I'm thinking that I don`t need to put the text of how everything he said changed, you already know about that but I will put the link for you if you would like to check out the website and sources: Before the victory of the revolution, February 11, 1979. "Personal desire, age, and my health do not allow me to personally have a role in running the country after the fall of the current system." --Interview with the Associated Press, Paris, November 7, 1978. "I have repeatedly said that neither my desire nor my age nor my position allows me to govern." --Interview with the United Press, Paris, November 8, 1978. "I don't want to have the power or the government in my hand, I am not interested in personal power." --Interview with The Guardian newspaper, Paris, November 16, 1978. "I don't want to be the leader of the Islamic Republic; I don't want to have the government or the power in my hands. I only guide the people in selecting the system." --Interview with an Austrian TV reporter, Paris, November 16, 1978. It is the Iranian people who have to select their own capable and trustworthy individuals and give them the responsibilities. However, personally, I can't accept any special role or responsibility." --Interview with Le Journal newspaper, Paris, November 28, 1978. After the Shah's departure from Iran. I will not become a president nor accept any other leadership role. Just like before, I limit my activities only to guiding and directing the people." --Interview with Le Monde newspaper, Paris, January 9, 1979. "The Islamic regime does not have oppression." --Interview with France Press news agency, Paris, October 25, 1978. "The foundation of our Islamic government is based on freedom of dialogue and will fight against any kind of censorship." -- Interview with Reuters news agency, Paris, October 26, 1978. "In the Islamic Republic the rights of the religious minorities are respectfully regarded." -Interview with an Austrian TV reporter, Paris, November 6, 1978.

Throughout the past decade, I have repeatedly witnessed and confronted the disturbing alliances between radical leftist organizations and Islamist extremist groups. These partnerships, often masked as social justice activism, consistently reveal a shared hostility toward Western values, Israel, and democratic principles. Some of the more significant examples n the following responses include the following: In 2015, I faced off against radical leftists, including Daisy Khan and other individuals aligned with the mullah regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas, outside AIPAC in Washington, D.C. In October 2023, following the Hamas October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, I confronted radical leftist organizations, including Antifa, the Marxist Youth League, the Workers World Party, Students for Justice in Palestine, and other aligned groups. In November 2025, I documented radical leftist groups — including Antifa, the Marxist Youth League, the Workers World Party, Students for Justice in Palestine, and other co-aligned actors — as they supported the violent Marxist Maduro regime in Venezuela, the mullah regime occupying Iran, the Castro regime occupying Cuba, and Hamas Last Saturday at the “No Kings” rally in Buffalo those same groups Antifa, the Marxist Youth League, the Workers World Party, Students for Justice in Palestine, and other co-aligned actors — as they supported the violent Marxist Maduro regime in Venezuela, the mullah regime occupying Iran, the Castro regime occupying Cuba, and Hamas These repeated encounters demonstrate a clear and consistent pattern: radical leftist organizations are not merely protesting — they are actively aligning with authoritarian regimes and terrorist groups that oppose freedom, democracy, and human rights. This dangerous convergence should concern anyone who values liberty and Western civilization. It is essential that we recognize and confront these alliances before they further erode the principles that underpin our society.

What right do U.S and Israel have to bomb universities? How's that supposed to help the people overthrow the regime?

I saved this for a separate post because I happen to share a lot of libertarian values, but my god I cannot stand libertarians. At least, not American libertarians. I believe in maximal personal liberty. I believe in minimal economic interference by government. I believe in minimal taxes, and I'm open to the idea that all taxation is theft. I am a gun rights absolutist and a free speech absolutist. I am not an open borders advocate, but I'll save that for another time. The short version is that even Galt's Gulch needed to have border controls to avoid being taken over by people who did not share the values on which they were building their community. But where I differ from libertarians, apart from my belief in national sovereignty and border control, is that I am a firm interventionist. And here is why. Let's start with the fact that in order for property rights and contracts to be enforced, we have to have some enforcement mechanism. Some people might suggest we have essentially anarchy and every person should be left to enforce their own contracts. To such people, I say, we cannot have a discussion unless you acknowledge what reality is like. Such a system is never going to work for the same reason communism cannot work: it only works if every single person voluntarily commits to following it. In reality, humans will always try to twist things to their own advantage. So on some level we need police, or some similar enforcement mechanism. Now, the next question is, who should get the protection of that enforcement mechanism? And while I do believe in borders, my ultimate answer is that everyone should get that enforcement mechanism to protect their personal liberty and economic liberty. Everyone that we can practically provide it for. After all, why should I care, if I am a libertarian, if my neighbor's property rights are violated by a robber? They aren't me. That isn't 'my problem.' Why should my resources go to police who are going to catch that robber and return the property? When Rand Paul was assaulted in his home, why should my tax dollars go to provide police who catch the assaulter? Yet almost all libertarians think that we should, for some reason, care. That my tax dollars should in fact go to paying to protect Rand Paul (and let me say of all the people in the US, he's lowest on the list of people I care about protecting, after how he has talked about Iran).