN20. JOIN PATREON FOR EARLY UNCENSORED EPISODE RELEASES: https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey (***TIMESTAMPS in description below) ~ Trita Parsi is an Iranian-born geopolitical expert, author and Iran Freedom advocate. TRITA's LINKS: X: https://x.com/tparsi BOOK: https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117 FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY INSTAGRAM (Podcast): https://www.instagram.com/juliandoreypodcast/ INSTAGRAM (Personal): https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://twitter.com/julianddorey JULIAN YT CHANNELS - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Clips YT: https://www.youtube.com/@juliandoreyclips - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Daily YT: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDoreyDaily - SUBSCRIBE to Best of JDP: https://www.youtube.com/@bestofJDP ****TIMESTAMPS**** 0:00 – Intro 01:44 - UN diplomacy, veto reform, Veto+1 proposal, reform vs collapse 11:44 - Iran revolution fears, civil war risk, MEK, Kurdish militias 22:44 - MEK cult tactics, US involvement, social media psyops, fog of war 35:56 - Shah coup history, 1979 revolution, Cold War politics 44:19 - Post-revolution repression, Guardian Council, middle-class collapse, sanctions 54:43 - Obama admin, Iran nuclear deal, secret negotiations 64:04 - Israel-Iran dynamics, regime change failures, Persian Gulf escalation 01:23:26 - Iranian negotiators, diplomacy value, Qatar mediation 01:34:37 - Hamas in Qatar, family split by revolution, exile stories 01:44:31 - Protest hijacking, foreign intervention, Mossad speculation 01:55:12 - Civil war realities, Saudi funding, China mediation, Israel strikes 02:06:37 - Saudi perspective, regional buffers, Iranian identity 02:19:17 - Swedish alienation, Khomeini rise, leftist betrayal 02:29:33 - Trump exits deal, mistrust, Axis of Evil legacy 02:38:30 - 2022 protests failure, middle-class revolt, intelligence penetration 02:47:52 - Mossad recruitment, espionage realities, geopolitics 02:57:26 - Regime legitimacy collapse, internal decay, unstable future 03:01:21 - Trita flight CREDITS: - Host, Editor & Producer: Julian Dorey - COO, Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@UCyLKzv5fKxGmVQg3cMJJzyQ - In-Studio Producer: Joey Deef - https://www.instagram.com/joeydeef/ Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 382 - Trita Parsi Music by Artlist.io Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered his soldiers to kill protesters standing up against the Islamic Regime, knowingly provoking America to act. President Trump sent an Armada and is planning to send reinforcements if Khomeini doesn't come to the table and make a deal. Today Khomeini skipped the annual meeting with army air force commanders for the first time in 37 years. Is it fear of a US strike? At this moment, Iran and America are at an impasse. Who will blink first? In this episode Carole Lieberman, M.D., The Terrorist Therapist®, compares how  protesters in Iran are treated vs. anti-ICE rebels in America. We also look at the ‘war' between the European Union, whose countries are finally taking action to deport radical Islamic migrants, and Iran who retaliates by calling EU armies 'terrorists'. We also look at other hotspots around the world - from Italy to NewYork, and Texas to the UK, reviewing the definitions of terrorist and domestic terrorist, in order to answer the question, “Will the real terrorists please stand up?" 

US-Flugzeugträger im Persischen Golf: Wie nah ist der Krieg mit dem Iran? Im Mittleren Osten eskaliert der Konflikt auf mehreren Ebenen gleichzeitig. Heute fragen wir im Gespräch mit TE-Autor Fritz Goergen: Steht die Region wieder am Rand eines Krieges? Und wir werfen auch einen Blick auf die Ursprünge: Der Iran-Konflikt beginnt nicht erst mit Atom und Sanktionen – sondern mit Öl, Umsturz und einer Revolution, die der Westen lange romantisiert hat. 1979 wurde Khomeini im Westen teils als „Befreier“ gesehen – am Ende standen ein Gottesstaat und Terror gegen die Bevölkerung. Anti-Imperialismus war das gemeinsame Sprachrohr: Linke Projektionen trafen auf islamistische Machtpolitik. Der Westen sah in den Mullahs die „Revolutionäre“, Che Guevara mit Turban. Diese dramatische Fehleinschätzung wirkt bis heute nach. Wenn Ihnen unser Video gefallen hat: Unterstützen Sie diese Form des Journalismus: https://www.tichyseinblick.de/unterstuetzen-sie-uns Webseite: https://www.tichyseinblick.de

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, in 1997 Justice Antonin Scalia spoke on Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony in 1997. He addresses the Holocaust, Germany and western civilization. This show serves as a strong defense against the growing threat of Marxists, Islamists, and neo-fascists in the country. There's focus on these groups and figures like Tucker Carlson and Zohran Mamdani because there may come a day when our voices are silenced and unable to speak out. Dangerous voices are active today among podcasters, politicians, imams, and organizations like CAIR. CAIR and its executive director seek to destroy America. Texas, Florida and United Arab Emirates destinated CAIR as a terrorist organization and a front group for Hamas and executive director Nihad Awad walks around America freely. Also, the Iranian regime under Khomeini must be toppled and destroyed rather than negotiated with. Diplomacy is ineffective against an evil regime whose ideology demands the destruction or enslavement of obstacles (including Americans and non-compliant Muslims.) It's necessary to take action and obliterate Khomeini and his inner circle to prevent future nuclear threats.  A new poll shows that MAGA doesn't want Khomeini. Later, new video reveals a clearer picture of Alex Preti showing him in a prior violent confrontation with ICE agents, where he spits on and kicks federal officials' vehicle. The media narrative has been a lie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ayatollah Khomeini, rebel-præsten der ledte den iranske revolution med løftet om menneskerettigheder og demokrati, men som istedet indførte et brutalt præstestyre og sendte chokbølger af radikal islamisme gennem hele Mellemøsten. Men før han rigtig får smag for offentlige henrettelser, stram sharia-lovgivning og hellig krig mod de vantro, er den unge Khomeini en hengiven religiøs lærd - opslugt af sin tro og overbevist om, at hans forbindelse til Allah er lidt tættere end de flestes. Manus og tilrettelæggelse: Barbara Warnøe og Emil Rothstein-Christensen. Fortæller: Emil Rothstein-Christensen. Musik og lyddesign: Mikkel Rønnau. DR Redaktør: Anders Eriksen Stegger. Produceret for DR P3 af MonoMono.

[00:00:00] George Buhnici: Invitatul nostru în această seară este profesorul nostru preferat, domnul Dumitru Borțun. [00:00:05] Bine ați revenit, domnul profesor! Mulțumesc! Avem o teme fierbință la ordinea zile și una [00:00:10] dintre cele mai importante. Voi începe cu breaking news-ul săptămânii acestea. [00:00:15] asasinarea în public a unei dintre cei mai importanti să le spunem [00:00:20] așa, exponenței republicanilor MAGA din Statele [00:00:25] Unite Un tânăr de 31 de ani, Charlie Kirk, împușcat de un [00:00:30] aparent radicalizat care credea el că Charlie Kirk [00:00:35] împrăștie ură.[00:00:36] Dumitru Bortun: Da, dar se pare că ăsta e mai fascist decât [00:00:40] Kirk. Sunt doi radicali care au un discurs alurii [00:00:45] și unul și altul. [00:00:47] George Buhnici: Ok. Sunt doar câteva zile de la [00:00:50] moartea lui Charlie Kirk. Noi suntem la un pic de distanță, destul de safe. Acolo spiritele sunt atât de fierbinți [00:00:55] încât... Guvernatorul statului iutaiei le-a recomandat oamenilor să plece de pe social media pentru că era furia [00:01:00] prea mare.Trăim într-o economie a furiei. Însă deci de la distanță din [00:01:05] experiența noastră, când vă uitați și la Charlie Kirk și la asasinul lui, [00:01:10] nu vedeți o victimă și un agresor? [00:01:13] Dumitru Bortun: Ba da. Și [00:01:15] regret că un om tânăr și doar un [00:01:20] influencer, nu un om care apasă pe butoane, care ia decizii politice [00:01:25] Este omorât. Lasă în urma lui [00:01:30] doi copii fără tată, lasă o soție tânără, [00:01:35] neconsolată deci lucrurile astea sunt oribile.Dar [00:01:40] vreau să vă spun că asistăm la [00:01:45] simptomul unei rupturi foarte puternice în societatea americană. [00:01:50] Pentru că un astfel de eveniment nu polarizează o societate în halul ăsta, [00:01:55] dacă societatea respectivă nu este deja polarizată, dacă nu e [00:02:00] ruptă în două părți, cel puțin. Deci ruptura [00:02:05] preexista. [00:02:06] George Buhnici: Ok, vedem deja această ruptură care este [00:02:10] amplificată de toate părțile implicate de an de zile în Statele Unite, nu e nouă.Am văzut o [00:02:15] mâncă dinaintea lui Obama, apoi s-a transferat primar Am Trump [00:02:20] și a lui Biden și acum am ajuns la punctul la care vedem tentative de asasinat tot mai [00:02:25] des. Am văzut și cea împotriva lui Donald Trump, am văzut atentate teroriste, au fost denumite [00:02:30] încindierile showroom-urilor Tesla, tot pe motive politice.În momentul [00:02:35] acesta vedem această ruptură care ajunge în faza pe gloanțe, ca să zicem așa. [00:02:40] Faza pe, cum zic cei din zona militară, faza kinetică. [00:02:44] Dumitru Bortun: [00:02:45] Da, da. Este întâi faza violenței simptomale Simbolice, [00:02:50] când ne vorbim urât și ne jurăm, urmează faza violenței [00:02:55] fizice. După aceea urmează faza [00:03:00] gloanțelor, cum bine ați spus, și, Doamne ferește [00:03:05] următoarea este faza războiului civil.Deci genul [00:03:10] ăsta de conflict este amplificat din păcate de noile [00:03:15] mijloace de comunicare în masă, așa zisele new [00:03:20] media, tot ce ține de internet, de rețele sociale, de bloguri, de [00:03:25] vloguri și așa mai departe. Podcast-uri. [00:03:28] George Buhnici: Charlie Kirk [00:03:30] este un om născut din acest val de social media. Este unul dintre oamenii care a [00:03:35] folosit excepțional de bine algoritmul, avea [00:03:40] propriului podcast și a creat un ONG și a creat această faimă de om care [00:03:45] poate să dezbată cu oricine, mai ales în public, să zicea în universități și transforma chestia asta.[00:03:50]Un pe care îl publica peste tot. A devenit extrem de influent și a atras [00:03:55] destul de mulți oameni care au ajuns să-l susțină pe Donald Trump [00:04:00][00:04:00] Dumitru Bortun: prin aceste [00:04:01] George Buhnici: activări ale lui. [00:04:02] Dumitru Bortun: Sunt de acord că era foarte talentat [00:04:05] și că avea un talent deosebit de a mobiliza, avea o [00:04:10] anumită carismă de la modul în care arăta, la modul în care [00:04:15] vorbea, punea problema.Dar vreau să vă spun că, așa [00:04:20] zisele... Dezbatere ale lui nu erau chiar [00:04:25] dezbateri Vedeți că există pe internet, spun pentru cei care ne [00:04:30] urmăresc, dumneavoastră știți, pentru că le-am primit chiar de la dumneavoastră, sunt [00:04:35] două filme cu un cadru didactic un lecturer de la [00:04:40] Universitatea Cambridge, care face analiză pe text, [00:04:45] face analiză de discurs.[00:04:47] George Buhnici: Și vorbim despre niște dezbateri [00:04:50] pe care Charlie Kirk le-a făcut în Europa, a fost la Cambridge, la [00:04:55] Oxford și s-au zis acolo încercând să convingă universitățile britanice [00:05:00] să se lepede de ochism. [00:05:03] Dumitru Bortun: Să se [00:05:05] lepede de tot ce înseamnă stânga. Ochismul este doar pretextul. Așa. Vor să [00:05:10] scoată universitățile de sub influența mișcărilor [00:05:15] de stânga.Cele care vorbesc despre o societate deschisă despre emanciparea [00:05:20] oamenilor despre libertatea de alegere, despre [00:05:25] progres și care [00:05:30] sunt teme nesuferite celor de dreapta din Statele Unite. [00:05:35] Și am început cu aceste mari universități legendare [00:05:40] universități din Europa. Eu vreau să vă spun că acest film, care este [00:05:45] un...Studiu este un film didactic foarte reușit. Eu mi-am și [00:05:50] scos pe hârtie după ce mi-ați trimis... [00:05:55] Filmul, mi-am scos grășelile, pentru că și eu [00:06:00] predau gândire critică. Fallacies, nu? Fallacies. Erori de gândire [00:06:05] din perspectiva teoriei critical thinking. Și sunt de [00:06:10] pildă moving the goalpost, adică a schimba regulile [00:06:15] sau chiar subiectul sau criteriile după care discuți [00:06:20] și analizezi o problemă în timpul discuției.Sau burden of [00:06:25] prof, datoria de a dovedi ceva, o presiune de a dori ceva [00:06:30] pe care o pui în celuilalt. Sau post hoc, ergo [00:06:35] procter hoc. Post hoc înseamnă în latină după aceea, procter hoc, [00:06:40] din cauza aceea. Acest sofism, că dacă ceva urmează după [00:06:45] altceva, înseamnă că este efectul acelui fenomen. Doar pentru că e [00:06:50] după el.Nu e neapărat o relație. cauzală. El practică această [00:06:55] eroare de argumentare. Formă personal incredibility, [00:07:00] incredality, adică neîncrederea personală. Eu nu cred în ce spui. Tu nu poți [00:07:05] să credi așa ceva. [00:07:05] George Buhnici: Într-o dezbatere științifică chestia asta e inacceptabilă [00:07:08] Dumitru Bortun: E inacceptabilă. Nu mă interesează [00:07:10] că tu nu poți să crezi.E problemă subiectivă. Poate te-a bătut taică tu când erai mic. Poate [00:07:15] ai avut un unchi care era șeptic. Nu știu care e istoria ta [00:07:20] personală. De ce nu crezi treaba asta? Deci... Pe urmă [00:07:25] red herring, cherry picking, sunt mai multe [00:07:28] George Buhnici: [00:07:30] tehnici [00:07:31] Dumitru Bortun: tacticile, numește ele giz galop, [00:07:35] argument from tradition, pentru că s-a mai întâmplat, [00:07:40] înseamnă că e adevărat.Pentru că, așa, [00:07:45] argumentele circulare, de genul avortul e greșit fiindcă este o [00:07:50] crimă iar crimă este greșită. Deci te învârți în același, fără să [00:07:55] demonstrezi de ce este o crimă. Ai sărit peste etapa asta. [00:08:00] Cel care te ascultă aude doar faptul că crimă e [00:08:05] greșită ceea ce e corect, și tragi concluzia că și avortul e greșit.[00:08:10] Fără să... Argumentezi implicația de la mijloc. [00:08:15] Corect Este o crimă. Deflection. Deflection [00:08:20] înseamnă abatere, abatere la subiect. Mă abat de la subiect pentru că simt că tu [00:08:25] îl argumentezi mai bine și că eu nu mai am argumente. Corect Și atunci [00:08:30] schimbă subiectul, mă abat de la... Și în sfârșit special [00:08:35] plating, când decretăm că ceva este o excepție fără să [00:08:40] argumentăm.Bine ce special plating Spui tu, e o excepție În general, lucrurile astea au cum zic eu, fără [00:08:45] să... Toate lucrurile astea au fost depistate de [00:08:50] acest profesor de la Cambridge. Și puse pe film și a arătat fragment [00:08:55] din discuție între Kirk și un student [00:09:00] de la Universitatea în Cambridge, unde arăta cum a făcut această [00:09:05] greșeală.Deci una dintre erorile de [00:09:10] argumentare este că tu nu dovedești adevărul a ceea ce [00:09:15] spui dar aștepți ca celălalt să contrazică, spune, [00:09:20] dovedește-mi că n-am treptate. Nu e datoria lui să dovească că n treptate, e datoria ta să [00:09:25] dovedești că ai treptate. Deci dialogul ăsta era mai mult, cum să vă spun, un show, [00:09:30] un spectacol, din care probabil câștiga și bani, dar era finanțat [00:09:34] George Buhnici: [00:09:35] de mulți miliardari Charlie Kirk și nu doar el, prin acel ONG Turning Point [00:09:40] USA.Pentru cei care vor un pic mai mult context, nu știu câtă răbdare aveți să urmăriți toată [00:09:45] scena asta americana, eu o fac destul de îndeaproape, Charlie Kirk, [00:09:50] într-adevăr folosea exact toate texturile tehnicele pe care le-a spus și ceva în plus, dar reușise să fie atrăgător pentru [00:09:55] social media, pentru că livra soundbites, livra TikTok-uri, livra chestii condensate [00:10:00] într-un minut, în care te convingea că creștinismul este bun, iar islamul este [00:10:05] greșit, că albii sunt mai buni că negrii sunt răi, că omosexualitatea este sau nu [00:10:10] acceptabilă, căsătoria într-un fel Și în momentul în care era pus în fața unei dezbateri cu [00:10:15] oameni cu pregătire, cu educație, argumentele lui de foarte multe ori cedau.Asta s-a [00:10:20] întâmplat inclusiv în anumite universități Însă de cele mai multe ori Reușea să facă chestia asta cu [00:10:25] studenți În scena publică De pe o poziție în asta Nu știu câți dintre voi ați urmărit să tea [00:10:30] într-un cort Cu oameni în fața lui Ca și cum ar propovădui ceva Știți că e [00:10:35] interesantă chestia asta Că toți avem într-un fel sau altul până la un punct Acest cult al lui Iisus Că vrem să ne [00:10:40] împărtășim adevărul nostru Iar cei care interacționea el De foarte multe ori erau puși pe piciorul din [00:10:45] spate Pentru că el era un comunicator Excepțional de bun Ce [00:10:48] Dumitru Bortun: povestiți dumneavoastră [00:10:50] se numește în teoria discursului Miza scenă Punere în scenă [00:10:55] Sau încadrare unui discurs El asta făcea făcea frameworking [00:10:59] George Buhnici: Cu [00:10:59] Dumitru Bortun: [00:11:00] cortul ăla [00:11:01] George Buhnici: Exact, și el din cortul ăla Sătea de vorbă interacțiunea cu oameni pe [00:11:05] care îi bombarda Cu toate argumentele Pe care le-a spus puțin mai devreme Pentru oameni cu [00:11:10] pregătire filozofică Semiotică, comunicare, toate lucrurile astea Erau transparente [00:11:15] vedeau Prin ele, mai ales că făcea de foarte mult Tot ce a spus dumneavoastră Într-o dezbatere foarte [00:11:20] articulată cu acel student De la Cambridge, tot muta ținta Pentru că una dintre [00:11:25] temele De dezbatere de acolo, foarte scurt Ca să vă dau un rezumat o să vă dau link-urile Pentru aceste [00:11:30] analize Să le dați [00:11:31] Dumitru Bortun: neapărat, că sunt instructive Pentru că și [00:11:35] ascultătorii Noșterii trebuie să învețe Să se ferească de [00:11:40] Oratorii păcălici Care păcălesc auditorii [00:11:43] George Buhnici: Corect [00:11:45] Vă dau un exemplu foarte simplu Unul dintre argumentele lui Charlie Kirk este că [00:11:50] Creștinismul a susținut întotdeauna monogamia și asta este căsătorie într-un bărbat și o [00:11:55] femeie.Și că asta este bună pentru că nici o civilizație avansată [00:12:00] nu a avut căsătorie între persoane de același sex. [00:12:05] Și este contrazis. Și atunci nu insistă, nu doar să fie acceptată, să fie în lege, să fie legiferată. Și [00:12:10] studentul vine și spune, a fost legiferată în Mesopotamia. În Mesopotamia putea să ai [00:12:15] căsătorie între un bărbat și un bărbat.[00:12:17] Dumitru Bortun: Legar. O mare civilizație. [00:12:18] George Buhnici: O mare civilizație. Și îl [00:12:20] spune, da, da și la ce i-a ajutat chestia asta? Din nou tot muta ținta. Și zice, păi, a rezistat niște mii ani. Măi, la [00:12:25] civilizație americană nu are încă mii de Dar aminte, mii de ani de civilizație. [00:12:30] Acum, nu trebuie să fim de acord sau nu cu ce au făcut cei din Mesopotamia.Mesopotamia nu mai e [00:12:35] astăzi. Problema este cum [00:12:37] Dumitru Bortun: argumentăm. Exact. [00:12:39] George Buhnici: Bun. [00:12:40] Am vorbit așadar despre care este semnificația acestui asasinat. Nu vom lămuri încă, dar mie [00:12:45] mi-este clar că ce va urma, vor fi mai puține astfel de dezbatări în public. Exista totuși [00:12:50] valoare în ceea ce văd eu că făcea Charlie Kirk, faptul că pornea o conversație și cu oameni care [00:12:55] Nu îl simpatizau, nu erau de acord cu el și care chiar puteau să îl [00:13:00] dezbată.Nu aveau forța lui de expunere, dar puteam să vedem, cei care am urmărit [00:13:05] suficient de mult, că dincolo de prove me wrong a lui Charlie Kirk, da, [00:13:10] erau momente când era wrong. Dar foarte mulți politicieni se feresc de dezbatări. Și asta este [00:13:15] meritul lui, faptul că au umplut un gol. Bun. [00:13:20] Și acum, întrebarea, că noi avem o listă de teme aici prin care trebuie să trecem, nu avem foarte mult [00:13:25] timp la dispoziție, de aia o să ne vedeți că poate că ne grăbim un pic, dar încercăm, nu știu cât puteți să stați, [00:13:30] e seara, e duminică vă mulțumim că ați venit.Întrebarea care vine acum [00:13:35] este, totuși când devine acest free speech, acest absolutism al [00:13:40] libertății [00:13:41] Dumitru Bortun: de expresie, [00:13:41] George Buhnici: că putem să spunem orice, [00:13:45] unde se oprește această unde punem o limită pentru această exprimare, pentru [00:13:50] orice, ca să nu ajungem în astfel de situații în care unul din tabăra cealaltă să spună trebuie să te [00:13:55] opresc cu orice preț, pentru că împrăștii ură, între ghilemele.[00:13:58] Dumitru Bortun: Să fie clar aici sunt [00:14:00] două extreme, domnul Bucnici Primul lucru pe care îl vreau să-l spun este [00:14:05] că nu e cazul să apelăm la așa zisul bun simț, că aud foarte des [00:14:10] lucrurile astea la comentatori superficiali pe postul de [00:14:15] televiziune pe rețele sociale. Bunul simț este un ghid foarte bun, [00:14:20] pentru că bunul simț e definit cultural.El difere de la o [00:14:25] cultură la altă cultură, de la o subcultură la altă subcultură deci e [00:14:30] circumscris unei culturi sau subculturi. Deci bunul simț nu este universal. [00:14:35] Deci nu rezolvă. La nivelul unei societăți imense, cum e societatea nord-americană, [00:14:40] n-ai cum să apelezi la bunul simț ca... La un criteriu [00:14:45] universal valabil pentru a te opri unde trebuie cu libertatea de expresie.Și [00:14:50] atunci vă spun două lucruri. Sunt două extreme aici. Pe de o parte, [00:14:55] libertatea de expresie dusă la paroxism poate să ducă la [00:15:00] [00:15:05] violență. [00:15:10] Deci odată este violența asta [00:15:15] verbală, violență [00:15:20] simbolică, violență psihologică prin priviri, până la [00:15:25] violența gloanțelor, cum spuneați, și până la, Doamne ferește un război [00:15:30] civil.Deci violența poate să ducă pentru că eu îmi exprim [00:15:35] gândurile mele fără să am nicio oprelișe, pentru că mă prevalez [00:15:40] amendamentului al Constituției Americanei, libertatea de expresie. [00:15:45] Ori, libertatea de expresie poate să ducă la faptul că îi jignesc pe seminii mei, că [00:15:50] le dau motive să-mi furie, le dau motive să se răzbune, [00:15:55] să-mi replice și așa mai departe.Pentru asta s-a inventat [00:16:00] ceea ce se numește corectitudine politică. Dar corectitudinea politică [00:16:05] ea limitează la extrema cealaltă pentru că mai e o problemă aici [00:16:10] De atâta corectivine politică ajungi să [00:16:15] sufoci să restrângi reptul la liberă exprimare. [00:16:17] George Buhnici: Exact. [00:16:18] Dumitru Bortun: Se [00:16:18] George Buhnici: ridică pendulul [00:16:20] în extrema cealaltă. În cealaltă [00:16:21] Dumitru Bortun: extremă.Deci nici corectivinea politică nu este [00:16:25] absolut, un criteriu absolut, pentru că asta [00:16:30] acumulează frustrări, acumulează... [00:16:33] George Buhnici: Haideți să dăm două exemple, [00:16:35] dacă vreți. Una dintre chestiile, pe care Charlie Karrick le spunea, este că [00:16:40] tinerii de culoare au mai multe probleme pentru că nu [00:16:45] trăiesc cu un tată în casă pe parcursul [00:16:50] copilăriei lor.E o chestie culturală în familiile de culoare din Statele Unite. [00:16:55] Undeva la trei din patru tați, bărbați, pleacă de acasă. [00:17:00] Și îl zicea că ăsta este un motiv pentru [00:17:05] violența lor, pentru lipsa lor... Delinvență. Delinvență. Copilăria [00:17:08] Dumitru Bortun: în stradă [00:17:09] George Buhnici: [00:17:10] Intră chestia asta la libertate de exprimare? [00:17:13] Dumitru Bortun: Intră, dar când [00:17:15] îți dai seama că jignești și pui pe jar o mare [00:17:20] categorie umană, poți să te abții și să spui așa, [00:17:25] există familii americane în care tații lipsesc, nu își îndeplinești [00:17:30] rolul și nu oferă un pattern cultural, un model cultural de [00:17:35] comportament băieților.De aici ies tinerii responsabili, [00:17:40] bărbați care nu pot întemeia o familie și care nu se vor putea purta cum trebuie cu [00:17:45] soțiile și cu copiilor. De ce? Fiindcă n-au un model anterior. Dar nu spui neapărat că-s [00:17:50] negri. Pentru că s-ar putea ca majoritatea să fie într-adevăr din [00:17:55] populația de culoare pentru că se explică [00:18:00] culturalicește.Din cultura lor există [00:18:05] treaba asta, că bărbatul poate să plece când vrea. Dar nu spui. [00:18:10] Pentru că asta se numește responsabilitate. Domnul Bun, și nu este vorba nici de a încălca... Chiar dacă [00:18:15] e [00:18:15] George Buhnici: adevărat statistic? [00:18:17] Dumitru Bortun: Dacă e adevărat statistic, [00:18:20] adevărul nu e niciodată un scop în sine. Un scop în sine e binele. Eu [00:18:25] pot să imaginez o politică adevărului spus în așa fel, într-un [00:18:30] anumit fel, într-un anumit...În un moment, unor anumiți oameni ca să facem bine nu ca să [00:18:35] facem rău. Pentru că ipocrizia aia să știți că am fost sincer. Nu mă ajută cu nimic. [00:18:40] Cu sinceritatea ta ai distrus o familie. Ai înăgrit [00:18:45] imaginea unui părinte fața copilului său. Ai distrus prestigiul unui profesor în [00:18:50] fața elevului. Poți să faci foarte mult rău fiind sincer.Ai spus adevărul [00:18:55] Sau ai spus ce credeai tu că trebuie spus. De acord. Trebuie să ne înfrânăm singuri. [00:19:00] Asta se numește responsabilitate. Adică să fii conștient de consecințele [00:19:05] faptelor tale. Și când zic fapte, zic și acte de comunicare. [00:19:09] George Buhnici: Asta este cea [00:19:10] importantă lecție pe care mi-ați dat-o și mie în vara lui 2022.Da. Că până la urmă cuvintele [00:19:15] contează. [00:19:15] Dumitru Bortun: Da. [00:19:16] George Buhnici: Pe de altă parte însă, comportamentul și afirmația lui Charlie [00:19:20] Kirk, din nou vin după ce pendulul s-a ridicat prea mult în partea cealaltă și am ajuns în situația în care [00:19:25] putem să permitem unor bărbați să se declare femei. Deși, [00:19:30] biologic, sunt masculi. Doar pentru că au decis [00:19:35] dintr-o dată că vor să se declare femei, că vor să umble pe unde sunt femeile și [00:19:40] nimeni nu se opune la această chestie Ca nu-i [00:19:42] Dumitru Bortun: jignească.[00:19:42] George Buhnici: Ca să nu-i jignească. Acea [00:19:45] corectitudine politică de care vorbiți noastră a dus-o la extrema cealaltă. Sunteți de acord că este și asta o extremă? [00:19:49] Dumitru Bortun: Da. [00:19:50] Și sunt de acord că în istorie sunt... Sunt mii de cazuri de idei [00:19:55] bune care au căput pe mâna unor ticăloși și care s-au transformat în [00:20:00] lucruri oribile. Idei bune.Care se degradează în mâna unor oameni [00:20:05] Care nu sunt la înălțimea ideii. A construi o societate [00:20:10] bazată pe reguli de comportament civilizat. Corectiunea asta politică ar trebui tradusă [00:20:15] corect în românește corectiune socială. Fiindcă la ei politic are mai multe sensuri [00:20:20] Aici e sensul de la polis. De la societate De la societate [00:20:25] Deci corecțiune socială să fim corecți unii cu alții, să nu ne umilim, să [00:20:30] nu facem bullying.Ce mi se pare [00:20:32] George Buhnici: mie grav este că de foarte multe ori oamenii care [00:20:35] ajung să facă rău altora, o fac în numele [00:20:40] altor oameni sau altor ființe mai nou care nu sunt de față. [00:20:45] Nu ați observat lucrul ăsta? Da, da da. E interesant. Ne punem noi ca [00:20:50] apărători ai... Ne erijăm în... Protectorii unei categorii defavorizate. [00:20:55] Da atacăm individul, îl luăm individual din mulțime, deci îl [00:21:00] discriminăm pentru că ar face rău unor [00:21:05] clase care nu sunt prezente.[00:21:06] Dumitru Bortun: Dar eu aș vrea să termin ideea pentru că n-am spus [00:21:10] decât jumătate din ea. Mă scuzează că m-am... Nu, nu m-ați întrebat. [00:21:15] Ați făcut completării necesare. Începusem să spun [00:21:20] cum nu trebuie să gândim să nu venim cu argumentul bunui simț pentru [00:21:25] că nu rezolvăm mare lucru. Bunul simț nu poate fi cuantificat și nu este universal [00:21:30] valabil.Difere de la o cultură la altă Însă, pide la cultura [00:21:35] afroamericanilor la cultura albilor protestanți. Și diferă [00:21:40] bunul simț de la cultura în raport cu cultura catolicilor. Deci [00:21:45] sunt culturi în care ceea ce e de bun simț pentru mine, [00:21:50] pentru ei nu e de bun simț. Deci nu bunul simț trebuie să [00:21:55] prevaleze trebuie să prevaleze ideea de bine comun, codificată în [00:22:00] limbaj politic, interesul public.Interesul public ce înseamnă? [00:22:05] Să încerci să iei drept criteriul de evaluare unde ne oprim [00:22:10] cu libertatea de expresie, acolo unde se pune problema [00:22:15] binelui tuturor, dacă nu al tuturor, pentru că e greu de realizat asta, [00:22:20] binele cât mai mult pentru un număr cât mai mare [00:22:25] de oameni. Este criteriul utilitarismului.[00:22:27] George Buhnici: Ok, sau dacă vreți o întorc eu invers, [00:22:30] lucrurile pe care ne-am vorbit de foarte multe ori aici să reducem suferința. [00:22:33] Dumitru Bortun: Să reducem suferința. [00:22:35] Ăsta e criteriul doctrinei utilitariste o doctrină etică, [00:22:40] reprezentatul cel mai important e John Stuart Mill. Are și o carte apărută în limba română [00:22:45] în librării, se găsește utilitarismul.John Stuart Mill asta spune că [00:22:50] ai un criteriu pentru cât mai mulți [00:22:55] oameni. Criteriul ăla pe care îl spune [00:23:00] în Sinedru, marele preot al [00:23:05] Israelului, că e bine să-l sacrifice pe Iisus decât să facă rău unui [00:23:10] popor întreg, era un sofist de fapt pentru că poporul nu murea dacă [00:23:15] ei nu-l crucificau. Însă el pune, argumentul ăsta este, pentru că [00:23:20] Iisus era un singur individ, iar poporul lui Izrael era format din [00:23:25] milioane.Și atunci dă prioritate celor care [00:23:30] sunt mai mulți. Genul ăsta de a gândi însă este salvator în [00:23:35] multe situații, pentru că alt criteriu nu avem. Nu avem criterii absolute pentru bine și rău. [00:23:40] Și atunci ne oprim cu libertatea de expresie acolo ne simțim că facem rău [00:23:45] mai mare. Și atunci haideți să comparăm.Dacă merg pe [00:23:50] discursul urii ăsta creează niște frustrări și [00:23:55] niște replici. Și feedback-ul ăla pozitiv care [00:24:00] amplifica, am mai vorbit despre el, și care poate să se ducă până la război civil. [00:24:03] George Buhnici: Când ziceți feedback [00:24:05] pozitiv este amplificarea urii. E [00:24:06] Dumitru Bortun: amplificare, nu e negativ, adică nu scade. [00:24:10] Iar ăsta, [00:24:15] libertatea de expresie, care poate să fie [00:24:20] deșântată duce la niște jigniri dar nu duce la violență.Și atunci, [00:24:25] care este mai aproape de binele comun? [00:24:30] Discursul urii sau corectul înapolitic? [00:24:35] Înțelegeți cum trebuie să gândim? Dar [00:24:40] corectitudinea [00:24:43] George Buhnici: politică a fost acuzată de foarte [00:24:45] multe ori de conservatori că este un slippery slope, că este alunecoasă, că ne [00:24:50] aduce către alte probleme Lucru pe care îl vedem și începem să venim ușor către Europa, [00:24:55] că se pare că noi nu am învățat din ce s-a întâmplat în Statele Unite și vedem asta acum în [00:25:00] Marea Britanie.Pas cu pas, britanicii simt că au [00:25:05] alunecat, că au ajuns într-un stat care [00:25:10] încearcă să-i controleze, care încearcă să-i forceze cu [00:25:15] migrație excesivă. Pentru [00:25:18] Dumitru Bortun: că ei nu au ajuns la [00:25:20] nivelul de autocontrol. Deci eu când am vorbit până acum, eu [00:25:25] vorbesc idealizând puțin adică idealizând ființa umană ca fiind o ființă [00:25:30] morală care are responsabilitatea faptelor sale și [00:25:35] consecințele științelor faptelor sale și atunci îți pui problema ce e mai rău [00:25:40] corecturile politică sau discursul lor și până la urmă îmi spui că e mai rău [00:25:45] discursul lor, că poate să ducă la război civil.Dar aveți [00:25:50] dreptate că nu toți oamenii sunt capabili de gândirea asta, pentru că gândirea asta de tip [00:25:55] moral este și o gândire mai abstractă. Ori nu toți oamenii își termină [00:26:00] ciclu de formare spirituală Nu-ți rămân needucați pe la jumătatea [00:26:05] drumului, sunt așa zis și neisprăviți. Oamenii ăștia nu pot să gândească moral, nu pot să [00:26:10] se gândească la...De-aia pleacă de acasă și își lasă copiii de [00:26:15] izbeliște, pentru că nu sunt suficient de responsabili, nu [00:26:20] s-au maturizat, nu au intrat în etapa etică a vârstei a vieții, sunt la [00:26:25] vârsta estetică, fac ce le place. Deci genul ăsta de [00:26:30] comportament l-a țăizat bine. Există [00:26:35] și societatea americană, și în societatea [00:26:40] britanică dar la britanici și știu unde batez la evenimente recente, este vorba de [00:26:45] revoltele care au avut loc de curând împotriva [00:26:50] imigranților.[00:26:50] George Buhnici: Despre ele vreau să vorbim acum. [00:26:52] Dumitru Bortun: Da. [00:26:52] George Buhnici: Așadar am văzut [00:26:55] protestele foarte recente cu peste 100 de 100 de oameni în stradă mult peste 100 de mii În [00:27:00] anumite locuri am văzut 100 de mii că se spunea. Important este că au ieșit mult mai mulți în stradă cei [00:27:05] care scandează împotriva imigrației, în timp ce pe [00:27:10] partea cealaltă am văzut puțini oameni la protestele care să protejeze [00:27:15] imigranții.Am văzut inclusiv pancarte de pe tabara cealaltă [00:27:20] destul de greu găsit, care spunea să-i mulțumim Lui Dumnezeu pentru imigranții. Thank God for [00:27:25] immigration, da, și alte lucruri, că mai bine să ne educăm decât să urăm imigranții și așa mai [00:27:30] departe Pe de altă parte ceilalți vin și spun că imigrația a fost scăpată de sub [00:27:35] control și că imigranții abuzează serviciile sociale, că nu vor să se [00:27:40] integreze, că schimbă țesătura socială a Marii Britanii.[00:27:44] Dumitru Bortun: [00:27:45] Domnul Bucnici, să încep tot cu un adevăr banal dar de multe ori [00:27:50] trebuie să plecăm de la lucruri banale ca să construim un argument. [00:27:55] Imensa majoritatea oamenilor nu sunt filozofii [00:28:00] și cetățenii britanici intră în aceeași categorie. Nu fac filozofie [00:28:05] istoriei și nu gândesc din perspectiva unei [00:28:10] istorie a civilizației.Dacă... [00:28:15] Vedeți am citit cu ani în urmă istoria civilizațiilor al lui Arnold [00:28:20] Toynbee. Pe urmă am citit... citit cartea lui Neagos Juvara, teza lui de [00:28:25] doctorat de istoria civilizațiilor. Știți cât e de șocant [00:28:30] când citești așa ceva? Seamănă cu o vizită la [00:28:35] cimitir. După o vizită la cimitir se devalorizează [00:28:40] totul.Nu mai știi dacă merită să te lupti pentru ce te-ai luptat până în ziua de azi. [00:28:45] Când vezi acolo că cimitirul e plin de oameni de neînlocuit. [00:28:49] George Buhnici: Care [00:28:49] Dumitru Bortun: au [00:28:50] fost cineva la viața lor. Și care până la urmă ajungem tot. [00:28:54] George Buhnici: Deocamdată [00:28:55] Ați văzut liderii din BRICS Care își fac planuri pentru încă [00:29:00] 70 de ani Fiecare Și [00:29:02] Dumitru Bortun: ce vreau să vă spun [00:29:05] Are loc o devalorizare A mizelor Pentru care noi trăim [00:29:10] La fel este când vezi istoria La scară mare [00:29:15] Când am citit Neagul Juvara de pildă Faptul că [00:29:20] Atunci când se schimbă o civilizație Cu alta Ajung în [00:29:25] frunte Oameni care nu au nimic de pierdut Care în civilizația trecută Nu [00:29:30] aveau nimic Și sunt primii Care luptă pentru [00:29:35] schimbare Și în mod firesc ajung în frunte Nu te mai miri Că au ajuns [00:29:40] în fruntea României Cei mai bogați oameni Niște oameni neanalfabeți Sau niște [00:29:45] oameni semidocți Deci [00:29:47] George Buhnici: vorbim despre oportuniști Care [00:29:50] neavând nimic de pierdut Și asumă Riscuri pe care oamenii De treabă [00:29:55] Oamenii civilizati, educați Și care au [00:29:57] Dumitru Bortun: un statut socioprofesional La care [00:30:00] țin s-au învățat în el S-au învățat cu avantajele lui Ăia nu milțează [00:30:05] pentru schimbare Și cu timpul schimbarea Îi ia pe sus și ei rămân în urmă [00:30:10] Rămân printre ultimii Și în frunte se trezesc Ăia care nu aveau nimic de [00:30:15] pierdut Când Neagul Juvara face analiză istorică Și arată că de fiecare dată [00:30:20] S-a întâmplat așa Când s-a trecut de la civilizația agrară la civilizația industrială, [00:30:25] acum se trece de la civilizația industrială la civilizația informațională și sunt la același [00:30:30] lucru.Și zic dom'le, gata, am înțeles. Dar [00:30:35] devii mai calm, devii mai zen, înțelegi cum stau [00:30:40] lucrurile, nu te mai înfurii, nu te mai indignezi, nu mai protestezi. Ori acești [00:30:45] oameni care ies în stradă n-au cum să-și dea seama că există o [00:30:50] tendință la nivel civilizațional de [00:30:55] migrarea oamenilor din spre est spre vest și din spre sud spre nord.[00:30:59] George Buhnici: [00:31:00] Și care va fi amplificată [00:31:01] Dumitru Bortun: Va fi amplificată în viitor. [00:31:03] George Buhnici: Și [00:31:03] Dumitru Bortun: ei nefiind [00:31:05] filozofia istoriei nu pot să zic, da, dom'le, așa stau lucrurile, ăsta e trendul. Ies [00:31:10] și-și apără locurile de muncă, își apără fetele ca să nu fie [00:31:15] violate de niște oameni, care vin din alte țări, sau [00:31:20] pur și simplu își apără identitatea domnului București.Pentru că mulți au [00:31:25] problema asta. Sunt de altă religie. Sunt de altă [00:31:30] factură. Ăștia nu putem ști la ce ne aștept de la ei. Și de multe ori e și [00:31:35] ignoranța. Pentru că ce s-a înzblat în București cu [00:31:40] băiatul ăla pognit în față pentru că e diferit și pentru că e [00:31:45] invadatorul nostru, asta vine din ignoranță. O dată tipul ăla de [00:31:50] 22 de ani care l-a pognit în față nu știe că noi nu avem resursă [00:31:55] umană, nu avem forță de muncă pentru aceste joburi și în al lui el nu știe că oamenii ăștia [00:32:00] sunt ori hinduși ori budiști, ori confucianiști [00:32:05] din țării din care vin, în care sunt oameni pașnici oameni care nu fură, [00:32:10] sunt mai cinstizi decât majoritatea românilor.Noi până nu facem [00:32:15] un chilipir, până nu păcărim pe cineva Pe [00:32:17] George Buhnici: da. Cum? Pe medie da. Pe [00:32:18] Dumitru Bortun: medie vorbesc. [00:32:20] Noi avem o rală a foloaselor necuvenite pe care se vede în toate domeniile. De la ăla [00:32:25] care i-aș pagă până la ăla care plăcează la doctorat în loc să [00:32:29] George Buhnici: [00:32:30] muncească el. Corect. Dar e exact ca în trafic, am mai dat exemplul ăsta de foarte [00:32:35] multe ori, unul singur trebuie să iasă din coloană și îl vedem toți.O să ne fugă atenția la [00:32:40] el. Un singur migrant care creează o problemă, la câteva mii, zeci de [00:32:45] mii, noi avem prea puțin într-adevăr Doar pentru câte nevoie este de resursă umană. Dacă stai de vorbă [00:32:50] cu orice antreprenor din țara, s-o să spună că duce lipsă acută de forță de muncă de [00:32:55] orice nivel de calificare.[00:32:56] Dumitru Bortun: Dar noi schimbarăm puțin subiectul. Asta era doar o [00:33:00] paranteză. Problema era că ăsta fiind străin, fiind diferit, fiind de altă religie s-ar [00:33:05] putea să cine știe ce ne facă. Fiindcă noi nu-l cunoaștem. [00:33:10] Documentează-te, interesează-te. [00:33:12] George Buhnici: Ajungem și acolo pentru că România este într-o situație foarte [00:33:15] interesantă.Această comunicare atât agresivă împotriva [00:33:20] imigranților într-o țară care de fapt are mari probleme de [00:33:25] emigrație, nu de imigrație. Este o țară de emigranți, nu în care se imigrează. Până și [00:33:30] ucrainenii. Era un comedian care a făcut o poantă foarte, foarte faină [00:33:35] care spunea că românii sunt atât de [00:33:40] primitori încât sunt mai mulți ucraineni refugiați în Bulgaria decât în România.Ăia [00:33:45] ca să ajungă în Bulgaria să treacă prin România, nu să oprescă, să duc la Bulgari. Bă, și Bulgaria e mai săracă Și [00:33:50] totuși sunt mai mulți ucraineni per total, ca număr refugiați decât în România. Te pun [00:33:55] un pic pe gânduri chestia asta. Ăia nu sunt nici de altă culoare, nici de altă religie. [00:34:00] Merg la următoare întrebare.[00:34:04] Dumitru Bortun: Dumneavoastră, nu [00:34:05] aveți o explicație? [00:34:06] George Buhnici: Ba da. [00:34:07] Dumitru Bortun: Nu suntem așa cum ne place să credem [00:34:10] că suntem. Că suntem toleranți și primitori. Știți cum suntem noi? Suntem ca [00:34:13] George Buhnici: mașinilele pe care scrie [00:34:15] sport. Dacă scrie sport pe mașină mașina aia nu-i sport. N-ar fi [00:34:20] nevoie [00:34:20] Dumitru Bortun: să scrie. [00:34:21] George Buhnici: Exact. [00:34:22] Dumitru Bortun: Deci noi ne punem aceste podoabe că [00:34:25] suntem toleranți.Dar din când în când în [00:34:30] istorie am dovedit că nu suntem. Dumneavoastră știți cât greu s-a [00:34:35] desfințat sclavia în România? [00:34:36] George Buhnici: Am fost ultimii din Europa care am oprit eobagia. [00:34:40][00:34:40] Dumitru Bortun: Da. [00:34:40] George Buhnici: Am [00:34:41] Dumitru Bortun: fost ultimii în Europa care am destinsat robia. Romii erau [00:34:45] robi. Asta sclavacism. Și era sub [00:34:50] presiunea Europei exact cum este acum.Ne spuneau [00:34:55] dacă vreți să vă primim în cadrele noastre și să deveniți europeni, trebuie să [00:35:00] terminați cu mizeria asta care este sclavacism. [00:35:05] Robii domnești, robii mânăstirești, robii boierești. Și toți erau [00:35:10] romi Deci asta nu înseamnă... Și eu [00:35:15] vă spun, am auzit acum câțiva ani, la aeroport eram la otopeni, o [00:35:20] discuție între niște din poliția de aeroport.Ce mă mai [00:35:25] revede că așteaptă și niște oameni acolo să uită și zice ăia sunt oameni, sunt țigani. Deci [00:35:30] această formă de [00:35:35] rasism și această formă de șovinism există încă, dar nu e [00:35:40] recunoscută palpită Știți? [00:35:45] În populația României și în instituții de multe ori Constituțiile statului au [00:35:50] astfel de atitudini.Deci nu. Pământ, gândiți-vă ce am făcut [00:35:55] în timpul celui de-al doilea război mondial vis-a-vis de evrei. Și [00:36:00] multe alte exemple. Nu mai zic ce au făcut [00:36:05] administratorii români în cadrii la ter în timpul ocupației românești de acolo Cu [00:36:10] turții, cu tătarii. Sau-au făcut [00:36:12] George Buhnici: jandarmii în Basarabia. [00:36:13] Dumitru Bortun: Da, jandarmii care [00:36:15] au lăsat o amintire foarte urâtă acolo.Deci toate lucrurile astea scot [00:36:20] la iveală anumite aspecte ale psihologiei românilor de care [00:36:25] nu ne place să vorbim, le băgăm sub covor, dar care îi zbognesc din când în [00:36:30] când. Iată de ce în România nu se simt foarte [00:36:35] bine niște oameni veniți din afară și preferă să se ducă în Bulgaria, de pildă, care [00:36:40] e mai sărac.[00:36:40] George Buhnici: Vin de la festivalul vinului moldovenesc, [00:36:45] pe Kiselev. Acolo am fost în seara asta și [00:36:50] de fapt profesional mă uit la oameni. Am văzut un cuplu de [00:36:55] japonezi cred că era, și un singur tip de culoare. În [00:37:00] rest nu prea am văzut străini. Pe de altă parte ni se tot spune pe social media că [00:37:05] românii habar nu au ce să Frumoasă țară au și ce [00:37:10] frumoasă e coeziunea noastră socială în care nu suntem invadați și care să [00:37:15] ținem să protejăm chestia asta.Din nou, nu sunt sigur [00:37:20] dacă îmi doresc să văd mult mai mult străini, dar nu sunt sigur [00:37:25] dacă avem prea puțini. [00:37:27] Dumitru Bortun: Eu unul m-aș bucura. Eu sunt [00:37:30] unul dintre oamenii care valorizează pozitiv diferența. [00:37:35] Care cred că diferențele sunt o sursă de dezvoltare, [00:37:40] sunt un bagaj. Apropo de cei care scuiau, [00:37:45] ne-a dat Dumnezeu darul ăsta cu imigranții, [00:37:50] pentru că unii îi urăsc și vor să-i trimită înapoi iar alții spun că este un [00:37:55] dar de la Dumnezeu să ai imigranții, să ai în primul rând o forță de muncă pentru anumite [00:38:00] meserici, în al doilea rând să ai o diversitate culturală religioasă.Care e problema? [00:38:05] Care e problema că sunt diferiți de tine? Te sperii atât mult diferența? Te bag [00:38:10] așa în angoasă și în insecuritate și în incertitudine? Iată, [00:38:15] deci, eu cred că oamenii care îi urăsc pe străini sunt [00:38:20] permite să încalcă principiul corectitudinii politice, [00:38:25] am să fiu liber, ca la exprimare sunt minți înguste și suflete [00:38:30] mici.[00:38:30] George Buhnici: Ok. Pentru că noi toți am profitat de pe urma [00:38:35] prosperității și felul în care am fost primiți în multe alte țări. [00:38:40][00:38:40] Dumitru Bortun: Absolut. [00:38:41] George Buhnici: Și totuși, ce face aceste proteste cum am văzut în Marea [00:38:45] Britanie? Nu bag mâna în foc, că nu o vedem unul curând și pe la noi, deși încă o dată, noi nu avem o problemă urgentă, [00:38:50] dar ce face ca aceste proteste să strângă masea atât de [00:38:55] mari?Încă o dată, eu cred că ce-am văzut la Londra e doar începutul. De unde vine chestia asta? Pentru că e prima [00:39:00] dată când auzim că oamenii sunt mai preocupați de migrație decât de economie. [00:39:05] E o chestie de identitate? E o chestie de manipulare prin presă sau de social media? [00:39:10] Și, și, și. [00:39:11] Dumitru Bortun: În primul rând e o problemă de identitate și oamenii sunt [00:39:15] foarte sensibili la problema asta cu [00:39:20] identitatea Cine sunt?Cine suntem noi? Ne raportăm la alții [00:39:25] prin diferențe și vin ăștia peste noi care sunt diferiți și așa mai [00:39:30] departe. Pe urmă este lipsa de cunoaștere. Dumneavoastră [00:39:35] am mai vorbit cred, la dumneavoastră, am vorbit despre sindromul chinezesc. [00:39:40] Eu folosesc expresia asta, expresia [00:39:45] mea. De la distanță tot chinezii sunt la fel.[00:39:50]Seamănă între ei. Dar ia du-te și stai acolo câteva [00:39:55] luni sau câțiva ani că începi să-i deosebești. Îți dai seama ce vârste au. Ce [00:40:00] înseamnă un chinez tânăr un chinez la vârstă mijlocie, un chinez în vârstă bătrân. [00:40:05] Opa, stai că începi să-mi nuanțezi percepția. De ce? Îi [00:40:10] cunosc. Cu cât îi cunoști mai puțin cu atât îi vezi la fel.[00:40:15] Ăsta-i sindromul chinezesc. Păi asta este cu orice alt grup uman. De la [00:40:20] distanță par toți la fel. Îi bagi într-o categorie fiindcă e mai comod mental. [00:40:25] În momentul în care îi cunoști, viața te obligă să faci diferență Între ei, [00:40:30] ce spună Spună bună dimineața îi spun să rămână. Deci trebuie să știu cu [00:40:35] cine am de-a face, încep să vezi diferențele.Eu cred că [00:40:40] o mare parte dintre aceste [00:40:45] mișcări de masă se bazează pe ignoranță. În [00:40:50] altă parte, în altă măsură, se bazează pe grija [00:40:55] pentru identitate și în altă măsură pe manipulare. [00:41:00] Pe faptul că rețelele sociale amplifică. Și atunci ce se întâmplă, [00:41:05] domnul Bunic? Rețelele astea sociale amplifică, știți cum?[00:41:10] Și intensiv și ca amploare, [00:41:15] extensiv. Ca amploare e normal să înțelege toată lumea. Datorită [00:41:20] multiplicării fără limite a mesajelor, o masă [00:41:25] imensă de oameni... [00:41:25] George Buhnici: Poate să afle orice nenorocire Mesajul. Da [00:41:28] Dumitru Bortun: Și poate să [00:41:30] creadă că mai are puțin și ia foc Marea Britanie. Sau [00:41:33] George Buhnici: că usturoiul ăla chiar [00:41:35] este cât roata de la bicicletă.[00:41:36] Dumitru Bortun: Exact. Și cred, pentru că sunt mai mulți. [00:41:40] Și apare acel sofism, acel argument [00:41:45] fals, că dacă și alții zic înseamnă că așa e. Pe urmă... [00:41:50] Știu [00:41:50] George Buhnici: eu pe cineva care a văzut că pământul e plat. [00:41:51] Dumitru Bortun: Da, da, da. Cunosc și eu un caz la Bacău.[00:41:55]Ceva de genul ăsta. S-a [00:42:00] labuzat. S-a labuzat, labuzat labuzat Labuzat, da. Așa. Deci asta este [00:42:05] un aspect. Dar mai e un aspect. Cu cât discuțiile [00:42:10] sunt mai numeroase pe internet, cu atât oamenii [00:42:15] devin mai fanatici cu propriile opinii. Și știți de ce? Noi am mai [00:42:20] discutat la un podcastul meu astăzi. Aici vorbim de paradigme.Ori într-o paradigmă [00:42:25] argumentele sunt circulare. Ele pleacă de la premisele paradigmei [00:42:30] și confirmă întăresc premisele. Și cu cât un [00:42:35] om își dezvoltă mai mult demonstrația și argumentele, cu atât se [00:42:40] luminează mai mult câtă dreptate are. Ca Charlie Kirk. Exact. Exact [00:42:45] cazul ăsta. Și atunci apare... Această circularitate, cu [00:42:50] cât vorbesc mai mult, cu atât mă convinc mai mult.Deci dialogul nu ne unește. Dialogul ne [00:42:55] desparte și mai rău. Este ceea ce se numește, în teoria comunicării, [00:43:00] dialogul surzilor. Fiecare s-au de pe el, nu l-au de pe celălalt. Deci [00:43:05] rețele sociale au dus la o amplificare și ca amploare, [00:43:10] la o adâncime și adâncire a diferențelor și [00:43:15] a opozițiilor ca intensitate.[00:43:17] George Buhnici: Nu durează puțin chestia asta. Durează [00:43:20] E un proces complex. Dar dacă ne uităm un pic în spate aveam rețele sociale de suficient de multă vreme încât să-și făcut [00:43:25] efectul acești algoritmi Într-o competiție acerbă pentru audiență au amplificat lucrurile care [00:43:30] se viralizează, iar apoi au apărut actorii statali care folosesc [00:43:35] aceste narațiuni pentru politica lor externă.Și aici întrebarea este, cum [00:43:40] lucrează aceste narațiuni, cum ar fi narațiunea invaziei a re-emigrării în aceste emoții [00:43:45] colective? Și cine le orchestrează? Credeți că există păpușari sau este doar furia noastră [00:43:50] care ne ocupă pe noi înșine pe toți? Există păpușari [00:43:54] Dumitru Bortun: care [00:43:55] profită de pe urma acestor furii. [00:44:00] E foarte interesant.Are Salman Rushdie, cel care a scris [00:44:05] versetele satanice, are un roman, Furia, în care [00:44:10] face o analiză de mare subtilitate acolo, acțiunea petrecându-se în Statele Unite ale [00:44:15] Americii. Se izizează manifestările de furie în [00:44:20] diferite domenii și pe diferite niveluri sociale. Furia ca stat. [00:44:25] E spirit, ca spirit al epocii de spirit de taim [00:44:30] Putem spune că furia este emoția [00:44:32] George Buhnici: acestei generații?Da, [00:44:33] Dumitru Bortun: da. Asta [00:44:35] demonstrează Salman Rushdie. E tulburător să [00:44:40] ai zis seama că s-a născut o generație sub ochii noștri și din mâinile noastre [00:44:45] furioasă. Știți că prin anii 60 a păruse un [00:44:50] curent în dramaturgia britanică tinerii furioși. Care au scris [00:44:55] niște piese foarte cunoscute la vremea respectivă, Camera în formă [00:45:00] de el, Fiață sportivă, Privește înapoi cu mânie, [00:45:05] Singurătatea alergătorii de cursă lungă, toate astea au devenit filme de mare [00:45:10] artisticitate.Tinerii furioși era [00:45:15] prima repriză. Au urmat repriza a doua, s-au mai calmat, au [00:45:20] urmat Revoluția sexuală, au urmat mișcări despre înțelegi în 68, hippie [00:45:25] și așa mai departe. Hippie care erau pacifiști la bază. Da erau pacifiști, dar tot [00:45:30] pacifismul ăsta lor retragerea din societate era de fapt o reacție de contestare a [00:45:35] societății moștenite la părinților.Ăștia de astăzi nu mă să mai retrag pur [00:45:40] și simplu for să o distrugă, pentru că nu le place ce au primit ca moștenire. [00:45:44] George Buhnici: O parte [00:45:45] dintre ei, că avem și retrași o vedem în Asia, începem să vedem și [00:45:50] la noi, nu știu dacă ați auzit, n-am apucat eu să vă trimit înainte, vorbim mai nou, să [00:45:55] mă ierte cei mai tineri despre the Gen Z stare, adică [00:46:00] chestia asta, atitudinea asta, că orice îl întrebi, când vorbești cu unul mai [00:46:05] tânăr, care a luat un job, se uită așa la tine, fără reacție.The [00:46:10] stare, adică pur și simplu se uită, această mină pietrificată. Poker face. [00:46:15] Poker face. Acest poker face, generația poker face, am putea să-i spună dacă vreți. Deci [00:46:20] avem genul ăsta de retragere orică un fel de revolt orică ar pur și simplu ca plictiseală [00:46:25] ca demotivare sau pur și simplu descărcare completă de emoție după atât de [00:46:30] multă furie cât este amplificată și refuzul [00:46:32] Dumitru Bortun: de implicare emoțională [00:46:33] George Buhnici: da [00:46:35] deci furie și refuz de implicare aici suntem între astea două [00:46:40] ok, toate astea sunt amplificate de tot felul de [00:46:45] influențări care mulți dintre ei se pun în fața oamenilor dar de fapt sunt niște miliardari [00:46:50] de aici spun că luptă acolo pentru interesea oamenilor și Charlie Kirk era finanțat de miliardari nu era nici el [00:46:55] sărac foarte puternic susținut de Elon Musk transportat [00:47:00] sicriul lui de J.D Vance cu Air Force 2 și [00:47:05] asta este doar exemplul ăsta concret dar mai avem oameni foarte bucăți cum a fost pe exemplu că vă [00:47:10] povesteam la un moment dat vorbeam noi despre acel influencer care a venit cu un avion privat la București [00:47:15] să ia un interviu unei candidate la prezidențiale doar dorind să [00:47:20] salveze democrația românească tot felul de influențări în ăștia parașutați cu foarte mulți bani [00:47:25] de ce credeți că acești miliardari folosesc aceste [00:47:30] narațiuni în acest mod și acești algoritmi împotriva oamenilor [00:47:35] ce [00:47:35] Dumitru Bortun: se iunește pe ei Pe [00:47:40] evanghelicii albi din Middle America parcă de [00:47:45] mijlocul Americii Și pe mari miliardari care vin din aceste [00:47:50] industrie de vârf.[00:47:51] George Buhnici: Așa. [00:47:54] Dumitru Bortun: [00:47:55] Doctrina acceleraționistă. Se numește așa pentru că pleacă de la... [00:48:00] Se duce în multe direcții, dar pleacă de la un trunc comun. De la [00:48:05] constatarea că istoria s-a accelerat și că [00:48:10] ritmul de evoluție tehnologică e atât de mare [00:48:15] încât societatea nu mai face față nu mai ține ritm. Și atunci, [00:48:20] marii reprezentanții ai firmelor tehnologice [00:48:25] vor să limiteze democrația, pe care o simt [00:48:30] înceată, birocratizată o simt că nu ține pasul cu [00:48:35] inovarea tehnologică și domeniul cu care sunteți foarte [00:48:40] familiari, că lucrați în domeniul ăsta și promovați, progresul [00:48:45] tehnologic, bine faceți, dar ei spun așa că democrația este un [00:48:50] regim politic cronofag.Știți? [00:48:53] George Buhnici: Că ține pe loc. [00:48:55][00:48:55] Dumitru Bortun: Mănâncă timp Și până când [00:49:00] ajungi să iei o decizie, a trecut, a zburat [00:49:05] gaia cu mațul. Nu mai ai timp. [00:49:10] A zburat momentul în care trebuia luată decizia Și să [00:49:15] acumulează o serie întreagă de blocaje care până la urmă să intră în criză și ei vor să [00:49:20] deblocheze chestia asta. [00:49:21] George Buhnici: Pentru că se văd într-o competiție cu alții care fac același lucru.Da. [00:49:25] Și vor să... [00:49:26] Dumitru Bortun: Toți ăștia care sunt în jurul lui Trump și [00:49:30] care finanțează MAGA, mișcarea asta, [00:49:35] America Great Again, sunt ăștia, [00:49:40] acceleraționiști. Ei se întâlnesc foarte bine cu aceștii [00:49:45] evanghelici albi din Middle America pentru că și pleacă de la ideea că s-a accelerat [00:49:50] și că dacă vrem să accelerăm, dacă e bine că [00:49:55] s-accelerează, pentru că vine...Mai repede Iisus. A doua venire a lui Iisus să se apropie mai [00:50:00] repede. Și atunci ei au intrat în administrație în politică [00:50:05] în școli, vor să intre peste tot, au teoria celor 8 munți. Nu [00:50:10] știu dacă știți vorbesc cu cei care ne urmăresc, dumneavoastră știți că în [00:50:15] Vechiul Testament există un simbol al muntelui, muntele Sinai, în care [00:50:20] Dumnezeu vorbește cu Moise și îi dă cele 10 [00:50:25] porunci, cele două table cu cele 10 porunci, există [00:50:30] muntele Tabor, există muntele Templului, sunt mai multe munți sfinți [00:50:35] care au o simbolistică foarte puternică pentru [00:50:40] iudaism pentru creștinism.Deci pentru iudeocrăștini, [00:50:45] aceștia evanghelici spun că îi trebuie să cucerească opt munți. Un munte [00:50:50] este administrația, alt munte este învățământul educația în [00:50:55] general, alt munte este sănătatea și trebuie să aibă oameni peste tot. Și [00:51:00] ăștia toți trebuie să accelereze și să țină ritm cât mai mult și s-au [00:51:05] întâlnit în foarte multe obiective, printre care cel antidemocratic, cu oamenii [00:51:10] de afaceri cu mari businessmen.Iată de ce se întâmplă în America. Se [00:51:15] dă peste cap o întreagă tradiție și un întreg mecanism de [00:51:20] evoluție socială. Și totul de la tehnologie, [00:51:25] domnul Bucnici. Cum adică de la tehnologie? Păi întotdeauna a fost așa Karl Marx [00:51:30] a vorbit în alți termeni, dar el spunea așa, forțele de producție determină tipul de relație de [00:51:35] producție.Și a vorbit de legea concordanței, între forțele de producție și relații de producție Ce sunt forțele [00:51:40] de producție? E tehnologia. [00:51:41] George Buhnici: Eu sunt de acord că e tehnologia, dar ce adaugă [00:51:45] marxistile în iniște este că, faimoasa zicere, că nu există câștig fără [00:51:50] ca cineva să-și fost furat. Și în cazul ăsta oamenii munce Nu, [00:51:53] Dumitru Bortun: e pe [00:51:55] altă linie, e pe altă direcție.În ceea ce plăcește mecanismul evoluției sociale În mecanismele de [00:51:58] George Buhnici: producție există un [00:52:00] asupritor care ia roadele acestei productivități de la oamenii muncii și nu [00:52:05] distribuie Știu [00:52:05] Dumitru Bortun: dar nu asta contează acum. Contează ce spuneam că ei spun că modurile de producție sunt [00:52:10] schimbate. Din cauza evoluției tehnologice.[00:52:13] George Buhnici: Așa. [00:52:13] Dumitru Bortun: Că [00:52:15] atunci când mijloacele de producții erau atât rudimentare încât trebuia să ne [00:52:20] ajutăm noi între noi, era comuna primitivă, după care s-au mai [00:52:25] evoluat mijloacele de producții, dar atunci nu erau suficiente pentru [00:52:30] ca toată lumea să stea și să producă, fiindcă nu erau mașini. Și atunci jumătatea din [00:52:35] omenire a fost transformată în sclavi.Și jumătatea au devenit stăpâni de [00:52:40] sclavi. Și au folosit păștea păstă unelte. Unelte vorbitoare cum [00:52:45] definește sclavul Aristotel. Un altă vorbitoare. O dată cu o [00:52:50] revoluție industrială apar mașinile. Opa, în momentul ăsta omul devine [00:52:55] conducător al mașinii, dar mașina face efortul în locul lui. Să termină cu [00:53:00] sclavia, apare capitalismul.Deci toate lucrurile astea sunt trase de [00:53:05] dezvoltarea tehnologică. [00:53:06] George Buhnici: Păi da dar tehnologia despre care ne-ați vorbit și care duce la această [00:53:10] tensiune, este cea care a redus cel mai mult suferința pentru toată planeta. [00:53:14] Dumitru Bortun: Eu n-am spus [00:53:15] că e rea. Eu explic de ce se întâmplă. Se întâmplă această mare transformare [00:53:20] socială în America, ea fiind vârful de lance al civilizației occidentale, se întâmplă [00:53:25] întâi la ei.[00:53:25] George Buhnici: Se [00:53:25] Dumitru Bortun: va întâmpla și la noi. Este vorba de aceste schimbări [00:53:30] produse de progresul tehnologic. Într-adevăr accelerat. [00:53:33] George Buhnici: Trebuie să mai gândiți la asta, [00:53:35] pentru că m-ați pus un pic pe gânduri. [00:53:36] Dumitru Bortun: Da, mai meditați. [00:53:37] George Buhnici: Mai dați un pic de gândire. [00:53:39] Dumitru Bortun: Asta nu [00:53:40] înseamnă că nu trebuie să promovați progresul tehnologii. Promovați-i Dar promovați-i în acea [00:53:45] paradigma [00:53:47] George Buhnici: utilitarismului.Da. Eu la asta mă uit. Spre binele [00:53:50] cât mai mari, pentru cât mai [00:53:51] Dumitru Bortun: mulți. [00:53:52] George Buhnici: Mâi la ceasul de la mâna noastră, care vă poate anunța când [00:53:55] aveți probleme de puls. Da, [00:53:56] Dumitru Bortun: exact. [00:53:56] George Buhnici: E nevoie de [00:53:57] Dumitru Bortun: așa ceva. Da, e un câștig. [00:53:58] George Buhnici: Dar nu putem să-l lăsăm pe [00:54:00] băiatul care deține compania aia să-și pună președinte. [00:54:03] Dumitru Bortun: Să ne pună șeful. [00:54:05] Exact.Pentru că el are companie, e lăudabil, dar nu îl a ales nimeni. [00:54:10] Exact. [00:54:10] George Buhnici: Bun. Revenim către România. România trece la [00:54:15] sfârșitul anului trecut prin anularea alegerilor prezidențiale, apoi vin valurile de proteste și o campanie [00:54:20] rerulată sub umbra acestei ingerințe ruse, despre care vorbim inclusiv în [00:54:25] Moldova cum și în alte locuri.Avem rețele pro-Kremlin și conexiuni [00:54:30] moldovene, inclusiv rețeaua SHORE, despre care aflăm tot mai multe zile la acestea prin cei care urmăresc foarte, [00:54:35] foarte interesant câte informații se laiveau în ultima perioadă despre această rețea SHORE, care [00:54:40] operează și la noi, care au amplificat Narațiuni peste tot, Facebook, Telegram și așa mai departe, [00:54:45] inclusiv mesajele anti-UE, dar și anti-migrație, despre care vorbeam puțin mai devreme.[00:54:50]Acum, întrebarea este. Revin un pic și aș vrea să [00:54:55] închidem această discuție Înțelegem că există aceste forme de manipulare și mult [00:55:00] o să zică, iarăși începe să vorbească buhnici de troli ruși. Dar credeți că există o [00:55:05] legătură între discursul anti-imigrație în România, o țară de emigranți nu de [00:55:10] imigrație, care să fie folosite de aceste rețele de [00:55:15] propagandă rusești?[00:55:16] Dumitru Bortun: Da. Scopul final [00:55:20] al propagandei rusești este dezmembrarea Uniunii [00:55:25] Europene, care reprezintă un mare obstacol din punct de vedere [00:55:30] comercial, tehnologic, economic, politic. Și [00:55:35] pentru asta trebuie să întoarcă popoarele astea [00:55:40] needucate din fosta zonă comunistă, [00:55:45] care au ieșit de curând din regimuri totalitare sau dictatoriale, să [00:55:50] le întoarcă împotriva Uniunii Europene.Și n-ai cum să-i [00:55:55] întorci decât spunându-le ce răi Uniunea Europeană, ce răi sunt [00:56:00] birocrații de la Bruxelles, ce lucruri relevă. Trebuie să le [00:56:05] dezvolți și mândria de a fi români sau de a fi bulgari [00:56:10] să dezvolți identitatea lor naționalistă, suveranistă, să le [00:56:15] propui suveranitate în condițiile în care o lume întreagă să devine [00:56:20] interconectată.Ei propun suveranitatea să rămași răul de tot în urmă. [00:56:25] Ca evoluție istorică Ei nu pricep în ce epocă ne aflăm, dar lucrează [00:56:30] cu materialul clientului. [00:56:31] George Buhnici: Ei vor să aibă telefoane produse în străinătate, internet, să se [00:56:35] uită să vadă, să aibă lumea să aibă o fereastră către lume aici? [00:56:37] Dumitru Bortun: Da, dar asta e tehnologie.Nu este [00:56:40] o imagine despre procesul istoric. Ei habar n-au că a existat [00:56:45] o epocă feudală, că a existat o epocă modernă că noi suntem în postmodernitate. Nu [00:56:50] au poziționat. Și gândesc că a nevăd mediul. [00:56:53] George Buhnici: Au acest fallacy că [00:56:55] poți să păstrezi, să stăm cu toții în ie și în costum popular, dar înconjurați de toate [00:57:00] fructele globalizării.[00:57:01] Dumitru Bortun: Da. Exact cum era în Iran la Revoluția lui Khomeini. Mi-a [00:57:05] spus cineva care a fugit de acolo. Era la noi în țară era studentul meu la [00:57:10] arhitectură. Și mi-a spus că marea majoritate, 80% [00:57:15] erau analfabeți, dar aveau televizor color în bordeile lor [00:57:20] acolo și câte un calașnicov dat de ruși. Așa s-a făcut Revoluția [00:57:25] musulmană.Ca la [00:57:25] George Buhnici: noi. Toată lumea are câte un smartphone și opinie pe TikTok. Și ei [00:57:29] Dumitru Bortun: [00:57:30] analfabetiți funcționă. Și [00:57:31] George Buhnici: totuși, atinge niște anxietăți, așa cum am mai auzit [00:57:35] lucrul ăsta, propaganda folosește anxietăți reale. Lucrează cu materialul [00:57:40] clientului. Piața muncii de identitate Mi-ați vorbit, servicii [00:57:45] publice. [00:57:45] Dumitru Bortun: Păi orice schimbare, domnul Bucurniciu orice schimbare creează anxietate.Prima este să [00:57:50] ești pregătit Sufletește de schimbare? Ești pregătit ideologic? [00:57:55] Ai niște idei care justifică schimbarea? Ți-a spus vreodată cineva că singurul absolut [00:58:00] care există în lume e schimbarea? În lumea de azi, [00:58:05] în lumea de aici, singurul lucru absolut e schimbarea. Restul e relativ, [00:58:10] pentru că totul se schimbă.Numai în cer există cineva care nu se [00:58:15] schimbă. Dumnezeu. Și-o și spune în Maleachi, unul dintre [00:58:20] cei mai interesanții profeți mici spune, eu nu mă schimb. [00:58:25] Eu sunt Dumnezeu nu mă schimb. Deci el e reperul fundamental pentru [00:58:30] noi ca să știm când ne schimbăm, când nu. Avem un reper fix, Dumnezeu [00:58:35] cu legile lui, cu legea morală, cu legea sanitară, cu tot ce [00:58:40] știm, discursul despre fericiri de pe munte.[00:58:45] Deci toate lucrurile astea să [00:58:50] înțelegem cred foarte bine când ai o cultură a schimbării [00:58:55] Și tu îți dai seama că trebuie să faci parte din schimbare, să ții pasul cu schimbarea, că dacă [00:59:00] nu-ți place schimbarea sau nu înțelege problema ta, nu e problema schimbării și că nimeni nu e de [00:59:05] vină. Tu trebuie să ții pasul cu ea.Dacă ai niște copii pe [00:59:10] care nu-i mai înțelegi e problema ta, trebuia să ții pasul cu ei și să înveți și [00:59:15] tu de la copiii tăi, nu doar Ei de la tine Pentru că tu le predai Ce se învețe de [00:59:19] George Buhnici: la [00:59:19] Dumitru Bortun: tine? Păi [00:59:20] ce se învețe de la tine? Ce era sub Ceaușescu? Să le bați, îi bați [00:59:25] la cap că era mai bine înainte sub Ceaușescu?Era mai bine pentru tine că era mai tânăr. Pentru ei n-ar fi [00:59:30] mai bine. Deci toate înapoierile astea ale noastre, [00:59:35] încetinea, inerția de a ne schimba, frica de a ne schimba, comoditatea. [00:59:40] Sunt multe ori care ne țin în loc să nu ne schimbăm. Și începem să înjurăm [00:59:45] schimbarea. Suntem împotriva ei. Și respectiv împotriva progresului [00:59:50] tehnologic, împotriva integrării transnaționale și împotriva [00:59:55] Uniunii Europene.Și ăștia atât așteaptă. Să ne întoarcă împotriva Uniunii Europene. [00:59:59] George Buhnici: Mi s-a [01:00:00] părut maxim când am văzut-o pe Madame Șoșoacă în căruță. Nu și-a căzut [01:00:05] imaginea. Cântând într-o căruță. [01:00:06] Dumitru Bortun: Dar face pe autochronista. [01:00:10][01:00:10] George Buhnici: Așadar avem partii de care au învățat să folosească chestiile astea. [01:00:15] Și folosesc toate acestea anxietate Și le transformă în capital politic.Pe de altă parte [01:00:20] avem și o coaliție la putere Care repetă toate greșelile pe care le-au făcut și alte [01:00:25] coaliții de voință. Din mai multe țări europene. În care ne strângem împreună pentru [01:00:30] interesul public. Nu mai face nimeni o poziție reală. Și atunci singurii care capitalizează [01:00:35] cine sunt. Exact cum s-a întâmplat în Germania.Că și Frau Merkel era într-o alianță [01:00:40] mare de tot acolo la putere. Multă vreme n-a deranjat-o nimeni. A avut [01:00:45] niște mandate foarte lungi și foarte liniștite. Era [01:00:48] Dumitru Bortun: chiar o liniște [01:00:50] suspectă. Știți cum se spune în literatură? Liniștea dinaintea furtunii. Asta era. [01:00:55][01:00:55] George Buhnici: Și acolo unde nu există opoziție, nu există dezbatere, democrația nu este vie, [01:01:00] se ridică întotdeauna extremiștii.Și acum vedem același lucru la noi. Am avut USL [01:01:05] până recent. Eu o-i zic USL, acest PSD-PNL, care acum este [01:01:10] în continuare mângăiat pe creștetă de președintele nostru Nicușor [01:01:15] Dan. Și vedem cum crește de la o zi la alta. Săptămâna asta a ieșit un [01:01:20] sondaj că coaliția de la putere mai are procente puține în [01:01:25] față În condițiile actuale.[01:01:27] Dumitru Bortun: E vreo 4%. [01:01:30] Vreau să vă spun că m-am gândit la aspectul ăsta. Am [01:01:35] trei recomandări, trei soluții. În primul rând ar [01:01:40] trebui să descurajeze statul și chiar să interzică dacă e cazul, [01:01:45] discursul urii Și să o facă până nu va fi prea târziu. [01:01:50] Atenți, unde discursul urii. O să-mi zic, da, dar asta nu e restrângerea libertății de [01:01:55] expresie?Ba da. Dar trebuie făcut. Și am să vă povestesc o [01:02:00] poezie lăsată moștenire de Martin [01:02:05] Niemöller, un pastor luteran din Germania, Care [01:02:10] a trăit 92 de ani, a murit în 1984, a supraviețuit la mai multe [01:02:15] lagăre naziste. Și își se spune în nume alături. Foarte interesan

In this hard-hitting episode of The Alan Sanders Show, explore The Nurturing Void, or how modern, radical feminism's rejection of traditional roles may redirect women's innate "mama bear" instincts toward Leftist causes like illegal immigration. We expose the shocking Iran massacre, with reports of Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini ordering brutal crackdowns, killing thousands of protesters amid the uprising against the 47-year theocracy. Plus, how Democrats prioritize illegals over American citizens in an America Last agenda fueling border chaos and national division. We also discuss Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and the UCMJ, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's move to streamline innovation for our military and the Squaw herself, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) outs the Democrats, accidentally of course. Timely facts, no holds barred—subscribe for unfiltered truth! Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR,  TRUTH Social and YouTube by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!

Join Jim and Greg for the Friday 3 Martini Lunch as they chronicle the parade of elected Democrats consistently ratcheting up their irresponsible rhetoric after immigration enforcement-related shootings. They also dive into the massive demand for change in Iran and Megyn Kelly drifting further in a bad direction.First, they're encouraged to see millions of Iranians in the streets condemning the mullahs who have left them destitute and demanding an end to the current government. The regime has now shut off internet access. Will a violent crackdown ensue, or will the movement just keep growing?Next, Jim and Greg vent as Democrats from Minnesota to Oregon and beyond react to shootings involving ICE and Customs & Border Patrol by demonizing federal law enforcement officers and inflaming the people they are supposed to be serving. Is it because they want rage instead of calm?Finally, they reject Megyn Kelly's latest explanation for standing by Tucker Carlson's softball interview of Nick Fuentes and her contention that Fuentes is "very interesting, very smart, and, on a lot of things, there is a lot of value to be derived from that guy's messaging."Please visit our great sponsors:Visit https://CoastPay.com/3ML to get free gas for a whole day. Terms apply.Try QUO for free, PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months when you visit https://Quo.com/3ML Stop putting off doctors' appointments—go to https://Zocdoc.com/3ML to find and instantly book a top-rated doctor today!New episodes every weekday. 

As mass protests sweep Iran and President Trump declares the U.S. is ‘locked and loaded', Thomas and Aimen revisit the event that shaped U.S.–Iran relations for the next half-century: the Iran Hostage Crisis. Then, in real time, the conversation veers into a fast-moving geopolitical shock: Venezuela, Iran's global networks, and what a new era of American ‘muscle' might actually look like. They discuss: Iran's 2026 protest wave: currency collapse, water crisis, and regime pressure points Trump's ‘locked and loaded' warning Why the embassy takeover began as ‘revolutionary entrepreneurship' How and why Khomeini endorsed the hostage crisis The shift to economic sanctions as America's primary lever U.S. back-channel diplomacy Operation Eagle Claw: what the plan was and how it fell apart Hostage diplomacy after 1979 The creation of the U.S. Special Operations Command The Iran–Venezuela–Hezbollah nexus, and why Washington's focus may be shifting Join the Conflicted Community here: https://conflicted.supportingcast.fm/  Find us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MHconflicted And Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MHconflicted And Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/conflictedpod Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Conflicted is a Message Heard production. Executive Producers: Jake Warren & Max Warren. Produced by Thomas Small and edited by Lizzy Andrews. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

INSIDE IRAN: CONFRONTING REVOLUTIONARY FIGURES AND UNCOVERING THE DOUBLE COUPColleague Craig Unger. Unger describes his 2014 trip to Tehran to find Iranian corroboration for the October Surprise. He visited the former US Embassy, now a "Den of Spies" museum documenting the 1953 CIA coup against Mossadegh, which remains a source of deep grievance. Unger secured a rare interview with Mohsen Rafighdoost, a founder of the Revolutionary Guards and Khomeini's driver. During the interview, Rafighdoost slipped, saying "If we met with the Republicans..."—a moment Unger captured on video. Unger also interviewed Abolhassan Banisadr, the ousted first president of the Islamic Republic, in Versailles. Banisadr provided documents confirming the plot, describing it as a "double coup": it removed Carter in the US and allowed hardliners to consolidate power in Iran by undermining moderates like himself. NUMBER 7

Imam Mohammad Tawhidi exposes Iran's real power structure, detailing the corruption of the Khomeini family, inner-circle betrayals, and how the regime silences its own. Drawing from personal experience, he explains why Iran's leadership mirrors extremist movements, not religion.

Roya Hakakian, author of Assassins of the Turquoise Palace and Journey from the Land of No, joins the show to discuss the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini, and how these events have shaped the world. ▪️ Times 02:56 Life Before the Revolution 11:02 Antisemitism in Revolutionary Iran 21:56 Khomeini's Rise to Power 22:32 The Global Left and the Soviet Union 29:49 A Catastrophe of the 20th Century 37:21 The State of the Iranian Regime 42:19 The Revolution is Alive and Well 52:01 The Future of Iran and Its Leadership Follow along on Instagram, X @schoolofwarpod, and YouTube @SchoolofWarPodcast Find more content on our School of War Substack

REALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.comScott Anderson, author of King of Kings: The Iranian Revolution: A Story of Hubris, Delusion, and Catastrophic Miscalculation, joins The Realignment. Marshall and Scott discuss the historical legacy of the rise and fall of the Shah of Iran, how the rise of religious fundamentalism reshaped America's relationship with Iran and the broader Middle East, President Carter's misread of the Iranian Revolution in the context of the Cold War, and survey the aftermath of the joint U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran's nuclear program this past June.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comScott is a war correspondent and author. His non-fiction books include Lawrence in Arabia, Fractured Lands, and The Quiet Americans, and his novels include Triage and Moonlight Hotel. He's also a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine. His new book is King of Kings: The Iranian Revolution: A Story of Hubris, Delusion and Catastrophic Miscalculation.For two clips of our convo — on Jimmy Carter's debacle with the Shah, and the hero of the Iran hostage crisis — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up in East Asia and traveling the world; his father the foreign service officer; their time in Iran not long before the revolution; Iran a “chew toy” between the British and Russian empires; the Shah's father's affinity for Nazi Germany; Mosaddegh's move to nationalize the oil; the 1953 coup; the police state under the Shah; having the world's 5th biggest military; the OPEC embargo; the rise of Khomeini and his exile; the missionary George Braswell and the mullahs; Carter's ambitious foreign policy; the US grossly overestimating the Shah; selling him arms; Kissinger; the cluelessness of the CIA; the prescience of Michael Metrinko; the Tabriz riots; students storming the US embassy; state murder under Khomeini dwarfing the Shah's; the bombing of Iran's nuke facilities; and Netanyahu playing into Hamas' hands.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: a fun chat with Johann Hari, Jill Lepore on the history of the Constitution, Karen Hao on artificial intelligence, and Katie Herzog on drinking your way sober. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

In this sweeping episode, Matt Ehret and Ghost are joined by Cynthia Chung (cynthiachung.substack.com) for a masterclass on Iran's modern history. Cynthia walks through her trilogy of essays chronicling how Britain and later the United States engineered regime change to control Iranian oil, beginning with the 1872 Reuter concession that handed Britain the country's economic lifeblood. The conversation traces the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh for nationalizing oil, the Shah's ambitions to industrialize and escape colonial dependence, and the suspicious rise of Khomeini's revolution. The hosts expose how the same Western networks behind the overthrow of Mossadegh later fueled the Iran-Iraq war, Iran-Contra, and decades of chaos designed to prevent regional cooperation and modernization. They explore the Carter Doctrine, Brzezinski's arc of crisis, and how strategies used to fracture Iran are still deployed across the world. The episode closes with reflections on Iran's attempts to reclaim sovereignty through the Belt and Road Initiative and a vision of economic development to transcend engineered conflicts. Rich with historical detail, this conversation challenges the simplistic narratives that have shaped public perception for generations.

Are we on the brink? To understand where we're headed, we've got to know where we've been. Yanni takes us through the rise and fall of the Persian Empire—how a Zoroastrian civilization became a Muslim one. From Cyrus the Great to Khomeini, it's a wild ride through history. Are the Israelis dragging us into their wars? Does Iran have the bomb? Is commentary on the issue organic on the internet? Let's get into it. Support our sponsors: Start saving time and money, without compromising your nutrition today with this exclusive offer for NEW customers of 15% using my exclusive code: YANNIS at https://huel.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The founder of Iran's most feared military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), sits down with Patrick Bet-David to EXPOSE what really happened behind closed doors during the 1979 Iranian revolution.. Mohsen Sazegara, a former insider, reveals how the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps transformed from its original mission into a global power player—linked to Hezbollah, Hamas, and international conflicts.