[William McKinley]

I fear it because I see the imprint of socialism on the articles presented, because I see them flirting with the TRP, and because neither of these things seem to bother you.

The people of Iran will need to decide. But after a revolution there is a vaccuum, and we need to know who is going to step into that vaccuum. The leaders of a revolution will be part of that. Knowing their goals and their political inclination beyond just wanting change is a must.

Let me share with you some interesting words.

Mass-popular organisations and trade unions, should by their very nature remain above ideology. They unite people on basis of their immediate and direct democratic demands. They should combine over what unites them - trade, profession, gender, ethnicity, sexuality - rather than what divides them - ideology. Political groupings need to operate within these structures, formulating demands and arguing for changes in policy and direction, all within the framework of the raison d'etre of the mass organisation. Ideological issues, whether political, religious or cultural, must be kept out unless it has direct bearing on the purpose of the association.

What does that mean? Does that seem to fit what you see? What the modus operandi here is?

It is from a Marxist critique of the failure of the Iranian Revolution of the late 1970s. From the same critique:

The struggle for a non-ideological state is inseparable from that for socialism.

I can't speak for anyone else here. But until I see the SMCCDI explicitly denounce socialism as incompatible with freedom, and while I continue to see in their declared goals many of the goals of the international socialists, and while I see them making join declarations and presentations with the TRP, I not only will not be supporting them, I will be actively spreading the word that they deserve ambivalence at best from American conservatives.

[DoctorZIn]

When I first started reading your posts I thought you might have discovered something new and important. If you had found proof of some kind of insidious conspiracy I would be would be ever so thankful.

But as I have read your posts, you appear to take a kind of moral or ideological absolutist position.

I appears that you are saying that unless these Iranians can prove they are ideologically pure and committed to your version of anti-socialism, then we should stop all support for their quest for freedom and give them over to the socialists.

I take an opposite position. I don't believe they are socialists, but simply welcoming support whereever they can find it. If we find socialist leanings among them, then we should educate those Iranians that may be tempted by the allure of socialism of its price in personal freedom and liberty.

The Iranians I know are extremely entrepreneurial and take personal responsibility for their lives and the people as a nation just need our encouragement to extend this understanding into their government's social policy, which many already do.

It is easy to criticize others but more difficult to help them.

I don't have a problem with your keeping your eye on SMCCDI but we could use your help more than your criticism.

[JohnGalt]

“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests”

George Washington