UI – Part 437 – Globalists, Nationalists, Iran, The Shah, Money for Teaching Islam
What is a globalist? From the term, ‘global,’ it means the whole world. The globalist would like to see a one world order without boundaries.
Nationalists, those who want to protect their borders and the people under their command, providing safety and security first to their own, fit the mold. Recent waves of political turmoil opening doors to ‘populists’ suggests that which the people prefer at the moment, and thus with respect to Brexit and Trump, favored by the voters, those elected want to protect their borders and economies. Consider them Nationalists.
The qualities of the Nationalists to protect borders and increase safety and ecomonies of one nation are anathema to those seeking global governance, for strong nations resist membership in world bodies, and war has long been a destabilizing catalyst essential to what globalists call “the new world order.”
Iran, The Shah, America, Khomeini
Reflecting on a piece of Middle East history, directed primarily at Iran, we look to the Iranian Revolution and the years prior under the command of Shah Pahlavi. The Shah would be considered a Nationalist. He brought Iran into the modern age. He encouraged reforms opposed by the religious leaders, or zealots, with the emancipation of women of particular concern. Iran had achieved a unique level of greatness as a partner in the world where progress was benefitting the entire population. We are looking into the window of history in the period 1960-1980. He was not perfect. He was selfish, a weak leader, sensitive, and look to outside influences for advice, and financial aide. Britain and the US were overt as well as covert participants. But what one might desire internally can have an impact externally on influential neighbors, or superpowers. That happened in 1973-1974 when the Shah took over the oil fields for Iran alone. Gerald Ford was America’s President at the time. A few years later Jimmy Carter was elected. Henry Kissinger was Ford’s Secretary of State, a holdover from President Nixon. Harold Wilson was the PM in the UK, and Leonid Brezhnev was Chairman of the Communist Part (Russia).
At the end of World War II Iran nationalized the oil fields when Mossedegh was PM of Iran. The Brits were upset and first approached Truman to aide in his overthrow. He refused, but it was an election year. Eisenhower was elected and Churchill approached him and his new advisors, who agreed. Mossedegh was ousted in a coup and the Shah returned to power in 1953.
The Shah did a great deal for Iran, even though in 1953 we should have left Mossedegh, the prime minister, in place. After his oil takeover (1973-1974) the media and the superpowers turned on him. Reporting was skewed to diminish his authority and stature. Even Jimmy Carter favored the Khomeini’s return, not knowing, or ignorant of the ideological Islamic policies this Mullah would impose, reversing decades of advancement in Iran.
Under Ford there was talk of removing the Shah. This was because of oil prices, not the needs of the Iranian people.
The Shah’s military, the SAVAK, kept any religious revolutionaries at bay. There was turmoil and after Carter became President ‘appeasement’ was more the advice to the Shah than strong arm tactics.
When acts against the people were perpetrated by ‘professional revolutionaries’ the Shah was blamed. He was weak and dependent on outside advisors for support. As his popularity waned with the aide of a dishonest Press, even the US and Carter fell victims to the adverse propaganda. This was to the delight of those that wanted the Shah gone, to include the US and the UK, but more so to the Islamists that wanted to regain control of Iran.
The US and the UK were either not thinking or just too stupid as they allowed a theocratic Islamist to overthrow the Shah, when what Iran needed was a secularist. Iran needed to replace the Shah with a progressive that would have the confidence of the people, keep the Islamists at bay, and continue the evolution of Iran into modernity. The country had a parliamentary structure in place, just needed the monarchy gone and a new leader. The Ayatollah was the wrong choice! Carter’s focus was elsewhere.
“My greatest mistake,” the Shah recalled, “was in listening to the Americans on matters concerning the internal affairs of my kingdom.”
Then America blindly, instead of finding a replacement for the Shah more amenable to continuing modernization and using the large military provided by America controlled by Iran for peace through strength, allowed a religious zealot, more oriented to a global Islamic order to stop progress.
After the Iran Revolution
Before the end of the Khomeini’s first year, at the time of the Grand Mosque Seizure in Mecca, he lied to the world, wanting the attention of the Muslim world. The Ayatollah made noise that those responsible for the Saudi attack were Americans and the Zionists, the Jews. That was not the truth. From the oil fields in the eastern area of Saudi Arabia it was a Shiite claiming that he was the Madhi returned, wanting Saudi Arabia to be even more religious than it was already that led the Grand Mosque Seizure. The Shiite oil field workers wanted more equitable pay as well. The aftermath in SA was the closure of cinemas, no women on TV, no music shops, extended hours of religious education (Islamic) in schools, eliminating non-Islamic history in curriculums, and an increase in the numbers of religious police to monitor citizens. Pay to the workers was also increased.
Money to Alter the Conception/Truth About Islam
History is a wonderful and often most telling truth. We can never neglect its importance. We must encourage more to engage in what can be learned from events that took place in the past. Many lies are told in the Muslim world about America and the west.
There is little to no education for residents in Muslim majorities about religions other than Islam. At the same time the U.K. and America has allowed funding from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the OIC, and other Muslims to political groups and universities/colleges in their countries to implement curriculums favorable to Islam. Neither true history nor the violence inherent in Islam is shared in what is taught. If it creeps in those teachers are asked by the Sheiks or scholars and financiers that they be removed. The strings attached to the money and the desire for the attractive amounts have compromised many liberal institutions and the standards they claim they adhere to in educating the children of these free Nations.
Maybe there should be a quid pro quo or restrictions imposed on institutions accepting foreign contributions that they must cater to telling lies, or supporting seditious concepts, such as replacing the Constitution with Islamic Law, or imposing restrictions on freedom of speech to control language that could possibly offend the slightest of a Muslim’s sensibilities toward their ideology, the Prophet, Allah, the Quran or other tenets of Islam. And certainly such curriculums cannot imply their superiority or that the U.K. or America are imperialists and racist towards Muslims. Before new mosques or madrassas are built in the West, have a similar structure, non-Muslim, built in Saudi Arabia, Iran and so many other Nations considered Islamic. Ask them too to agree not to impose a death sentence for apostates so that their residents can learn about other avenues of independent thinking. Just as Muslims want Europeans and Americans to learn about Islam (which must be the truth about Islam) so too Muslims in Muslim majority nations should learn the histories, contributions, opportunities and freedoms of Christians, the British, the French, the Belgiums, the Americans and others.
What do you think? Can restrictions as such or a quid pro quo be regulated in any way?
Grace and Peace