Tuesday, 18 August 2009

The Nexus Of Evil : Part Five (A Pre-emptive Strike On Humanity).

By Philip Jones 18th August 2009.


In Part Four, we discussed how at the three dimensional level, the primary coercive element at the very centre of the Luciferian Conspiracy is the Illegitimate Money Power, which draws its main strength from the practice of usury; and which could be defined as being a global `Usurocracy,` or a `Super-Capitalist - Communist -Zionist` Nexus.

Over the past one hundred years or so, the primary gravitational source of power, garnered from all other sources, has been the morally indefensible principle of usury, the most destructive single product of which, is the issue of money for all ordinary purposes as interest-bearing debt.

In the preceding parts, I introduced the reader to the Illuminati plan to sometime in the near future, and precisely in accordance with Albert Pike's agenda, to unleash a Third World War[14] upon the hapless population of Planet Earth, from which they conclude will emerge a New World Order. This projected confrontation is being presented as a so called `Clash of Civilizations,` between the purportedly Democratic West and a falsely depicted Islamic fundamentalist worldview.

Therefore, in order to negatively prejudice Western consciousness against Islam, the Illuminati, through its control of the international intelligence agencies, has artificially fomented militancy throughout the Islamic world, by the creation of terrorist groups together with the propagation of the illusion of Islam’s imagined competition with the (not so) `democratic west.`[15]

In his book, `Terrorism And The Illuminati,`[16] David Livingstone explains candidly and with authority, that Islam poses no threat to the west whatsoever, and how the Muslim world has been so weakened by its own internal corruption, along with the subversive activities of the Western powers that since the demise of the Ottoman Empire, the Ummah has been in complete disarray, incapable of uniting sufficiently to even represent Islam, let alone defend itself against a technologically and militarily superior West.

This fact was acknowledged by the primary architect of the fabricated threat;. Zbigniew Brzezinski As to whether or not Islam is a menace to the Western World today, he states:

“Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.”

In order to understand the forces now arrayed against the Islamic world, and how the continued survival of the Muslim people and their faith is of vital significance to those people in the West who still believe in God, righteousness and justice, and who intend to resist the imposition of a `New World Order,` we will now examine the root of the `Islamic question` and its connection to the `Nexus Of Evil, ` and thereby illustrate that the true Muslim is no enemy, but a brother worshipper of the one true God, and a brother with whom we have far more in common than most understand, and with whom we must develop that fellowship and common ground, for our very survival depends on it!

As I have maintained throughout this series, the age of conflict which has been a feature of recent history, is the product of a dark alliance of `magic,` money and intellect, with intellect almost invariably subordinate to, and in the service of money, and money likewise being in the service of magic; The infernal forces of magic (Illuminati) manipulating both money and intellect to it's will, with money being since the 20th century the primary overt source of it's visible power, and usury it's preferred `whip` of choice..

The Christian faith precludes the practice of usury, and yet throughout what was once termed Christendom, the corrupting principle of USURY - money traded as a commodity and lent at interest - has become the central component of the monetary system.

If one single all-embracing factor is to be sought for the utter dread of a resurgent Islam which now prevails in the highest centres of worldly power, it may be found in the Islamic moral delineation of economics; a system of ideas which challenges the entire foundation of the Illuminati `money power` in the West.

Islamic Economics:

Monetary reform campaigners in the West, especially in the United States, might be astonished by the quantity and quality of thinking which Muslim scholars have put into the subject of banking and of economics generally, all of it con-stellated by the Prophet Muhammad's (SAW) simple utterances. Here are some of the key elements of the Islamic economic philosophy:

Individual rights: These are a consequence of the fulfilment of duties and obligations, not antecedent to them. In other words, first comes the duty, then the right.

Property: Ownership is never absolute, conferring on us the right to do with our property wholly as we please. As the Sharia puts it, all property belongs to God; we are only its temporary incumbents and trustees; there are duties and responsibilities inseparably attached to the ownership of property.

Work and Wealth: Islam exalts work as an inseparable dimension of faith itself and reprehends idleness. We do not need work only in order to earn a livelihood; we need work to preserve our psychic health; we need to exercise creative skills and to spend energy in work.

Usury: The Quran utterly and forcefully prohibits the payment and receipt of interest, or `riba` as it is called. Interest on a loan is regarded as a creation of instantaneous property rights outside the legitimate framework of existing property rights.

The evil inherent in usury, however, is more recondite and elusive than that. The lending of money at interest can in many instances be advantageous to borrower as well as lender; fortunes have been made with borrowed money. It is only in the contest of a total way of life of a community that the evil nature of usury becomes more clearly visible to the moral imagination.

The principle of usury, once accepted, gives rise to the regular practice of it, requiring or making possible the emergence of a class of moneylender; human nature being as it is, and taking into account the circumstances in which money most often needs to be borrowed, the practice of usury is seen as conferring a compounding advantage on the moneylender class.

In 1979 the Mullahs in Iran (backed by MI6, CIA and funded by the `Money Power`) overthrew the Persian monarchy, one of the oldest in the world, while at the height of its power, replacing it with an Islamic Republic ostensibly dedicated to the implementation of the Sharia, a law of private and public conduct prescribed in the Quran.

Any understanding of the `Islamic Question,` as it relates to current events, is impossible without an appreciation of the dynamics, both conspiratorial and otherwise, which three decades since, propelled Iran and its people into the maelstrom of world events. So it is to that recent piece of human history, which our attention must now turn.

The Islamic Revolution:

An examination of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and its resulting geopolitical consequences can begin with three wide-ranging generalizations:

1. The Iranian Revolution showed that religion can still be a more potent mobilizer of mass political action than can secular ideologies;

2. The revolution challenged the cultural hegemony of Western ideas, not only as a religion but as an alternative social model and way of life;

3. The Iranian Revolution thus can be regarded as one of the most important events in modern history, comparable to the French Revolution in the 18th century and the Russian Revolution in the 20th century.

Following in the wake of the Revolution in Iran, the much publicised Salman Rushdie affair[17], and the propagated and highly spurious `spectre` of a supposed `terrorist` threat against the West, compounded and publicly legitimised throughout western consensus opinion, by the `false flag` on September 11th 2001, Iran and its far-flung adherents have remained persistently in the world's `spotlight.`

An exploration of the Islamic Revolution in Iran conveys two great truths with vast implications:

1. That religion can still be a more potent mobilizer of mass political action than can secular ideologies.

2. That the long-time hegemony of the Western social model had for the Iranian people abruptly.

The Conspiracy To Dethrone The Shah:

There are numerous reasons for believing that the emergence of a highly dynamic form of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran was a development of incalculable worldwide consequence. Since that fateful day of revolution back in 1979, the Islamic peoples have found themselves thrust into the very `storm-front` of world events; Ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the conflict in Palestine, continuing troubles in several former Soviet republics involving Islamic majorities or minorities, the intimidation by China of Muslims in Xinjiang province, the seemingly endless conflict over Kashmir, and the tragic events of 9/11, have served to ensure that the much vaunted `Clash Of Civilisations,` remains, much as the `Cold War` once had, an ever present `threat,` in the minds of the western public's manipulated sense of reality.

In the West, the `Establishment` and media's portrayal of Iran's Islamic Revolution is that Khomeini's revolt was spontaneous and populist, and that it overthrew a repressive dictatorship that was hated by the people and supported wholeheartedly by the United States. It is true that the Shah's government was not a democracy and that his secret service, trained by the CIA, was one of the most effective and often brutal intelligence organizations in the world. But what is not reported is that prior to the British-sponsored massive public relations campaign on behalf of the Ayatollah, the government of the Shah was in general, supported by the vast majority of the population.

By 1973, Iran's economy had grown at a rate of 7-8% each year from 1965-1973 and was fast becoming an example for the developing nations of the world to follow. As far as the Illuminati was concerned this could not be allowed to continue. Illuminist goals were focused on world de-population and de-industrialization, as formulated by policy makers like Lord Bertrand Russell and as advocated by Illuminist lackeys such as Kissinger, Zibigniew Brzezinski and Robert McNamara (the then head of the World Bank), as well as by the British elites who controlled the World Wildlife Fund and other environmental front groups. Iran had to be brought down!

In 1977, the Club of Rome,[18] together with the Muslim Brotherhood,[19] created an organization to pursue to the graduated deconstruction of Iran’s industry. Labelled `Islam and the West,` and Head-quartered in Geneva, it quickly came under the influence of former Syrian Prime Minister, and Muslim Brotherhood leader, Marouf Dawalibi, along with two non-Muslim luminaries, Aurelio Peccei, and another original endorser of Planetary Citizens, Lord Caradon, Britain’s Jerusalem `expert` and former British ambassador to the U.S.

Among the sponsors and funders of `Islam and the West` were the prestigious International Federation of Institutions of Advanced Studies, Bilderbergers,[22] Aurelio Peccei, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, and Robert O. Anderson. The `Think Tank,` held its first planning sessions at Cambridge University in England.

Supported by the International Federation of Institutes of Advanced Study, and headed by Alexander King, `Islam and the West` assembled a policy outline in 1979, on science and technology for the subversion of Islam. Alexander King was also a Club of Rome member, and a founder of NATO. According to researcher Dr. John Coleman, when it was decided that a super-body would control European affairs, the Royal Institute for International Affairs [20]founded the Tavistock Institute,[21] which in turn created NATO.

`Islam and the West,` declared: “We have to return to a more spiritual conception of life... The first lesson of Islamic science is its insistence on the notion of a balanced equilibrium which would not destroy the ecological order of the environment, on which collective survival finally depends.” This argument was used to denigrate `Western` science and technological progress in Europe and North America.

When the Shah had introduced his plan for modernization, it was the Ayatollah Khomeini backed by the covert machinations of the Club of Rome, who emerged as the leader of the `religious opposition.` Prior to his exile from Iran in 1964, Khomeini had been based at the religious city of Qom, where, according to Radio Free Iran, as reported by Dr. Coleman, a former British Intelligence agent, he received a monthly stipend from the British, with whom he was in constant contact with.

Seen as a major threat to the Shah's authority, Khomeini was deported to Iraq, where he lived until his arrest and subsequent deportation by the Iraqi government in 1978. French President D’Estang was then pressured to offer Khomeini refuge in France. Khomeini’s stay in France was financed by Francois Genoud. As Coleman writes: “Once Khomeini was installed at the Chateau Neauphle, he began to receive a constant stream of visitors, many of them from the BBC, the CIA and British intelligence.”

The attack on the Shah's government came through the Muslim Brotherhood and the Mullahs and Ayatollahs of Iran, supported and manipulated as ever by British Intelligence. Dr. John Coleman, a former British Intelligence agent and author of a number of books and monographs detailing the Establishment's plan for a socialist world government, states in his report on Iran's Islamic Revolution that the Muslim Brotherhood was created by "the great names of British Middle East intelligence, T.E. Lawrence, E.G. Browne, Arnold Toynbee. St. John Philby and Bertrand Russell," and that their mission was to "keep the Middle East backward so that its natural resource, oil, could continue to be looted..."

Dr. Coleman writes that in 1980 the broadcasts of Radio Free Iran divided the enemies of the Shah into four categories:

1. Iranian politicians bought by the Israeli Shin Bet,

2. The CIA's network of agents,

3. The feudal landowners,

4. The Freemasons and the Muslim Brotherhood (viewed as the same enemy).

The BBC Persian Service came to be nicknamed in Iran the "Ayatollah BBC" for its non-stop coverage of everything that Khomeini wanted to say. Soon a large segment of the Iranian public, most of them impressionable young students, became convinced that the Shah truly was evil and that a return to pure Shi'ite Islam under the Ayatollah's leadership was the only way to save their country. The Carter Administration, manipulated by British lackey Zbigniew Brzezinski, then collaborated with the British to topple the Shah and install Khomeini.

Dr. Coleman writes: “It was the BBC, which prepared and distributed to the mullahs in Iran all of the cassette tapes of Khomeini’s speeches, which inflamed the peasants. Then, the BBC began to beam accounts of torture by the Shah’s SAVAK to all corners of the world. In September and October 1978, the BBC began to beam Khomeini’s revolutionary ravings directly to Iran in Farsi. The Washington Post said, “the BBC is Iran’s public enemy number one.”

In 1980, in accordance with the Nihilist philosophy he was serving, Khomeini proclaimed to the people of Iran,
“destroy, destroy, destroy. There cannot be enough destruction.”

Dr. Coleman relates that Carter appointed Trilateralist George Ball to head a commission on U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf. Ball's recommendation was that the U.S. should withdraw its support for the Shah's regime. Dr. Coleman quotes from the Shah's own memoirs to confirm the American stance, the reality that is contrary to the mass media-marketed `Establishment` line that the U.S. supported the Shah to the end:

"I did not know it then, perhaps I did not want to know - but it is clear to me now, the Americans wanted me out. What was I to make of the sudden appointment of Ball to the White House as an advisor to Iran? I knew that Ball was no friend of Iran. I understood that Ball was working on a special report on Iran. But no one ever informed me what areas the report was to cover, let alone its conclusions. I read them months later when I was in exile, and my worst fears were confirmed. Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me, and ultimately my country."

After the Shah stepped down in 1979 and fled the country his `firm ally, the United States, even refused to allow him asylum forcing him to move with his family to Egypt. During the subsequent takeover of the American embassy when supporters of the Ayatollah kept Americans hostage for 444 days it became crystal clear to the entire world that the anti-democratic, anti-Israel Islamic movement was also very anti-West. Nonetheless the `Anglo-American Establishment`continued to support and promote `radical` Islam.

In 1977 Bhutto of Pakistan, was removed; in 1979 the Shah of Iran was removed; in 1981 Sadat was assassinated, and in 1982 the Muslim Brotherhood revolted in Syria. Before 1977 the Middle East had been on the verge of achieving stability and industrial and economic parity with the West through nationalist policies and high oil prices, but by the early '80s the region was in flames. Egypt was reeling and Mubarak was consolidating a shaky hold on power. Iran and Iraq, both armed by the West, were beginning their long war. Israel and Syria were invading Lebanon that was fighting a civil war, and Russia was invading Afghanistan whose rebels were being supported by Pakistan. The de-population and de-industrialization scheme advocated by the British and adopted by the Americans was off to a great start.

The events which occurred in Iran back in 1979, and the subsequent repercussions worldwide have their roots, not in the religion of Islam, but in the Luciferian Illuminati age old conspiracy to control all the world and all its peoples. Unless we know what happened in the past we cannot begin to understand what is happening now; for it is only what happened in the past that gives meaning to much of what is happening now. And if we don't know what happened in the past and is happening now, we have no way of helping to determine what will happen in the future, for ourselves as individuals and for our community. With this in mind, it is expedient at this juncture to travel back in time and attempt to dissect the root causes of the so called `Islamic Question.`

Through The Past Darkly : Imperialism and Colonialism.

In Iran, perhaps more clearly than elsewhere, it has been possible for the observer to isolate and study separately the major influences which have been at work in dramatically awakening a near eastern religion which was long considered, much like Christianity in the West, to be in slow and even terminal decay. In particular, we can see, how by a incremental process, a purely religious set of ideas and values was able to inspire sufficient popular support to topple a powerful regime, backed by a great army and with virtually unlimited foreign support. Three primary factors need to be explored:

1. Islam in general as a faith;

2. Hostile influences which in Iran threatened the survival of Islam;

3. The hardened form of the Shi'ite sect of Islam with which the challenge was met.

Over the past 180 years, there can be no argument that foreign powers have heavily influenced Iran's international affairs to suit their own economic and strategic interests, with little or no regard for the opinions and interests of the Iranian people. Prior to 1945, the two predominant foreign powers in Iran were Russia and Britain. Russia was interested in territorial expansion, Britain in cornering the Iranian market for British trade, in securing the continental land bridge to India and later, of course, in controlling Iran's oil resources. The Iranians continued throughout this period to demonstrate their hostility to foreign intrusion, with the clergy (ulama) invariably playing a leading role.

From 1952 onwards, the Rothschild British were at least ostensibly replaced by the Rockefeller Americans, working in close alliance with the Rothschild Israelis, drawing the Shah and the masses mobilized by the ulama, inexorably into the final bitter and violent struggle planned for them. This culminated in the 1979 overthrow of Shah Mohammad Reza, last of the Pahlavi dynasty which had been installed by the British shortly after the end of World War I.

Since what looked like a combination of Rockefeller America and Rothschild Israel was actually something very much bigger, far more sinister and a great deal more complex, it is the motives and actions of the intrusive foreign powers that we need to examine before we can hope to understand what happened in Iran. Indeed, we find that what these powers had been doing in Iran was only another example of what they and other `European` (read Illuminati) interests had been doing during the same period in many other parts of the world, all manifestations of the phenomena known as imperialism and colonialism.

The subject was explored at depth and most comprehensively at the turn of the century by a prominent British journalist and author, J.A. Hobson, whose book `Imperialism: A Study,` deserves our attention. A book that was intended to set the `alarm bells` ringing for the British people, was used to good account by Lenin in 1916, when he was preparing his own thesis on capitalism: "I made use of the principal English work on imperialism, J.A. Hobson's book, with all the care that, in my opinion, this work deserves." [5]

The social pathology about which Hobson writes, is the debasement of politics, especially the politics of nationalism, by what he calls `Special interests,` financial in character, which promote policies inconsistent with the interests of the community. In other words, the peoples of the colonizing and imperialist countries of Europe were the victims rather than the beneficiaries of aggressively acquisitive policies conducted all over the world in their name.

For a definition of nation, Hobson quotes the philosopher John Stuart Mill:

"A portion of mankind may be said to constitute a nation if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and others. This feeling of nationality may have been generated by various courses. Sometimes it is the effect of identity of race and descent. Community of language and community of religion greatly contribute to it. Geographic limits are one of the causes. But the strongest of all is identity of political antecedents, the possession of a national history and consequent community of recollections, collective pride and humiliation, pleasure and regret, connected with the same incidents in the past."[7]

It is a debasement of this genuine nationalism, by attempts to overflow its natural banks and absorb the near or distant territory of reluctant and unassimilable people, wrote Hobson, “that marks the passage from nationalism to a spurious colonialism on the one hand and imperialism on the other.”

Conspiracies of `the few` seeking their own advantage at the expense of the people as a whole have unfortunately, ever been endemic in human society; but the usurpations of `the few` in the last century, which drew many of the nations of Europe into an irrational rivalry for conquest and plunder in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, were very different in character and purpose. Sectional interests in society; namely, big business and high finance, like a cancer in the human body, prospered while society as a whole suffered. In other words, the driving force of the new imperialism was primarily financial and broadly economic.

What happened to any country which contracted a debt and was unable to guarantee payment of the interest was demonstrated again and again in many parts of the so-called undeveloped world - for what other reason did France invade and attempt to conquer Mexico? More frequently the insufficient guarantee of an international loan gave rise to some other form of interference in the internal affairs of the debtor nation. We see an example of this in Egypt, which became for all practical purposes a province of Britain and where a bloody suppression of popular revolt had the support of enormous British national fervour.

Tunisia likewise became a `dependency` of France for no other reason than the securing of loans granted to that country. Perhaps it was China which suffered most as a result of the imperialist nations establishing footholds there, complete with arrogantly assumed extra-territorial rights which they were ready at all times to defend with armed might.

The question of how the people of Europe, especially their educated classes, including even their churchmen, could have allowed this to happen, demands a satisfactory answer? How did this imperialism escape general recognition for the predatory, evil and sordid thing it was? Each of the `predator` nations would rise quick enough to accuse its rivals of hypocrisy in masking greedy, aggressive and destructive behaviour with pretensions of altruism, but all were permitted by these educated classes to be equally guilty.

The Church:

There had long existed in all the countries of Europe a proportion of people with a genuine missionary zeal to spread Christianity among the `heathen` and to diminish the cruelty and suffering thought to prevail among them. It was hardly surprising, therefore, that the greedy and aggressive forces that directed imperialism would make good use of such disinterested movements, some of which had worked abroad -the Catholics in China and Ethiopia, for example-long before the birth of imperialism.

Leopold, King of the Belgians, when taking possession of the Congo with all its natural resources, was able to proclaim: "Our only program is that of the moral and material regeneration of the country."

Since most of the educated classes in Europe who allied themselves with imperialism were nominally Christian, and since the church itself was an imperial component of the alliance, there can be no disguising the fact that imperialism, which helped to precipitate an age of conflict unprecedented in recorded history, was as much nominally Christian in character as it was financial. The use of the word Christian in this context, however, must be qualified with the reminder that the missionary impulse was animated by the dynamic of an essentially power-oriented church, an institution with a strong appetite for expansion and growth, both in terms of adherents and of material advantage.

The dual character of the church nowhere was more clearly epitomized than in Winston Churchill's account of the religious service at Khartoum immediately after the defeat of the Mahdi's forces, which had sought to overthrow British hegemony in Sudan:

"... And the solemn words of the English Prayer Book were read in that distant garden... the bands played their dirge and Gordon's favorite hymn "Abide with Me" ... A gunboat on the river crashed out a salute ... Nine thousand who would have prevented it lay dead on the plain of Omdurman ... Other thousands were scattered in the wilderness, or crawled to the river for water."[11]

Churchill omitted the final touch: the deliberate shooting of the wounded crawlers.

The incongruity of so vast an exercise of cunning and force in the service of a cause "whose kingdom is not of this world" requires little emphasis. However, the hostile logic of a century and a half of imperialism is self-evident: those who offered any obstruction to what in the West was generally regarded as progress were held to "fully deserve" the punishment they got, however severe.

Since it is supposedly one of the primary intentions of religion to help people distinguish between right and wrong, or good and evil; since a century and a half of aggressive imperialism would have been impossible without the compliance and complicity of the Christian churches; since it has always been one of the functions of the intelligence, informed by religious insights, to restrain and regulate the appetite for acquisition and power -- it would seem that there was something radically faulty about Christianity as preached and practised during those decades of rampaging rival national imperialisms.

The Mullahs:

Iran and its people experienced foreign intrusion, intervention and interference during the century and a half before the revolution, as a continuous unfolding process. But, for the purpose of our own analysis, this needs to be considered as comprising two ostensibly separate, but interconnecting phases representing the periods prior to, and following World War II. On the former side of this divide, we find separate national imperialisms, mainly British and Russian, and on the latter a consolidated global imperialism wearing the outward appearance of an alliance of America and Israel, but which was in actuality a continuation and consolidation of the Rothschild's Rockefeller Illuminist Imperium.

During both periods; the pattern of ever increasing conflict between the foreign interest and Iran's religious class as a mobilizer of mass political action-was set quite clearly in 1892. This was a confrontation triggered by the action of the Shah in selling to a British company a monopoly for the cultivation and marketing of tobacco. The leading mullah of the day, Mirza Hassan Shirazi, promptly issued an order prohibiting the use of tobacco. Not only was this order instantly obeyed, but angry demonstrations occurred throughout the country. Intimidated by this show of strength, the Shah backed down, cancelled the contract and paid compensation to the British company.

The signal was loud and clear; there could be no security for the foreign interests and no `progress,` unless the power of the religious class could be broken. It was, therefore, with the approval of the British and the Russians that in 1905, the Shah yielded to revolutionary demands for representative government of the kind which had recently been introduced in Russia, with the hope no doubt, that party politics could be used to undermine the power of the Mullahs. A parliament (Majlis) was set up, and in 1906 Shah Musal Firudin became, nominally at least, a constitutional monarch. However, he died the same year.

The Mullahs who had given their support to the demands for constitutional reform were not deceived by the rubber- stamp Majlis that emerged, and the agitation continued, involving both religious and secular elements. At the height of this trouble, the British and Russians, without consulting the Persian government, announced that they had divided the country into two spheres of influence so as to counter any possible German threat to their interests. The Russians helped the new Shah, Mohammad Ali, to suppress the revolution, occupying Tabriz in the process.

A number of Mullahs were hanged and the shrine of Imam Reza at Mashad, one of Iran's most famous places of pilgrimage, was shelled. Mohammad Ali was then deposed by the Majlis and replaced by a regency which continued until Ali's son Sultan Achmad reached the age of 18 and was crowned in 1914-marking the commencement of a period of almost total national disintegration, as the whole country became a stamping-ground for foreign powers.

The New Dynasty:

Ignoring the young Shah's declaration of neutrality at the outbreak of the 1914-18 war, British, Russian and Turkish forces invaded the country, but the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 eliminated the main patron of the Qajar dynasty. By 1919 Persia had no effective central government and separatist movements were in power in the provinces of Khuzistan, Gilan and Khorasan.

The only coherent force remaining in the country was a Persian Cossack division, which, after fighting against the Bolsheviks, had retreated through the British lines. Its leader, Brigadier Reza Khan, restored some semblance of order in Tehran and became the strongman in national politics. After the Persian government signed a treaty with the Soviet government, restoring relations with Russia, Reza Khan was encouraged by the British to stage a putsch. Shah Sultan Achmad was deposed and by 1925 the Cossack officer had been raised to the throne as Shahanshah (king of kings), assuming the dynastic name Pahlavi.

Unlike many of his predecessors, it was not in the nature of Shah Reza Khan, to be a mere `creature,` of the Imperialist foreign powers. On the contrary, he saw himself as being the saviour of his country and the defender of its national independence, and cultivated the fiction that he was an actual descendant of Iran's ancient kings. With Kemal Ataturk, Turkey's great modernizer, as his model, he was convinced that the religious classes were the only real obstacle to progress; and he proceeded with the ruthlessness of a Cossack soldier to try to destroy their power. It was, therefore, mainly for the purpose of strengthening his own position against the Mullahs that he sought and used the support of the foreign powers, playing one off against the other wherever possible.

The resulting effect was a complete transformation of the traditional monarchy, into a modern dictatorship armed with all the expertise and appurtenances of modern totalitarianism, including a ubiquitous secret police:

"In so far as the word "Modernization" has had any meaning in the Iranian context, what was modernized by the Pahlavi dynasty was the apparatus of repression . .. Among the few individuals to resist the imposition of the Pahlavi dictatorship in an open fashion was again one of the ulama, Sayyid Hasan Mudharris. He spoke up in the Majlis ... went into exile and was murdered in exile by agents of Reza Khan."[13]Professor Hamid Algar.

At the beginning of the 1930s, seeking to protect Iran from both the British and the Soviet Union, the Shah entered into an alliance with Germany; and by the commencement of hostilities in 1939, many thousands of Germans were working in Iran, with hundreds of Iranians studying in German universities and technical colleges. This brief alliance was to prove to be the Shah's undoing. In 1941, as the German forces were advancing deep into Russia, the British and their Soviet allies demanded he expel all the Germans and to permit the transit of supplies and reinforcements to the Russian front. When he refused to comply, the Allied forces invaded Iran and the Shah's 120,000-strong army vanished like "snow in summer."

The British, conducting a surprise attack on the Iranian navy at Khorramshahr, destroyed all the the Iranian ships, killing many of those on board. Iran was subsequently divided into two spheres of military occupation and the British, having appointed Reza Khan as Shah, now sent him into exile in South Africa, where he died three years later.

However, any expectations which the British and the Soviets may have had about their future role in Iran were to be disappointed, for in power-political terms World War II was to inaugurate an entirely new game in which the aims and ambitions of separate nations, like Britain and the Soviet Union, were to be of diminishing consequence. Unnoticed, except by a few percipient observers, following the cessation of hostilities, a new global imperium had risen, like a `phoenix ` from the ashes, geographically centred in the United States, but not specifically American. The various nations would maintain their embassies and continue to be involved in many ways, but their actual power to influence events in Iran and elsewhere would henceforth be purely marginal.

Quietly, and under pressure from Washington, London and Moscow signed a treaty with Iran under which all their forces would be withdrawn within six months of the war ending. In 1943 the United States set up its Persian Gulf Command and the American presence became increasingly conspicuous. The British and Soviets duly withdrew their forces in 1946, the nascent republics in the north were crushed, and the Tudeh Party was pushed into the background of public affairs. Developments continued according to program, but it was a program that remained for most people a great mystery.

To be continued in Part Six.

Comments To :

Reference Notes:

Article on Iran in Comment, published by the Catholic Institute for International Relations, London, May 1980.
Algar, Hamid The Roots of the Islamic Revolution (The Open Press, London, 1983), p. 9.
Lectures at the Muslim Institute, London, 1980, Siddiqui's Preface.
Taheri, Amir Nest of Spies: America's Journey to Disaster in Iran (Hutchinson, 1988).
Lenin quoted by Paul Johnson in A History of the Jews (Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1987).
Hobson, J.A. Imperialism: A Study (Geo. Allen and Unwin), Rev. Ed., 1938, p. vi.
Hobson, op. cit., p. 5.
Hobson, op. cit., pp. 46-7.
Hobson, op. cit., pp. 53-4.
Hobson, op. cit., p. 197.
Hobson, op. cit., p. 205.
Hobson, op. cit., p. 204.
Algar, op. cit., p. 20.


  1. Dear Philip,

    This is perfectly presented. It's accuracy and comprehensive detail leave no room for doubt that the Illuminati are hell-bent on destroying, not only religion, but all peoples' faith in the one true God.

    The Islamic question, as presented by the Illuminati controlled media, continues to present Islam as the enemy, and the hypnotized zombie public suck up this dangerous conjecture as the "God given" truth.

    The term "jihad" has been transformed by the Western media to hyno trigger alarm and fear in the public's mind that imminent war is coming to their doorstep if they do not convert to Islam.

    Many accounts in the media define "jihad" as a synonym for "holy war," -- a vicious clash between followers of different religions, each of whom believes that God is on their side and that the other side is is of Satan. This usage often appears on Western TV, radio, and other media during news about the Middle East, where it is used to describe a call for Muslims to fight against non-Muslims in the defense of Islam. Some Muslims have begun to adopt this meaning of "jihad" as a result of Western influence.

    Others use the term as a synonym for a struggle of any type. This reflects the origin of the word from the Arabic verb "jahada" which means to struggle or fight.

  2. The conventional interpretation of "Jihad":
    According to Beliefnet, 2 Al-Hajj Talib 'Abdur-Rashid, imam of the Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood in Harlem, NY, defines three levels of jihad -- personal, verbal and physical. Considering each in turn:
    Personal Jihad: This is the most important form. This type of jihad, called the Jihadun-Nafs, is the intimate struggle to purify one's soul of evil influences -- both subtle and overt. It is the struggle to cleanse one's spirit of sin. In a brochure, the Institute of Islamic Information & Education describes several different contexts in which The Qur'an (the Islamic Holy Book) and the Hadith (the collected sayings of Muhammad) use the word "jihad" to refer to personal struggles: Putting "Allah ahead of our loved ones, our wealth, our worldly ambitions and our own lives."
    Resisting pressure of parents, peers and society; strive against "the rejecters of faith..." (Quran 25:52)
    "...strive and struggle to live as true Muslims..."
    "Striving for righteous deeds."
    Spreading the message of Islam. "The (true) believers are only those who believe in Allah and his messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their selves for the cause of Allah. Such are the truthful." (Quran, 49:15)

    Verbal Jihad: To strive for justice through words and non-violent actions. Muhammad encouraged Muslims to demand justice in the name of Allah. When asked: "'What kind of jihad is better?' Muhammad replied, 'A word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler!'" 3 According to the Institute of Islamic Information and Education: "The life of the Prophet Muhammad was full of striving to gain the freedom to inform and convey the message of Islam. During his stay in Makkah [Mecca] he used non-violent methods and after the establishment of his government in Madinah [Medina], by the permission of Allah, he used armed struggle against his enemies whenever he found it inevitable." 1
    Physical Jihad: This relates to the use of physical force in defense of Muslims against oppression and transgression by the enemies of Allah, Islam and Muslims. Allah commands that Muslims lead peaceful lives and not transgress against anyone. If they are persecuted and oppressed, the Qur'an recommends that they migrate to a more peaceful and tolerant land: "Lo! Those who believe, and those who emigrate (to escape persecution) and strive (Jahadu) in the way of Allah, these have hope of Allah's mercy..." (Quran, 2:218). If relocation is not possible, then Allah also requires Muslims to defend themselves against oppression by "fighting against those who fight against us." 2 The Qur'an states: "To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to defend themselves], because they are wronged - and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory." (22:39) The defensive nature of physical jihad (or "jihad with the hand") is frequently lost among many, Muslims, Christians, secularists and others.

  3. In her book "Muhammed," author Karen Armstrong writes: "Fighting and warfare might sometimes be necessary, but it was only a minor part of the whole jihad or struggle. A well-known tradition (hadith) has Muhammad say on returning from a battle, ' We return from the little jihad to the greater jihad,' the more difficult and crucial effort to conquer the forces of evil in oneself and and in one's own society in all the details of daily life."
    Taken from religioustolerance.org.

    The refusal of people to study for themselves the true meanings of the Christian and Islamic religions guarantees endless intolerance and prejudice against the true Word of God as presented by His Prophets, Jesus and Muhammad.

    In looking into one's soul, if one cannot see the reflection of God, than all that is left is the smoldering, smokey image of Satan. And that is what the Illuminati are counting on.

    You are truly one of the messengers of the truth that we so badly need now, Philip. I and others will continue to count on your clarity and bravery in this battle we all face.

  4. Read part five. Wow, what research you do. I haven't the kind of mind that can manage or retain all the details and history, but someone has to, so thank you. I do get to the essence, though. I just sent this from part 3 to a friend:

    "In the wake of the 'False Flag' attack on the Twin Towers almost eight years ago, the world has changed so as to be barely recognizable to this writer. The 'War On Terror,' a war without end, we are told, is the likely precursor to a global conflagration of catastrophic proportions, and all gun sights appear to be now aimed at Islam. ... ...the true Muslim is no enemy, but a brother worshipper of the one true God, and a brother with whom we must develop fellowship and common ground, for our very survival depends on it!"
    -- Philip Jones

    Good wisdom, Philip. Feels like a way out.

  5. Dear Philip,

    I wanted to say that your part 5 nexus of evil is very interesting.. Now I was thinking about what you wrote and trying to link this with our italian ENRICO MATTEI who was the poreseident of the italian governmebt owned energy company ENI. We have always been told that it was thanks to enrico mattei who was able to make accords with the shah of iran and therefore was able to make our small Italy become an economic power and grow and prosper. Now we all know how enrico matei ended up some years later allegedly assassinated by the alphabet agencies so they say when his plane fell out of the sky.

    So what do we have to say about our Aldo Moro?? his fate was as bad as enrico mattei.. now thanks to what i have read it seems that someone did not like the "GROWTH" politics planned by moro. So this means that someone did not like moros's policies which would also pioint to italy being a true economic power.. now in the end it seems that bot MAttei and Moro were assassinated simply because they wanted the good of italy.. but then again how much good can these people really have ever wanted for us?? the question remains as to what Aurelio Peccei played in these assassinations as well as kissinger..???