Donald Trump is Pure Evil

Trump, who was elected to office, has displayed a series of harmful actions both domestically and internationally.

On March 21st, 2025, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) published an article stating President Trump shut down the federal Board of Education. This abrupt move had an immediate and significant impact on the education system in the United States, directly affecting our children's future. The following day, March 22nd, 2025, CBC reported that Trump was misinformed about the trade deal between Canada and the United States. If not corrected swiftly, this misunderstanding could have profound economic implications for both countries, potentially affecting our livelihoods. These examples illustrate Trump's harmful actions during his presidency, which should cause immediate concern for everyone.

Trump's geopolitical ambitions, such as discussing the idea of conquering Greenland, could have significant implications and potentially lead to conflict with Denmark—a prospect that should not just worry us but alarm us all. His expressed interest in capturing Canada and Panama could destabilize the entire North American region and further increase the potential for conflict and instability. This situation should raise alarm and highlight the dangers of Trump's actions.

Additionally, he initiated an economic war with European countries by imposing corporate tariffs to incentivize them to relocate to the United States.

Trump's policies do not reflect a commitment to the welfare of others. He acts selfishly and creates fear among ordinary people, which rightfully breeds resentment and underscores the dire need for change due to his actions' severe and immediate negative impact.

Trump's behaviour has been described as "evil." This term refers to actions or qualities that are morally wrong, harmful, or wicked, and it is not used lightly. Such grave accusations should be reserved for the most egregious behaviours. Whether in domestic or foreign matters, Trump's actions have been viewed as evil, reflecting qualities that cause pain and suffering, contradicting the principles of kindness, compassion, and fairness.

Every action is guided by a moral compass—a set of beliefs or values that influence ethical decisions, judgments, and behaviour, forming an internal sense of right and wrong.

Trump's decisions often follow a winners-and-losers mentality, in which he wins while others lose. This mindset can lead to actions that violate established moral codes and principles, resulting in harm, injustice, or suffering for others.

In this context, evil can be understood as anything that inflicts pain, destruction, or misfortune, intentionally or unintentionally. Trump's policies have caused untold suffering, from the economic conflict with European countries to the shutdown of the federal Board of Education, leaving many in despair. The financial war with European countries could lead to increased inflation, disrupted supply chains, higher interest rates, and potentially a global recession, with the EU's export-driven economies facing significant strain and the possibility of realigning the global economy. These are abstract concepts and real economic impacts that people will feel in their daily lives.

**Economic Impacts:**

**Inflation:**  

Disruptions in global supply chains and increased resource demand due to conflict may lead to higher prices for goods and services, particularly in the energy and food sectors.

**Supply Chain Disruptions:**  

Economic warfare could target key trade routes, disrupting the flow of goods and materials, resulting in shortages and increased costs.

**Higher Interest Rates:**  

Central banks might raise interest rates to combat inflation. This could slow economic growth and increase borrowing costs for businesses and consumers.

**Recession:**  

Rising inflation, disrupted supply chains, and higher interest rates could plunge the global economy—especially the Eurozone—into a recession.

**Reduced Investment:**  

Uncertainty and fear of further economic shocks may lead to a decline in business investment, further dampening economic growth.

**Trade War:**  

Imposing tariffs and other trade barriers could spark a trade war, further damaging global trade and economic relations.

**Economic Strain on Export-Driven Economies:**  

European economies that rely heavily on exports may face significant economic strain as trade disruptions and tariffs reduce demand for their goods.

**Geopolitical Realignment:**  

An economic conflict could lead to a realignment of global power dynamics, with countries seeking closer ties with alternative partners to counter the economic dominance of certain nations.

**Increased Debt:**  

Governments might need to increase spending to support their economies and populations during a crisis, potentially resulting in higher debt levels.

**Social Unrest:**  

Economic hardships could lead to social unrest and instability as people struggle with rising prices and job losses.

**Deglobalization:**  

The economic conflict could accelerate the trend toward deglobalization, with countries prioritizing domestic production and reducing their reliance on global trade.

The shutdown of the federal Board of Education could have significant consequences. While states have primary control over their school systems, including their curricula, the federal department is crucial in enforcing laws prohibiting discrimination in education and managing funding to enhance educational achievement.

What Trump has brought to the people of the U.S. and the world can be characterized as wickedness and depravity. Evil can describe a character flaw or a state of being, indicating a lack of moral integrity or a tendency toward harmful actions. In Trump's case, his actions and policies consistently demonstrate a disregard for ethical values and an inclination toward conduct that harms others—this should justly anger us all.

Evil can manifest in various forms, including violence, cruelty, oppression, corruption, and injustice. Public opinion in the United States has shifted from focusing on freedom and democracy to harbouring animosity toward other nations. This change is partly due to Trump's belief that international trade is not based on the principle of mutual benefit; instead, he perceives the U.S. as the loser in these economic exchanges.

Trump appears to be using religion as a tool to persuade Americans that he is a person of faith, raising critical philosophical questions. Philosophers and theologians have long explored the nature of evil, its origins, and its relationship to good, leading to discussions about free will, determinism, and theodicy (the problem of reconciling the existence of evil with an all-powerful, benevolent God).

For example, Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for unlimited access to Ukraine's natural resources. This request does not reflect the characteristics of an actual person of faith, as the Bible emphasizes the values of sharing and generosity. Believers are called to share their resources and love with others, especially those in need, as a reflection of God's grace. As stated in 1 Timothy 6:17-19: "Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way, they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."

Trump embodies a form of systemic evil that threatens to undermine both the United States and the world at large. The term "systemic evil," as discussed by theorists such as Hannah Arendt, refers to harm that arises from individual actions combined with the structures and systems in which people operate. Trump is pressuring Ukraine to negotiate peace with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has a history of violating treaties and waging war against vulnerable nations.

In conclusion, Trump appears to lack remorse or guilt, exhibiting traits consistent with antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy. This can result in an inability to empathize or regret his actions, potentially leading to manipulative or cruel behaviour. He prioritizes his glorification, believing he can protect U.S. businesses by imposing tariffs on other nations while cutting back on social programs domestically. However, his actions do not benefit the country at home or abroad; instead, they sow chaos within the nation and escalate tensions with the rest of the world. Ultimately, the American people will pay a high price for Trump's misguided domestic and foreign policies, and it may take more than 50 years to rectify the damage caused by these decisions.

Medusa is the Mullah’s Turban

 A Persian expression conveys a strong message about the role of mullahs in Iranian society: if a person lifts a mullah's beard, it reveals the inscription "Made in England" underneath. This idea has echoed throughout Iranian political culture from the Safavid Dynasty.

I wish Iranians had acted more prudently in the 1970s and not naively followed Khomeini, whom some call "Made in England." If Iranians had made wiser choices back then, Iran could have become a developed nation today. Unfortunately, they did not act wisely, allowing England to deceive them again.

England employed numerous underhanded tactics against Iran and the Iranian people to seize land and transfer it to Russia during "The Great Game." Additionally, no Iranian should forget the military invasion of Iran by England and Russia during World War II, even as Iran maintained its stance as a neutral state and wished to avoid involvement in the conflict.

Until the 1970s, England pursued a foreign policy aimed at undermining Iran. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) played a significant role by providing a platform for Khomeini, which helped incite chaos and unrest in the country. The BBC was aware of Khomeini's dubious past.

Khomeini's history of criminal activity dates back to 1963 when Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi initiated the White Revolution in Iran—this series of reforms aimed to modernize the country with parliamentary approval. Khomeini opposed the White Revolution because it sought to elevate Iran towards an era reminiscent of Cyrus the Great. He preferred that Iranians remain in intellectual darkness, allowing the mullahs to dictate their lives. The mullahs, guided by their dogmatic and superstitious doctrines, focused on trivial theological debates rather than addressing the nation's real challenges.

The BBC and other foreign political actors knew Khomeini had no peaceful intentions for Iran. They would not have supported him instigating the 1979 Revolution if they had thought otherwise.

I could hear Khomeini on the BBC radio; he encouraged Iranians to set on public fire properties, attack the soldiers randomly, and attack the military bases to destroy the army. He asked people to attack women and children whose husbands were military officers and kill SAVAK agents. He called for vandalism and torching Iran. Iranians followed him because the BBC said that Khomeini appeared on the moon. Iranians came out of their homes at night and looked at the moon. They clearly stated that they saw Khomeini's image on the moon. Iranians did not ask themselves this question. Mohammad claimed to be the prophet of Allah; he never performed a miracle. How could Khomeini perform a miracle of this magnitude as his image appeared on the moon? Because the King spoke English, French and German. People said Khomeini spoke five languages. 

Many people viewed Khomeini as a divine figure and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi as a tyrant. They felt encouraged to sacrifice themselves for Khomeini's elusive promise of social justice.

US President Jimmy Carter played a significant role in the upheaval in Iran. Many referred to Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi as a puppet of the US, demanding that the King abandon the Peacock Throne. When Jimmy Carter's voice was broadcast on the BBC, expressing support for the King to maintain his power in Iran, it incited outrage among the Iranian people. They erupted in chants of "Death to the King."

Later, Jimmy Carter accused the Shah of failing to uphold human rights, which further fueled Iranian anger. The frustration boiled over, and once again, Iranians flooded the streets, setting fire to anything around them.

On January 17, 1979, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi decided not to cling to power at the expense of his people's bloodshed. He left Iran with no intention of returning.

The Jimmy Carter Administration began to portray Khomeini as a divine figure positioned at God's right hand. On February 8, 1979, Andrew Young, the chief United States delegate to the United Nations, praised Islam as "a vibrant cultural force in today's world." He stated that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Iranian Islamic leader, would ultimately be recognized as "a saint."

Mr. Young expressed views that go significantly further than those of the Carter Administration, stating that it would be "impossible to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state" in Iran because "too much Western idealism has infiltrated that movement."

During an hour-long meeting with the New York Forum, a group of reporters at the City University Graduate Center, he emphasized that "Islam is a vibrant cultural force in today's world, not something that died with the Middle Ages." He noted that Islam has been "revitalized by young people with Western educations" and added, "I do not think the Ayatollah realizes the power he is in control of."1

England and the United States adorned Khomeini's image with a veneer of divine approval, causing Iranians to overlook the dangers beneath his facade. On February 1, 1979, when Khomeini returned to Iran after fifteen years of exile, an American reporter asked him, "How do you feel about returning to Iran?" Khomeini replied, "Nothing."

He did not immediately remove his turban. Instead, he went to the Refah School and kept himself out of public view. He summoned Generals Mehdi Rahimi, Nasiri, Naji, and Khosrowdad there. Khomeini removed his turban and revealed the metaphorical "snakes" on his head to these military leaders. In a ruthless display of power, he compromised their lives to secure his position as a statesman of Persia, showing a complete lack of remorse.

Iranians were busy cheering for their newfound leader, Khomeini, who was primarily focused on silencing dissent among his people. Many Iranians believed that by remaining silent, their troubles would eventually fade away.

On January 7, 1980, Western nations portrayed Khomeini as a beloved, almost divine figure. TIME magazine even featured his picture, naming him "Man of the Year." Meanwhile, the US propaganda machine supported Khomeini despite his ruthlessness.

Khomeini embraced his role as the statesman of Persia, walking around shamelessly despite the metaphorical "snakes" he carried with him—his oppressive actions. He ordered the execution of countless Iranians in prison simply because they did not share his views. Those who chose not to oppose him were sent to fight in the Iran-Iraq War, where many lost their lives. Khomeini initiated the war to export his revolution to the world, encouraging Iraqi Shia Muslims to rise against Saddam Hussein. However, his plans backfired as Saddam Hussein renounced the 1975 Algeria Accord and launched a massive military attack on Iran. Khomeini repeatedly urged Iranians to go to war and sacrifice their lives for Islam.

Eventually, Khomeini realized he could not defeat Saddam Hussein and accepted a peace treaty with him. Not one to embrace humility, Khomeini felt degraded by his inability to win the war against Iraq without foreign assistance. He then passed his leadership to Ali Khamenei, donning the metaphorical "snakes" that represented his oppressive rule. Khamenei continued the legacy of violence, eliminating anyone who stood in his way.

In conclusion, a strong Iran poses a threat to Western nations. These countries have adopted a policy aimed at ensuring that the regime in Iran remains in power, which results in Iran's continued weakness as young people are either killed or flee the country for a better life.

The story of Medusa requires a hero to save Iran and its people from relentless violence. However, Perseus will not come to the rescue; he is waiting for the Iranians to step forward and become the heroes of their destiny.

Endnote:

1. The New York Times. (1979, February 9). Andrew Young chided for praising Ayatollah. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1979/02/09/archives/andrew-young-chided-for-praising-ayatollah.html

Ted Cruz: Regime Change in Iran: Transition from the Islamic Republic to a Marxist-Islamist Republic

 Ted Cruz: Regime Change in Iran: Transition from the Islamic Republic to a Marxist-Islamist Republic – House of Intellectual

Via: Write to Ted | Senator Ted Cruz

Mr. Ted Cruz:

Subject: Regime Change in Iran: Transition from the Islamic Republic to a Marxist-Islamist Republic

On December 12th, 2024, Ted Cruz attended the Organization of Iranian American Communities and advocated for the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran to replace the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In 2006, Export Development Canada published a report on income disparity in Iran. The report revealed that 10% of Iran's population held 75% of the country's wealth, while the remaining 90% controlled only 25%. It also noted that there was little hope for improvement in economic prosperity for the majority of the population.

Currently (2024), no precise statistics offer insightful information on economic disparity in Iran. However, the income disparity between rich and poor is wider than in the past. This disparity is primarily a result of the Islamic Republic of Iran's foreign policy, which opposes global harmony. The theocratic state allocates a significant portion of its national revenue to its nuclear programs, aiming to develop weapons that could contribute to global instability.

A question arises: How did Iran arrive at its current situation? His Imperial Majesty, King of Kings Reza Pahlavi the Great, established the Pahlavi Dynasty during the height of the Great Game, a period when Russia and England were competing for control over Iran. During World War II, Reza Pahlavi declared Iran a neutral state. However, both England and Russia invaded Iran due to its oil resources. Reza Pahlavi descended from the Peacock Throne and was succeeded by his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

In 1953, His Imperial Majesty, King of Kings Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, with the consent and will of the people, ended the Great Game and continued his reign as a constitutional monarch—the Shah of Iran's domestic policy aimed to guide the nation toward the Great Gate of Civilization.

The political culture in the United States is fundamentally anti-monarchy, shaped by its historical context of breaking away from England. Understanding this context is crucial to fully grasp the US's stance on the Shah of Iran and its legacy of racism.

The political culture of the United States has been influenced by its history, which includes the pride derived from travelling to Africa to capture individuals and bring them to America. This led to the exploitation of their labour on land that had been taken from the Indigenous peoples of North America. In this way, America built its wealth on the pain and suffering of others.

The influence of US political culture can be seen in Iran's politics, particularly when former US President Jimmy Carter helped to foment revolution in Iran because he claimed he did not want Iran to become another Japan.

The Guadeloupe Conference was held in Guadeloupe from January 4th to 7th, 1979. It brought together leaders from four Western powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and West Germany. The discussions primarily focused on various global issues, including the future of Iran after the fall of the Pahlavi Dynasty. The US, along with the other Western powers, played a significant role in shaping post-Pahlavi Iran, which eventually led to the rise of the Islamic Republic.

Max McCarthy, a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives from New York, served from 1965 to 1971. He strongly disapproved of the Pahlavi Dynasty and criticized the Shah of Iran for allegedly raising oil prices. However, author Sampson Anthony, in his book "The Seven Sisters," contends that the Shah had no role in increasing oil prices; instead, Saudi Arabia and other countries raised them.

The United States played a significant role in supporting Iranian adversaries such as Sadegh Qotbzadeh and the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, enabling them to carry out acts of terrorism.

Additionally, the US acted as a catalyst for an unholy alliance between left-wing and religious factions.

During the upheaval in Iran, Khomeini was residing in France, and CIA agent Dorian McRae boarded an Air France flight with Khomeini, becoming part of Khomeini's privy council.

In 1980, a war broke out between Iran and Iraq, which contributed to the 'Iran-Contra Affair.' This affair involved the illegal sale of arms to Iran by the US government. It became clear that the US wanted the Shah of Iran as the head of the state so it would sell weapons at black market value to Iran and not at market value.

The US economy is not based on fair economic transactions. Major General Smedley D. Butler's assertion that war is integral to US foreign policy holds, given that corporations significantly influence political institutions. C. Wright Mills echoed this concept in his book "The Power Elite," which helped shape US politics.

Ted Cruz is planting the seed of hate and anger in Iran as he is a spokesperson for the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, which is a Marxist organization with an ideology of exporting its revolution around the world based on Islamic values. Cruz's support for this organization raises concerns about his engagement in potentially illegal activities and his stance on Iran's future.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms outlined in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made based on the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection without any discrimination. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

The moment the Marxist-Islamist People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran forms its state in Iran, it will breach all the above articles, and the US will take part in human rights violations. This potential crisis needs to be averted, and it is our responsibility to take action to prevent grave human rights violations.

In conclusion, Iranians are not seeking a transition from an Islamic State to a Marxist Islamic Republic. Instead, they are calling for the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran and demand a national referendum to decide between a republic or a constitutional monarchy. Most importantly, Iranians do not want the United States to change their regime. They are fully aware that the US has been collaborating with the regime in Iran and want the US to sever its ties with the Iranian government. This would allow Iranians to initiate regime change and determine their future.

Furthermore, the actions of the US and Ted Cruz reveal their true intentions. They are advocating for regime change in Iran to install the Marxist-Islamist People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran as a replacement for the Islamic Republic. This stance indicates that the US does not genuinely believe in the democratic process, as it undermines the ability of Iranians to decide their fate.

A lot cannot be expected from Cruz because he has a history of betrayal. He told his wife, "I love you," and then left home to be intimate with other women. Thus, he lacks credibility and honour.

Defiance of the Islamic Laws By Iranians

 About a week ago, a video clip appeared on social media, sparking a wave of discussions and debates. It showed a woman, standing up to the moral police at an academic institute in Tehran, Iran, for a dress code violation. Frustrated, she removed her clothes and walked around the university campus, a bold act that has divided Iranians and sparked a new wave of activism.

Iranians are divided regarding the motive behind a woman's decision to remove her clothes, especially as the country appears poised for another major uprising. Some believe that this act is part of the Iranian government's strategy to rally the support of conservative followers. They argue that the government wants to convey that a regime change in Iran would lead to the spread of an immoral culture, which is not what conservative people desire for their country. The government hopes to persuade conservatives not to participate in the revolution by doing so. Meanwhile, another group cannot form a clear opinion about her motivations.

The Islamic Republic of Iran enforces a strict dress code, particularly for women, which includes wearing a headscarf and a loose-fitting coat or manteau. This policy has been a subject of controversy and protest, as many Iranians feel it does not align with the true Iranian way of life and fails to reflect modesty. Political figures in the Islamic Republic are well-known for violating these laws while simultaneously contributing to poverty in Iran. Their misappropriation of the nation's wealth deprives Iranians of necessities, forcing some individuals into sex work as a means of survival.

In conclusion, the woman's act of defiance may have inadvertently revealed a desire for change within Iran. It's possible that she was a pawn in the Islamic Republic of Iran's strategy to discourage conservative individuals from participating in the uprising. However, her act also served as a powerful symbol of the people's desire to free themselves from the imposed dress code policy, a sign of hope for a more liberal future.

Defiance of the Islamic Laws By Iranians – House of Intellectual