73

The Sword of Damocles Over Western Europe

Cynthia Chung

REUTERS/Jason Reed

In Part 1, we left off in our story at the SIS-CIA overthrow of Iran’s Nationalist leader Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. At this point the Shah was able to return to Iran from Rome and British-backed Fazlollah Zahedi, who played a leading role in the coup, replaced Mosaddegh as Prime Minister of Iran.

Here we will resume our story.

An Introduction to the ‘Shah of Shahs’, ‘King of Kings’

One important thing to know about Mohammad Reza Shah was that he was no fan of British imperialism and was an advocate for Iran’s independence and industrial growth. That said, the Shah was a deeply flawed man who lacked the steadfastness to secure such a positive fate for Iran. After all, foreign-led coups had become quite common in Iran at that point.

He would become the Shah in 1941 at the age of 22, after the British forced his father Reza Shah into exile. By then, Persia had already experienced 70 years of British imperialism reducing its people to near destitution.

Mohammad Reza Shah had developed very good relations with the U.S. under President FDR, who at the behest of the Shah, formed the Iran Declaration which ended Iran’s foreign occupation by the British and the Soviets after WWII.

His father, Reza Shah came into power after the overthrow of Ahmad Shah in 1921, who was responsible for signing into law the infamous Anglo-Persian Agreement in 1919, which effectively turned Iran into a de facto protectorate run by British “advisors” and ensured the British Empire’s control of Iran’s oil.

Despite Reza Shah’s problems (Mosaddegh was sent into exile during his reign), he had made significant achievements for Iran. Among these included the development of transportation infrastructure, 15 000 miles of road by 1940 and the construction of the Trans-Iranian Railway which opened in 1938.

Mohammad Reza Shah wished to continue this vein of progress, however, he would first have to go through Britain and increasingly the U.S. in order to fulfill Iran’s vision for a better future.

In 1973, Mohammad Reza Shah thought he finally found his chance to turn Iran into the “world’s sixth industrial power” in just one generation…

OPEC and the European Monetary System vs the ‘Seven Sisters’

In 1960, OPEC was founded by five oil producing countries: Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait in an attempt to influence and stabilise the market price of oil, which would in turn stabilise their nation’s economic return. The formation of OPEC marked a turning point toward national sovereignty over natural resources.

However, during this period OPEC did not have a strong voice in such affairs, the main reason being the “Seven Sisters” which controlled approximately 86% of the oil produced by OPEC countries. The “Seven Sisters” was the name for the seven transnational oil companies of the “Consortium of Iran” cartel which dominated the global petroleum industry, with British Petroleum owning 40% and Royal Dutch Shell 14%, giving Britain the lead at 54% ownership during this period.

After 1973, with the sudden rise of oil prices, the Shah began to see an opportunity for independent action.

The Shah saw the price increase as a way to pull his country out of backwardness. To the intense irritation of his sponsors, the Shah pledged to bring Iran into the ranks of the world’s top ten industrial nations by the year 2000.

The Shah understood that in order for this vision to become a reality, Iran could not just stay as a crude oil producer but needed to invest in a more stable future through industrial growth. And as it just so happened, France and West Germany were ready to make an offer.

In 1978, France and West Germany led the European community, with the exception of Great Britain, in the formation of the European Monetary System (EMS). The EMS was a response to the controlled disintegration that had been unleashed on the world economy after the fixed exchange rate became a floating exchange rate in 1971.

French foreign minister Jean Francois–Poncet had told a UN press conference, that it was his vision that the EMS eventually replace the IMF and World Bank as the center of world finance.

For those who are unaware of the devastation that the IMF and World Bank have wreaked upon the world, refer to John Perkins’ Confession of an Economic Hit Man…the situation is 10X worst today.

As early as 1977, France and West Germany had begun exploring the possibility of concretizing a deal with oil producing countries in which western Europe would supply high-technology exports, including nuclear technology, to the OPEC countries in exchange for long-term oil supply contracts at a stable price.

In turn, OPEC countries would deposit their enormous financial surpluses into western European banks which could be used for further loans for development projects… obviously to the detriment of the IMF and World Bank hegemony.

The Carter Administration was not happy with this, sending Vice President Walter Mondale to France and West Germany to “inform” them that the U.S. would henceforth oppose the sale of nuclear energy technology to the Third World…and thus they should do so as well. West Germany’s nuclear deal with Brazil and France’s promise to sell nuclear technology to South Korea had already come under heavy attack.

In addition, the Shah had started a closer partnership with Iraq and Saudi Arabia cemented at OPEC meetings in 1977 and 1978. In a press conference in 1977 the Shah stated he would work for oil price stability. Together Saudi Arabia and Iran at the time produced nearly half of OPEC’s entire output.

If an Iran-Saudi-Iraq axis established a permanent working relationship with the EMS it would have assembled an unstoppable combination against the London world financial center.

Recall that France and West Germany had already ignored British calls to boycott Iranian oil in 1951 under Mosaddegh, and therefore, there was no indication that they were going to follow suit with Britain and the U.S. this time either.

As far as London and Washington were concerned, the Shah’s reign was over.

British Petroleum, BBC News and Amnesty International as Servants to the Crown

Were we to select a date for the beginning of the Iranian revolution it would be November 1976, the month that Amnesty International issued its report charging brutality and torture of political prisoners by the Shah of Iran.

Ironically, the SAVAK which was the secret police under the Shah from 1957 to 1979, was established and pretty much run by the SIS (aka MI6), CIA and the Israeli Mossad. This is a well-known fact, and yet, was treated as somehow irrelevant during Amnesty International’s pleas for a humanitarian intervention into Iran.

For those who haven’t already discovered Amnesty International’s true colors from their recent “work” in Syria…it should be known that they work for British Intelligence.

Gruesome accounts of electric shock torture and mutilation were printed in the London Times, the Washington Post and other respected press. Within a few months, President Carter launched his own “human rights” campaign. With this, the international humanitarian outcry got bigger and louder demanding the removal of the Shah.

The Shah was caught between a rock and a hard place, as he was known not to be strong on “security” matters and often left it entirely up to the management of others. Once Amnesty International sounded the war-cry, the Shah made the mistake of not only defending the undefendable SAVAK in the public arena but continued to trust them entirely. It would be his biggest mistake.

With the international foment intensifying, the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) Persian language broadcasts into Iran fanned the flames of revolt.

During the entire year of 1978 the BBC stationed dozens of correspondents throughout the country in every remote town and village. BBC correspondents, often in the employ of the British secret service, worked as intelligence operatives for the revolution.

Each day the BBC would report in Iran gory accounts of alleged atrocities committed by the Iranian police, often without checking the veracity of the reports. It is now acknowledged that these news reports helped to fuel and even organise the political foment towards an Iranian revolution.

In 1978, British Petroleum (BP) was in the process of negotiating with the government of Iran the renewing of the 25 year contract made in 1953 after the Anglo-American coup against Mosaddegh. These negotiations collapsed in Oct 1978, at the height of the revolution. BP rejected the National Iranian Oil Company’s (NIOC) demands, refusing to buy a minimum quantity of barrels of Iranian oil but demanding nonetheless the exclusive right to buy that oil should it wish to in the future!

The Shah and NIOC rejected BP’s final offer. Had the Shah overcome the revolt, it appeared that Iran would have been free in its oil sales policy in 1979 – and would have been able to market its own oil to the state companies of France, Spain, Brazil and many other countries on a state-to-state basis.

In the American press hardly a single line was published about the Iranian fight with BP, the real humanitarian fight for Iranians.

The Sword of Damocles

The “Arc of Crisis” is a geopolitical theory focused on American/western politics in regards to the Muslim world. It was first concocted by British historian Bernard Lewis, who was regarded as the leading scholar in the world on oriental studies, especially of Islam, and its implications for today’s western politics.

Bernard Lewis was acting as an advisor to the U.S. State Department from 1977-1981. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor, would announce the U.S.’ adoption of the “Arc of Crisis” theory by the American military and NATO in 1978.

It is widely acknowledged today, that the “Arc of Crisis” was primarily aimed at destabilising the USSR and Iran. This will be discussed further in Part 3 of this series.

Egypt and Israel were expected to act as the initiating countries for the expansion of NATO into the Middle East. Iran was to be the next link.

Iran’s revolution was perfectly timed with the launching of the “Arc of Crisis”, and NATO had its “humanitarian” cause for entering the scene.

However, the fight was not over in Iran.

On Jan 4th, 1979, the Shah named Shapour Bakhtiar, a respected member of the National Front as Prime Minister of Iran. Bakhtiar was held in high regard by not only the French but Iranian nationalists. As soon as his government was ratified, Bakhtiar began pushing through a series of major reform acts: he completely nationalised all British oil interests in Iran, put an end to the martial law, abolished the SAVAK, and pulled Iran out of the Central Treaty Organization, declaring that Iran would no longer be “the gendarme of the Gulf”.

Bakhtiar also announced that he would be removing Ardeshir Zahedi from his position as Iran’s Ambassador to the U.S.

An apple that did not fall far from the tree, Ardeshir is the son of Fazlollah Zahedi, the man who led the coup against Mosaddegh and replaced him as Prime Minister!

Ardeshir was suspected to have been misinforming the Shah about the events surrounding the Iranian revolution and it was typical that he spoke to Brzezinski in Washington from Teheran over the phone at least once a day, often twice a day, as part of his “job” as Ambassador to the U.S. during the peak of the Iranian revolution.

With tensions escalating to a maximum, the Shah agreed to transfer all power to Bakhtiar and left Iran on Jan 16th,1979 for a “long vacation” (aka exile), never to return.

However, despite Bakhtiar’s courageous actions, the damage was too far gone and the hyenas were circling round.

It is known that from Jan 7th to early Feb 1979, the No. 2 in the NATO chain of command, General Robert Huyser, was in Iran and was in frequent contact with Brzezinski during this period. It is thought that Huyser’s job was to avoid any coup attempts to disrupt the take-over by Khomeini’s revolutionary forces by largely misleading the Iranian generals with false intel and U.S. promises. Recently declassified documents on Huyser’s visit to Iran confirm these suspicions.

During the Shah’s “long vacation” his health quickly deteriorated. Unfortunately the Shah was never a good judge of character and kept a close dialogue with Henry Kissinger as to how to go about his health problems. By Oct 1979, the Shah was diagnosed with cancer and the decision was made to send him to the U.S. for medical treatment.

This decision was very much pushed for and supported by Brzezinski and Kissinger, despite almost every intelligence report indicating this would lead to a disastrous outcome.

In Nov 18th 1979, the New York Times reported:

The decision was made despite the fact that Mr. Carter and his senior policy advisers had known for months that to admit the Shah might endanger Americans at the embassy in Teheran. An aide reported that at one staff meeting Mr. Carter had asked, “When the Iranians take our people in Teheran hostage, what will you advise me then?”

On Oct 22, 1979, the Shah arrived in New York to receive medical treatment. Twelve days later, the U.S. Embassy in Teheran was taken over and 52 American hostages would be held captive for 444 days!

With the taking of the hostages, the Carter Administration, as preplanned under the “Arc of Crisis”, set into motion its scenario for global crisis management.

The hostage crisis, a 100% predictable response to the U.S.’ decision to accept the Shah into America, was the external threat the Carter Administration needed to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, authorising the President to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to an extraordinary threat

With this new authority, President Carter announced the freezing of all U.S.-Iranian financial assets, amounting to over $6 billion, including in branches of American banks abroad. Instantly, the world financial markets were thrown into a panic, and big dollar depositors in western Europe and the U.S., particularly the OPEC central banks, began to pull back from further commitments.

The Eurodollar market was paralyzed and most international lending halted until complex legal matters were sorted out.

However, the most serious consequence by far from the Carter Administration’s “emergency actions,” was in scaring other OPEC governments away from long-term lending precisely at a time when West Germany and France were seeking to attract deposits into the financial apparatus associated with the European Monetary System (EMS).

In addition, the Carter Administration’s insistent demands that western Europe and Japan invoke economic sanctions against Iran was like asking them to cut their own throats. Yet, the raised political tensions succeeded in breaking apart the economic alliances and the slow blood-letting of Europe commenced.

Within days of the taking of the hostages, the pretext was given for a vast expansion of U.S. military presence in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean.

Sound familiar?

The message was not lost on Europe. In a Nov 28, 1979 column in Le Figaro, Paul Marie de la Gorce, who was in close dialogue with the French presidential palace, concluded that U.S. military and economic intervention into Iran would cause “more damages for Europe and Japan than for Iran.” And that those who advocate such solutions are “consciously or not inspired by the lessons given by Henry Kissinger.”

During the 444 day hostage crisis, a full-scale U.S. invasion was always looming overhead. Such an invasion was never about seizing the oil supply for the U.S., but rather to deny it to western Europe and Japan.

If the U.S. were to have seized the oil supply in Iran, the body blow to the western European economies would have knocked out the EMS. Thus, during the 444 day holding of American hostages, this threat was held over the head of Europe like the sword of Damocles.

It is sufficed to say that today’s ongoing sanctions against Iran cannot be understood in their full weight and international ramifications without this historical background.

This is part 2 of a planned three part article, originally published at Strategic Culture. You can read part one here.

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

4.8 5 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
73 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Penelope
Penelope
Jun 19, 2020 6:41 PM

In 1996 just before the death of William Colby, former head of the CIA, I tripped upon his website, in which he was revealing things that probably TPTB would not want revealed. Before I could complete perusal of the site, he died in a bizarre solo canoe drowning, and the site disappeared. (As I remember it, he left prepared food on the table to go out and drown in a placid waterway.) I remember only two items from his website:

–OPEC, he said, was formed by compulsion of the CIA: They kidnapped family members of the necessary decision-makers in order to compel it. He mentioned that one CIA operative fell in love with his kidnapee & they were later married.

–Colby also said that the energy needs of entire cities could be met by a few small “portable” nuclear plants, and that this technology had been successfully used in some icey primitive land where there was research going on. My memory is that this locale was the far reaches of Alaska, but it may have been elsewhere.

I don’t know in how many countries it was required that a percentage of oil-income be invested in the US stock market, but at least Saudi Arabia.

Eric McCoo
Eric McCoo
Jun 19, 2020 6:30 AM

MI6/CIA put Khomeini in power.The reason is that a popular uprising made the Shah untenable so they switched to their guy. The BBC bent over backwards to accommodate him including an interview where he supplied all the questions.
 
Wikipedia
 
The BBC itself later issued a statement admitting to having a “critical” disposition to the Shah, saying that its broadcasts helped to “change the collective perception of the population.”

Eric McCoo
Eric McCoo
Jun 19, 2020 6:17 AM

Iranian leaders have reacted with fury to reports that newly declassified US diplomatic cables revealed extensive contacts between Ayatollah Khomeini and the Carter administration just weeks ahead of Iran’s Islamic revolution
 
 
“It was previously known that Ruhollah Khomeini, the charismatic leader of the Iranian revolution, had exchanged some messages with the US through an intermediary while living in exile in Paris. But new documents seen by the BBC’s Persian service show he went to a great lengths to ensure the Americans would not jeopardise his plans to return to Iran – and even personally wrote to US officials.
 
The BBC’s reporting suggests that the Carter administration took heed of Khomeini’s pledges, and in effect paved the way for his return by holding the Iranian army back from launching a military coup……
 
 
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/ayatollah-khomeini-jimmy-carter-administration-iran-revolution
 

Eric McCoo
Eric McCoo
Jun 19, 2020 5:51 AM

The BBC admitted supporting Khomeini by broadcasting his speeches and organising demonstrations for him in 1979.
 
Radio programme

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j6lfk

Antonym
Antonym
Jun 18, 2020 6:14 AM

Something much more recent about Iran: notice how Iran got early and heavily infected by Covid19? Clear sign of intensive contact with China, the suppressors of ” the mental illness” called Islam – be it Sunni. Maybe Iran’s fight is more about nationalism than religion?
By the way: neighbor Pakistan got its Covid19 infections not directly from “Iron Brother” China over its new “Silk Belt” but from Iran via Pakistani Shia pilgrims.
 

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc
Jun 18, 2020 1:58 AM

I never met my Great Uncle, though I have met some of his family, which I am only related to by marriage…This is his cv – his autobiography is even better. He was quite obviously an honest man, and his own work massively advanced Forensic Science.
 
He was born in New Zealand. He would be completely disgusted at what is going on now, and so am I.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Smith_(forensic_expert)
 
“Professor Sir Sydney Alfred SmithCBEOPRFRSELLD (4 August 1883 in Roxburgh, New Zealand – 8 May 1969 in Edinburgh, Scotland), was a renowned forensic scientist and pathologist.[1][2][3] From 1928 to 1953, Smith was Regius Professor of Forensic Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, a well-known forensic department of that time.[4] Smith’s popular 1959 autobiography, Mostly Murder, has run through many British and American editions, the latest in 1988.[5]”
 
I think it is important to try and work on some ideas, which might help to change this current madness into something better, otherwise it will get a hell of a lot worse.
 
Tony
 
 
 
 

porkpie
porkpie
Jun 17, 2020 11:56 PM

Would it be dickish to suggest that someone should maybe have edited this before publishing here?

Doctortrinate
Doctortrinate
Jun 17, 2020 11:47 PM

raison de Etat….to maintaiin the collective security (for those within the family collective) – expanding the portfolio by operating beggar thy neighbour like methods to force a target to a position of weakness until the expected need demands assimilation into the out-of-state cabal – securing it more of the market and further expanding it’s power over the future…most of which, was established centuries ago….what we’ve been witnessing since perhaps, are between projects…to manage, maintain and sustain their framework – directing it toward the inevitable point of large maintenance remodel that we’re experiencing today.

Charlotte Russe
Charlotte Russe
Jun 17, 2020 10:03 PM

YOU’RE ONLY AS GOOD AS YOUR LAST SUCCESS
 
Jimmy Carter’s persona as a humanitarian has been skilfully advanced.  Carter’s involvement in Habitat for Humanity as well as his overt religiosity helped to promote this image. However, in actuality Carter like all past presidents vowed to protect US imperialism. It should be noted, that when it came to foreign policy Carter was groomed by Zbigniew Brzezinski a co-founder with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission.
 
 In 1974, Brzezinski selected Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter as a member of the
Trilateral Commission. Two years later Carter announced his candidacy and proclaimed himself an “eager student” of Brzezinski who became Carter’s foreign policy advisor. 
 
Here’s an excerpt from an analysis by Chomsky written in 1981 entitled: The Carter Administration: Myth and Reality: “Perhaps the most striking feature of the new Administration is the role played in it by the Trilateral Commission. The mass media had little to say about this matter during the Presidential campaign — in fact, the connection of the Carter group to the Commission was recently selected as “the best censored news story of 1976” — and it has not received the attention that it might have since the Administration took office. All of the top positions in the government — the office of President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Defense and Treasury — are held by members of the Trilateral Commission, and the National Security Advisor was its director. Many lesser officials also came from this group. It is rare for such an easily identified private group to play such a prominent role in an American Administration.
 
The Trilateral Commission was founded at the initiative of David Rockefeller in 1973. Its members are drawn from the three components of the world of capitalist democracy: the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. Among them are the heads of major corporations and banks, partners in corporate law firms, Senators, Professors of international affairs — the familiar mix in extra-governmental groupings. Along with the 1940s project of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), directed by a committed “trilateralist” and with numerous links to the Commission, the project constitutes the first major effort at global planning since the War-Peace Studies program of the CFR during World War II.
 
The new “trilateralism” reflects the realization that the international system now requires “a truly common management,” as the Commission reports indicate. The trilateral powers must order their internal relations and face both the Russian bloc, now conceded to be beyond the reach of Grand Area planning, and the Third World.”
 
 
Chomsky goes on to say: “But one must understand the curious notion of “democratic participation” that animates the Trilateral Commission study. Its vision of “democracy” is reminiscent of the feudal system. On the one hand, we have the King and Princes (the government). On the other, the commoners. The commoners may petition and the nobility must respond to maintain order. There must however be a proper “balance between power and liberty, authority and democracy, government and society.” “Excess swings may produce either too much government or too little authority.” In the 1960s, Huntington maintains, the balance shifted too far to society and against government. “Democracy will have a longer life if it has a more balanced existence,” that is, if the peasants cease their clamor. Real participation of “society” in government is nowhere discussed, nor can there be any question of democratic control of the basic economic institutions that determine the character of social life while dominating the state as well, by virtue of their overwhelming power. Once again, human rights do not exist in this domain.”
 
Smiling Jimmy Carter was chosen to usher in Rockefeller’s desire for a one world government. Ironically, Carter’s reticence to eagerly follow Rockefeller’s agenda resulted in Carter becoming a victim of the Trilateral Commission’s insidious machinations:
 
“The papers (Records of Project Eagle) reveal that the president’s special envoy to Iran had actually urged the country’s generals to use as much deadly force as needed to suppress the revolt, advising them about how to carry out a military takeover to keep the shah in power.
 
After the hostages were taken, the Carter administration worked desperately to try to free the captives, and on April 24, 1980, authorized a rescue mission that collapsed in disaster: A helicopter crash in the desert killed eight service members, whose charred bodies were gleefully exhibited by Iranian officials.
 
The hostage crisis doomed Mr. Carter’s presidency. And the team around Mr. Rockefeller, a lifelong Republican with a dim view of Mr. Carter’s dovish foreign policy, collaborated closely with the Reagan campaign in its efforts to pre-empt and discourage what it derisively labeled an “October surprise” — a pre-election release of the American hostages.
 
The Chase team helped the Reagan campaign gather and spread rumors about possible payoffs to win the release, a propaganda effort that Carter administration officials have said impeded talks to free the
captives.
 
It appears that for the global ruling class: “you’re only as good as your last success.”  In other words, US Presidents as well as sovereign leaders will be replaced if they’re no longer useful.
 
The same mentality regarding US foreign policy prevails today within the corrupt political duopoly, but especially in the Democratic Party where warmongering neoconservative Bushites currently reside, and are still using the guise of humanitarian interventionism to secure global geostrategic hegemony.
 

S Cooper
S Cooper
Jun 18, 2020 12:11 AM

What this translates out to in the end is: more for the corporate fascist oligarch mobster psychopaths and less (much, much less) for everyone else.
 
What is really sick and twisted is that those criminals attempt to elevate kleptocracy not into a right and duty but into a Biblical Commandment.
 
THEY NEED TO GO (get off the planet), THE SOONER THE BETTER.

Charlotte Ruse
Charlotte Ruse
Jun 18, 2020 12:55 AM
Reply to  S Cooper

They worship the prosperity gospel.

Capricornia Man
Capricornia Man
Jun 18, 2020 3:23 AM

And guess who’s a member of the Trilateral Commission? The current leader of the UK Labour Party. No wonder the establishment ‘luvs’ him.

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Jun 17, 2020 9:35 PM

“How to control UNHELPFUL THOUGHTS’ — your caring NHS
 Fill-tilt behavioural control from the NHS, discussed on UK Column June 17th…
 

“The best way to deal with unhelpful thoughts is to recognize them, challenge them and see if you can replace them. Some people call this:Catch it, check it, change it. “

 
This advice on policing your thoughts comes from the same government whose Behavioural Insights Team has been using fear, shaming and social disapproval to make people conform.
 
Clearly the NHS recognises there is a mental health cost to Lockdown – and wants to use its mind control research to help you.
 
This particular NHS Mental Health advice has its origin in the mental health CULTS that began in the early 1900s among fundamentalist morality campaigners to suppress naughty thoughts…
 
The CIA and intel services have been managing and observing cults for more than 50 years, including Jim Jones’ People’s Temple… so its unnerving to see those ideas being incorporated into state mental health monitoring.
@30:00 minutes
 
Connected BLM ‘hero’ may be more than meets the eye – much celebrated for saving a right-wing counter-demonstrator.
‘Hero’ Patrick Hutchinson, pictured in military-issue tactical gloves, says on LinkedIn he worked as a senior project manager for Universal Private Equity but now is an “elite personal trainer”, whose fellow protestors work for Ark Protection Ltd.
 
Universal Private Equity > David Wilks-Carmichael > who incorporated BLM Ltd on June 8th 2020
That’s @08:00 minutes
 
Two UK news outlets compromised? Daily Express and Guido Fawkes blog called out for fake report that UK government banned protests – the statutory instrument actually relaxed ban on gatherings from 2 to 6 people: but June 16th “Protests Banned” report has not been corrected on either site. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/dyz7bv/uk-government-protest-ban-explained
@ 01:00 minute
 



 

Calamity Jane
Calamity Jane
Jun 17, 2020 8:23 PM

Many many problems with the thinking behind the article (complete with msms fake lefty meme demonizing “America”)
Every ( central banking)nation has been “Westernized ” .
There is a collaboration between so called spy services agencies (the CIA works for and with Mossad) there is one eye not five.
The Crown, Washington and Vatican .
The Corporation of the US is controlled by foreign banksters.
http://templeton01436.blogspot.com/2017/03/proof-that-usa-is-controlled-by-foreign.html

S Cooper
S Cooper
Jun 17, 2020 12:06 PM

Reading between the lines in all of this one gets the impression of the following.
 
The Shah and his “retainers” were sock puppets of the western criminal imperialists and took orders from them, via high “elected” political officials in the West.
 
The high “elected” political officials of the western criminals imperialists were hacks or sock puppets of the various western (mostly Anglo-American) oil and banking crime syndicates and took orders from them.
 
The rivalry and greed of the various western (mostly Anglo-American) crime oil and banking syndicates led to a good deal of pain and suffering upon the Iranian people.
 
This lead to social instability, abuse of human rights and eventual revolt/revolution in Iran.
 
 
 
What has yet to be explained is:
 
Where do the Iranian clergy fit in?
 
Who controls (owns) those western (mostly Anglo-American) crime oil and banking syndicates? Which are the cause of much grief and suffering in the world, to the detriment of humanity.
 
 
===
 
https://www.gofundme.com/f/Kim-pagan-Ayla-Wolf

Objective
Objective
Jun 17, 2020 1:51 PM
Reply to  S Cooper

Could you please stop using so much spacing.

Loverat
Loverat
Jun 17, 2020 2:26 PM
Reply to  Objective

He said his post was about reading between the lines. The spacing in his post added to its fascination.

Howard
Howard
Jun 17, 2020 5:55 PM
Reply to  S Cooper

Primarily war is about power and dominance and in this discussion empire. NOT about those who profit off it.

S Cooper
S Cooper
Jun 17, 2020 6:23 PM
Reply to  Howard

One does not eat power. In the end it all comes down to “more for them and less for everyone else.” (ie control of resources). In the animal mind, the animal that has the most (be it food or whatever) has the best chance of survival.
 

Oggy
Oggy
Jun 20, 2020 6:37 AM
Reply to  S Cooper

Yes, I recall reading somewhere in the book which I still have , “all wars are bankers wars”.Also read he was tapped to lead the coup after WW2,but refused .Cannot at the mo recall the source though.

Harveyhill
Harveyhill
Jun 17, 2020 6:16 PM
Reply to  S Cooper

Is it your job to pretend that the American Empire doesn’t exist or is it just a hobby? I don’t believe for one minute that the US military engage in ANY major action without it directly benefiting the empire and its geopolitical position and, you know what, I’m right.
 
Next you’ll be telling us people get married because of a conspiracy between caterers and 70’s tribute bands.

S Cooper
S Cooper
Jun 17, 2020 6:35 PM
Reply to  Harveyhill

What I have posted indicates that the “American Empire” (ie criminal imperialism) as you put it does exist.

Nemo Nomark
Nemo Nomark
Jun 17, 2020 8:19 PM
Reply to  S Cooper

SCoop, You ask “Where do the Iranian clergy fit in?”.
 
The US and UK intelligence services were using any and all means to cause instability in Iran, including religious fundamentalists. As the article describes, it was to prevent the growing European influence in the country and establish a new order which would reassert the US and UK access to the oil. France had given Khomenei political asylum, no doubt with an eye to have influence with him at a later date if he became a significant figure. Their desire was for stability in Iran, for the plans outlined in the article above, as they were members of the EMS.
 
At first he was not such a prominent figure as he became later. When the chaos grew worse, and the Shah later fled into exile, the call for a return to Islamic values grew louder and appeals were made for him to return home.
 
When Khomenei returned to Iran, he was reportedly stunned by the ecstatic reaction he received, you can see this on his face in TV footage of the time. He quickly realised that he did not need the backing of the French as he had most of the people behind him. He then plotted a course for the revolution, based on Islamic principles, that would make the country truly independent of outside influences.
 
As for who was behind the oil and banking syndicates, the usual suspects, an unholy alliance of old money that had been around for centuries and newer players that had the same mindset and disregard for humanity. The psychopaths that rule and have ruled the world from the shadows in recent centuries only admit new members cut from the same cloth.

Antonym
Antonym
Jun 17, 2020 9:43 AM

Articles on O-G about Imperialism:
US Imperialism xxx
Chinese imperialism 0
 
Today: Highlights: 20 Indian Soldiers Killed; 43 Chinese Casualties In Ladakh 

Antonym
Antonym
Jun 17, 2020 9:47 AM
Reply to  Antonym

Additional background: today also the election for 5 non-permanent UNSC members for the next 2 years. India was a forerunner…
 
China became permanent UNSC member in 1971. Nixon and Kissinger in action again.

HarveyLong
HarveyLong
Jun 17, 2020 10:08 AM
Reply to  Antonym

You need an empire to be imperialistic, China is a country not an empire.

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 17, 2020 10:59 AM
Reply to  HarveyLong

It is an empire over Tibet, Turkestan, Mogolia and Manchuria as well as Guangxi and Yunnan, populated by the oppressed Meo and Bai peoples.

S Cooper
S Cooper
Jun 17, 2020 12:14 PM
Reply to  Einstein

Says who, the Royal Mafia Crime family?
 
https://twitter.com/AVDCAreScum/status/1143627206868054016/photo/2
 
They are ones to talk.

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 17, 2020 3:09 PM
Reply to  S Cooper

Look it up on a map.
Don’t need to ask the Royal Mafia.

S Cooper
S Cooper
Jun 17, 2020 4:38 PM
Reply to  Einstein

The maps say China. So much for maps, eh?

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 18, 2020 12:34 AM
Reply to  S Cooper

Exactly. The Chinese empire.

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Jun 17, 2020 5:00 PM
Reply to  Einstein

Did you know Einstein was a racist? Look it up.

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 17, 2020 5:35 PM

That it’s important to you suggests you are a racist, holding it more important than anything else.

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Jun 17, 2020 5:50 PM
Reply to  Einstein

It’s only important in that you don’t care about the actual people you claim China is colonizing, which they’re not, since they’re actually a part of China. Whatever divisions were sowed are lines drawn on a map by western imperialists who don’t give two shits about anything besides total world dominance.

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 17, 2020 6:24 PM

Try telling that to Tibetans, Mongols or Manchus.

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Jun 17, 2020 6:33 PM
Reply to  Einstein

Have you actually been to Tibet, Mongolia or Manchuria? Have you actually spoken with the local populations of the Tibetans, Mongols and Manchurians?
 
Well have you?
 

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 17, 2020 7:11 PM

No, but met a Manchu in Newzealand.
By the way, don’t talk about the moon, since you’ve never been there.

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Jun 17, 2020 7:17 PM
Reply to  Einstein

Armchair imperialists like you who’ve spent their entire lives believing the propaganda force fed down their throats are a sight to behold. You are utterly incapable of seeing the world outside of the lens of western imperialism because it’s personal.
 
You personally benefit – materially and psychologically.. at least you think you do!
 

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 17, 2020 9:45 PM

Why do you call me an “imperialist”?
I recognize much of the propaganda of the neo-imperialist BBC for what it is – propaganda.
I don’t understand how you come to such a blinkered view of me as an “incapable western imperialist”.
Are you from Mars?

paul
paul
Jun 17, 2020 11:51 PM
Reply to  Einstein

The Mongols have an independent country called Mongolia (the clue is in the name.) They and their descendants ruled China for hundreds of years after they conquered it.
 
Manchuria was always part of China until the Japanese conquered and colonised it and called it Manchukuo.
 
Tibet was always part of China except for a brief period when the country disintegrated under western imperial exploitation.
 
The South China Sea was always part of China (the clue is in the name) until Mao took over, when the Exceptional Folk change their minds and decided it didn’t belong to China any more.

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 18, 2020 12:29 AM
Reply to  paul

Well, it’s Outer Mongolia: Inner Mongolia is still occupied by the Chinese.
And Manchuria, far from being “always part of China”, conquered China in 1644 and ruled it until the Chinese revolution of 1912. Pu Yi, the last emperor, retreated to Manchuria and set up again, with Japanese support. Incidentally, Manchuria is also divided into Inner (Chinese) Manchuria and Outer (Russian) Manchuria seized in 1858 and 1860.
Tibet was never part of China. It was part of the Manchu empire 1644-1912 but then, again, independent – until the Chinese communists invaded it in 1950.

S Cooper
S Cooper
Jun 17, 2020 6:38 PM
Reply to  Einstein

Supposedly he was a wife beater too… and Nikola Tesla was in to the eugenics thing… and both did not like each other. So?

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 17, 2020 7:09 PM
Reply to  S Cooper

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone . . .

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Jun 17, 2020 9:11 PM
Reply to  Einstein

So I suppose this means China’s off the hook for their so called imperialism you’re prattling on about. After all America and Great Britain does it much better. Hmm?
 

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 17, 2020 9:48 PM

No-one’s on any hook.
Historically there’s been a British empire, then an American empire and, maybe, a return of a Chinese empire, which long antedates the other two.
And it’s you that’s “prattling” or quibbling or nitpicking or all three.

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 17, 2020 5:43 PM

Boring.
Only racists see racism in everything.

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Jun 17, 2020 6:07 PM
Reply to  Einstein

“The Chinese are an industrious, filthy, obtuse people.”

“China is a peculiar herd-like nation, its citizens often more like automatons than people… even the children are spiritless and look obtuse.”

“It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”

Just a few choice snippets. Surely these sentiments held by people with social, political and economic influence are completely harmless!

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 17, 2020 6:19 PM

On the contrary, they are good examples of racism – and, as such treated with contempt by most reasonable people.
China is a great civilization and its variety and invention were well illustrated by Joseph Needham.

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Jun 17, 2020 6:36 PM
Reply to  Einstein

You just said that “only racists see racism in everything” to dismiss Einstein was racist. Upon providing his racist quotes, you responded they are good examples of racism. Well, which is it?

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 17, 2020 7:13 PM

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I’m not saying Einstein was perfect, but neither are you.

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Jun 17, 2020 7:42 PM
Reply to  Einstein

I’m not a celebrated hero or a public figure with millions of adoring fans.
 
I’m a nobody like you. If you’re saying that our opinions hold as much weight as world leaders’ then you’re more daft than you appear to be.
 
This line of reasoning also negates your lame criticism of China, a place you know nothing about aside from the propaganda you see every day in western media.

Einstein
Einstein
Jun 17, 2020 9:40 PM

Cool it! I agree I’m a nobody like you.
I’ve never said my opinions carry more weight than world leaders.
Furthermore, I don’t criticize China. I like China but recognize that Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, etc., are not China, only ruled by it.
 

Arsebiscuits
Arsebiscuits
Jun 17, 2020 7:47 PM

At least you’re honest about how you feel about China

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Jun 17, 2020 8:20 PM
Reply to  Arsebiscuits

These are Einstein quotes.

Arsebiscuits
Arsebiscuits
Jun 17, 2020 9:18 PM

Nope

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Jun 17, 2020 9:22 PM
Reply to  Arsebiscuits

LOL. Your response brings to mind an image of a petulant toddler covering his ears and screaming, “NO NO NO NO I DONT WANNA LISTEN! WAAA!”
 
Cute and endearing maybe when a child, weak and pathetic when a grown adult.

Arsebiscuits
Arsebiscuits
Jun 17, 2020 9:33 PM

Lol brings to mind a fairly neurotic mindset who stuck in projection.

I’m 9 years old by the way.

Arsebiscuits
Arsebiscuits
Jun 17, 2020 7:46 PM

Everyone is.

Antonym
Antonym
Jun 17, 2020 3:25 PM
Reply to  Einstein

Forgotten: Aksai Chin and the South China Sea. Next inline for the moment: Hong Kong, Taiwan & Arunachal Pradesh.
 

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Jun 17, 2020 5:08 PM
Reply to  Antonym

Hong Kong is IN China. Hong Kong was brutally oppressed by British Imperialists and has been used as a means to destabilize China. The recent “protests” in Hong Kong are sponsored by the CIA and US State Department. Gee, I wonder why.
 
It’s not like most people even care about the Hong Kongers. Westerners can’t even tell the difference between them because they’re ethnically and culturally the same. Only Hong Kong has been brainwashed by western state sponsored education and media to hate their own kind, themselves and their history. It’s a sad state of affairs all around.

paul
paul
Jun 17, 2020 11:55 PM
Reply to  Antonym

All parts of China. More so than Hawaii and Puerto Rico are of the US or Scotland and Ulster are of Britain.

Howard
Howard
Jun 17, 2020 4:25 PM
Reply to  Antonym

We really need to go back thousands of year to try – and “try” would be about the most we could muster – to understand China in terms of Western Imperialism/Colonialism. China considers the places it now controls as part of itself – a huge departure from Western Imperialism, especially Euopean, which can hardly consider its territories to be intrinsic parts of itself. Africa, South America: nothing contiguous to Europe or the US. Big difference.

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Jun 17, 2020 5:03 PM
Reply to  Howard

Well said. Not to mention Western Imperialism was / is about the theft and exploitation of native resources and populations.

Arsebiscuits
Arsebiscuits
Jun 18, 2020 9:55 AM
Reply to  Howard

India china war in 1962 was in the same region as this latest fight.

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Jun 17, 2020 4:59 PM
Reply to  Antonym

This is the most absurd thing I’ve read today, and I just got through reading bbc.com.
 
Yes because China has military bases stationed throughout the world.
 
Because China has a history of bombing desert countries.
 
Because China has orchestrated countless coups and meddled in in the affairs of countless other sovereign states.
 
You mean that China? Because that China doesn’t exist.

Arsebiscuits
Arsebiscuits
Jun 17, 2020 7:43 PM
Reply to  Antonym

It’s all about a road mad by china illegally through India.

Mr perfect
Mr perfect
Jun 18, 2020 9:49 AM
Reply to  Arsebiscuits

Was that the part of. China the British tacked on to British India just before partition?

Arsebiscuits
Arsebiscuits
Jun 18, 2020 9:54 AM
Reply to  Mr perfect

https://youtu.be/iZOmelreqd8

This video will give you a clear picture of what’s going on there and what has gone on there.

Mr Perfect
Mr Perfect
Jun 19, 2020 9:58 PM
Reply to  Arsebiscuits

A somewhat erroneous and superficial account.
I’ve lost the reference but a very informative article by a Pakistani academic based in Islamabad will provide you with more detail background on the conflict

Mr Perfect
Mr Perfect
Jun 20, 2020 1:51 AM
Reply to  Mr Perfect

and perhaps another biased,though different, view

paul
paul
Jun 17, 2020 11:38 PM
Reply to  Antonym

Rather smaller casualty total than the hundreds of millions, butchered, starved and immiserated over the years by the Zionists and their stooges.