It was only a matter of time before the so-called "Iranian President" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be unmasked as the biggest hoax in the history of television, perpetrated by Brooklyn comic Misha Braslavsky, a cable TV buffoon exploiting Western stereotypes of the"evil radicalism of Islam."

Looking back, we can only laugh at our unblinking acceptance of Ahmadinejad, an "Islamist hard-liner" dressed like a Turkish used car salesman, who called to wipe Israel off the map or move it to Alaska, demanded a manual recount of Holocaust victims, and banned all Western music. His retractions were even more bizarre: "CNN make lie! I send squeegees to help Israel, not 'Wipe off Israel!' Who translated, I kill him!" Or "I not ban all Western music, I ban only Country-Western music, spawn of Satan! Eminem and Barbra Streisand still welcome!" - a statement that sparked violent protests in Nashville.

An early warning sign could be the striking similarity between this parody of an "Iranian President" and the "Kazakhstani journalist" named Borat, played by a British comic Sacha Cohen - a stunt that had recently angered the Kazakhstani government. "Borat made me do it," admits "Ahmadinejad" Misha, referring to the success of Cohen's character on HBO (Channel 4 in Britain ).

Savvy viewers are kicking themselves for having missed obvious clues, like Ahmadinejad's statements that all visible reality, including Tehran's nuclear program, are a figment of our imagination, that the Titanic is moored in Baluhistan, and Yoko Ono is a hot juicy chick.

Neither the "president's" besotted eyes, his funny suit, nor his denials of the existence of soap, gravity, and North Korea could shake the Western viewers' confidence that Ahmadinejad was a real thing, so strong was their belief that anything coming out of the Islamic Republic had to be so utterly stupid.

At one point the "Iranian President" even fooled Earth First! and Greenpeace International who endorsed his "proposal" to fight Global Warming with public beheadings of pro-industrial CEOs, scientists, and political leaders, accompanied by the offer of inexpensive head-cutting technology and expertise. A political protester who was arrested last week in Tehran for demanding that his "ass" be made President of Iran, confessed under torture that he had been inspired by Braslavsky's shtick on TV. The embarrassed Iranian mullahs repeatedly denounced the TV impostor, but who would believe them?

Son of Jewish parents who immigrated to Brooklyn from Ukraine in 1988, Misha found inspiration in the work of his friend and colleague Sacha Cohen, modeling his "Iranian President's" character after Borat's quirky looks and pronouncements. His other inspiration was the character of Howard Dean, the DNC Chairman whose flaming rhetoric he attempted to recreate as coming from an imaginary "Islamic leader." Some critics believe that Misha had picked the name "Ahmadinejad" for its assonance with the name of Howard Dean. The character was so convincing that it quickly grew out of cameo appearances on Comedy Central, becoming a lead star on CNN, BBC, MSNBC, and other infotainment networks.

The hoaxers' identities were uncovered last week when both Misha and Sacha had been picked up by New York City police while on a dinking spree in Chelsea, after a local man complained about a pair of deranged Middle Easterners harassing passers-by with demands of clean prostitutes and an immediate annihilation of Israel. The arresting officer recognized both the "Iranian President" and the "Kazakhstani journalist," and within minutes sold the story to the New York Post.

The incident reportedly will not deter Misha's plans to host Saturday Night Live, with more of "Ahmadinejad" spoofs. He promises to display a divine glow around his body and give amnesty for last year's Iranian beheadees, who will have their heads reattached by the mullah-approved halal otolaryngologists.

There are now two minds about this issue in the Majlis, the hard-line Iranian parliament: some believe that "Ahmadinejad" is the biggest practical joke ever played on them by Mossad - while others, in line with their religion's mystic traditions, are beginning to think that "Ahmadinejad" really is their president, and always has been.

First, Mahmoud decides to go for nukes, then he demands OPEC decrease oil production. Finally, he asks that direct flights from Iran to the US resume! What a humorist!

I admit it, I fall for joke from New York Jew. I should know better than fall for sneaky zionist trick. I think good punishment is 1 year in reeducation camp. Or better yet, 1 year working selling appliances in Gaza City appliance World store. That serve him right.

Have you comrades noticed?

The Iranian president is really Alan Alda from Mash?

Anonymous wrote:Have you comrades noticed?

The Iranian president is really Alan Alda from Mash?

Now I've seen it all- a Holocaust 'joke' conference lead by the clown who 'leads' Iran!

Jokes are great- but the joke will be on him if Israel & America have it their way!(and I hope they do!) In the name of all the Jewish people who died in the Holocaust, and those who have survived, this sick man is the only joke going on in the world! uhhh....(besides France).

Shalom from a gentile!

the joke will be on him if Israel & America have it their way

I think seeing him converted into a pile of glowing ash would be funny....

Oh, dang! And I hoped the guy would be one of the most valuable useful idi.. er.. our allies on the road to the Greater Good..

But despair not, komrades! Google is on our side now! (I have long suspected progressives at the helm there)
https://michellemalkin.com/archives/004385.htm

No Treason
Lysander Spooner, 1867, Part I

---

INTRODUCTORY.

The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.

On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.

If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown.

---

I.

Notwithstanding all the proclamations we have made to mankind, within the last ninety years, that our government rests on consent, and that that was the rightful basis on which any government could rest, the late war has practically demonstrated that our government rests upon force --- as much so as any government that ever existed.

The North has thus virtually said to the world: It was all very well to prate of consent, so long as the objects to be accomplished were to liberate ourselves from our connexion with England, and also to coax a scattered and jealous people into a great national union; but now that those purposes have been accomplished, and the power of the North has become consolidated, it is sufficient for us --- as for all governments --- simply to say: Our power is our right.

In proportion to her wealth and population, the North has probably expended more money and blood to maintain her power over an unwilling people, than any other government ever did. And in her estimation, it is apparently the chief glory of her success, and an adequate compensation for all her own losses, and an ample justification for all her devastation and carnage of the South, that all pretence of any necessity for consent to the perpetuity or power of government, is (as she thinks) forever expunged from the minds of the people. In short, the North exults beyond measure in the proof she has given, that a government, professedly resting on consent, will expend more life and treasure in crushing dissent, than any government, openly founded on force, has ever done.

And she claims that she has done all this in behalf of liberty! In behalf of free government! In behalf of the principle that government should rest on consent!

If the successors of Roger Williams, within a hundred years after their State had been founded upon the principle of free religious toleration, and when the Baptists had become strong on the credit of that principle, had taken to burning heretics with a fury never seen before among men; and had they finally gloried in having thus suppressed all question of the truth of the State religion; and had they further claimed to have done all this in behalf of freedom of conscience, the inconsistency between profession and conduct would scarcely have been greater than that of the North, in carrying on such a war as she has done, to compel men to live under and support a government that they did not want; and in then claiming that she did it in behalf of the of the principle that government should rest on consent.

This astonishing absurdity and self-contradiction are to be accounted for only by supposing, either that the lusts of fame, and power, and money, have made her utterly blind to, or utterly reckless of, he inconsistency and enormity of her conduct; or that she has never even understood what was implied in a government's resting on consent. Perhaps this last explanation is the true one. In charity to human nature, it is to be hoped that it is.

---

II

What, then, is implied in a government's resting on consent?

If it be said that the consent of the strongest party, in a nation, is all that is necessary to justify the establishment of a government that shall have authority over the weaker party, it may be answered that the most despotic governments in the world rest upon that very principle, viz: the consent of the strongest party. These governments are formed simply by the consent or agreement of the strongest party, that they will act in concert in subjecting the weaker party to their dominion. And the despotism, and tyranny, and injustice of these governments consist in that very fact. Or at least that is the first step in their tyranny; a necessary preliminary to all the oppressions that are to follow.

If it be said that the consent of the most numerous party, in a nation, is sufficient to justify the establishment of their power over the less numerous party, it may be answered:

First. That two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.

Second. It would be absurd for the most numerous party to talk of establishing a government over the less numerous party, unless the former were also the strongest, as well as the most numerous; for it is not to be supposed that the strongest party would ever submit to the rule of the weaker party, merely because the latter were the most numerous. And as a matter of fact, it is perhaps never that governments are established by the most numerous party. They are usually, if not always, established by the less numerous party; their superior strength consisting of their superior wealth, intelligence, and ability to act in concert.

Third. Our Constitution does not profess to have been established simply by the majority; but by "the people;" the minority, as much as the majority.

Fourth. If our fathers, in 1776, had acknowledged the principle that a majority had the right to rule the minority, we should never have become a nation; for they were in a small minority, as compared with those who claimed the right to rule over them.

Fifth. Majorities, as such, afford no guarantees for justice. They are men of the same nature as minorities. They have the same passions for fame, power, and money, as minorities; and are liable and likely to be equally --- perhaps more than equally, because more boldly --- rapacious, tyrannical and unprincipled, if intrusted with power. There is no more reason, then, why a man should either sustain, or submit to, the rule of the majority, than of a minority. Majorities and minorities cannot rightfully be taken at all into account in deciding questions of justice. And all talk about them, in matters of government, is mere absurdity. Men are dunces for uniting to sustain any government, or any laws, except those in which they are all agreed. And nothing but force and fraud compel men to sustain any other. To say that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as majorities please to allow them.

Sixth. It is not improbable that many or most of the worst of governments --- although established by force, and by a few, in the first place --- come, in time, to be supported by a majority. But if they do, this majority is composed, in large part, of the most ignorant, superstitious, timid, dependent, servile, and corrupt portions of the people; of those who have been over-awed by the power, intelligence, wealth, and arrogance; of those who have been deceived by the frauds; and of those who have been corrupted by the inducements, of the few who really constitute the government. Such majorities, very likely, could be found in half, perhaps nine-tenths, of all the countries on the globe. What do they prove? Nothing but the tyranny and corruption of the very governments that have reduced so large portions of the people to their present ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption; an ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption that are best illustrated in the simple fact that they do sustain governments that have so oppressed, degraded, and corrupted them. They do nothing towards proving that the governments themselves are legitimate; or that they ought to be sustained, or even endured, by those who understand their true character. The mere fact, therefore, that a government chances to be sustained by a majority, of itself proves nothing that is necessary to be proved, in order to know whether such government should be sustained, or not.

Seventh. The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that --- however bloody --- can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.

---

III

But to say that the consent of either the strongest party, or the most numerous party, in a nation, is sufficient justification for the establishment or maintenance of a government that shall control the whole nation, does not obviate the difficulty. The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a nation" to exist? How do millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory --- each gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized also, by that law, to defend his own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to the assistance and defence of any of his fellow men who may be suffering any kind of injustice --- how do millions of such men come to be a nation, in the first place? How is it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into a mass with other men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and towards many of whom he has no sentiments but fear, hatred, or contempt? How does he become subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do this, and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their subject; and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment, and death?

Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both.

By what right, then, did we become "a nation?" By what right do we continue to be "a nation?" And by what right do either the strongest, or the most numerous, party, now existing within the territorial limits, called "The United States," claim that there really is such "a nation" as the United States? Certainly they are bound to show the rightful existence of "a nation," before they can claim, on that ground, that they themselves have a right to control it; to seize, for their purposes, so much of every man's property within it, as they may choose; and, at their discretion, to compel any man to risk his own life, or take the lives of other men, for the maintenance of their power.

To speak of either their numbers, or their strength, is not to the purpose. The question is by what right does the nation exist? And by what right are so many atrocities committed by its authority? or for its preservation?

The answer to this question must certainly be, that at least such a nation exists by no right whatever.

We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent.

---

IV.

The question, then, returns, what is implied in a government's resting on consent?

Manifestly this one thing (to say nothing of the others) is necessarily implied in the idea of a government's resting on consent, viz: the separate, individual consent of every man who is required to contribute, either by taxation or personal service, to the support of the government. All this, or nothing, is necessarily implied, because one man's consent is just as necessary as any other man's. If, for example, A claims that his consent is necessary to the establishment or maintenance of government, he thereby necessarily admits that B's and every other man's are equally necessary; because B's and every other man's right are just as good as his own. On the other hand, if he denies that B's or any other particular man's consent is necessary, he thereby necessarily admits that neither his own, nor any other man's is necessary; and that government need to be founded on consent at all.

There is, therefore, no alternative but to say, either that the separate, individual consent of every man, who is required to aid, in any way, in supporting the government, is necessary, or that the consent of no one is necessary.

Clearly this individual consent is indispensable to the idea of treason; for if a man has never consented or agreed to support a government, he breaks no faith in refusing to support it. And if he makes war upon it, he does so as an open enemy, and not as a traitor that is, as a betrayer, or treacherous friend.

All this, or nothing, was necessarily implied in the Declaration made in 1776. If the necessity for consent, then announced, was a sound principle in favor of three millions of men, it was an equally sound one in favor of three men, or of one man. If the principle was a sound one in behalf of men living on a separate continent, it was an equally sound one in behalf of a man living on a separate farm, or in a separate house.

Moreover, it was only as separate individuals, each acting for himself, and not as members of organized governments, that the three millions declared their consent to be necessary to their support of a government; and, at the same time, declared their dissent to the support of the British Crown. The governments, then existing in the Colonies, had no constitutional power, as governments, to declare the separation between England and America. On the contrary, those governments, as governments, were organized under charters from, and acknowledged allegiance to, the British Crown. Of course the British king never made it one of the chartered or constitutional powers of those governments, as governments, to absolve the people from their allegiance to himself. So far, therefore, as the Colonial Legislatures acted as revolutionists, they acted only as so many individual revolutionists, and not as constitutional legislatures. And their representatives at Philadelphia, who first declared Independence, were, in the eye of the constitutional law of that day, simply a committee of Revolutionists, and in no sense constitutional authorities, or the representatives of constitutional authorities.

It was also, in the eye of the law, only as separate individuals, each acting for himself, and exercising simply his natural rights as an individual, that the people at large assented to, and ratified the Declaration.

It was also only as so many individuals, each acting for himself, and exercising simply his natural rights, that they revolutionized the constitutional character of their local governments, (so as to exclude the idea of allegiance to Great Britain); changing their forms only as and when their convenience dictated.

The whole Revolution, therefore, as a Revolution, was declared and accomplished by the people, acting separately as individuals, and exercising each his natural rights, and not by their governments in the exercise of their constitutional powers.

It was, therefore, as individuals, and only as individuals, each acting for himself alone, that they declared that their consent that is, their individual consent for each one could consent only for himself --- was necessary to the creation or perpetuity of any government that they could rightfully be called on to support.

In the same way each declared, for himself, that his own will, pleasure, and discretion were the only authorities he had any occasion to consult, In determining whether he would any longer support the government under which be had always lived. And if this action of each individual were valid and rightful when he had so many other individuals to keep him company, it would have been, in the view of natural justice and right, equally valid and rightful, if he had taken the same step alone. He had the same natural right to take up arms alone to defend his own property against a single tax-gatherer, that he had to take up arms in company with three millions of others, to defend the property of all against an army of tax-gatherers.

Thus the whole Revolution turned upon, asserted, and, in theory, established, the right of each and every man, at his discretion, to release himself from the support of the government under which he had lived. And this principle was asserted, not as a right peculiar to themselves, or to that time, or as applicable only to the government then existing; but as a universal right of all men, at all times, and under all circumstances.

George the Third called our ancestors traitors for what they did at that time. But they were not traitors in fact, whatever he or his laws may have called them. They were not traitors in fact, because they betrayed nobody, and broke faith with nobody. They were his equals, owing him no allegiance, obedience, nor any other duty, except such as they owed to mankind at large. Their political relations with him had been purely voluntary. They had never pledged their faith to him that they would continue these relations any longer than it should please them to do so; and therefore they broke no faith in parting with him. They simply exercised their natural right of saying to him, and to the English people, that they were under no obligation to continue their political connexion with them, and that, for reasons of their own, they chose to dissolve it.

What was true of our ancestors, is true of revolutionists in general. The monarchs and governments, from whom they choose to separate, attempt to stigmatize them as traitors. But they are not traitors in fact; in-much they betray, and break faith with, no one. Having pledged no faith, they break none. They are simply men, who, for reasons of their own --- whether good or bad, wise or unwise, is immaterial --- choose to exercise their natural right of dissolving their connexion with the governments under which they have lived. In doing this, they no more commit the crime of treason --- which necessarily implies treachery, deceit, breach of faith --- than a man commits treason when he chooses to leave a church, or any other voluntary association, with which he has been connected.

This principle was a true one in 1776. It is a true one now. It is the only one on which any rightful government can rest. It is the one on which the Constitution itself professes to rest. If it does not really rest on that basis, it has no right to exist; and it is the duty of every man to raise his hand against it.

If the men of the Revolution designed to incorporate in the Constitution the absurd ideas of allegiance and treason, which they had once repudiated, against which they had fought, and by which the world had been enslaved, they thereby established for themselves an indisputable claim to the disgust and detestation of all mankind.

---

In subsequent numbers, the author hopes to show that, under the principle of individual consent, the little government that mankind need, is not only practicable, but natural and easy; and that the Constitution of the United States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support.

---

For the remaining parts, check out lysanderspooner.com

I don't do mayors, honest.

Listen to the word of the "Che". We were lied to like the Capitalist pigs lie to their people. We believed we had an ally against Imperialistic little Eichmann. Ward Churchill will be very disappointed.

This image comes from Polemiken.net, a like-minded Danish site that links to the Cube a lot. I wish I could read Dansk.

ROFL
Borat has some serious competition

IRAN: TEXT MESSAGE TELLS PRESIDENT HE SHOULD WASH MORE

www.adnki.com

Tehran, 14 April (AKI) - Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has apparently been incensed by an anonymous text message suggesting he does not wash enough. Ahmadinejad has taken legal action over the offending text, has fired the president of a phone company and has had four people arrested and accused of colluding with the Israeli foreign intelligence service, Mossad, the anti-government website Rooz Online reports.

Poking fun at the president, the regime's senior figures and its policies, has reportedly become a national pastime in Iran. The Iranian authorities are paying particular attention to jokes comparing Iran's nuclear programme with sex. Several people are widely believed to have received court summonses for sending nuclear-related jokes, according to Rooz Online.

"While the outcome of the recent arrests in connection with SMS messaging is not clear yet, what is certain is that SMS jokes have already put some people into serious trouble," wrote Rooz Online.

The clampdown is in line with the authorities' uncompromising stance on Internet bloggers. Large numbers of the nation's estimated 70,000 to 100,000 bloggers have faced harassment or imprisonment. The regime has acknowledged monitoring text message traffic. This apparently began in the run-up to the presidential election last June.

Anyone knows if Borat's new movie is being played in Iran?

No, but it got banned in Russia.

Premier Betty wrote:No, but it got banned in Russia.

What do you expect!!! We don't want the world to see how bad the USSR looks like, especially our own people. That would cause counterrevolutionary thoughts and hatecrimes against the USSR.

Borat shall be execute!!!!


P. Brezhnev

Michelle Malkin linked to this story today (11/18/06)

https://michellemalkin.com/archives/006394.htm

Comrades, as you should know by now, I have laid the groundwork for a Show Trial for criminal B. This is even more wonderful news for me! For if Abjihadibobbum has actually been Misha Braslavsky all along, then it's just as cheap to have a show trial for two as one. Cheaper by the dozen as they say. So not only do we get criminal B, we get this clown from Iran as well as the "star" of the third worst movie I have ever seen.

Oh, and I have considered efficiency comrades. Once the "trial" is finished, we will line them both (all three if you count the Borat) ear to ear so one bullet will do the job. Yes, the criminal that is second in line may suffer a bit more as the velocity will be slightly reduced, which when you think of it, is lagniappe as we say down here in the socialist bayou. In fact, I will even pay for the bullet for these criminals.

My thoughts tell me Alaneedsausefulidiot could possibly be non other than the president of the Mens Warehouse and has only come to America to subject us with cheap suits as the one he wore while speaking at CU. Remeber Comrades "He who cannot eat horsemeat need not do so. But he who cannot eat pork, let him eat horsemeat. It's simply a question of taste."

Too thin to be the man you mention....but you got the face pretty close.

WAIT A MINUTE, comrades... this hoax thing is disturbing!
If president Awhiskeyinthejar-o isn't for real at all (such as spoofy Sasha Cohen's Borat), and all the stuff he said is disinformatsya, then what can assure us that Iran is indeed with us, and isn't just some camel-loving hippie theocracy?! We know that that Borat character managed to screw up our evaluations of Kazakhstan to the point of annoying their embassy! Who knows how much we missed the picture with Iran...

By Stalin, 20 years in ice have made me lose touch with world events. Commissar Pupovich answers a thread and makes me think it's recent...

Separated at birth - Mahmoud & Maynard

Does Akamelbreath play Bongos as well as his lost brother?

Party Diplomat Ivan Drago wrote:By Stalin, 20 years in ice have made me lose touch with world events. Commissar Pupovich answers a thread and makes me think it's recent...

Hmmmm, I must admit, that went right over my head?

Commissar Pupovich wrote:

Party Diplomat Ivan Drago wrote:By Stalin, 20 years in ice have made me lose touch with world events. Commissar Pupovich answers a thread and makes me think it's recent...

Hmmmm, I must admit, that went right over my head?

Heh heh, never mind, Comrade Pup. I'm just exercizing the progressive socialist virtue of blaming others for my own mistakes. (As you yourself said, I guess I wil go far in the Party...)

Party Diplomat Ivan Drago wrote:Heh heh, never mind, Comrade Pup. I'm just exercizing the progressive socialist virtue of blaming others for my own mistakes. (As you yourself said, I guess I wil go far in the Party...)

Yes, and you can be sure, Commissar Pupovich will be keeping an eye on you...

<center><img src="https://people.delphiforums.com/a1sickpupe/keeping eye on you.gif"></center>

Commissar Pupovich wrote:

Party Diplomat Ivan Drago wrote:By Stalin, 20 years in ice have made me lose touch with world events. Commissar Pupovich answers a thread and makes me think it's recent...

Hmmmm, I must admit, that went right over my head?

Comrades, sweat profusely not! What is yesterday's lie is today's news for the party. (conversely, what is today's truth is tomorrow's fortune cookie)

My question is, with all the disinformation the capitalists are feeding us, how do we know Iran even exists? I begin to doubt the very presence of the country and can't help but think that Makemud Outamyjar really comes from an uncharted desert isle populated by seven characters of a strange religious sect. How do we know what is really the truth? Up is down. Wrong is right. Good is evil. Black is white. (watch the video on Youtube "lose change")

**********
Out of character
Nota bene how Machmoud Ahmadinejad's very name contains the name of the Madi. Coincidence? I think not.

Well, as you no doubt know, reality is not what it seems. For there are only the 3 great superstates of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. So we are indeed at war with both Iran and Iraq.... today. Tomorrow? Who knows? It may have never happened.

We have always been at war with Eastasia, Comerade. Whatever are you talking about?

Comerades, are you sure we are not being misled by propogandistic Western press? Remember, Ahmadinejad is a great friend to the Party. We do not want to offend him.

I was in error Tsarvena, my geography was completely in error, for both Iran and Iraq are not a part of any of the 3 great superstates, rather still disputed territory. Of course we have always been at war with Eastasia.

You know, I was thinking, we too need to institute some of the tried and true methods from Airstrip One.... We need a daily 2 Minutes Hate, and a Hate Week.