IRAN’S AYATOLLAHS JUST MORE WESTERN SOCK PUPPETS?February 10, 2012
I have raised the possibility here on this site in some of my blogs, as well as in recent interviews on various talk shows, that the so-called Arab spring and the recent uprisings in the Muslim world are really being directed by western Corporate and banking elites intent on installing radical Islamicist regimes in the region. My "reasoning," if such speculation may be called that, is that by installing such regimes, the Muslim world will in fact be kept in a state of backwardness, forever playing scientific and technological catch-up with the West, and surviving on technology transfers from its allies, China, and Russia.
Well, once again, the folks over at The Daily Bell have supplied us with an interesting article, arguing the same case, only this time the article is based upon a similar analysis...from a Muslim.
Well, this article pulls no punches! Consider this direct expression of what I and others have been saying:
"Once these incidents have been created, the great families that run the world's central banks turn to their bought-and-paid-for media and court historians to write narratives that enshrine their globalist narratives via magazines, novels, textbooks and, ultimately, historical presentations.
"To add credibility, they invent and create literary and historical prizes including the Nobel Prize. Then they dress up their narratives in the entertaining cloak of Hollywood movie-dom. It is an all-inclusive 'matrix.'"
"Money Power's directed history is surely not a modern infestation. We are simply not confident in our modest abilities to make even hypothetical pronouncements about what happened several hundreds years ago or longer.
"But we can guess. We figure that what works today has been working on and off for thousands of years. But the closer it gets, the more recognizable it is. The mechanism is more clearly visible."
Well, I I myself know all to well, having written a book about the ancient manifestations of these types of manipulations in Babylon's Banksters, and currently researching and writing on a more recent manifestation of it, I have to concur: it has been "working on and off for thousands of years."
Which brings us to Iran. We all know our history: the CIA's overthrow of Mossadeg in 1954, the "unexplainable" ineffectiveness of the Carter Administration to deal with the Iranian hostage crisis, the allegations of secret deals between the ayatollahs and the then Reagan presidential campaign, the seemingly magical sudden release of said hostages the day after Reagan took office, the allegations of secret trips to Paris of then Vice-President George H.W. Bush in an SR-71 Blackbird, Iran-Contra and alleged arms deals with Iran via Israel, and, more recently, the popular uprisings in Iran that - unlike Egypt or Libyra or Syria, called forth - 'inexplicably" once again - no US support or response from the Obama administration, the silly allegations of a used car salesman in Texas plotting against the USA with the help of Iranian intelligence, the recent story of attempts on the Saudi ambassador to the USA... such a silly and transparent plot line - if it weren't in the real world - would belong in a comic opera, or a Broadway musical.
In steps the Daily Bell, noting that there were reports Ayatollah Khomeini's father (remember him? Ayatollah Khmoneini I mean, not his father: he's the guy who either did or didn't lose a finger, leading to more comic opera speculations back in the 1980s that the man in Tehran wasn't the man in Tehran, but his double, or something like that) worked for MI-6(perhaps by way of a stopover at the Grassy Knoll?). And if that reference to the JFK assassination seems a little far-fetched, read the italicized portion of that article again:
"Francisco Gil-White's series of investigative articles at his websiteHistorical and Investigative Research goes into great detail about the complicated relationship between the Anglo-American shadow ruling elite and the Iranian mullahs. His investigations feature many links to news articles and other historical material that prove his thesis that "US policy towards Iran has been pro-Islamist since 1979, and that the Islamist Iranian mullahs have been US assets from the start," (The Big Picture: US policy towards Iran in the broadest historical perspective, January 5, 2006).
"In "The Big Picture," article, Gil-White writes that "the basic structure of the relationship between the US and Iran did not change in 1979, with the exception that the puppet government in Iran, since 1979, has pretended in public to be an enemy of the US ruling elite."
"According to this narrative, the Iranian mullahs were hand-picked in the late 1970s to rule over a government that is still in a colonial relationship with America and Britain. The research done by Iranian political dissident Fara Mansoor, which I have highlighted before, backs up this narrative.
"Mansoor said that elements in the U.S. intelligence and foreign policy elite gained knowledge of the Shah's cancer in 1975 after General Hossein Fardoust, the Shah's right-hand man and longtime friend, informed then U.S. ambassador to Iran, Richard Helms.
"The knowledge of the Shah's cancer was political and intelligence gold, and it fell into the greedy hands of Helms, who was quick to use it to outmaneuver his political enemies abroad and at home. Helms was well experienced in secret espionage and engineering back-dealing conspiracies, having played a key role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the subsequent CIA cover-up"
Such is the extent of the Internet's power to unravel the machinations of the Anglo-American elite almost as fast as it can invent them, that there is already speculation out there that even the killings of the Iranian nuclear scientists is being conducted in part by Iran's own leadership, which is now being alleged to be yet another sock puppet of the same elite. What is (from my point of view) interesting is not so much whether these allegations of Iranian "puppettude" are true or not, even if they do tend to support my own thesis about the Western elite wanting such radical regimes in the Muslim world (have to have an enemy to fight or arm against, don't you know, if we're to maintain our Anglo-American empire).
What is interesting to me is the social phenomenon that this represents, namely, that the Internet is focussing the popular ire against that now well-known and not so hidden elite, such that they are now the "primary suspects" behind almost every event emerging on the world stage. In other words, as the Daily Bell notes, their attempts to maintain control via "directed history" are unraveling. They are now, in other words, viewed by most internet savvy people as a criminal class. That in itself is quite a change from a century ago, when the corporate barons of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were extolled as heroes, and used as the models for romantic rags-to-riches stories in American pulp fiction. The Internet has exposed that criminal class, and functioned as a kind of grand jury, returning an indictment...
See you on the flip side.