Response to a comment on Iran

"Im iranian iv been reading some of you stuff many are good some false shit. I take up one quiston. You said that mullahs in iran are british puppets. they got help to trow down the shah. But khomeni was wery wise. you dont walk into tornado. you wait u use it. Then when e overtroned the shah and got to power. He went back aganist the british. thats why they attacked iran.

ahemenidejad is wery wise. He is not e puppet. Where do you get these cheap imginatations. If He was puppet for british ,jews. then he must be doing bad advertise for them and making bad desicions for iran. In fact he has done wery much and fighting these zionists. Making countreys come together and stans against the e zionists"


Well David, puppets come in different shapes and sizes. You at least acknowledge that the mullahs had help getting into power in Iran in 1979 from the British/Americans. Most Iranians I suspect do not know this fact------'Ayatollah BBC' :

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html

http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_12/article4.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2846b_lewis_profile.html

Otherwise basically politically illiterate Mullahs could not have come to power by themselves in the real rational world, and at the same time overcome ALL politically seasoned opposition groups operating in Iran, such as the left wing Tudeh party alliance, the constitutional democratic forces, and in addition of course the existing elite power structure of the Shah, trained by the Israelis and Americans from the 1950's, including SAVAK and the other security forces.

From 1979-82 the mullahs systematically sidelined and eliminated ALL their political opponents in Iran, and exercised power exremely ruthlessly, which suggests to me that the mullahs were getting guidance and advice from the British, if not the Americans whose embassy was closed. The 1980's Gulf war with Iraq, backed by the Americans and British amongst others in addition also helped the mullahs in Tehran, because ordinary Iranians had to rally around their national leadership, and not ask too many awakward questions about the mullahs, after the initial euphoria of over throwing the Shah had died down.

This is the same thing Bush is doing in America, conducting war and calling for more war, as a way of covering up massive criminality at home. Bush and the late Ayatollah Khomenei are in many ways similar politically, as both seem to want endless wars, and sacrifice the lives of young good men, by using patriotic speeches around their national flags, whilst they consolidate more power at home. These are the actions of politically cynical men with criminal intentions, not real patriots-----the desire to stay in power, for the sake of staying in power.

Having looked at the mullah record over the last 29 years, one can summise that whilst they have been disasterous in all aspects of governance within Iran: the economy; educational policy, industry and manufacturing; the banking sector; the petro-chemicals sector..................the one thing they have been good at is staying in power, RUTHLESSLY. That can only be attributed to the British and their close allies, Canada and Australia. Oh, one more thing; if you thought the recent Iranian oil bourse, and conversion to non-dollar currencies was just another clever idea from the mullahs, you would be wrong-----the idea came from the UK---follow it up.

But in the international game the British have to pretend to oppose the mullahs to keep up a clever facade, much like Khomenei's speeches against America, whilst he collaborated with them indirectly and through other parties.

Then of course if you study this fact and area a little bit more, you will discover that the mullahs have had close relations with Western intelligence since the 1950's at least. They were active against the Mosaddeq government in 1953.

http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/Kazemzadeh/28mordad.htm

http://www.chris-floyd.com/iran/index2.htm

From my perspective people like that who are used as tools of Western intelligence for their own purposes cannot be respected, trusted or considered wise/clever. A true national leader should not rely on outside forces to come to power, least of all the British, a nation that has exercised negative power over the Persian nation, about which I assume you know about quite well.

Still now there are Persians in America and the UK who hope to come to power in Iran, over the dead bodies of their countrymen, by relying on the British and Americans----they do not learn from history, and as they say if you do not learn from history, you are condemned to make the mistakes of the past and repeat it-----in addition this is unwise and unacceptable. The Shah's son and MEK are two prominent groups that come to mind amongst thousands of organisations like their's based in the West. Their focus in getting into power, and killing as many mullah followers as possible------------but this is not the political solution for Iran. Granted that the mullah's must be removed from power as soon as possible.

Then under Ayatollah Khomeini's rule, Iran was still involved in covert ops with Western intelligence, namely the October Surprise of 1980, where he used his own son for this operation, and of course Iran/Contra. National leaders should be morally pure, and there should be no great contradictions between what one preaches and what one does. Khomenei on the one hand ordered that no Iranian official in the Islamic Republic should make contact with Western officials covertly or overtly----saying that this would compromise the security of the Islamic republic, but covertly and secretly he authorised his son Ahmed to meet with Western officials in Europe over the October Suprise issue in 1980.

Once he broke his own rule on such a serious matter by using his own son, he than went about executing Iranian officials who were loyal to the Islamic republic for doing the same, taking falsely their ques from what Khomenei had done, and thinking that Khomenei's statement on the matter was only for public consumption. Utter deceitfulness, and obviously the actions of a paranoic, power hungary madman, controlled by the British.

Politics is dirty, that much is accepted, but for a leader in one breath to call America the 'Great Satan' and then on the other hand deal with them covertly is dishonest, and deceitful----not something a true man of God should be doing. If Ayatollah Khomeini's had his way, Iran would have been fighting the Gulf war, until Saddam was eventually toppled or defeated by the Iranians. Something that was of course never going to happen, as Iraq was backed by Russia, the USA, France and the rest of the world. Yet Ayatollah Khomeini, the 'great wise leader' wanted to continue the war for ever---FOR EVER. This is not the wisdom of a wise leader, but the actions of a criminal psychopath.....(Ayatollah Montazeri rightly criticized that wasteful war)....................1 million Iranian men and boys died for a war, which could have been stopped in 1982, when Saddam sent messages for a truce, but Khomeini the 'wise leader' ignored this truce.

Iran only stopped fighting the Gulf war because Iran's puppet masters ( UK/USA) stopping supplying Iran with Arms (via Israel/Singapore/Chile-----Iran fighting another Muslim country, with the help of Israel!), and thus the globally backed Iraqis were suddenly very successful in mid 1988. Undoubtedly the Iranians were the better and braver fighters. Would the prophet Mohammed send little children to fight for him in the battle field, whilst his sons were busy making contact with the agents of the 'Great Satan' in Europe.

Also I would ask you to read some of Ayatollah Khomeini's declarations on personal and moral issues related to the individuals personal conduct-------for me it is truly bizarre---really bizarre, that any sane Iranian would follow such advice about ones personal conduct. I will be writing about this later--so watch this space----

My overall point is Ayatollah Khomeini was their puppet from the 1950's, and continued to be their puppet, as Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic------he suddenly didn't break free from them, and find wisdom, because there wasn't much wisdom in his 10 year rule, of which 8 years were spent fighting another Muslim country.

"you dont walk into tornado. you wait u use it."

I am not familiar with this term. It must be Persian. But see if this makes sense--'If you play with mud your hands will surely get dirty"

"Then when e overtroned the shah and got to power. He went back aganist the british. thats why they attacked iran."

I am not aware that Khomenei went against the British. Their embassy wasn't closed in 1979. Good business continued between the two countries. The British have not attacked Iran, except for conducting a few covert ops in Southern Iran, in Khuzestan. But I would not describe it as attacking Iran. Shell oil ( A British Dutch operation, which is close to the Rothschilds of London) is in the process of signing some big contracts with Iran. The regimes elite, mainly relatives of the mullahs such as Rafsanjani are flying to London and Canada and depositing the national wealth of Iran in these countries. So in reality the relationship of Iran with the UK/British is strong as ever, with an increased number of tourist exchanges and student exchanges between the two nations.

As to Ahmedinejad, well we will see how his supporters do in the up coming parliamentary elections, in March, even though over 2,000 'moderate' delegates have been barred from contesting them. Ahmedinejad won in 2005, promising to put bread on the tables of poor Iranian families and fight corruption (a domestic agenda), but in reality that is all it is......poltical posturing ...promises...promises....promises.......nothing new. He was mandated by Iranians to clean up the country, as most Iranians had become tired of mullah rule.

However in reality, he has done nothing for the country. What Ahmedinejad has provided is pure theater, but nothing of substance, which might be called true leadership and sound policies at a very critical time when Israel with America might attack Iran---theatrics, gimmicks and sound governance don't go well together. Even Khomanie who covertly funded and backed him in 2005, criticized him publicly, because of his disastrous mismanagement of the Iranian economy, despite the huge oil revenue. His domestic economic policies and reforms are a disaster.

As to foreign relations he has stirred up a hornets nest, by unnecessarily goading the pathological Jews. There is no great wisdom when a poor man shouts and screams meaningless words, slogans, rhetoric to his poor illiterate audience at home trying to impress them, and then getting your nation attacked by two of the most powerful nations on earth, with nukes-------this is not wisdom---this is donkey stupidity. Any idiot can make inflammatory speeches-----its cheap, easy and feels good for a while, to 'let it out' but as a leader of a nation, you have responsibilities. As countless newspaper editorials in Iran have stated, and the uttering of many senior Iranian figures have mentioned, Ahmedinejad has put his political ambitions above the interests of his nation.

So now he is off to Iraq to rub it in with the Americans-------where the Americans are doing poorly, and presumably to help his delegates in the up coming elections on 14th March. This surely is not wisdom. Dancing around the world with the likes of Chavez and others, and fingering at superpowers.

As to Ahmedinejad uniting the Ulema, tell me which Muslim country has signed a security pact with Iran that can be relied on to join Iran against more Israeli/American aggression in a time of war? None.................Not one Muslim country will come to Iran's defense if attacked by Israel/America, except small weak Socialist Alevi run Syria.

Response to some points on Iran.

"some of your statements bear some truth but you sound very naive. Especially when you say the shah should have been more nationalistic since he was a puppet under control"
Yes he was a puppet. He was first installed in the 1940's as a child, by the British, and again in 1953, by the British and Americans. But you know that puppets come in various shapes and sizes. Most puppets being human don't follow their masters wishes 100%.

Qaddafi was installed by the USA/UK, because they made a hard realistic assessment that King Idris of Libya couldn't survive long in power sandwiched as he was by Socialist Egypt and Tunisia geographically, so in 1969 they engineered a 'coup' and installed their new puppet, who had received military/intelligence training in both the USA and UK, Colonel Qaddafi (Homosexual psychopath with an acute sense of humor).....---the rest is history.

Much has been said about Qaddafi, but I don't personally think he conducted any terrorism against Western targets as he had no real incentive, using his state organs, beyond supporting some 'liberation' movements around the world. He was however for the West and Israel an useful poster child for Arab terrorism, together with MOSSAD run Abu Nidal from the 1970's-----culminating in 9/11 a false flag ops by the usual suspects. The only terrorism he practised was against his own people, to keep himself in power, and again not in the scale of say Saddam Hussain (Megalomaniac psychopath-----Western intelligence sure do pick em). He was sending his wife and children for their education to the UK, as if business was normal--during the nineties.

Qaddafi steered his own policy, and tried to articulate and mark himself out in response to Arab nationalism ignited by Nasser, and things only got worse when the Americans decided to accuse him of terrorism, and they subsequently bombed him in 1986. He responded partly by arming the IRA, against the British for providing the bases for bombing Libya---F-111. Which consequently resulted in the British trying to over throw him using Islamic Fundamentalists in the 1990's----clearly documented---He survived because he was security savvy. Now the British and Americans are friends with him again. So my point is you can have policy differences with your puppet master, and survive in power, EVEN without following the extreme policies of Qaddafi.

The Shah was not security savvy, he was essentially a weak minded playboy with some good intentions for his country, but very naive, and he paid for it. You must always take into account and anticipate the whimsy of your puppet master as a Third World leader who sponsored you into power ----there are a few million waiting in the queue.
Qaddafi is still a puppet of theirs, and his children are educated in that country, and no doubt they have excellent English accents. Mugabe too is their puppet, and he could be killing lawful white farmers driving them out of the country, and of course running the economy into ruin, where at one time it was an effectively managed African nation, with 500,000 whites co-existing peacefully. He can do all manner of ugly things, and say ugly things but he will still remain in power. Whilst his wife regularly visits London to do her shopping, with the impoverished nations money.
So you see a puppet can do all sorts of things, and not follow their master. Perhaps this is an example that the world has moved on, and has become more diverse, nuanced and more complex. We are no longer frozen in the nineteenth century, where a few colonial soldiers taught the grass skirted thing what for.
"or when you infer that Saddam's war on Iran wasn't on behalf of western powers"
I don't infer that it wasn't on behalf of Western powers; Saddam was their puppet, carefully groomed since the early 1960's as new documents and articles show.
This was a classic case of weakening two sides to take them over. But the opportunity for entertaining the idea of attacking Iran in the first place would not have come about if the Shah was still in power, with his armed forces intact. Even puppets have to rationalize sometimes.
Jordan is a puppet state clearly (close to the UK/USA), but does that mean tomorrow they mobilize their little effective army and attack Ba'athist Socialist Syria---of course not---the Jordanian puppet rationalizes his chances.
Saddam the western puppet rationalized in 1980 that with the Iranian armed forces which had disintegrated with 60% desertion, with American/British backing and encouragement, and French backing and encouragement, and Russian backing and encouragement (70%--80% of his conventional arms was Russian), and GULF GCC backing and encouragement, he felt that he had a fair chance. So just after the Islamic Revolution, in 1980 he invaded Iran with 500,000 troops. By this action he basically saved the mullahs, as the mullahs could now rally the country behind them. If the West really wanted to get rid of the mullahs, all they had to do was impose 100% sanctions; and covert ops financing opposition groups----------with propaganda, as in 1953, classic textbook simple overthrow of a regime which is popular with the people------BUT the West wasn't interested in getting rid of the mullahs of Iran then in 1980, whom they had just installed, what their objective was to weaken both countries by providing/supporting poor governments and continued war between the two. With the intention that sometime in the future they could invade as 'liberators'.
"or that the Brits still control Iran,then why would the west want to attack Iran?"
The West is not one united entity. There are considerable policy differences as to what policies to pursue--in relation to international relations. Even within the British elite there are considerable policy differences, between what the Jews of London within 'The City' think and what other elite groups within Britian think. Internationally, what 'the Brits' think is not necessary how 'Washington' thinks, or how the unhinged 'Israelis' think, or how traditionally the French without Sarkozy think. Their perspectives are diverse.
So whilst the British try and maintain their hold over mullah Iran, quite successfully one may add for 29 years, others obviously in the West do not want this status quo. Remember the genocide in Rwanda was the result of competing interests between French intelligence and British intelligence. Around the world you can find examples of competition for control of nations and, and their resources by the West which manifest themselves in local conflict.
Also the fact that the British control Iran is not something they would want to advertise to everybody----because the next logical question from interested parties is who are the agents of the British in Iran, and what are the means of control by which the British exercise power over Iran (organizationally), and how can one compromise these assets to ones advantage.
Britain first became involved in Persia in the early 17th century, and very active politically and economically in the early parts of the 20th century. Let me tell you quickly and very briefly about Tipu Sultan, a character the British empire preferred to forget, and if remembered briefly, than only as another cruel Asian despot. In fact he was an enlightened leader of a medium sized South Indian state called Karnataka. He was an enlightened good ruler effectively ruling a non-Muslim state.
He was an innovator of technology, and was the first in the world to use missiles en masse in the field of war. He with his father fought four wars against the Jewish London based East India company; 1st Mysore war 1767-69; 2nd Mysore war 1780-84; 3rd Mysore war 1790-92; 4th Mysore war 1798-99. He was a major obstacle to British expansion in South Asia, and his little state had been responsible for the death of thousands of colonial soldiers and generals. By the fourth war things were going against him and prior to that he sought the alliance of Revolutionary France, Ottoman Turkey and Afghanistan, but not Persia. Napoleon Bonaparte landed in Egypt in 1798, with the objective of joining forces with Tipu Sultan. The British sunk his navy, so he couldn't sail any where least of all to India, and the Ottoman Turks naturally took exception to their country being used as a staging post without being asked, and having part of their country being treated like an occupation territory------so two possible allies neutralised.
Finally in 1798 the British persuaded the Persian Shah to attack Afghanistan, which prevented the Afghans from joining forces with Tipu Sultan. Yes, as far back as 210 years ago the British were exercising considerable power in Persia. I do not know what influence the British exercised over Nadir Shah of Persia, who effectively ended the Mughal empire, by attacking India in 1737, and ransacking Delhi and massacring its residents.
point being that they have built up a vast network of local Iranian agents---Colonel Reza Khan, the Shah's father was installed by the BRITISH in 1921, as the point man for all of Persia, after the departure of the Russians in the North of the country----He was removed from power by the BRITISH in 1941, and then the BRITISH installed his son in the 1940's, and again in 1953 with American help. Then the BRITISH decided that he outlasted his usefulness, i.e. he was developing Iran too quickly----------Article in Time magazine called Iran the New Japan in the early Seventies (Britain has always been a Islamophobic nation---which has waged cold covert/hot overt wars against Muslim nations-----Iran is another example, using Islamic fundamentalists---cold covert war. Since the advent of Jews in the British power structure in the UK from the middle of the seventeenth century, allowed reentry by Oliver Cromwell, with their prominence in London in 'The City' , and the creation of Israel, this has added to the British Islamophobic dimension)
and so the BRITISH removed the Shah in 1978-79, using the Americans again, through their Rothschild CFR/Trilateral commission agents in the Carter administration.

So now we have two possible scenarios over Iran. The British London Jew model (billionaire criminal Jews from Russia and Israel have been congregating there for a couple years now, the centre of global evil) which means continued mullah misrule, international theatrics by the mullah's and their hand picked 'elected' cronies; human trafficking/slavery from Iran mainly into the Gulf; narcotic epidemics within Iran the like of which Iran has never experienced; Capitol flight into the UK, Canada and other countries from Iran-----$100's billions; the flight of the Middle Class.................or the Israeli Jew neocon model, which means the attack of Iran by Israel and America, possibly with nukes, and the dismemberment of the country into small pieces, in order to facilitate Eretz Israel. Judging by the presidential election nominees in America, that seems to be the direction America is heading.

Iran's elite problem.

The problems of Iran are many fold. Problems that many other Third World nations share.

The elite in Iran over the last one hundred years, contrary to previous ages has been uninspiring, and lacking in leadership. So as a result of this weakness, they reside in Iran, under a foreign backed regime which promises nothing but eternal misery, or in exile, sorrowfully reading about their country and all its woes.

It is widely perceived in Iranian society that the British are major 'troublemakers' in their nation. This is not a false rumor, or mere gossip, but a widely held belief based on actual historical experience. However, what you have historically, is an elite which when it actually comes to exercising power, allows this 'fox' to compromise Iranian society in a variety of ways, instead of taking standard safety measures.

The Shah can be faulted in his own down fall. He should have taken proper safety measures against the British, and their allies the clueless Americans based on clear historical experience, but instead he:

1. Cooperated with them in security matters----both military and intelligence.

2. Bought masses of arms from them----his military could not function without spares from these countries.

3. Allowed their security personnel to be stationed in his country, and to train very sensitive security personnel.

4. Allowed BP to continue to be a major stake holder in his nations oil business----the British used the oil weapon again to over throw the Shah in 1978-9. After all the British had done to Iran, and common knowledge of this fact in the streets of Iran, the British were still selling 60% of Iran's oil exports up to 1978.

5. He deposited $10-15 (Probably more--at 1975 prices) billion of his nations money in their banks, which has not been returned to Iran. Worth at least $40-50 billion at today's prices-----but the corrupt Americans will not return this to the Iranian people.

6. Sent hundreds of thousands of his students to study in their country (UK/USA)--some of whom would end up being recruited as spies.

The Shah's daughter may even have been killed in the UK. Of course the Shah was essentially a weak minded play boy, with some good intentions. He came into power through their good grace, as their puppet. I think a nation cannot complain that others are harming them, and thus the source of the nations eternal woes are based on the misdeeds of others. Especially a nation the size of Iran.

He deserved what he got. He should have used the 25 years in power to make his country more independent from these two, and especially the British. He should have learnt from history. He should have anticipated that the British were going to do the dirty on him, once he decided that he was seriously going to develop Iran into a modern country, a national policy which the British were against. For his lack of fore sight and leadership he died in a foreign Arab country. Many of his elite friends were executed in Iran by the British through their psychopaths, in 1979 through into the eighties, whilst others went into exile. This was not a mere take over, but a social, economic and political revolution the like of which had never been experienced since the Russian revolution.

He enabled the vile mullahs to come into power, the like of which has never been seen before in Iranian society and history. If the British model is followed then the mullahs will be in power for a very long time, and if the Jew model is followed Iran will be no more-----like Iraq.

Now the British have sole control of Iran, stead of sharing power over Iran with the USA. The mullahs have accomplished four major goals for their British masters. You will note dear informed reader that the puppet mullahs of the British rarely criticise the British publicly, and the speed at which any diplomatic 'misunderstanding' is patched up between the two nations.

• The destruction of Iranian society, into ethnically aware enclaves, with active separatists groups in Kurdistan, Baluchistan, Khuzestan and other places. The huge drug problems--none existent in 1979. 4 million educated Iranians leaving the country. 1 million dead from war. Massive state repression to maintain the mullahs in power. Civil war in early 1980's.
• Economic destruction. Capitol flight from the country in the region of $ 1 trillion, along with sections of the old elite and skilled classes. Selling of state assets to foreign Jewish run Capitol. Living standards being 60% of what they were in 1979. Massive corruption, with business cartels being run by mullahs and their cronies. Economic mismanagement, with Iran being run as a socialist/communist command economy, with anything goes rules. Absolutely no business confidence as expressed by Iranian businessmen, and private foreign businesses, except for state to state business with Pakistan, China, India and Russia.
• The destruction of the security apparatus. Creation of two separate, competing, non-coordinating state security organs tasked to defend the country--The Revolutionary Guard and the conventional armed forces. No other country in the world has such an 'unique' system. To further weaken the military, in the face of daily threats from the USA, Israel and the UK, the mullahs spend 3% of their GDP on defense, when 12--15% would be a better amount given the dangerous critical situation. The armed forces are woefully small consisting of 400,000 conscripts who will not fight adequately, and are not professional. 1,000,000 men filled by full time professionals would be a better option. We note that around Iran there have been excellent examples of popular resistance movements whilst not great in number, they were and are highly organised, well trained, well motivated and well supplied, able to fight for many years----Hezbollah 50,000; the Iraqi Sunni resistance 30,000, and finally the Afghan Mujaheddin in the 1980's 70,000. These are simple prime examples for Iran to copy. But instead the puppet mullahs of the British want to jump from a conscript force of 420,000 (545,000 including the Revolutionary Guard---125,000-----London Jew boy numbers game-----dogs of the Jew in London) ----- I call upon all true Aryans/Iranians to stand here and take heed. during peace time to 20,000,000 during war time. Utter military disaster must follow, at least logistically (aka Romanov Russia 1917). How does a Third World nation sustain 20 million men for a long time? It can't and will only result in economic and social chaos. Iran only needs 200,000 men to rebel against the central government during war, for the whole system to collapse. The whole point of defensive guerrilla warfare, is maintaining a small sustainable force, highly trained and motivated, and supplied that fights for decades, without any decisive open engagements against the enemy---you merely pick at them, and leaves you standing whilst your opponent, takes flight from your country. It is simple, not really sophisticated, and the anals of history has many examples of this. Iran only needs 1,000,000 highly trained well motivated, professionally trained men, not 20 million men. This is another evidence that the UK is writing Iran's defence policy. Mullahs have problems signing military alliances with nations who share common threat situations--namely Russia. But instead sign alliance agreements with Syria which can drag Iran into war early---Ba' athist Socialist run Syria.
• Reducing the credibility, international standing, and reputation of Iran. So when the mullah regime speak a patent truth, the Jew some how is able to sell it as a lie in critical circles in the West---whose armed forces the Jew wants to expend against Iran.

The advent of the mullahs, with the disintegration of Iranian society and security, encouraged Saddam to attack Iran. Something which Saddam would never have contemplated if the Shah was in power, with his armed forces fully intact.

So long as the mullahs remain in power with their antics, it does not matter whether they ACTUALLY do anything wrong, they WILL continue to attract negative coverage because of who they are, mullahs running a modern country in a very sensitive strategic area.

Finally whether by British design (they drew the boundaries and map of Israel, and bought it into existence) or accident mullah Iran has earned the wrath of global Jewry, one of the most vile, organised, criminal sects in the world today. Iran now is constantly threatened from without---by the USA/Israel, until the mullahs are removed from power, and a new Iranian regime begs forgiveness from the Americans and Israelis as a vassal state. AND threatened from within with MULLAHS running the country, who use a book written 1400 years ago as a guide for state craft, maintained in power by the British through their agents in Iran.

In English this is known as being between a rock and a hard place.

How to beat the global recession and protect your country.

This is a evolving area, and I will be re-editing this article.

I studied economics for two years at university, but my general knowledge of the area, especially of the theoretical aspect is superficial. How ever in my opinion economics is not always about theory/models etc, who has the best economic models, John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman. I believe sometimes it is about plain simple common sense, and knowing/understanding your country and society.

Third World countries and other emerging nations are of course as vulnerable as any advanced nation from any global recession. However there are as always basic simple strategies that can be followed when especially the American economy quickly slides into recession. The American economy can collapse, but that does not mean the rest of the worlds economy has to follow with them as it happened in 1929.

This area should be treated as a national security issue, as failure to take proper counter measures against a coming global recession can lead to massive social unrest, coups, and in some cases armed struggles within societies which lead to the break-up of that society.

In no particular order some rudimentary suggestions:

• Obviously if the American economy is going to collapse, you should hold as few dollars as possible, and you should diversify your reserve currency into as many currencies as such as the Chinese Yuan, perhaps the Euro, Brazilian Real or the Indian Rupee. In addition one should increase the stock of ones Gold, Silver, and precious stone reserves. So perhaps a mixed bag of reserve holdings. You should also take your money out of the USA, before their banking system collapses, and they are unable to pay your money back from their banks.
  
• I think the smaller the percentage of your economy engaged in global trade the better it is to with stand the full effects of a global recession. If only 7-15 % of your economy is engaged in international trade than the effects of global recession will be less on your country than that of an economy which is 20--40% active in international trade. Also the smaller the percentage of trade you have with the USA, than the better position you are in avoiding a global recession. Some form of a viable Autarky should be considered, and if ones economy is too small, than the next best thing is a regional autarky---linking ones economy more to the big economies of the region. China, Japan, India, Brazil, Russia etc.
  
• The global recession is partly/mainly about financial mismanagement in the USA. In the USA financial speculation and financial bogus scams have created this serious matter in the USA and consequently the rest of the world. America for quite a while filled with imperial hubris has been following banana republic economics, which to an extent, China, Japan and South Korea, along with the rest of the world has been paying for. The Americans have been dancing around the world with GWOT---a fake illusion, meant to distract the world, whilst enhancing their power viz the rest of the world. This situation cannot last for ever, and as this banana republic system of financial mismanagement collapses, it of course threatens the rest of the world's economies. One of the key counter measures is to reduce the activities of the speculating market in your economy, and as an extreme measure close the stock exchange down. Great nations have been built in the past without the need for a stock exchange. In addition tighten the activity of the financial sector, and regulate the printing of money, and the setting of interest rates. One should also consider closing all American banks in ones country.
• Many nations after the 1929 Wall street crash recovered quickly. The solution was well planned/central financed stimulus of the economy into asset/capital building projects such as industry and infrastructure. This requires an efficient bureaucracy, and incorruptible government which spends the nations money properly/efficiently. Corrupt governments such as those in Zimbabwe or Iran are obviously not going to succeed, they are doomed. In Iran with massive new oil revenues, the government tried to stimulate the economy through spending, but instead it has resulted in economic disaster----the managers of the economy are corrupt and worthless British backed puppets with their heads in the Koran, selling large parts of the economy to mysterious foreign capitalists, and a country of that size dependent on imported fuel, because they didn't achieve self sufficiency---autarky. So now the Iranian economy is very vulnerable. Obviously such a program to protect the economy and stimulate it relies in the central government being well organized, not corrupt and in control of their countries economy----anticipating in advance the collapse of the American economy and making all necessary contingency plans.
• Many revolutions around the world have been sparked by the lack of food, and that was certainly the case with the 1789 French Revolution, 1917 Russian Revolution and a few others. All governments need to make sure that food stocks, and supplies are well maintained developing good relations with food exporting nations such as Brazil, Argentina, Canada etc. Whilst there may be economic hardship, during the American recession, food supply must be well stocked in all nations. This is not a financial issue, as the cost of food can be covered quite easily by most well organized government through proportional taxation. This is primarily an organizational issue and about planning ahead. Obviously certain Third World countries need to rethink about exporting food in such a scenario of global recession, and concentrate on staple diet agriculture rather than cash crops export.
• Finally in the realm of security and national stability, the emergency services need to be trained for such a scenario. During a global recession, massive numbers of people will be traveling in search of food, and employment, and the situation will become desperate---quite, quite desperate. Depending on how efficient the national government is, much of the worst security implications can be avoided.
  

Worthless begging in his master's press

A Middle East Free of WMD

By Manchour Gorbanifar (foreign agent)

"Iran is a responsible nation and wants to see stability in the region. The west should support us"

(Bloggers note: Of course they support you covertly. That is how your mullah regime came to power in the first place. Otherwise how do illiterate mullahs run a large country like Iran?----by improvisation and intuition? They had an agenda, which was that you should weaken and discredit Iran over many years. By negotiating with you as they have done with Libya, and North Korea, it gives your state legitimacy, which they will not give you, because they mean to attack you eventually.

You stupid donkey, how will pleading help current matters. How has pleading for justice, human rights, fair play, stability, common sense, helped the Palestinians, the Lebanese who have the misfortune of being Israel's small weak neighbor, Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan--------The only real guarantee for Iran, Mr. Puppet foreign minister, is military strength, and a very close security alliance with Russia and China----give them military bases in the Persian Gulf, on your Southern coast, and carry out military exercises with them openly, so that the world and especially the Israelis can see )

"In 1892 Lord Curzon, who would later become Conservative foreign secretary, published, "Persia and the Persian Question". In his analysis he described a land that offered the region's strongest potential bulwark against disorder, and identified the most critical impediment to its growth, prosperity and stability. "Persia has nothing," he said, in concordance with the then Iranian prime minister, "without railways." The Iranian Question of today echoes the priorities of the late 19th century. "

(bloggers note: Of course only a foreign puppet of 'that' country would quote an arch imperialist of the West, to justify the otherwise reasonable existence of his own country. Curzon, you dog, created the Muslim League in 1905 in India to divide the country and weaken the Congress Party. He was the first to partition a part of India along religious lines. Speaking of 'disorder' Iran itself has brought disorder to its self, and the nearby region------4 million educated Iranians have left Iran since the mullahs came to power. Why? The bureaucracy in Iran is corrupt and worthless. The economy is mismanaged.

Saddam attacked Iran precisely because there was 'disorder' in Iran, and 60% of the army deserted in 1979. He would never have attacked if the Shah was still in power. The war cost 1million dead, and perhaps $1 trillion worth of damage to both counties. That war eventually led to the invasion of Iraq.

The mullahs of Iran were brought into power by the UK/USA precisely so that they could create disorder and sow chaos in the country.The fake/false 'Islamic revolution' instigated by the UK/USA during 1978-79 against the Shah created a lot of 'disorder' and 'instability' in Iran and the region in general under the plans of Professor Bernard Lewis, an arch Zionist, a friend of Israel, an agent of influence of Israel, an agent of British intelligence in addition. His policy known as the 'Bernard Lewis plan' was converted into real action by the Carter administration, under his NSA, Brzezinski who started to create an 'Arch of Crisis' in the Greater Middle East, using the tool of ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM------so you MR. foreign minister are a puppet of a Zionist plan started in the 1970's, who is brought into power to create disorder.

That is why Mr Puppet foreign minister there has been no serious attempt to topple your regime in 29 years; That is why Mr. Puppet foreign minister the Americans and others covertly worked with you, especially in the eighties; That is why Mr. Puppet foreign minister, with such blatantly stupid domestic policies you are still in power in Iran, even though you only have the support of 30% of the local population in Iran. These elements that have bought you to power in 1979, now wish to carry out a military strike against Iran, and not negotiate with you)

"Today, Iran has no economic backbone without energy security and diversity. From....... ."

(Bloggers note: A third world country like Iran, which has a $650 billion PPP economy does not have a vast energy requirement like China, whose economy is 15 times bigger compared to Iran's. So in this light Iran does not need the West, or need to beg the West for technology to diversify its energy sources. It can survive and develop reasonably well with the cooperation of Russia and China. China is its biggest trading partner, and the bulk of its trade is done with Asia; it does not need the West.

As to 'international responsibility' there are elements in the USA, and UK who wish to dominate the resources of the Middle East, and use it without responsibility to the locals---hence the funding of Islamic fundamentalist idiots like yourself, and the call to more war. Look at Iraq and what they are doing to that country. So begging for rationality and responsibility from these bastards of Satan is a waste of time, however well written in English. The best policy for Iran is an extremely strong military which is effective, and strong security alliances with Russia, China, and Pakistan which deters them from attacking Iran)

"In its support for a myriad of aggressions over the past half century - from the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet army to Saddam's attack on Iran - western military and intelligence has fomented an instability with consequences beyond the region itself."

(Well if you know the facts, and you acknowledge this fact, then why waste your time pleading for rationality and justice from them? If they have been like this for more than 200 years why should they change their habit now, simply because you plead with them?)

"The democratic rhetoric of the west counts for nothing when foreign policy is dictated by self-interest, as witnessed by its brazen disregard of the outcomes of democratic elections in Algeria and Palestine. Attempts to demonise Iran are exposed as hollow when you consider that the accusers are those responsible for the outrages of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay."

(Hamas was created and funded by Israel in the 1970's, as every intelligence agency in the Middle East know but do not say openly. They were created to divide and weaken the Palestinian people, weaken the PLO, and fight a civil war with the PLO Fatah. They are less corrupt than the Fatah administration, and are more responsive to the needs of ordinary Palestinians. They may even prove to be better fighters than the PLO. But ultimately, for all their good charity work, and funding from the ulema and Iran, they are in the end Israeli created Dogs.

Like you, UK/USA created dogs unleashed in 1979 to weaken a country which many thought would be a significant nation in the world before you came to power. Like the Afghan mujaheddin dogs unleashed in 1979 against the Afghan central government. Like the Islamic Brotherhood dogs which killed Sadat in 1981. Like the Islamic Brotherhood dogs in Syria who attempted to take over in 1982.

With Algeria, the GIA is an Islamic fundamentalists organisation funded by the French, to destabilise and weaken Algeria. It is noted that a significant section of the GIA organisation has their origins in France, and many of its operatives move freely between France and Algeria. Yes Mr. Puppet foreign minister the French are also involved in this game of using Islamic fifth column to destabilise and destroy Muslim countries. If you remember the events of 1979, you will note the sheer volume of important Iranian people coming and going between Paris and Tehran.

So why do you support more Islamic puppet governments in Palestine and Algeria? Answer, because you yourself are puppets. Which country in the world is run by mullahs? Which civilised country is run by mullahs? You further accuse the West of torture and the abuse of justice( USA/UK/Israel primarily involved---its a Jewish/Zionist program). However before you accuse you should look at your own record. The 30,000 innocent victims executed in 1988, when you thought Iraq was going to win the war in PANIC; ................)

"In Iran we are trying to defend our independence, to meet the needs of our young, to advance society, and to steer the ship of the Middle East in these turbulent waters to calm shores. However, a pressing problem for Iran today concerns the need for - and development of - energy security and diversity."

(You are not independent. You are puppets. You are controlled and managed by the British who work through their agents in Iran. Whilst VEVAK provides further reinforcement to the British control in your security structure.

In addition there are many Jews in your country working for Israel, pretending to be Muslim, with Muslim names-----this is a old Jewish trick and is quite effective. They have used this in other countries such as Russia, and the USA, to gain power. Did you know that the President of America during WWII was Jewish, as was their main commander in Europe. If these people stated their true Jewish background they would not have come to power----------

So Mottaki are you a Jew? Is Ahmedinejad? Is the Supreme Leader? Who can say, as the Jew has refined this art over thousands of years. To me you smell Jewish--The mullah regime in Iran smells Jewish--------you seriously play their Jew games; you even react like them.)

"In the closing weeks of 2007, the report by the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the US National Intelligence Estimate made it clear Iran's nuclear activities have nothing to do with military programmes but are motivated by a desire to preserve peaceful nuclear knowledge and capability for future generations. This knowledge and capability, with "security and stability", can propel Iran on the path of progress. We must strive to combine the two and thereby forestall any confrontation and threat."

(Of course you are right. You have justice on your side, at least related to this particular matter, as do the Palestinians and Lebanese...................the Iraqis, and Afghans. But given the behaviour of Israel and their mentality, do you also have might on your side?)

"We need to go beyond setting "preconditions" for negotiations with Iran, and try to present constructive proposals. Iran has demonstrated that it is a responsible nation. It has shown itself to be a predictable nation. It respects international law and strives to play its role in preventing escalation of regional crises resulting from illicit trade in narcotics, extremism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

(Did you keep a straight face when you wrote this? If these bastards wanted to negotiate with you they would have done so within the last 29 years. They certainly aren't going to start now. You idiot how can you write such rubbish when they have just cut your cables, in order to harass you, or as a prelude to war. Is this your best response?)

"Tehran's cooperation with the IAEA underlines the honesty and sincerity of our nuclear programme, our commitment to proceeding with care, and respect for international rules. blah, blah, blah................................................"

"Over recent years, Iran has proudly promoted a historic idea: a "Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction". blah. blah. blah............................"

(I think it is time you were toppled, but not by the Americans or the British, but by Iranians living in Iran from the ranks of the security apparatus)

"Enough, then, of the threats and aggression. Let these outdated tactics be consigned to history. blah. blah. blah....................."

(Please don't attack us, we are such good little boys. Honest)

Would Cyrus speak like this dog? Would any decent educated Persian speak like this? Of course not, because only foreign backed puppets go to their real masters and beg for mercy.

Iran's security options in the current situation

Obviously Iran is under pressure from the USA, and Israel. I can't see that scenario changing for the foreseeable future. The new President in January 2009, who ever that may be in the USA, will be just as belligerent, if not more.

So what is Iran to do. Iran is a Third World country, and not a great military power. Nor an aspiring great military power by the looks of things--beyond fantasy narratives by some in the West.

Its armed forces number approximately 420,000, or there about: 350,000 army; 50,000 air force and below 20,000 for the navy. Its arms inventory is a mixed bag of obsolete weapons from the USA, China and Russia. What is amazing is that Iran spends annually 3% on defence. Something is not quite right here. The mullahs were brought into power by the USA/UK in 1979 (aka Brzezinski/Rothschild) to weaken Iran as a modern cohesive society. The mullahs don't trust the military, so they don't provide it with a lot of resources, as the present situation would most certainly require them to do logically.

Since senior political and security elements in Russia have clearly stated that an attack on Iran would be viewed as an attack on Russia-----quite rightly, as it is another step towards the domination of Eurasia by Israel/USA, and thus the destruction of Russia ultimately (per Brzezinski/Rothschild doctrine), so why not put the Russian statement to the test, and clarify matters.

Iran should give Russia a permanent naval base in the Persian Gulf, with a considerable presence. One that counter balances the presence of the Americans, the British and the French in the Gulf. The Iranians should allow the Russians to bring in SAMs, and AA batteries in addition. This action will make Iran more secure on its southern coastline.

Come to think of it Iran should sign a security pact with Russia, if they already haven't done so. Then Iran has the protection of the second most powerful country in the world, and an unlimited access to its arsenal, which can be used at a time of conflict, without signing expensive arms transfer contracts, which the mullahs are reluctant to do.

Iran's current security position in relation to the blatant threats from the Israelis and America are:

• We will teach the aggressor a great lesson, rather like they taught Iraq, another Third World country a great lesson! It is a hollow bluster by the Iranians. Its not the strength of the Iranian military that is holding the Israelis back, but the consequences of action, and what Russia and China might do if the conflict escalates.
• International law and right is on our side.

Whilst the second preposition is more correct than the first, it is not a basis on which to base ones defence policy solely as the Israelis do not consider international law relevant or applicable to them. When your main adversary disregards international law, then continuing to rely on international law as a justification solely is dangerously foolish; one should seek security guarantees from more reliable sources--------such as a comprehensive security guarantees and cooperation with Russia.

3% expenditure on defence is incredibly low in the circumstances, and would be better if the Iranian security establishment kept their mouths shut, and took some real initiatives to develop their defences comprehensively. Since the mullahs are so scared and suspicious about developing a credible conventional military, then they should allow Russia, as the second most powerful nation on earth to provide part of the defence and security of Iran. The security interests of the two countries are mutual, and both countries face identical enemies----international Jews and Zionists who wish to create an empire, at their countries expense.

Another perspective on the cable saga

Cable conspiracies

By Zymphora

The damaging of cables that supply internet services to India and parts of the Middle East has raised a number of conspiracy theories, including the possibility of the installation of espionage equipment, or even a new imminent War For The Jews (future historians will call this period the Era of Wars For The Jews). I think we can say without any doubt that this damage is intentional. Cable severing occurs occasionally, but it strains credulity to imagine the almost simultaneous rupturing of a number of cables – part of the aura of conspiracy lies in the fact that we still don’t know how many cables were involved, but it may be as many as four! – that all feed to India and most of the Middle East (with the notable exception of Israel!) could possibly be a coincidence. It has been confirmed that at least one of the incidents was not caused by a ship, the only accidental way for this damage to occur. If you can believe American-supplied figures, note that Syria, Lebanon and Palestine seem to have been affected; Iran not.


While Wars For The Jews remain on the agenda, there are many reasons why we won’t see another such war until the next American Presidential election, which is planned to be fought between two candidates from the More Wars For The Jews Party. It is unlikely that the Zionists would risk allowing a candidate (Obama) feared to be part of the No More Wars For The Jews Party into the race by turning More Wars For The Jews into a campaign issue. It is thus unlikely that this damage is intended to serve as a blackout of a Middle Eastern country that is to be subject to yet another illegal and unprovoked Zionist attack, at least not right away.


One of the main lessons for the Zionists from the most recent 2006 illegal and unprovoked Zionist attack on Lebanon was the internet savvy of the Lebanese. The Lebanese were able to use their communications links to stream visual evidence of the Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity as they occurred, an ability the Zionist war criminals did not factor into their illegal war planning. The Zionist war criminals know that their next illegal and unprovoked attack will have to be accompanied by a simultaneous severing of communication links from the victim country, so the suffering of the thousands – or hundreds of thousands – of innocent civilians can be hidden until the illegal and unprovoked attack is complete.


Just as the illegal and unprovoked September 2007 attack on Syria appears to have been an experiment to test Syrian-Russian air defenses, these attacks appear to be an experiment to test how quickly re-routing can restore internet services, and how quickly the cables themselves can be repaired. This information will then be factored by the Zionist war criminals into the planning for their next illegal and unprovoked attack, and will give them some estimate of the time they will have to slaughter innocent civilians, drop illegal cluster bombs, and damage infrastructure before information reaches the world which will force them to withdraw, or at least start talking up the Holocaust. Even damaging the cables does not appear to cut a country off completely, so presumably there would also have to be local bombing to create the kind of blackout required for future illegal and unprovoked Wars For The Jews.

Defining the discourse.

“Anti-Semite” and Social Engineering
By Professor Carolyn Baker.

A professor looking to stimulate interest in the obligatory compositions prepared by his freshman English students asked me if I would come to his morning classes last Friday to answer questions about 9/11 that the students had brought up after a viewing of ‘Loose Change’. I was grateful for the opportunity and felt confident as we walked toward the lecture hall because I believed that I would be able to handle their questions. In my mind, the challenges I would face would be based on my knowledge of factual information and my ability to convey it coherently.

I never suspected that I would be ambushed by a furious student who was already shouting at me that I was an ‘anti-Semite’ even before I reached the classroom. That emotional barrage never ended from that moment until the class disbanded. It was dramatic. He was unable to stay in his seat and jumped up and down and moved around the classroom, his hand waving wildly to get his turn to ask questions that were in essence hostile accusations, phoning his ‘friend’ so that his ‘friend’ could hear my comments, intrusively shoving that phone at me.

There was no explanation or fact that I was able to provide that would assuage his rage. It was immaterial to him that there are Jewish people who are prominent in 9/11 studies and activism. Or that there are Jewish members in the Tampa 9/11 Truth group. Although nothing I said could have been interpreted as remotely anti-Semitic, the topic of 9/11 had pushed his ‘Anti-Semite’ button. When I told the group that I thought that the perpetrators of the 9/11 crimes would have included members of the secret services of Great Britain, Germany, Israel and the US, he could only focus on the mention of Israel. The mere fact that the 9/11 topic was addressed seemed to him an abomination. He brought up Holocaust Deniers.

In spite of the agitated student, the discussion continued and a lot of good questions came up. To the question of whether 9/11 truth was disrespectful to the surviving family members, I said that the family members were the ones who had pushed for the investigation and that their questions had remained unanswered by the 9/11 Commission Report. And that their film Press For Truth is documenting their ongoing quest for the truth.

To the question of how a conspiracy could be kept hidden by so many for so long, I mentioned that the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb had involved thousands and also explained about the moles occupying nexus points in an organization(eg Radical Fundamentalist Unit of the FBI) a la Webster Tarpley.

To the question of why there were no whistleblowers, I told them that there have been hundreds and gave them von Bulow, Michael Meacher, Bob Bowman. Patriots/ Pilots/ Architects/ Scholars for 9/11 Truth. We discussed the media blockade made possible by the consolidation of the media and orchestrated by the interlocking directors of the major corporations.

To the question of why they would do such a thing, I talked about the military strategy document, the Project for a New American Century, with its demented world domination scheme, set to be triggered by a catastrophic and catalyzing event – the new Pearl Harbor AKA the 9/11 attacks.

But those are mere facts and the ‘anti Semite’ syndrome, like the 9/11 denial syndrome, is not cured by applying factual information. In a contest of raw power, mind control and propaganda win over facts. Emotions rule and anger and fear are the king and queen. Creating programmed responses to conversational triggers aids in squelching societal debate. “Conspiracy theorist, whack job, holocaust denier, wing nut, absurd, anti Semite, crazy” Attack the messenger to discount the message. Interrupt him, talk over him, make him lose his train of thought, ridicule him, insult him. No issue is to be addressed; no evidence is to be assessed - ever.

The resulting emotions of humiliation, embarrassment, shame, or guilt usually cause the targeted person to desist. How many topics are out of bounds due to ‘political correctness’? Limiting the parameters of the national conversation is integrated and prearranged. Forbidden topic number one is why we are fighting proxy wars for Israel and where our congress’ allegiances should lie when deciding matters of war.

I confess I have not read Mearscheimer and Walt’s article or their new book. But I will, now. That boy woke me up and I thank him for that. I have never been called an anti Semite and the sting is still fresh on my cheek.

If someone criticizes Israel in any way, they are called an anti Semite. If I observe that the Mafia is Italian, am I ‘anti Italian’? If I say an American committed a crime, am I ‘anti American’? No one is allowed to criticize Israel or they are called an ‘anti Semite’. Even without mentioning Israel, by choosing to talk about 9/11, an effort is made to label that anti Semitic. The creation of taboo subjects is a form of mind control. Think about it – if you can!

The very word ‘anti Semite’ itself goes off like a hand grenade and destroys intelligent discourse in a wide perimeter. This artificial construct is maintained by the victim complex created due to WWII and the constant repetition of the Holocaust history. It is not permitted to note that the Palestinians are suffering as much -or more- today under the Israelis as the Jews did in the ghettos of Eastern Europe. The victim of genocide is now the perpetrator of genocide but that observation is strictly prohibited in all polite conversation.

That young man is not a natural product of a balanced world. He is the product of the ‘social scientists’ who take innocent babes and inoculate them with poisonous ideas and belligerent tactics. He is under the tutelage of those who are creating our ‘matrix’ and he has been a malleable child, emotionally susceptible and easily manipulated into serving as a hound for the masters. I am sure that they are proud of their little Frankenstein, they can send him out today to disrupt classroom discussion and tomorrow he will be a willing servant infiltrator in our business and political arenas. Another ‘dual citizen’ like Henry Kissinger, Michael Chertoff, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doulas Feith, Dov Zakheim, Ari Fleischer, Elliot Abrams, Scooter Libby, or William Kristol.

The sum total of what you and I believe about the world is as distorted as that young man’s idea. The political map and the evolution of the fortunes of the peoples of the world have been engineered. The Middle East map is relatively new and the present national borders are artifices, contrivances to set in motion the conflicts we see today by which the region is controlled. Why does Israel exist? Was it set up to be a continual thorn in the side, a gaping wound through which conflict could be plunged, keeping the region in conflict to feed the war machine, engineer regional depopulation and eventually control the Middle East and withdraw her vast energy resources?

With all the talk in the US and Israel about the importance of religion, where are the major religions in all of this? Where is the love? The forbearance? The forgiveness? The charity? What a monumental lie, to ignite this area of the world under the guise of religious differences.

Meanwhile we jump – or are jumped - from one irrelevant entertainment/infotainment topic to the next while the puppetmasters set the stage for the next act where America as we know it ceases to exist as the globalists bring her to her knees and whip her into submission by means of the engineered economic collapse. While we dance to the tempo set by their orchestra playing on their instruments in their scale of their choosing.

There is a war on for your mind and stepping outside the matrix is harder than you may realize. Literally, the background chatter is set by them. Every quip, every commonly held assumption, every knee jerk assertion has been programmed into us. Examine your thoughts and free your mind.

http://thewhiterose.wordpress.com/

ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! Four cable lines cut off by Israel

So what is happening here? Some have suggested that this Israeli MO is a major precursor to a black op in the region. If I were in Tehran I would be very careful. These descendants of the filthy North African cult might be up to something, and all in the region need to be on high alert. The Jew upon attracting negative attention over themselves yet again (the Gaza concentration camp), rely on staged events to deflect attention-----the attack on one of their embassies in Africa, by 'Al-Qaeda' etc.for example................

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QUY/is_2004_July/ai_n6142317/pg_1

http://worldpressnetwork.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=170#p1226

http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=199403

Ron Paul for President as a Republican or as an independent.

This is a light hearted look at the GOP candidates, and which candidate is the most suitable. Its way too short and I wish they had really done one by American Idol. It would have been more incisive and equally entertaining if they did it for an hour, and looked at the issues, took them apart, and dealt with them. God knows that such a program could have been more relevant than those meaningless monotone MSM 'Presidential debates' choreographed for the umpteenth time.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19264.htm

We do hope he continues his campaign up to November, as this will be his last run realistically.

When sections of your own GOP do the dirty on you, then that absolves you of binding yourself to the party for ever, and go on to accept the final result as a 'true gentleman'. We know the system within the GOP and without is crooked--The Louisiana Caucus, but the main point is not merely participating in this charade, but mobilising the true Americans into a cohesive force for the future, and getting enough momentum up to November. There will be extreme disappointment if he stops around late April or so because he didn't get enough delegates votes.

He is raising far more funds from ordinary Americans than any other candidate, and that should be one of the prime reasons why he should continue up to November; the American people have given him this mandate.

Also how can we truly measure what the true impact of the Ron Paul Revolution has been, given the MSM blackout of him? To what extent has he shaped the policies of the other candidates?

I think subliminally, and in reality in all America he is the main candidate, but for the orchestrated media blackout. But this was expected.

The concept of a grassroots Ron Paul Revolution is romantic, but in reality he requires hard cash to win this election, and over come the blackout of the MSM. There is no other way. I think on the averages, you need something in the region of $200 million to finance a successful election campaign. Obviously as his campaign builds momentum, he will gather more funds and support, but the campaign needs to set their sights at that ultimate figure early, and seriously think how they can raise that amount.

There are 15 million millionaires in America, and I assume a considerable number must be attracted to his policies, which proposes to stabilise America, both domestically and internationally. Beyond the romanticism of the grass roots support I think the campaign unofficially should reach out to some of the big money men who may be favorably inclined to his unique message.

To those who query his statement about 9/11 and other issues:

• To have any chance of winning he has to shift into the middle ground, and not be a platform for certain one issue agenda's---he is trying to be the President of 300 million Americans. He can never win if he openly or even tacitly implies that elements of his own party with the cooperation of a foreign power (Israel) carried out 9/11, can he? Not in a million years.

• The prevalence of Jews around him------I see he has just recruited a few policy advisors from a crypto-Jew site; his obsession with the gold standard (an object of remorseless fascination for Jewish financiers); his mentors being a Jewess, Ayn Rand whom he loving quotes but we are yet to find in history or in reality any practical application of the ideas of this Russian Jewess; His ideological bed rock ...two Jews...Ludwig Von Mises, and Murray F Rothbard......He co authored a book with a PNAC signatory.

Again he may well be a tool of the Zionists, i.e controlled opposition etc, but it is always better to have something, rather than nothing. This is not delusion, but rather the reality. He offers on the face of it, some real alternatives. Time will tell, if elected, whether he actually carries out these policies. The fact that he offers real alternative policy solutions is in itself enough. The fact that he keeps his words gives us further encouragement.

For all we know he could be a Cyrpto-Jew who upon becoming President suddenly discovers his Jewish lineage to the Rothschild's family in Europe. But for the moment his voting record and his forth right passionate statements on key issues at very public occasions give us some hope over the grim Corporate/fundamentalist reapers of Clinton, Obama, Huckabey, Romney, McCain.

So for now we back Ron Paul, and we hope he successfully fills up the coffers for the long haul up to November, and gathers round him an extremely savvy PR team that overcomes the MSM blackout. That he is not too dirty in a misguided Clintonesq style, of what he is and what he is not, beyond the rumors, in the process of quickly defining himself against all the other candidates.

Reading between the lines by a cadet in Kakul

So Musharaf meets with the Israeli defence minister, whilst the Israelis continue doing what they've been doing to the Palestinians for the last 60 years, and the Iraqis more recently in covert ops, as 'advisors' to the Americans.

As if one of the most sophisticated military machines in the world needed advisors. As if such a military machine required that type of advice. But when you have Zionists and crypto-Jews running your country, then obviously logic turns on its head, as the bigger country serves the interests of the smaller country, and destroys itself in the process-----true love knows no bounds I suppose!

Another good reason why no Muslim country within the range of 'the final plan' should allow extensive American military presence in their country, as the results in Iraq and Afghanistan are all too clear for everybody to see. The mafia have a simple operation, known universally as a 'protection racket', which involves attacking 'small' to 'medium' sized businesses, and then sending several of their boys around to tell the small businessman that they require 'protection'. This is one of the oldest criminal rackets in the world, and is at least as old as the prostitution business.

We should think carefully before we rely on anyone for national protection, and America, with Israel behind it is the last country in the universe, Pakistan should be relying on. In such a scenario, the handful of surplus military hardware given to Pakistan by the USA, which are mostly 30 years out of date, and will become obsolete in a few years is not worth the alliance with such a dangerous ally.

One can hazard a guess that China in such a light is more reliable. China does not take a pathological interest in Pakistani politics. India is a better potential ally, if the Pakistani military elite give the country a chance by signing a FTA finally, and once in for all legalising the LOC, rather then pretending to negotiate year, after year, after year, after year. Pakistan doesn't need the Indian 'enemy' to define and unite the country; that phase has well and truly past years a go. Russia can be a potential new ally. But squatting tightly in the corner and taking the flak is not the long term solution to the countries problems, and once Syria and Iran are dealt with it will be Pakistan's turn.

Pakistan can obediently queue in the line waiting to be attacked, or before that juncture arrives take certain counter measures.

I am not aware of any Zionist lobbies in Pakistan, except for the fact that the Pakistanis maintain 'routine' contacts with their Israeli counter parts. Though the Pakistani head of state shaking hands with Sharon would not be described as routine, or Musharaf meeting with the defence minister of that country more recently. In addition the ISI has worked with Mossad, especially since the 1980's.

On the other hand we do know quite openly that Israel has an anti-Pakistan policy agenda, despite superficial pleasantries, which have resulted in the destabilization of the country (quite a serious issue I tend to think), and the near invasion of it in 2001, unless Pakistan 'cooperated'.

We do know that Israel on several occasions asked India for a joint strike on Pakistan's nuclear facilities, but the Indians wisely declined.

We do know that the crypto-Jew Bush informed Blair privately that after Iraq, it would be Syria, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi's turn. The two good British civil servants who leaked that piece of information have since been jailed.

Some of us who are a little informed, do know that al-Qaeda is a front for black ops by Israel intelligence and their auxiliaries. If the al-Qaeda number two or even dead number one are calling Pakistanis to over throw their legitimate government, that it in reality is actually the voice and script of Israeli state policy. If al-Qaeda has attempted to kill Musharaf then it is the policy of Israel. If al-Qaeda and their associates are planting bombs all over Pakistan, then it follows that it is the Israelis who are instigating this.

So whats up?

The Israelis need a cooperative ally against Iran, if and when they attack Iran. Pakistan can serve as a useful launch pad, as can Iraq, the Gulf, Turkey and Azerbaijan, Central Asia and of course Afghanistan. Special forces from the West have already trained in the vicinity of Karachi, as a training exercise against Tehran, and terrorist groups have been allowed to operate out of Pakistan against Iran, namely Jundallah.

Then there is the nuclear question. What will be Pakistan's military reaction if the Israelis use mini nukes against Iran. Such an attack impacts on Pakistan directly whether one likes it or not----Iran is next to Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear bombs which are effective, as they were tested several years back. Pakistan has a very effective and advanced cruise missile. Pakistan is a Muslim country. Pakistan is a neighbor of Iran. Pakistan has certain religious/racial/cultural/historical bonds and linkages with Iran.

In a normal world, if the Israelis use such weapons against Iran pre-emptively, Pakistan should consider the use of such weapons against Israel. Russia for example has stated that an attack on Iran will be considered an attack on Russia, correctly as they wisely see an encirclement on their Southern border, and a potential occupied Iran which is linked to Iraq and Afghanistan.

An attack on Iran should be considered an attack on Pakistan logically.

The Jews are clearly concerned about a situation where Pakistan could form a military alliance with Iran, as a further logical development of the recent pipeline deal, and the reason why they sent one of their representatives to Pakistan in January. Senator Joseph Lieberman is a prominent ardent Zionist, and has very close links with senior Israelis. His ambition is to become Vice-President, with John McCain as President, and then there after launch an attack against Syria, followed by Iran.

The Jews want to fondle and massage the Pakistanis for now superficially, so that the Pakistanis do not consider coming to the aid of Iran militarily, at least not immediately. They want the Pakistanis to wait patiently in the queue, after they finish with Iran. At a minimum, when Israel attacks Iran, they want the military leadership of Pakistan to hesitate and be confused, before they take any decisive action.

But this will be the result in Pakistan, if and when Israel attacks the fourth Muslim country on the 'list'. There will be mass agitation, and the military operations of Iran will spill over into Pakistan. The military operations of the West will be conducted from Pakistani soil-----the situation will change, and the situation will be such that one questions to what extent the military in Pakistan will be able to control the 'street'. I am not arguing about the safety of the nukes here. I think the 50 odd bombs can be quite secure, and if Pakistan is not a safe bet than Saudi and China are secondary considerations for their safety. This is not the issue.

The Pakistani army is slowly disintegrating because of its actions against its own people in Baluchistan and the North West Frontier. It will have major problems sustaining these types of casualities in the near future. Then think ahead of the pressure that will exerted on the country, and the armed forces of Pakistan, if Iran is attacked by Israel. Being an ally of America these days is such a hard business.

We understand that an attack on Iran by Israel, with a rolling escalation of conflict, has severe consequences for Pakistan, and it becomes a moment of truth for the country. Thus it is not in Pakistan's interests to see Iran being attacked by Israel or anybody else, because it has a domino effect next door. This has nothing to do about admiring Iran and its people, but everything to do with national self interest. Iran is an important safety wall or line of defence, after which Pakistan will be attacked. Therefore it behoves the leadership of Pakistan to ensure that Israel does not entertain the idea of attacking Iran.

Thus the last thing Musharaf should be doing is giving guarantees to the Israelis that Pakistan's nukes, and cruise missiles won't be used against Israel.

I am not a great fan of the mullahs of Iran, as I have written ample amounts of articles criticising their rule, and what they have done to Iran. They were brought into power by the USA/UK/Brzezinski in 1979 to create an 'Arc of crisis' to challenge the Soviet Union. The mullahs of Iran are puppets of the West, placed their to weaken Iranian society, and they have exiled 4 million mainly skilled middle class Iranians into the arms of the West.

With Ahmedinejad, he has created huge problems for the Iranian economy, whilst promising the earth to the largely uneducated section of Iranian society, and the weasel faced idiot seeks nothing but trouble----but that is what you would expect a puppet of the West to do.

But this not about loving Iran and the mullahs. This is about avoiding conflict that will harm millions on all sides, and where it could spiral out of control, bringing in many players.

So again, in such a scenario Pakistan should not be patting Israel covertly on the back, and reassuring them that all is well, which gives the Israelis the green light to attack Iran.

After Iran it is Pakistan's turn----as Bush no less mentioned privately.

If the Maratha's, and the Nizam of Hydrabad, and the Sikhs, and Durrani Afghans knew what would be the end outcome for them, before they were finally attacked one by one, by the Raj, they would have united more comprehensively before even one Indian state was occupied by the British-------but hind sight is a wonderful thing isn't it ?

Instead of doing the acha saab routine and trying to sustain an untenable situation which is slowly slipping out of control, why not follow policies that bolster Pakistan:

• Try and achieve some kind of armistice with the frontiersmen, which was arranged before. Pakistani army men killing frontiersmen, and vice versa weakening all, so that the foreigners can invade a fragmented country couple of years later is patently stupid. There was no Taliban in the region until the Americans instigated it with Bhutto from 1994. Pakistan doesn't have to develop a guilt complex about confronting them for America, and weakening the Pakistani state in the process.
• 'The Islamic Republic of Pakistan' hosts foreign powers, and carries out exercises with them. How about undertaking exercises with the 'Islamic Republic of Iran' Pakistans permanent neighbor----or is this an alien and dangerous idea for the Paanjoob Raj Fauj.
• The Iranians can acquire cruise missiles from many sources, but non will be as good as the Pakistani ones. Why not offer Iran some of these without the warheads, as a symbolic gesture? In exchange get a couple of billion $ worth of oil and gas, as a barter agreement, and used as finance to subsidise wheat imports, and cheaper fuel. If these see action in an actual conflict, we'll know how good they are beyond the propaganda.