Aryan Skynet

Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch

Twilight of the Ayatollahs?

Iran1

One of the developing stories setting the tone for 2018 is the outbreak late in December of unrest in Iran that mainstream news outlets CNN and Fox have attributed to economic discontent and disillusionment with Iranian expenditure on foreign involvements. “The people of Iran are crying out for freedom,” UN Ambassador Nikki Haley has declared, making clear the Trump administration’s support for the protesters. Opinion in the alternative media has been wildly divergent. A tearful and self-professedly “passionate” Stefan Molyneux, who acknowledges personal bias, has characterized the protests by those “choking on theocratic dictatorship” and thirsting for “liberty” as being “heroic beyond words”.

Iran2

Israelis? Soros? Rothschilds? Homos? The theories vary …

America First’s Nick Fuentes, situating Iranian developments within the broader Middle East context, is skeptical of the claims that these are spontaneous demonstrations and indicates what he sees as a lack of any logical catalyst for nationwide unrest. Anatoly Karlin, citing economic growth following the implementation of the Obama administration’s Iran deal, finds reason to question the putative economic motivation for the demonstrations, while Moon of Alabama suggests that the protests are organic and popular manifestations that have, however, been “hijacked by small groups which chanted slogans against the Iranian system and against the strong Iranian engagement in Syria and Palestine”, these small groups being “heavily promoted by the usual suspects of U.S. influence operations.” Israel and the neocons, naturally, feature prominently on the list of likely suspects for many in the alternative media, particularly given their history of agitation against Iran.

Mossadegh

Mohammad Mossadegh

“Since the brutally crushed uprising of 2009, almost all Iranians have rejected the Islamic Republic,” claims Jason Reza Jorjani. “Many of them, especially the youth, are convinced that Islam itself is the problem.” Whatever the outcome of the present protests – and a change of government in Iran is, it ought to be noted, far from an inevitability or even a probability at this stage – today’s events invite reflection on the meaning and history of the upheaval that installed the Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors. Were the events of 1979 any more organic than those of 2018? Because many well-informed Americans are aware of the CIA coup, “Operation Ajax”, that overthrew the government of Mohammad Mossadegh, there may be a temptation to assume that the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran resulted from an organically popular backlash against a western puppet. A more penetrating look at the Ayatollah Khomeini’s beginnings as a rabble-rousing cleric under the Israel-friendly Shah, however, reveal an altogether different picture. Robert Dreyfuss, writing in the Executive Intelligence Review of July 10-16, 1979, offered these very interesting puzzle pieces:

Although the actual operation to install the Shah was a highly professional, almost surgical military deployment, the credibility for the operation was provided by a synthetic demonstration in the streets by pro-Shah forces. The chief organizers of those demonstrations, small in size but given wide publicity in the media abroad, were the Shiite followers of Ayatollah Kashani and his aide, a mullah named Shams Qanad-Abadi: By paying their sheep-like followers, Ayatollah Kashani and Co. “got out the troops”. At least part of the money to sponsor the phony demonstrations was conduited through the CIA’s Kermit Roosevelt.

Kermit Roosevelt

Kermit Roosevelt

Lost among the perhaps 5,000 noisy agents in the streets who were demanding the downfall of Mossadegh was an unknown mullah named Khomeini. […]

In 1953, just before the fall of Mossadegh, Kashani had been operating primarily through Iran’s organized crime underworld. The Iranian mafia is called chaqoukesh, which means “knife slayers” in Persian, derived from their trademark of stabbing people to death with concealed daggers. The hunting ground of the Iranian mafia is the bazaar, especially the critical fruit and vegetable markets. They control prostitution, gambling, and especially narcotics. Two lieutenants of Ayatollah Kashani, the kingpin of the mafia at that time, provided the demonstrators against Mossadegh in 1953 on Roosevelt’s command. […]

After the 1953 putsch, General Zahedi and General Bakhtiar emerged as the enforcers of the CIA regime. General Bakhtiar was the administrator in Teheran of the martial law apparatus; in 1954, that apparatus was institutionalized in the creation of Savak, whose first director was the sadistic General Bakhtiar. From the start, the Savak – which immediately received training and other support from the Mossad, especially the Mossad’s torture specialists-put on its payroll the mafia-controlled network of phony mullahs and ayatollahs, who received salaries ranging from $100 to $1000 or more per month. One of them was Ruhollah “Khomeini”, who, sources say, was paid $300 per month as a Savak agent! At the time, he held a minor teaching post in Qom, Iran.

Khomeini

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

In 1955, there were 11 Mossad and Shin Beth agents to organize the Savak. By 1976, over 500 Israeli intelligence personnel were in Teheran, controlling virtually every branch of the Savak apparatus! “There were only two kinds of mullahs in Iran in the 1950s,” said an informed source. “Those that were pro-Savak, and those that were in jail.” Khomeini was not one of those in jail.

Bakhtiar

General Teymur Bakhtiar

When John F. Kennedy’s […] administration took power in 1961, trouble began in Iran. Kennedy imposed on the Shah, using the Savak apparatus and U.S. leverage, a prime minister who started agitating for reforms. In 1962, the Shah visited Washington for a talk with Kennedy to propose a deal: if Kennedy would allow the Shah to oust Prime Minister Amini, then the Shah himself would implement the resolutions demanded by Washington. Kennedy accepted the deal – and then the Shah, back in Iran, reneged.

So, later that year, Kennedy called General Bakhtiar to the United States. Ostensibly, Savak’s Bakhtiar was here for reasons of “medical treatment”, but he secretly held a meeting with JFK in the White House – to plot against the Shah.

However, the Shah discovered the plot, fired Bakhtiar, and purged the entire Savak apparatus. The new Savak chief was a moderate, who attempted to control the state-within-a-state that was Savak. Meanwhile, Bakhtiar fled the country, first to Geneva, Switzerland, and then to Baghdad, Iraq. From a secret headquarters in Iraq, General Bakhtiar began inciting riots against the Shah. The chief agent for Bakhtiar was none other than “Ayatollah” Khomeini, who had risen fast in the […] ranks of Savak. After reactionary riots in which perhaps 5,000 people died, Khomeini was summarily expelled from the country, first residing in Izmir, Turkey, and then traveling to Iraq to be at Bakhtiar’s side. Bakhtiar was assassinated a few years later, probably by an agent of the Shah, and Khomeini was left alone in Iraq, a lonely mullah. There he stayed for 15 years waiting.

Shah

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran

Dreyfuss’s account was to some extent corroborated by the later claims of dissident Fara Mansoor, who met Khomeini in the early 1960s, when the mullah delivered a haranguing speech in which he characterized the Shah as “an Israeli”. This, according to Mansoor, was preparation for a June 1963 coup attempt organized by General Valliolah Qarani in collaboration with Khomeini, and which “reportedly had the blessing of President John F. Kennedy”. A recently declassified CIA document confirms contact between Khomeini and the Kennedy administration, the BBC reported last year. Dreyfuss continues:

Gaddafi

Muammar Qaddafi

With the inauguration of the Carter administration in 1977, trouble started in Iran again. When Zbigniew Brzezinski began his hypocritical “human rights” drive, the Shah was among the first targets. Overnight, a half dozen human-rights organizations sprouted in Iran, all backed by Britain, Israel, or the U.S.

Khomeini got his start in the following way. Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, always a sucker for an idiotic scheme, passed a check for $164,000 to Said Ghotbzadeh, a Muslim Brotherhood fanatic who was working closely with Khomeini in Paris. This was 1977. The money allowed Khomeini to begin his propaganda drive, producing the rabble-rousing cassette tapes that would make him famous in Iran.

Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveida of Iran – an advocate of industrial growth and nuclear energy for Iran – was watergated, and replaced by reactionary Prime Minister Amouzegar, who reversed Iran’s growth policy. Some sources believe that Amouzegar actively collaborated with Khomeini to destabilize the country.

The rest is history.

Mansoor

Fara Mansoor

It is, however, history that has not been properly understood, if Fara Mansoor is to be believed. Skynet readers will probably be familiar with the story of the “October Surprise” of 1980, in which the Reagan camp is supposed to have gone behind the Carter administration’s back to negotiate the release of the Islamic Republic’s fifty-two hostages on the condition that they would be freed only after Reagan had been sworn into office. If Khomeini, as Dreyfuss suggested, had long been a CIA asset, then the Ayatollah’s alleged collaboration with CIA Director Bush in 1980 begins to make much more sense. Free America’s Harry V. Martin, who interviewed Mansoor in 1995, claims that, in actuality, what was arranged between the Reagan-Bush team and the mullahs was “a much more sinister plot, the plot to take the hostages in the first place”:

 

Bush

George H.W. Bush

“For 15 years the truth about the nature and origins of the Iranian hostage crisis has been buried in a mountain of misinformation,” Mansoor states. “Endless expert analysis has served only to deepen the fog that still surrounds this issue. We have been led to believe that the ‘crisis’ was a spontaneous act that just sprang out of the ‘chaos’ of the ‘Islamic Revolution’. Nothing could be further from the truth!”

“To really understand the hostage crisis and ‘who done it’, one has to look not only with a microscope, but also a wide angle lens to have a panoramic view of this well scripted ‘drama’,” Mansoor states. That ‘drama’ was the result of large historical patterns, models, and motives. Once its true nature is understood, it will be clear how Iran/Contra happened. Why Rafsanjani has been trying to ‘move toward the West’, and why Reagan called him a ‘moderate’. And why, during the Gulf War, James Baker said, ‘we think Iran has conducted itself in a very, very credible way through this crisis’”. Mansoor emphasizes that the “October Surprise” myth has served as dangerous misinformation.

With thousands of documents to support his position, Mansoor says that the “hostage crisis” was a political “management tool” created by the pro-Bush faction of the CIA, and implemented through an a priori Alliance with Khomeini’s “Islamic Fundamentalists”. He says the purpose was twofold:

  • To keep Iran intact and communist-free by putting Khomeini in full control.
  • To destabilize the Carter Administration and put George Bush in the White House.
Carter

Jimmy Carter

“The private Alliance was the logical result of the intricate Iranian political reality of the mid-70s, and a complex network of powerful U.S.-Iranian ‘business’ relationships,” Mansoor states. “I first met Khomeini in 1963 during the failed coup attempt against the Shah. Since that time I have been intimately involved with Iranian politics. I knew in 1979 that the whole, phony ‘Islamic Revolution’ was ‘mission implausible’.” Mansoor was frank. “There is simply no way that those guys with the beards and turbans could have pulled off such a brilliantly planned operation without very sophisticated help.”  […]

The philosophical divide within the U.S. National Security establishment, especially the CIA, became quite serious in the aftermath of Watergate. To make matters worse, the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976, his campaign promise to clean the “cowboy” elements out of the Central Intelligence Agency and his “human rights” policies alarmed the faction of the CIA loyal to George Bush. Bush was CIA director under Richard Nixon. Finally, the firing of CIA Director George Bush by Carter, and the subsequent “Halloween Massacre” in which Carter fired over 800 CIA covert operatives in 1977, angered the “cowboys” beyond all measure.

What do you think, Skynet? Are the “cowboys” angry again, and have the mullahs outlived their usefulness, or are other players involved? Is the Iranian rioting the result of continued economic malaise and weariness of a mediocre theocratic despotism? Is the unrest but a nation’s thirsting for freedom, as Molyneux would have it – or is it, as Brandon Turbeville wonders, a neocon “color revolution”?

Rainer Chlodwig von K.

[Read more about Muammar Qaddafi’s affinity for idiotic schemes at Aryan Skynet: “Brothers in the Struggle: Muammar Gaddafi and African Liberation Movements“. Read more about Iran at Aryan Skynet: “Slouching Toward Tehran“]

 

Advertisements

About icareviews

Propaganda Minister of #AryanSkynet

42 comments on “Twilight of the Ayatollahs?

  1. icareviews
    January 4, 2018

    Reblogged this on icareviews.

    Like

  2. BMan
    January 4, 2018

    Molyneux is too invested in Trump to ever give us truth.

    1979 was the year I graduated highschool. I remember these years well, especially 1980 and the hub bub regarding Reagan’s supposed ability to end the crisis which led to his win in the election.

    I remember well the supposed threats by Iran and this was one of the key reasons I joined the Navy (next to being poor and no work available).

    That was the stupidest thing I’ve ever done in my life.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Jo
    January 4, 2018

    I’ve been telling everyone since Trump said he wanted to pay US troops a million dollars and take the oil, that he was put there to destroy Iran. The neocons have been meming forever that Ahmadinejad said, Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’. Which means the neocons want the US to wipe Iran off the map for Israel.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html

    I was expecting the jets to start bombing and the tanks to start rolling, but I also heard the geography in that area is not favorable to invading armies. So perhaps they will keep up with their color revolution attempts and if that fails bomb them. Trump also gave the Saudis billions of dollars so you can bet that will be aimed at Iran as well.

    If I was Iran I would do what the North Koreans did and get a nuclear capability as fast as possible. Nukes are the the only thing that make the ZOG bullies back off.

    Like

    • icareviews
      January 4, 2018

      In the video embedded at the bottom of the post, Fuentes discusses the military challenge Iran would pose to a U.S. invasion force. It would not be a cakewalk of only a few months’ duration.

      Like

      • Jo
        January 4, 2018

        No offense, but I don’t take Alt-Right seriously on anything. Like Stormfronters they scream about jews, and then run out and vote for them. They invited the press to follow them around and then embarrassed themselves so badly in front of the country Trump had to disavow them. Then they were booted off Twitter due to their trolling of powerful jews with gas chamber memes. Then they walked into an ambush at Charlottesville – city with a jewish mayor. They have been consistently wrong about everything. They are not serious people.

        I think this is the guy that mentioned it. Hipster Racist was retweeting him. Or it could have been someone in his replies. I have seen so many tweets in the last two days I forget.

        Basically the commenter said Iran is not a pancake like Iraq, so I assume not so suited to tank warfare like Iraq was. He said they have mountainous regions and it is very populous, so he thinks a color revolution is the way the US will go.

        I am thinking color revolution is far cheaper than an invasion, both politically and financially. The governments in the West who would normally back the US blindly, all think Trump is an asshole. So if the US does try to invade they will be on their own. Also Trump is a cheapskate, so he will be looking to save money. Which is cheaper? Invasion or color revolution?

        So I don’t think an Iraq style invasion is on the cards. No, CIA will keep trying to destabilize the country.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jo
        January 4, 2018

        Oops. Sorry I misread your post. I thought you were saying the he thought it would be a cakewalk. Well that kid is right.

        I still stand by what I said about Alt-Right though.

        Here is the tweet I mentioned:

        James Perloff
        ‏ @jamesperloff
        30 Dec 2017

        “Any unrest in Iran is likely backed by CIA & Mossad. Iran’s too big to conquer, so classic strategy would be to generate internal divisions so West can back “moderate rebels” (like in all the previous countries it destabilized) and Balkanize Iran to make way for Greater Israel.”

        Like

      • icareviews
        January 4, 2018

        The trouble with characterizing the Alt-Right as immature or unserious is that the Alt-Right isn’t a uniform or monolithic movement or group. Sure, there are goofy figures within the Alt-Right, and lots of Twitter Nazi LARPers; but is it your position that Kevin MacDonald, Andrew Joyce, Henrik Palmgren, Lana Lokteff, Sam Dickson, Greg Johnson, and Gregory Hood aren’t serious people? They’re all human and have definitely made mistakes, like Richard Spencer at Charlottesville; but it’s disingenuous to paint all of these people with the same brush as Weev, Andrew Anglin, or Chris Cantwell. RamZPaul – who has disavowed the Alt-Right, but is part of it in the public consciousness no matter what he says – jokes around a lot, but I think he he’s perfectly sober-minded, his drinking notwithstanding.

        Like

      • Jo
        January 4, 2018

        Despite the obvious (((theatrical clowns))) you mention, the “serious” ones just report the news and vote (((Republican))).

        If you ask the “serious” people for documented evidence that their activities are changing things in the world outside the movement bubble, they would not understand the question. They would brush you off and mumble something about The Truth!, or their 10 or 20 thousand Twitter follower numbers. So no, I don’t take the “serious” ones seriously.

        Example of evidence would be them tracking the media, showing how their talking points are being taken up by normies and politicians. Yet better evidence would be lists of anti-Whites that got fired because of their intellectual efforts. Have their activities led to any anti-White getting fired for anti-Whitism? The resounding answer is no.

        The “serious ones” you mention, their main activity is to build up audiences of people that read their articles and vote Republican, same as they did when they were asleep. They never ask their followers to do anything other than vote and send them money.

        They are going through the motions same as they have for decades. News and Jews. News and Jews. Same as has been done since Henry Ford put International Jew mag in all his Model Ts.

        You either do what works or you will go extinct. Mother nature is ruthless that way. Our enemy does what works for him and has been winning for decades. What do we do that works?

        Like

      • Tom Rogers
        January 5, 2018

        Actually, I regard Anglin as the most serious Alt Right figure of all. The misunderstanding is in taking what he does at face value. He has a serious strategy (neo-Alinskyism).

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 5, 2018

        @Tom Rogers

        Alinksyism is a tactic, not a strategy. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who thinks Anglin is effective at anything other than trolling (he is effective at that.) It’s not that trolling is 100% useless, but it’s not particularly effective at building a pro-White movement. Anglin isn’t pro-White, he’s an internet troll. He is a self-admitted “performance artist” and the last time he was out of character he clearly proclaimed himself to be anti-White, pro-Jewish, pro-miscegenation and against “racism.”

        If Anglin didn’t exist the $PLC and the ADL would have invented him.

        I think Anglin is really quite impressive to teenagers and young people with zero experience with the world outside of the internet.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        January 5, 2018

        Not to mention Anglin’s 9/11 disinformation. Saudis dunnit.

        Like

  4. Afterthought
    January 4, 2018

    1) The end of the sanctions under the “nuclear deal” allowed China to launch the New Silk Road, also known as “One Belt, One Road”, or simply Belt and Road. This road runs through the Shia Crescent all the way to the Mediterranean, and in addition to trade that cannot be touched by the US Navy, it would allow a military convoy from Shanghai traveling at 40 mph to reach Beirut in 6.25 days.

    This is why the “Deep State” (our Jewish friends) are in such a tizzy; as in the Book of Revelations, 10 million Chinese soldiers saying “Herro Shromo” in downtown Jerusalem would really put a crimp on Greater Israel.

    It also explains why Trump is lashing out at Pakistan who will also link to the New Silk Road via the Great Karakorum Highway.

    It explains why we cannot get out of Afghanistan, as it is our only remaining play against the New Silk Road. Unfortunately for the Deep State, Afghanistan cannot afford to be left out of that trade route, and no amount of US money or threats can dissuade them. I predict a nasty turn of events in Afghanistan, soon.

    2) White Nations, if we were not conquered peoples, and if we had governments to protect our interests, would be pushing a “Northern Alliance” to counter the New Silk Road. A road / train system traveling through the Bering Strait could connect the US, Canada, Russia, The UK and as many white nations as could be liberated from the EU.

    A smart Deep State would then curry favor with Iran so that Asian land trade could be severed by a line running from the North Pole, through Russia, through the Caspian Sea, through Iran to the Persian Gulf. That would leave the Aryan Expressway the only trans-global land trade route. Which way white man?

    3) In terms of the internal politics of Iran, the largest faction by far is the one desiring gradual reform. The second largest faction is the Khomeniist faction. The third faction was the backers of revolutionary Western Liberalism, egged on by expatriots in Los Angeles, DC, New York, and London. This faction laid its cards on the table this week and it was a 2 of Clubs.

    Also notable is the exponential growth of Iran’s population. I recently saw it as 81 million and had to do a double take as the last time I looked into that it was 70 million, perhaps a decade or so ago. This is raw power. The power to send hungry young men into Iran’s near abroad to foment Greater Iran. Is this not what they are doing?

    4) It has been occurring to me, even before this latest kerfuffle in Iran, that this movement shares a lot in common with Khomeniism, not just in its antagonism towards Modern Liberalism but also in the willingness to govern via a coalition of the strongest men, rather than through a democratic head count. With the consent of the “normies” as they are called, a majority of fighting age men could overturn democracy in the West and govern. We would not even need to progress to full war, as peaceful demonstrations of our unity, such as a 10 million man march on DC could, on the very same day, start a brand new government. Who would stop us? The soy boys and feminists? We would simply need to give assurance to the CEOs, generals, and normal people, the people who walk the streets every day, that their lives wouldn’t change much, and only for the better.

    All the best.

    Liked by 2 people

    • icareviews
      January 4, 2018

      Welcome, fellow dreamer of the day!

      Like

    • Sam J.
      January 5, 2018

      Afterthought points out the obvious that we aren’t a free sovereign nation. I agree with all his points. We could even go farther. Talk about missed opportunities what if when the USSR fell we went all out to help the Russians and pushed with all our might to bring them into our block with Europe and NATO. Holy shit what a power block we would be. Instead the Jews looted them and blamed it on the US.

      Like

  5. guest
    January 4, 2018

    One domino will fall, and i sincerely hope it’s NK over Iran, because toppling Kim would be the perfect cover for some good deep state neocon purging. If i was Trump I’d want nothing more than a picture of myself standing in front of the pyramid-shaped skyscraper in Pyongyang, like a certain uncle in Paris.

    Like

    • Jo
      January 4, 2018

      I believe they will invade North Korea less than I do Iran.

      Remember the US/ZOG is a bully and all bullies are cowards. The US only invades third world countries that can’t it hit back, and even then it has great trouble occupying them. If NK does have a nuclear capability that can strike deep into US territory they will not risk it.

      Like

  6. Hipster Racist
    January 4, 2018

    @icareviews

    “Kevin MacDonald, Andrew Joyce, Henrik Palmgren, Lana Lokteff, Sam Dickson, Greg Johnson, and Gregory Hood”

    All those people were around long before the “Alt Right” became a thing. “Alt Right” started with Spencer, then he abandoned it because Colin Liddell wrote a mean article about “The Holocaust” so Spencer shut down the site. The label “Alt Right” was picked up by a handful of people to cast a wider net than “White Nationalist.” Then, it was Paul Ramsey who popularized the term and got it featured by Milo in Breitbart, which led to Steve Bannon, and later Hillary Clinton, using the term.

    Then Spencer jumped back in and reclaiemd the label for himself, complete with “Hailgate,” sucking up to Anglin and (((Weev))) and ending with the site AltRight.com, essentially the daily Stormer without the sense of humor.

    Kevin MacDonald, Andrew Joyce, Henrik Palmgren, Lana Lokteff, Sam Dickson, Greg Johnson, and Gregory Hood – all those people are well beyond “Alt Right” and have always been head and shoulders above the typical “Alt Righters” of the last two years. I’m fairly certain all of them have identified as simply “White Nationalist” or “Identitarian.”

    “Alt Right” is kind of a shitty label anyway, its only use was to distance people from the worst of the 1488 crowd – and since Spencer firmly threw his hat in with the worst of the 1488 crowd, what’s the point of even using “Alt Right?”

    Like

    • icareviews
      January 4, 2018

      Red Ice and Occidental Quarterly people have both self-identified with the Alt-Right. In any case, it’s bigger than “Richard Spencer’s personal brand” and has a life outside of his activities – even if he is the quintessential Alt-Right figure. Even Greg Johnson, who now claims the Alt-Right is “dead”, is Alt-Right himself whether he wants the label or not. The label may be shitty, but it’s the one we’ve got. I’ve done a fair amount of lefty-larping at Skynet, and don’t necessarily think of myself as a “right-winger”, but I don’t mind being associated with the Alt-Right.

      Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 4, 2018

        I’m pro-White. The can’t co-opt that label.

        Like

      • icareviews
        January 4, 2018

        Don’t be so sure of that, what with all of these “fellow whites” around …

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 4, 2018

        That’s the trick though, (((fellow whites))) are never pro-White, always anti-White. If (((fellow whites))) started even just pretending to be pro-White, we’d be half way to victory!

        “Alt Right” was always just a way around using the word “White” – let’s not forget the term was basically coined by Spencer’s Jewish mentor.

        Like

      • icareviews
        January 4, 2018

        We’re on the same side. It’s just that, for me, “pro-white” has sort of a boring, prosaic, meat-and-potatoes ring to it. I don’t mind people using it, though.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 4, 2018

        Boring, prosaic, meat-and-potatoes – that’s great! That’s exactly what I’m going for. I’m a pretty normal guy in most respects. So pro-White is good enough for me. I want pro-White to be normal and uncontroversial.

        Like

    • icareviews
      January 4, 2018

      Like

    • Brooklyn Dave
      January 12, 2018

      Wouldn’t you say that the “Alt-Right” – for lack of a better term- is still a movement in progress? I have either read or seen on video all of the above mentioned folks – extremely intelligent people. The Alt Right is not monolithic, which is the great thing about it. I understand the frustration of more committed Identitarian folks in relation to the Alt Lite. But isn’t it better to have people on board with you 50% than not at all? For many, guys like Anglin and Cantwell are over the top. We need that, only because it annoys the hell out of those who hate the Alt Right – and besides, it’s comical – think of the whole KEK thing. At this point in time I say that any in-fighting that goes on should be kept to a minimum, unless a person proves to be a behind the back phony who actually is working against the movement.

      Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 13, 2018

        @Brooklyn Dave

        There is a pro-White movement that is doing better than at any point in my lifetime, probably since the end of segregation. The “Alt Right” is just a brand name that various people have fought over.

        Infighting is a good thing – people are attracted to controversy, it means there’s actually “movement” in the “movement.”

        The label “Alt Right” was just a way for Richard Spencer to avoid using the term “White Nationalist.” I say use “pro-White” because there is no way to water down such a label. You are either pro-White or anti-White. They can say “Alt Right is just another label for neo-Nazi” but if they were to say “pro-White is just a label for racist” – GOOD. That is exactly what we’ve been saying forever. “Anti-racist” is just a code word for anti-White. “Racist” is just a slur for “White person.”

        Like

  7. Hipster Racist
    January 4, 2018

    Legendary FBI whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds – whose testimony before the 9/11 Commission is still classified, broke this story about a year ago on her new media platform Newsbud. Last year, the CIA released its communications with the Ayatollahs of Iran. This ONLY received publicity in Iran, which you can image raised a lot of very uncomfortable questions about the ruling Iranian establishment that stakes its credibility in standing up to USA/Israel. Apparently, the CIA was in constant contact with the Ayatollahs before they took power, during their taking of power, and ever since. the cables showed close cooperation between the CIA and the “anti-American conservative Islamist establishment” of Iran.

    Of cousre these cables received zero coverage in the USA, as they were simply released to pressure the Ayatollahs.

    So yeah, this narrative is pretty much correct. Bush Sr. CIA faction went “private” after Carter fired them, helped the Ayatollah get power, likely planned their hostage taking, and then made a deal with them to release after Reagan was elected.

    The only thing I don’t get is the idea that the Shah was “pro-Israel.” There was a famous 60 minutes interview with him – it’s still on youtube – denouncing Israel and sticking up for the Palestinians. Of course this may have been simply ass covering but who knows.

    What people don’t seem to get is that British imperialism – and later, US/Israel imperialism – in the middle east has ALWAYS sided with the most radical of Muslims and has always opposed the various secular and modernizing regimes in the region. For obvious reasons – religious fanatics are easier to control and they will keep their nations backwards and weak. So it makes sense for Western imperialists to side with the religious fanatics.

    The Republican party has always partnered with the Bible-thumpers – especially the “Christian” Zionist Evangelicals – here in the USA. In fact, the “religious right” in America has ties going all the way back to the 1910s being run by business interests to bust unions and later simply became a commercial enterprise indistinguishable from any other business.

    The God business is Big business – and quite lucrative (and even tax free!)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hazelshade
      January 5, 2018

      “What people don’t seem to get is that British imperialism – and later, US/Israel imperialism – in the middle east has ALWAYS sided with the most radical of Muslims and has always opposed the various secular and modernizing regimes in the region. For obvious reasons – religious fanatics are easier to control and they will keep their nations backwards and weak. So it makes sense for Western imperialists to side with the religious fanatics”

      Yep. See: Ibn Saud and the Ikhwan. I think Robert Dreyfuss (cited in the original post) wrote about this in his book Devil’s Game. I think it was also there that I first heard of Harry St. John Philby. That guy’s life explains a lot about the last century. The ayatollahs sound like the Shia analogue to the Sunni Ikhwan (and similar to the “Christian” Zionists, as you pointed out).

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: Twilight of the Ayatollahs? | Hipster Racist

  9. fuhrerious88
    January 5, 2018

    Reblogged this on Remember The 14 Words.

    Like

  10. smartwhiteguy
    January 5, 2018

    Just an aside here- why does Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the picture of him above have lavender eye-shadow? Does anybody know?
    It’s kind of weird.

    Like

  11. Hazelshade
    January 5, 2018

    “the Reagan camp is supposed to have gone behind the Carter administration’s back to negotiate the release of the Islamic Republic’s fifty-two hostages on the condition that they would be freed only after Reagan had been sworn into office”

    What did the Reagan camp offer the Islamic Republic in return? Was American support for Khomeini in the past used to balance these concessions?

    Liked by 1 person

    • indravaruna
      January 5, 2018

      Iran-Contra ring any bells? The military goy Ollie’s North took most of the blame of the Iran-Contra affair in the media when in fact it was Jewish neoconservatives in the Reagan administration together with the Israelis who made the whole fiasco.

      Like

    • icareviews
      January 5, 2018

      The whole “negotiation” angle could be mere pretense if Khomeini was a bought-and-paid-for asset.

      Like

  12. Sam J.
    January 5, 2018

    The fundamental question for the White Man is not whether we are masculine enough, not whether we are blessed in the eyes of the Lord, not whether we have sinned against others, not if we should welcome or curse Feminism. The fundamental question is how do we get rid of the Jew. All these other questions we may work on after we get rid of the Jew but getting rid of the Jew is fundamental to our very survival.

    Like

    • guest
      January 5, 2018

      Step 1, start a blog!

      With your “tribe of psychopaths” theory as the introductory post.

      Like

  13. james
    January 6, 2018

    Very interesting.

    Like

  14. James O'Meara
    January 9, 2018

    “The “serious ones” you mention, their main activity is to build up audiences of people that read their articles and vote Republican, same as they did when they were asleep. They never ask their followers to do anything other than vote and send them money.”

    I am 100% certain that except for candidate Trump, and an occasional local school board race, not one person reading either Counter-Currents or Occidental Observer “votes Republican.”

    Like

Leave a Reply - Your Comment WILL be Moderated.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: