MandoFett

SOCIALISTS THINK THEY'RE USING ISLAMISTS TO SPREAD SOCIALISM - BUT IN REALITY ISLAMISTS ARE USING THEM FOR ISLAMIC EXPANSION Many on the political left believe they can ally with Islamist movements to gain power. History shows the exact opposite: those alliances rarely end the way they expect. Consider Iran in 1979: Several leftist and Marxist-oriented guerrilla groups helped to overthrow the Shah and celebrated the revolution. Key leftist groups involved: * People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK / PMOI): Founded as a left-wing, Islamist-Marxist group, they were a powerful force opposing the Shah through bombings and armed struggle. * Organisation of Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas (OIPFG/Feda'i): A major Marxist-Leninist guerrilla organization actively fighting the regime from 1971 to 1979. * Tudeh Party of Iran: The traditional communist party that, while less involved in initial armed struggle, supported the revolution. * Organisation of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class: Another Marxist group active in the revolutionary street fighting. These groups participated in a broad, yet fragile, coalition with Islamist followers of Ayatollah Khomeini to overthrow Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. However, after the revolution, these leftist groups were quickly suppressed by the new Islamic Republic. Within months, many were imprisoned, executed, or pushed aside once the Islamist regime consolidated power. It is a pattern seen repeatedly: temporary alliances between secular revolutionary movements and political Islam tend to collapse once power is secured. Today, similar debates are emerging in parts of Europe, particularly in the UK, about political strategy, demographic change, and ideological alliances. Whether one agrees or disagrees with those concerns, history shows that movements with fundamentally different end goals rarely remain partners for long. The lesson is simple: Before forming political alliances, it is worth asking whether the long-term objectives are truly compatible. History is full of warnings for those willing to learn and heed them.

You think protecting Erika means calling out Candace; I think if you don’t wish to call attention to a negative attack, don’t call attention to it. Does that work for you Ben? May I have your approval now? No, I don’t think so. Bc you and your little cohort of sick followers aren’t mad about anything involving me and Erika Kirk, who you barely know (trust me; I’ve checked). You turned on me when I wouldn’t de-friend Tucker whose criticism of Israel you can’t stand - and when I defended Candace’s questions about whether Charlie, before he was killed, was growing more skeptical of Israel (HE WAS). You’re right that, at Erika’s request, I tried to help her and Candace get to an okay place - an effort that failed and which now you mock - but Christians like me are pretty big on forgiveness and reconciliation. I tried to help you and Tucker get there too, remember? More of my “cowardice” I guess. One final point: you handled your anger toward me in the most despicable way possible. Did you call me? Text me? Raise it with me privately after all we had been thru together over the years? No, you attacked me on stage at the Turning Point event without so much as a heads-up. Bc you were too chicken shit to say it to my face. I texted you afterward and you never responded. You didn’t have the balls to have a face-to-face talk or even a text or call about it. You are the coward, Ben. And your moral preening, priggish lectures and holier-than-thou judgments are the reason you are losing fans and, more than that, friends, at a record rate. You always told me you were a “family guy” not a “friend guy.” I learned the hard way you really meant it.

Napoleon Dynamite is the only answer