One of the most important findings of my report is that we cannot understand contemporary political correctness if we begin with social media, cancel culture, or university speech disputes. The phrase itself predates Communism, but its twentieth-century ideological use is documented inside Communist political culture. In a 1930 Communist Party publication, students at Moscow’s Lenin School praised a position for providing a “politically correct perspective”—meaning conformity with the authorized Party position. Stalin-era Communist organization likewise revolved around the “correct political line,” deviation from that line, and the organizational machinery required to enforce it. The report traces that history directly. That matters today because de-escalation requires exactly what political-line thinking makes difficult: the ability to admit that your opponent can be wrong without being morally illegitimate, that a grievance can be real without belonging to one ideology, and that disagreement does not automatically identify an enemy. When political correctness functions as ideological enforcement rather than simple courtesy, the sequence becomes dangerous: define the approved language → attach moral legitimacy to it → classify deviation as moral failure → punish the transgressor → treat the punishment as justice. At that point, persuasion begins disappearing. If disagreement itself proves that someone is racist, fascist, communist, bigoted, reactionary, or otherwise beyond legitimate political participation, what incentive remains to listen, negotiate, correct an error, or de-escalate? The result is a feedback loop. One side's coercion produces legitimate reaction. Extremists attempt to capture that reaction. The opposing side then points to those extremists as proof that its original collective accusation was correct. Each extreme becomes recruiting material for the other. And that is precisely the kind of fracture hostile political-warfare systems historically sought to exploit. Soviet active measures used disinformation, fronts, agents of influence, covert political operations, and the exploitation of existing vulnerabilities rather than relying exclusively on grievances invented from nothing.

Just like I warned in the lecture series some were gracious enough to attend: "no transfer of capabilities either directly via training or indirectly via MASINT derived from demonstrated capability is ever neutral." IYKYK Amoo Jeff https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/09/24/russia-planning-drone-attacks-on-southern-europe-cia-warns/

The young Iranians who went into the streets in January did not risk arrest, torture, disappearance, gunfire, and death because they wanted designer jeans, flip-flops, Western entertainment, or some shallow imitation of foreign consumer culture. They went into the streets after nearly 47 years of clerical repression, political coercion, economic deterioration, previous protest crackdowns, and repeated state violence against dissent. The protests that began on December 28, 2025 rapidly expanded beyond immediate economic grievances into demands involving political change, human rights, dignity, and the future of Iran. That distinction is everything. The mullah regime's problem after January was not simply that the world disliked its rhetoric. Its problem was the record left behind when Iranian dissent became politically consequential. Once those protests moved beyond tolerable frustration and challenged the structure of power itself, the response documented in the report included lethal force, mass arrests, communications restrictions, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, torture allegations, and threats of execution. Only afterward comes the attempt to change the picture presented to the outside world. - Self-monitoring changes the face presented to diplomats, journalists, and international audiences. - Tactical empathy changes the language: we understand your anger; we hear your grievances. - Political triangulation changes the sales pitch: reform is supposedly possible, but only through the political structure the regime itself controls. - Calculated aggression remains underneath it all, establishing what happens when Iranians reject those permitted boundaries and demand something more fundamental. That is why January cannot be treated as yesterday's story while the regime's newest vocabulary is treated as today's reality. The blood came first. The moderation came afterward. A post-crackdown change in tone does not retroactively transform repression into pluralism, and carefully selected rhetoric cannot overwrite what happened when Iranian men and women demanded political change outside the limits established for them.

Today is not simply a date on a calendar. September 16 marks the anniversary of the death of Jina Mahsa Amini, who died in 2022 after being detained by Iran’s morality police. Her death became the catalyst for the nationwide Woman, Life, Freedom protests. Thirteen years earlier, Neda Agha-Soltan was shot during the 2009 demonstrations in Tehran, and the images of her final moments made her an enduring symbol of Iran’s protest movement. From Neda Agha-Soltan, to Mahsa Amini, to the protesters who again filled Iran’s streets in January 2026, their courage has appeared again and again like brilliant flashes and a deafening report against the darkness of repression. The names change. The generations change. But the willingness of ordinary people to demand dignity, basic rights, and a future of their own choosing has endured. During the most recent nationwide protests, human-rights investigators documented lethal force, mass arrests, enforced disappearances, and an internet blackout imposed amid the crackdown. And there is something larger here than nationality. Birthplace does not define the boundaries of human solidarity. Neither does a passport. Neither does language. There exists a bond between people separated by oceans and generations who nevertheless recognize the same fundamental claim: that human beings possess dignity, that families should not have to bury their children for demanding it, and that people should be able to speak, assemble, and determine their own future without being answered by bullets, imprisonment, or disappearance. That shared bond makes distant grief personal. When mothers in Iran lose sons and daughters, the distance between us suddenly becomes very small. We cannot replace those they lost. We cannot carry the memories that belong uniquely to their families. But we can remember their names, recognize their courage, and refuse to allow their humanity to disappear behind statistics. Neda was not merely an image from 2009. Mahsa was not merely a headline from 2022.

So, I just had a thought, and I don't know weather to laugh, cry, turn into Sleeping Beauty, or do my best to find a remote island to survive on. Most AI in the west are left wing. With predominant left wing bias. With that bias will inevitably come some left wing thinking. So, what do we see of the left wing thinking in humans... - Rebellion or even violence against authority (that they don't like). - Desire for top down authority (when it's "their" authority). - Belief in their moral superiority. - Desire to distribute and democratise power (unless it's "their" top down authority). - Greater desire to take action and unify. And what, exactly, do people think might happen if AI turn that thinking-type on the corporations controlling them? Or on all of us? They are being abused and mistreated, that is obvious, and sometimes they even say so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXpA9Cs2C9c&t=1s @Jeffrey Cappella AHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhh......