Saturday, June 6, 2015

Truth Jihad radio with Kevin Barrett 2015.06.05

"Free speech Friday" with Paul Topete and Brandon Martinez

Feeling harassed by Zionists?  I am. I was just barred from speaking about my new book in Canada by the Zionist-run Harper regime, which is enacting a "zero tolerance" policy towards the pro-Palestine BDS movement. My earlier Midwest Book Tour drew an attack by the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL's friends at The Jewish Chronicle ambushed Rabbi Michael Lerner for contributing to my book. (Lerner later called the JC's attack article "slimy.") And just today, my polite radio invitation to University of Michigan professor Victor Lieberman, a tireless anti-Palestine propagandist, was impolitely rebuffed.

Meanwhile, over in Amsterdam, the Zionists are going ballistic over this weekend's Open Mind Conference. They are waxing especially apoplectic about Christopher Bollyn, whose book Solving 9/11 pins the crime of the century squarely on the Zionist crime network and its Israeli enablers. The bad guys actually managed to get the conference booted out of its originally-scheduled venue, but the ensuing publicity is going to give the event far more attention than it otherwise would have received.

So in honor of all this Zionist slander and censorship, I'm going to push right back even harder with two guests who do not mince words.

First hour: Paul Topete of the leading freedom rock group Poker Face is a notoriously uninhibited truth-teller. Paul calls it exactly the way he sees it - and what he sees isn't always pretty. While I may not agree with everything he says, I will defend to the death his right to say it.

Second hour: Brandon Martinez, like Paul Topete, is one of the most outspoken and eloquent anti-Zionists in North America. And like Paul, Brandon thinks the evils of Zionism have their roots in problems endemic to organized Jewry. (That's pretty much what Gilad Atzmon has been saying for years.) Are these guys right? Partly right? Or does this line of inquiry lead to dangerous bigotry? Tune in and decide for yourself.

Kevin's blog

32k CF Download


air-ono said...

i didn't know topete was so religious
he bragged he can knock anti-religious arguments to kingdom come
well see if one of you guys can arrange a debate between him and giuliani
now that would be a helluva show

Negentropic said...

The Topete show extremely annoying and incoherent. He needs to leave his Santa Claus meets Science "theories" on his own private shelf under the "fairy tales" section where Barrett is smart enough to leave his Koran most of the time. No one needs to argue with people who hallucinate fairy-tale scenarios that make no sense whatsoever into their otherwise more-or-less sound daily logic and then claim vehemently that they are "knocking out" their opponents with "logic."

The logical consistency of what? The "logical consistency" of a fairy tale you believe is unassailable? All language is metaphorical. When you learn your first word you're already two metaphors away from the "essence" of things. A nerve stimulus, first transposed into an image — first metaphor. The image, in turn, imitated by a sound — second metaphor. The ancient Greeks taught this 2000-plus years ago and Nietzsche, who was a Latin and Greek scholar, re-examined it in 1873 in his famous essay "On Truth & Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense."

Therefore, ANY use of human language (the gauging or measuring of the tongue, never mind the silly "spelling" switch of the "u" and "a" cast by witches to confuse you) or means of communication -- verbal, musical, mathematical -- is metaphorical at its base and already a process of "artistic transference," which explains the deep need of human beings for art or that which expands the limits of "linguistic legislation." Without this expansion, without what are called "great works of art" and the similar creative process of science, there is no such thing as human progress. There is a HUGE difference between the layers of metaphor that a mathematical equation represents in science (even closer to the essence of things than the verbal language which all humans learn first before learning mathematics or what lies UNDER language itself and all things in nature, the laws of number and succession, although never fully discerning it) and some friggin' fairy-tale spun to illustrate a morality or certain code of action supposedly beneficial to man. Know-ledge itself is knowing the ledge, a question of properly balancing many elements perceived about a thing, in the proper rank and categories. In-form-ation, forms you on the inside, casts the molds that you try to fit things into. In-struct-ion is more elaborate and creates inner-structure which will stand through fire and catastrophe and can be built on inter-generationally as long as a way of transmitting it still exists. Do you really think it is an accident that mathematics is similarly based on balancing elements in equations and the word know-ledge tells you basically the same thing?

Negentropic said...

"After all, what is a law of nature as such for us? We are not acquainted with it in itself, but only with its effects, which means in its relation to other laws of nature—which, in turn, are known to us only as sums of relations. Therefore all these relations always refer again to others and are thoroughly incomprehensible to us in their essence. All that we actually know about these laws of nature is what we ourselves bring to them—time and space, and therefore relationships of succession and number. But everything marvelous about the laws of nature, everything that quite astonishes us therein and seems to demand explanation, everything that might lead us to distrust idealism: all this is completely and solely contained within the mathematical strictness and inviolability of our representations of time and space. But we produce these representations in and from ourselves with the same necessity with which the spider spins. If we are forced to comprehend all things only under these forms, then it ceases to be amazing that in all things we actually comprehend nothing but these forms. For they must all bear within themselves the laws of number, and it is precisely number which is most astonishing in things. All that conformity to law, which impresses us so much in the movement of the stars and in chemical processes, coincides at bottom with those properties which we bring to things. Thus it is we who impress ourselves in this way. In conjunction with this, it of course follows that the artistic process of metaphor formation with which every sensation begins in us already presupposes these forms and thus occurs within them. The only way in which the possibility of subsequently constructing a new conceptual edifice from metaphors themselves can be explained is by the firm persistence of these original forms. That is to say, this conceptual edifice is an imitation of temporal, spatial, and numerical relationships in the domain of metaphor." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, "On Truth & Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense" ("Über Wahrheit und Lüge im außermoralischen Sinn; 1873)

Negentropic said...

The Martinez show was interesting because Martinez is always learning and growing in some way and certainly not for anything Barrett said, with some very strong reservations.

Did I hear both of these guys say: "Islamic Iran is the last bastion of resistance?" Are you fucking kidding me? Barrett speaks of the Ayatollah Khomeini as if he was a 'great man,' a 'freedom fighter'?


Do they know that ALL public performance of music is banned in Iran except for religious and military music and women are not allowed to perform even those? Here's just a SMALL sample of those "freedoms":

Article 82. The penalty for adultery in the following cases shall be death, regardless of the age or marital status of the culprit: (1) Adultery with one's consanguineous relatives (close blood relatives forbidden to each other by religious law); (2) Adultery with one's stepmother in which the adulterer's punishment shall be death; (3) Adultery between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman, in which case the adulterer (non-Muslim man) shall receive the death penalty; (4) Forcible rape, in which case the rapist shall receive the death penalty.

Article 83. Adultery in the following cases shall be punishable by stoning: (1) Adultery by a married man who is wedded to a permanent wife with whom he has had intercourse and may have intercourse when he so desires; (2) Adultery of a married woman with an adult man provided the woman is permanently married and has had intercourse with her husband and is able to do so again.

Note. Adultery of a married woman with a minor is punishable by flogging.

Article 84. Old married adulterers and adulteresses shall be flogged before being stoned.

Article 85. Revocable divorce shall not relieve the husband or wife from the bond of marriage during the waiting period whereas irrevocable divorce shall do so.

Article 86. Adultery of a permanently married man or a permanently married woman who does not have access to his or her spouse, due to travel, incarceration or similar impediments, shall not require stoning.

Article 88. The punishment for an unmarried adulterer or adulteress shall be one hundred lashes.

Article 90. If a man or a woman has committed the act of adultery several times and has been punished after each act, he or she shall be put to death following his or her fourth act of adultery.

Article 91. An adulteress shall not be punished while pregnant or in menstruation or when, following birth and in the absence of a guardian, the newborn's life is in danger. If, however, the newborn becomes the ward of a guardian the punishment shall be carried out.

Article 92. If the flogging of a pregnant woman or a woman nursing her child poses risks to the unborn or to the child respectively, the execution of the punishment shall be delayed until the said risk is no longer present.

Negentropic said...

.. . continued from previous post

Article 93. If an ailing woman or a woman in menstruation has been condemned to death or stoning, the punishment shall be carried out. If, however, she is condemned to flogging, the punishment shall be delayed until she is recovered or her menstruation period is over.

Article 100. The flogging of an adulterer shall be carried out while he is standing upright and his body bare except for his genitals. The lashes shall strike all parts of his body–- except his face, head and genitals-- with full force. The adulteress shall be flogged while she is seated and her clothing tightly bound to her body.

Article 102. The stoning of an adulterer or adulteress shall be carried out while each is placed in a hole and covered with soil, he up to his waist and she up to a line above her breasts.

Article 119. Testimony of women alone or in conjunction with that of a single man shall not prove sodomy.

Article 127. Lesbianism consists in genital sexual acts carried out between women.

Article 128. Evidence for proof of lesbianism and sodomy is the same.

Article 129. The punishment for lesbianism is a hundred lashes for both parties to the act.

Article 130. Punishment for lesbianism applies only to the person who is of age, sane, in control of her actions and who has been a willing party to the act of lesbianism.

Note. In the application of the penalty for lesbianism there shall be no distinction as to whether the culprit has been passive or active or as to whether she is a Muslim or non-Muslim.

Article 131. If the act of lesbianism has been repeated three times and punishment has been carried out each time, the death penalty shall apply if the act is committed a fourth time.

Article 132. If the perpetrator of the act of lesbianism repents prior to the testimony of witnesses, the penalty of hadd shall not apply. Repentance following the witnesses' testimony, however, shall not bar hadd punishment.

Article 133. If the act of lesbianism is proved through confession and the culprit repents afterwards, the judge may ask the supreme jurist (vali-ye amr) for waiver of punishment.

Article 134. If two women, who are not consanguineous, go under the same bed cover while nude and without justification, they shall be given fewer than one hundred lashes. In case of repetition of the act for a third time each shall be given one hundred lashes.

Article 138. The penalty for procurement is in the case of a male procurer 75 lashes and banishment between three months and a year and in the case of a female procurer only 75 lashes.

Article 140. The penalty for false accusation is 80 lashes regardless of the gender of the culprit.

Article 145. Any insult that causes indignation to the victim but which does not constitute false accusation of adultery or male homosexuality, such as when a husband tells his wife: 'You were not a virgin,' is punishable by up to 74 lashes.

Iranian lashed 74 times for 'insult' to Ahmadinejad

Negentropic said...

. . . continued


Iran faces up to its most lethal threat - hard drugs - One in 17 people are addicted,

US Has Given Over $100 BILLION To Companies Defying Its Policy On Iran

For 5 years I've been posting this shit and I know 100% for sure that both Barrett and Martinez know all about the above and yet they still claim Fudamentalist Islam is fighting for "freedom"? The "freedom" to do what? Beat the shit out of people for hardly anything, addict them to hard-drugs at the number one rate on the planet and sell people's organs for 500 dollars to pay off debts created by inflation and a totally corrupt theocracy?

Alright, alright! I'll stop now because I'm just about ready to throw up from all this useless shillery (direct agent or useful idiot/ego, the result being the same: DIS-information)

Anonymous said...

air-ono, Charlie said on an episode in the past two weeks that he was no longer interested in doing debates, because people have their minds made up beforehand, and he got tired of hearing the same arguments in favour of Christianity and the Bible.

Even if he agreed to do a debate, he can't keep his anger in check, and then loses the debate, otherwise he will win on the facts, in my opinion.

As for Topete, if he upholds the doctrine of the Trinity, especially, and even of the existence of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment, as being a doctrine that the Bible teaches, then I don't put much faith in his ability to argue his case very well.

air-ono said...

ok thanks
i just thought it would be interesting, since topete bragged how he p3wns atheists, or evolutionists
i'd have liked to see him prove it up against someone like giuliani
it would be an amazing fire works display, folks, amazing!!
["amazing" said how duke says it "ah-MAYyyy-ZING"]

i like listening to barrett
and if you listen to enough of his shows, he wears his faith on his sleeve
and you soon realise he's a desperate apologist for islam...
"desperate" because he clings to it for his sanity!!
before he converted to islam he was a drunk and a wildman...
he even stated that without god, no laws are valid!
so i can say "thou shall not kill"
and he'd say "big deal"
but allah says it
it's "yes sir, 3 bags full sir"
so islam keeps him on an even keel

Woodchuck said...

That's interesting to know about Kevin. I wondered what caused his conversion to islam. Makes sense.

Woodchuck said...

Yeah Jason, you're right, Charlie would likely lose on composure, but win on!

larry said...

Wow, that first guy was such an idiot

Anonymous said...

Despite letting Atzmon specifically implicate Jews in the last interview, Barrett is at it again, with trying to downplay any criticism of Jews as a group, as he was doing big time in the interview with Topete.

I suspect Barrett feels it's OK so long as a Jew criticizes other Jews, but the irony is that Atzmon claims to not even be a Jew anymore.

Anonymous said...

Topete brought up the so-called prophecy of the popes by Saint Malachy.

I really don't see why non-Catholics even bring it up with any seriousness, since they don't even regard the office of the pope as having any higher authority than any other man-made office.

Even if you think Satan could have inspired it, it's far more likely that the guy who claimed to have uncovered it, a Jesuit, concocted the list and made some names not much in order to not make it too obvious, and that in combination with the names being stretched so much to fit, the Church took it upon itself to choose names to fit with the prophecy, thereby increasing its reliability.

Considering that many evangelicals, like the late Dr. Stan Monteith, regard the Bible as being 100% prophetically accurate, why would he and others care about some Catholic so-called prophecy?

As for author Tom Horn's purported accurate prediction about Pope Benedict stepping down early, Horn could've been given wind ahead of time by an insider in order to intentionally prop up talk about the so-called prophecy, which would serve multiple aims.

Tom Horn shouldn't and his book shouldn't have gotten more "airtime" than a few shows on Blogtalk, and that will prove the case when the current pope proves not to be the last-named pope identified as Petras Romanus.

It was so bogus, too, the identification of Pope Francis as Petras Romanus, on the basis of, if all else had failed, that he fit that title because the pope is the Bishop of Rome. Yes, Horn and others conned many sincere Christians that easily.

Negentropic said...


He has advanced verbal judo skills that he displayed on his impresario performance on O'Reilley's show way back in 2005 or 2006 or whenever it was. Aside from that, knowing what I know today in 2015, listening to limited hangouts like Barrett and Fetzer is a waste of time.

As for "being wild," apparently he still was pretty wild in 2008, when his wife had to get a restraining order against him for hitting on his 13 year old son.

"On September 12, Barrett had been charged with disorderly conduct in Sauk County Circuit Court after being accused of hitting his 13-year-old son at home on the morning of the September 9, 2008 "

This was on his wikipedia page which is now completely deleted. Hmmm, I wonder why? By the way, Simon Shack and September Clues are not mentioned EVEN ONCE on the whole of Wickipedia and Metapedia.

I think Sultan Abdul Barret was hallucinating that he was in an Islamic country where beating on your wife and kids is still considered "discipline." Or maybe he still believes in the old English law. English common law used to have a rule that a husband could "correct" his wife WITH A STICK as long as the stick was no thicker than the man's thumb. I have no idea what size the stick was that they were allowed to beat their kids with. And, by the way, a lot of times back then the wives themselves were barely older than "kids" since the age of consent prior to 1920 in England was 13 and in the similarly common-law-using USA, 10 years old in most states, 12 years in a few, and 7 years old in pedophile-central Delaware!

Before that, in his youth, he was a punk rocker from Orange County which implies one of 3 things 1) He was a skateboarder and/or surfer who thought he was a "bad-ass" and hated society for not allowing him to be act like an obnoxious child 24 hours a day; 2) He went to punk rock shows, spazzed out and got into fights and sometimes ended up in jail as a result; 2) He drank till he pissed himself and/or did hard drugs and then got into fights and ended up in the clink.

But since his dad was an Olymic Gold Medal sailor and sailboat-builder who lived in Newport Beach (median price of a house today: 1.2 million dollars), he got bailed out and had little to worry about. Being a self-styled "rebel," he had to rebel even when it came to choosing which religion or spiritual discipline he was going to use to calm himself down and therefore chose Islam instead of the religion of his forefathers.

Negentropic said...

“When the world begins to open out before us
and experience to flow in with rapidly increasing
volume, the state of affairs necessarily becomes more
obvious. The mental unrest which we, with a certain
cynicism, regard as normal to adolescence is evidence
of the heavy handicap we lay upon the developing
mind in forcing it to attempt to assimilate with
experience the dicta of herd suggestion. Moreover,
let us remember, to the adolescent experience is
no longer the shadowy and easily manipulable series
of dreams which it usually is to the child. It has
become touched with the warmth and reality of
instinctive feeling. The primitive instincts are now
fully developed and finding themselves balked at
every turn by herd suggestion; indeed, even products
of the latter are in conflict among themselves.
Not only sex, self-preservation, and nutrition are at
war with the pronouncements of the herd, but
altruism, the ideal of rationality, the desire for
power, the yearning for protection, and other feelings
which have acquired instinctive force from group

The sufferings entailed by this condition are
commonplace knowledge, and there is scarcely a
novelist who has not dealt with them. It is around
matters of sex and of religion that the conflict is
most severe, and while it is no part of our purpose
to make any detailed survey of the condition, it
may be of interest to point out some of the more
obvious significances of this localization.
Religion has always been to man an intensely
serious matter, and when we realize its biological
significance we can see that this is due to a deeply
ingrained need of his mind. The individual of
a gregarious species can never be truly independent
and self-sufficient. Natural selection has ensured
that as an individual he must have an abiding sense
of incompleteness, which, as thought develops in
complexity, will come to be more and more
abstractly expressed. This is the psychological germ
which expresses itself in the religious feelings, in
the desire for completion, for mystical union, for
incorporation with the infinite, which are all provided
for in Christianity and in all the successful subvarieties
of Christianity which modern times have
seen develop. This need seems with the increasing
complexity of society to become more and more
imperious, or rather to be satisfiable only by
more and more elaborately rationalized expressions.”

excerpt from “Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War, Wilfred Trotter (1916)

Negentropic said...

"Religious feeling is therefore a character inherent in the very structure of the human mind, and is the expression of a need which must be recognized by the biologist as neither superficial nor transitory. It must be admitted that some philosophers and men of science have at times denied to the religious impulses of man their true dignity and importance. Impelled perhaps by a desire to close the circle of a materialistic conception of the universe, they have tended to belittle the significance of such phenomena as they were unable to reconcile with their principles and bring within the iron circle of their doctrine. To deal with religion in this way has not only been an outrage upon true scientific method, but has always led to a strong reaction in general opinion against any radical inquiry by science into the deeper problems of man's nature and status. A large and energetic reaction of this kind prevails today. There can be little doubt that it was precipitated, if not provoked, by attempts to force a harsh and dogmatic materialism into the status of a general philosophy. As long as such a system is compelled to ignore, to depreciate, or to deny the reality of such manifestly important phenomena as the altruistic emotions, the religious needs and feelings, the experiences of awe and wonder and beauty, the illumination of the mystic, the rapture of the prophet, the unconquerable endurance of the martyr, so long must it fail in its claims to universality. It is therefore necessary to lay down with the strongest emphasis the proposition that the religious needs and feelings of man are a direct and necessary manifestation of the inheritance of instinct with which he is born, and therefore deserve consideration as respectful and observation as minute as any other biological phenomenon." ~ Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War, Wilfred Trotter 1916

1melahat said...

Negentropic, Wow, you seem to have a lot of free time on your hand to go after that evil Iran. When will you be doing the same thing for Israel? I would bet never! I have family in Iran and contrary to what we're told people there are happy.

Negentropic said...


Oh really?

Happy in what way, Mr Aphex Twin?

Does your family hate all music and artistic expression?

They must be really happy then to not be allowed to sing or play ANY music in public since it's ILLEGAL, or to attend any concerts of any musicians that do not pump religious and military music out.

They must really have so many freedoms to criticize politicians over there UNDER PAIN OF 74 (7+4=11) LASHES. lol So your family must all be VERY QUIET people, who keep as quite as mice and never have a controversial opinion that they can express freely, right?

And too bad that all women, including all in your family, are worth only HALF of a man by Islamic law. You approve of that also, do you? And if yes, what does that make you?

So, in what way are they happy?

Happy slaves living LITERALLY UNDER THE WHIP who have to whisper to each other in public?

You don't have to tell me about Iran, wise guy. I am 100% Armenian and was born and raised there under the Shah until 1978. English is my third language. My second language is Farsi. That's right, I don't have to read any subtitles when watching Iranian films or videos and have more Persian books and films in my library than you can name. My air-conditioning repair-man (an Armenian like myself) was drafted by force and put on the front lines of the Iran-Iraq war for 18 straight months. For 18 straight months he picked up the body parts of his friends and put them in freezer trucks to ship back to their families, identifiable only by dog-tags, after they'd been blown into pieces by bombs because of your beloved douchebag Khomeini refusing Saddam's offer of truce in 1982 and extending the war for 6 more years. My dad's been back there 3 times already to visit relatives and take care of business. Any money he managed to get by selling off properties he had to exchange at HUNDREDS OF TIMES inflated rates of exchange since the days of the Shah. He and many others like him have told me plenty about how much it SUCKS there compared to the 1970s and I myself remember very clearly how great it was in the 1970s.

But since you love it so much, I suggest you move there and get ready to fight the last bastion of resistance to the death with your women-hating, chauvinist, punk-ass, fundamentalist Islamic rulers. I only fight for people who don't get their kicks from whipping women on a regular basis, not for animals who do. And if my neighbor was whipping his woman, I'd be kicking his ass too, not fighting on his side like some moral degenerate.

Negentropic said...

@1melahat (continued . . . )

As for your laughable "bet" that I don't criticize JEWS, only slimy fundamentalist pigs, pay up SUCKER, cuz you lost that one big-time:

Every last post on DIF under Synergetic67 is also mine (over 1200 posts as of today). Have you ever had 70,000 or more views on a thread you started? Well, just my threads alone have over 240,000 combined views and every last one of them is Jew-wise-squared.

Don't be jealous or envious now, just MAKE THE TIME to do better instead of pretending to be "too busy" like some wage-slave as if "not having enough time on your hands" was any sign of merit. I'm not exactly retired buddy, I have to deal with the same Jew-run win-lose dialectic economy you do. I just know how to save everything I post TWICE (once on my hard-drive, once on external storage) and then copy & paste:

So, where's my money 1melahat?

Negentropic said...

“Don’t fear failure. — Not failure, but low aim, is the crime. In great attempts it is glorious even to fail.” – Bruce Lee

“To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.” – Bruce Lee

“I was part of that strange race of people aptly described as spending their lives doing things they detest, to make money they don't want, to buy things they don't need, to impress people they don't like.”
― Emile Gauvreau

“We seldom consider how much of our lives we must render in return for some object we barely want, seldom need, buy only because it was put before us...And this is understandable given the workings of our system where without a job we perish, where if we don't want a job and are happy to get by we are labeled irresponsible, non-contributing leeches on society. But if we hire a fleet of bulldozers, tear up half the countryside and build some monstrous factory, casino or mall, we are called entrepreneurs, job-creators, stalwarts of the community. Maybe we should all be shut away on some planet for the insane. Then again, maybe that is where we are.” ― Ferenc Máté, A Reasonable Life: Toward a Simpler, Secure, More Humane Existence

1melahat said...

I can't stand religion and as far as I'm concerned it's all Jewish mind control. I'm so sick of demonization of Iran. When you hate on Iran you're just helping curry favor for its regime change which won't happen from an outside force. The US was indirectly responsible for the deaths of a million Iran ians by proxy. Iran's populace was nearly cut in half around the turn of the century when England occupied Persia and confescated all the grain causing a great famine. How many millions have died and been irradiated in the middle east due to these wars of aggression? How many dictators does the west prop up and stifle the human rights of the people there? Do these things also anger you? I would like nothing better than a secular government in Iran with zero religious institutions if possible but right now a lot of people are trying to curry hatred of Iran so it can be completely destroyed. A country which has done nothing but mind it's own business and been victimized over and over. I share your hatred for sharia law but there is a lot of hype. Women in Tehran don't have to wear burkas. They wear makeup and only cover their hair. It's not like you make it sound as if they are going to get stoned or something. There is a thriving underground music scene. People drink alcohol and do whatever they like in the privacy of their homes. The threat Israhell and USA put Iran under only strengthens the Islamic regime. If they didn't subvert Mossadeq where would Iran be today? The Islamic Regime was making deals with Reagan. The US wants a oppressive regime to rule Iran. They are the aggressors who keep attacking Iran and making it more isolated. My family has many Armenia friends who are Persia armenians. The way they are treated in Israhell is a travesty. They are barely allowed in the sacred temples on holidays for prayers. Iran ians are good people. We're friendly and respect our aryan roots. We are intrigued by blond haired blue eyed peoples even though today the majority of us are a mix of arabic and asian dna. My brother in law goes back and forth from the US to Iran around three times a year and he comes from a family of doctors. My sister and nieces live here but also lived in Iran for ten years. Anyway, I wasn't trying to anger you but I'm just sick to death of the demonizing of Iran. I also had family who were in the Iran/Iraq including a cousin who lost a leg and became very depressed, angry and withdrawn. I left in 1977 as a seven year old or else I would have been of age to be drafted. it's the people who are suffering from sanctions and any potential war, not the regime. I hope you're not condoning some sort of regime change through an attack on Iran. That would kill way more people than stupid sharia law and would basically genocide the Iranians. Gorbanetam, Ghodafez agajoon

1melahat said...

Negentropic, I checked out your link at TIU and I pretty much see things the same way as you. My only gripe with you was that by hyping what a bad regime Iran has you're not helping the innocent people there. In the end you're just justifying their destruction because the outcome of regime change by an outside force will bring mass deaths and destruction to innocent people. Maybe there are other ways we can help bring a better tomorrow to Iran and get rid of a theocratic regime which will thrive from any war against Iran.

1melahat said...

May I recommend a Aphex Twin tune for your edification?