# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Iran: Brzezinski's told us in Clash of Civilizations!

## InterestedParticipant

*The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order*



1970's 'Clash of Civilizations' basically explained that destabilization would be created in the middle east, and that Islamic revivalism coupled with Arab demographic explosion will make that part of the world the greatest source of secondary global conflicts for the next generation or two, with the attendant dangers of terrorism.

The Shah was removed and replaced with a new 'Islamofascist' regime to fit Brzezinski's 'clash of civilizations' requirements for the next stage (ie. Arab terrorism).

What we are seeing now is just an evolution of these processes.

----------


## dannno

No, our CIA stopped meddling over there a long time ago. The people of Iran just want Democracy, this is not a staged event, repeat, the Iranian revolution is not a CIA staged event.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Brzezinski didn't write this, did he?

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Brzezinski wrote the Grand Chessboard..and It's about the same thing...control of Eurasia.  tones

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

You know that destabalization is the key to control. tones

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> No, our CIA stopped meddling over there a long time ago. The people of Iran just want Democracy, this is not a staged event, repeat, the Iranian revolution is not a CIA staged event.


All evidence points otherwise... so does history and the familiarity of techniques being used.

This is coming to the USA soon, get ready for it.   We're next batter up.

----------


## dannno

> All evidence points otherwise... so does history and the familiarity of techniques being used.
> 
> This is coming to the USA soon, get ready for it.   We're next batter up.


I agree, I was being sarcastic

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> I agree, I was being sarcastic


Oh, silly me.  Terribly sorry.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> All evidence points otherwise... so does history and the familiarity of techniques being used.


What techniques are being used?  All I've seen are people protesting because they believe the election was rigged, based on the results in Tehran, and Mousavi's hometown.  The vote was also announced long before they possibly could have counted them all.

I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I'm just saying you're jumping to conclusions based on little to no evidence.  So really, you guys should say something more akin to "Based on past events, I believe this is a CIA coup, but really, I have no idea"

----------


## dannno

> *What techniques are being used?*  All I've seen are people protesting because they believe the election was rigged, based on the results in Tehran, and Mousavi's hometown.  The vote was also announced long before they possibly could have counted them all.
> 
> I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I'm just saying you're jumping to conclusions based on little to no evidence.  So really, you guys should say something more akin to "Based on past events, I believe this is a CIA coup, but really, I have no idea"


What do you mean "what techniques are being used?"!?! How about all of the western media propaganda coming over? What about the US Government telling twitter to put a hold on upgrading their systems so they could stay up for the revolution?!? You have to look at EVERYTHING. I have always been great at judging the reality of events based on our media's reaction, the media is a huge part of this.

EVERYTHING YOU ARE SEEING IS A TECHNIQUE BEING USED!! The people in Iran know that Ahmadi doesn't have any real power, yet they are feeding us propaganda that he is some sort of dictator!! That is ridiculous, that is like saying Mickey $#@!ing Mouse is our dictator. He just doesn't have those powers, and no Iranian in their right mind would say something like that, yet you and other people are falling for it!

----------


## dannno

Not to mention the only HARD evidence we have of what the election results should have been showed Amhad up 2:1 over Mousavi 3 weeks before the election.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

The original article is reprinted below, from Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993.  Notice that the article included a "?" AFTER the title, the book, that was later published, dropped the "?".




> *The Clash of Civilizations?*
> by Samuel P. Huntington
> Foreign Affairs Summer 1993
> 
> SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON is the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government and Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. This article is the product of the Olin Institute's project on "The Changing Security Environment and American National Interests."
> *
> I. THE NEXT PATTERN OF CONFLICT*
> 
> WORLD POLITICS IS entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be -- the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.
> ...


(continued below)

----------


## BenIsForRon

> What do you mean "what techniques are being used?"!?! How about all of the western media propaganda coming over? What about the US Government telling twitter to put a hold on upgrading their systems so they could stay up for the revolution?!? You have to look at EVERYTHING. I have always been great at judging the reality of events based on our media's reaction, the media is a huge part of this.
> 
> EVERYTHING YOU ARE SEEING IS A TECHNIQUE BEING USED!! The people in Iran know that Ahmadi doesn't have any real power, yet they are feeding us propaganda that he is some sort of dictator!! That is ridiculous, that is like saying Mickey $#@!ing Mouse is our dictator. He just doesn't have those powers, and no Iranian in their right mind would say something like that, yet you and other people are falling for it!


They way I'm interpreting the information you just gave me, is that they believe Mousavi will be more western friendly, so the media elites/government are supporting this popular uprising.  Doesn't mean they orchestrated the whole conflict.  When they give soft support like this, it doesn't seem to most Iranians like interference from western powers, which they are very weary of.

Also, I know Ahmedinejad has no power, many in the media, NPR, Maddow, etc. have been discussing the role of the Ayatollahs in this.  As a matter of a fact, one of the Ayatollahs supports the protests.  This fact also makes this seem more like a complex political issue than "CIA DID IT!"

As far as Twitter goes, why shouldn't we ASK them to keep their service running during Iran's daytime.  It has been a good way for some of the Iranians to keep each other updated.  It's hardly intervention, it's simply a gesture of support for free speech, especially since we didn't force twitter to stay open.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

*The Clash of Civilizations?* (continued)




> *V. CIVILIZATION RALLYING*
> 
> THE KIN-COUNTRY SYNDROME GROUPS OR STATES belonging to one civilization that become involved in war with people from a different civilization naturally try to rally support from other members of their own civilization. As the post-Cold War world evolves, civilization commonality, what H. D. S. Greenway has termed the "kin-country" syndrome, is replacing political ideology and traditional balance of power considerations as the principal basis for cooperation and coalitions. It can be seen gradually emerging in the post-Cold War conflicts in the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus and Bosnia. None of these was a full-scale war between civilizations, but each involved some elements of civilization rallying, which seemed to become more important as the conflict continued and which may provide a foretaste of the future.
> 
> First, in the Gulf War one Arab state invaded another and then fought a coalition of Arab, Western and other states. While only a few Muslim governments overtly supported Saddam Hussein, many Arab elites privately cheered him on, and he was highly popular among large sections of the Arab publics. Islamic fundamentalist movements universally supported Iraq rather than the Western-backed governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Forswearing Arab nationalism, Saddam Hussein explicitly invoked an Islamic appeal. He and his supporters attempted to define the war as a war between civilizations. "It is not the world against Iraq," as Safar Al-Hawali, dean of Islamic Studies at the Umm Al-Qura University in Mecca, put it in a widely circulated tape. "It is the West against Islam." Ignoring the rivalry between Iran and Iraq, the chief Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called for a holy war against the West: "The struggle against American aggression, greed, plans and policies will be counted as a jahad, and anybody who is killed on that path is a martyr.""This is a war," King Hussein of Jordan argued, "against all Arabs and all Muslims and not against Iraq alone."
> 
> The rallying of substantial sections of Arab elites and publics behind Saddam Hussein called those Arab governments in the anti-Iraq coalition to moderate their activities and temper their public statements. Arab governments opposed or distanced themselves from subsequent Western efforts to apply pressure on Iraq, including enforcement of a no-fly zone in the summer of 1992 and the bombing of Iraq in January 1993. The Western-Soviet-Turkish-Arab anti-Iraq coalition of 1990 had by 1993 become a coalition of almost only the West and Kuwait against Iraq.
> 
> Muslims contrasted Western actions against Iraq with the West's failure to protect Bosnians against Serbs and to impose sanctions on Israel for violating U.N. resolutions. The West, they allege, was using a double standard. A world of clashing civilizations, however, is inevitably a world of double standards: people apply one standard to their kin-countries and a different standard to others.
> ...


(continued in next post)

----------


## InterestedParticipant

*The Clash of Civilizations?* (continued)




> *
> IX. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WEST*
> 
> THIS ARTICLE DOES not argue that civilization identities will replace all other identities, that nation states will disappear, that each civilization will become a single coherent political entity, that groups within a civilization will not conflict with and even fight each other. This paper does set forth the hypotheses that differences between civilizations are real and important; civilization-consciousness is increasing; conflict between civilizations will supplant ideological and other forms of conflict as the dominant global form of conflict; international relations, historically a game played out within Western civilization, will increasingly be de-Westernized and become a game in which non-Western civilizations are actors and not simply objects; successful political, security and economic international institutions are more likely to develop within civilizations than across civilizations; conflicts between groups in different civilizations will be more frequent, more sustained and more violent than conflicts between groups in the same civilization; violent conflicts between groups in different civilizations are the most likely and most dangerous source of escalation that could lead to global wars; the paramount axis of world politics will be the relations between "the West and the Rest"; the elites in some torn non-Western countries will try to make their countries part of the West, but in most cases face major obstacles to accomplishing this; a central focus of conflict for the immediate future will be between the West and several Islamic-Confucian states.
> 
> This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations. It is to set forth descriptive hypotheses as to what the future may be like. If these are plausible hypotheses, however, it is necessary to consider their implications for Western policy. These implications should be divided between short-term advantage and long-term accommodation. In the short term it is clearly in the interest of the West to promote greater cooperation and unity within its own civilization, particularly between its European and North American components; to incorporate into the West societies in Eastern Europe and Latin America whose cultures are close to those of the West; to promote and maintain cooperative relations with Russia and Japan; to prevent escalation of local inter-civilization conflicts into major inter-civilization wars; to limit the expansion of the military strength of Confucian and Islamic states; to moderate the reduction of counter military capabilities and maintain military superiority in East and Southwest Asia; to exploit differences and conflicts among Confucian and Islamic states; to support in other civilizations groups sympathetic to Western values and interests; to strengthen international institutions that reflect and legitimate Western interests and values and to promote the involvement of non-Western states in those institutions.
> 
> In the longer term other measures would be called for. Western civilization is both Western and modern. Non-Western civilizations have attempted to become modern without becoming Western. To date only Japan has fully succeeded in this quest. Non-Western civilization will continue to attempt to acquire the wealth, technology, skills, machines and weapons that are part of being modern. They will also attempt to reconcile this modernity with their traditional culture and values. Their economic and military strength relative to the West will increase. Hence the West will increasingly have to accommodate these non-Western modern civilizations whose power approaches that of the West but whose values and interests differ significantly from those of the West. This will require the West to maintain the economic and military power necessary to protect its interests in relation to these civilizations. It will also, however, require the West to develop a more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying other civilizations and the ways in which people in those civilizations see their interests. It will require an effort to identify elements of commonality between Western and other civilizations. For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the others.


(end)

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> They way I'm interpreting the information you just gave me, is that they believe Mousavi will be more western friendly, so the media elites/government are supporting this popular uprising.  Doesn't mean they orchestrated the whole conflict.  When they give soft support like this, it doesn't seem to most Iranians like interference from western powers, which they are very weary of.
> 
> Also, I know Ahmedinejad has no power, many in the media, NPR, Maddow, etc. have been discussing the role of the Ayatollahs in this.  As a matter of a fact, one of the Ayatollahs supports the protests.  This fact also makes this seem more like a complex political issue than "CIA DID IT!"
> 
> As far as Twitter goes, why shouldn't we ASK them to keep their service running during Iran's daytime.  It has been a good way for some of the Iranians to keep each other updated.  It's hardly intervention, it's simply a gesture of support for free speech, especially since we didn't force twitter to stay open.


One will never ever be able to understand what is going on if:
one continues to listen to extended media sources that present irrelevant issues designed to confuse;one does not see this in the larger context of history, the establishments goals, and the establishments techniques.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> One will never ever be able to understand what is going on if:
> one continues to listen to extended media sources that present irrelevant issues designed to confuse;one does not see this in the larger context of history, the establishments goals, and the establishments techniques.


I despise posters like you.  You ignore the entire context of my post, and instead single out a couple words that make it sound like I get my news from MSM.  IF THAT WAS TRUE I WOULDN'T BE ON THESE FORUMS!!!!

Go back, read my post, and try to wrap your tiny brain around my argument.

----------


## dannno

> I despise posters like you.  You ignore the entire context of my post, and instead single out a couple words that make it sound like I get my news from MSM.  IF THAT WAS TRUE I WOULDN'T BE ON THESE FORUMS!!!!
> 
> Go back, read my post, and try to wrap your tiny brain around my argument.


He made a really good point, actually. 

You really have to look at the context and look how various parties are reacting. I'm sorry, but I know for a fact that if the Iranians were to try to elect someone who would benefit them as a country overall, the establishment media would come out against that candidate. I'm not saying Ahmad is the best guy in the world, but he is a better candidate for the people of Iran. 

The reason I know the CIA is involved is because there have been so many signs that this is a deception, it would be like hearing a van driving down the street playing "pop goes the weasel" and telling your friend who's running out the door that there is no proof that the ice cream man is driving by outside...despite the fact that the ice cream man comes by every day around this time and plays the same soundtrack. The proof is in the pudding, look at how our media was so presumptuous to call this a fixed election.. it was like it was a fact or something, even though the only hard evidence was to the CONTRARY. That's the kind of stuff you have to look for. The CIA is covert in their operations, they aren't going to leave behind a bunch of evidence. That doesn't mean we should just sit on our $#@!ing hands and let them get away with destabilizing their country and encouraging their citizenry to put themselves up for slaughter to a relatively oppressive regime who is really trying to protect them from globalist tyranny. 

If you knew how involved the CIA and international intelligence is in foreign affairs, you wouldn't have to question whether the CIA was involved in anything. Do some more studying on the subject and see where it leads you and just how involved they are in everything that has to do with the drug trade and oil trade. They are essentially protectors of the globalist maffia and corporate crime syndicate.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> I despise posters like you.  You ignore the entire context of my post, and instead single out a couple words that make it sound like I get my news from MSM.  IF THAT WAS TRUE I WOULDN'T BE ON THESE FORUMS!!!!
> 
> Go back, read my post, and try to wrap your tiny brain around my argument.


I'm not backing down from anything I've said.

If we were focused on the big issues, then you know what, this wouldn't be much of a discussion because everything would just make so much sense and all would be understood. It is only when someone tries to evaluate all of the media inserted noise that things become confusing.

First, let's talk about how Brzezinski's strategies fit within the overall goals as laid-out by the Club of Rome: destablize states and make governments bloated, ineffective and inoperable.  Then let's look at how the the USA installed the Shah, then ousted him, the created the hostage crisis to start the islamofascist meme, then installed the Mullahs.... it goes on and on.  But the big picture is where everything makes sense, where all the puzzle pieces fit together with no confusion.  

If you wanna talk about this at this level, then let's do it.  Start with the Clash of Civilizations piece I posted in this thread.  But I'm not really interested in a bunch of noise about Twitter, unless  you want to discuss the larger issue of Technetronic Society.

----------


## Kraig

> Also, I know Ahmedinejad has no power, many in the media, NPR, Maddow, etc. have been discussing the role of the Ayatollahs in this.  As a matter of a fact, one of the Ayatollahs supports the protests.  This fact also makes this seem more like a complex political issue than "CIA DID IT!"


Um, for the CIA to orchestrate a regime change it is a complex operation, what on earth makes you think complexity means the CIA isn't behind it? lol like the Ayatollahs can't be bribed?

----------


## BenIsForRon

> Um, for the CIA to orchestrate a regime change it is a complex operation, what on earth makes you think complexity means the CIA isn't behind it? lol like the Ayatollahs can't be bribed?


Yeah, I should have elaborated.  CIA did it is a a huge conclusion for very little evidence, the fact that the Ayatollah is in support of the protesters means that something complicated is happening on the ground.  Either he wants to be in an advantageous position post-revolution, on its own merits,  or he would like to do so because he has US government or other connections, such as with oil companies.

As for Danno's point, the establishment media reported on Tienanmen, which is against many elites interest, given the way global trade has been going since the 70's.  So I think that their biased coverage in favor of Mousavi can be explained easily.  Mousavi is more pro-western.  Very simple, doesn't necessarily mean the US/CIA orchestrated this event.

Like I said, I totally believe that the CIA *may* be involved, I just want to know at what level and whether this election was actually stolen or not.  There is evidence to support both sides, but some people here are talking about this like it is similar to the 1953 coup, which isn't supported by the facts.

... and for InterestedParticipant's "point"... you're a big boy, if you can't handle the MSM's "noise" because you might get confused, that's your problem.  I take in all information, as objectively as I can, so that I can make the most informed decision.

----------


## Rangeley

> *The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order*
> 
> 
> 
> 1970's 'Clash of Civilizations' basically explained that destabilization would be created in the middle east, and that Islamic revivalism coupled with Arab demographic explosion will make that part of the world the greatest source of secondary global conflicts for the next generation or two, with the attendant dangers of terrorism.
> 
> The Shah was removed and replaced with a new 'Islamofascist' regime to fit Brzezinski's 'clash of civilizations' requirements for the next stage (ie. Arab terrorism).
> 
> What we are seeing now is just an evolution of these processes.


This book was most certainly not written in 1970. It was written in 1996. And I'm not so sure your summary paints an entirely accurate picture, at least when compared to the Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations



> Huntington argues that the trends of global conflict after the end of the Cold War are increasingly appearing at these civilizational divisions. Wars such as those following the break up of Yugoslavia, in Chechnya, and between India and Pakistan were cited as evidence of inter-civilizational conflict.
> 
> Huntington also argues that the widespread Western belief in the universality of the West's values and political systems is naïve and that continued insistence on democratization and such "universal" norms will only further antagonize other civilizations. Huntington sees the West as reluctant to accept this because it built the international system, wrote its laws, and gave it substance in the form of the United Nations.


From the descriptions, the book sort of takes the attitude that "civilization clashes" are inevitable between the west, Middle East, etc. I'm not sure its actually advocating anything besides sort of predicting the way the author thinks things will go following the end of the cold war.

How is this proof of US involvement in the 1979 Iranian revolution, though?

----------


## sratiug

> This book was most certainly not written in 1970. It was written in 1996. And I'm not so sure your summary paints an entirely accurate picture, at least when compared to the Wikipedia page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations
> 
> From the descriptions, the book sort of takes the attitude that "civilization clashes" are inevitable between the west, Middle East, etc. I'm not sure its actually advocating anything besides sort of predicting the way the author thinks things will go following the end of the cold war.
> 
> How is this proof of US involvement in the 1979 Iranian revolution, though?


There is a video interview with that guy that wrote "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" where he talks about the CIA involvement in the 79 Iranian hostage crisis.  There is also a 60 minutes interview with a healthy looking Shah saying Israel runs the US government right before he, um,.... died.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> This book was most certainly not written in 1970. It was written in 1996. And I'm not so sure your summary paints an entirely accurate picture, at least when compared to the Wikipedia page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations


I must have been thinking of these words of Jung's when I wrote 1970.  The original version of this book appeared as an article in the Summer of 1993, and the original text can still be found *here*.

Notice that the original title, "The Clash of Civilizations?," included a question mark at the end.  This was dropped in the book.




> From the descriptions, the book sort of takes the attitude that "civilization clashes" are inevitable between the west, Middle East, etc. I'm not sure its actually advocating anything besides sort of predicting the way the author thinks things will go following the end of the cold war.
> 
> How is this proof of US involvement in the 1979 Iranian revolution, though?


Yup, this is the double speak that I frequently refer to in my posted, and I believe I alluded to in the O.P.  When establishment members read this material they understand that these are plans and road maps, these are not simple musing of possibilities of what may occur organically.

To prove my point one needs to visit the Club of Rome's "First Global Revolution" report where the goals of destabilization, demoralization of democratic gov'ts, the turn to humanity as the enemy, all all clearly laid-out as goals.  When these materials, written by the highest level establishment insiders, are taken in context with these goals as well as the long history of the elites attack on the profane, then one may obtain the proper view.

Specifically, with respect to 1979 hostage crisis and changing of governments in Iran, this is some one has to deduce from a long history of these types of actions by elites.  At the time you may recall that Iran was a highly westernized country with many young Iranians working and studying in America.  They blended in very well to US culture.  Once the hostage crisis occurred it was not long before they were targeted... do you recall Iranian business men getting beaten up in the streets of Beverly Hills?  The image of the Iranian was changed, almost overnight, from one of a Westernized ally in the middle east and friend at home, to one of a radical islamofascist that Americans could not relate to and who was our sworn enemy.  If you can see that a clash of civilizations was necessary to create this paradigm of terrorism, to bring the US into costly wars, to create fear which lead to support of the police state, then you can see that the 1979 hostage crisis and the ouster of the Shah and insertion of the Mullahs were all necessary steps to bring these later events into being.

----------


## Rangeley

> I must have been thinking of these words of Jung's when I wrote 1970. The original version of this book appeared as an article in the Summer of 1993, and the original text can still be found here.
> 
> Notice that the original title, "The Clash of Civilizations?," included a question mark at the end. This was dropped in the book.


I did notice that the title changed from the original article to the book. I can see a pretty obvious reason for the change, but what in your opinion is the significance?



> Yup, this is the double speak that I frequently refer to in my posted, and I believe I alluded to in the O.P. When establishment members read this material they understand that these are plans and road maps, these are not simple musing of possibilities of what may occur organically.
> 
> To prove my point one needs to visit the Club of Rome's "First Global Revolution" report where the goals of destabilization, demoralization of democratic gov'ts, the turn to humanity as the enemy, all all clearly laid-out as goals. When these materials, written by the highest level establishment insiders, are taken in context with these goals as well as the long history of the elites attack on the profane, then one may obtain the proper view.
> 
> Specifically, with respect to 1979 hostage crisis and changing of governments in Iran, this is some one has to deduce from a long history of these types of actions by elites. At the time you may recall that Iran was a highly westernized country with many young Iranians working and studying in America. They blended in very well to US culture. Once the hostage crisis occurred it was not long before they were targeted... do you recall Iranian business men getting beaten up in the streets of Beverly Hills? The image of the Iranian was changed, almost overnight, from one of a Westernized ally in the middle east and friend at home, to one of a radical islamofascist that Americans could not relate to and who was our sworn enemy. If you can see that a clash of civilizations was necessary to create this paradigm of terrorism, to bring the US into costly wars, to create fear which lead to support of the police state, then you can see that the 1979 hostage crisis and the ouster of the Shah and insertion of the Mullahs were all necessary steps to bring these later events into being.


Were the book to be written in 1970, you would have a more interesting case that events were carried out, such as the 1979 revolution, in order to fulfill the predictions of a clash between "the west" and "the Islamic world." But as is now clear, it was written in the 1990's, well after the revolution, and indeed well past the start of conflicts between "the west" and Islamic extremists. Did they begin the "black op led" Islamic movement years earlier just to write a book about it 15 years later? A book which predicts continued strife? I don't see this as a more probable explanation than the common sense one - the book was written after these events, interpreting past events, contemporary events (Yugoslavia,) and predicting future events based on these.

I completely disagree with him that conflicts are inevitable. You could even argue that hes hoping for conflicts, for political reasons, and wants to create a climate where people figure "oh well, war is going to happen no matter what, so who cares?" Some people have criticized the book for this reason. But to say events were staged in 1979 to fulfill a book not yet written is, in my opinion, silly.

Iran was not a highly modernized country under the Shah. The Shah was a despotic leader who increasingly led through brute force as time passed. While he had great relations with the United States, this didn't make him a good guy. Iran has a long history of turning against regimes which become unjust - even when they believed Shah's were the representative of God on Earth they have turned against dynasties who were unjust.

When the Shah's sold out Iran to imperial powers in the late 1800's, early 1900's, they staged protests demanding a constitution and the creation of seperation of powers - and a legislature representing the people. They ended the Qajar dynasty and began the Pahlavi dynasty with the hope of getting reforms. Their hopes weren't exactly fully realized, but by the time of Mossadegh, it had gotten pretty darn far.

So tell me, was the CIA behind the constitutional revolution in the early 1900's? Were Iranians incapable of turning against a regime which was selling Iran out to the western imperial powers? Depleting their treasuries, destroying their economy, driving the nation deep into debt? Are only Americans capable of objecting to a government that does this?

Was the CIA behind the continued push for reforms that culminated with the election of Mossadegh?

Would Iranians then be incapable of rejecting the Shah, who again was selling Iran out to foreign interests - and leading with an Iron fist? Would Iranians then be incapable of turning against their current despotic government, which now leads with just as much of an iron fist as the Shah?

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> I did notice that the title changed from the original article to the book. I can see a pretty obvious reason for the change, but what in your opinion is the significance?


Clinton pushed through the GATT Treaty... that changed everything.  Their plans went from probable success to total success.  That is why the question mark was removed.  It is NOT insignificant.




> *Were the book to be written in 1970, you would have a more interesting case* that events were carried out, such as the 1979 revolution, in order to fulfill the predictions of a clash between "the west" and "the Islamic world." But as is now clear, it was written in the 1990's, well after the revolution, and indeed well past the start of conflicts between "the west" and Islamic extremists. Did they begin the "black op led" Islamic movement years earlier just to write a book about it 15 years later? A book which predicts continued strife?* I don't see this as a more probable explanation than the common sense one* - the book was written after these events, interpreting past events, contemporary events (Yugoslavia,) and predicting future events based on these.
> 
> I completely disagree with him that conflicts are inevitable. *You could even argue that hes hoping for conflicts, for political reasons*, and wants to create a climate where people figure "oh well, war is going to happen no matter what, so who cares?" Some people have criticized the book for this reason. *But to say events were staged in 1979 to fulfill a book not yet written is, in my opinion, silly*.
> 
> Iran was not a highly modernized country under the Shah. The Shah was a despotic leader who increasingly led through brute force as time passed. While he had great relations with the United States, this didn't make him a good guy. Iran has a long history of turning against regimes which become unjust - even when they believed Shah's were the representative of God on Earth they have turned against dynasties who were unjust.
> 
> When the Shah's sold out Iran to imperial powers in the late 1800's, early 1900's, they staged protests demanding a constitution and the creation of seperation of powers - and a legislature representing the people. They ended the Qajar dynasty and began the Pahlavi dynasty with the hope of getting reforms. Their hopes weren't exactly fully realized, but by the time of Mossadegh, it had gotten pretty darn far.
> 
> So tell me, *was the CIA behind the constitutional revolution in the early 1900*'s? Were Iranians incapable of turning against a regime which was selling Iran out to the western imperial powers? Depleting their treasuries, destroying their economy, driving the nation deep into debt? Are only Americans capable of objecting to a government that does this?
> ...


This analysis that you present is from the the perspective of the frames that are given to the public.  Analysis by the public is based upon information and basic assumptions that are simply manufactured, and therefore what is "common sense" to the public is also manufactured.  The analysis must come from the material produced by the establishment itself, and you have obviously not read this material.

Further, all of these incidents must be viewed in terms of larger dialectics.  And all major elements of the dialectics are manufactured and controlled, this is apparent when one reads their material.  The CIA, and intelligence agencies around the world, are merely tools for the manufacture and control of these dialectics.  So, who care which specific agency did what, that is merely a discussion of tactics, which are irrelevant in the bigger picture and how these events impact the public.

Until these events can be seen as part of a larger progression of global dialectics, I agree that the analysis that I present may seem silly.  But this conclusion, that any analysis outside the mainstream is "silly," is also deliberate, for it must not seem credible and certainly must not secure mindshare in the general public.  What's so ridiculous here is that all of this is so easily proven when one reads their material.  That's all one has to do.  They tell us exactly what they seek to do, and then they do it.  And all along, the public thinks everything happens organically and that they are merely commenting on past events.   

As far as the timing of the book, it's purpose is merely to get the wider fringes of the establishment on-board and behind the plans that were drafted decades earlier.  I quoted Jung from 1970 because that comment clearly demonstrates the sentiment of the establishment, more than 2-decades before the article appeared.

In *another thread* I showed proof that the White House was pushing for World Government in 1972 with top American business leaders.  Why was the White House openly doing this before the fall of the "East" and while at the same time Reagan was pushing the Evil Empire charade and the military buildup of Star Wars?  When you look at the data points, they were doing this because the plans for World Gov't were already in place and were being covertly carried out while the public was being sold propaganda about Gorbachev's Soviet Union.  Hence, ask yourself how the fall of the Shah and the 1979 hostage crisis fits within their covert plans for World Gov't?

By the way, what do you think were some of the most significant reasons for WWI & WWII.... what were some of the primary outcomes of each of these events?
WWI => League of NationsWWII => United Nations
These plans that I have been speaking of have been in-play for a long long time.

----------


## Rangeley

> This analysis that you present is from the the perspective of the frames that are given to the public. Analysis by the public is based upon information and basic assumptions that are simply manufactured, and therefore what is "common sense" to the public is also manufactured. The analysis must come from the material produced by the establishment itself, and you have obviously not read this material.


Its fair enough that you are approaching this from a different perspective than me, but I don't think that this particular issue that I raised is one that is open to interpretation. Whether you think the overthrow of the Shah was CIA orchestrated or not, it is silly to cite this 1996 book as evidence. Its a book written years in the aftermath, not a prophetic look into the future which was fulfilled by the 1979 revolution. This analysis isn't premised on the idea that the CIA wasn't involved, but the timing of the book in relation to the revolution. As I said, if a book was written in 1970 (as you originally said, and have admitted was just a mistake,) the claim that it was proof/evidence of CIA involvement would be more interesting (though certainly not case closed.) As it is, its not.




> Further, all of these incidents must be viewed in terms of larger dialectics. And all major elements of the dialectics are manufactured and controlled, this is apparent when one reads their material. The CIA, and intelligence agencies around the world, are merely tools for the manufacture and control of these dialectics. So, who care which specific agency did what, that is merely a discussion of tactics, which are irrelevant in the bigger picture and how these events impact the public.
> 
> Until these events can be seen as part of a larger progression of global dialectics, I agree that the analysis that I present may seem silly. But this conclusion, that any analysis outside the mainstream is "silly," is also deliberate, for it must not seem credible and certainly must not secure mindshare in the general public. What's so ridiculous here is that all of this is so easily proven when one reads their material. That's all one has to do. They tell us exactly what they seek to do, and then they do it. And all along, the public thinks everything happens organically and that they are merely commenting on past events.


Well, specific agencies werent really my focus either. My real point in asking about the early 1900's revolution, and the continued pressure that brought Mossadegh to power, is do you think these were all manufactured? Iranians could never have, on their own, grown to object to an Iranian government that was subservient to imperial powers, was squandering their wealth, was disrespecting all of their rights? Can only Americans object to governments on these grounds? Or was the American revolution manufactured, too? Heck, maybe we are even manufactured for supporting Ron Paul?

Or perhaps you are disputing that Mossadegh ever existed, that the Qajar Dynasty ever existed?

Additionally, I didn't say the idea the CIA was involved in the 1979 revolution was silly, even though I don't believe it to be the case. What would be silly is to claim, as was originally done in the OP, that the 1979 revolution was staged to fulfill a "prophecy" in a book that wouldn't be written for another 17 years.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

I suggest reading the material from elite establishments about the region and coming to your own conclusions.  But to develop conclusions based upon  mainstream and alternative "information" is a waste of ones time.

But overall, I'd argue that the French, British & Americans (i.e. Anglo American Establishment) have had much more influence over Iran domestic history than the Iranian public has.

----------


## Rangeley

But you aren't just reading establishment material. You are reading into it, so much so that you can take a book written in 1996, not by Brzezinski, well after the 1979 Iranian Revolution - and say the book predicted the events it was writing about in the past tense. 

Whether something is mainstream, alternative, or whatever - it doesn't matter. What matters is whether it is a view formed from factual information. Unless you are disputing that the events I talked about happened (events which are, frankly, not exactly widely known parts of history,) it establishes a pretty clear track record of Iranians standing up and opposing tyrannical regimes. Even Shia Islam is an expression of their tendency to rebel against oppression, when Islam was forcefully spread to Persia.

While this in itself can't rule out that the CIA was behind toppling the Shah, nor rule out that they are behind the current protests, it shows that these events do not _necessitate_ CIA (or an outside forces) involvement. Its jumping to conclusions to immediately assume that protests against a despotic theocracy _must be a manufactured event._

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> But you aren't just reading establishment material. You are reading into it, so much so that you can take a book written in 1996, not by Brzezinski, well after the 1979 Iranian Revolution - and say the book predicted the events it was writing about in the past tense. 
> 
> Whether something is mainstream, alternative, or whatever - it doesn't matter. What matters is whether it is a view formed from factual information. Unless you are disputing that the events I talked about happened (events which are, frankly, not exactly widely known parts of history,) it establishes a pretty clear track record of Iranians standing up and opposing tyrannical regimes. Even Shia Islam is an expression of their tendency to rebel against oppression, when Islam was forcefully spread to Persia.
> 
> While this in itself can't rule out that the CIA was behind toppling the Shah, nor rule out that they are behind the current protests, it shows that these events do not _necessitate_ CIA (or an outside forces) involvement. Its jumping to conclusions to immediately assume that protests against a despotic theocracy _must be a manufactured event._


What you want is a world without critical thought and a world where you do not have to work to understand reality.  I find this entire discussion moot, as you have not read any of the material that I reference, therefore, you have absolutely no basis to make any assessments whatsoever.  I would also surmise that you have never studied the science of double speak, and it appears you dispute its existence.  Your entire world is constructed for you by the media industry, education industry and culture creators, and you will never ever see beyond that world of dialectics until you make the effort necessary to step outside of it.

----------


## Rangeley

> What you want is a world without critical thought and a world where you do not have to work to understand reality.  I find this entire discussion moot, as you have not read any of the material that I reference, therefore, you have absolutely no basis to make any assessments whatsoever.  I would also surmise that you have never studied the science of double speak, and it appears you dispute its existence.  Your entire world is constructed for you by the media industry, education industry and culture creators, and you will never ever see beyond that world of dialectics until you make the effort necessary to step outside of it.


I don't need to read the book to know, on the mere basis of the date of publishing and the listed author, that your original assertion about the book - that its a compelling example of doublespeak from Brzezinski which foresaw the Iranian Revolution of 1979 years earlier - is totally fallacious. While I don't doubt the possibility of someone using "doublespeak," that you would make a topic alleging it in this book, in the way you did, shows me that you were reading into the book what you wanted to see and have been caught red handed.

This whole discussion _is_ entirely moot if you refuse to address points and merely deflect questions with the "read this stuff, you will see the light!" argument when it has already been established that in this case, you were seeing "light" where there was none. 

Are you disputing the historic events I have raised? Are you disputing my interpretation of the historic events? What exactly _is it_ that you are disputing when you say my "entire world is constructed?"

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> I don't need to read the book to know, on the mere basis of the date of publishing and the listed author, that your original assertion about the book - that its a compelling example of doublespeak from Brzezinski which foresaw the Iranian Revolution of 1979 years earlier - is totally fallacious. While I don't doubt the possibility of someone using "doublespeak," that you would make a topic alleging it in this book, in the way you did, shows me that you were reading into the book what you wanted to see and have been caught red handed.
> 
> This whole discussion _is_ entirely moot if you refuse to address points and merely deflect questions with the "read this stuff, you will see the light!" argument when it has already been established that in this case, you were seeing "light" where there was none. 
> 
> Are you disputing the historic events I have raised? Are you disputing my interpretation of the historic events? What exactly _is it_ that you are disputing when you say my "entire world is constructed?"


So if you are not here to read and you are not here to learn, and if you refuse to step outside socially engineered dialectics, then why are you here?  Why waste your time in discussion on these matters if you only seek to rehash that which has been supplied to the public by those who wish to control the public?  I am not interested in investing time with people who are not willing to invest in themselves and in humanity's future.

----------


## Rangeley

> So if you are not here to read and you are not here to learn, and if you refuse to step outside socially engineered dialectics, then why are you here?  Why waste your time in discussion on these matters if you only seek to rehash that which has been supplied to the public by those who wish to control the public?  I am not interested in investing time with people who are not willing to invest in themselves and in humanity's future.


What you claimed in the OP - that the book was Brzezinski doublespeak written in 1970, and proof that the CIA was involved in the revolution 9 years later - is patently false. If I wasn't interested in learning, I wouldn't have invested time - even as limited time as it took to find this out - to find this information. And if I wasn't prepared to challenge "accepted norms" when these norms were wrong, I would never have joined this forum or supported Ron Paul for president.

I have asked you why you presume Iranians could _never_ protest a despotic regime when they have a history of doing so. Rather than rebut this in a meaningful way, such as claiming that the historical events I refer to never happened, or that I am greatly mistaken with my interpretation of these events, you meet my questions with accusations that I am closed minded and not interested in humanities future. Okay.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> What you claimed in the OP - that the book was Brzezinski doublespeak written in 1970, and proof that the CIA was involved in the revolution 9 years later - is patently false. If I wasn't interested in learning, I wouldn't have invested time - even as limited time as it took to find this out - to find this information. And if I wasn't prepared to challenge "accepted norms" when these norms were wrong, I would never have joined this forum or supported Ron Paul for president.
> 
> I have asked you why you presume Iranians could _never_ protest a despotic regime when they have a history of doing so. Rather than rebut this in a meaningful way, such as claiming that the historical events I refer to never happened, or that I am greatly mistaken with my interpretation of these events, you meet my questions with accusations that I am closed minded and not interested in humanities future. Okay.


"Accepted norms," as you refer to them, are nothing more than manufactured dialectics for the public.  This creates a dynamic where everything outside these "accepted norms" require inordinate levels of proof, while discussions inside these "accepted norms" are merely accepted at fact.  It is truly an upside down world.

If you wish to move outside what you call "accepted norms," then you must make an effort.  I will not give it to you on a silver platter, for all you will do is resist in order to rationalize your cognitive dissonance.  The reason that "accepted norms" are created in the first place is to develop and empower cognitive dissonance in the public, so that discussions outside these "accepted norms" become virtually impossible.

Hence, what I say here in this forum is virtually irrelevant to you, as is self-evident in the posts in this thread.  You will look for any point that you can find to maintain your paradigm ....which is a psychological construct that was deliberately created in order to make it almost impossible to engage in discussion outside your paradigm.

Read the damn material produced by these people... read it a 100 times if you have to in order to understand it.  But I cannot break out of your dialectical paradigm for you, you can only do this for yourself.  Until you are willing to make this effort, discussion with you is really futile, as you will merely resist all efforts to engage in objective critical thought.

----------


## Rangeley

> "Accepted norms," as you refer to them, are nothing more than manufactured dialectics for the public.  This creates a dynamic where everything outside these "accepted norms" require inordinate levels of proof, while discussions inside these "accepted norms" are merely accepted at fact.  It is truly an upside down world.
> 
> If you wish to move outside what you call "accepted norms," then you must make an effort.  I will not give it to you on a silver platter, for all you will do is resist in order to rationalize your cognitive dissonance.  The reason that "accepted norms" are created in the first place is to develop and empower cognitive dissonance in the public, so that discussions outside these "accepted norms" become virtually impossible.
> 
> Hence, what I say here in this forum is virtually irrelevant to you, as is self-evident in the posts in this thread.  You will look for any point that you can find to maintain your paradigm ....which is a psychological construct that was deliberately created in order to make it almost impossible to engage in discussion outside your paradigm.
> 
> Read the damn material produced by these people... read it a 100 times if you have to in order to understand it.  But I cannot break out of your dialectical paradigm for you, you can only do this for yourself.  Until you are willing to make this effort, discussion with you is really futile, as you will merely resist all efforts to engage in objective critical thought.


"Accepted norms" are commonly held ideas. They may or may not be true. Its an accepted norm to think the earth revolves around the sun. Its an accepted norm to think that the New Deal helped us out of the depression. Whether something is true or not doesn't depend on how commonly held that view is.

I haven't been afraid to raise historical points of reference to back my idea that Iranians have a history of turning against oppressive regimes on their own. I could be wrong, and if I am, its out there for someone to refute. You, on the other hand, have hid hypocritically behind a diatribe that I am the closed minded one - while yourself refusing to address the points on the table. 

You can keep scolding me for just rejecting and ignoring things that go against what I believe, but I certainly hope you aren't fooling anyone. If anyone is hiding behind their own "psychological construct," its not me.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

I've posted some cursory material regarding Iran and recent middle east history at the following threads:

*Iran: Was Khomeini CIA?*

*CIA: Funding our Enemies*

*Inventing Enemies for Permanent War*

----------


## diggronpaul

Zbig also gave clues as to where things were going in 1973... well before the BS in Iran went down and the "fall" of Communism:

*The nation state as a fundamental unit of mans organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.*

Brzezinski, Zbigniew, 
Between Two Ages: Americas Role in the Technetronic Era 
(New York: Viking Press, 1973), p. 246.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion...We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

- William Guy Carr, Satan: Prince of This World.
(Carr claimed that this was excerpted from a letter to Giusseppe Mazzini from Albert Pike, dated August 15, 1871)

----------


## BenIsForRon

Haha, wow... I'm surprised interestedparticipant isn't a follower of Hagee.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> Haha, wow... I'm surprised interestedparticipant isn't a follower of Hagee.


I am - Michael Hagee

----------

