The current work analyzes the case of the hybrid protest in Iran. It emphasizes how the theocratic regime uses “semantic terrorism” as a tool for political control. This is also employed for consciousness engineering. Through a combination of concepts from Foucault (“regime of truth”), Bourdieu (“symbolic violence”), Levitsky and Ziblatt (democratic norms), and Nissim Mizrachi (hermeneutics of meaning), it is presented how language, meaning, and interpretation become an arena of political struggle. The discussion relies on both an empirical description of practices of oppression and on theoretical interpretation, seeking to show how control over meaning is not merely a communicative means, but a central tool for creating and preserving authoritarian regimes.
Observation – The Green Revolution in Iran (2009)
The observation constitutes a fundamental stage in the conceptualization process, as it is the first step in the transition from raw phenomena to concepts (Swedberg, 2016, p. 5). In sociology, as an empirical theory, conceptualization begins with a broad and deep observation of social reality.
My observation focuses on the controversial presidential elections in Iran in 2009, in which the conservative candidate, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—an associate of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—defeated the popular reformist candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who was dubbed “the beloved of the people.” As is customary in Iranian elections, a unique color was designated for each candidate; Mousavi and his supporters chose green, which became the symbol of the protest and its name—”The Green Revolution.” The protesters claimed that the election results were falsified on a large scale, through the non-counting of votes and the skewing of the tally in favor of Ahmadinejad.
Following this, millions of Iranians took to the streets, but the protest did not remain within the boundaries of the physical space. It also spread to the digital space, which was then in its infancy: platforms like Twitter (launched that same year), videos on YouTube, and Google’s new translation service into Persian served the protesters to create real-time documentation and to echo messages outwardly. Thus, the Green Revolution became one of the first hybrid protests in the world—a combination of physical resistance in the public sphere with cross-border digital activism.
I was not on the ground, I have never visited the Islamic Republic, and I do not speak Persian. However, I view this event as a unique case study: one of the first hybrid protests in the world, which took place simultaneously in the virtual space and the actual space.
Identifying the Phenomenon – Hybrid Protest and Hybrid Warfare
The event revealed a double phenomenon:
- Hybrid protest – A combination of physical action in the field and digital action.
- Hybrid warfare – A struggle for control not only in the actual space but also over the narrative and public consciousness.
The regime, operating within the framework of the Velayat-e Faqih doctrine, was quick to respond: internet shutdowns, arrests of online activists, dissemination of disinformation, and framing the protest as treason and heresy against God—a metaphysical offense punishable, at times, by death. Here, a mechanism of semantic terrorism is exposed: the conversion of civil-political language into theological-punitive language that expropriates the legitimacy of resistance at the very stage of discourse.
Example – “Selfless Love”: In state media reports, the actions of the Basij—a civil militia that violently attacked protesters—were described as “selfless love” for the land. Behind the positive connotation lay severe violence. When violence is defined as moral sacrifice, critical language is negated in advance, and any resistance is framed as lacking morality.
Conceptualization – Semantic Terrorism
In accordance with the conceptualization process proposed by Swedberg (2015, page 5), and specifically the stage of using metaphors, analogies, and creating new concepts, the concept of “semantic terrorism” was born as a neologism—a term I created in my personal language, which no one had used before. The very use of a neologism may arouse suspicion that the speaker is engaged in a meaningless jumble of words, and is sometimes even recalled in psychiatric contexts as a characteristic of psychotic language. However, the current move seeks to extract the concept from the neologism stage and establish it as a sociological concept with a clear theoretical framework, even if controversial.
By analogy to “symbolic violence,” semantic terrorism also does not harm the body but undermines the sense of identity, meaning, and the possibility for the existence of valid discourse—and especially the basic trust between speakers with opposing positions. Alongside the theoretical aspect, I personally experience the difficulty involved in proposing a new concept, which at this moment is still a neologism, and trying to convince the academic and social environment that it is admissible—without appearing as someone who has retreated into a private language and lost touch with reality. For me, this is a threatening stage, as it seems that I must invest considerable effort to show that the concept relies not only on personal intuition, but also on theoretical anchors and familiar thinkers, so that it can be positioned within the existing field of knowledge and not remain within the boundaries of an individual’s language.
Semantic Terrorism in the Hybrid Protest of Iran (2009)
In the language of the regime, the spiritual Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, is called Ayatollah—”Sign of Allah.” His rule is anchored in the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), which defines the regime as a Theocracy where political authority is derived directly from religious authority. Within this framework, legitimate political protest is not perceived as a civil action but as an act of heresy (Kufr) and even as a rebellion against God himself, and is sometimes even accused of spreading “corruption on earth” (Fasad fil-Arz).
This is a distinct mechanism of semantic terrorism: the regime frames the resistance in language that expropriates its moral and civil legitimacy, and locates it in the field of severe religious accusations, where the punishment is not only political but metaphysical—and in many cases, death.
Semantic terrorism is a practice of control and coercion based on systematic manipulation of language, meanings, and signs, in order to undermine the individual’s or group’s ability to interpret reality independently. Similar to Bourdieu’s “symbolic violence,” it operates below the threshold of awareness and is based on the internalization of meaning structures that serve the hegemony; however, unlike it, semantic terrorism aspires to deliberately disrupt concepts, definitions, and discourse patterns, so that resistance is eroded already at the information processing stage.
During the hybrid protest in Iran, this mechanism could be seen in action: the regime did not settle for the physical suppression of protesters in the streets, but simultaneously managed a media campaign designed to undermine the credibility of digital reports, plant disinformation, and cast doubt on visual testimonies that leaked out. Reports of rape, murder, or exceptional assaults were flooded alongside sweeping denials and “exposures” of fake news, so that the boundaries of truth and fiction were blurred.
From a Foucauldian perspective, this is an extreme expression of regimes of truth, where control does not amount to silencing the voice of protest, but to engineering the boundaries of meaning themselves—to the point of undermining the distant observer’s ability to decide what truly happened.
A severe literary example of semantic terrorism appears in George Orwell’s 1984: Winston’s colleague at the Ministry of Truth, the nihilistic linguist Syme, explains “Newspeak”—a language so reduced and controlled that it denies the linguistic possibility to express protest or “thoughtcrime.” To think what is forbidden, words are needed; and when the words do not exist—it is not possible to even conceive the idea, let alone pass it on. Thus, language itself becomes a total means of control, where the boundaries of thought are dictated in advance by the boundaries of the dictionary.
From Regime of Truth to Hermeneutics of Paranoia: Semantic Terrorism as a Regime Tool
Michel Foucault proposed the concept of regime of truth—a system of rules, institutions, and norms that defines what counts as truth, who is entitled to speak it, and by what means it is produced and disseminated. Truth, according to him, is a product of power relations and not solely an objective attribute. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the regime of truth relies on a spiritual-theocratic concept: the Supreme Leader is perceived as God’s representative on earth (Ayatollah), and his status allows him to frame the legitimate truth for society as a whole. Thus, political events are presented in terms of a “just struggle against Western plots” or “defense of a persecuted nation,” and the religious-political narrative becomes the decisive framework for interpreting reality.
To preserve this regime of truth, the government exercises tight control over the media and regulates the flow of information: at its will—it allows, and at its will—it blocks and even “pulls the plug” on the internet, including blocking external sites. Thus, it determines what will be exposed to the public and what will remain hidden. Simultaneously, it operates supervision and electronic surveillance of “problematic” users, which forces regime opponents to hide their identity and harms their credibility in the eyes of some of their supporters. Another central tool is the broadcasting of forced confessions, presented as a “free” admission of the truth—but in practice derived from torture and psychological pressure. Within the framework of the theocratic regime of truth, the legitimate truth is the word of Ayatollah Khamenei—the Islamic Jurist (Velayat-e Faqih)—and his rule is not perceived as subject to democratic choice. The truth here is not the product of public discussion or empirical examination, but of spiritual-political belief, which places the leader above any mechanism of secular control.
Violation of Democratic Norms – To demonstrate that semantic terrorism is a direct application of political force on citizens, one must show how it harms the subject and helps normalize the suppression of freedom of expression and thought. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) explain that democracy does not rely only on a written constitution, but also on unwritten norms of political conduct. In the Islamic Republic, which does not pretend to be democratic, these norms are replaced by anti-democratic norms aimed at perpetuating the authoritarian regime.
Semantic terrorism here is expressed in the deliberate erosion of trust between political rivals and the undermining of the opposition’s legitimacy. Instead of viewing opposition leaders—many of them reformists who previously served in key roles in the regime—as loyal patriots with good intentions toward the state, the regime frames them as traitors, spies, a “fifth column,” or collaborators with imperialist forces. Through a systematic change of the semantic charge of these terms, the regime creates a reality where political resistance itself is labeled as a moral, religious, and national crime—thereby blocking in advance any possibility for free political discourse.
From Hermeneutics of Meaning to Hermeneutics of Paranoia – The hermeneutics of meaning, as proposed by Mizrachi (2017), may lead to a situation where the listener accepts the regime’s narrative and grants it legitimacy—even when it is stained with the blood of protesters, and employs direct, unrestrained force of torture, executions, and suppression of its citizens. In a theocratic-authoritarian reality, adopting the principle of empathetic listening to leadership may turn, in effect, into collaboration with the mechanism of oppression.
Against this approach, I propose the concept of Hermeneutics of Paranoia: a sophisticated state where the feeling of persecution is not a pathological symptom, but a rational response to a political context where the regime monitors individual actions online, employs electronic monitoring, and even operates an informing system via a dedicated website for reporting political “criminals.” Within such a regime, the subject’s voice is silenced; the establishment media speaks in their name and frames them as violent rioters, criminals, or traitors. Thus, the subject loses their ability to exist authentically in the online space—not because they are silent by choice, but because their words are captured, translated, and distorted within a mechanism of semantic terrorism.
Analysis of the Iranian case reveals how “semantic terrorism” is not merely a distortion of language but a genuine power mechanism: it disrupts the individual’s and group’s ability to process information independently, blocks the public sphere to alternative interpretation, and produces a single narrative as legitimate “truth.” Compared to Bourdieu’s “symbolic violence,” here we witness a deliberate and conscious activation of linguistic manipulations, supported by mechanisms of supervision, information filtering, and intimidation. In the Iranian case, a combination of theocracy, technological control, and political persecution creates an array where linguistic-hermeneutic oppression is an inseparable part of physical and political oppression. Understanding this phenomenon is essential for analyzing protests in authoritarian states, especially in the digital age where the struggle for meaning takes place in real time and in a global arena.
Bibliography
- Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.; C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, & K. Soper, Trans.). Pantheon Books, p 1-25.
- Steven Levitsky, & Daniel Ziblatt. (2018). The Guardrails of Democracy. In How Democracies Die. Crown.
- Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen eighty-four. Secker & Warburg.
- Swedberg, R. (2016). Before theory comes theorizing or how to make social science more interesting. The British Journal of Sociology, 67: 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12184
- Bourdieu, P. (2025). The Market of Symbolic Goods (A. Gilad & Z. Spiro, Trans.). Jerusalem: Magnes Press. (Original published as Le Marché Des Biens Symboliques).
- Handelzalts-Beavor, L. (Ed.). (2017). Iran Then and Now: Society, Religion and Politics (311 pp.). Translation from Iran Then and Now: Society, Religion and Politics. “Red Line” series. Hakibbutz Hameuchad.
- Mizrachi, N. (2017). Where is Sociology in Israel Heading? From a Sociology of Suspicion to a Sociology of Meaning. Megamot, 52 (2), 69–114.
Link to the highlighted article by Foucault:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:682d229e-40ce-4bfa-81b1-d0c22dca0c7c
Link to the highlighted article by Levitsky and Ziblatt:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:03131a4a-1786-4ab1-b15b-8e137eec191e
Link to the highlighted article by Swedberg:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:b63f9084-7d9f-4eb0-bc4b-24359619c79e
Link to the highlighted article by Mizrachi:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:f49bff84-1d90-4443-955c-557add3f984e
Visual Findings Example – Appendix
[Visual content description: Images of protests, police brutality, book cover “Tortured Confessions” by Ervand Abrahamian, crowd analysis, and word clouds of hashtags like #FreeDetainedIranianProtesters].
Videos I Edited:
Submitted by: Eliphelet Lavie
The current work deals with analyzing the case of the hybrid protest in Iran, with an emphasis on the manner in which the theocratic regime employs “semantic terrorism” as a tool for political control and consciousness engineering. Through a combination of concepts from Foucault (“regime of truth”), Bourdieu (“symbolic violence”), Levitsky and Ziblatt (democratic norms), and Nissim Mizrachi (hermeneutics of meaning), it is presented how language, meaning, and interpretation become an arena of political struggle. The discussion relies on both an empirical description of practices of oppression and on theoretical interpretation, seeking to show how control over meaning is not merely a communicative means, but a central tool for creating and preserving authoritarian regimes.
Observation – The Green Revolution in Iran (2009)
The observation constitutes a fundamental stage in the conceptualization process, as it is the first step in the transition from raw phenomena to concepts (Swedberg, 2016, p. 5). In sociology, as an empirical theory, conceptualization begins with a broad and deep observation of social reality.
My observation focuses on the controversial presidential elections in Iran in 2009. In these elections, the conservative candidate, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—an associate of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—defeated the popular reformist candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Mousavi was dubbed “the beloved of the people.” As is customary in Iranian elections, a unique color was designated for each candidate; Mousavi and his supporters chose green, which became the symbol of the protest and its name—”The Green Revolution.” The protesters claimed that the election results were falsified on a large scale, through the non-counting of votes and the skewing of the tally in favor of Ahmadinejad.
Following this, millions of Iranians took to the streets, but the protest did not remain within the boundaries of the physical space. It also spread to the digital space, which was then in its infancy: platforms like Twitter (launched that same year), videos on YouTube, and Google’s new translation service into Persian served the protesters to create real-time documentation and to echo messages outwardly. Thus, the Green Revolution became one of the first hybrid protests in the world—a combination of physical resistance in the public sphere with cross-border digital activism.
I was not on the ground, I have never visited the Islamic Republic, and I do not speak Persian. However, I view this event as a unique case study: one of the first hybrid protests in the world, which took place simultaneously in the virtual space and the actual space.
Identifying the Phenomenon – Hybrid Protest and Hybrid Warfare
The event revealed a double phenomenon:
- Hybrid protest – A combination of physical action in the field and digital action.
- Hybrid warfare – A struggle for control not only in the actual space but also over the narrative and public consciousness.
The regime, operating within the framework of the Velayat-e Faqih doctrine, was quick to respond. Actions included internet shutdowns and arrests of online activists. There was also dissemination of disinformation. They framed the protest as treason and heresy against God. This is a metaphysical offense that can be punishable, at times, by death. Here, a mechanism of semantic terrorism is exposed. It involves converting civil-political language into theological-punitive language. This conversion expropriates the legitimacy of resistance at the very stage of discourse.
Example – “Selfless Love”: In state media reports, the actions of the Basij—a civil militia that violently attacked protesters—were described as “selfless love” for the land. Behind the positive connotation lay severe violence. When violence is defined as moral sacrifice, critical language is negated in advance, and any resistance is framed as lacking morality.
Conceptualization – Semantic Terrorism
In accordance with the conceptualization process proposed by Swedberg (2015, page 5), and specifically the stage of using metaphors, analogies, and creating new concepts, the concept of “semantic terrorism” was born as a neologism—a term I created in my personal language, which no one had used before. The very use of a neologism may arouse suspicion that the speaker is engaged in a meaningless jumble of words, and is sometimes even recalled in psychiatric contexts as a characteristic of psychotic language. However, the current move seeks to extract the concept from the neologism stage and establish it as a sociological concept with a clear theoretical framework, even if controversial.
By analogy to “symbolic violence,” semantic terrorism also does not harm the body but undermines the sense of identity, meaning, and the possibility for the existence of valid discourse—and especially the basic trust between speakers with opposing positions. Alongside the theoretical aspect, I personally experience the difficulty involved in proposing a new concept, which at this moment is still a neologism, and trying to convince the academic and social environment that it is admissible—without appearing as someone who has retreated into a private language and lost touch with reality. For me, this is a threatening stage, as it seems that I must invest considerable effort to show that the concept relies not only on personal intuition, but also on theoretical anchors and familiar thinkers, so that it can be positioned within the existing field of knowledge and not remain within the boundaries of an individual’s language.
Semantic Terrorism in the Hybrid Protest of Iran (2009)
In the language of the regime, the spiritual Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, is called Ayatollah—”Sign of Allah.” His rule is anchored in the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), which defines the regime as a Theocracy where political authority is derived directly from religious authority. Within this framework, legitimate political protest is not perceived as a civil action but as an act of heresy (Kufr) and even as a rebellion against God himself, and is sometimes even accused of spreading “corruption on earth” (Fasad fil-Arz).
This is a distinct mechanism of semantic terrorism: the regime frames the resistance in language that expropriates its moral and civil legitimacy, and locates it in the field of severe religious accusations, where the punishment is not only political but metaphysical—and in many cases, death.
Semantic terrorism is a practice of control and coercion based on systematic manipulation of language, meanings, and signs, in order to undermine the individual’s or group’s ability to interpret reality independently. Similar to Bourdieu’s “symbolic violence,” it operates below the threshold of awareness and is based on the internalization of meaning structures that serve the hegemony; however, unlike it, semantic terrorism aspires to deliberately disrupt concepts, definitions, and discourse patterns, so that resistance is eroded already at the information processing stage.
During the hybrid protest in Iran, this mechanism could be seen in action: the regime did not settle for the physical suppression of protesters in the streets, but simultaneously managed a media campaign designed to undermine the credibility of digital reports, plant disinformation, and cast doubt on visual testimonies that leaked out. Reports of rape, murder, or exceptional assaults were flooded alongside sweeping denials and “exposures” of fake news, so that the boundaries of truth and fiction were blurred.
From a Foucauldian perspective, this is an extreme expression of regimes of truth, where control does not amount to silencing the voice of protest, but to engineering the boundaries of meaning themselves—to the point of undermining the distant observer’s ability to decide what truly happened.
A severe literary example of semantic terrorism appears in George Orwell’s 1984: Winston’s colleague at the Ministry of Truth, the nihilistic linguist Syme, explains “Newspeak”—a language so reduced and controlled that it denies the linguistic possibility to express protest or “thoughtcrime.” To think what is forbidden, words are needed; and when the words do not exist—it is not possible to even conceive the idea, let alone pass it on. Thus, language itself becomes a total means of control, where the boundaries of thought are dictated in advance by the boundaries of the dictionary.
From Regime of Truth to Hermeneutics of Paranoia: Semantic Terrorism as a Regime Tool
Michel Foucault proposed the concept of regime of truth—a system of rules, institutions, and norms that defines what counts as truth, who is entitled to speak it, and by what means it is produced and disseminated. Truth, according to him, is a product of power relations and not solely an objective attribute. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the regime of truth relies on a spiritual-theocratic concept: the Supreme Leader is perceived as God’s representative on earth (Ayatollah), and his status allows him to frame the legitimate truth for society as a whole. Thus, political events are presented in terms of a “just struggle against Western plots” or “defense of a persecuted nation,” and the religious-political narrative becomes the decisive framework for interpreting reality.
To preserve this regime of truth, the government exercises tight control over the media and regulates the flow of information: at its will—it allows, and at its will—it blocks and even “pulls the plug” on the internet, including blocking external sites. Thus, it determines what will be exposed to the public and what will remain hidden. Simultaneously, it operates supervision and electronic surveillance of “problematic” users, which forces regime opponents to hide their identity and harms their credibility in the eyes of some of their supporters. Another central tool is the broadcasting of forced confessions, presented as a “free” admission of the truth—but in practice derived from torture and psychological pressure. Within the framework of the theocratic regime of truth, the legitimate truth is the word of Ayatollah Khamenei—the Islamic Jurist (Velayat-e Faqih)—and his rule is not perceived as subject to democratic choice. The truth here is not the product of public discussion or empirical examination, but of spiritual-political belief, which places the leader above any mechanism of secular control.
Violation of Democratic Norms – To demonstrate that semantic terrorism is a direct application of political force on citizens, one must show how it harms the subject and helps normalize the suppression of freedom of expression and thought. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) explain that democracy does not rely only on a written constitution, but also on unwritten norms of political conduct. In the Islamic Republic, which does not pretend to be democratic, these norms are replaced by anti-democratic norms aimed at perpetuating the authoritarian regime.
Semantic terrorism here is expressed in the deliberate erosion of trust between political rivals and the undermining of the opposition’s legitimacy. Instead of viewing opposition leaders—many of them reformists who previously served in key roles in the regime—as loyal patriots with good intentions toward the state, the regime frames them as traitors, spies, a “fifth column,” or collaborators with imperialist forces. Through a systematic change of the semantic charge of these terms, the regime creates a reality where political resistance itself is labeled as a moral, religious, and national crime—thereby blocking in advance any possibility for free political discourse.
From Hermeneutics of Meaning to Hermeneutics of Paranoia – The hermeneutics of meaning, as proposed by Mizrachi (2017), may lead to a situation where the listener accepts the regime’s narrative and grants it legitimacy—even when it is stained with the blood of protesters, and employs direct, unrestrained force of torture, executions, and suppression of its citizens. In a theocratic-authoritarian reality, adopting the principle of empathetic listening to leadership may turn, in effect, into collaboration with the mechanism of oppression.
Against this approach, I propose the concept of Hermeneutics of Paranoia: a sophisticated state where the feeling of persecution is not a pathological symptom, but a rational response to a political context where the regime monitors individual actions online, employs electronic monitoring, and even operates an informing system via a dedicated website for reporting political “criminals.” Within such a regime, the subject’s voice is silenced; the establishment media speaks in their name and frames them as violent rioters, criminals, or traitors. Thus, the subject loses their ability to exist authentically in the online space—not because they are silent by choice, but because their words are captured, translated, and distorted within a mechanism of semantic terrorism.
Analysis of the Iranian case reveals how “semantic terrorism” is not merely a distortion of language but a genuine power mechanism: it disrupts the individual’s and group’s ability to process information independently, blocks the public sphere to alternative interpretation, and produces a single narrative as legitimate “truth.” Compared to Bourdieu’s “symbolic violence,” here we witness a deliberate and conscious activation of linguistic manipulations, supported by mechanisms of supervision, information filtering, and intimidation. In the Iranian case, a combination of theocracy, technological control, and political persecution creates an array where linguistic-hermeneutic oppression is an inseparable part of physical and political oppression. Understanding this phenomenon is essential for analyzing protests in authoritarian states, especially in the digital age where the struggle for meaning takes place in real time and in a global arena.
Bibliography
- Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.; C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, & K. Soper, Trans.). Pantheon Books, p 1-25.
- Steven Levitsky, & Daniel Ziblatt. (2018). The Guardrails of Democracy. In How Democracies Die. Crown.
- Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen eighty-four. Secker & Warburg.
- Swedberg, R. (2016). Before theory comes theorizing or how to make social science more interesting. The British Journal of Sociology, 67: 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12184
- Bourdieu, P. (2025). The Market of Symbolic Goods (A. Gilad & Z. Spiro, Trans.). Jerusalem: Magnes Press. (Original published as Le Marché Des Biens Symboliques).
- Handelzalts-Beavor, L. (Ed.). (2017). Iran Then and Now: Society, Religion and Politics (311 pp.). Translation from Iran Then and Now: Society, Religion and Politics. “Red Line” series. Hakibbutz Hameuchad.
- Mizrachi, N. (2017). Where is Sociology in Israel Heading? From a Sociology of Suspicion to a Sociology of Meaning. Megamot, 52 (2), 69–114.
Link to the highlighted article by Foucault:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:682d229e-40ce-4bfa-81b1-d0c22dca0c7c
Link to the highlighted article by Levitsky and Ziblatt:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:03131a4a-1786-4ab1-b15b-8e137eec191e
Link to the highlighted article by Swedberg:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:b63f9084-7d9f-4eb0-bc4b-24359619c79e
Link to the highlighted article by Mizrachi:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:f49bff84-1d90-4443-955c-557add3f984e
Visual Findings Example – Appendix
[Visual content description: Images of protests, police brutality, book cover “Tortured Confessions” by Ervand Abrahamian, crowd analysis, and word clouds of hashtags like #FreeDetainedIranianProtesters].
Videos I Edited:
Leafy sees 
Leave a Reply