If socialism is supposed to protect ordinary people, then one question matters more than any slogan: can socialism survive without truth?
Because the moment truth becomes optional, power wins—every time. And right now, Iran is showing the cost in the clearest, most brutal way.
People are being killed, injured, and detained for trying to speak, film, share, and refuse the official story.
In Shadows of Tehran, Nick Berg writes from a world where fear is not an idea—it’s a daily system, and control starts with controlling what can be said out loud.
That is why this article isn’t a left-versus-right argument. It’s a reality check.
If your politics can’t handle honest questions, it won’t protect workers or the vulnerable.
It will protect the loudest narrative. And Iran’s victims make that warning real.
Why start with socialism at all?
Because, for many people, socialism is not a “team.” It is a promise.
A promise to protect ordinary people from being crushed by concentrated power, and to push for more equality, democracy, and solidarity in daily life.
That is a good goal.
This article asks one simple question: can that goal survive as socialism without truth?
Because if truth breaks, the promise breaks with it.
What do most people mean when they say “socialism”?
Most people mean fairness. They mean protection. They mean workers and families should not be crushed by the powerful. They may disagree on the “how,” but the moral aim is usually simple: more equality, more dignity, more solidarity.
That is also how many socialist traditions describe their own goals: equality and democratic control, tied to community and solidarity.
And when people explain their positive view of socialism in surveys, they often describe it in plain terms like a “fairer, more generous society,” not as a technical economic blueprint.
(source Elgar Online)
What does socialism need in order to work in real life?
It needs reality. It needs honest information. It needs space to correct mistakes.
Without that, socialism without truth turns into a system where a few people decide what is “real,” and everyone else must repeat it.
Hayek’s classic economics argument is simple: the knowledge a society needs is spread across millions of people, so any system that blocks feedback and facts will make bigger mistakes.
And when leaders can hide bad news, ordinary people pay the price—Amartya Sen’s work is famous for showing how free information and public accountability protect people from disasters like famine.
Even modern empirical research finds that press freedom and democracy together are linked to lower corruption, which matters because corruption always hits workers and families first.
(sources Statistical Economics, JSTOR, Brittanica, Science Direct, CESifo)
What is “truth” in this article?
Truth is not a slogan. It is a process.
It means you can ask simple questions, check what is real, and change your mind when the facts change—without being treated like an enemy.
This matters because groups get smarter when people can share information and correct each other, and research shows communication can improve how accurately groups judge what is true.
It also matters because when speech is freer, governments face more public accountability, which helps decisions improve instead of hiding mistakes.
And it matters because “truth” does not automatically win just because people are talking—so we need rules like evidence, openness, and the right to question.
(sources Science Direct, Science Direct, NYU Law Review)
What happens when truth becomes dangerous?
When truth becomes dangerous, power tries to control the story.
Not always with tanks in the street. Often with quieter tools first: fear, censorship, and pressure to repeat one “safe” line.
Research on modern dictatorships explains this clearly: many regimes survive by managing information—shaping beliefs, hiding failures, and punishing only selected dissent—so mass terror is not always the first move.
(sources AEAWEB, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman )
This is also why censorship is not only about deleting posts. It can be about making speech costly and tiring—so most people learn to self-censor.
Studies of large-scale digital censorship show how states use friction, distraction, and selective blocking to reduce criticism without needing to arrest everyone.
(sources Princeton, Cambridge)
Iran shows the extreme version in real time. When protests surge and evidence spreads, connectivity itself can be squeezed.
In January 2026, the UN human rights office’s fact-finding mission called for the restoration of internet access, and independent network measurement showed Iran’s traffic dropping to effectively zero during the shutdown.
(sources OHCHR, Cloudflare)
Why does Iran make this question real right now?
Because in Iran, this is not an online argument. It is bodies and prisons. People have been killed, many more have been injured, and thousands have been detained during the current wave of protests and the crackdown that followed.
Human rights reporting also describes mass unlawful killings and large-scale arrests that become harder to verify when communications are restricted.
When a state fears truth, the first targets are often the people who try to show it: protesters, witnesses, journalists, and anyone sharing what is happening.
(sources APNews, Reuters, OHCHR, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch)
What does it look like when power tries to own the story?
It looks like one “approved” version of reality. It looks like doubt is being treated as betrayal. It looks like people are learning to say the safe thing in public, even if they privately disagree.
That is not a mystery. Research on “informational autocracy” explains that many modern authoritarian systems try to stay in power less by constant violence, and more by managing beliefs through propaganda, controlled media, and selective punishment.
(source AEAWEB)
It also looks like selective censorship. Not “delete everything,” but “remove what can mobilize people.”
A large-scale study of censorship shows that some regimes can tolerate angry criticism, but still censor content that could help people coordinate and act together.
(source Harvard)
And it looks like self-censorship is spreading through normal life. When people fear social or legal consequences, they often hide their real views and repeat what is expected.
Timur Kuran’s work calls this “preference falsification”: private truths, public lies. Even in democracies, research finds that people speak up less when they think their opinion is unpopular, which helps explain why a single “loud” narrative can feel bigger than it is.
(source Oxford)
Why mention internet shutdowns and information control?
Because truth needs signals. Photos. Videos. Messages. Witnesses.
When those signals are cut, real events become harder to confirm, and false stories become easier to spread.
That is why internet shutdowns matter: they don’t just “slow down apps.”
They weaken journalism, block people from documenting abuses, and make it harder for the outside world to know what is happening.
And this is not abstract in Iran right now. UN experts reported that since 8 January there were reports of an internet shutdown across Iran, and they noted that accurate numbers are hard to establish during the blackout.
Researchers who study digital repression describe shutdowns as a common tool used to suppress dissent and limit information flows—especially during protests and crises.
(source PubMed Central)
Can good people support the opposite of what they believe in?
Yes. Not because they are evil. Because humans are social. We copy the group when the social cost feels high.
That is not a hot take.
It is a repeatable finding: modern replications of classic conformity experiments show people still bend toward the majority, even when the correct answer is clear—and this effect can carry over into political statements too.
People also defend what their group believes because it feels like “staying safe,” so they filter facts in a way that protects identity.
And when an issue becomes “moral,” it can make people more rigid—less willing to tolerate disagreement—because disagreement starts to feel like a threat, not just a different view.
Add one more human glitch: many people stay silent because they think they are alone, even when they are not.
That pattern is well described in modern reviews of “pluralistic ignorance.”
(sources PubMed Central, IRSP, Yale Law School, Wiley, PubMed Central, Wiley, Frontiers, Sage Journals)
Why do people stay quiet even when they feel something is off?
Because being excluded hurts in a very real way. Social psychologists have shown that ostracism (being ignored or pushed out) quickly triggers distress and threatens basic needs like belonging and self-worth.
Brain research even finds that social rejection activates some of the same “alarm” systems linked to physical pain, which helps explain why silence can feel safer than speaking.
And in political conversations—especially online—many people hold back because they fear social or professional consequences, even when they have something honest to say.
(sources Annual Reviews, Science, Oxford)
Why does peer pressure matter more than logic in many debates?
Because most debates are not only about facts. They are about belonging.
Your brain asks, “Will my group still accept me?” before it asks, “Am I correct?”
That is why people often protect their identity first, and only then look for reasons.
Researchers call this motivated reasoning and identity-protective cognition: we filter information to stay safe inside our group.
And when groups talk mostly with people who already agree, the group often becomes more extreme over time, which makes honest doubt feel even riskier.
(sources Cambridge, Oxford, Chicago Unbound)
Why do social media platforms make this worse?
Because social media rewards emotion, not careful thinking.
Posts that sound angry or morally “sure” often spread faster than calm questions.
Research on large datasets shows that moral-emotional words make political posts more likely to be shared.
And studies also find a feedback loop: when people get likes and shares for outrage, they tend to post more outrage later.
On top of that, content aimed at “the other side” tends to get shared more, which can push people toward harsher language over time.
The result is simple: people start performing for the crowd, and truth gets quieter—exactly the kind of drift that makes socialism without truth possible.
What is the simplest test for whether something is solidarity or control?
Ask one question: Can I ask honest questions without being treated like an enemy?
If the answer is no, something is wrong.
Healthy movements can handle doubt because doubt helps them correct errors and stay connected to reality.
Research on “psychological safety” shows that groups perform better and learn faster when people feel safe to speak up, admit mistakes, and ask questions.
When that safety disappears, people hide information, copy the loudest person, and the group becomes easier to steer.
This test is not about being “nice.” It is about whether a movement can still protect ordinary people in the real world.
If questions are punished, truth shrinks. And once truth shrinks, power grows.
What is the “evidence test”?
Ask: What evidence would change my mind?
If the honest answer is “nothing,” then it is not truth-seeking. It is identity defense.
In research on motivated reasoning, people often evaluate information in a biased way to protect what they already believe, especially when the belief is tied to identity or status in a group.
Related work on identity-protective cognition shows that when issues become group markers, people can become better at arguing for their side, not better at seeing the full picture.
The evidence test is a small act of courage. It turns “I must be loyal” into “I want to be accurate.” And accuracy is what keeps socialism without truth from turning into control.
Motivated reasoning (Lodge & Taber / “The Rationalizing Voter”) argues that people often start with feelings and identity cues, then search for reasons to defend them.
That’s why someone can say “nothing would change my mind” without realizing it: their brain is protecting belonging, not truth.
(source Cambridge)
Identity-protective cognition (Kahan) makes it even sharper: when facts threaten your group’s status, people selectively accept or dismiss evidence in ways that keep them aligned with their community.
(sources Yale Law School, Dan M. Kahan)
Before you repeat a claim, try to confirm it from:
A short, simple checklist to verify information (anyone can do this)
This is designed for fast reality checks, not “become a researcher for 3 hours.” It’s based on lateral reading (how professional fact-checkers verify) and the SIFT method.
The 60–90 second verification checklist
1) Stop. What is this claiming, in one sentence?
If you can’t say the claim clearly, you can’t verify it.
2) Who is the source, and what do they get from you believing it?
Is it a news outlet, a campaign account, a random page, a “brand,” an anonymous channel? Look for incentives: money, attention, outrage, recruiting.
3) Read laterally: open 2–3 new tabs and check what others say about the source.
Don’t stay on the same page (“vertical reading”). Fact-checkers leave the page and search the web for reputation and context.
4) Find better coverage: can you find the same claim reported by multiple independent outlets?
Not “10 accounts repeating the same clip.” Independent confirmation matters.
5) Trace to the original: where did this start?
If it’s a screenshot, clip, quote, or chart: try to find the first upload, the full video, the full quote, the dataset.
6) Check time + place.
Old footage is often reused. Ask: when was this recorded? where? If the post can’t answer that, treat it as unverified.
7) Separate “fact” from “story.”
A fact is: “X happened at Y time.”
A story is: “X proves the world is Z.”
Verify the fact first. Then decide if the story follows.
8) Do the “identity test.”
Ask: “Do I believe this because it’s true… or because it helps my side?”
This directly counters identity-protective reasoning.
Extra checks (when it’s a photo/video)
9) Reverse image search/keyframe search.
Look for earlier appearances of the same image. If it shows up years ago, it’s recycled.
10) Look for independent evidence, not just one viral clip.
One clip can be real and still misleading without context.
What is the “dignity test”?
Ask: Do we keep human dignity for people we dislike? If dignity depends on the team, it is not justice. It is tribalism.
This matters because dehumanization (seeing other people as less than fully human) is one of the strongest mental shortcuts for excusing harm.
A major integrative review in Personality and Social Psychology Review explains how dehumanization works in everyday thinking and why it shows up so reliably in conflict.
And in large, peer-reviewed studies, blatant dehumanization strongly predicts support for aggressive policies and violence (things like torture, retaliation, and harsh collective punishment).
Experimental work in PNAS also finds that dehumanization can increase willingness to do instrumental violence (harm used as a tool), because it weakens normal moral brakes.
So the dignity test is simple on purpose: if your politics cannot protect basic dignity for “the wrong people,” it becomes easier to excuse cruelty—while still believing you are doing good.
(sources Sage Journals, PubMed Central, PNAS)
What is the “power test”?
Ask: Who benefits when we stop asking questions?
The answer is almost never “ordinary people.” When questioning becomes risky, the people with the most power get more room to lie, hide failure, and avoid accountability.
Political science research has long found that a free press and open public scrutiny are key tools for holding leaders accountable and reducing corruption—because corruption grows fastest when nobody can safely expose it.
(sources ECONSTOR, Semantcs Scholar)
This is also why “truth” is not a luxury in any system that claims to protect workers.
In authoritarian settings, scholars describe how regimes maintain control by shaping information and punishing dissent selectively, so people learn to stay quiet even when they know something is wrong.
(sources PubMed Central, ResearchGate)
So the power test is practical: if a movement trains people to stop questioning, it trains them to be governed by whoever controls the narrative.
That is how socialism without truth flips into its opposite.
Are socialists always fighting for socialism?
Not always.
Sometimes people fight for the idea. Sometimes they fight for the label.
Socialism, at its simplest, is about ordinary people having real protection and real power—often through social or democratic control over major parts of the economy, so life is not run only for private profit.
But humans also form “teams.” And once politics becomes a team identity, people start defending the team first and the goal second.
Social identity research explains why: group membership becomes part of how we see ourselves, so disagreement can feel like a threat, not just a debate.
That is when “socialism” can turn into a badge people protect—even if the behavior underneath starts to look like control.
And that is how socialism without truth can happen: the word stays, but the real-world protection for the powerless disappears.
(sources Stanford, Brittanica, Tajfel & Turner, ResearchGate)
What does “fighting the opposite” look like in simple terms?
It looks like punishing doubt.
It looks like treating honest questions as “harm.”
It looks like excusing cruelty because “our side means well.”
In plain terms: the label stays kind, but the behavior turns hard.
This pattern is well documented in research on moral conviction. When people see a political belief as a sacred moral truth, they become more willing to support intolerance toward those who disagree—because disagreement feels like a threat to goodness itself, not just a different view.
And studies on political sectarianism show how politics can shift from “I disagree with you” into “you are bad,” which makes social punishment and hostility feel justified.
(sources PubMed Central, PubMed Central, Cambridge, ResearchGate)
That is the flip.
A movement can start as “protect ordinary people,” and drift into “protect the group’s purity.”
When that happens, questions become dangerous, empathy becomes selective, and socialism without truth quietly turns into control.
How can the left copy right-wing behavior without noticing?
It can happen when the goal stays kind, but the methods turn hard.
The language stays about care and justice. But the reflex becomes: silence critics, enforce one story, treat doubt as disloyalty. That is not “left” or “right.” That is an authoritarian reflex.
This reflex often grows when people feel threatened.
When a group feels danger, it can start to demand sameness and punish difference.
Political psychologist Karen Stenner describes this as a predictable “authoritarian dynamic”: under perceived threat, some people become much less tolerant of disagreement and diversity.
And research also suggests authoritarian attitudes are not limited to one side.
Recent work on left-wing authoritarianism explores how coercion and intolerance can appear in left-coded forms too, even when the moral goals sound progressive.
Finally, this is why it can feel socially “unsafe” to question your own camp.
Shared political identity strongly shapes who people bond with and trust.
In real-world studies, shared partisanship can directly increase social ties—meaning disagreement can risk your social belonging.
When belonging is on the line, many people choose silence. Then the loudest voices set the rules.
(sources Cambridge, PubMed Central, PNAS)
Why is this not an attack on the left?
Because the target is not a tribe. The target is a pattern that can happen in any camp.
The pattern is simple: when a cause becomes a moral identity, people can start to treat questions as betrayal. Then truth becomes “dangerous.” And the group becomes easier to control.
High-quality research backs this up. Studies on moral conviction show that when people feel their view is not just an opinion but a sacred moral truth, they become more willing to dislike, avoid, and punish those who disagree—even when they still believe they are being “good.”
And research on ideological prejudice finds that liberals and conservatives both show prejudice toward people with opposing views; it is not owned by one side.
So this article is not saying “the left is bad.” It is saying something harder and more useful: good intentions are not enough.
If we want real solidarity, we need standards that protect truth and dignity—no matter which flag someone waves.
(sources Science Direct, Cambridge, PubMed Central)
Why do people avoid criticizing their own side?
Because it can feel risky and unfair.
People worry that public doubt will “help the enemy.”
They worry that bad actors will clip a sentence, spread it, and use it to attack the whole cause.
And online, that fear is not irrational.
Research shows false and emotionally charged content can spread fast and far, which makes people want tighter message control.
But here is the problem. If a movement avoids honest correction, it becomes easier to steer.
Then the label stays “good,” but reality-checks disappear. That is when any cause can drift into control.
The safest long-term protection is not silence. It is a culture where truth can be tested, errors can be corrected, and dignity stays non-negotiable.
(sources Semantic Scholar, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman)
If you really care about socialism, what should you protect first?
Protect the truth-process first. Protect open questions. Protect dissent.
If socialism is meant to protect ordinary people, it must stay connected to reality.
That means you can test claims, correct mistakes, and criticize leaders without being treated like an enemy.
A simple rule helps here: any movement that punishes honest questions will eventually protect power more than people.
That is how “helping” can quietly turn into “controlling,” while still using the language of justice.
If you really care about people, what should you refuse?
Refuse dehumanization. Refuse the idea that some people “deserve” less dignity because they are the wrong group. When that happens, cruelty starts to feel acceptable.
Refuse “ends justify the means.” A movement can keep moral language and still excuse harm, as long as it believes the cause is pure. That is how good intentions get used.
Refuse the habit of calling honest questions “violence.” If you punish doubt, you train people to obey. And ordinary people always pay first.
(sources Semantic Scholar, Semantic Scholar)
If you really care about Iran’s victims, what should you do online?
Don’t turn them into props.
Don’t use them to win points in Western status games.
Keep it human.
A person who is killed, injured, or detained is not “content.”
They are someone’s child, parent, friend.
And in a crackdown, careless sharing can raise the risk for real people, especially when identities, locations, or timelines leak.
Practical safety guidance for documenting and sharing protest media stresses exactly this: think first about who could be harmed, and avoid exposing faces, places, and metadata that can be used to identify people.
Share carefully, and share honestly.
Verify before you amplify. In fast-moving crises, recycled footage and false claims spread easily, and that can drown out real victims and confuse the public record.
Professional verification guides recommend “lateral reading” and tracing media back to the original source and context, plus basic checks like time, place, and whether other independent reporting confirms the same event.
And when the internet is restricted or shut down, it becomes even harder to confirm what is happening—so it matters more, not less, to slow down and be precise.
(sources UChicago Library, Bellingcat, Bellingcat)
A simple “care + truth” checklist you can follow:
Protect identities
Blur faces, avoid unique tattoos, don’t post in real time, and strip metadata before uploading.
Trace the source
Who filmed it, when, where, and what’s missing outside the frame?
Find better coverage
Look for independent confirmation, not just reposts of the same clip.
Separate fact from story
“This happened” is different from “this proves everything.” Verify the first before you argue the second.
Center the human cost
Names, families, detainees, the wounded—keep the focus on people, not online victory.
What can you say to your peers without starting a war?
Use calm, low-threat lines.
Stay values-first.
Ask questions instead of accusing.
Most people don’t dig in because your facts are weak. They dig in because they feel socially threatened.
Research on moral conviction shows that when politics feels like a sacred moral issue, disagreement can feel like a personal attack, and people become more willing to punish or exclude others.
And research on social conformity shows that people often align with the group to avoid social costs, even when they privately doubt. So the goal is not to “win.”
The goal is to keep the conversation safe enough that thinking can happen.
(sources Cambridge, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, PubMed Central, Kellog)
What are “safe sentences” that don’t sound like betrayal?
These lines protect you socially while keeping truth alive.
- “I’m not switching teams. I’m protecting the truth-process.”
- “A good cause should not fear honest questions.”
- “What evidence would change our minds?”
- “We can care about people and still demand facts.”
- “If doubt is punished, that’s a red flag.”
- “I want solidarity with victims, not loyalty to slogans.”
What should you say when someone calls you a bad person for asking?
Keep it simple and calm.
- “I’m not attacking you. I’m asking for a standard we apply to everyone.”
- “If we’re right, questions will make us stronger, not weaker.”
What proof can readers use without trusting big institutions?
Use proof that is easy to check, repeatable, and not based on one authority.
That means you lean on research methods that are designed to reduce bias: systematic reviews and meta-analyses (many studies combined), and study formats that lock in methods before results are known (like Registered Reports).
The point is simple: you don’t have to “trust a big institution.” You can trust a method that makes cheating harder.
Here is a short, copy-paste “proof rule” to use:
- Prefer “many studies” over “one study.” Look for a systematic review or meta-analysis on the exact question.
- Prefer open methods over mysterious methods. If the plan was reviewed before the results (a Registered Report), it is harder to change the rules after seeing the outcome.
- Prefer findings that survive repeats. Replication matters because single studies can be wrong by accident, bias, or luck—large replication projects show why repeating results is a big deal.
- Prefer work that separates “replicable” from “reproducible.” Good science can be checked with the same data and code (reproducible) and also tested again with new data (replicable).
This is the mindset of socialism without truth versus socialism with truth. You are not outsourcing your thinking to a logo. You are using tools that make truth easier to verify.
What should the “Proof Box” contain?
It should be clean, neutral, and easy to check. Each bullet is one human pattern + one strong study.
- Do people conform under group pressure?
Yes. A classic meta-analysis of 133 Asch-style studies across 17 countries shows conformity is real and measurable, and it varies by context and culture.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Culture-and-conformity%3A-A-meta-analysis-of-studies-Bond-Smith/da31e7f50c6d08d3af3e42d79b7bdfec89191188 - Do people self-censor when social risk is high?
Yes. A large meta-analysis finds that when people think their opinion has less public support, they become less willing to express it (“spiral of silence”).
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093650217745429 - Do people defend identity over facts?
Yes. Research on identity-protective cognition shows people can selectively accept or dismiss evidence in ways that protect their group identity.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x - Does moral certainty increase intolerance?
Often, yes. Reviews of moral conviction find it is linked to greater intolerance of people who disagree and more willingness to punish or exclude them.
https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00254.x - Does social media reward outrage and certainty?
Yes. Moral-emotional language increases sharing, and large-scale research shows outrage can help content spread.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1618923114 - Can prebunking help people resist manipulation?
Yes. A systematic review and meta-analysis finds psychological inoculation improves people’s ability to judge misinformation and reduces sharing intentions.
https://www.jmir.org/2023/1/e49255/ - Do people think they are alone when many quietly agree?
Yes. A modern review of pluralistic ignorance explains how groups can misread each other, so many people privately disagree but assume they are the only one.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/social-psychology/articles/10.3389/frsps.2023.1260896/full - What happens to truth when information channels are restricted?
It gets harder to verify reality and easier to suppress dissent; a major research review maps how states use digital repression (including shutdowns and blocking) to disrupt protest and control narratives.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10953837/
Why does this hit Nick Berg—and the Iranian diaspora—so hard?
Nick Berg isn’t writing about Iran as an abstract topic.
He was born in Tehran to an Iranian mother and an American father.
For many Iranians in the diaspora, this moment feels heavy in a specific way: you wake up to videos, names, and rumors, while knowing you cannot protect the people you love from far away.
You carry guilt, fear, and helplessness at the same time.
And the scale is no longer “unknown.”
Iranian authorities have said at least 5,000 verified deaths have occurred in the current unrest.
Human rights documentation gives a separate minimum count: Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO) reports at least 3,428 protesters killed, thousands injured, and more than 10,000 arrested since the protests began.
(sources Reuters, Iran Human Rights)
This is why the truth-process matters.
When truth becomes dangerous, real people pay the price first.
And for Iranians outside Iran, the cost is not only political—it is personal.
Who are the people behind the numbers?
These are names shared by the Iranian diaspora, protest networks, and human rights groups. Some may be unverified, misspelled, or duplicated. This list is published to keep attention on human lives—not as a final record. The list contains names of people killed, injured and detained.
Erfan Soltani, Zahra Fazeli, Zahra Moradi, Rubina Aminan, Seyed Farshad Shafiei, Elham Mehrabi, Seyed Ehghazal Shafiei, Azi Tabriz, Mojta Batorshiz, Negin Ghadimi, Zahra Behloulipour, Setayesh Shafiei, Gulaleh Mahmoudiazar, Nazli Janparvari, Bayat Sobhani, Ebrahim Yousifi, Taha Safari, Ahmed Jalil, SajadValamanesh, Soroush Soleimani, Reza Moradi Abdolvand, Amir Ali Heydari, Khodada Shirvani, Amir Hessam Khodayari Fard, Siavash Shirzad, Erfan Ali Zadeh, Ali Abbasi, Aida Heidari, Jabbar Panahi, Sina Ashkabousi, Abolfazl Yaghmouri, Mohammad Nouri, Ahmad Ebadikamand, Ali Anbarestani, Arash Behfar, Ata Ebrahim Pour, Amir Ali Kiani, Hassan Shakhesi, Daniel Maranki, Mohammad Entezami, Amir Mohammad Yazdani, Arash Yazdani, Mohammad Mohammadi Mohab, Ali Rezaei, Mansour Ehheidari, Behrouz Mansouri, Bijan Mostafavi, Zahra Baniamerian, Danial Mostafavi, Danial Maranki, Amir Ali Jalilian, Saeed Shirali, Alireza Salmani, Babak Sadeghi Mohseni, Ali Molaaqaei Rouzbehani, Ali Janani, Parnia Shad Bejarkanari, Meysam Zarei Bejarkanari, Mehdi Saheli, Amir Heidardoost, Mehdi Ghadimi, Saeed Mirzaei, Ebrahim Ghioumi, Payam Babo Kuhestani, Abbas Khadem, Kia Moradi, Peyman Menbari, Pouya Rostami, Jahangir Ahmadiabadi, Sadegh Ahmadiabadi, Ali Salehivand, Sina Ashkbousi, Ali Molla Aghaei Rouzbehani, Ardeshir Zarei, Javidnam Mohammad Reza Zamini, Sina Ashkeboosi, Zahra Bohlouli Pour, Arnika Dabbagh, Nasim Pouraqaei, Sahba Rashtian, Mohammad Amin Hosseini, Sajad Ordouni Kabir, Mousaal Reza Akbari, Abolfazl Paydar, Ariana Arjmandi, Mobina Beheshti, Nasim Pouaghai, Abolfazl Bakhtiari Douraki, Farzin Rahimi Douraki, Khani Asadi, Shahram Maqsoudi, Mohsen Asadi, Navid Alam Chehreh, Abolfazl Arvin Talab, Moein Gholami, Mohammadreza Zamini, Arnika Dabagh, Negin Radfar, Amir Bayat, Vahid Arzanlou, Amin Salami, Keyvan Rezaei, Alireza Rahimi, Miragha Rezaei, Yasin Mirzaei Qaleh Zanjiri, Alieh Motalebzadeh, Narges Mohammadi, Hasti Amiri, Pouran Nazemi, Shabnam Ferdowsi, Mahan Qadami, Ehsan Abedini, Armin Motamed Amini, Nima Parsa, Farzam Ghasemi, Mehdi Bastani, Pouya Akbarzadeh, Naji Sawari, Semin Rostami, Reza Eskandarpour, Soran Feyzizadeh, Mojtaba Tarshiz, Matin Khosravi, Parastoo Jamalzai, Erfan Jameh Shourani, Sajjad Feyzi, Mohammad Jafari, Sorna Golgon, Behnam Darvish, Mehrdad Yaghoubi Mehr, Ali Behroozdoust, Hossein Naseri, Masoud Bolourchi, Ahmad Abbasi, Shirzad Balayi, Fardin Fuladi, Sam Afshari, Shayan Azadi, QasemVakili, Tiam Mohammadreza Kiani Manesh, Ali Delfrouz, Iraj Rahimzadeh, Mohammad Javidan, Hossein Moradi, Jalil Moradi, Abdollah Rezaei, Navid Abdollahi, Ashkan Kalakiz, Farzin Poostashkan Dorki, Sina Saranoush, Pedram Saeedi, Borna Dehghani, Aria Alidoust, Fardin Ghanbari, Mohammad Ebrahimi, Meysam Yaghoubi, Mohammad Honarkhah, Behzad Shafiei, Meysam Khazini, Yadollah Heydari, Seyed Abolfazl Kia, Saeed Golsorkhi, Alireza Saidi, Ayda Aghili, Melinda Asadi, Masoud Zatparvar, Nasrin Zaremanesh, Arnija Dabagh, Mansoureh Heydari, Zahra Raha Bohlouli Pour, Reza Ghanbari, Rasoul Kadivarian, Reza Kadivarian, Diar Pour Chehriq, Robina Aminian, Saeed Toklian, Mahyar Kakazadeh, Mohammad Hossein Hosseini, Abbas Ali Ramzani, Arezoo Abedi, Sanam Purbabayi, Hamid Arzanlou, Vahid Arzanlou, Naser Tavakoli, Ali Yavari, Alireza Pouladsotoun, Hananeh Azizi, Farhad Pourkaveh, Mohsen Rashidi, Mohammad Zare, Mahdi Safari, Amirhossein Malekshahi, Mehrab Golestani, Mohammad Saberi, Kazhal Vatanpour, Saeed Tavakolian Doshmanziari, Melina Asadi, Amir Naderi, Saman Fattahi, MahanAzami, Yahya Darvishi, Aram Saeidian, Kamran Moradi, Mohammad Hajerani, Ali Sadeghi, Nasir Nasiri, Arsalan Ghahramani, Omid Saeedi, Afsoun Ali Moradian, Vafa Salehi, Mehran Rafiei, Shahin Azar Atash, Mostafa Tabrizi, Houman Sabbagh, Afshin Miyarkiani, Matin Montazerzohour, Sina Haghshenas, Morteza Shaneh, Parsa Saffar, Hamid Mahdavi, Abbasali Ramezani, Shahrzad Rezaei, Sholeh Sotoudeh, Sara Behboodi, Ziba Dastjerdi, Amir Mohammad Arbabpouri, Abolfazl Heydari Moslou, Mohammad Ghasem Rousta, Amir Salar Bahmaninejad, Kamran Akbari, Mabina Beheshti, Ayda Heidari, Rohallah Setareh Moshtari, Zahra Baji, Davoud Mostafavi, Jalil Milanlouyi, Reza Haji Moradian, Sara Behboudi, Ziba Dastajardi, Amir Hossein Ghadirzadeh, Khabat Amiri, Kajal Watanpour, Atieh Gulchini, Marzia Moradvisi, Sina Ashkbusi, Amir Mohammad Karami, Mohammad Reza Golmakani, Artin Nadimi, Mardin Nadimi, Araz Sabouri, Mohammad Marabi, Sina Nazari, Mohammad Hajrani, Aram Saeedian, Yahya Darvishi, Mahan Azmi, Atieh Golchini, Marzieh Moradavisi, Fawad Enayiti, Hussein Nik Sresht, Sina Nik Sresht, Shima Ghoshe, Meysam Khazaei, Shahrouz Mehrabi, Mohammadreza Avazpour, Majid Jalilian, Yashar Soltanirad, Mostafa Hemmati, Abbas Sharifi, Mohammad Attari, Moharram Sarchami, Khodadad Mozaffari, Ali Bahman, Hamid Jahangiri, Khosrow Alishahi, Saeed Partovi, Ali Partovi, Arash Shamsi, Nasser Mirzaei, Sohrab Imani, Peshawa Salehi, Arian Fatehi, Sina Alishahi, Mani Safarpour, Amirhossein Sohrabi, Erfan Abdipour, Omid Fadakar, Mohammad Nobakht, Mohammadreza Abdolrahmanzadeh, Yasin Elahi, Meysam Nazari, Eshaq Qanbarnia, Abbas Arezu, Arash Hassani, Milad Mianehkhah, Emad Shoush, Jalil Milanouyi, Hossein Zabihzadeh, Sonia Salehi Rad, Nasim Pour Aghaei, Maryam Salehi Siavashani, Majid Salehi Siavashani, Amir Hossein Mohammad Zadeh, Mostafa Azizi, Samaneh Mirzaei, Nima Mohammad Amin Parsa, Ali Behrouz Doust, Mahan Ghadami, Farzin Rahimi Dorki, Arshia Ahmad Pour, Jalil Doustyar Brahui, Hamed Basiri, Ali Afsari, Ebrahim Hashem Beigi, Abolfazl Heydari Moseloo, Saeed Azadi, Nazli Jahan Parvar, Zohreh Fazeli, Naji Savari Abu Meysagh, Arya Ali Doust, Sanam Pour Babaei, Mohebat Ghafoori, Hamed Nobakht, Faghihi, Mehdi Jamali, Ilya Hassanzadeh, Arshia Sanoubar, Fardin Pazhdam, Ali Bijani Benari, Alireza Maki Zadeh Benari, Mohsen Sabzi Zadeh Benari, Sajad Nazmolkani, Hassan Mayeli, Ayoub Karimi, Abolfazl Farkhiani, Morteza Pourkhiyam, Kiarash Ansari, Razieh Khahesh, Ilya Akouyan, Yashar Shahbazi, Mohammad Mokhtari, Mikael Mansouri, Samad Porshe, Parsa Akbar, Meraj Abbaszadeh, Moslem Parzdar, Erfan Rahmanpour, Ahmad Ansari, Shahab Asadi, Mohammad Abdollahpour, Davood Zarghami, Sina Dana, Samira Karimi Pour, Parichehr Ansari, Abolfazl Khoshnoud, Mohammad Mehdi Ali Pour, Amir Mohammad Bakhtiari, Farbod Alizadeh, Hossein Khajeh Yar, Erfan Bajdan, Reza Farhadi Sisakhti, Ahmadreza Khaleghi Pour, Mohaddeseh Mohammadi, Shahla Ansarian, Sanaz Davoodi, Anahita Hekmatnia, Zohreh Darmān, Shohreh Nik Aghbal, Aynaz Parvaneh, Farnoush Azar, Shaghayegh Zahedi, Hadis Sheibaz, Elham Siavoshi, Zahra Darfarin, Mozhgan Forouzan, Yalda Pezhvani, Ghazal Hamzeh Amleh, Zahra Izadnia, Neda Gerami Manesh, Mohammad Ghaffari, Mojtaba Payambari, Mohammad Roham, Esmaeil Haji Abdol, Javad Haji Namdar, Amin Gholamreza Dadash Hekmat, Hossein Haji Omidali, Saeed Mohammad Haji Kazem, Ali Mehrab, Sadrallah Najafi, Amin Haji Masoumal Ali, Samad Haji Masoumal Ali, Moslem Hossein, Farzandāne Farhang, Ahmad Badparva, Abbas Amini, Bacheh Noushad, Ismaeil Haji Ghasemali, Hossein Rezaei, Samad Einollah, Mojtaba Etemal, Hamid Khodr, Mohammad Hossein Ali Kakajan, Esmaeil Ovadali, Reza Haji Mohammad Ali Kakajan, Morteza Akbar, Gholamreza Haji Hossein, Reza Nasir Rashidkhan, Peyman AslMarz, Hamid Rahmati, Javad Pashaei, Reza Nazarali, Abolfazl Rahimishad, Mohammad Mehdi Yeganeh, Amir Sam Houshyar, Roham Darvishi, Benyamin Mousavi, Houman Bidkan, Sadegh Abdollahi, Atabak Karimi, Mohammad Nazari, Alireza Karimi, Iman Karimi, Omid Jamali, Mohammad Amin Zamani, Mehdi Karimi, Mehdi Mahmoudi, Mojtaba Jouyi, Mahan Soleimani, Ebrahim Baba Ahmadi, Fouad Nikpey, Saman Nikpendar, Raman Eghbali, Sonia Zolfaghari, Reza Karimi, Shahab Hemmati, Ebrahim Ghorbani, Emad Ghorbani, Arshia Mahmoudi, Masoud Ghorbani, Amir Kaveh Madmalil, Afshin Selhshour….
What is the closing message?
This is not about winning arguments.
It is about protecting ordinary people.
If socialism means anything, it means ordinary people should not be crushed by power—by violence, by fear, or by lies.
And Iran’s victims show what it costs when truth is treated as dangerous: people are killed, injured, and detained, while information is restricted and reality becomes harder to verify.
So the message is simple.
If we care about socialism, we must protect truth like a human right.
Protect the right to ask questions.
Protect the right to doubt.
Protect the right to correct mistakes.
Because the moment a movement cannot tolerate truth, it can be used—by anyone—as a tool of control.
(source Overcoming Hate Portal)
What is the one line readers should remember?
If you can’t ask questions, it’s not solidarity. It’s control.
