خطوط سفید، صفوف سیاه

،همین ها

،همین خودعلامه پندارها

،همین تحلیلگرها، کارشناس ها، درس خوانده  ها

 ،همین ها که بسیار هستند و همیشه در صحنه حاضر

:همین ها نماد مشکلات ایران امروز هستند.

.کسانی که خود را همیشه صاحب تئوری معرفی کرده اند و از دکترینی به دکترینی دیگر درحال مهاجرت و تولید تز هستند

،همین ها که نقد جن هست و وجود پاک ایشان بسم اله

،همین تفلون هایی که هیچ انتقادی به ساحت مطهرشان نمی چسبد

.در حباب نخبگانی(!) خویش چنان فرو رفته اند که با  درد و مصیبت  مردمان غریبه شده اند... 

.لبخند می زنند حال آن که در دل به آلام رنج دیدگان میخندند.

.به برکت وجود مستمرشان در طی بیش از چهار دهه، بی وقفه، وهن اخلاق را به تماشا نشسته ایم

Book Review: We Have Never Been Woke

The nascent terminology and concepts are inevitably rough and subject to refinement in the future. That can be regarded as a side-effect of articulating a new theory. "We Have Never Been Woke" is a 2024 book written by sociologist Musa al-Gharbi. The book is a deep dive into the fourth wave of "Awokening" in the US labeled as "Wokeism". The book investigates the origins, formative phases, and the torchbearers of the Woke movement. Furthermore, the book critically looks into how these movements actually managed or cared to connect to their alleged target population. 

Several ideas explained in this book are not necessarily novel or earth-shattering, but the systematic formulation of the pathology underlying the movement is something that makes this book worth your while. The main target of current analyses is a stratum labeled as "symbolic capitalists". These are liberal elites holding managerial or academic authority, and they mostly define their social status under the umbrella concept of progressivism. One major example is the current state of Ivy League institutions, as the major bedrock for the progressive ideology, is very alarming, and Dr. al-Gharbi's narrative regarding these elite universities rings true to my ears. 

The truth is, Woke slogans, good or bad, were merely applied as ploys for symbolic capitalists to gain more control and boost their authority. That is the canonical point that makes the whole read more alarming. The beneficiaries of the current Awokening are not the minoritized or marginalized sects. But the subgroup of influencers with Democratic-leaning political orientation and hailing from higher socio-economic percentiles, who, in line with their power-craving modus operandi, want to exploit Woke language as an extra muscle for their political grip on power. Social justice, diversity, equality, and inclusion are mere code-names in the game, as abstract as it gets. In reality, in the political scene, they are fierce observers of the current framework at best and sympathizers of social injustice at worst. This unfortunate situation will inevitably deepen the gap between political parties and activists with a disenfranchised social base. 

"We Have Never Been Woke" is a good book; it is a nascent formulation of a decade-long social issue.

Pedram

10/13/2025

انتخابات ریاست جمهوری ۱۴۰۳: کاسبکاری به نام دمکراسی

 پزشکیان رو انسان سالمی دانسته ام.  این که گفتم پزشکیان درگیر فسادها نبوده حداقل در قیاس با  بوستان کاندیداهای گزینش شده بود که الحق در آن ویرانه ایشان چهره موجهی محسوب می شد.  کلا یه سیاستمدار مدل اوایل انقلاب  هست، همون روحیات جهادی و  شلختگی سیاسی و گرایشهای چپ اقتصاد. بعد از تجربه امثال احمدی نژاد و شبه خصوصی سازی هایی که سیستم به خورد ملت داده، من همین شخصیت رو قابل قبول می دونم و صادقانه برام عجیبه که شورای نگهبان تایید کرده.  در هر صورت موضوع بحثم و دغدغه ی من اصلا این شخص و شخصیتش نیست.

من زاویه دید مشارکت کنندگان رو می‌فهمم و خیلی مشکلی ندارم.  فکر کنم خیلی ها از جمله خودم هم با همین منطق در طی این دهه ها رای داده اند؛ نه به برنامه ی مشخص، نه به وعده ی مشخص، نه به یک ایدئولوژی مشخص. یک جور سازش به امید خیر بزرگ تر، یا شاید هم به امید دفع افسد به فاسد رای دادیم. الان هم اتفاقا اگر این ابزار تحول، این اسب تروا در قالب انسان پاکدستی مثل پزشکیان ظهور کرده بود که قابل قبول بود و احتمالا دلیل رای خیلی از بدنه رای ایشان هم همین استدلاله یا بهتر بگویم همین امیده.

در تمام دوره هایی که خودم رای دادم یادم نمیاد جز خاتمی،  اقبالی به کاندیدای انتخابی داشتم. هیچ کدوم شخصیتی نبودن که بعدا بتونم از شخصیتشون یا عملکرد حواریونشون دفاع کنم. همیشه یک انتخاب برای دفع شر بزرگ و انتخاب باامید تغییر بوده.  

 هر تحولی از دل یک فلسفه و رشد جمعی می جوشه و اگر در تاریخ به بار میشینه نتیجه اینه خاک حاصلخیزی برای پذیرش وجود داشته، اتفاقا قسمتی از ناخالصی های رفتاری هم انعکاس بستر زمانه خودش هست. مشکلی بوده، روشنفکری، سیاستمداری، کنشگری پروژه اش رو با محوریت اون مشکل تعریف وی کنه. آیا جریان اصلاحگری الان چنین فلسفه ای داره؟ چنین نقشه ای داره؟ چنین هدف بزرگ تری طراحی کرده؟ برای این قهر اجتماعی برنامه ای داره؟ اصلا افول اقبال عمومی  رو به رسمیت میشناسه؟ 

وقتی میگفتم نباید از جلیلی یک هیولا ساخت بحثم عاشق چشم و ابروی  جلیلی بودن و طرز فکرش نیست. مشکل من روشه. مشکل من روش سلبیه. مشکل من فاشیسمه. مشکل من این غیرسازی رایج در سیاست است. هیولا سازی از یک شهروند برای ما عادی شده و همش ر این امواج کارمون رو جلو می بریم. شعار ایران برای همه ایرانیان که توی همین کشور رای آورد، محورش بر پذیرش و مدارا بود و واقعا هم در عمل مدت محدودی اعمال شد. ولی خب کارهای جذاب تر از جنس “دگرسازی” و قبیله گرایی و فحاشی و سیاه و سفید سازی هست. از این حیدری نعمتی ها هرگشایشی در بیاید، توسعه و تمدن جز آن گشایش ها نخواهد بود. برعکس ابزاری برای مشروع و موجه جلوه دادن همگی شکست ها و بدقولی های آینده است. کمینه کردن انتظارات است. این شمر و هیولاسازی از کاندیدای رقیب حتی اگر موجه و مستدل بوده، توجیه گر گنگ گویی ها و شلختگی کاندیدای خودمان نمی شود.  ترجیحم همیشه نشاندن حرف بر کرسی با روش ایجابی بوده. وگرنه جنگ و دعوا حیدری نعمتی فقط سرگرمی های دوسه هفته ای در گرماگرم انتخابات و با هدف جلب توجه هستند و نه بیشتر. 

همین ها رو به خورد مردمان دادیم که اینجور به هم بی تفاوت شدن. اتمیزه شدن جامعه نتیجه هوشمندی سیاه عده ای بوده است که در کنشگری های ستاد های انتخاباتی هم پررنگ دیده میشده و می شود. در مجموع برداشت من اینست که کارگزار و وزیر و بوروکراتی که  در قالب کمپین ظاهر میشن  ذهنیت توسعه رو ندارن؛ نه در فرهنگ ، نه در اقتصاد، و نه در دیپلماسی.

 توسعه از دید تک بعدی من رو مشکوک می کنه به این که با یکسری پیمانکار طرف هستم که سودش در جوش خوردن یک معامله هست و افق دیدی ورای اون نداره. نمی تونم قبول کنم که یک کنشگر جدی که دنبال اصلاح جدی هست، این حجم گسستکی رو در این کشور نبینه. خلاهای بزرگ قانونی رو‌نبینه. برای مسایل کلیدی و پایه ای جوابی ندارن، اسمش رو میذارن مسایل جانبی و تفننی. دو مقام عالی در تاریخ جمهوری اسلامی در حصر هستن و کوچک ترین اراده ای برای حل مساله وجود نداره. دویست سال هم بگذره این قضیه نرمال نیست.  این ها سمبل خوبی  هستن از اخلاق مدیریت  کنونی؛ مساله ای که میتونیم حل کنیم مهم هست، مساله ای که کالری سوزوندن و لابی و نوآوری میخواد، مساله تفننی و حاشیه ای هست. آقای روحانی اومد و شعارش رو داد و حداقلی از اراده رو نشان داد و خنثی شد. جای آسیب شناسی داشت ولی آن زمان همه مست شیرینی برجام بودن و این مسایل “تفننی” و “درجه دو” فرض شدن. حال آن که اس و اساس زمامداری در داخل است. هیچ دستاورد خارجی برروی بنای سست اقبال و مقبولیت داخلی، گره گشا نخواهد بود. در این زمینه مثال زیاده و این مورد حصر بدترین مثال از ظلم نیست ولی متاسفانه دم دستی ترین هست. من اصلا هم نمی گم مسایل محدود به یکی دو موضوعه. خط سیری مملو از زخم های باز به جا مانده که کسی حتی دغدغه ترمیم آن ها را هم ندارد.

مشکل من اینه که مطمئن نیستم پشت این قبیل کمپین های روزنه گشایی و کلا در ذهنیت جبهه اصلاحات/اعتدال یا هرچی اسمش خواهد بود، برنامه کلان تری با دغدغه توسعه وجود داشته باشد. اخلاق اصلاح و اخلاق توسعه از آموزش و فرهنگ فردی شروع میشه. تو روشنفکر فیلسوف ماب تحلیلگر ما که مدعیه نبض جامعه تو دستشه، آپشن نقدپذیری قفله. صبح انتخابات توییت زده که  “دور دوم نخواهیم داشت “ خب فردای انتخابات کوچک ترین اشاره ای به اشتباهش هم نمی کنه.وارد کارگروه تشکیل کابینه می شوند و بعد از ۴۸ ساعت اعلام می کنند که رییس جمهور اختیار چندانی در انتخاب وزرا ندارد!  بی وقفه هم مشغول تئوری سازی و ترسیم خط مشی هستن. حالا به گذشته که نگاه کنن می بینن که هزار تا پیش بینی و طراحی اجتماعی کرده اند که همه غلط بوده اند. دردناکتر آنست که عده ای از این کنشگران، قدرت استمزاج از مردمی که ظاهرا در بینشان زندگی می کنند را هم از دست داده اند.

نه! یه مواقعی بد نیست خودمون رو نقد کنیم و صدای اعتراض متمدنانه رو بشنویم. بین کوکتل مولوتف و ادای ناشنوایان رو درآوردن، من دومی رو صدها بار اکت خشن تری می دونم. 

(از گفتگوهای ایام انتخابات)

Book Review: Defeating the Dictators: How Democracy Can Prevail in the Age of the Strongman

Timely and in-depth assessment of the political terrain.
The huge positive aspect of this book is the detailed and honest account of success in modern autocracies. There are archetypes of successful non-democratic governance: efficiency, infrastructure, education, modern technology, and a ruthless judicial system weeding out corruption.
However, the book still defends democracy as a well-tested method albeit chaotic and (currently) below-par. The book calls for a revision and re-emphasis on democratic values, recognizing human capital, the value of diversity, and providing scholarship and funding for undergraduate and graduate training, especially in technology.

The Monarchy of Fear

   Fear was the driving force behind Donald Trump's rise to power. This is a take on the 2016 elections that shook many pundits, commentators, philosophers, and casual observers. A body of publications attempted to analyze this choice and focused on specific demographic and social classes supporting Trump in stronghold states for Republicans. However, Nussbaum applies another approach that cuts deeper into the matter by investigating the cause and effect behind this election. This is a philosophical approach to the pertinent subject with heavy connections with social psychology. The toxic brew of misogyny, envy, and fearful anger threatens democracy and its related values. 

   The major hurdle in this philosopher's job is to recognize the unruly emotions and bring them into the fold. The book studies the interconnected emotions of anger, envy, hatred, disgust, sexism, and misogyny and their ramifications on current social affairs in the US. The book describes globalization as one factor bringing about a sense of helplessness and marginalization to a group of citizens. This negative feeling of abandonment eventually transforms into resentment and blame. 

   One aspect of this book is the idea of us "human beings" as a species being vulnerable in our existential terrain, which causes fear as an inherent emotion. If left unattended, this primal feeling can develop into a corrosive agent with monarchial traits controlling various domains of our behavior. Society tends to scapegoat those who are unpopular. In her own words "monarchs feed on fear" "Fearful people run for protection and care, they turn to strong absolute rulers, ... in democracy by contrast we must look one another in the eye, as equals". This horizontal trust is the firm foundation of democracy.

   Amidst disturbing news and divisive rhetoric readily heard and widespread rapidly, reading "Monarchy of Fear" provides a soothing perspective, a timely respite in an onslaught of tribalism and hateful polarization. The ideas of building secluded empires, and hostile policies toward outsiders are alarmingly gaining traction. These may be symptoms of a world marching to a different beat than what Nussbaum describes as our healthy social construct. A lot of the "us versus them" mentality has been propagated by those claiming to be progressive and abiding by human rights. A large portion of stigma is generated by apathy and lack of feeling of any association. 

   Aligned with the unwavering idealism in the book, the proposed solutions look unfashionable and far-fetched: an obligatory three-year service for the American youth and integration of the public school system.  

   Now, at the cusp of a new Cold War era, this anthology on fear is relevant more than ever. The omnipresent vibe of hope and optimism is felt throughout the book with the author vigilantly addressing the issue but not consigning to the doom-and-gloom siege mentality ruled by fear. Quite the opposite, she manages to stay balanced and fair-minded.

Doux Commerce (Gentle Commerce)

The idea of gentle commerce as a platform which puts a premium on empathy is explained in Steven Pinker's "the Better Angels of our Nature". Herein I refer to a paragraph cited in the book explaining the phenomenon and its impacts on social/political construct.   

Commerce attaches [people] to one another through mutual utility...

Through commerce, man learns to deliberate, to be honest, to acquire manners, to be prudent and reserved in both talk and action. Sensing the necessity to be wise and honest in order to succeed, he flees vice, or at least his demeanor exhibits decency and seriousness so as not to arouse any adverse judgement on the part of present and future acquaintances.

Samuel Ricard (1704)

American Political Schism: A Matter of Ages?

This is an illuminating article published in the Washington Post, shedding some light on the matter of political schism in America. The turmoil during the Gilded Age is particularly of note. The term Gilded Age coined by Mark Twain, refers to a period roughly around 1877-1900. 

America is deeply divided. Our politics is broken, marked by anger, contempt, and distrust. We must acknowledge that reality but not lose historical perspective. It’s bad now, but it’s been worse before—and not only during the Civil War.

Let’s look backward and start with the mid-1960s to early ’70s. The nation was bitterly divided over civil rights, the “sexual revolution” and an increasingly unpopular war in Southeast Asia.

The just and peaceful civil-rights protests of the 1950s and early ’60s were often met with state-sanctioned violence. Then Harlem exploded in 1964, followed by a riot in Philadelphia. Watts went up in flames in 1965; Chicago, Cleveland and San Francisco the next year. A total of 163 cities—including Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Detroit, Milwaukee, Newark, N.J., New York and Portland, Ore.—suffered widespread violence in the “Long Hot Summer” of 1967. On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tenn. Riots broke out in more than 130 American cities, with 47 killed in the ensuing violence. Two months later Robert Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles.

That same year the nation’s most prominent segregationist, George Wallace, running for president as an independent, won five states in the Deep South. In 1972 he came in third for the Democratic nomination, 1.8 points behind the winner in total primary vote.

Beginning in 1965, the country was rocked by demonstrations over the Vietnam War, many of them student-led. In some instances, governors sent in the National Guard to restore order. After guardsmen killed four students in 1970 at Ohio’s Kent State, protests broke out on 350 campuses, involving an estimated two million people. Thirty-five thousand antiwar protesters assaulted the Pentagon in October 1967. An estimated 10,000 tried shutting down the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Four years later, thousands tried the same at the GOP convention in Miami Beach. The U.S. experienced more than 2,500 domestic bombings in 18 months in 1971-72.

Two presidents were driven from office during this period. Lyndon B. Johnson opted against seeking re-election in 1968 because of the war. Richard Nixon, facing impeachment over Watergate, resigned in 1974.

In the early 1930s, 1 in 4 Americans was unemployed. Populism emerged on both ends of the spectrum. On the left, Huey Long, proclaimed “every man a king,” threatened confiscation of wealth, and preached class hatred until he was assassinated in 1935. On the right, Father Charles Coughlin, the “Radio Priest,” blamed the Depression on bankers and Jews in nationwide broadcasts from Detroit. Journalist Eric Sevareid recalled that in 1933 “every day the headlines spoke of riots, of millions thrown out of work, of mass migrations by the desperate.” Historian Wendy L. Wall describes the late 1930s as “marked by sit-down strikes, violent repression of workers, and attacks by vigilante groups on Jews, Catholics, racial minorities, and leftists.”

The Gilded Age is often overlooked as a time of division, but Republicans and Democrats hated each other. They were still fighting the Civil War by political means. President Ulysses S. Grant’s 1872 re-election was followed by five consecutive presidential contests in which no winner received a popular-vote majority. Less than 1 percentage point separated the two candidates in three elections. In two of the five races, the winning candidate failed to earn a plurality of popular vote because the black Republican vote was suppressed by violence hard for modern minds to grasp.

The most notorious of these Gilded Age elections was 1876. Democrat Samuel Tilden led Republican Rutherford Hayes by 252,666 votes nationwide, but disputes about the Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina results were settled on March 2, 1877, by a special commission that awarded their electoral votes to Hayes. He was inaugurated two days later and, in return for a meaningless pledge by the South to protect black rights, he withdrew the remaining federal troops from the region. The Electoral College count was 185-184.

From 1873 until 1897, Republicans held the White House and the Senate and House for four years; Democrats for two years. That left 18 years of divided government. When Democrats flipped 92 seats to win the House in 1874 for the first time in 18 years, it was part of what historian Michael Perman calls “The Return of the Bourbons” as 56 former Confederates, including the former vice president of the Confederacy, were elected to Congress from Southern and border states.

In the Gilded Age, it was routine for the House majority of either party to phony up a challenge to a member of the opposition who’d won by a few votes and toss him out, no matter how flimsy the evidence. This happened 62 times between 1874 and 1904. After winning re-election in 1882 by eight votes, Rep. William McKinley of Ohio was expelled by the Democratic majority.

This constant abuse of the House minority by the majority helped lead each party to take extreme measures. In 1888 Republicans won the White House with Benjamin Harrison and held the Senate by one seat and the House by four, 164-160 with one vacancy. If more than four Republican representatives were absent during a floor vote, House Democrats would demand a roll call and refuse to answer when their names were called. The measure would fail for lack of a quorum. The Democrats’ “disappearing quorum” kept the House from acting for months.

Finally, on Jan. 29, 1890, Speaker Thomas Reed had enough. He brought up an election challenge to a West Virginia Democrat who’d been certified the victor. The Republican had led by three votes until the Democratic governor “interpreted” one precinct’s report of two Democratic votes as 12, making the Democrat the winner by seven.

Excerpted from the Washington Post article by Karl Rove. Read the full article here: America is Often a Nation Divided

My take on these historic events is the pedigree of division on the political spectrum in the US. This is contradictory to the common current narrative that we are in an era of unprecedented dualism jeopardizing the integrity of a nation. My read on these historical facts is cautiously tanged causing a cautious optimism. Unlike the Gilded Age drama, political ploys and each party's totalitarian moves are quickly scrutinized and for the most part, shackled by modern surveillance mechanisms in place. Additionally, the role of media and public opining on ongoing political matters to some extent does not give liberty to many brazen acts we have witnessed before.  

Exploiting History and Engineering Hatred: Lesson from Balkan War

 This was my take on a fascinating essay by Farangis Bayat on the Balkan war and how nationalism led to one of the most heinous acts of genocide in modern Europe.

This is a dive into Yugoslavia's contemporary history post-world war II. How Tito's relatively benevolent dictatorship provided a shift from Stalinist ideas and a ground for nationalism.

The new-age nationalism was not the result of a single party's ideology and movements. Actually, a group of social groups including intellectuals, academics, artists, and religious figures collectively helped promote nationalism. To this end, they invested heavily in pseudo-narratives of history, a fabricated image of Serbians throughout history. Secondly, they exploited these narratives against non-Serbian ethnic groups (i.e. Croats, Albanians, Bosnians, and Slovenians). 

The role of intellectuals should be cautiously interpreted as the social class in Yugoslavia was oppressed under Tito's regime. This oppression was more pronounced for nationalist intellectuals and pushed them toward a more militant approach instead of targeting existential questions that you'd e expect an intellectual to be engaged with.

On the other hand, Marxist intellectuals were more adherent to social and philosophical methodology and attempted to tackle social issues. However, the complexity of their language cost them healthy communication with the public and the bond with the populace. The other aspect surrounding the political milieu ending in the Balkan war is the distance from Stalinism which provided a relatively free space for various groups to confront traditional Marxist ideas. Marxists were struggling with their communication with citizens and liberals were gradually getting closer to nationalists. The resultant vacuum proved to be an ominous political end-product wisely exploited by Serbian nationalists. 

One key component of nationalism in the build-up of their argument is the need for the "Other" party: an ever-present, threatening existence that always stands at odds with your existence. They theorize, organize, create and operate in antagonism with the "Other". In other words, the "Threat" created by "Them" unites "Us". Nationalist arts and literature produced by scientists, artists, and intellectuals such as Radovan Karadžić and Mića Popović are examples of how all social domains were recruited to fulfill the nationalist goals. That's where the machiavellian narrative of history comes into effect. A picture of victimized ethnicity unfairly forced to live under atrocious conditions. 

Pedram

January 2023

  

The Nonviolence Handbook: Tribute to Dr. Farhad Meysami

I read this great book by Michael N Nagler. This is constructed around the concept propagated by Gandhi based on Satyagraha. How to seriously consider Satyagraha in practice and amid the chaotic circumstances surrounding turbulent social unrest and conflicts where violence seems to be the only feasible solution. 

Nonviolent resistance is an act of compassion and is driven by an inherent characteristic of humans. That is why it is a positive phenomenon and an approach based on being and creating capitalizing on existing forces 

Nonviolent resistance is the artful hard-fought skill to transform the negative drives of anger and fear into something constructive. So the notion of nonviolence being a purely reactionary stance is not true.

As Kenneth Boulding points out this approach relies on an integrative power rather than a threat or exchange power. This means that those who exercise this method see their enemies as similar to themselves in their fundamental being. A well-executed message may reach our rivals (frequently armed and in a power position) and may subdue the deadliest weapons they possess. The people power revolution in the Philippines in 1986 has been mentioned as an example where this soft-looking approach yielded a significant impact. 

One caveat is that observant and vigilant activists should be mindful of all the violence they gave. Normalization of structural violence is not acceptable and that is the very reason the nonviolent activist opted a completely opposite method. It must be noted that communities chronically exposed to violence may have an inclination toward violence. This is an insidious and visceral process that all nonviolent activists should be aware of and work against.

It is noteworthy that the book is so special partly because the Farsi translation was done by one of the noble instructors I have known in my formative years of education: Dr. Fathad Meysami. Dr. Meysami is an Iranian physician activist who unfortunately has been imprisoned for his peaceful civil activism, He translated this book while detained in Rajaishar prison. I pray for his health and safety and hope to celebrate his freedom soon.

The Drawbacks of Nation-State Idea

I have been preoccupied with the narrative of those simplifying world events through nation-state narrative. Even though there are traits which seem to follow the rationale of those in favor of nationalism, a gander at contemporary history provides evidence that disagrees with this notion. Herein I've excerpted some lines from Pinker's book "Enlightenment Now":

"First, the claim that humans have an innate imperative to identify with a nation-state (with the implication that cosmopolitanism goes against human nature) is bad evolutionary psychology. Like the supposed innate imperative to belong to a religion, it confuses a vulnerability with a need. People undoubtedly feel solidarity with their tribe, but whatever intuition of “tribe” we are born with cannot be a nation-state, which is a historical artifact of the 1648 Treaties of Westphalia. (Nor could it be a race, since our evolutionary ancestors seldom met a person of another race.) 

In reality, the cognitive category of a tribe, in-group, or coalition is abstract and multidimensional. People see themselves as belonging to many overlapping tribes: their clan, hometown, native country, adopted country, religion, ethnic group, alma mater, fraternity or sorority, political party, employer, service organization, sports team, even brand of camera equipment. (If you want to see tribalism at its fiercest, check out a “Nikon vs. Canon” Internet discussion group.) 

It’s true that political salesmen can market a mythology and iconography that entice people into privileging a religion, ethnicity, or nation as their fundamental identity. With the right package of indoctrination and coercion, they can even turn them into cannon fodder. That does not mean that nationalism is a human drive. Nothing in human nature prevents a person from being a proud Frenchman, European, and citizen of the world, all at the same time.

The claim that ethnic uniformity leads to cultural excellence is as wrong as an idea can be. There’s a reason we refer to unsophisticated things as provincial, parochial, and insular and to sophisticated ones as urbane and cosmopolitan. No one is brilliant enough to dream up anything of value all by himself. Individuals and cultures of genius are aggregators, appropriators, greatest-hit collectors. Vibrant cultures sit in vast catchment areas in which people and innovations flow from far and wide. This explains why Eurasia, rather than Australia, Africa, or the Americas, was the first continent to give birth to expansive civilizations (as documented by Sowell in his Culture trilogy and Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel). 

It explains why the fountains of culture have always been trading cities on major crossroads and waterways. And it explains why human beings have always been peripatetic, moving to wherever they can make the best lives. Roots are for trees; people have feet. Finally, let’s not forget why international institutions and global consciousness arose in the first place. Between 1803 and 1945, the world tried an international order based on nation-states heroically struggling for greatness. It didn’t turn out so well. It’s particularly wrongheaded for the reactionary right to use frantic warnings about an Islamist “war” against the West (with a death toll in the hundreds) as a reason to return to an international order in which the West repeatedly fought wars against itself (with death tolls in the tens of millions). After 1945 the world’s leaders said, “Well, let’s not do that again,” and began to downplay nationalism in favor of universal human rights, international laws, and transnational organizations. The result has been seventy years of peace and prosperity in Europe and, increasingly, the rest of the world. 

As for the lamentation among editorialists that the Enlightenment is a “brief interlude,” that epitaph is likelier to mark the resting place of neo-fascism, neo-reaction, and related backlashes of the early 21st century. The European elections and self-destructive flailing of the Trump administration in 2017 suggest that the world may have reached Peak Populism, and as we saw in an international order based on nation-states heroically struggling for greatness. It didn’t turn out so well. It’s particularly wrongheaded for the reactionary right to use frantic warnings about an Islamist “war” against the West (with a death toll in the hundreds) as a reason to return to an international order in which the West repeatedly fought wars against itself (with death tolls in the tens of millions)."

Pinker, Steven. Enlightenment Now (pp. 450-451). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

Photo: Morocco fans celebrate in the central Puerta del Sol in Madrid, Spain, Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2022. Morocco beat Spain on penalties during a round of 16 World Cup soccer tournament in Qatar. (AP Photo/Andrea Comas)

How Did Mahsa Amini Become The Key?

From time to time, life takes some unpredictable turns that catch us all off guard.

Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old girl from the Kurdish city of Saqez in Iran traveled to the capital to have a few days of fun and visit her relatives. She was apprehended by Morality in Tehran and died under suspicious conditions while in custody.

The way the news spread and the heartbreaking nature of this death, gravely saddened millions of people in Iran. Nationwide protests flared and a full-blown crackdown ensued.

These are not unfamiliar scenes for many middle-aged Iranian people. Over the past 25 years, there have been a number of protests over various social, political, and economical crises. However, this time looks different to many observers. Here are a few points that in my opinion make this round unique by the standards of Iran's protests:

1- Generation Z: This is a fundamental factor, the demographics of this round of protests make it completely different. The majority of individuals on the streets are from Generation Z. This generation is well recognized for its particular characteristic and their different upbringing conditions. The main player is ubiquitous Internet access. The new technologies are the bedrock of their  There is a demanding aspect of societal management of movement. 

2- Woman, Life, Freedom

A central theme of this movement is women demanding their fundamental rights. They feel the regime has robbed them of their innate rights throughout the past four decades. The motive here is captured in the slogan "Woman, Life, Freedom". This is a very modern, politically-neutral, and timid type of manifest encapsulating the core values of modern civil society. Coming out of decades of policies crushing middle-class society, facing such a slogan becoming the canonical point of protests is telling.  

3- A Leaderless Movement

This is massive without prominent leadership. The conventional conservative, reformist, and opposition fronts are completely out of the leadership picture and are actually catching up with the slogans and the mindset of protests.

4- The Role of Social Media

As global connectivity soars, the news of the Iranian protest broke despite strict censorship by the regime. The shocking footages, voices, pictures spread to the people, and news agencies in the free world. Social tools such as hashtags were decisive in attracting attention and most online activities were spearheaded toward promoting these hashtags with the canonical one of #MahsaAmini and later #NikaShakarami 

5- Diaspora and Expats joining Iranians Inside Homeland:

Usually, Iranian expats are demonstrating poor collective spirit, communicating and finding the common ground. This time is different. Probably scope and depth of human tragedy, affected people across the political and ideological spectrum alike, Large unprecedented marches in more than 150 cities across the globe with a consistent slogan (Woman. Life. Freedom) is a testament to this evolution.  

While there are some distinct characteristics in this "Woman.Life.Freedom" movement in 2022, there are similarities with the previous civil movements in 2009 and the students' unrest as in both we have the central role of universities and the security measures against these highly influential institutions, shows how much the authorities rate and deter the elites. While this is in continuation of 2009unrests, the government did its best to rattle the foundation of grass root institutions/organizations such as labor unions, or student groups. These were originally designated as valid roots for citizens to engage with policymakers and explain their concerns. The logical outcome of this is that society resorts to violence and a flurry of radical slogans. As a person who was closely witnessing 2009 unrests, I can notice the stark turn in the contents of slogans as they've become extremely radical with profane language targeting the supreme leader. Interesting is that the protestors do not address anyone below the supreme leader of Iran in their slogans and this may suggest the common consensus that all the rest of the political figures in the system are insignificant in deciding the main policies. 

Populism: Gendered and Dangerous

This was a fantastic article by Julie Mostov.

The article points out that populism follows a gendered undertow and always jeopardizes democracy. The undercurrent of populism movements is the strengthen the "us" vs. "them" narrative. Populism is all for the continued rule of majority and the would-be infiltrators of the status quo are not desirable players. This POV also affects immigration policies and curbs democratic institutions with the intention of serving the national interest. This will most likely progress in parallel with the disenfranchisement of entities deemed as disloyal and the silencing of the suspect voices within the demos. 

Link to the Article

Nietzsche and The Nazis (Book Review)

A very educative read. Touches on a very controversial intellectual of the modern era and how he might have influenced Nazism.
The blueprints are timeless and can be interpreted in any context. The author well describes the antagonists of Nazi ideology:
1- Individualism against collectivism
2- Science, philosophy of reason, and logic against passion and instincts
3- Productiveness and trade against inclination toward conflict and war
4- Individual freedom as opposed to political authoritarianism and top-down leadership
5- Free market capitalism against socialism promoted by Nazism

Erich Ohser: The Burden of Art

This is the sad story of a pioneer, light years ahead of the contemporary trend.

Erich Ohser (aka E.O. Plauen) was born in 1903 in Adorf,  small outlaying in Vogtland.  During a short professional career, he worked for magazines such as Vorwärts (=Forward), illustrating satirical representations of Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler. Obviously, these endeavors earned him the enmity of the Nazis, and he was prohibited from practicing his trade under an order of professional disqualification (=Berufsverbot). He continued to work under pseudonyms, and from 1940, began again to produce cartoons on political themes. He was arrested on charges of expressing anti-Nazi opinions (reichsfeindliche Äußerungen). Sadly, Ohser committed suicide in jail 24 hours before his trial.

I accidentally discovered some of his comic strips dating back to the 1930s. His art has been an intriguing subject for me. Elements of his political orientation were interwoven into his modern aesthetic flavor. His satirical caricatures or cartoons, frequently accompanied by Erich Knauf's articles, expressed his political stance against National Socialism. The interesting aspect is how an artist channels ideas under a rigid censorship regime. The notorious Father and Son series is probably the most popular work by Ohser that captivated readers between 1934 to 1937. The adventures of the funnily depicted duo gave the artist a veiled platform to express his views.

Pedram, 12/16/2021

Inauguration Day

I am a staunch believer in baby steps. As Michael K. Williams put it more accurately "concrete baby steps". That is the way civil society moves forward and evolves. Peaceful, calm, and yet exciting. Pretty much all the elements of modern civilization share commonalities such as gradual formation. The temple so to speak is built by these small but sustainable actions. Those are the most productive ones as history has shown. 

2020 Election: Populism and Manistream

 Now that the US election is drawing to a close, it is a good time to reflect on the results. And from my personal standpoint there a few interesting points. 

The populism and the affinity to it is one standout, still noticeable in 2020. This election was not meant to end populism. Nor did we expect that in a foreseeable future in America or elsewhere. In countries such as Hungary, Brazil, and the Philippines, the populists are at the helm, and in many others (Germany, Italy, and Italy) they have control over parts of the opposition. The paradoxical approach of Trump to power is indicative of a lack of principles in the populistic figure. He was running a campaign based on anti-establishment agenda despite having 4 yours of the undisputed authority to restructure the establishment. 

The premature claim of victory in the election revealed the president's attitude toward the democratic process and I am afraid to say a long-lasting narrative for die-hard hardliners to hold on to an election stolen from him.  An arbitrary early end to ballot counting was a brazen act yet the inherently populist idea that only a specific group of voters are "real people" and deserve to have their voice heard. The attitude was warmly supported by European equivalents from Germany to Slovenia (Slovenian PM was the first to prematurely congratulate Trump.)

On the flip side, the system is still working and that is a soothing signal for people looking nervously at the state of democracy during the 2020 election. However, with or without  Trumpism is there, formless and morphing from one form to another. Defeating the incumbent president is not unprecedented but a rare incident. 

More than 70 million voters cast their ballots for Trump. From their standpoint, the populist approach to power and the promise were convincing. In four years, they could be swayed by the same agenda once again.  

Publication Ethics: Unintended consequences of sanctions

The latest changes to US sanctions on Iran, designed to discourage the country from developing nuclear weapons, seem to have caused confusion, leading to some journal editors effectively boycotting research from Iranian medical practitioners and academics.

Regulations set out by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control state that US citizens are authorised to engage in ordinary transactions related to written publications as long as the parties to the transactions are not employed by the Iranian government. Most Iranian universities, hospitals, and research centers are government owned but the regulations specify that the sanctions do not apply to any academic and research institutions or their staff.

Nevertheless, Iranian doctors have told the BMJ that several papers have been refused by journals in the US and Australia in recent months because of the sanctions.

The editor of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI), which is owned by Elsevier, explained in an email to an assistant professor in the department of paediatrics at Tehran University of Medical Sciences that the journal could not accept his paper because “US owned journals are unable to handle scientific manuscripts which are authored by Iranian scientists, employed by the Government of Iran.”

Papers from Iranians are also known to have been turned down by the American Journal of Cardiology (also published by Elsevier), the Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics (published in the US by Marie Ann Liebert), and the Australian journal Ophthalmic Epidemiology (published by Informa Healthcare in the UK), all of whom explained that US sanctions prevented them from considering the research.

Dove Medical Press (an open access online publisher whose headquarters are in the UK and editorial office is in New Zealand) turned down a paper saying that “international sanctions currently in place against Iran mean that Dove Medical Press is no longer able to process manuscripts received from Iranian authors.”

“We do not make this decision lightly and have consulted with the authorities both here in New Zealand and in the United Kingdom before making our decision,” said Jeanette Pearce, Dove’s New Zealand based operations manager.

“It is not ethical to treat Iranian researchers this way,” Behrooz Astaneh, acting editor of the Iranian Journal of Medical Science, told the BMJ. “These people want to disseminate data they have obtained in very difficult circumstances because of the sanctions. Research publication should be on merit and have nothing to do with politics.”

Protecting editors

According to a report from Science magazine, Elsevier advised its US editors in April against handling any papers authored by employees of the government of Iran and in an email shown to the BMJ, the editor of JACI explained, “our publisher precludes taking any articles from authors based at Iranian institutions or hospitals.” Yet, Elsevier says it believes in the “free flow of ideas and information as a principle for science and for society” and chief lawyer, Mark Seeley, told the BMJ that the company continues to publish papers from Iranian academics and researchers affiliated with academic or medical institutions. Elsevier decided it was necessary to make “narrowly crafted exceptions” because of the potential for personal liability on the part of its US editors.

Asked if some US editors had possibly misunderstood the publisher’s guidance on this, Seeley responded that the problem was over “the exact definition of ‘government employees’ other than academics and practitioners. Seeley said the company was seeking greater clarity but had not yet received it.

John Sullivan of the US Treasury told the BMJ that “The focus of our sanctions is the Iranian regime and its support for terrorism and its illicit nuclear programme. Our sanctions do not target academic or informational materials.”

A different view

Other American health publications, including the two leading journals the New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of the American Medical Association, said they were continuing to publish Iranian submissions on merit.

“Different journals have adopted very different strategies on this,” Elaheh Malakan Rad, associate professor of paediatric interventional cardiology at the Children’s Medical Centre in Tehran, told the BMJ. “There needs to be clear guidance on the ethical issue here.”

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which advises editors on handling ethically sensitive issues, discussed problems surrounding Iranian authors in a June meeting and affirmed the need, already previously agreed because of other concerns, that clearer guidance is needed. COPE is planning to add a paragraph to its code of conduct stating that, “Editorial decisions should not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Decisions to edit and publish should not be determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself.”

The United Kingdom government has also changed its sanctions recently and continually updates a list of banned authors and institutions thought to be involved in Iran’s nuclear programme. However, the BMJ continues to take papers on merit and has chosen in some instances to waive the usual author fee charged for open access publication of research because of regulations over bank transactions with Iran.

“The BMJ is against academic boycotts and has no restrictions on publishing articles from authors in Iran,” the BMJ’s editor, Fiona Godlee, said in a statement posted on bmj.com. “We have noted the UK’s restrictions on trading with Iran and are also aware of the new US restrictions. These may have implications for whether we can levy an author fee from an author in Iran. We will decide this on a case by case basis.”

Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet (which is owned by Elsevier) said: “TheLancet welcomes and encourages research from scientists in all countries, including Iran. Indeed, we are currently working to strengthen our links with Iranian medical and public health scientists.”

by: Sophie Arie

@BMJ

The Falcon and the Snowman

Movie: The Falcon and The Snowman
Year: 1985
Writers: Robert Lindsay (Book), Steve Zaillian (Screenplay)
Director: John Schlesinger
Starring: Timothy Hutton, Sean Penn, David Suchet, Pat Hingle, Lori Singer, Dorian Harewood

Fact-based, the story of two californian boyhood friends Christopher Boyce and Daulton Lee who  ultimately end up selling top-secret US document to Soviet Union. The movie has been of great impact the first time i watched about 20 years ago, and somehow i retrieved a better copy and the impact stays there. What's interesting in this somehow trivial espionage genre movie (which admittedly lacks tempo and composure at times)?
1- "The Sleeping Tiger"
The disappointment underlying Christopher's  committing this crime. It's definitely not money, or any kind of materialistic motive that derives him (no matter subsequently via this criminal adventure he gained hefty amount of money). He was disappointed by what he felt morally wrong interventions of US government abroad. First you feel fed-up then the trigger is pulled and there starts a vigorous serial of actions.
Look at this part for example:

[explaining why he didn't express his unhappiness with the CIA in a more acceptable manner]Christopher Boyce: It wouldn't have made a difference. I freely chose my response to this absurd world. If given the opportunity, I would have been more vigorous. 

2-"Oedipus Complex"
Another tip is a sort of Oedipus Complex formed indolently toward his father: a respectable former FBI agents with certain degree of patriotism flowing in his veins. Dad is the symbol of government, the authoritarian statue reminding him he has underachieved and underperformed.   On the other hand Mr. Boyce stress his patriotism once again by rejecting any outlaw intervention in his son's persecution but simply telling a friend :"Let him be judged."
3-"Extending a Personal Philosophy"
It doesn't work extending such personal ideas to complex scene of international affairs:

Christopher Boyce: I know a few things about predatory behavior. And what was once a legitimate intelligence gathering agency is now being used to prey on weaker governments.

So he seeks personal revenge by entrusting secret codes and documents to the soviets. 
4-"The Frail Companion"
Boyce and Daulton depict a sort of silly partnership in any practical terms let alone that be espionage amid cold war turmoil! Jittery heroin addict Daulton is in the business to handle the financial aspect but it turned to a rewarding way to pursue his drug trafficking in a larger scale under russians' political protection.
However russian bloc turn to a "carrot and stick" strategy in order to infiltrate deeper and connect directly to the mole (Boyce). Daulton easily gave away Boyce's name and many other crucial information.

Conclusion:
An intriguing political thriller with some decent performance by Hutton and Penn. (7/10)

Pedram