lewrockwell--2020-05-26--To Understand Iran’s 150-Year Fight, Follow the Trail of Blood and Oil

This past Sunday , April 17th , a dispute between Iran and the U.S. occurred over the U.S. ’ decision to increase its military presence in Caribbean and Eastern Pacific waters , with the purported reason being a counter-narcotics campaign .
Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote to the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres this past Sunday , that the real purpose for this move by the U.S. is to “ intervene and create disruption in the transfer of Iran ’ s fuel to Venezuela.
” In the same letter , Zarif expressed concern over “ the United States ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provocative measures against Iranian oil tankers engaged in perfectly lawful international commerce with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
” The Iranian deployment consists of five tankers carrying around $ 45.5million of gasoline and related products , as part of a wider deal between Iran and Venezuela .
The U.S. has imposed sanctions on both nations ’ oil exports .
For the first time since 1962 , Iran has requested IMF assistance due to severe shortages created by the COVID-19 pandemic , with Iran requesting an emergency loan of $ 5 billion .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the U.S. , which accounts for slightly more than 16.5 % of IMF ’ s voting shares and has an effective veto over decisions .
A History of Modern Iran Abrahamian , Ervand Best Price : $ 19.44 Buy New $ 23.99 Iran is presently experiencing a critical shortage of medicines and equipment amid the pandemic , and yet is prohibited from purchasing medicines and supplies because of the banking sanctions .
It is clear that these manoeuvres against Iran are not on behalf of anyone ’ s “ security ” but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally bend the knee and be reduced to a state of complete dependence .
Iran has fought a long fight to claim its independence from western powers .
However , what if I were to tell you that once there was a time when Iran and the U.S. had good relations and that the U.S. was in fact the leading promoter and supporter of Iran ’ s sovereignty ?
Almost out of a Shakespearean play of tragedy and betrayal , the relationship was jeopardised by a third player .
As identified by John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Economic Hit Man , the first ever U.S. coup against a foreign country was the overthrow of Iran ’ s nationalist Prime Minister Mosaddegh in 1953 .
However , what is often left out…is that it was a British authored and designed operation .
In order for us to understand how and why the U.S. was dragged into such an affair , our story starts 150 years ago… It all started in 1872 , with Nasir al-Din Shah having granted to the British Baron Julius de Reuter , rights to Iran ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only controlled Iran ’ s industry , farming , and rail transportation , but also held the right to issue currency and to set up a national bank , called the Imperial Bank of Persia , which was under direct British control .
In 1901 , Muzzaffar al-Din Shah negotiated what became known as the D ’ Arcy Contract , granting William Knox D ’ Arcy , a millionaire London socialite , the special and exclusive privilege to basically own and manage the natural gas and petroleum of Iran for a term of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D ’ Arcy struck pay-dirt in Iran , discovering a huge oil field in Masjed-Soleiman .
Britain immediately set up APOC in 1908 , purchasing the rights to the black gold from D ’ Arcy .
Six years later , First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill gave the order to purchase 51 % of APOC , effectively nationalizing the company .
This was to ensure the free flow of oil to the British navy .
It was the first company to extract petroleum from Iran .
Iran received only 16 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued to pursue total control of Iran , not through colonial occupation , but rather through economic “ agreements ” .
In the midst of carving up the empire ’ s new “ jewels ” of the Middle East from the Sykes-Picot fraud on the Arabian people and the illegal British occupation of Palestine , the notorious Anglo-Persian Agreement of Aug 19 , 1919 was also signed , with London effectively turning Iran into a de facto protectorate run by British “ advisors ” .
Britain had succeeded in becoming the masters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement .
The Oil Kings : How the ... Cooper , Andrew Scott Best Price : $ 3.86 Buy New $ 14.89 Iran received almost nothing in return , not even oil from APOC for domestic consumption , but rather had to import it from the Soviet Union !
On Nov 28th 1932 Reza Shah announced that he would be cancelling the British concession to APOC .
The British Navy was heavily dependent on cheap Iranian oil and thus Britain refused to acquiesce .
A compromise was reached in 1933 through bilateral negotiations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concession up until 1993 !
Iran had succeeded in getting the British to pay a higher price but it still did not control its own oil .
Despite claiming a neutral stance for Iran during WWII , word had gotten out that Reza Shah was apparently sympathetic to the cause of Hitler .
The argument was thus used that a pro-German Iran could become a launching pad for an attack against the Soviet Union , justifying British and Soviet entry into the country on Aug 25th 1941 for what would be a several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reza was forced by the British to abdicate and go into exile transferring power to his 22 year old son , Mohammad Reza Shah .
Mohammad Reza Shah was not happy with the joint occupation and sought an American military presence as a mediator to British and Soviet interests .
The Shah sent a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aug 25th 1941 asking him to : “ be good enough to interest yourself in this incident…I beg Your Excellency to take efficacious and urgent humanitarian steps to put an end to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this plea , Roosevelt sent Gen. Patrick Hurley as his special representative to Iran to help prepare what was to become the Iran Declaration , finally adopted at the Tehran Conference where Stalin , Roosevelt and Churchill would agree to guarantee the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Iran .
The Iran Declaration was used to finally end the foreign occupation of Iran after WWII , despite some resistance , and would play a crucial role in Iran ’ s future fight for sovereignty .
The Iran Declaration thus proved itself to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this would certainly never have happened if not for FDR .
As part of Hurley ’ s report to FDR , he wrote some biting words on the present system of British imperialism , “ The imperialism of Germany , Japan , Italy , France… will , we hope , end or be radically revised by this war [ WWII ] .
British imperialism seems to have acquired a new life .
.
.
What appears to be a new life… is the result of the infusion , into its emaciated form , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a free nation [ Iran ] through Lend-Lease.
” Roosevelt sent a copy of the Hurley report to Churchill with his thoughts on the matter : “ The enclosed memorandum was sent to me… I rather like his general approach to the care and education of what used to be called ‘ backward countries ’ …the point of all this is that I do not want the United States to acquire a ‘ zone of influence , ’ or any other nation for that matter [ in Iran ] .
” Fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Price : $ 12.54 Buy New $ 10.00 Churchill was less than enthusiastic on the Hurley-FDR vision .
He was particularly irked by Hurley ’ s notion that British imperialism were in conflict with democracy .
FDR died only a few months later , and with his interment , Hurley ’ s plans for American support for a sovereign and democratic Iran as a model for the rest of the Middle East were relegated to the dust bins of time and forgotten by much of the world .
Following WWII , nationalistic sentiments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Middle East , the most notable being Iran .
However , following the death of FDR the British were free to disingenuously respond to Iran ’ s request for better economic conditions by offering what was called the “ Supplemental Agreement ” , in May 1949 .
This entailed a better payment in royalties but still denied Iran any oversight over accounts or any other form of control over Iranian oil .
In the late 1940s , a new political force emerged in Iran called the National Front led by Mohammad Mosaddegh .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to nationalize the AIOC and the people of Iran were in accord , electing Mosaddegh into the Majlis ( parliament ) in 1949 .
Mosaddegh lost no time , and quickly became the head of the Majlis Oil Committee which was tasked to study the British “ Supplemental Agreement ” .
When it came time to put it to a vote on Nov 25th 1950 , the committee delivered a resounding “ no ” to the British proposition .
Less than four months later , the Majlis voted on March 15th 1951 for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was renamed as the National Iranian Oil Company ( NIOC ) .
Less than two months later , Mosaddegh became Prime Minister of Iran on April 28th 1951 .
Twice the British tried to argue their case before the international community , once in May 1951 at The Hague and again in October at the UN Security Council .
Both attempts were to lose to Mosaddegh ’ s defense .
Mosaddegh had earned a Ph.D. in law from the Neuchatel Law School in Switzerland in 1914 .
This was anything but a formal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedent in the international community that a country ’ s right to national sovereignty would be favored over Britain ’ s imperial “ claims ” , which were exposed during these two very public trials as amounting to nothing more than the threats and bribes of pirates .
At the UN Security Council , Mosaddegh responded to Britain ’ s imperial ambitions over Iran with these eloquent words : All the Shahu2019s Men ... Stephen Kinzer Best Price : $ 8.95 Buy New $ 12.29 “ My countrymen lack the bare necessities of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This should be the source of work and food for the population of Iran .
Its exploitation should properly be our national industry , and the revenue from it should go to improve our conditions of life .
As now organized , however , the petroleum industry has contributed practically nothing to the well-being of the people or to the technical progress or industrial development of my country…if we are to tolerate a situation in which the Iranian plays the part of a mere manual worker in the oil fields…and if foreign exploiters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income , then our people will remain forever in a state of poverty and misery .
These are the reasons that have prompted the Iranian parliament… to vote unanimously in favor of nationalizing the oil industry.
” The British were fuming over Mosaddegh ’ s high profile humiliation of the British Empire ’ s claim to Iran ’ s oil .
Mosaddegh would have to be deposed , however , this could not look like a British retaliation .
During Averell Harrimann ’ s visit to Tehran in July 1951 , in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mosaddegh is reported to have said , “ You do not know how crafty they are .
You do not know how evil they are .
You do not know how they sully everything they touch.
” As coup rumours circulated and reports were rife of British contact being sought with Iranian military officers , Mosaddegh severed diplomatic relations with the UK on Oct 16th 1952 .
The British were further humiliated and had to leave the country taking their agents with them .
It was at this point that Churchill “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facto president Truman , to participate in his vision for regime change in Iran .
In November 1952 , NSC 136 and 136/I were written into record , Truman had agreed to promote direct intervention in Iran through covert operations and even military force .
A detailed plan was approved on Jan 8th 1953 which was 12 days before Eisenhower was inaugurated .
The management of this covert operation was under the treasonous Dulles brothers , who would use the very same technique when JFK first entered office in setting him up with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , JFK managed to publicly expose Allan Dulles in this scheme and fired him .
Dulles had been the Director of the CIA for 8 years up until that point , and was Deputy Director of the CIA for two years prior .
Refer to my paper on this for further details .
A preliminary meeting in Washington saw representatives of the Near East and Africa Division ( NEA ) with British Intelligence .
The key personalities were Christopher Montague Woodhouse who had been station chief for British Intelligence in Tehran and on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Teddy Roosevelt ) acting as NEA Division Chief .
It was the British who would propose a joint political action to remove Prime Minister Mosaddegh according to CIA documents , which were in part leaked by the New York Times on April 16th 2000 .
The final plan was codenamed TPAJAX .
Appendix B , aka “ London Draft of the TPAJAX Operational Plan ” was black propaganda aimed at hammering out these themes 1 ) Mosaddegh favors the Tudeh Party and the USSR 2 ) Mosaddegh is an enemy of Islam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aim of such tactics was to drive a wedge between Mosaddegh and his National Front on the one side and his clerical allies , especially Kashani on the other .
Demonstrations against Mosaddegh in the streets were to provide the pretext for bought MPs to hold a vote against him , if he refused to step down the plan was to have Fazlollah Zahedi , leader of the opposition , to arrest him .
Zahedi , as laid out in Appendix B was selected by the British to replace Mosaddegh as Prime Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gen. Taghi Riahi found out about the coup plans and alerted Mosaddegh in time .
When the chief of the Imperial Guards , Col. Nasiri went to Mosaddegh ’ s house the evening before the planned coup day ( Aug 16th ) to arrest him , Nasiri himself was taken as prisoner by the pro- Mosaddegh military .
Zahedi managed to flee .
The coup attempt had failed and the word spread fast , crowds flooded the streets supporting Mosaddegh and denouncing the Shah .
The Shah left the country quickly .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roosevelt that he should leave Iran immediately .
But Kermit believed the coup could still work and would make a second attempt three days later .
British Intelligence and CIA orchestrated demonstrations set to the streets on Aug 19th .
The royal decrees signed by the Shah for the deposal of Mosaddegh to be replaced by Zahedi were made public in the press that very day with the radio news announcing : that Zahedi was Prime Minister , that Mosaddegh had been ousted and that the Shah would return soon .
Military units @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As his house was being destroyed by gunfire and tanks , Mosaddegh managed to escape .
It is said he later turned himself in to the authorities .
After a ten-week period in a military prison , Mosaddegh was tried on charges of treason , because he had allegedly mobilized for a rebellion and had contradicted the Shah .
In fact , the accused treason was a nationalistic response to a foreign led coup .
Mosaddegh was promptly found guilty and sentenced to death , later lessened to three years in prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s response to the kangaroo court proceedings was , “ My only crime is that I nationalized the oil industry and removed from this land the network of colonialism and the political and economic influence of the greatest empire [ the British Empire ] on Earth.
” Members of his government were also arrested , as were the leading military who remained loyal to him .
Six hundred of the 6 , 000 of these men were executed .
Even after Mosaddegh had passed away , on March 5th , 1967 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mosaddegh had requested that upon his death , he be buried in the public graveyard beside the victims of the political violence that occurred on the 21st July 1952 from British-backed Ahmad Qavam who ordered soldiers to shoot at Mosaddegh nationalists during a demonstration , resulting in a blood bath .
Not wanting his grave to become the site of political manifestations , a public funeral for Mosaddegh was denied and his body was quietly buried underneath the floorboards of a room in his house .
Part 2 will cover U.S.-Iran relations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day .
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation .

This past Sunday, April 17th, a dispute between Iran and the U.S. occurred over the U.S.’ decision to increase its military presence in Caribbean and Eastern Pacific waters, with the purported reason being a counter-narcotics campaign.
Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote to the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres this past Sunday, that the real purpose for this move by the U.S. is to “intervene and create disruption in the transfer of Iran’s fuel to Venezuela.” In the same letter, Zarif expressed concern over “the United States’ intention to consider dangerous, unlawful and provocative measures against Iranian oil tankers engaged in perfectly lawful international commerce with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”
The Iranian deployment consists of five tankers carrying around $45.5million of gasoline and related products, as part of a wider deal between Iran and Venezuela. The U.S. has imposed sanctions on both nations’ oil exports.
For the first time since 1962, Iran has requested IMF assistance due to severe shortages created by the COVID-19 pandemic, with Iran requesting an emergency loan of $5 billion. However, the request is currently being blocked by the U.S., which accounts for slightly more than 16.5% of IMF’s voting shares and has an effective veto over decisions. A History of Modern Iran Abrahamian, Ervand Best Price: $19.44 Buy New $23.99 (as of 06:24 UTC - Details)
Iran is presently experiencing a critical shortage of medicines and equipment amid the pandemic, and yet is prohibited from purchasing medicines and supplies because of the banking sanctions.
It is clear that these manoeuvres against Iran are not on behalf of anyone’s “security” but rather an attempt to force Iran to finally bend the knee and be reduced to a state of complete dependence.
Iran has fought a long fight to claim its independence from western powers.
However, what if I were to tell you that once there was a time when Iran and the U.S. had good relations and that the U.S. was in fact the leading promoter and supporter of Iran’s sovereignty?
Almost out of a Shakespearean play of tragedy and betrayal, the relationship was jeopardised by a third player. As identified by John Perkins, in his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, the first ever U.S. coup against a foreign country was the overthrow of Iran’s nationalist Prime Minister Mosaddegh in 1953. However, what is often left out…is that it was a British authored and designed operation.
In order for us to understand how and why the U.S. was dragged into such an affair, our story starts 150 years ago…
Dieu et mon droit
It all started in 1872, with Nasir al-Din Shah having granted to the British Baron Julius de Reuter, rights to Iran’s entire economic estate. Reuter not only controlled Iran’s industry, farming, and rail transportation, but also held the right to issue currency and to set up a national bank, called the Imperial Bank of Persia, which was under direct British control.
In 1901, Muzzaffar al-Din Shah negotiated what became known as the D’Arcy Contract, granting William Knox D’Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, the special and exclusive privilege to basically own and manage the natural gas and petroleum of Iran for a term of 60 years.
In May 26th 1908 D’Arcy struck pay-dirt in Iran, discovering a huge oil field in Masjed-Soleiman. Britain immediately set up APOC in 1908, purchasing the rights to the black gold from D’Arcy. Six years later, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill gave the order to purchase 51% of APOC, effectively nationalizing the company. This was to ensure the free flow of oil to the British navy. It was the first company to extract petroleum from Iran.
Iran received only 16% of the royalties on the oil.
Britain continued to pursue total control of Iran, not through colonial occupation, but rather through economic “agreements”. In the midst of carving up the empire’s new “jewels” of the Middle East from the Sykes-Picot fraud on the Arabian people and the illegal British occupation of Palestine, the notorious Anglo-Persian Agreement of Aug 19, 1919 was also signed, with London effectively turning Iran into a de facto protectorate run by British “advisors”. Britain had succeeded in becoming the masters of Iran’s natural resources through this agreement. The Oil Kings: How the... Cooper, Andrew Scott Best Price: $3.86 Buy New $14.89 (as of 06:24 UTC - Details)
Iran received almost nothing in return, not even oil from APOC for domestic consumption, but rather had to import it from the Soviet Union!
On Nov 28th 1932 Reza Shah announced that he would be cancelling the British concession to APOC. The British Navy was heavily dependent on cheap Iranian oil and thus Britain refused to acquiesce. A compromise was reached in 1933 through bilateral negotiations and the British managed to extend their concession up until 1993! Iran had succeeded in getting the British to pay a higher price but it still did not control its own oil.
The American Relationship
Despite claiming a neutral stance for Iran during WWII, word had gotten out that Reza Shah was apparently sympathetic to the cause of Hitler. The argument was thus used that a pro-German Iran could become a launching pad for an attack against the Soviet Union, justifying British and Soviet entry into the country on Aug 25th 1941 for what would be a several years’ occupation. On Sept 16th Reza was forced by the British to abdicate and go into exile transferring power to his 22 year old son, Mohammad Reza Shah.
Mohammad Reza Shah was not happy with the joint occupation and sought an American military presence as a mediator to British and Soviet interests. The Shah sent a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aug 25th 1941 asking him to:
“be good enough to interest yourself in this incident…I beg Your Excellency to take efficacious and urgent humanitarian steps to put an end to these acts of aggression.”
In response to this plea, Roosevelt sent Gen. Patrick Hurley as his special representative to Iran to help prepare what was to become the Iran Declaration, finally adopted at the Tehran Conference where Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill would agree to guarantee the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Iran.
The Iran Declaration was used to finally end the foreign occupation of Iran after WWII, despite some resistance, and would play a crucial role in Iran’s future fight for sovereignty. The Iran Declaration thus proved itself to be more than just words, and this would certainly never have happened if not for FDR.
As part of Hurley’s report to FDR, he wrote some biting words on the present system of British imperialism, “The imperialism of Germany, Japan, Italy, France… will, we hope, end or be radically revised by this war [WWII]. British imperialism seems to have acquired a new life. . . What appears to be a new life… is the result of the infusion, into its emaciated form, of the blood of productivity and liberty from a free nation [Iran] through Lend-Lease.”
Roosevelt sent a copy of the Hurley report to Churchill with his thoughts on the matter: “The enclosed memorandum was sent to me… I rather like his general approach to the care and education of what used to be called ‘backward countries’…the point of all this is that I do not want the United States to acquire a ‘zone of influence,’ or any other nation for that matter [in Iran].” Fall of Heaven Cooper, Andrew Scott Best Price: $12.54 Buy New $10.00 (as of 06:24 UTC - Details)
Churchill was less than enthusiastic on the Hurley-FDR vision. He was particularly irked by Hurley’s notion that British imperialism were in conflict with democracy.
FDR died only a few months later, and with his interment, Hurley’s plans for American support for a sovereign and democratic Iran as a model for the rest of the Middle East were relegated to the dust bins of time and forgotten by much of the world.
Following WWII, nationalistic sentiments were on the rise including in the Middle East, the most notable being Iran. However, following the death of FDR the British were free to disingenuously respond to Iran’s request for better economic conditions by offering what was called the “Supplemental Agreement”, in May 1949. This entailed a better payment in royalties but still denied Iran any oversight over accounts or any other form of control over Iranian oil.
Enter Mosaddegh
In the late 1940s, a new political force emerged in Iran called the National Front led by Mohammad Mosaddegh. Their campaign was centered on the demand to nationalize the AIOC and the people of Iran were in accord, electing Mosaddegh into the Majlis (parliament) in 1949.
Mosaddegh lost no time, and quickly became the head of the Majlis Oil Committee which was tasked to study the British “Supplemental Agreement”. When it came time to put it to a vote on Nov 25th 1950, the committee delivered a resounding “no” to the British proposition.
Less than four months later, the Majlis voted on March 15th 1951 for nationalization of the AIOC, and it was renamed as the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). Less than two months later, Mosaddegh became Prime Minister of Iran on April 28th 1951.
The British were left empty handed.
Twice the British tried to argue their case before the international community, once in May 1951 at The Hague and again in October at the UN Security Council. Both attempts were to lose to Mosaddegh’s defense. Mosaddegh had earned a Ph.D. in law from the Neuchatel Law School in Switzerland in 1914.
This was anything but a formal victory. It was to set a precedent in the international community that a country’s right to national sovereignty would be favored over Britain’s imperial “claims”, which were exposed during these two very public trials as amounting to nothing more than the threats and bribes of pirates.
At the UN Security Council, Mosaddegh responded to Britain’s imperial ambitions over Iran with these eloquent words: All the Shahu2019s Men... Stephen Kinzer Best Price: $8.95 Buy New $12.29 (as of 04:20 UTC - Details)
“My countrymen lack the bare necessities of existence…Our greatest natural asset is oil. This should be the source of work and food for the population of Iran. Its exploitation should properly be our national industry, and the revenue from it should go to improve our conditions of life. As now organized, however, the petroleum industry has contributed practically nothing to the well-being of the people or to the technical progress or industrial development of my country…if we are to tolerate a situation in which the Iranian plays the part of a mere manual worker in the oil fields…and if foreign exploiters continue to appropriate practically all of the income, then our people will remain forever in a state of poverty and misery. These are the reasons that have prompted the Iranian parliament… to vote unanimously in favor of nationalizing the oil industry.”
A British coup
The British were fuming over Mosaddegh’s high profile humiliation of the British Empire’s claim to Iran’s oil. Mosaddegh would have to be deposed, however, this could not look like a British retaliation.
During Averell Harrimann’s visit to Tehran in July 1951, in an attempt to salvage the broken British-Iranian relationship, Mosaddegh is reported to have said,
“You do not know how crafty they are. You do not know how evil they are. You do not know how they sully everything they touch.”
As coup rumours circulated and reports were rife of British contact being sought with Iranian military officers, Mosaddegh severed diplomatic relations with the UK on Oct 16th 1952. The British were further humiliated and had to leave the country taking their agents with them.
It was at this point that Churchill “invited” his lap dog, de facto president Truman, to participate in his vision for regime change in Iran. In November 1952, NSC 136 and 136/I were written into record, Truman had agreed to promote direct intervention in Iran through covert operations and even military force. A detailed plan was approved on Jan 8th 1953 which was 12 days before Eisenhower was inaugurated.
The management of this covert operation was under the treasonous Dulles brothers, who would use the very same technique when JFK first entered office in setting him up with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, however, JFK managed to publicly expose Allan Dulles in this scheme and fired him. Dulles had been the Director of the CIA for 8 years up until that point, and was Deputy Director of the CIA for two years prior. Refer to my paper on this for further details.
A preliminary meeting in Washington saw representatives of the Near East and Africa Division (NEA) with British Intelligence. The key personalities were Christopher Montague Woodhouse who had been station chief for British Intelligence in Tehran and on the American side Kermit Roosevelt (son of Teddy Roosevelt) acting as NEA Division Chief. It was the British who would propose a joint political action to remove Prime Minister Mosaddegh according to CIA documents, which were in part leaked by the New York Times on April 16th 2000. The final plan was codenamed TPAJAX.
Appendix B, aka “London Draft of the TPAJAX Operational Plan” was black propaganda aimed at hammering out these themes 1) Mosaddegh favors the Tudeh Party and the USSR 2) Mosaddegh is an enemy of Islam since he associates with Tudeh.
The aim of such tactics was to drive a wedge between Mosaddegh and his National Front on the one side and his clerical allies, especially Kashani on the other. Demonstrations against Mosaddegh in the streets were to provide the pretext for bought MPs to hold a vote against him, if he refused to step down the plan was to have Fazlollah Zahedi, leader of the opposition, to arrest him. Zahedi, as laid out in Appendix B was selected by the British to replace Mosaddegh as Prime Minister after the coup.
Chief of Staff Gen. Taghi Riahi found out about the coup plans and alerted Mosaddegh in time. When the chief of the Imperial Guards, Col. Nasiri went to Mosaddegh’s house the evening before the planned coup day (Aug 16th) to arrest him, Nasiri himself was taken as prisoner by the pro- Mosaddegh military. Zahedi managed to flee.
The coup attempt had failed and the word spread fast, crowds flooded the streets supporting Mosaddegh and denouncing the Shah. The Shah left the country quickly.
The CIA informed of the fiasco alerted Kermit Roosevelt that he should leave Iran immediately. But Kermit believed the coup could still work and would make a second attempt three days later. British Intelligence and CIA orchestrated demonstrations set to the streets on Aug 19th. The royal decrees signed by the Shah for the deposal of Mosaddegh to be replaced by Zahedi were made public in the press that very day with the radio news announcing: that Zahedi was Prime Minister, that Mosaddegh had been ousted and that the Shah would return soon.
Military units were dispatched to Mosaddegh’s home. As his house was being destroyed by gunfire and tanks, Mosaddegh managed to escape. It is said he later turned himself in to the authorities.
After a ten-week period in a military prison, Mosaddegh was tried on charges of treason, because he had allegedly mobilized for a rebellion and had contradicted the Shah. In fact, the accused treason was a nationalistic response to a foreign led coup.
Mosaddegh was promptly found guilty and sentenced to death, later lessened to three years in prison, followed by house arrest.
Mosaddegh’s response to the kangaroo court proceedings was,
“My only crime is that I nationalized the oil industry and removed from this land the network of colonialism and the political and economic influence of the greatest empire [the British Empire] on Earth.”
Members of his government were also arrested, as were the leading military who remained loyal to him. Six hundred of the 6, 000 of these men were executed.
Even after Mosaddegh had passed away, on March 5th, 1967, his enemies were fearful of his influence. Mosaddegh had requested that upon his death, he be buried in the public graveyard beside the victims of the political violence that occurred on the 21st July 1952 from British-backed Ahmad Qavam who ordered soldiers to shoot at Mosaddegh nationalists during a demonstration, resulting in a blood bath. Not wanting his grave to become the site of political manifestations, a public funeral for Mosaddegh was denied and his body was quietly buried underneath the floorboards of a room in his house.
Part 2 will cover U.S.-Iran relations from the period of 1953 to present day.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.


A Progressive Insanity

Cloth masks , narrow plastic shields , and six feet of separation to stop an airborne virus .
Limiting exposure to the largely nonlethal virus when immunity is necessary to function and no vaccine exists .
An apparent belief that avoiding the virus will remove it from the environment .
All this is obviously insane .
Delaying medical screenings for deadly conditions like cancer and heart disease .
Depleting the resources of medical centers needed to treat such conditions .
Substantially increasing pressure on individuals prone to mental illness .
All this is obviously insane .
Disrupting commerce with business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand and creating negative multiplier effects which will extend into the foreseeable future .
Greatly increasing the risk of private investment and then crowding it out with yet more government borrowing , leading to decreased supply .
Diminishing the savings needed for investment through an immediate loss of income and a potential loss of value upon further monetization of debt .
All this is obviously insane .
Guilty By Reason of In ... Limbaugh , David Best Price : $ 13.38 Buy New $ 18.59 How did Modern Man , that hard-headed creature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , fall into insanity ?
Was he not a clear thinker , a doer , a pragmatist ?
Look !
We now have clean water !
Roads and sewers !
Skyscrapers and bridges !
None of your medieval inventions like “ essences ” were ever needed .
There is an etiology to these things , and it probably did not start with a coronavirus .
Modern Man was hard-headed about physical things , but soft-headed about metaphysical things .
His soft-headedness has simply progressed to physical things , albeit to an unseen virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start ?
With Adam and Eve , but if one were to pick a point of new decline , it would be during the Middle Ages .
Just after the turn of the first millennium , when the physical conditions of Western society were stabilizing with increased security and prosperity , intellectual life began a thousand-year process of metaphysical deconstruction .

Cloth masks, narrow plastic shields, and six feet of separation to stop an airborne virus. Limiting exposure to the largely nonlethal virus when immunity is necessary to function and no vaccine exists. An apparent belief that avoiding the virus will remove it from the environment. All this is obviously insane.
Delaying medical screenings for deadly conditions like cancer and heart disease. Depleting the resources of medical centers needed to treat such conditions. Substantially increasing pressure on individuals prone to mental illness. All this is obviously insane.
Disrupting commerce with business closures and stay-at-home orders, thereby suppressing demand and creating negative multiplier effects which will extend into the foreseeable future. Greatly increasing the risk of private investment and then crowding it out with yet more government borrowing, leading to decreased supply. Diminishing the savings needed for investment through an immediate loss of income and a potential loss of value upon further monetization of debt. All this is obviously insane. Guilty By Reason of In... Limbaugh, David Best Price: $13.38 Buy New $18.59 (as of 06:27 UTC - Details)
How did Modern Man, that hard-headed creature who occupied the earth 60 years ago, fall into insanity? Was he not a clear thinker, a doer, a pragmatist? Look! We now have clean water! Roads and sewers! Skyscrapers and bridges! None of your medieval inventions like “essences” were ever needed.
There is an etiology to these things, and it probably did not start with a coronavirus. Modern Man was hard-headed about physical things, but soft-headed about metaphysical things. His soft-headedness has simply progressed to physical things, albeit to an unseen virus.
So, where did the insanity start? With Adam and Eve, but if one were to pick a point of new decline, it would be during the Middle Ages. Just after the turn of the first millennium, when the physical conditions of Western society were stabilizing with increased security and prosperity, intellectual life began a thousand-year process of metaphysical deconstruction.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-05-26--The New York Times Is a Threat to Multicultural America

In a Memorial Day editorial , the ignorant , white-hating editorial board of the New York Times wrote : “ Bases named for men who sought to destroy the Union in the name of racial injustice are an insult to the ideals servicemen and women are sworn to uphold – and an embarrassing artifact of the time when the military itself embraced anti-American values.
” The ignorance in this statement is extraordinary .
The South left the union because the South was being economically exploited by the North .
The South fought because the North invaded the South .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lincoln said repeatedly , to “ preserve the union , ” that is , the empire .
Lincoln said repeatedlly that the South could have slavery forever if only the South would stay in the union .
HumanKind : Changing th ... Aronson , Brad Best Price : $ 12.36 Buy New $ 12.40 What the race-baiters who comprise the New York Times editorial board call “ racial injustice ” was the inherited labor system from colonial times , predating both the United States and the Confederate states of America .
There were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The first slaves were whites .
Then native Americans were tried .
Then the British discovered the African black slave trade and learned that some blacks had immunity to malaria .
The British purchased Africans supplied by the African kingdom of Dahomey , people captured in slave wars between Africans .
The black slaves that the British brought to the New World were captured by blacks in slave wars between blacks and sold on the slave market by blacks , where some were purchased and used as a labor force in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the formation of the United States and two and three-quarter centuries prior to the formation of the Confederate States of America .
The New York Times editorial board covers up the known indisputable truth with their anti-white “ 1619 project , ” an indoctrination program to inculcate hatred of white people in blacks and guilt in white people .
Fortitude : American Re ... Crenshaw , Dan Buy New $ 14.99 Why does the New York Times lie , brainwash blacks into hatred of whites , and attempt to brainwash whites into guilt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labor force four centuries ago ?
Why do Americans tolerate the New York Times formenting of racial hatred in a mulicultural society ?
The New York Times is a vile organization .
The New York Times attempts to discredit the President of the United States and did all it could to frame him on false charges .
The New York Times painted General Flynn , who honorably served the US , as a Russian agent and enabled General Flynn ’ s frame-up on false and now dropped charges .
The New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now the New York Times accuses the American military of celebrating white supremacism .
Does America have a worse enemy than the New York Times ?
The New York Times is clearly and intentionally making a multicultural America impossible .
By threatening white people with the prospect of hate-driven racial violence , the New York Times editorial board is fomenting the rise of white supremacy .
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts

In a Memorial Day editorial, the ignorant, white-hating editorial board of the New York Times wrote:
“Bases named for men who sought to destroy the Union in the name of racial injustice are an insult to the ideals servicemen and women are sworn to uphold – and an embarrassing artifact of the time when the military itself embraced anti-American values.”
The ignorance in this statement is extraordinary. The South left the union because the South was being economically exploited by the North. The South fought because the North invaded the South. The North invaded the South, as President Lincoln said repeatedly, to “preserve the union,” that is, the empire. Lincoln said repeatedlly that the South could have slavery forever if only the South would stay in the union. HumanKind: Changing th... Aronson, Brad Best Price: $12.36 Buy New $12.40 (as of 06:28 UTC - Details)
What the race-baiters who comprise the New York Times editorial board call “racial injustice” was the inherited labor system from colonial times, predating both the United States and the Confederate states of America. There were vast land resources and no labor force. The first slaves were whites. Then native Americans were tried. Then the British discovered the African black slave trade and learned that some blacks had immunity to malaria. The British purchased Africans supplied by the African kingdom of Dahomey, people captured in slave wars between Africans.
The black slaves that the British brought to the New World were captured by blacks in slave wars between blacks and sold on the slave market by blacks, where some were purchased and used as a labor force in the New World for about two centuries before the formation of the United States and two and three-quarter centuries prior to the formation of the Confederate States of America.
The New York Times editorial board covers up the known indisputable truth with their anti-white “1619 project,” an indoctrination program to inculcate hatred of white people in blacks and guilt in white people. Fortitude: American Re... Crenshaw, Dan Buy New $14.99 (as of 06:28 UTC - Details)
Why does the New York Times lie, brainwash blacks into hatred of whites, and attempt to brainwash whites into guilt for the creation of a New World labor force four centuries ago?
Why do Americans tolerate the New York Times formenting of racial hatred in a mulicultural society?
The New York Times is a vile organization. The New York Times attempts to discredit the President of the United States and did all it could to frame him on false charges. The New York Times painted General Flynn, who honorably served the US, as a Russian agent and enabled General Flynn’s frame-up on false and now dropped charges. The New York Times spews hatred of white people. And now the New York Times accuses the American military of celebrating white supremacism.
Does America have a worse enemy than the New York Times? The New York Times is clearly and intentionally making a multicultural America impossible. By threatening white people with the prospect of hate-driven racial violence, the New York Times editorial board is fomenting the rise of white supremacy.
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts


lewrockwell--2020-05-26--Paine, Jefferson, and the Fear Mask

Paine, Jefferson, and the Fear Mask

In the years just before the American movement for separation from Great Britain ( it was not a “ revolution , ” properly speaking , as the American separatists had no desire to transform the government of Great Britain ; they merely wished to be free of it ) there was something called the committees of correspondence .
They were the 18th century equivalent of non- “ authoritative ” ( i.e.
, official/corporate-government propaganda ) Internet sites , such as the one you ’ re reading right now .
A means by which people could share information – especially heretical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ authoritative ” pabulum .
They spread more than information , too .
They also spread hope , almost as important as the information itself .
The people reading and back-and-forthing realized they were not alone .
That others – intelligent , thoughtful people – shared their views .
The importance of this can not be overstated .
Common Sense : The Orig ... Paine , Thomas Best Price : $ 13.90 Buy New $ 6.38 They powers arrayed then – as now – count on isolation to demoralize the opposition .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distancing ” accompanies the tyrannizing of Americans today .
People can ’ t easily communicate when they have to shout because they ’ re forced to stand no closer than six feet from the people they ’ re trying to talk with – and aren ’ t permitted to gather in groups .
Even their commerce must be conducted remotely – via “ apps ” and such .
They wait curbside for a Fear Masker to hurriedly push the ( sanitized ) bag through the window .
And , of course , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and facts – contrary to all of this when the public discourse is subject to the approval ( and redaction ) of “ authoritative ” Lictors of the Allowable .
It is not coincidental that Fear Masking rises – even as the cold-equals-death narrative has become as transparently ridiculous as the “ weapons of mass destruction ” narrative – because millions of Americans are being programmed – the word has dual meaning – by their TeeVees and the other “ authoritative ” sources of orthodoxy .
It is just as important – from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programming – to terrify people as to isolate them .
Feardom : How Politicia ... Connor Boyack Best Price : $ 4.12 Buy New $ 6.98 In the years preceding the outbreak of physical resistance to the British government , the government of Great Britain did the same .
It warned the people of the American colonies that without the protection of the redcoats , they would be at the mercy of savage indians and rampaging French – the Coronavirus equivalents of the 18th century .
The fear , of course , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as now .
But the good news- and we need it – is that we have even more effective means of discussing this truth among ourselves and spreading the truth to others , who join our side every day the “ authoritative ” elaboration of falsehood continues .
It is critically important – psychologically – to understand that .
The Lictors of the Allowable will do all they can to prevent us knowing that .
The Best of Eric Peters

In the years just before the American movement for separation from Great Britain (it was not a “revolution,” properly speaking, as the American separatists had no desire to transform the government of Great Britain; they merely wished to be free of it) there was something called the committees of correspondence.
They were the 18th century equivalent of non-“authoritative” (i.e., official/corporate-government propaganda) Internet sites, such as the one you’re reading right now. A means by which people could share information – especially heretical information – among themselves, sidestepping the “authoritative” pabulum.
They spread more than information, too. They also spread hope, almost as important as the information itself. The people reading and back-and-forthing realized they were not alone. That others – intelligent, thoughtful people – shared their views.
The importance of this cannot be overstated. Common Sense: The Orig... Paine, Thomas Best Price: $13.90 Buy New $6.38 (as of 06:29 UTC - Details)
They powers arrayed then – as now – count on isolation to demoralize the opposition. It is not mere coincidence that “social distancing” accompanies the tyrannizing of Americans today. People can’t easily communicate when they have to shout because they’re forced to stand no closer than six feet from the people they’re trying to talk with – and aren’t permitted to gather in groups.
Even their commerce must be conducted remotely – via “apps” and such. They wait curbside for a Fear Masker to hurriedly push the (sanitized) bag through the window.
And, of course, it is very hard to communicate ideas – and facts – contrary to all of this when the public discourse is subject to the approval (and redaction) of “authoritative” Lictors of the Allowable.
It is not coincidental that Fear Masking rises – even as the cold-equals-death narrative has become as transparently ridiculous as the “weapons of mass destruction” narrative – because millions of Americans are being programmed – the word has dual meaning – by their TeeVees and the other “authoritative” sources of orthodoxy. It is just as important – from the standpoint of the people behind the programming – to terrify people as to isolate them. Feardom: How Politicia... Connor Boyack Best Price: $4.12 Buy New $6.98 (as of 11:35 UTC - Details)
In the years preceding the outbreak of physical resistance to the British government, the government of Great Britain did the same. It warned the people of the American colonies that without the protection of the redcoats, they would be at the mercy of savage indians and rampaging French – the Coronavirus equivalents of the 18th century.
The fear, of course, was much greater than the threat – then as now.
But the good news- and we need it – is that we have even more effective means of discussing this truth among ourselves and spreading the truth to others, who join our side every day the “authoritative” elaboration of falsehood continues. It is critically important – psychologically – to understand that.
The Lictors of the Allowable will do all they can to prevent us knowing that.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Eric Peters


lewrockwell--2020-05-26--Three Ways the Coronavirus May Significantly Accelerate Political Decentralization

The coronavirus pandemic , and resulting government response , has created one of the greatest disruptions to daily life in modern American history .
With much of the country now focused on “ reopening , ” pundits and policymakers have focused their attention on what the “ new normal ” of a post-COVID America looks like .
Although much of the attention has been focused on the future of massive public gatherings and changes to American work environments , the most significant change to American societies may be faith in our governing structures .
The policy response to the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy .
In the positive , both federal agencies and state governments have waived or altered many traditional regulatory requirements to bypass disastrous delays in medical testing and to better facilitate delivery of services .
In the negative , the Federal Reserve has massively escalated its interventionist policies , highlighting how radical these institutions have truly become .
Beyond specific policies , however , the most significant change may be the degree to which the COVID response changes the public view of centralized political power .
In particular , there are three relatively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the precursor to significant realignments going forward .
Debt Cleanse : How To S ... Newbery , Jorge P. Best Price : $ 16.05 Buy New $ 10.65 State Governments Have Taken the Lead in Public Policy In spite of rhetoric from President Trump about the White House having “ full authority ” over state governments , the current administration has been largely content with allowing governors to lead the way in responding to the pandemic .
This has led to significant differences in the severity of economic lockdowns , testing behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Given the hypertribalism of modern politics , it ’ s easy to simplify this into a typical “ red state-blue state ” division , but this overlooks significant differences in approach from governors and state legislatures within the same party .
For example , although Michigan , New York , and California are high-profile examples of blue states with strong lockdown policies , Colorado is an example of a state with a Democratic governor who has largely followed the reopening guidance promoted by the Trump administration .
The significant differences in policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Florida ) has meant greater attention , from both the press and the voters subjected to unprecedented restrictions , toward their state capitals and away from the usual circus of Washington .
Many governors have seemed to relish this move , such as Governor Gavin Newsom of California , who proudly declared himself leader of a “ nation-state.
” The power of state governments has even led to some governors engaging in the sort of executive overreach that has become the norm in the national level , such as Colorado governor Jared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the wishes of the state legislature .
The stark contrast between state responses , coupled with differences in outcomes—both in terms of economic and public health measures—is an important lesson in the power of federalism that has been eroded in American politics .
The precedents being set today may further embolden the growing trend of state rejection of federal authority that we ’ ve seen with such issues as drug laws and immigration enforcement .
When we factor in the hyperpartisan environment , and a predictably polarizing presidential election later this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly be defined by a battle of federal and state authority .
As Ryan McMaken has noted , state budgets are going to face major shortages as the devastating impact of lockdowns limits tax revenue .
Although no state will be spared from the economic fallout , this revenue shock will be particularly devastating for those already on particularly unsound economic footing .
Already we ’ ve seen this begin to play out in Washington , with Republicans pushing back strongly against Democrat calls for a $ 195 billion bailout of state and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week summarized this growing conflict with the question , “ Why Should Florida Bail Out New York ?
, ” highlighting the differences in governing philosophy and economic health between the two similarly sized states .
Although it ’ s obvious that Congress has no stomach for any sort of fiscal restraint when it comes to national economic aid or stimulus programs , the more the debate focuses on state—and partisan—differences , the more we are likely to see the federal representatives of fiscally prudent states hunker down against bailouts in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen blue state leaders like Governor Newsom threaten their own version of Washington Monument syndrome , stating that police and first responders will be the first victims if Washington doesn ’ t bend to his bailout demands .
This could easily erupt into the sort of state-on-state legislative battle we haven ’ t seen play out in Washington in a long time .
Lastly , one of the aspects of the coronavirus that has driven a lot of the radical differences in narrative and policy between states has been the difference in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national tragedies , there has usually been a trend toward national unity , as the event created a common experience among all Americans .
Although New Yorkers dealing with the aftermath of 9/11 or Gulf Coast residents during Hurricane Katrina experienced these events in a more personal and intimate way , everyone witnessed them on television and with a similar appreciation for their significance .
This is clearly not the same with the coronavirus .
I recently had a good friend who is a nurse in northern Louisiana visit , and he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Florida were taking the virus .
Although the city he currently lives in is very red and culturally Southern , it was an early hot spot for COVID-19 , and the scars from that had majorly impacted much of the community .
In Panama City Beach , Florida , the greatest fears in the last few months came from the impact that lockdowns were having on a local economy so dependent on tourism and the service industry .
The Total Money Makeov ... Dave Ramsey Best Price : $ 3.93 Buy New $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national unity far more powerfully than government institutions can , it ’ s possible that the cultural consequences of the coronavirus will fuel divisions between states in a way that disagreements on marijuana laws never could .
It is both reasonable and natural for a resident of New York City , which has suffered nearly twenty thousand coronavirus-related deaths , to be far more traumatized by the virus than residents of Houston , which has suffered fewer than two hundred .
Considering that a major question for political fallout going forward will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflicted on this country was “ justified ” by the threat of the virus , the differences in experience make it unlikely that the coronavirus will build anything resembling a national consensus .
The lasting impact of the coronavirus going forward—alongside the devastating economic consequences that we have yet to truly face—could be deepening a regional , cultural , and political polarization that has been building in recent years .
These are also precisely the sort of differences that are only escalated by centralized political power , and that will only be fueled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election .
Although national tragedies tend to bring a country together , it seems clear that the coronavirus will leave America as divided as it has been in modern history .
Note : The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute .
The Best of Tho Bishop

The coronavirus pandemic, and resulting government response, has created one of the greatest disruptions to daily life in modern American history. With much of the country now focused on “reopening,” pundits and policymakers have focused their attention on what the “new normal” of a post-COVID America looks like. Although much of the attention has been focused on the future of massive public gatherings and changes to American work environments, the most significant change to American societies may be faith in our governing structures.
The policy response to the coronavirus has already led to dramatic changes to policy. In the positive, both federal agencies and state governments have waived or altered many traditional regulatory requirements to bypass disastrous delays in medical testing and to better facilitate delivery of services. In the negative, the Federal Reserve has massively escalated its interventionist policies, highlighting how radical these institutions have truly become.
Beyond specific policies, however, the most significant change may be the degree to which the COVID response changes the public view of centralized political power. In particular, there are three relatively unique aspects of this pandemic that may be the precursor to significant realignments going forward. Debt Cleanse: How To S... Newbery, Jorge P. Best Price: $16.05 Buy New $10.65 (as of 06:30 UTC - Details)
State Governments Have Taken the Lead in Public Policy
In spite of rhetoric from President Trump about the White House having “full authority” over state governments, the current administration has been largely content with allowing governors to lead the way in responding to the pandemic. This has led to significant differences in the severity of economic lockdowns, testing behavior, and even authorized treatments between states.
Given the hypertribalism of modern politics, it’s easy to simplify this into a typical “red state-blue state” division, but this overlooks significant differences in approach from governors and state legislatures within the same party. For example, although Michigan, New York, and California are high-profile examples of blue states with strong lockdown policies, Colorado is an example of a state with a Democratic governor who has largely followed the reopening guidance promoted by the Trump administration.
The significant differences in policy between states (such as New York and Florida) has meant greater attention, from both the press and the voters subjected to unprecedented restrictions, toward their state capitals and away from the usual circus of Washington. Many governors have seemed to relish this move, such as Governor Gavin Newsom of California, who proudly declared himself leader of a “nation-state.” The power of state governments has even led to some governors engaging in the sort of executive overreach that has become the norm in the national level, such as Colorado governor Jared Polis taking control of federal aid money against the wishes of the state legislature.
The stark contrast between state responses, coupled with differences in outcomes—both in terms of economic and public health measures—is an important lesson in the power of federalism that has been eroded in American politics. The precedents being set today may further embolden the growing trend of state rejection of federal authority that we’ve seen with such issues as drug laws and immigration enforcement. When we factor in the hyperpartisan environment, and a predictably polarizing presidential election later this year, the future of American politics may increasingly be defined by a battle of federal and state authority.
The State Battle over a Federal Bailout
As Ryan McMaken has noted, state budgets are going to face major shortages as the devastating impact of lockdowns limits tax revenue. Although no state will be spared from the economic fallout, this revenue shock will be particularly devastating for those already on particularly unsound economic footing.
Already we’ve seen this begin to play out in Washington, with Republicans pushing back strongly against Democrat calls for a $195 billion bailout of state and local governments. The Wall Street Journal this week summarized this growing conflict with the question, “Why Should Florida Bail Out New York?,” highlighting the differences in governing philosophy and economic health between the two similarly sized states.
Although it’s obvious that Congress has no stomach for any sort of fiscal restraint when it comes to national economic aid or stimulus programs, the more the debate focuses on state—and partisan—differences, the more we are likely to see the federal representatives of fiscally prudent states hunker down against bailouts in their own interest. Already we’ve seen blue state leaders like Governor Newsom threaten their own version of Washington Monument syndrome, stating that police and first responders will be the first victims if Washington doesn’t bend to his bailout demands.
This could easily erupt into the sort of state-on-state legislative battle we haven’t seen play out in Washington in a long time.
Shared Experience and National Unity
Lastly, one of the aspects of the coronavirus that has driven a lot of the radical differences in narrative and policy between states has been the difference in its severity around the country. In past national tragedies, there has usually been a trend toward national unity, as the event created a common experience among all Americans. Although New Yorkers dealing with the aftermath of 9/11 or Gulf Coast residents during Hurricane Katrina experienced these events in a more personal and intimate way, everyone witnessed them on television and with a similar appreciation for their significance.
This is clearly not the same with the coronavirus.
I recently had a good friend who is a nurse in northern Louisiana visit, and he was shocked at how laxly residents of north Florida were taking the virus. Although the city he currently lives in is very red and culturally Southern, it was an early hot spot for COVID-19, and the scars from that had majorly impacted much of the community. In Panama City Beach, Florida, the greatest fears in the last few months came from the impact that lockdowns were having on a local economy so dependent on tourism and the service industry. The Total Money Makeov... Dave Ramsey Best Price: $3.93 Buy New $7.22 (as of 12:15 UTC - Details)
Considering that common experiences can shape national unity far more powerfully than government institutions can, it’s possible that the cultural consequences of the coronavirus will fuel divisions between states in a way that disagreements on marijuana laws never could. It is both reasonable and natural for a resident of New York City, which has suffered nearly twenty thousand coronavirus-related deaths, to be far more traumatized by the virus than residents of Houston, which has suffered fewer than two hundred.
Considering that a major question for political fallout going forward will be the degree to which the economic damage inflicted on this country was “justified” by the threat of the virus, the differences in experience make it unlikely that the coronavirus will build anything resembling a national consensus.
The lasting impact of the coronavirus going forward—alongside the devastating economic consequences that we have yet to truly face—could be deepening a regional, cultural, and political polarization that has been building in recent years. These are also precisely the sort of differences that are only escalated by centralized political power, and that will only be fueled by the upcoming theater of the 2020 presidential election.
Although national tragedies tend to bring a country together, it seems clear that the coronavirus will leave America as divided as it has been in modern history.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
The Best of Tho Bishop


lewrockwell--2020-05-26--German Foreign Policy Is a CIA Front

German Foreign Policy Is a CIA Front

On March 30 Germany declared the important Lebanese political group , Hezbollah , to be a “ terrorist ” organization and banned it from German soil .
By doing so it gratuitously increased the tension in the eastern Mediterranean and exposed Berlin ’ s lack of credibility on the world stage .
Is it really in Germany ’ s interest to destabilize a region that has already been crippled by multiple wars ?
On the surface Germany doesn ’ t appear to have a stake in the politics of Lebanon .
Indeed , from whatever angle the situation is viewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have a meaningful stake in Lebanon .
Yet Berlin is assaulting the sovereignty of this small Mediterranean nation that means no harm .
Hezbollah is an organization that forms 10 % of the current Lebanese parliament and is a significant part of Lebanon ’ s governing coalition .
Because of its commitment to international justice , Hezbollah is , in fact , Lebanon ’ s most recognizable political group .
And that ’ s the point .
Hezbollah ’ s successful efforts to defend the sovereignty of Lebanon in the past decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent years , is a problem for that power which aims to destroy the sovereignty of both Lebanon and Syria .
However , that power isn ’ t Germany , so what then explains Berlin ’ s hostility towards Beirut ?
The Devil ’ s Ches ... Talbot , David Best Price : $ 4.05 Buy New $ 8.05 Germany is doing someone ’ s bidding .
Germany ’ s problem is that it ’ s foreign policy is stuck in the late 20th century .
At present , Germany ’ s political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two Europe .
Ever since the Nazis were defeated in 1945 , Germany has been a cutout .
To begin with , it was either a Soviet or an American cutout .
But when the Soviets had the decency to exit Germany in “ 1989 ” , the Americans remained .
As a consequence , in the 21st century German independence is still an aspiration rather than a reality .
According to Deutsche Welle ( DW ) , in 2019 there were “ roughly 38,600 ” American soldiers based in Germany .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeps in any other country except Japan.
” In other words , whether it likes it or not , Germany is a key part of American geopolitics .
As DW explains : “ Germany ’ s strategic importance for the US is reflected by the location of US European Command ( EUCOM ) headquarters in the southwestern city of Stuttgart , from which it serves as the coordinating structure for all American military forces across 51 primarily European countries.
” The Secret History of ... Joseph J. Trento Best Price : $ 2.99 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of EUCOM ?
“ The mission of EUCOM is to protect and defend the US.. ” It ’ s purpose is not to defend the interests of Germany but the interests of the USA .
EUCOM though is only the overt dimension of US power in Germany .
As intimidating and oppressive as EUCOM is , it is less sinister than the covert dimension of US power in Berlin and beyond .
To bend German politicians and opinion towards warmongering in west Asia requires a level of deceitfulness that is too subtle for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need for sly covert action is the raison d ’ être of America ’ s Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA ) .
And Germany is as much under the control of the CIA as it is under the control of EUCOM .
The evidence is the illogical German decision to make Hezbollah illegal .
The evidence is the fact that Germany ’ s “ foreign ” secret service , the Bundesnachrichtendienst ( the BND ) , which reportedly has 300 bases inside and outside Germany , was a CIA creation .
This means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( CIA/Nazi sympathizer ) and Reinhard Gehlen ( Nazi/CIA ) , developed a covert system within Germany in the late 1940s and 1950s – a system that continues to function surreptitiously today .
Recent evidence of this insidious CIA activity in Germany includes the US bugging of Germany ’ s prime minister , Angela Merkel ( revealed in 2013 ) ; the US/German creation of a Swiss front company ( Crypto AG ) to spy on world governments ( revealed in 2020 ) ; and the manipulation of German media , as revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pay of the CIA ( 2019 ) , by Udo Ulfkoette .
All of which confirms the claims made by CIA whistleblower Philip Agee in the 1970s .
For example , in a 1976 interview with the German magazine Informations Dienst he stated : “ Since World War II , the aim of US foreign policy has been to guarantee the coherence of the western world under the leadership of the USA .
CIA activities are directed toward achieving this goal….Left opposition movements had to be discredited and destroyed….After World War II , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In order to secure US interests there , the CIA supported not only the CDU ( Christian Democratic Union ) but also the SPD ( Social Democratic Union ) and the trade unions .
The CIA wanted the influence of the two major political parties to be strong enough to shut out and hold down any left opposition…..Most CIA stations pay journalists to publish the CIA ’ s propaganda as if it were the journalist ’ s own work….
” Presstitutes Embedded ... Ulfkotte , Dr. Udo Best Price : $ 38.43 Buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fit into this CIA / German matrix ?
Its an official US enemy .
And so , ipso facto , its an official German “ enemy ” .
As a key part of the “ axis of resistance ” ( Lebanon , Syria and Iran ) that ’ s fighting US imperialism in west Asia , Hezbollah has been in the crosshairs of Washington DC for sometime .
Hence the March 2019 Aljazeera headline : “ [ US ] Tells Lebanon to Choose Hezbollah or Independence ” .
A headline which can also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Criminalize Hezbollah ” .
The big geopolitical picture is , of course , the grand chessboard that stretches across the Eurasian landmass .
On the western edge of this “ world island ” the US is anchored in Germany .
And on the eastern side the US is anchored in Japan .
The aim of US imperialism is to control or contain everything in between – primarily Russia and China .
And in this US “ game ” of control and containment , the oil fields and pipelines in west Asia ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany ’ s decision to criminalize Hezbollah is a part this great US “ game ” .
As a key American base on the Eurasian landmass , the “ mighty “ Germany is nothing but a pawn in the hands the US .
This “ German decision ” , therefore , is in reality an American decision – a decision managed by America ’ s covert warriors : the CIA .
The problem for the USA and Germany , however , is that the “ game ” is now so obvious that whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The original source of this article is Global Research .

On March 30 Germany declared the important Lebanese political group, Hezbollah, to be a “terrorist” organization and banned it from German soil. By doing so it gratuitously increased the tension in the eastern Mediterranean and exposed Berlin’s lack of credibility on the world stage.
Is it really in Germany’s interest to destabilize a region that has already been crippled by multiple wars? On the surface Germany doesn’t appear to have a stake in the politics of Lebanon. Indeed, from whatever angle the situation is viewed from, Germany qua Germany doesn’t have a meaningful stake in Lebanon. Yet Berlin is assaulting the sovereignty of this small Mediterranean nation that means no harm.
Hezbollah is an organization that forms 10% of the current Lebanese parliament and is a significant part of Lebanon’s governing coalition. Because of its commitment to international justice, Hezbollah is, in fact, Lebanon’s most recognizable political group. And that’s the point. Hezbollah’s successful efforts to defend the sovereignty of Lebanon in the past decades, and the sovereignty of Syria in recent years, is a problem for that power which aims to destroy the sovereignty of both Lebanon and Syria. However, that power isn’t Germany, so what then explains Berlin’s hostility towards Beirut? The Devil’s Ches... Talbot, David Best Price: $4.05 Buy New $8.05 (as of 07:00 UTC - Details)
Germany is doing someone’s bidding. Germany’s problem is that it’s foreign policy is stuck in the late 20th century. At present, Germany’s political structure is stuck in post World War Two Europe. Ever since the Nazis were defeated in 1945, Germany has been a cutout. To begin with, it was either a Soviet or an American cutout. But when the Soviets had the decency to exit Germany in “1989”, the Americans remained. As a consequence, in the 21st century German independence is still an aspiration rather than a reality.
According to Deutsche Welle (DW), in 2019 there were “roughly 38,600” American soldiers based in Germany. “This is…more military personnel than the US keeps in any other country except Japan.” In other words, whether it likes it or not, Germany is a key part of American geopolitics. As DW explains:
“Germany’s strategic importance for the US is reflected by the location of US European Command (EUCOM) headquarters in the southwestern city of Stuttgart, from which it serves as the coordinating structure for all American military forces across 51 primarily European countries.”
Spying in the German Banana Republic
The Secret History of ... Joseph J. Trento Best Price: $2.99 Buy New $103.03 (as of 10:35 UTC - Details) And the purpose of EUCOM? “The mission of EUCOM is to protect and defend the US..” It’s purpose is not to defend the interests of Germany but the interests of the USA.
EUCOM though is only the overt dimension of US power in Germany. As intimidating and oppressive as EUCOM is, it is less sinister than the covert dimension of US power in Berlin and beyond. To bend German politicians and opinion towards warmongering in west Asia requires a level of deceitfulness that is too subtle for the straightforward American war machine. This need for sly covert action is the raison d’être of America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). And Germany is as much under the control of the CIA as it is under the control of EUCOM. The evidence is the illogical German decision to make Hezbollah illegal.
The evidence is the fact that Germany’s “foreign” secret service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (the BND), which reportedly has 300 bases inside and outside Germany, was a CIA creation. This means that infamous spymasters, like Allen Dulles (CIA/Nazi sympathizer) and Reinhard Gehlen (Nazi/CIA), developed a covert system within Germany in the late 1940s and 1950s – a system that continues to function surreptitiously today.
Recent evidence of this insidious CIA activity in Germany includes the US bugging of Germany’s prime minister, Angela Merkel (revealed in 2013); the US/German creation of a Swiss front company (Crypto AG) to spy on world governments (revealed in 2020); and the manipulation of German media, as revealed in the book Presstitutes Embedded in the Pay of the CIA (2019), by Udo Ulfkoette. All of which confirms the claims made by CIA whistleblower Philip Agee in the 1970s. For example, in a 1976 interview with the German magazine Informations Dienst he stated:
“Since World War II, the aim of US foreign policy has been to guarantee the coherence of the western world under the leadership of the USA. CIA activities are directed toward achieving this goal….Left opposition movements had to be discredited and destroyed….After World War II, West Germany was a crucial area. In order to secure US interests there, the CIA supported not only the CDU (Christian Democratic Union) but also the SPD (Social Democratic Union) and the trade unions. The CIA wanted the influence of the two major political parties to be strong enough to shut out and hold down any left opposition…..Most CIA stations pay journalists to publish the CIA’s propaganda as if it were the journalist’s own work….” Presstitutes Embedded ... Ulfkotte, Dr. Udo Best Price: $38.43 Buy New $34.09 (as of 11:15 UTC - Details)
And how does Hezbollah fit into this CIA / German matrix? Its an official US enemy. And so, ipso facto, its an official German “enemy”. As a key part of the “axis of resistance” (Lebanon, Syria and Iran) that’s fighting US imperialism in west Asia, Hezbollah has been in the crosshairs of Washington DC for sometime. Hence the March 2019 Aljazeera headline: “[US] Tells Lebanon to Choose Hezbollah or Independence”. A headline which can also be read: “US Tells Germany to Criminalize Hezbollah”.
The big geopolitical picture is, of course, the grand chessboard that stretches across the Eurasian landmass. On the western edge of this “world island” the US is anchored in Germany. And on the eastern side the US is anchored in Japan. The aim of US imperialism is to control or contain everything in between – primarily Russia and China. And in this US “game” of control and containment, the oil fields and pipelines in west Asia (the eastern Mediterranean) are fundamental.
Germany’s decision to criminalize Hezbollah is a part this great US “game”. As a key American base on the Eurasian landmass, the “mighty“ Germany is nothing but a pawn in the hands the US. This “German decision”, therefore, is in reality an American decision – a decision managed by America’s covert warriors: the CIA. The problem for the USA and Germany, however, is that the “game” is now so obvious that whatever decision is made lacks power and meaning.
The original source of this article is Global Research.


lewrockwell--2020-05-26--The Public Must Lead Us Out of the Lockdown

There was a fascinating clip on the news last week .
ITV was reporting from a crowded beach in Brighton .
People were sunning themselves , chatting with friends , necking beers .
All to the fury of lockdown fanatics , of course , who view these pleasure-seekers as selfish , unwitting murderers .
‘ You ’ re killing people !
’ , as the demented cry goes .
During ITV ’ s report , a man holding a bottle of beer and mingling with his family said something really revealing : ‘ I know we ’ re down here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way we ’ re going , I think we ’ re going to have a major lockdown in two weeks… and we ’ re going to see a massive rise in deaths again.
’ So he was breaking the lockdown , or at least infuriating lockdown fanatics , while simultaneously genuflecting to one of the core commandments of the lockdown ideology – that individual bad behaviour can cause social mayhem and even death .
Covidiot Definition Sh ... Buy New $ 16.95 It was a telling snapshot of where I think many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , growing numbers of people are bristling at the lockdown , recognising that it is deeply harmful to work life , social life , and liberty itself .
But they know you aren ’ t meant to hold this view , far less act on it .
So they make a performance of fealty to the lockdown strictures .
So overbearing is the lockdown ideology , so widespread is lockdown conformism among the opinion-forming set , that people recognise that opposing it is a socially risky business .
You ’ ll be demonised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You will be reduced to a ‘ Covidiot ’ .
To be a lockdown apostate , to question the rituals of social distancing , is not a pleasant experience .
Indeed , our beer-drinking friend , despite publicly swearing allegiance to the cult of lockdown , was still judged to have lapsed too far from the lockdown belief system .
He was mauled online .
He should be denied medical treatment if he requires it during the second spike he ’ s helping to bring about , the lockdowners cried .
Let him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris , Steven Richard Buy New $ 9.99 His expression of devotion to the gospel of lockdown was not enough to save him from the Twittermob .
His sin was too grave , his joy over that cold beer too iniquitous .
No amount of bowing to the lockdown narrative could wash away such moral error .
Like the heretics of old who made a desperate last-minute conversion to godliness but still got burnt by the yapping mob anyway , our Brighton friend failed to convince the self-elected policers of lockdown fidelity that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one thing and doing another – expressing support for the lockdown while breaking it on the sly – is probably widespread in lockdown Britain .
In a sense it ’ s a healthy hypocrisy , speaking to some people ’ s scepticism of the lockdown and their willingness to take risks to do things that are essential to the human soul : have a beer on Brighton beach , visit family members , pop into the office , swing by a sexual partner ’ s house .
These are good things , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise are .
Despite what the lockdown fanatics might think , man can not live by Morrison ’ s microwave meals and dog-walking alone .
We need connection , engagement , touch , art , religion .
It is testament to the nanny state ’ s successful reduction of human beings to units of health that so many in officialdom think it is acceptable to deprive us of social , spiritual and sexual interaction for so long .

There was a fascinating clip on the news last week. ITV was reporting from a crowded beach in Brighton. People were sunning themselves, chatting with friends, necking beers. All to the fury of lockdown fanatics, of course, who view these pleasure-seekers as selfish, unwitting murderers. ‘You’re killing people!’, as the demented cry goes.
During ITV’s report, a man holding a bottle of beer and mingling with his family said something really revealing: ‘I know we’re down here drinking beer… but if we carry on the way we’re going, I think we’re going to have a major lockdown in two weeks… and we’re going to see a massive rise in deaths again.’
So he was breaking the lockdown, or at least infuriating lockdown fanatics, while simultaneously genuflecting to one of the core commandments of the lockdown ideology – that individual bad behaviour can cause social mayhem and even death. Covidiot Definition Sh... Buy New $16.95 (as of 06:33 UTC - Details)
It was a telling snapshot of where I think many people are at right now. Instinctively, growing numbers of people are bristling at the lockdown, recognising that it is deeply harmful to work life, social life, and liberty itself. But they know you aren’t meant to hold this view, far less act on it. So they make a performance of fealty to the lockdown strictures.
So overbearing is the lockdown ideology, so widespread is lockdown conformism among the opinion-forming set, that people recognise that opposing it is a socially risky business. You’ll be demonised, Twitter-shamed, branded a killer. You will be reduced to a ‘Covidiot’. To be a lockdown apostate, to question the rituals of social distancing, is not a pleasant experience.
Indeed, our beer-drinking friend, despite publicly swearing allegiance to the cult of lockdown, was still judged to have lapsed too far from the lockdown belief system. He was mauled online. He should be denied medical treatment if he requires it during the second spike he’s helping to bring about, the lockdowners cried. Let him die.
COVIDIOTS: Stories of ... Harris, Steven Richard Buy New $9.99 (as of 06:33 UTC - Details) His expression of devotion to the gospel of lockdown was not enough to save him from the Twittermob. His sin was too grave, his joy over that cold beer too iniquitous. No amount of bowing to the lockdown narrative could wash away such moral error. Like the heretics of old who made a desperate last-minute conversion to godliness but still got burnt by the yapping mob anyway, our Brighton friend failed to convince the self-elected policers of lockdown fidelity that he is one of them.
Saying one thing and doing another – expressing support for the lockdown while breaking it on the sly – is probably widespread in lockdown Britain. In a sense it’s a healthy hypocrisy, speaking to some people’s scepticism of the lockdown and their willingness to take risks to do things that are essential to the human soul: have a beer on Brighton beach, visit family members, pop into the office, swing by a sexual partner’s house.
These are good things, as nutritious to the individual as food and exercise are. Despite what the lockdown fanatics might think, man cannot live by Morrison’s microwave meals and dog-walking alone. We need connection, engagement, touch, art, religion. It is testament to the nanny state’s successful reduction of human beings to units of health that so many in officialdom think it is acceptable to deprive us of social, spiritual and sexual interaction for so long.
Read the Whole Article