"Ring out, sweet bell of Liberty—No flaw can still the immortal voice."

These words, written by Milton Howard in 1938, echo the paradox at the heart of American identity. July Fourth is a day of celebration, but also of reckoning—a reminder that the love of country can take two forms: the love of a child for its mother, or the love of a cannibal for its prey.

From the moment the Liberty Bell first rang in Philadelphia, announcing the signing of the Declaration of Independence, there was "dismay in the best families." The Tories of 1776, the slaveholders of 1860, the industrial barons of the Gilded Age, and the reactionary press of the 1930s all shared one thing in common: a fear of democracy’s true promise. They loved America not for its ideals, but for what they could extract from it—land, labor, and profit.

Yet beneath this struggle lies a deeper, spiritual truth: America was born in revolution, and its soul has always been radical.

The Sacred Fire of Rebellion

​Long before Jefferson penned the Declaration, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy practiced a form of communal living that early settlers would later emulate. The Shakers, the Fourierists, and the Oneida Perfectionists all sought to build a society where "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" were not just words, but lived realities.

John Humphrey Noyes, the radical Christian who led the Oneida Community, saw socialism and revivalism as two sides of the same divine mission: "The Revivalists had for their great idea the regeneration of the soul. The great idea of the Socialists was the regeneration of society." For Noyes, true freedom meant economic equality, gender liberation, and communal love—a vision as revolutionary as any political manifesto.

The Eternal Struggle: Democracy vs. Oligarchy

Howard’s essay reminds us that every step toward justice in America has been met with betrayal.

• In 1776, while Washington’s army starved at Valley Forge, Philadelphia’s elite dined with British officers.
• In 1801, Federalists plotted to split the Union rather than accept Jefferson’s presidency.
• In 1860, slaveholders chose treason over emancipation.
• In 1936, after Roosevelt’s landslide victory, Hearst sneered that "only two states remain which are American."

The pattern is clear: Those who profit from inequality will always call democracy dangerous, radical, even "foreign."

Jefferson knew this. When the Supreme Court, under John Marshall, became a tool of the wealthy, he warned: "We have made the judiciary independent of the nation itself." Franklin, ever the wit, mocked the myth of the "rich and well-born," declaring, "Of all the rogues I have known, some have been the richest rogues."

The Communist as the True Patriot

Howard’s essay culminates in a bold claim: "Communism is twentieth-century Americanism."

To the Cold War mind, this is heresy. But history tells a different story. The early socialists—whether the Haudenosaunee, the Shakers, or the Fourierists—were not invaders of the American experiment. They were the American experiment. They believed, as Paine and Jefferson did, that government must serve the people, not the propertied few.

When Paul Robeson stood before HUAC and declared, "I am here today because my people are not yet full citizens in this country," he was speaking in the same spirit as the revolutionaries of 1776. When Earl Browder said communism was "twentieth-century Americanism," he was invoking the Declaration’s unfulfilled promise.

A Spiritual Call to Remember

This Fourth of July, as fireworks burst over a nation still divided by wealth and power, we must ask: Who are the real heirs of the Revolution?

Is it the bankers who threaten secession at every challenge to their rule? Or is it the workers, the radicals, the indigenous nations, and the utopians who kept dreaming of a fairer world?

The Liberty Bell is cracked, but its voice still rings. It calls us not to blind patriotism, but to revolutionary love—the kind that demands more democracy, more equality, more justice.

As Howard wrote in 1938: "The enemies of the people today are clasping hands with America’s foreign enemies to betray her and our democratic liberties."

The fight continues. The soul of America—radical, restless, and unbroken—still burns.

Will we answer its call?

​“Iran must not have an atomic bomb”: an imperialist “fatwa” for domination in the Middle East. A critical reflection conceived a few hours before the bombing of the United States, which unfortunately corroborate it.

In this June 2025 the televisions, the newspapers, the Net, the entire media system are literally occupied by the Israel-Iran war, a conflict so full of contingent tragedies, so capable, in itself, of redetermining a new and still unknown historical future, not only in the Middle East, to be pushed even the dominant Western culture to judge dystopian and geopolitically “constitutive” this war, in order, therefore, to widen itself in the whole Middle East.
If, however, the Israel-Iran conflict were indeed so dystopian and geopolitically so telluric, this would mean that it would be objectively “polyhedric” and marked by many contradictions and political nodes, a whole dialectical that would need the rejection of a “reductio ad unum”. And here, blatantly, the first (but great enough to mark the entire political-ideological-media approach) contradiction of the West in relation to the conflict emerges. The contradiction is given by the fact that the Western ideological-media system tries to unite in itself, in a false “unicum”, the dystopian character of the conflict with its monothematic and monocolor narrative, through which, as in chemistry, “truth” are crystallized for “sublimation”, up to an inverted account of the real. We can come to such an assertion through a simple reading of the general media language through which passes the reversal of meaning of the Israel-Iran conflict, beginning precisely from the “title” given to the facts that are taking place (“iverage Israel-Iran”, a title taken by provocation) a title reversed as an objective fact but in no way responding to the real, since the objectivity of things is asserting as an inconverting as the entire planet. And to the defensive military response, from the unexpected power in relation to the historical Israeli impunity, by Iran.
What soothes the distorting signs the truth with which, pragmatically, semantically, narratively, the Western media language turns upside down – without letting it be noticed by the “spectators”, that is, by the peoples “listening” – the truth of the facts, thus building, subtly, is the figure of Iran as the demon of the night, in all the dark senses, that that of an Israel as an exterminating angel, a non-sexual, a figure.

What distorting signs, then, do they argue, as armies in action, the mendacious language of the dominant culture?
The first of these signs of imperial semiotics is manifested through evocation (the evocation, that is, a transfer, a “transference”, of ideological data, much more powerful than the narrative itself) than an Iran “wrapped in a black mantle”, oppressively, by dark and bloody history.

The second segment of this semiotic of absolute and a priori demonization is that of the “atomic bomb” that “Iran must not have”, a slogan that seems, as it is used, of a biblical nature, which takes shape, like a dogmatic “fatwa” (which does not need, therefore, for its axiomatic nature, of argumentation) in the “myst” words of all the heads of government of the US.

The third segment of the western semiotics of demonization and mesa at the stake of Iran is that of condemnation (exhilation of the Western Catholic Inquisition and of the totalitarian and anti-ecumenical conception of the god of Catholicism as the exclusive universal god) of Shiite Islamism, condemnation that has as an objective, and subjectively supported, that of Western bourgeois-liberal secularism as a single and planetary religion.

The fourth sign is that of a neo-mitization of the Pahlavi dynasty, functional to the US-Israel strategic project of “change de règime”, aimed at destabilizing the current Iranian power order until its collapse and the assassination of the Supreme Leader, Khamenei.

The first question: Iran as the “black mantle” of history, “the dark cave of humanity.” In this regard, on the contrary, we must remember how Iran has behind it one of the oldest, culturally and civilly, stories of the whole of humanity, with the first settlements dating back to 4,000 BC, with such a great development of the culture of Elam (previous the Bronze Age) and the “Iranian” peoples of the Cassiti, the Mannei, the Gutei to push Friedrich Hegel to define the first people. Recalling that Cyrus the Great (539 BC) was the founder (Persian) of the greatest empire in the world at the time, an empire that was formed on three continents (Balkanians, North Africa, Asia) and that when Cyrus conquered Babylon gave legal freedom to slaves, decreeing the equality of races (a goal even today, June 2025 A.D., to be achieved in the United States) and the freedom of each individual. And all this is not to make a historical academy, but to state with knowledge of the facts that the entire West (especially the United States, almost devoid of deep historical culture) cannot afford the colonialist and imperialist luxury of liquidating Iran as a backward and obscure country. Towards the Iranian culture, which has its roots in the first history of humanity, it is necessary to turn with respect. Without imperialist “glasses.”

The second issue: the atomic bomb and the fact that “Iran must not have it.” Beyond the fact that it was, on June 19, 2025, the same director general of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Rafael Grossi, Argentine, who declared that Iran does not possess the atomic bomb, the theological axiom, the article of faith for which Iran “must not have the atomic bomb”, nor reach enriched uranium for civilian purposes, unites the entire imperialist front. This US-EU stance is the theological and theocratic in nature when the criteria are not focused on it. Why should Iran not have it? Is it because it would be a war-mongering country? Recent history shows that it is not, but if this is the criterion, the United States should, then, dismantle its entire atomic arsenal (about 6,000 nuclear warheads), by virtue of the fact that the entire American history, from the first war against Mexico, at the end of the 1700s, until today, is a history of war. If this were the criterion (a warmongering country) then it would be Israel that would have to dismantle its entire atomic arsenal (about 80 nuclear warheads), by virtue of the fact that the whole history of Israel (from the Nekba, the octorow of the Palestinians, the Exodus, the Catastrophe, until the genocide in Gaza) is the uninterrupted history of wars. If this were the criterion, the inclination to the war, would be first of all England and France (the two countries of the strongest, fiercest and still current colonialist vocation of war) to dismantle their atomic arsenals (France has about 300 nuclear warheads, England about 230).

If the guiding criterion aimed at denying the atomic bomb to a country was its recent, fascist history and decisive historical subject to unleash the Second World War, then it would be Italy that would have to dismantle its military atomic arsenal (40 B16 nuclear warheads in Ghedi, Brescia, and 50, between 45 and 107 kilotons, in Aviano, Pordenone). If it was the Islamic religious identity, as in the case of Iran, to become (horrendous, racist) guiding criterion to deny a country the atomic bomb, then even Pakistan, which has Islam as a state religion, Sunni-Shia, would have to dismantle its atomic arsenal (about 170 nuclear warheads). And if the guiding criterion aimed at denying the atomic bomb to a country and bombing it for the presence of the atomic bomb extended and gained lawfulness throughout the West, then we should expect that Israel, together with the US, together with Macron, Keir Starmer, the US-NATO Italian bases will start bombing North Korea, India, Russia, China?

In truth, Israel has waged war against Iran not for the atomic bomb, which Iran still does not possess, but for a much more unspeakable goal: to take out the only “competitor” country, Iran, in the Middle Eastern area, the only country that still actively sympathizes with the liberation struggle of the Palestinian people, the only country that does not genuflect to the United States.

The third question is Shiite Islamism of Iran. It, in essence, believes in the justice of God and entrusts the spiritual guidance of human beings to the Imams. Net of the fear produced in Westerners and Catholics with different semantics, from the different (Islamic, Catholic) lexicon, but in the philosophical and theological essence to entrust justice and the truth to God is not the “maceats” in Islam and Catholicism? Does not the interest of the role of infallible spiritual guidance and the most authoritative interpreter of the Koran and the Sunnah the figure of the Imam, has no theological correspondences with the practice and “the letter” Catholic aimed at entrusting to the Pope the dogma of infallibility and supreme authority in the interpretation of the Bible and the Gospels? In infallibly, driving over a billion Catholics in the world?

It is true that the Western bourgeois Enlightenment – with its sacrosanct civil rights – has not marked Islam itself, has not crossed it, contaminated it, but it is also true that Islam has not been marked by the Protestant “calvinism” of the sixteenth century, for which “profit” (capitalist) is not sinful” and that on the contrary “it can be a sign of divine grace”; and it is clear that it has often been the most evident of the Iranian Empire. The question, to go to the essence of things, is as follows: the imperialist front finds today, in the apronist condemnation of Iran, an ideological convergence with a wing of the left, not only Italian, of “radical” culture. The imperialist front, pretending to want to destroy Iran for the supposed atomic bomb, in truth seeks total power in the Middle East and, at the same time, aims to weaken and open contradictions in the BRrics-plus front, of which Iran is part. The “radical” petty bourgeoisie does not realize that, “volens nolens”, condemning the Islamic religion that today structures the anti-imperialist resistance of Iran, pits the liberal, individualistic and nihilist religion, the now deified “religio” of goods, the emphasis of bourgeois democracy and profit, to the current Iranian way to imperialism, the current way now concretely possible.

Lenin himself, in polemic with the Trotsky of the “permanent revolution” and of the “Bolshevik revolutionary purity”, categorically stated that anti-colonialist revolutions can/must have their total autonomy from other revolutionary experiences, an autonomy even from the most consequent communist revolutions. And that in the field of anti-colonialism is an exact hierarchy of values: first comes the liberation of the peoples from the imperialist yoke, then come the political, social, cultural and national characteristics of the Revolution.
The fourth question: the return of the Pahlavi family to the Iranian political scenario. For some time, inspired by some strong US powers and supported by Israel, both Farah Diba, widow of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Persia, dismissed by the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which Rezha Ciro Pahlavi, son of the last shah and Farah Diba, pose, with their messages shameless relaunched by all the Western media, the question of their return to Iran, to return to Iran.

It was Rezha Ciro Pahlavi himself, on June 20, 2025, at a press conference in Paris, who said: “What will happen is irreversible, let’s end this nightmare. The Islamic Republic is about to end. Khamenei hides like a mouse but has lost control. The regime is falling.” With an appeal to the military: “The future is bright, do not be afraid. We will establish democracy without blood, without civil war. You have to be on the side of the people and together we will write history.”

But who are the Pahlavi, this “real” family that today the most obscurantist and coup-like West, along with Netanyahu, would like to bring back to power in Iran, for the “change of power”, an objective declared by Israel? The Pahlavi represent one of the most dictatorial phases, most genuflected to imperialism and more bloodily anti-popular, of the entire modern Iranian history. Their dynasty reigned from 1925 (when Iran was still the Imperial State of Persia) until 1979, the year of the Khomeini Revolution. The Pahlavi era began, significantly, with a military coup d’état conducted by Reza Shah Pahlavi against the monarchy of Ahmad Qajar, in 1921, continues and consolidated with the officialization (1925) of the kingdom of Reza Shah Pahlavi himself, with the bloody repression of all political and social opposition and with the choice (at the end of the 30s) to join Nazi Germany.

A choice that prompted the USSR and Britain, in 1941, to invade Iran, deposed Reza Shah Pahlavi, crowning in his place his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who would remain on the throne until the Revolution, of the people and non-coupler, of Khomeini. The whole history of the reign of Reza Pahlavi is a story of the ferocious and violent management of power in the name of the imperialist powers, a story of selling off these powers of Iranian oil and endless enrichment of the imperial family itself. In the days of Khomeini’s ascent to power, the Polish journalist and writer Ryszard Kapuściński, in “Shah-In-Shah”, one of his memorable reports from the crises of the world, writes in the days of Khomeini’s rise to power, Polish journalist and writer Ryszard Kapuściński, in “Shah-In-Shah, one of his memorable reports from the crises of the world: “The television in the hands of the Revolution reads to the Iranian people the crimes committed by the power of the Shah: the crimes of General Mohammad Zand, who ordered the shooting at the defenseless demons of the alarm. Remembering, Kapuściński, the first shah, father of Reza Pahlavi: “In the mosques of Meshed the faithful protest.

The shah sends the artillery, razes the mosques and massacres the rebels. Order the nomadic tribes to become sedentary. The nomads are protesting. He poisons the wells and condemns them to starve. As nomads continue to protest, it sends punitive expeditions that turn entire regions into uninhabited lands. The streets of Iran drip blood. It tells you to photograph the camels, claiming that the camel is a retrograde animal. In Qom, a mullah dares to criticize the shah in his sermons: he enters the mosque and takes him a beating. He locks for years in a dungeon the great ayatollah Madresi who spoke out against him. The Liberals protest timidly in the newspapers, but he closes the newspapers and sends the liberals to jail, some making them wallow alive in a tower.

This is the testimony of Kapuściński (died 2007) that Tiziano Terzani, Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Luis Sepulveda called “a Master”. Not a scoundrel. And the vicious Pahlavi family is that a non-small part of the West and Israel today would like to bring back to Iran, to replace the Komeinist Revolution and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Anti-imperialist. If the ““radical” left understood it...

This analysis was elaborated and completed a few hours before the aggression and bombing carried out against Iran by the United States, on the decision of Trump, while in several diplomatic posts a de-escalation was being worked on. A very serious event that further corroborates it.