Iranian Revolution Documentary (real events) Part Eight

Vídeo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nZgTdQ1E4w

Texto adjunto:

Publicado el 30 abr. 2012

Devolution Part 8

• Categoría

  • Noticias y política

• Licencia

  • Licencia de YouTube estándar

Leer más»

Iranian Revolution Documentary (real events) Part Seven

Vídeo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaY1bG4INSc

Texto adjunto:

Publicado el 30 abr. 2012

Devolution Part 7

• Categoría

  • Noticias y política

• Licencia

  • Licencia de YouTube estándar

Leer más»

Iranian Revolution Documentary (real events) Part Six

Vídeo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tstk3DJK6I

Texto adjunto:

Publicado el 30 abr. 2012

Devolution Part 6

• Categoría

  • Noticias y política

• Licencia

  • Licencia de YouTube estándar

Leer más»

Iranian Revolution Documentary (real events) Part Five

Vídeo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i1lTw3aZlU

Texto adjunto:

Publicado el 30 abr. 2012

Devolution Part 5

• Categoría

  • Noticias y política

• Licencia

  • Licencia de YouTube estándar

Leer más»

Iranian Revolution Documentary (real events) Part Four

Vídeo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAmqV5O39m4

Texto adjunto:

Publicado el 30 abr. 2012

Devolution part 4

• Categoría

  • Noticias y política

• Licencia

  • Licencia de YouTube estándar

Leer más»

Iranian Revolution Documentary (real events) Part Three

Vídeo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJYNx3KDttU

Texto adjunto:

Publicado el 29 abr. 2012

Devolution part 3

• Categoría

  • Noticias y política

• Licencia

  • Licencia de YouTube estándar

Leer más»

Iranian Revolution Documentary (real events) Part two

Vídeo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR0zqkx-B_Y

Texto adjunto:

Publicado el 29 abr. 2012

Devolution part 2

• Categoría

  • Noticias y política

• Licencia

  • Licencia de YouTube estándar

Leer más»

Iranian Revolution Documentary (real events) Part one

Vídeo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4IPG3bjkfw

Texto adjunto:

Publicado el 29 abr. 2012

Devolution Part 1

• Música

  • "Cyrus", de Siavash ( • )

• Categoría

  • Noticias y política

• Licencia

  • Licencia de YouTube estándar

Leer más»

The Anglo American conspiracy, Iran 1979‏

Vídeo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_jQquWDCSQ

Texto adjunto:

Actualizado el 30 ene. 2011

اشاره - در این کلیپ از صدای "مُرشدِ معرکه-گیر علی رضا میبُدی" که 30 سال است مردم را سرکار گذاشته بهره گرفتم که داستان-گویی می کند، با دیدگاه و منش و کردار "مُرشد میبُدی"، فرسنگ-ها فاصله دارم، و بهره-گیری از صدای او دلیلِ تاییدش نمی باشد. خواستم که این مُهم را هم بدانید. مزدک کاسپین.
++++++++++++
جیمی کارتر، پدر خوانده-ی هرج و مرج جهانی -
دسیسـه-های انگلیس و آمریکا برای اشغال ایران در سال 1979-1357
The Anglo-American Revolution of 1979 which was imposed on Iran
Was planed by sick minds such as Bernard Lewis and George Ball.
It was orchestrated by James Callaghan who was the Britain's Pime Monster at the time, Jimmy Carter, Zbignew Brizinsky, General Robert Hyser, William Sullivan, Ramsey Clark, Cyrus Vance and others in the British establishment.
The Bilderberg committee of 1974, and the British MI6, US CIA intelligence agencies, Commissioned Professor Bernard Lewis to come up with a plan as how to Put a halt on Iran's rapid progress under the Shah.
His recommendation was:
"The Islamic Revolution and the destruction of the Iranian nation
Let the world learn about the secrets of
Carter/ Khomeini revolution.
Please pass it on.
Let the world know the truth.
The overthrow of the late Shah of Iran in 1979 by Jimmy Carter & Britain was the greatest mistake of the 20th century which Iranians can neither forget, nor forgive.

• Categoría

  • Noticias y política

• Licencia

  • Licencia de YouTube estándar

Leer más»

Jimmy Carter behind anglo CIA conspiracy in Iran which installed Khomeini and the Mullahs

Vídeo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYNyuA5Uois

Texto adjunto:

Actualizado el 15 jun. 2009

Why Bush Sr.'s 1991 Gulf War? To Protect Iranian Islamism
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/gulfw...
A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by F. William Engdahl;

"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.

Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.

During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated:

In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself.

London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day. This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence. In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production.

As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah.

British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking community. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah. The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah's government.


did not know it then perhaps I did not want to know but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.[

• Música

  • "Saz-e-Mokhalef", de Mojtaba Kabiri, Maryam Heidar Zadeh ( • • )

• Categoría

  • Noticias y política

• Licencia

  • Licencia de YouTube estándar

Leer más»

Fuente:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-british-and-u-s-governments-installed-khomeini-into-power-in-1979.html

Información:

The British And U.S. Governments Installed Khomeini Into Power In 1979

Saman Mohammadi
The Excavator
November 3, 2011

“It is easier to mislead many men than one.” – Herodotus. (As quoted in F.E. Adcock’s 1963 book, ‘Thucydides And His History,’ on pg. 51. Cambridge University Press: London).

“Reality is created by language. But, we don’t realize how true this is, that reality really is created by language, and that we are all imprisoned in somebody else’s language.” – Terence McKenna. (From a talk in New York in 1992 called, ‘Alchemy and the Hermetic Tradition’: Part 3 of 3; 0:13:00 – 0:13:17 in the video).

The thesis that the British and U.S. governments drove out the Shah and replaced him with Khomeini destroys the clash of civilizations myth that has dominated the global conversation between Islam and the West for over a generation.

For years I thought this thesis was too “out there,” and a baseless conspiracy theory. The implications of the thesis are way too frightening to think about, and the level of the treason that it implies is beyond most people’s imagination.

I accept most alternative versions of history but I did not want to believe that there was any truth to this thesis. It overturns my entire view of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the relationship between Iran and the West, and the history of our times.

But I always try to keep an open mind because anything is plausible in this crazy world. So, last month I finally decided to actually look at the evidence that is available on the Internet about this thesis and dig deeper into history.

The first clue that caught my eye was the Shah’s own words. “If you lift up Khomeini’s beard,” he said, “you will find Made In England written under his chin.” The Shah was at the center of power and he was a very wise man so this statement can’t be dismissed as just another example of a Middle Eastern despot blaming a foreign conspiracy for a revolution that occurred under his watch.

Dr. Ronen Bergman, an Israeli investigative journalist and author of the 2008 book, ‘The Secret War with Iran,’ says that the BBC put Khomeini on a pedestal and amplified his voice, making his brand of Islam the only alternative option to the Shah’s rule. British journalist Ed West interviewed Bergman in June 2009 about his views, and quoted a passage from book in his article, “How the BBC helped bring the Ayatollah to power”:

In the book he writes: “Another propaganda tool for Khomeini was none other than the Persian-language broadcasts of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The channel gave him a platform. His regular broadcasts made him the unchallenged leader of the Iranian revolutionary movement.”

When we met in a west London hotel not far from the notorious Iranian embassy, Bergman pointed out: “The BBC gave free hours of free broadcast to Khomeini from Paris. It is unbelievable. Every time there is a person who is fighting ‘royal’ forces, in the sense of their being autocratic, the BBC gives them a free hand and carte blanche, without trying to understand what their views are.

Bergman is not some loony conspiracy theorist who is on the margins of Israeli society. He is a “member of the Israeli Bar, holds a M.Phil degree in international relations, and was awarded a Ph. D by University of Cambridge for his dissertation about the Israeli Mossad, the first ever on that subject, written under the supervision of the esteemed Professor Christopher Andrew, chairman of the History Faculty,” (source: Wikipedia).

Bergman’s views about the BBC’s role in stirring up Iran’s Islamic Revolution are well documented. The Shah also raised the point about the BBC providing its propaganda services to Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists in an interview with David Frost while in exile in Panama. He told Frost:

“Do you think that Mr. Khomeini, an uneducated person . . . could have planned all this, masterminded all this, set up all the organizations. I know that one man alone could not have done it. This I know.

I know that tremendous amount of money was spend. This also I know.

I know that top experts in propaganda were used to show us like tyrants and monsters, and the other side as democratic, liberal revolutionaries who wanted to save the country.

I know how mean the BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation, had been towards us. This I know. Because we have all the files. If you monitor the broadcast towards our country you would see that it was full of venom. So it seemed that it was really a very well orchestrated conspiracy.” (Quote is from 3:02 – 4:50 in the video).

The picture that the Shah describes of what happened to him and to Iran in 1978/1979 is eerily similar to how the West took out Gaddafi and put radical Islamic forces into power in Libya this year.

Many of the guerrilla fighters who opposed Gaddafi identified themselves as Al-Qaeda and used terrorist tactics to intimidate the population into submission. These Islamic fundamentalists were funded, trained and backed by England, France, America and NATO to defeat another Middle Eastern leader who was not following their direct orders.

Historian F. William Engdahl says in his 2004 book, “A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order,” that the Carter administration changed U.S. policy towards Iran in 1978 by bringing in members from the Bilderberg Group to draw up covert plans to remove the Shah and bring Khomeini to the throne. Engdahlwrote:

“In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group’s George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council’s Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead ‘case officers’ in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.

Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis’s scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an ‘Arc of Crisis,’ which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

The coup against the Shah was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public ‘credit’ for getting rid of the ‘corrupt’ Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.

During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah’s government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British ‘offer’ which demanded exclusive rights to Iran’s future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere.”

Engdahl also says that the Arab Spring movement is a creation of the U.S. State Department, so U.S. policy towards the Middle East still consists of provoking revolutions, stirring up troubles, and overthrowing governments. And these sinister actions are presented in the media as “U.S. support for democracy movements.”

In his 1981 book, “Hostage to Khomeini,” journalist Robert Dreyfuss says that the Club of Rome, the Aspen Institute, and other elite think tanks conspired to take out the Shah and undo his modernization plans for Iran which they saw as a threat to their power and control over the region. Dreyfuss wrote:

“The mullahs did not come to rule in Iran on the basis of their own power; they were placed in power by men more evil than they – who would use the depravity of backwardness for their own ends.

In September 1975, the Aspen Institute held a symposium in Persepolis, Iran. The public side of the transactions was published years later under the title of Iran: Past, Present, and Future. In the behind-the-scenes discussion, the plans for reversing the Shah’s industrialization program and for turning Iran into a model dark ages regime were mapped out. It is a bitter twist of history, that the Shah and his wife Empress Farah Diba witlessly provided huge amounts of funding to the Aspen project.

Attending the Persepolis symposium were at least a dozen members of the Club of Rome, including its chairman, Aureho Peccei; Sol Linowitz of Coudert Brothers law firm; Jacques Freymond of the Institute of International Studies in Geneva; and Robert 0. Anderson and Rarlan Cleveland, both Aspen Institute officials and associates of the Club of Rome in the United States. Other luminaries were also on hand: Charles Yost, Catherine Bateson, Richard Gardner, Theo Sommer, Daniel Yankelovitch, John Oakes of the New York Times, and the cream of Anglo-Amencan intelligence specialists on Iran, such as James Bill, Marvin Zonis, Leonard Binder, Rouhollah Ramazani, and Charles Issawi.

The Aspen Institute session stressed a single theme: modernization and industry undermine the “spiritual, nonmaterial” values of ancient Iranian society, and these values must he preserved above all else.”

I have not ready Dreyfuss’s entire book, but this little excerpt has broadened my knowledge about what happened to Iran. The involvement of the Club of Rome and Bilderberg Group in orchestrating Iran’s Islamic Revolution convinced me that Khomeini was a traitor who would be under the dirt and a no name in history if he was not supported by the powers whom he identified as “the Great Satan.”

One look at this picture and you immediately realize that this was not a good man. I see the Face of Death and the bringer of pain, not a revolutionary who loves his people.

There is a theory that Khomeini was a British agent. That is the conclusion I reached after I found out that the BBC broadcasted his messages to the Iranian masses and that a MI6 journalist was on the plane with Khomeini when he landed in Iran after the Shah went into exile.

Many of the “world leaders” that appear in history and lead revolutions are actually puppets and assassins who belong to secret societies and intelligence agencies. According to The Guardian, British Intelligencerecruited Benito Mussolini. Who knows who many more world leaders have been the creation of secret societies and powerful conspiracies.

Fritz Springmeier, author of the book, “Blood Lines of the Illuminati,”also believes Khomeini is MI6. He wrote in an article called, “To Love Or Hate – Know Your Enemy,”:

Of course, Islamic fundamentalism is a natural reaction to the modernization, secularization, and corruption that is accelerating in what is termed “the West” (European civilization). Such a strong reaction to the sinfulness of the West has taken place that the Sunni and Shiite fundamentalists are in full collaboration. Devout Christians who hold to wholesome family values, freedom from global corporate tyranny, and the destruction of communities are also having some similar “reactionary” reactions to the New World Order. Christian fundamentalists turn to the Bible and Biblical law, and the Moslem of course turns to the Koran and its Sharia (Islamic law). The trick of the elite is to harness those natural reactions to destroy their opposition. This is why both the Christian Patriot movement and the Islamic fundamentalists are infiltrated with agent provocateurs who will encourage both groups to run to their own destruction.
.
.
.
The fall of the West’s puppet Shah of Iran was actually not a surprise to the elite. They had decided to let him fall. He had been empowered by America’s CIA, and then abandoned when the time was ripe for a strong reaction. The man who replaced him, the Ayatollah Khomeini was British MI6. And tying together Saudi intelligence, Saddam Hussein’s intelligence and Egyptian intelligence (and previously the Shah’s CIA-led SAVAK) is a group called the Safari Club set up by French espionage. When you are aware of these kind of things, then you realize the insidious deceptive nature of this script. Different puppets, one script.

Springmeier’s account of history rings true. There is so much evidence and logic that backs up the thesis that Iran’s Islamic Revolution and Islamic Fundamentalism are both creations of Anglo-American intelligence agencies, elite secret societies, and private think tanks like the Bilderberg.

II. 5 Reasons Why The British and U.S. Governments Put Khomeini in Power

An anonymous author of a 2008 article called, “The Shah of Iran was toppled by the CIA and MI6?”lays out five reasons why the Shah was removed from power by Britain and America:

The Shah’s nationalist policies were making him more popular in Iran and making his country more independent and more powerful. This worried the CIA and MI6.

1. The Shah bought land from the upper classes and, along with the crown’s own land, sold it back cheaply to tenant farmers. Over one a half million people to became land owners, thus ending the old feudal system.

2. The Shah allowed women the right to vote. He brought an end to the wearing of the veil.

3. He developed plans for a $90 billion nuclear power program.

4. The Shah signed petroleum agreements with ENI, the Italian oil company.

5. He began to close down the opium industry. This had been created during the days of British influence.

Based on the research that is documented in the article above and other articles that are mentioned in this article, I have listed 5 reasons why Britain and America got rid of the Shah and brought Islamic fundamentalists to power in Iran.

1. Nuclear Power. The Shah was modernizing Iran in a significant way, and this had to be stopped. The Bilderberg and Club of Rome elite are notoriously anti-growth, and anti-economic development because keeping nations poor is the best way to control them. The British policy towards her former colonies in Africa was based on under-development and putting a tiny elite in power. This same policy was used against Iran.

2. Oil Production. The Shah’s decision to increase Iranian oil production angered U.S. oil companies and others who wanted to maintain artificial scarcity in the international oil market in order to keep prices high and make more profits.

Specifically, the Shah said that a couple of years before the Revolution he “heard from two different sources connected with the oil companies that the regime within Iran will change. . . If just in imagination, we believed that there was a plan that there must be less oil offered to the world market in order to make the price of oil go up, one country should have been the one chosen for this sacrifice.” (This quote is from an article called “Shah Retains Claim to Iranian Throne” that appeared in ‘The Fort Scott Tribute’ on January 18, 1980).

3. Opium Profits. The Shah took serious measures to stop the flow of opium into Iran, which greatly damaged British interests. The Rothschilds and London’s financial empire depend on the world opium trade to retain their power and influence.

4. Economic Threat of a Modern and Independent Iran to Interests of British-U.S. Elite. The Shah was building up Iran into a modern state by enriching the country and strengthening the middle class. He was not a perfect ruler, but he was not the tyrant that the West made him out to be. His original sin was siding with the U.S. and British against Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. He should have known that if you make a deal with the devil and then spit in his face you will be treated accordingly.

But, this is not about one man or one nation. Nations around the world are treated like colonies by international banks and multinational corporations, including America. America and Iran both have had puppet leaders for most of the 20th century.

When a true leader acts in the interest of his country and his people the elite secret societies get rid of him. They either kill the patriotic leader, like John F. Kennedy in 1963, or they instigate a revolution against him, like the Shah in 1979.

5. Create A Clash of Civilizations. The destruction of the world economy, the nation state, and the current world order are two stated objectives of the Anglo-American power elite. They have created an artificial conflict between Islam and the West to achieve all three goals.

This global conflict came into being as a result of two world events: the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution which was the creature of the Bilderberg and other secret global organizations, and the September 11 terrorist attacks that was planned and orchestrated by the Mossad and Anglo-American shadow government.

Iran was set up in 1979 as the representative of Islamic Civilization, and ever since then its extremist clerical oligarchy has used the language of Islam to pose as the leader of a resistance bloc to Western powers. Influential Iranian clerics are most likely in the fold of the same Western powers that turned Khomeini into “Time’s Person of the Year,” in 1979.

If we step back and look at history with our third eye we can see the larger global political game that is being played. The Hegelian dialectic is being used in the Middle East to bring about a third world war, a new world order and a global authoritarian government.

Thesis: America, Israel and Western Civilization.
Antithesis: Iran and Islamic Civilization.
Synthesis: Global Government and Global civilization.

III. The Elite’s Creation of Islamic Fundamentalism And The Clash of Civilizations

Radical Islam is used as a tool of Anglo-American-Israeli imperialism to create a new world order and a one world totalitarian state.

Israel provided financial and political support for Hamas in its early days to create an anti-Zionist resistance movement that spoke the language of violence and extremism instead of love and tolerance.

The CIA and MI6 have deep connections with the Muslim Brotherhood and use this alliance to silence democratic voices in Muslim countries and scare the people of the West about Islam’s agenda.

The fundamentalist Mullahs in Iran were used by the CIA and MI6 throughout the post-World War II years as attack dogs against the central government. By 1979 the clerical traitors proved themselves worthy and were given supreme power over the minds of the Iranian people.

The Taliban in Afghanistan were also funded and trained by the CIA and ISI. Osama Bin Laden was created by the CIA-MI6 network.

What is the basis of this intriguing relationship? Both the Islamic radicals and the anti-growth Western elite share the same goals: demodernization and war. Khomeini was told to turn back the clock, transform Iran into a medieval country, and brainwash a generation of youth into sacrificing themselves for Islam.

The Western elite love Islamic radicals who will sacrifice themselves for “Jihad” because they want depopulation. This sinister and cunning elite has created a fictional clash of civilizations to fire up the spirits of blind Muslim martyrs who falsely believe that they are resisting the masters of the world but they are playing right into their hands.

IV. Changing The Narrative About The Iranian Islamic Revolution

The narrative about the Iranian Islamic Revolution is that the Shah was a cruel despot who was taking orders from Washington and Khomeini was a transcendent revolutionary who liberated Iran from foreign rule. But this is a false narrative.

The historical record shows that the Shah was becoming more independent, and was acting in the national interest of Iran. His policies and disagreements over the opium trade, oil production and nuclear power angered the British and U.S. elite.

So the powerful forces began to get busy. They plotted not just a revolution, but a clash of civilizations. The BBC was a major tool that was used to create division in Iranian society, popularize anti-government protests, and give Khomeini a national voice.

Khomeini, the Islamic Demon who was handed the throne of an ancient nation by foreign powers turned out to be more cruel and despotic than the Shah ever was. The fact that he was worshiped in Iran as the savior of the country is proof that the masses of every nation are stupid and gullible. They didn’t bother to dig into Khomeini’s past, and failed to remember that the clerics played a traitorous role in the 1953 coup against Mossadegh. Instead, the people rushed headlong into destruction while the clerics stayed in the mosques and got rich.

I always wondered why the U.S. and other Western powers delivered arms to Iran in the 1980s if they considered the regime to be its enemy. Or why Khomeini decided to release the American hostages on the day that Reagan was declared the new president of America. Why give a victory to your enemy? It didn’t make any sense.

But, now I see that Khomeini was not an enemy, but a willful pawn of the U.S. and British who wanted power and war. He was a mass hypnotist much like Barack Obama, George Bush, Adolf Hitler, Bibi Netanyahu and other modern political puppets who rise to the top in modern politics by brainwashing the masses.

Once the masses come under their hypnotic control they create false conflicts and wage wars in which millions of good men are misled and sacrificed. These wars are fought to make obscene profits for the military-industrial complex in every nation, put governments into debt to international banksters, reduce the population, and build a global totalitarian state.

Further Reading:

British Svengali Behind Clash Of Civilizations By Scott Thompson and Jeffrey Steinberg.

The Globalists and the Islamists: Fomenting the “Clash of Civilizations” for a New World Order.

This article was posted: Thursday, November 3, 2011 at 3:35 am

Leer más»

Ex-CIA Officer Ray McGovern describes his brutal arrest by NYPD

Vídeo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdapJKJtH1k

Texto adjunto:

Publicado el 31 oct. 2014

The New York City Police Department arrested former CIA officer Ray McGovern on Thursday night, preventing him from attending a given by former CIA director David Petraeus. Although he had purchased a ticket to the event, officers stopped the outspoken peace activist and proceeded to arrest him before he even entered the building. RT’s Manila Chan speaks to McGovern himself to get his firsthand account of the incident.

Find RT America in your area: http://rt.com/where-to-watch/
Or watch us online: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/

Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTAmerica
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_America

• Categoría

  • Noticias y política

• Licencia

  • Licencia de YouTube estándar

Leer más»

Ray McGovern: the 9/11 Cover Up, 28 Pages

Vídeo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJcVTfkqvqw

Texto adjunto:

Publicado el 6 dic. 2014

• Categoría

  • Noticias y política

• Licencia

  • Licencia de YouTube estándar

Leer más»

Artículo cortesía de una amiga de Facebook.

Fuente:

https://movimientoantinwo.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/la-liberacion-femenina-fue-un-movimiento-impulsado-por-los-rockefeller-y-la-cia/

Información:

La Liberación Femenina Fue un Movimiento Impulsado Por Los Rockefeller y la CIA

Vamos a la carga otra vez con uno de los temas más dificiles de tratar hoy en día. Este tema que se puede resumir como la impuesta guerra de sexos tiene muchas ramas dignas de ser analizadas, como el respeto de los roles sexuales de hombre y mujer (podeis ver el artículo anteriormente publicado con la conferencia “Viva la Diferencia” de Pilar Sordo), la violencia de genero en los medios de comunicación y el que tratamos hoy el origen del movimiento feminista.

Como ya dijimos no somos misóginos, ni machistas, ni homófobos ni nada parecido, es más, creemos en laigualdad total de derechos, deberes y oportunidades entre hombre y mujer, siempre que sea desde el respeto de las diferencias esenciales de ambos… Desde luego la sociedad ha sido patriarcal, machista y misógina en gran medida, sobre todo en ciertos paises. Por tanto es necesario recuperar el equilibrio entre hombre y mujer y como en todo reajuste se sufre de un proceso fatídico de balanceo. Pero tengamos siempre en cuenta que hemos sido y estamos siendo manipulados en muchos aspectos…una cosa es promover la igualdad de oportunidades y otra es ser feminista, que al fin y al cabo es lo mismo que ser machista. Desde “Información por la Verdad” respetamos que cada uno tenga la ideología que le parezca, tan solo informamos…quizás si uno está bien informado puede darse cuenta de que ha estado manipulado y comenzar a ser libre.

Arriba a la izquierda podeis ver la carta “Feministas”, una más en un juego no tan ficticio como puede ver una mente informada: “Illuminati” de Steve Jackson. Y es que el movimiento feminista fue originalmente financiado por la Fundación Rockefeller e instigado por la CIA. ¿Qué sentido tendría promover este movimiento? Veamos primero cual podría ser su utilidad para la élite y en definitiva en que ha desembocado esto, algunos puntos clave que se nos ocurren son:

• Tener al doble de personas trabajando dentro de la rueda económica
• Mayor alienación y desestructuración en el seno de la familia
• Mayor abandono de los hijos a la suerte de la educación que proponga el estado
• Alejamiento de la esencia femenina de muchas mujeres
• Alejamiento de la esencia masculina de muchos hombres en consecuencia
• El desencuentro a un nivel profundo de hombre y mujer y homosexualización de un sector de la población influenciado por los medios (de esto haremos un artículo sosegadamente, que tiene miga)
• La competitividad por la supremacía entre ambos y la consiguiente guerra de sexos instigada por los medios (ampliaremos esto en los próximos días)

Y muchos más puntos que se os pueden ocurrir y que nos encantaría que nos comentaseis (tanto si estáis de acuerdo como si no) En definitiva todo esto desemboca en un menor número de nacimientos y mayor control sobre la población que es lo que necesita la élite para llevarnos más rapidito hacia el Nuevo Orden Mundial; el  caso es que en nuestra opinión esta jugada les salió redonda. De esto nos avisa Aaron Russo, ya fallecido (¿asesinado por apoyar al candidato Ron Paul?) en la siguiente entrevista:

¿Joder, vamos a derrochar millones de $ para algo como la igualdad?…Lo hemos hecho por dos razones. Primero, para que las mujeres, que antes estaban sentadas en casita, las podamos clavar a impuestos también. Y segundo, permitiendo que el feminismo florezca, tenemos acceso completo y mayor control sobre los niños, ya que los dos padres estarían así en sus lugares de trabajo en vez de el hogar tradicional… Nicholas Rockefeller, según declaraciones de Aaron Russo.

Aaron Russo: “La liberación femenina fue un movimiento impulsado por los Rockefeller.”

Aaron Russo (14 de febrero de 1943 – 24 de agosto de 2007) fue un cineasta angloamericano y activista político libertario.

En la década de 1990, tuvo problemas con el Servicio de Impuestos Internos (IRS) y, finalmente, fue condenado a pagar 2 millones de dólares por evasión de impuestos.1 Años más tarde, en 2005, escribió, produjo y dirigió una película documental titulada America: Freedom to Fascism (América: de la libertad al fascismo), en activismo contra el Servicio de Impuestos Internos y el Sistema de Reserva Federal,2 y proyectada por él mismo, en la playa del municipio de Cannes, sobre una pantalla hinchable portátil.1

En 2004, Aaron Russo dio su apoyo al Free State Project.3 A inicios de 2007, Russo anunció su apoyo al congresista Ron Paul para su campaña presidencial de 2008.4 Justo antes de su muerte en 2007, Russo fundó RestoreTheRepublic.com como una organización delineada según los fines de su última cinta, y que al igual que su fundador une ideas libertarias constitucionalistas junto con algunas teorías de la conspiración.

Fuente: Wikipedia

Gloria Steinem, feminista de la CIA

Podeis añadir subtítulos en el siguiente video y traducirlos con el botón “CC”

Gloria Steinem, escritora y miembro del Consejo de Redacción de la revista MS, de la que fue co-fundadora en 1972, toda su formación proviniene de la CIA. Ella llegó a ser una favorita de los medios de comunicación debido exclusivamente a sus conexiones con la CIA. La Revista MS, que redactó durante muchos años fue financiada indirectamente por la CIA. Steinem ha tratado de suprimir esta información, desenterrada en los 1970 por un grupo feminista radical llamado “Red Stockings” [“Medias Rojas”], al que ella acudía y al que ella investigaba. En 1979, Steinem y sus poderosos amigos conectados con la CIA, Katharine Graham del Washington Post y el Presidente de la Fundación Ford Franklin Thomasimpidieron que Random House lo publicara en “La Revolución Feminista”. No obstante, la historia apareció en la ” La Voz de la Aldea” el 21 de mayo de 1979.

LA CIA FUE LA PATROCINADORA DE SU IMPERIO MEDIÁTICO: Todo fue dirigido por el agente de la CIA Cord Meyers, que patrocinó al Agente CIA Clay Felker (Esquire Magazine)  y que a su vez patrocinó a Gloria Steinem (Ms. Magazine). El primer editor de su famosa revista feminista Ms, Elizabeth Forsling Harris, era un ejecutivo principal de la CIA y entre sus trabajos más destacables está el de haber sido el planificador de la ruta en Dallas del vehículo en el que John Kennedy fue asesinado. 

En 1958, Steinem fue reclutada por el agente de la CIA Cord Meyers para dirigir un “grupo informal de activistas” denominado el “Servicio Independente de Investigación”. Este era parte del “Congress for Cultural Freedom” [“Congreso para la Libertad Cultural”] de Meyer que creó revistas como “Encounter” y “Partisan Review” para promocionar una izquierda-liberal “chic” que oponerse al Marxismo. Steinem, apoyó festivales de jóvenes patrocinados por los Comunistas en Europa, publicó un periódico, redactó informes sobre otros participantes, y ayudó a provocar disturbios. Uno de los compañeros de la CIA de Steinem fue Clay Felker. A principios de los 60, llegó como editor a la revista Esquire y publicó los artículos de Steinem que la consolidaron como la voz líder del movimiento women’s lib [movimiento para la liberación de la mujer]. En 1968, como editor del New York Magazine, la contrataría como editora en el consejoode redacción, y más tarde como la editora jefe de la revista “Ms. Magazine”, en 1971. Warner Communications puso casi todo el dinero aunque sólo tomara el 25% de las acciones. El primer editor de Ms. Magazine fue Elizabeth Forsling Harris, una conexión del presidente ejecutivo de la CIA que fue quien planificó el recorrido de la comitiva presidencia de J.F. Kennedy en Dallas el día de su magnicidio.

LA TECNICA UTILIZADA: Es una técnica bien conocida de la CIA, para conseguir información mediante el espionaje de disidentes, el encuadrarse a sí mismos como entrevistadores que ofrecen a los disidentes un “tiempo en los medios” para el cuál extensas sesiones inquisitivas son bienvenidas en vez de rechazadas. A veces la información “nunca sadrá a la luz, lo sentimos” aunque la información sea reunida de todos modos, sin causar dolor y sin levantar sospechas de a donde va realmente: la CIA. Steinem parece ser un buen ejemplo de las instituciones públicas mediáticas que han sido instauradas como frentes para tales operaciones de COINTELPRO. 

[COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program), o Programa de Contrainteligencia, es un programa del FBI de los EEUU cuyo propósito es investigar y desbaratar las organizaciones políticas disidentes dentro de los EEUU. Aunque se han realizado operaciones encubiertas a lo largo de toda la historia del FBI, las operaciones formales de COINTELPRO (1956-1971) estuvieron generalmente dirigidas contra organizaciones que se consideraba tenían elementos políticos radicales, extendiéndose desde aquellos cuyo objetivo era el derrocamiento violento del gobierno estadounidense (como la organización de los Weathermen) hasta los grupos no violentos pro derechos civiles como la Conferencia Sur de Liderazgo Cristiano de Martin Luther King, y hasta a grupos violentos racistas y segregacionistas como el Ku Klux Klan y el Partido Nazi Americano. El documento fundador de COINTELPRO dirigía a agentes del FBI a “exponer, desbaratar, descarriar, desacreditar o de lo contrario neutralizar” las actividades de estos movimientos disidentes y sus líderes. ]

El Independent Research Service (Servicio Independiente de Investigación), fundado en una parte considerable por Gloria Steinem y co-dirigido por ella durante bastante tiempo, se implico básicamente en colapsar las conferencias de juventudes de los movimientos socialistas y su interrupción en el extranjero, así como en informar de las afiliaciones de algunas de las personas implicadas. Eso es obviamente la clase de actividad en la que entra la CIA. Y una de las cosas más interesantes es el papel de Clay Felker en apuntalar la carrera de Steinem y en ayudar a conseguir los inicios de la revista Ms., porque Felker era un socio de Steinem en el Servicio Independiente de Investigación. Katherine Graham aquí fue clave para lanzar la revista Ms., y de ello surgiría un tipo de relación simbiótica entre la revista Ms. y Steinem y el Newsweek.

Bernays, el padre de la manipulación asoció el tabaco y el feminismo

Edward Bernays, judio, primo de Sigmund Freud y destacada eminencia en el marketing trabajando para el Instituto Tavistock, aprovechó el tirón feminista para introducir mediante el “marketing de guerrilla” el mortal uso del tabaco entre las feministas americanas.

Las feministas extendieron la idea que criticar el consumo de tabaco por parte de las mujeres era poco moderno, antiamericano y contradictorio con el recién logrado derecho al voto por parte de las mujeres.

La aparición súbita de mujeres fumadoras, fue inspirada por el genio de la propaganda Edward L. Bernays, asesor del gobierno de Estados Unidos durante la Primera Guerra Mundial, pionero de la propaganda comercial y autor del libro que lleva precisamente por nombre Propaganda, publicado en 1928. Bernays, que trabajaba para Chesterfield, logró que las mujeres fumasen haciendo uso de dos elementos.

En primer lugar, asoció el mito de la modernidad al hecho de fumar, y en público. Aprovechando un desfile del 4 de julio, celebración del Día de la Independencia de Estados Unidos, pagó a modelos que participaban en el mismo para que fumaran durante el recorrido. Se produjeron incidentes a lo largo del desfile por la presencia de increpadores (probablemente algunos pagados por Bernays).

El asunto trascendió a la prensa, generándose un debate público a partir del que se alcanzó un consenso social según el cual criticar el consumo de tabaco por parte de las mujeres era poco moderno, incluso antiamericano y contradictorio con el recién logrado derecho al voto por parte de las mujeres. Esta conclusión es también fruto del estado de opinión generado por la propaganda feminista. En segundo lugar, utilizó mujeres conocidas, como actrices hollywoodienses, para introducir el hábito, asociándolo así a una imagen popular y de éxito.

Perez Reverte, la ironía del lenguaje feminista

Con ironía, Arturo Perez Reverte nos cuenta en este artículo un caso en el que el lenguaje feminista se impone pese al sentido común, rozando el ridículo:

Vigo. O sea, Galicia. España. Estado moderno -dicho sea lo de Estado con las cautelas oportunas-. Democracia constitucional con supuestos derechos y libertades de cada cual. En mi casa mando yo, resumiendo. Y mi amigo Manolo, que es un ingenuo y se lo cree, necesita cubrir un puesto de auditor. Es una oferta seria y bien remunerada. Así que publica un anuncio en la prensa local: «Se necesita auditor para empresa solvente». Y empieza el circo. 

La cosa se encarna en inspectora de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, con todas sus letras. Hola, buenas, dice la pava. ¿Cómo es que solicitan ustedes un auditor, y no un auditor o una auditora? Mi amigo, que es hombre culto, conoce las normas de la Real Academia en particular y de la lengua española en general, y no trinca de la corrección política ni de la gilipollez pública, como otros, argumenta que auditor es masculino genérico, y que su uso con carácter neutro engloba el masculino y el femenino desde Cervantes a Vargas Llosa, más o menos. No añade, porque es chico educado y tampoco quiere broncas, que no es asunto suyo, ni de su empresa, que una pandilla de feminazis oportunistas, crecidas por el silencio de los borregos, la ignorancia nacional y la complicidad de una clase política prevaricadora y analfabeta, necesite justificar su negocio de subvenciones e influencias elevando la estupidez a la categoría de norma, y violentando a su conveniencia la lógica natural de un idioma que, aparte de ellas, hablan cuatrocientos millones de personas en todo el mundo. Olvidando, de paso, que la norma no se impone por decreto, sino que son el uso y la sabiduría de la propia lengua hablada y escrita los que crean esa norma; y que las academias, diccionarios, gramáticas y ortografías se limitan a registrar el hecho lingüístico, a fijarlo y a limpiarlo para su común conocimiento y mayor eficacia. Porque no es que, como afirman algunos tontos, las academias sean lentas y vayan detrás de la lengua de la calle. Es que su misión es precisamente ésa: ir detrás, recogiendo la ropa tirada por el suelo, haciendo inventario de ésta y ordenando los armarios. 

Pero volvamos a Vigo. A los pocos días de la visita de la inspectora mentada, Manolo recibe un oficio, o diligencia, donde «se requiere a la empresa la subsanación de las ofertas vigentes y la realización de las futuras o bien en términos neutros, o bien referida simultáneamente a trabajadores de ambos sexos». Dicho en corto -aparte la ausencia de coma tras futuras y la falta de concordancia de referida-: o en el futuro pide auditor o auditora, con tres palabras en vez de una, en anuncios que se cobran precisamente por palabras, o deberá atenerse a las consecuencias. Y a mi amigo, claro, se lo llevan los diablos. «O es un chantaje feminista más -se lamenta-, o mi anuncio despista de verdad, y algunas mujeres ignorantes o estúpidas creen que no pueden optar a ese puesto de trabajo. Lo que sería aún más grave. Si lo que tanta idiotez de género ha conseguido es que, al final, una mujer crea que ofrecer un trabajo de auditor es sólo para hombres y no para ella, todo esto es una puñetera mierda.» Etcétera. 

El caso es que, resuelto a defender su derecho de anunciarse en correcto castellano, Manolo se pone en contacto con los servicios jurídicos del Ministerio de Igualdad, donde una abogada razonable, competente y muy amable -lo hago constar para los efectos oportunos-, le dice que, con la ley de Igualdad en la mano, la inspectora de Vigo «puede haber creído detectar» discriminación en el anuncio, y que la empresa se expone a una sanción futura si no rectifica. «¿Entonces, la legalidad o ilegalidad de mi anuncio depende de la opinión particular de cualquier funcionario que lo lea, por encima de la Real Academia Española?», pregunta Manolo. «Más o menos», responde la abogada. «¿Y qué pasaría si yo recurriese legalmente, respaldado por informes periciales de lingüistas o académicos?», insiste mi amigo. «Pasaría -es la respuesta- que tal vez ganase usted. Pero eso dependería del juez.» 

Es inútil añadir que, ante la perspectiva de un procedimiento judicial de incierto resultado, que iba a costarle más que las dos palabras suplementarias del anuncio, Manolo ha cedido al chantaje, y lo de auditor a secas se lo ha comido con patatas. «Auditor, auditora y auditoro con miembros y miembras», creo que pone ahora. Con mayúsculas. Tampoco está el patio para defensas numantinas. Esto es España, líder de Europa y pasmo de Occidente: el continuo disparate donde la razón vive indefensa y cualquier imbecilidad tiene su asiento. Como dice el pobre Manolo, «lo mismo voy a juicio, colega, me toca una juez feminista y encima me jode vivo». Intento consolarlo diciéndole que peor habría sido, en vez de auditor, necesitar otra cosa. Un albañil, por ejemplo. O albañila.

Fuente: http://www.perezreverte.com/articulo/patentes-corso/438/chantaje-en-vigo/

Fuente : Informacion por la verdad

Leer más»