From Shahs To The CIA: The History Of Western Intervention In Iran - Part 1

"Once you understand what people want, you can’t hate them anymore. You can fear them, but you can’t hate them, because you can find the same desires in your own heart" - concluded Andrew Wiggins in the novel Speaker for the Dead.  When Americans hear the word Iran, many have a sort of knee-jerk visceral reaction.  The very mention of the word conjures up frightful images of be-turbaned bearded imams leading mobs of Kalashnikov-carrying Muslim men and women whose faces are grotesquely contorted by intense anger as they enthusiastically wave banners bearing squiggly lines, no doubt saying, "Death to America". 

Such specters are no frightful flights of fantasy, but reflect a real time and place in Iranian history. The year was 1979 and the place was Tehran. But the Islamic Revolution and subsequent American embassy hostage crisis which shocked the world, catching the West completely off guard, did not materialize in a vacuum. The chaotic domino effect which would lead modern Iran into the hands of the Ayatollahs was set off from the moment the CIA intervened with its 1953 coup d'état in Tehran, which became known as 'Operation Ajax'.

The opening sequence from the 2012 movie 'Argo' features a brief history of aggressive Western intervention which shaped modern Iran.

But Western intervention in Iran's affairs actually started many decades prior even to the CIA's well-known covert operation with the establishment of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, or today's British Petroleum (BP). After this, the 20th century witnessed a series of external interventions in Iran - a pattern which could potentially be continued now at the beginning of the 21st century as officials in the US and Israeli governments are now calling for action in support of protesters. 

However, few officials and pundits in the West understand or care to know the tragic and fascinating history of Iran and Western interventionism there, even while feigning to speak on behalf of "the Iranian people". To understand modern Iran and the chaotic events leading to the Islamic revolution of 1979, we have to begin with ancient history to gain a sense of Iranians' self-understanding of their national heritage and identity, and then launch into the 20th century Iranian identity crisis brought about by foreign domination. 

Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC, later called the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and future British Petroleum/BP).

* * *

Belief in "Persian Exceptionalism" and Revolution

Iranian historian and professor at Tehran University, Sadegh Zibakalam, once defined the idea of "Iranian exceptionalism" as the dominant cultural narrative of modern Iran. Zibakalam explained this as "One of the strange features of 20th century Iranian leaders has been a tendency to perceive themselves, their government, and Iran as serious challengers to the present world order. Given the fact that the present world order is very much a Western dominated system, the Iranian leaders’ historic “crusade” has been broadly anti-Western. Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi as well as his successors have perceived their respective regime as offering the world a different system of leadership - one that is far superior to that of the West in many respects. Thus, Iranian “exceptionalism” rests on two main pillars: the negation of the present world order and the belief in the inherent superiority of Iranian civilization."

This self-perception arises from the Iranian people being descendants of well-known historical rulers and an ancient people that civilized the desert of what was known to the rest of the world as Persia, and to us in our day Iran.  The ruins of Persepolis hearken back several millennia to the days of the great Persian kings Cyrus, Xerxes, and Darius who in the magnificent Hall of Audience received the tributes of the various and sundry nations they conquered: the Elamites, Arachosians, Armenians, Ethiopians, Thracians, Ionians, Arabs, Assyrians, and Indians.  They constituted an empire in every sense of the word, dominating some of the richest lands from Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean through Turkey in Asia Minor, northward to Lebanon, Israel, Egypt and Libya and then to as far East as the Indus river, engulfing the Caucasus along the way.

In so doing, they spread their knowledge of science, poetry, painting, architecture, and their Zoroastrian faith to the ends of the  world.  This faith ingrained in them the idea that it is the responsibility of everyone, rich and poor, young and old, to strive to attain and establish justice here in this world in much the same way that the Hebrews sought it through their Torah and the Buddhists through their Tao.  The Persians were among those first great civilizations that turned men’s faces to the heavens and the stars challenging them to find meaning and purpose in a world replete with suffering and misery and to prepare their hearts, minds, and souls for the judgement that awaited them upon departing this life.  Rulers, great and powerful though they be, were not exempt from this the common lot of man and thus were expected to rule justly guided by the light of their revealed religion.  When they failed to do so, their subjects had the right to rise up and overthrow them.  In this they were not exceptional. This is pattern that repeated itself time and time again through the long history of the Persians.

Birth of Shi'ism and Its 'Underdog' Identity

These conceptions of justice and of the duties of rulers remained a constant in the lives of the Persians, even after Darius and his empire fell and was absorbed by Alexander the Great in his empire in 334 BC.  By assimilating and reshaping the culture of their conquers to fit their Zoroastrian faith, they continued  to flourish, so much so that by the third century AD they had gained enough strength to lay siege to and conquer Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, only to be repelled by the Byzantines at the walls of Constantinople in 626 AD.  The death blow, however, came not at the hands of the Byzantine Christians, but by the invading Arabs who in the name of their leader and prophet, Mohammed, devastatingly defeated the morally impoverished Sasanian rulers, thus marking the end of the pre-Islamic dynasties in Persia. 

Having been forcibly converted, the Persians set out to assimilate and reshape Islam, in much the same way they had done with the Greeks almost 1,000 years earlier, the result of which was a form of Islam different from the one their conquers had intended for them to accept, much to their consternation.  Out of the martyrdoms of Ali and Hussein, relatives of Mohammed and rightful heirs to the caliphate, so they believed, was born Shia Islam.  Thus, to their beliefs of justice and righteousness, were added the desire to cling dearly to those beliefs even to the point of death.

Corrupt Shahs Sell Out to Western Imperial Powers

For the next eight centuries the Persians endured, survived, and prospered even against the backdrop of the brutal rampages of the Seljuk Turks and the savage invasions of Genghis Khan’s hordes. Throughout those years, Iranians made great strides in music, poetry, architecture, and philosophy by sending their most learned  to the centers of learning throughout Europe where they discovered Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Archimedes, and Ptolemy. In 1501 the militant Shiite, Ismail ushered in the fruitful, albeit repressive, Safavid dynasty that lasted until 1722, when Abbas Shah, the greatest and last of the Safavid kings died.  Abas Shah was a great builder of roads and cities, and an indefatigable  promoter or industry and trades throughout his empire.

In the chaos that followed his death, Iran experienced foreign invasions and violent internal struggles for power for the next 75 years.  By the end of the century, the Qajar’s, led by Agha Muhammad Khan, wrested power away from the other competing factions and once again united the country.  The Qajars were weak and greedy monarchs who where all too ready to hand over their country’s riches to the country, usually Britain or Russia, that had the deepest pockets with little regard for the well being of their subjects. These corrupt rulers, more than any other internal factor, set the stage for the violent struggle the Iranians waged for freedom, democracy, and national sovereignty throughout the first half of the 20th century.

Nasser ud-Din Shah was one the first of the Qajar monarchs that the Russians and British intimidated, flattered, and bought.  By 1872, ud-Din had virtually depleted the money he had stolen from his subjects through oppressive taxation and illegal seizures of property, so much so, that he could no longer afford his decadent and luxurious life style. To raise cash quickly, that year, Nasser ud-Din made a secret deal with the British through Baron Julius de Reuter whereby, for a paltry sum, the British were granted the exclusive right to operate and manage Iran's vast irrigation system, mine its minerals, lay its railroads, manage its banks, and print its money. With unimaginable glee, Lord Curzon wrote that his deal with Iran was “the most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign hands that has probably ever been dreamt of, much less accomplished in history.”  The concession had the predictable outcome of outraging common Iranians.

Britain's Thirst for Persian Resources

In 1891 the Shah found himself strapped for cash once again. This time he decided to sell his country’s tobacco industry to the British Tobacco Corporation (BTC) for a mere £15,000.  In so doing he stole from the Iranian his birthright to cultivate his native soil and enjoy the fruits of his labor thereby enriching his family, community, and country. There was no debate or vote since, by the rights of kings, he had the divinely ordained authority to dispose of his property, which is how he saw Iran, as he saw fit without consultation or even taking into consideration the effects such concessions would have on his people.  Such actions only served to awaken the Iranians to the gross injustice of their political system and the necessity to replace it with one that existed to benefit all Iranians, not just the ruling class. 

Meanwhile, the budding nationalistic spirit of neighboring and European countries, found its way into Iran through its educated class that readily consumed newspapers and monographs of the subversive type.  These new and strange ideas challenged the belief in the absolute authority of the shah and revived once again the ancient Zoroastrian and Shia belief that rulers must be just and once they veer from that path, their subjects have the right and duty to remove them.  Through this cross pollination of ideas the Iranians joined the growing chorus of nations that rejected despotism and authoritarianism and demanded from their rulers greater control over their individual lives as well as control of their country and its resources through the democratic process or face violent revolution, such as those revolutions carried out by the French and the Americans before them.

Iran’s first real taste of nationalism and came shortly after the tobacco concession. A national boycott of tobacco was called to force the shah to renegotiate with the British Tobacco Corporation.  The boycott was a success and the shah had no choice but to inform the British that his earlier concession was in effect cancelled.  But to appease the ire of his wealthy masters, the shah agreed to saddle his Iranians subjects with crippling debt through the Imperial Bank of Persia, another British corporation.  Thus, Iran lay once again prostrate and humiliated before their colonial lords.  On May 1, 1896, after giving thanks for a his fifty year reign at a mosque in Tehran, the rotten tree that was Nasser ud-Din saw was violently hewn down by ultra-national pan-Islamists who saw the shah and his ilk as nothing more than “good-for-nothing aristocratic bastards and thugs, plaguing the lives of Muslims at large.”

Nasser’s successor, Muzzaffar al-Din Shah proved to be no better at being a just and faithful ruler than had his father.  He inherited from his father the expensive and humiliating habit of taking out large loans from the Russians and British to finance his lavish tours through Europe all the while ignoring the cries of his subjects for reform and relief from the intolerable  burden of food shortages, unemployment, and skyrocketing inflation. With those funds exhausted, Muzzaffar turned to his father’s practice of selling his country’s patrimony to finance his expensive tastes.  In 1901 the infamous British oil tycoon William Knox D’Arcy gave Muzzaffar a miserable £50,000 and a promise of 16 percent in royalties from annual profits.  In return, the Shah gave him the exclusive rights for 60 years to do what he wanted to with the sea of oil that flowed beneath the Iranian sand.  Like his father before him, he managed Iranian resources with little regard for his subjects whose livelihoods were dependent on those resources and with an eye to enriching himself.  He stole from his own people and sold what was not his to sell.

Prelude to a Coup: Enter Future Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh

The Iranians, themselves, were keenly aware of this grave injustice and at the end of 1905, they took to the streets to protest the rise in food prices - demonstrations which often unraveled into riots and clashes with military forces.  They demanded that the Shah listen to the voices of his people and establish a form of government that was governed by a constitution and that would allow their voices to be heard and obeyed.  In the words of the revolutionaries they demanded “national consultative assembly to insure that the law is executed equally in all parts of Iran, so that there can be no difference between high and low, and all may obtain redress of their grievances”.  These riots forced Muzaffar ud-Din to do what no other Iranian monarch had heretofore done and on the fifth of August 1906, by royal decree establish a parliament, or majles, thus laying the foundation for a constitutional monarchy.  Among those young reformers that pressed their case for a constitution was the young Mohammad Mosaddegh, the man who would make Iranian nationalism his life’s work and obsession and which put him on a collision course with two of the world’s superpowers some 40 years later.

The country’s first parliamentary elections were held in the fall of 1906, in which only healthy “desirable” males were allowed to vote.  The first majles held its maiden session in October of 1906.  Their first order of business was to draft a constitution, but rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, the majles modeled their own constitution after the Belgium constitution which by the standards of the day was considered the most progressive in Europe. Right away the majles began to butt heads with the new Shah, Muhammad-Ali by denying him foreign loans for his personal use.  This was just the first of many clashes to come between the majles and the Shah.

By 1907 the country was engulfed in a civil war between the constitutional revolutionaries and those loyal to the Shah.  The violence came to a head in June of 1908 when the Shah’s elite fighting unit overwhelmed the revolutionaries and utterly crushed them.  Thus, after only two years Iran’s nascent constitutional democracy was snuffed out.  Though never legally abolished, the majles after 1908 was seen by the Iranians as a sham assembly of handpicked “desirables” that rubberstamped the shah’s capricious decisions.  Many of the revolutionaries were executed and those that survived fled to Europe, some to plan their return, others to forget the misery of their homeland.  Among them was Mohammad Mosaddegh.

Britain Takes Control through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company

With the bothersome majles out of the way, Muhammad-Ali Shah could once again turn his attentions to raising money for his personal expenditures.  He had to look no further than the deal his father made with D’Arcy in 1901. D’Arcy’s investment paid off in a big way when in 1908 the Burmah Oil Company, who bought D’Arcy’s lucrative rights, struck oil at Masjed Soleyman.  One year later the company changed its name and became the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC, or later Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and future British Petroleum). 

About the same time Winston Churchill, then the First Lord Admiral of the Royal British Navy, finalized the process whereby oil replaced coal as the fuel that powered the vast British navy.  With that, England’s need for oil sky rocketed.  To meet the soaring demand for oil, that same year the British opened the Abadan in Iran refinery and in 1914, and to ensure that the oil economically found its way to its military, the British government bought 52.5 percent of the shares in APOC.  This is one of the most ironic and hypocritical facts of the entire saga given that the British government had no qualms about nationalizing the oil industry in its own country, but were prepared to ignite war because Iran had made the same choice in the 1950's.

"The Empire Must Go On"

Once Europe erupted in world war, the British dispatched their armed forced to refineries all over Iran in order to protect what they considered their property - Iranian oil.  After the cessation of hostilities in 1919, the British bribed and intimidated the new regime of Ahmad Shah into accepting the terms of the much hated Anglo Persian Agreement which in all but name, made Iran a protectorate of the British Empire.  No longer would the Iranians control their own army, transportation system, and communications network.  It all passed under the control British occupiers and with it the last vestiges of Iranian sovereignty. This once again ignited the fervent nationalist spirit across Iran and new rounds of protests and opposition.

Even the U.S. president, Woodrow Wilson, disapproved of the agreement.  But, true to their colonial and imperialist spirit, the British rebuffed such protestations and opposition by saying, “These people have got to be taught at whatever cost to them, that they cannot get on without us.  I don’t at all mind their noses being rubbed in the dust.”  The empire must go on.

* * *

Part II will chronicle the CIA's covert intervention and Iran's path to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.


Oldwood weyes1 Sun, 01/07/2018 - 09:20 Permalink

Yes, let's pretend that "we" haven't benefitted from these interventions. People around the world either go along with their government's actions...or they don't.

No one can deny that America has been behind some very dirty deeds. What that means to me is that we have put "ourselves" (because "we" will all suffer from "our" consequences) in a very bad spot. One where there are lots of people and governments who have justification (and lets never forget virtually EVERYONE feels justified in their actions). 

What I REJECT is the notion that as a result of all of this that we somehow deserve our fate and as such should simply lie down and accept whatever others might deem justified. 

We have ALL inherited this world that has been created over many decades if not hundreds of years, and it WILL require recognition of the risks it has created. We can all (I think) recognize the wisdom of nonintervention but surely we can also recognize a lifetime of smoking will not be negated by sudden cessation. 

All those who think that this can be resolved by either submission and surrender or running and hiding behind a wall in a globalist world is living in complete denial....or is just simply suicidal.

In reply to by weyes1

merizobeach JoeSexPack Sun, 01/07/2018 - 15:21 Permalink

Recommended additional reading on this article's topic: "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power" by Daniel Yergin.  It's 912 pages of fascinating history, and Yergin won a Pulitzer for the book.

As an aside, from the first paragraph of this article, there is no 's' on the end of the name Andrew "Ender" Wiggin.  I appreciate the reference, though: Orson Scott Card is an excellent author.

In reply to by JoeSexPack

Déjà view merizobeach Sun, 01/07/2018 - 22:02 Permalink

Iran's George Washington: Remembering and Preserving the Legacy of 1953

What's more, APOC increasingly engaged in unfair practices and failed to honor even the marginal royalties that it had contracted to pay Iran. In 1948, for example, while APOC reported profits of ₤62 million and paid the British government ₤28 million in income taxes, Iran received a meager ₤1.4 million on its oil resources. The company also regularly reneged on obligations and withheld payments when its demands on the Iranian government were not met.

On behalf of Iran, Teymourtash requested, inter alia, a 25-percent share in the company. If a new concession was to be drawn, he stressed, only a 50-50 split would be acceptable. His “bold” demands placed Teymourtash on a fast collision course with the British government.

Finally on July 22, 1952 by a 9-5 vote, the ICJ declared that the 1933 agreement could not constitute a treaty between the two states as the UK claimed, but merely a concessionary contract between a private company and the government of Iran to which the UK was not a party. The court declared it lacked jurisdiction – as contended by Iran – to rule on the merits of the case (13).

In reply to by merizobeach

Croesus sincerely_yours Sun, 01/07/2018 - 12:08 Permalink

@ sincerely yours:

I love this post on your site -…

The fact that these demonic creatures can sleep at night, after doing things like this, should tell us everything we need to know about the "Jews".

It's a crying shame that Hitler and Himmler didn't actually do all of the things these lying weasels accuse them of.

In reply to by sincerely_yours

BobEore MillionDollarButter Sun, 01/07/2018 - 10:21 Permalink

oopsy! he he heh...

Looks like "Goofer Gopher"... the nameless Gomer who wrote this piece, shoulda taken my well placed advice, to read up on the real background "to this story:

Gold for Oil - Oil for Blood: Part Nine - Return to Babylon!

" "In 1872 Mirza Husain Khan persuaded the Shah to sign a sweeping concession to Julius de Reuter, a British Jew, giving him, provided he started a railroad, rights to all factories and minerals that might be developed in Iran, which so far had exploited little. Husain Khan was accused of accepting more than £50,000 in bribes, and the concessions were so unpopular that the project was cancelled with Reuter losing his caution money.


Yes, that Reuter, whose name still flashes along newswires today - as the Rothschilds-owned conduit for the 'information' finely tuned to guide our thoughts in the desired directions! "The famous British statesman Lord Curzon called it ‘the most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign hands that has probably ever been dreamed of.’ Iranians were so infuriated that the Shah had to rescind the sale the next year.”

to avoid plunging ahead with the painfully and publicly humiliating exposure of EGREGIOUS ERRORS and HIDDEN AGENDAS common to all such exercises in talmudic historical revisionism!

Buttt.... arrogantly secure in their bubble of b.s. knowledge gleaned from cursory windsurfing of the internet ... this type of scribe would never stoop to learning anything of importance about Iran....

such as the curious and long standing symbiotic relationship between the TALMUDISTS(whose epic anti-human screed was indeed created there by C5th!)and the Persians... a line of mutual interaction which runs right through to the present moment.

A moment when... the undying hatred of western exceptionalists for truth... in media... in history... and in general, has forced them into paroxysms of rage against the people of Iran... and in defence of the phony mullahs and corrupt state enforcers of the TERROR STATE oppressors  whose antecedents lead back to a coup planned out by the Bush parallel CIA working with mossad, Deuxieme Bureau and MI5 to package a guy who didn't even speak farsi into an iconic muslim theocratic suitable for the covert manipulations by which kabbalistic talmudism goes about achieving its duplicitous aims.

Ragin against the Persian people, ragin against America, ragin for death destruction, and the raising of a 'new jerusalem' of neo-feudal rabbinical hegemonism, you see them running amok on these pages, and wonder if the world has truly gone nuts.

Don't worry. It hasn't. Their ragin reign of error, and that of their theocratic terror state buddies... will be over soon.……

Khomeini Was An American Stooge - Sibel Edmonds on The Corbett Report - YouTube

ooopsy doopsy! Suck on dat, suckas... BOBEE'S GOT YA BY YUR SCRAWY CHICKENSHIT NECKS... and is a fixin for some wings...

in 'special genius sauce'.... geniuses!

In reply to by MillionDollarButter

BobEore curbjob Sun, 01/07/2018 - 11:07 Permalink

So, jobber...

no idea that folks can live some where's outside a your fishbowl exceptionalist universe, (its night time here in Asia 0 - imagine that!)

full of a joie de vive which gives them unlimited access to the kind of informed and accurate delivery of data which blows up your fantasy world sky high, doing so in a lively bantering and extemporaneous style which has the ancillary benefit of getting under the skin of the outgunned and unmanned audience of tards who 

literally crawl n hide now when they see my cheerful visage, knowing whats a comin...

all without the need of any recourse at all to the kind of stupefiants a sorry ass lose similar toos yourself chronically depends upon to get up on the big board an drop a lil poop or two fore flying away back to moonbatland.

We clear on that now tard? The alcohol thing... the bong... the usual attempts to substitute some kind of character defamation for even a hint of a comeback... have all failed... long ago. What about the spell check thing... I honestly thought it would be 'spelling' this time.

Runnin circles round yas. Natur a ll y. It is what it is tard. Deal wit it. Then Die harder.

In reply to by curbjob

earleflorida LA_Goldbug Sun, 01/07/2018 - 11:48 Permalink

Lord Beaconsfield aka. Benjamin D'Israeli (PM Great Britain)

*(?a convert?)? WTF!   

*(allowed by Jewish Law to complete agenda)

Orchestrated the quiet coup of the Suez Canal ( with Rothschild money) / Lionel Rothschild and he were close?    1880s-1890s Imperial England & BOE [1896]


In reply to by LA_Goldbug

fleur de lis Faeriedust Sun, 01/07/2018 - 14:24 Permalink

Every revolution since the (non)English, the (non)French, (non)Russian, (non)Ottoman, (non)Chinese, (non)Mexican, (non)Cuban, (non)Iranian, etc., were managed by the same vermin.

There is no way that a revolution of Iran's magnitude would be allowed to exist if our slave masters did not want it so -- it would have been snuffed out at the start along with its organizers.

The problem is inversely related -- while the schemers still have a death grip on on State power, they are becoming more stupid with time, although still as depraved, and their former, current, and potential target populations now have the communication technology necessary to thwart their plans.

They sponsor cutouts to do their dirty work in exchange for money and power which can be easily cancelled along with the recipient/loose end after they are of no further use.

Every once in a while they slip up and sponsor a cutout that double crosses them, like Castro or Khomeini.

Khomeini would have been easily and quietly disappeared and vaporized whilst in French exile if he really posed a threat.

But he was no threat -- he was one of them.

Years ago I read somewhere that the Shah fought with the NWO because they wanted to use Iran as a narcotics rat line, and he was asking for a bigger cut of Iranian oil revenues for Iran.

Then there was the famous interview with Mike Wallace when the Shah let the cat out of the bag.

That was what marked him.


In reply to by Faeriedust

LA_Goldbug fleur de lis Mon, 01/08/2018 - 03:51 Permalink

They may be going insane but they have time and a relatively safe "Home Base" Isra-Hell" from which to scheme. Lets hope they eat themselves in the end.

I believe Stalin and Putin were two that went rouge for them. Stalin is a hard swallow for Westerners but if one realizes that Lenin wanted Trotsky to take over after him then things look different.

"Years ago I read somewhere that the Shah fought with the NWO because they wanted to use Iran as a narcotics rat line, and he was asking for a bigger cut of Iranian oil revenues for Iran."

Many many Moons passed by before I started to suspect that the Shah was really being "removed" for a new phase in the NWO theatrics. Note the dates

Shah ---> 26 October 1919 – 27 July 1980
Iran-Iraq Blood Letting ----> 22 September 1980 – 20 August 1988

To prepare for further changes in USSR and Eastern Europe. Polish strikes in 1980 and other uprisings in this part of the world.

This Was All Planned and most importantly COORDINATED !!!!

In reply to by fleur de lis

JRobby Oldwood Sun, 01/07/2018 - 09:52 Permalink

If it is kept secret through collusion, what are "we" going along with?

Of course the secrets eventually come out because "people talk" later for any number of reasons and the GOVT with all of it's various "categories" does secret, illegal shit as a normal course of business that a lot of people end up involved in because "it's my job".

In reply to by Oldwood

two hoots Oldwood Sun, 01/07/2018 - 11:07 Permalink

Some amount of the current US backlash is that in this recent modern world many countries are becoming self supporting, independent and secure in their ways, different ways.  Kinda like our kids that grow up and no longer need our input/support.  Doing so these countries can become a little proud, speak their own positions and spit out the bad taste forced upon them from abroad.  After becoming independent and successful we are all no different when wanting our own freedoms and independence and will buck up more quickly.   It is changing times and we can no longer force/buy our hegemony or continue to blow up stuff and people to gain respect or create fear, gotta get used to it. So we buckle down and compete.

In reply to by Oldwood

arby63 weyes1 Sun, 01/07/2018 - 09:26 Permalink

Maybe it's only ok when they do it?


"...received the tributes of the various and sundry nations they conquered: the Elamites, Arachosians, Armenians, Ethiopians, Thracians, Ionians, Arabs, Assyrians, and Indians.  They constituted an empire in every sense of the word, dominating some of the richest lands from Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean through Turkey in Asia Minor, northward to Lebanon, Israel, Egypt and Libya and then to as far East as the Indus river, engulfing the Caucasus along the way."

In reply to by weyes1

Cognitive Dissonance weyes1 Sun, 01/07/2018 - 09:33 Permalink

"One of the things I like about you, Cog, is your shameless use of the word "we"."


When the words 'they', 'them' and 'those' are used by 'us', 'we' avoid any responsibility for what 'our' leaders are doing in 'our' name.

Let 'us' all just be placid consumers. Then 'our' only responsibility is to consumer and excrete.

Ain't life grand for 'we' all?

In reply to by weyes1

gearjammers1 Cognitive Dissonance Sun, 01/07/2018 - 11:08 Permalink

I don't know why they are blaming the anglos. The USA is no longer anglo-controlled. The USA is now controlled by Jews, micks, blacks. Anglos were all purged from our Universities, our media and all of the government offices. Look around you, there are no anglos in government or media. It's all Jew/Irish and black (Hannity, O'Reily, Bannon). Look at the old movies from the 30s and 40s with all the good old anglo-saxon actors,  the anglos were replaced by swarthy Jewish actors from Eastern Europe. Especially the patriarchs - if you see a Dad on the TV, it will always be a Jewish actor. The USA was better when it was controlled by the anglo-saxons.

In reply to by Cognitive Dissonance

gearjammers1 gearjammers1 Sun, 01/07/2018 - 11:21 Permalink

When I think of the old anglo-saxon elite, I picture that lisping faggot William F. Buckley, who fired the brilliant writer Joe Sobran for daring to criticize the Jewish establishment. Buckley was a Jew suckup. The old anglo-saxon elite sold us out. Now the anglos are purged from American society. Look at Buckley and see how inbred were the old elite anglo-saxon families.

In reply to by gearjammers1

Faeriedust gearjammers1 Sun, 01/07/2018 - 11:42 Permalink

The WASPS were always wanna-be Jews, reading their Old Testaments, giving their kids ancient Hebrew names, and emulating the most cutthroat business practices of the Amsterdam Jews of the 17th century.  What they never caught on to, was that they were being fed only HALF of the Jews' business secrets.  The other half was, "keep it in the family", and if you couldn't do that, "keep it in the Tribe".  They learned to treat their brothers the way that the Jews treated goyim. Naturally they destroyed themselves.

In reply to by gearjammers1

Cry Baby Moe Sun, 01/07/2018 - 09:05 Permalink

This wonderful article leaves out 1 important point. Religion.

When Iran was secular, they were fine. They didn't want to destroy the west. However, when the Ayatolla came into power, the country turned into an anti-west bloc in the Middle east. Of course we should destroy them instead of giving them nukes...

Stan522 Cry Baby Moe Sun, 01/07/2018 - 09:09 Permalink

That's because islam in incongruent with the West. It is a theology and does not mix with a constitutional republic. The fact that we have been trying to "westernize" theology by forcing democracy on them is ludicrous. It's impossible to do and goes against their religion (if you can call that cult a religion).

The best we could do is defeat them in every corner of the earth and beat them back into their declared territories.

In reply to by Cry Baby Moe

Winston Churchill curbjob Sun, 01/07/2018 - 10:00 Permalink

I'd suggest you attend a Queens Park Rangers vs. Celtic Soccer game if you want to see a religious schism.

Don't go into the wrong stand(bleacher) if you want to get out alive.

From personal experience the Shia/Sunni divide has nothing on that, and that schism  had ended in

peaceful co-existence prior to 1948.The usual suspects have been re aggravating it ever since then

in the classic divide and conquer mode.

Don't mistake the tribal feuds,many that predate Islam,with religious emnity.Many do, because

its easier for them to understand.

In reply to by curbjob

curbjob Winston Churchill Sun, 01/07/2018 - 10:40 Permalink

In December 2013, a small group of Shiite militias in the  Ghouta region of Syria  were engaged by 500 rival Sunni militants (Isis) ... with no chance of escape, one of the young Shiite militiamen strapped explosives to his body and detonated them after charging a Isis position.

This story was reported in several mid east news outlets and, was noted as being highly unusual because the incidence of Shia suicide bombers is extremely rare.


Not an insignificant distinction. 


In reply to by Winston Churchill

LA_Goldbug Winston Churchill Mon, 01/08/2018 - 04:12 Permalink

"The West has been actively trying to stop further Reformation of Islam, while preaching"
Because these nut jobs are easier to manipulate to do stupid things with spectacular looking events used to destabilize nations that are being targeted. Thus now EU is flooded with a sufficient "elements" which in the future can be used for just this purpose.

In reply to by Winston Churchill

shitshitshit Stan522 Sun, 01/07/2018 - 09:34 Permalink

I would disagree with you: Iranians have collectively resisted the first wave of demoralization from the (((empire))). They did vey well because they kept their identity which is Persian. Persians are a highly civilized and organized culture in which people think collectively. 

There are lots of young Iranians nowadays named after Persian heroes (before Islam even appeared) and proud of their culture from before Islam. They are Muslims yes, but Persians first and foremost. Not the casual manipulated Muslim terrorists the news outlets would like us to amalgamate them with.

It is us from the so called free world who are a bunch of morons because our culture was devastated by the (((enemy within))) and there was barely any resistance on our part. 

Look at how we are being disposed of by means of immigration and hybridization with stupid cultures. Isn't it the greatest crime of all? 

In reply to by Stan522