Amir Parviz for secular monarchy

I can't sleep, read this pg7, the real petrotyrants revealed!

FEW: Sure, most happily. I had the fascinating pleasure of being invited personally by Sheikh Zaki Yamani
in September 2000 to his annual retreat outside London. He has an energy center in London that he
founded after Washington got him dismissed as the Saudi energy minister during the reverse oil shocks
of 1986, where Yamani was quite opposed to U.S. State Department pressure on Saudi‘s monarchy.
Yamani invited me because he had read the “Century of War” book – an Iraqi friend had given it to him.
He called on me to give a presentation to this grouping of energy bankers from the City of London and oil
men about what really happened in 1973. He introduced it by saying: “This is the only account that exists
of what really happened in ‚73 when I was head of OPEC and Saudi energy minister. I lived through this
and Mr. Engdahl has described it accurately.”
What happened is the following: There was a meeting – and some people might get scared off and say
this is conspiracy theory, but I am in possession of the actual confidential documents that quite legally
came into my possession by chance in Paris years ago: the protocol from the May 1973 meeting of the
Bilderberg Group in Saltsjobaden, Sweden. I have the attendees list from the Hoover Institute of War and
Peace in California, I have the facsimile of the American secretary to the Bilderberg about which guests
would be invited including Henry Kissinger from the American side to this May meeting. And in there, if
you make the calculation, they listen to a presentation and debate, and these are some of the most
powerful people in Europe and the United States – hand-picked by David Rockefeller by the way. The
heads of all the major oil companies, the Seven Sisters, were also in attendance.
They talk about what amounts to a 400 per cent increase in the price of OPEC oil in the very near future.
Of course, they do not give specifics, but they talk in the abstract.
The entire discussion was not how do we as some of the most powerful representatives of the world‘s
industrial nations convince the Arab OPEC countries not to increase oil prices so dramatically. Instead
they talked about what do we do with all the petrodollars that will come inevitably to London and New
York banks from the Arab OPEC oil revenues. Henry Kissinger, who coined the term after he oil shock in
1973/74, talked about “recycling petrodollars.” And in fact what happened was – and this came directly
from Sheik Yamani privately in a discussion with me at his home in 2000, he said: “I was sent by my
King, the Saudi King, as a trusted emissary to talk with the Shah of Iran and ask the Shah why at the
September 1973 OPEC meeting after the Yom Kippur war he was adamant about such a huge OPEC price
increase as a permanent price.” And he said: “The Shah turned to me and said: ‚Tell His Excellency, the
King of Saudi Arabia, if he wants to have an answer to that question, he must go to Washington and ask
Henry Kissinger.‘”ix In other words, this was dictated to the Shah.

Vildemouse this is what I also heard from a top iranian source.  Poor Shah was allied with such a bunch of undemocratic swindlers.  No wonder they wanted to put an end to his ambition of having his son preside over a democratic constitutional monarchy after him.

 Here is another gem Dear

 Here is another gem Dear AMP: THis explains your question:

""The F-16 dollar backing Since 1979 the US power establishment, from Wall Street to Washington, has maintained the status of the dollar as unchallenged global reserve currency. That role, however, is not a purely economic one. Reserve-currency status is an adjunct of global power, of the US determination to dominate other nations and the global economic process. The United States didn't get reserve-currency status by a democratic vote of world central banks, nor did the British Empire in the 19th century. They fought wars for it. For that reason, the status of the dollar as reserve currency depends on the status of the United States as the world's unchallenged military superpower. In a sense, since August 1971 the dollar is no longer backed by gold. Instead, it is backed by F-16s and Abrams battle tanks, operating in some 130 US bases around the world, defending liberty and the dollar. A euro challenge? For the euro to begin to challenge the reserve role of the US dollar, a virtual revolution in policy would have to take place in Euroland. First the European Central Bank (ECB), the institutionalized, undemocratic institution created by the Maastricht Treaty to maintain the power of creditor banks in collecting their debts, would have to surrender power to elected legislators. It would then have to turn on the printing presses and print euros like there was no tomorrow. That is because the size of the publicly traded Euroland government-bond market is still tiny in comparison with the huge US Treasury market. As Michael Hudson explains in his brilliant and too-little-studied work Super Imperialism, the perverse genius of the US global dollar hegemony was the realization, in the months after August 1971, that US power under a fiat dollar system was directly tied to the creation of dollar debt. The US debt and the trade deficit were not the "problem", they realized. They were the "solution". The US could print endless quantities of dollars to pay for foreign imports of Toyotas, Hondas, BMWs or other goods in a system in which the trading partners of the United States, holding paper dollars for their exports, feared a dollar collapse enough to continue to support the dollar by buying US Treasury bonds and bills. In fact in the 30 years since abandoning gold exchange for paper dollars, the US dollars in reserve have risen by a whopping 2,500%, and the amount grows at double-digit rates today. This system continued into the 1980s and 1990s unchallenged. US policy was one of crisis management coupled with skillful and coordinated projection of US military power. Japan in the 1980s, fearful of antagonizing its US nuclear-umbrella provider, bought endless volumes of US Treasury debt even though it lost a king's ransom in the process. It was a political, not an investment, decision. The only potential challenge to the reserve role of the dollar came in the late 1990s with the European Union decision to create a single currency, the euro, to be administered by single central bank, the ECB. Europe appeared to be emerging as a unified, independent policy voice of what French President Jacques Chirac then called a multipolar world. Those multipolar illusions vanished with the unpublicized decision of the ECB and national central banks not to pool their gold reserves as backing for the new euro. That decision not to use gold as backing came amid a heated controversy over Nazi gold and alleged wartime abuses by Germany, Switzerland, France and other European countries...."

//www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/print/Why%20Iran's%20oil%20bourse%20can't%20break%20the%20buck.htm

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

Vildemouse I think you found a gem

While my videos were good, your find in just reading pg 1& 2 is extraordinary.

I will read it tomorrow am, thanks.  He says the US dollar is a sinking ship on the basis of economics and detailed info for the next 15 years or at least until 2022, but the US still has 1 thing, it's military might.  Shah would be a happy man knowing what he did to the US/UK empire, by leaving iran/having the military put its arms away and letting the empire play itself into a corner in pursuit of controlling the worlds oil, money and food.  His analysis paints a grim future for the USA.  Tabarzin will be happy to see that he lived to see this day, albeit in the next 10 years.

Must read article :

 //www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/print/Epochal%20Tectonic%20Shift.pdf

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

I should have titled this article US Sponsored "Revolution"Since

thats what many iranians and main stream media prefer to call the coup d'etat and regime changes they manufactured.

MM In Khomeini's case it was clear.

The people of Iran would lose owning their own oil 100% which was supposed to happen in 1979 & would lose the 75% contracts for oil they had under the shah.  The people of Iran got 25% with khomeini which in the last 5 years alone was a loss of $2 trillion dollars, $2,000 Billion compared to shahs time, on the bright side Khomeini got to be called a hero against a man we all called "dictator" who we said was stealing our money and he didn't care about Iranians. LOL 

They will give us democracy like india, in exchange for our freedom & justice, which we were happy to give away after shah had regained it for us anyway.  The best Iranians can get, is to kindly become like Africa, hopefully more like libya than the Sudan.  But essentially we have to accept what we get.  Listen to the video MM, its valuable research.  On the bright side they can use the $2,000 Billion dollars to invade Iran at some point in the future to divide Iran into a few new countries, like Arabistan, like Balouchistan, kurdistan etc. Top down centralized management by foreign elites.

The West needs money, don't you want them to be richer MM, think of their values and way of life, isn't it a role model for you?

what do they want in return?

.

Great you tube video. Did you Listen to it?

I hope you guys really appreciate me finding these video's on "so called peoples revolutions" and getting you upto date and informed on where, how, by whom and why you are being intentionally misinformed.  I liked the candidness of the video.

I get so many people on other blogs that are in such denial, I feel this gives some perspective and education to our iranian community.

I have always been clear that I do not favor delisting MeK

Nor Do I favor bombing Iran.

What we have to consider is the USA is already massively supporting the MeK, whether they delist them or not.  What should our response be?

They also have 2 Aircraft carriers and a battle group around Iran.  What do we do if we promote regime change and during the process of this being successfully achieved, the USA and UK choose to occupy part of our land in the name of security for the ol which they say is theirs not ours?