My Blog List

My Blog List

Monday, October 15, 2012

Traditional Catholic Prayers: Baptism

Traditional Catholic Prayers: Baptism


The resurrection of Christ. His commission to his disciples.

1 And *in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week,

18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 
19 *Going, therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; 
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

"Consummation of the world," - the end of this age of grace and the beginning of the eternal ages with Christ reigning visibly. This is the end of the eschaton and the beginning of the eternal recreated heavens and the earth and will begin when Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ returns from heaven in the same flesh He rose with and ascended into the third heaven with, seated at the right hand of the Father. His return will be with all of His elect angels. He will raise and judge all men in the flesh and then recreate the heavens and the earth, which in that state will last that way for eternity. There will NOT be any sin in the new heavens and earth, so prepare now by confessing the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and be baptized as commanded above and shown how to baptize below and live Holy and Godly lives in sincerity and humility and meekness waiting for the Lord when He returns so that we are not like the five foolish virgins but are like the five wise virgins.

1: A.D. 30.; Mark xvi. 1.; John xx. 1.
19: Mark xvi. 15.


Method of Baptism

From the Didache (49 A.D. Council of Jerusalem):

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. 

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize the one to be baptized into Jesus Christ in "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," in running water. But if you have no running water, baptize into other water [still water]; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head onto the one to be baptized saying at that time "in the name of Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." But before the baptism, if possible, let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized [when there is time] to fast one or two days before.

Baptism can and should always be performed immediately when there is danger of death of the one to be baptized. For instance, impending martyrdom or possible death causing illness.

Friday, October 12, 2012

Prayer of St. Francis

Holy, holy, holy Lord God Almighty, Who is and Who was and Who is to come
Let us praise and glorify Him forever.
Lord our God, You are worthy to receive praise and glory and honor and blessing
Let us praise and glorify Him forever.
The Lamb Who was slain is worthy to receive power and divinity and wisdom and strength, and honor and glory and blessing
Let us praise and glorify Him forever.
Let us bless the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit:
Let us praise and glorify Him forever.
Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord
Let us praise and glorify Him forever.
Sing praise to our God, all you His servants and you who fear God, the small and the great.
Let us praise and glorify Him forever.
Let heaven and earth praise Him Who is glorious
Let us praise and glorify Him forever.
And every creature that is in heaven and on earth and under earth and in the sea and those which are in them.
Let us praise and glorify Him forever.
Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit:
Let us praise and glorify Him forever.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.
Let us praise and glorify Him forever.
Let us pray:
All-powerful, most holy, most high, and supreme God:
all good,
supreme good,
totally good,
You Who alone are good; may we give You all praise, all glory, all thanks, all honor:
all blessing,
and all good things.
So be it.
So be it.
O OUR most holy FATHER,
Our Creator, Redeemer, Consoler, and Savior
In the angels and in the saints,
Enlightening them to love, because You, Lord, are light
Inflaming them to love, because You, Lord, are love
Indwelling and filling them with happiness, because You, Lord, are the Supreme Good,
the Eternal Good
from Whom comes all good
without Whom there is no good.
Mav our knowledge of You become ever clearer that we may know the breadth of Your blessings
the length of Your promises
the height of Your majesty
the depth of Your judgments.
So that You may rule in us through Your grace
and enable us to come to Your kingdom
where there is an unclouded vision of You
a perfect love of You
a blessed campanionship with You
an eternal enjoyment of You.
That we may love You with our whole heart by always thinking
of You
with our whole soul by always desiring You
with our whole mind by directing all our
intentions to You and by seeking Your
glory in everything
and with our whole strength by spending all our energies and affections
of soul and body
in the service of Your love
and of nothing else
and may we love our neighbors as ourselves
by drawing them all with our whole strength to Your love
by rejoicing in the good fortunes of others as well as our
and by sympathizing with the misfortunes of others
and by giving offense to no one.
in memory and understanding and reverence
of the love which You in our Lord Jesus Christ had for us
and of those things which He said and did and suffered for us.
Your own Beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Through Your ineffable mercy
through the power of the Passion of Your Beloved Son together with the merits and intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all Your chosen ones.
And whatever we do not forgive perfectly, do you, Lord, enable us to forgive to the full so that we may truly love our enemies and fervently intercede for them before You returning no one evil for evil
and striving to help everyone in You.
Hidden or obvious
Sudden or persistent.
Past, present and to come.
Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit
As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.

The Excavator: The British And U.S. Governments Installed Khomeini Into Power In 1979

The Excavator: The British And U.S. Governments Installed Khomeini Into Power In 1979

The British And U.S. Governments Installed Khomeini Into Power In 1979

"It is easier to mislead many men than one." - Herodotus. (As quoted in F.E. Adcock's 1963 book, 'Thucydides And His History,' on pg. 51. Cambridge University Press: London).

"Reality is created by language. But, we don't realize how true this is, that reality really is created by language, and that we are all imprisoned in somebody else's language." - Terence McKenna. (From a talk in New York in 1992 called, 'Alchemy and the Hermetic Tradition': Part 3 of 3; 0:13:00 - 0:13:17 in the video).

The thesis that the British and U.S. governments drove out the Shah and replaced him with Khomeini destroys the clash of civilizations myth that has dominated the global conversation between Islam and the West for over a generation.

For years I thought this thesis was too "out there," and a baseless conspiracy theory. I did not want to believe that there was any truth to this. It changes my entire view of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the relationship between Iran and the West, and the history of our times.

The implications of the thesis are too frightening to think about. The level of the treason and betrayal that is taking place against the people of every nation is beyond most people's imagination.

But I always try to keep an open mind because anything is plausible in this crazy world. So, last month I finally decided to actually look at the evidence that is available on the Internet about this thesis and dig deeper into history.

The first clue that caught my eye was the Shah's own words. "If you lift up Khomeini's beard," he said, "you will find Made In England written under his chin."

The Shah was at the center of power and he was a very wise man so this statement can't be dismissed as just another example of a Middle Eastern despot blaming a foreign conspiracy for a revolution that occurred under his watch.

Dr. Ronen Bergman, an Israeli investigative journalist and author of the 2008 book, 'The Secret War with Iran,' says that the BBC put Khomeini on a public pedestal and amplified his voice, making his brand of Islamic revolution the only alternative option to the Shah's rule.

British journalist Ed West interviewed Bergman in June 2009 about his views, and quoted a passage from Bergman's book in his article, "How the BBC helped bring the Ayatollah to power":
In the book he writes: "Another propaganda tool for Khomeini was none other than the Persian-language broadcasts of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The channel gave him a platform. His regular broadcasts made him the unchallenged leader of the Iranian revolutionary movement."

When we met in a west London hotel not far from the notorious Iranian embassy, Bergman pointed out: "The BBC gave free hours of free broadcast to Khomeini from Paris. It is unbelievable. Every time there is a person who is fighting 'royal' forces, in the sense of their being autocratic, the BBC gives them a free hand and carte blanche, without trying to understand what their views are.
Bergman is not some loony conspiracy theorist who is on the margins of Israeli society. He is a "member of the Israeli Bar, holds a M.Phil degree in international relations, and was awarded a Ph. D by University of Cambridge for his dissertation about the Israeli Mossad, the first ever on that subject, written under the supervision of the esteemed Professor Christopher Andrew, chairman of the History Faculty," (source: Wikipedia).

Bergman's views about the BBC's role in stirring up Iran's Islamic Revolution are well documented.

The Shah also raised the point about the BBC providing its propaganda services to Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists in an interview with David Frost while in exile in Panama. He told Frost:
"Do you think that Mr. Khomeini, an uneducated person . . . could have planned all this, masterminded all this, set up all the organizations. I know that one man alone could not have done it. This I know.

I know that tremendous amount of money was spend. This also I know.

I know that top experts in propaganda were used to show us like tyrants and monsters, and the other side as democratic, liberal revolutionaries who wanted to save the country.

I know how mean the BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation, had been towards us. This I know. Because we have all the files. If you monitor the broadcast towards our country you would see that it was full of venom. So it seemed that it was really a very well orchestrated conspiracy." (Quote is from 3:02 - 4:50 in the video).
The picture that the Shah describes of what happened to him and to Iran in 1978/1979 is eerily similar to how the West took out Gaddafi and put radical Islamic forces into power in Libya this year.

Many of the guerrilla fighters who opposed Gaddafi identified themselves as Al-Qaeda and used terrorist tactics to intimidate the population into submission. These Islamic fundamentalists were funded, trained and backed by England, France, America and NATO to defeat another Middle Eastern leader who was not following their direct orders.

Historian F. William Engdahl says in his 2004 book, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order," that the Carter administration changed U.S. policy towards Iran in 1978 by bringing in members from the Bilderberg Group to draw up covert plans to remove the Shah and bring Khomeini to the throne. Engdahl wrote:
"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.

Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

The coup against the Shah was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.

During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere."
Engdahl also says that the Arab Spring movement is a creation of the U.S. State Department, so U.S. policy towards the Middle East still consists of provoking revolutions, stirring up troubles, and overthrowing governments. And these sinister actions are presented in the media as "U.S. support for democracy movements."

In his 1981 book, "Hostage to Khomeini," journalist Robert Dreyfuss says that the Club of Rome, the Aspen Institute, and other elite think tanks conspired to take out the Shah and undo his modernization plans for Iran which they saw as a threat to their power and control over the region. Dreyfuss wrote:
"The mullahs did not come to rule in Iran on the basis of their own power; they were placed in power by men more evil than they - who would use the depravity of backwardness for their own ends.

In September 1975, the Aspen Institute held a symposium in Persepolis, Iran. The public side of the transactions was published years later under the title of Iran: Past, Present, and Future. In the behind-the-scenes discussion, the plans for reversing the Shah's industrialization program and for turning Iran into a model dark ages regime were mapped out. It is a bitter twist of history, that the Shah and his wife Empress Farah Diba witlessly provided huge amounts of funding to the Aspen project.

Attending the Persepolis symposium were at least a dozen members of the Club of Rome, including its chairman, Aureho Peccei; Sol Linowitz of Coudert Brothers law firm; Jacques Freymond of the Institute of International Studies in Geneva; and Robert 0. Anderson and Rarlan Cleveland, both Aspen Institute officials and associates of the Club of Rome in the United States. Other luminaries were also on hand: Charles Yost, Catherine Bateson, Richard Gardner, Theo Sommer, Daniel Yankelovitch, John Oakes of the New York Times, and the cream of Anglo-Amencan intelligence specialists on Iran, such as James Bill, Marvin Zonis, Leonard Binder, Rouhollah Ramazani, and Charles Issawi.

The Aspen Institute session stressed a single theme: modernization and industry undermine the "spiritual, nonmaterial" values of ancient Iranian society, and these values must he preserved above all else."
I have not ready Dreyfuss's entire book, but this little excerpt has broadened my knowledge about what happened to Iran. The involvement of the Club of Rome and Bilderberg Group in orchestrating Iran's Islamic Revolution convinced me that Khomeini was a traitor who would be under the dirt and a no name in history if he was not supported by the powers whom he identified as "the Great Satan."

One look at this picture and you immediately realize that this was an evil and manipulative man. I see the Face of Death and the bringer of pain, not a revolutionary who loves his people and country.

There is a theory that Khomeini was a British agent. That is the conclusion I reached after I found out that the BBC broadcasted his messages to the Iranian masses and that a MI6 journalist was on the plane with Khomeini when he landed in Iran after the Shah went into exile.

Many of the "world leaders" that appear in history and lead revolutions are actually puppets and assassins who belong to secret societies and intelligence agencies. According to The Guardian, British Intelligence recruited Benito Mussolini. Who knows how many more world leaders have been the creation of secret societies and powerful conspiracies.

Fritz Springmeier, author of the book, "Blood Lines of the Illuminati," also believes Khomeini is MI6. He wrote in an article called, "To Love Or Hate - Know Your Enemy,":
Of course, Islamic fundamentalism is a natural reaction to the modernization, secularization, and corruption that is accelerating in what is termed “the West” (European civilization). Such a strong reaction to the sinfulness of the West has taken place that the Sunni and Shiite fundamentalists are in full collaboration. Devout Christians who hold to wholesome family values, freedom from global corporate tyranny, and the destruction of communities are also having some similar “reactionary” reactions to the New World Order. Christian fundamentalists turn to the Bible and Biblical law, and the Moslem of course turns to the Koran and its Sharia (Islamic law). The trick of the elite is to harness those natural reactions to destroy their opposition. This is why both the Christian Patriot movement and the Islamic fundamentalists are infiltrated with agent provocateurs who will encourage both groups to run to their own destruction.
The fall of the West’s puppet Shah of Iran was actually not a surprise to the elite. They had decided to let him fall. He had been empowered by America’s CIA, and then abandoned when the time was ripe for a strong reaction. The man who replaced him, the Ayatollah Khomeini was British MI6. And tying together Saudi intelligence, Saddam Hussein’s intelligence and Egyptian intelligence (and previously the Shah’s CIA-led SAVAK) is a group called the Safari Club set up by French espionage. When you are aware of these kind of things, then you realize the insidious deceptive nature of this script. Different puppets, one script.
Springmeier's account of history rings true. There is so much evidence and logic that backs up the thesis that Iran's Islamic Revolution and Islamic Fundamentalism are both creations of Anglo-American intelligence agencies, elite secret societies, and private global conferences like the Bilderberg.

II. 5 Reasons Why The British and U.S. Governments Put Khomeini in Power

An anonymous author of a 2008 article called, "The Shah of Iran was toppled by the CIA and MI6?" lays out five reasons why the Shah was removed from power by Britain and America:
The Shah's nationalist policies were making him more popular in Iran and making his country more independent and more powerful. This worried the CIA and MI6.

1. The Shah bought land from the upper classes and, along with the crown's own land, sold it back cheaply to tenant farmers. Over one a half million people to became land owners, thus ending the old feudal system.

2. The Shah allowed women the right to vote. He brought an end to the wearing of the veil.

3. He developed plans for a $90 billion nuclear power program.

4. The Shah signed petroleum agreements with ENI, the Italian oil company.

5. He began to close down the opium industry. This had been created during the days of British influence.
Based on the research that is documented in the article above and other articles that are mentioned in this article, I have listed 5 reasons why Britain and America got rid of the Shah and brought Islamic fundamentalists to power in Iran.

1. Nuclear Power. The Shah was modernizing Iran in a significant way, and this had to be stopped. The Bilderberg and Club of Rome elite are notoriously anti-growth, and anti-economic development because keeping nations poor is the best way to control them. The British policy towards her colonies in Africa was based on under-development, keeping the people poor, and putting a tiny elite in power. This policy was also used against Iran.

2. Oil Production. The Shah's decision to increase Iranian oil production angered U.S. oil companies and others who wanted to maintain artificial scarcity in the international oil market in order to keep prices high and make more profits.

Specifically, the Shah said that a couple of years before the Revolution he "heard from two different sources connected with the oil companies that the regime within Iran will change. . . If just in imagination, we believed that there was a plan that there must be less oil offered to the world market in order to make the price of oil go up, one country should have been the one chosen for this sacrifice." (This quote is from an article called "Shah Retains Claim to Iranian Throne" that appeared in 'The Fort Scott Tribute' on January 18, 1980).

3. Opium Profits. The Shah took serious measures to stop the flow of opium into Iran, which greatly damaged British interests. The Rothschilds and London's financial empire depend on the world opium trade to retain their power and influence.

4. Economic Threat of a Modern and Independent Iran to Interests of British-U.S. Elite. The Shah was building up Iran into a modern state by enriching the country and strengthening the middle class. He was not a perfect ruler, but he was not the tyrant that the West made him out to be.

The Shah's original sin was siding with the U.S. and British against Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. He should have known that if you make a deal with the devil and then spit in his face you will be treated accordingly.

But, this is not about one man or one nation. Nations around the world are treated like colonies by international banks and multinational corporations, including America. America and Iran have lived under puppet leaders for most of the 20th century.

When a true leader acts in the interest of his country and his people the elite secret societies get rid of him. They either kill the patriotic leader, like John F. Kennedy in 1963, or they instigate a revolution against him, like the Shah in 1979.

5. Create A Clash of Civilizations. The destruction of the modern world economy, the nation state, and the current world order are three stated objectives of the Anglo-American power elite. They have created an artificial conflict between Islam and the West to achieve all three objectives.

This global conflict came into being as a result of two world events. The first event was the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution which was the product of the MI6, CIA, Bilderberg Group, Club of Rome and other secret global organizations. The second event was the September 11 terrorist attacks that was orchestrated by the Mossad and the Anglo-American shadow government.

Iran was set up in 1979 as the representative of Islamic Civilization, and ever since then its extremist clerical oligarchy has used the language of Islam to pose as the leader of a resistance bloc to Western powers. Influential Iranian clerics are most likely in the fold of the same Western powers that turned Khomeini into "Time's Person of the Year," in 1979.

If we step back and look at history with our third eye we can see the larger global political game that is being played. The Hegelian dialectic is being used in the Middle East to bring about a third world war, a new world order and a global authoritarian government.

Thesis: America, Israel and Western Civilization.
Antithesis: Iran and Islamic Civilization.
Synthesis: Global Government and Global civilization.

III. The Elite's Creation of Islamic Fundamentalism And The Clash of Civilizations

Radical Islam is used as a tool of Anglo-American-Israeli imperialism to create a new world order and a one world totalitarian state.

Israel provided financial and political support for Hamas in its early days to create an anti-Zionist resistance movement that spoke the language of violence and extremism instead of love and tolerance.

The CIA and MI6 have deep connections with the Muslim Brotherhood and use this alliance to silence democratic voices in Muslim countries and scare the people of the West about Islam's agenda.

The fundamentalist Mullahs in Iran were used by the CIA and MI6 throughout the post-World War II years as attack dogs against the central government. By 1979 the clerical traitors proved themselves worthy and were given supreme power over the minds of the Iranian people.

The Taliban in Afghanistan were funded and trained by the CIA and Pakistani ISI. Osama Bin Laden was created by the CIA-MI6 network.

What is the basis of this intriguing relationship? Both the Islamic radicals and the anti-growth Western elite share the same goals: demodernization and war. Khomeini was told to turn back the clock, transform Iran into a medieval country, and brainwash a generation of youth into sacrificing themselves for Islam.

The Western elite love Islamic radicals who will sacrifice themselves for "Jihad" because they want depopulation. This sinister and cunning elite has created a fictional clash of civilizations to fire up the spirits of blind Muslim martyrs who falsely believe that they are resisting the masters of the world but they are playing right into their hands.

IV. Changing The Narrative About The Iranian Islamic Revolution 

The narrative about the Iranian Islamic Revolution is that the Shah was a cruel despot who was taking orders from Washington and Khomeini was a transcendent revolutionary who liberated Iran from foreign rule. But this is a false narrative.

The historical record shows that the Shah was becoming more independent, and was acting in the national interest of Iran. His policies and disagreements over the opium trade, oil production and nuclear power angered the British and U.S. elite.

So the powerful forces began to get busy. They plotted not just a revolution, but a clash of civilizations. The BBC was a major tool that was used to create division in Iranian society, popularize anti-government protests, and give Khomeini a national voice.

Khomeini was a false prophet and an Islamic demon who was handed the throne of an ancient nation by foreign powers. He turned out to be more cruel and despotic than the Shah ever was in his 26-year rule.

I always wondered why the U.S. and other Western powers delivered arms to Iran in the 1980s if they considered the regime to be its enemy. Or why Khomeini decided to release the American hostages on the day that Reagan was declared the new president of America. Why give a victory to your enemy? It didn't make any sense.

But, now I see that Khomeini was not an enemy, but a willful pawn of the U.S. and British elite. Like all tyrants, he wanted power, blood and war. And he wasn't even a legitimate Ayatollah. A superior Ayatollah granted him Ayatollah status in 1963 to prevent his execution. He returned the favor in 1979 by putting him under house arrest and erasing the evidence of his gracious deed.

Khomeini was a mass hypnotist much like Barack Obama, George Bush, Adolf Hitler, Bibi Netanyahu and other modern political personalities who rise to the top in politics by brainwashing the masses.

Once the masses come under their hypnotic control they create false conflicts and wage wars in which millions of good men are misled and sacrificed.

Modern wars are fought as a means to build a global totalitarian state, make obscene profits for the military-industrial complex, put governments into debt to international banksters, and reduce the population.

Further Reading:

British Svengali Behind Clash Of Civilizations By Scott Thompson and Jeffrey Steinberg.

The Globalists and the Islamists: Fomenting the "Clash of Civilizations" for a New World Order.

The Justice of God: Iran is still run by the CIA. It always has been.

The Justice of God: Iran is still run by the CIA. It always has been.

The French Connection

France recklessly encouraged a succession of Muslim leaders, who proved to be implacably hostile to the Westfrom Gaddafi to Saddam Hussein. Iwas the French who turned Yasser Arafat into a figure on the world stage and tolerated hiterrorists in their midst. And iwas the French who enabled Ayatollah Khomeini to launch his Islamic revolution from a suburb of Paris.”  (DanieJohnson1)

It was while in France that Khomeinis speeches and writings were the most prolific and where the planning for hiIslamic revolution gained momentum. Khomeinithe usurper, gave over one hundred media interviews during his short, four-month stay in Neauphle-le-Chateau. His pronouncements were quickly translated, printed, and sent to Tehran. According to DrParviz Mina, the French gave Khomeini every media advantage and constantly covered his activities. On the French news,” said Dr. Mina, normallthere are two special news programs, one at 1:00 in the afternoon and another at 8:00
p.m. And normally international news takes up teminutes or fifteen minutes.…Durinthe time of Khomeini, every day, fifteen minutes they were talking about Iran and Khomeini, every daythe media was given the free hand.…[the French government] provided him security. I think all the facilities he needed is at his disposal.2 The dour Ayatollah had been transformed overnight into a VIP, the darling of the liberal Westermedia, and France had become command central for the launch of hiIslamic Republic.
France in 1979 boasted three major television outlets: TeleFrance1 (TF1), Antennae 2 (A2), and France 3 (FR3); the latter two were owned by the government. A2 was similar in style and content to America’s Public Broadcasting System. The station set
the tone for stories on Journal 20h” (the 8:00 PM news), the equivalent of the NBC or

1 Daniel Johnson, JAccuse, Literary Review, (Accessed June 2008.)
2 Dr. Parviz Mina interview, Paris, France, April 18, 2008.

CBS Nightly News. On October 10, 1978, mere days after Khomeinis arrival, he was pictured in a story on A2. The images showed Khomeini dressed in dark clothing and sitting tailor-fashion on Persian carpets. He was posed in a lush green garden surroundeby children. He was described as being a deeply religious man who abstained from worldly things.3 The images were reminiscent of the beloved Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi, the champion of non-violence. Khomeini was clearly being modeled as a modest man compared to the extravagant Shah.
The most influential daily newspaper in France at that time was Le Monde or The World.” Though Le Monde was left-of-center, it was not as far left as the communist Libération. On the other side of the coin was just slightly-right-of-center, Le Figaro. While French President Giscard DEstaing was purported to be Centrist,” his views more nearly matched those of Le Monde.
Many in France thought journalist Paul Balta had been assigned by Le Monde tcover Khomeini; it was more apropos to say that Khomeini assigned him. Balta woultell the story years later of how he landed in Paris just after Khomeini arrived in exile at Neauphle-le-Château., a suburb of Paris:

While I was covering the Iranian revolution for Le Monde, I camto Paris in November 1978. Abu Hassan Bani Sadr, principal adviser to Khomeini and President of the Republic, told me that the Ayatollah, also called Imam, wanted to meet me. To my surprise, he explained to me that
he had had my articles translated from the French press and that Khomeini

had said about me, Who is he? He writes like no other; he knows Islaand Iran. I want to see him.” I went to Neauphle-le-Chateau, where he livein exile since October 5. He shared his frugal meal with me: a large bowl of soup, bread, fruit, and some cakes just for me. He said that first he
would ask me questions before answering mine. Once done, hgranted man official interview, which it was not customary.4

Had the Shah established the same conditions for an interview, would Balta have been as kind to Pahlavi in his writings as he was to Khomeini? For example, in a Khomeini biography/profile by Balta for Le Monde on February 1, 1979, he wrote:

A believer in jihad (in the original sense of the term, generalltranslated as holy war, iis the battle against oneself), he (Khomeini) disciplines himself down to the smallest details in daily activities and to aintense spiritual life. He is an example to all, and even his worst enemiecan never contest that, they say in Iran.5

Did Balta later realize just how clever the Ayatollah had been with him? He posed a question to Khomeini in January 1979: When you win [Not if you win, but
when.], what will be the status of the Iranian women? Khomeinis answer: Our women fight like lions. They deserve our admiration. In the Islamic state, they will have
the status that they deserve.”

French by Dan Godzich
5 Le Monde, February 11979 translated from the French by Dan Godzich

Just weeks later Balta joined Khomeinis entourage on the Air France plane thaflew the triumphant Ayatollah to Tehran. Delivering a significant speech to his adoring followers in Qom, Khomeini returned the women of Iran to the Dark Ages. Baltexplained:

He [Khomeini] outlined the main orientations of the future IslamiRepublic and proclaimed compulsory wearing of the chador  "veil" – which had been abolished by the Shah. At the conclusion of the ceremony, I expressed my surprise about the chador, but he replied to me: I told you they deserve our admiration. Iis always the case, but I added as in the
Islamic state, they will have the status that they deserve.6

Iwas also in France, that most cosmopolitan of countries, that Khomeini receivethe make-over of all times. This son of an Indian fortune-teller was stripped of his past. Hifather became the leader of the Khomeini clan who, supposedly, was murdered bPahlavis father. Khomeini graduated from second-rate mullah to academic and
renowned holy man. If he was the Eliza Doolittle, who was the Henry Higgins? Whacountry (or countries) was so determined to unseat the Shah that it was willing to undertake the transformation?
Dominique Lorenz, a journalist for the French Libération, wrote that having picked Khomeini to overthrow the Shah, [the Americans] had to get him out of Iraq, clothe him with respectability, and set him up in Paris; a succession of events which
could not have occurred if the leadership in France had been against it.7

French by Dan Godzich
7 Une Guerre, (One War”), Ėditions des Arénes, Paris, 1997.

In France, Khomeinis Iranian visitors totaled more than one thousand per day, all of which the French blessed or, at the very least, turned a blind eye. The Ayatollah became the Guru of Hate as he shared his vitriolic dislike for the Shah with all who would listen and learn. These disciples, including a number from various American universities, were not coming just to sit at the feet of the Teacher and learn; their pockets, lined with money collected through the Bazaar, the commercial system in Iran, were empty when they left Khomeinis presence. Some estimates place the contributions at approximately twenty million British pounds.
The Ayatollahs compound was reportedly surrounded by representatives ocovert agencies from the major powers: the CIA, Britains MI-6, Russia’s KGB, and the French intelligence organization, SDECE. One has to wonder why an unknown, uncultured, old cleric was the focus of such attention.
Intelligence officers from Israel, France and the U.S. stated that the U.Sgovernment wrote checks to Khomeini while he was in Paris in increments of approximately $150 million. They were delivered through the CIA.
One visitor to Khomeinis chateau described the mesmerizing effect the Ayatollah had on his visitors:

He [Khomeini] started to speak in his deep, bass voice, and I never heard a voice as serene and moving. It was said that he caressed the ears of his listeners, in soft waves to put them in a trance state.…Here we had aImam, with his long, grey beard and black turban of the Shiites…and hereall of these men representing the social and intellectual elite of Iran, listenein absolute silence, hanging on every word that fell from his lips

with an attentive fascination.…Khomeini was always sure that the drivinforce of the revolution would be religious, and he was therefore destined
to take the leadership role.8

French journalist André Fontaine compared Khomeini to John Paul II, heaping praise upon the [Ayatollah] without reserve. The philosopher Jacques Madaule, referrinto Khomeinis role, asked if his movement did not open the gates of the future of humanity.9
Aiding Khomeini during his French exile was Abol Hassan Bani Sadr. Journalist

Charles Villeneuve related to me that Bani Sadr was responsible for supplying the

cassette tapes filled with anti-Shah propaganda and dispatching them through the networthat would insure their arrival in the mosques in Tehran.10 The Iranian had resisteattempts by CIA operative Vernon Cassin (under the alias Guy Rutherford) to enlist hias a mole. Cassins documents would eventually wind up in the hands of the militants
who seized the American Embassy and would signal the downfall of Bani Sadr.

In my interview with him, Giscard dEstaing shed more light on the messages sent into Iran by the Ayatollah:

During his stay, the Imam was active. He sent messages to Iran to Tehran.…he used tapescarried by followers to Chayet, the main charge.…we knew the Interior Ministry was still watching closely the
activities of the Ayatollah. He seems to deliver violent messages.…we

8 Mohamed Heikal, Khomeini and his Revolution, Les Editions Jeune Afrique, 1983, (Translated from
French), pp. 155-159.
9 Cited by Houchang Nahavandi in The Last Shah of Iran, translated from the French by Steeve Reed
(France: Editions Osmonde, 2004), p. 241.
10 Personal Interview with Charles Villeneuve, journalist, Paris, France, April 19, 2008.

have political refugees, but they must abstain from violence. So we warned himthat we would not accept that [he] would go on sendinmessages.…But he went on…we had the tapes. The second time I was warned by our ambassador in Tehran that Khomeini had sent a messagasking to kill the Shah.…five days later, we haconfirmation that he sent another violent tape to Tehran saying the same thing, which was, kill the

CIA memoranda regarding Khomeini and the Shah seem to have either been deliberately ignored by the Carter administration or lost in the great governmental paperwork shuffle. One such memorandum flatly stated, Khomeini is determined to overthrow the Shah and is unlikely to accept compromise.…Khomeini is anti-communist, but his followers may be susceptible to communist and radical penetration. He hacooperated in the past with Islamic terrorist groups.12
A CIA intelligence memorandum dated January 19, 1979, and released three dayafter the Shahs departure contained detailed information on Bani Sadr and Sadegh Ghotbzadeh (A Syrian-born leader of the opposition movement), including the fact that both men had ties to Palestinian commandos. Questions arise: Why was the memreleased after the Shahs departure from Tehran? Did President Carter and administration officials have access to this information in the months prior to abandoning the Shah and permitting Khomeini to return to Tehran?

11 Giscard dEstaing interview, April 2008.
12 CIA Intelligence Memorandum: The Politics of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, November 20, 1978, Declassified. Chadwyck-Healey, Iran: The Making of U. S. Policy 1977-1980, Alexandria VA 1990.

Early in1977 Khomeini had begun to woo the military in Iran through his tapemessages. The wily Ayatollah knew that to win the revolution he must first charm and disarm the military. He began to indoctrinate the troops with the message of the Shahcorruption and their own place as soldiers of Allah; as such, they were prohibited from shooting at their own brethren. He exhorted them to return to their homes, to the faith, and to service to Allah. Surprisingly, it was not SAVAK or the Shahs inner circle that stumbled onto Khomeinis tactics; it was the Israeli mission to Tehran that had becomapprehensive.
By fall 1977 the Ayatollah was giving the soldiers specific instructions as to how tachieve higoal. He encouraged them to desert their posts in numbers, reminding theit was their God-given right to take their arms with them. Ironically, the very day JimmCarter praised Iran as an ocean of stability in a stormy sea,” a battalion of five hundred soldiers abandoned their post in the Meshed region. Said one journalist, The Ayatollah
effectively disarmed the Shahs military before engaging iin final battle.13

In another ironic twist, the Shah found himself an unwitting accomplice of Khomeinis revolution. In his efforts to modernize Iran, the Shah had installed a costly direct-dial telephone system. It allowed Khomeini to pick up the phone in Neauphle-leChateau and have direct talks with his cohorts in Tehran.
Iwas this telephone system that Azarbarzin was certain the CIA had bugged. He cited one incident to support his theory:

The Shah asked me to bring General Nissiri back into the country;

it seemed the Shah was considering putting him in as prime minister.

Nassiri was then stationed as the Shahs ambassador to Pakistan. I orderean aircraft at the airport, only told the crew where they were going once onboard. We flew to Pakistan at night and returned with Nassiri to a non- descript gate at the airport, and drove back to the palace. I had madarrangements and alerted the Imperial Guard that we would sneak Nassirin through an unused entrance after midnight.
Usually Ambassador Sullivan arrived at the palace at 10:00

AM….That morningSullivan arrived at 8:30 AM and asked to see the Shah. When they met Sullivan immediately began to explain that it was mistake to name Nassiri…because the people demonstrating on the street were there because of Nassiris actions as head oSAVAK. Instead omaking Nassiri the PM as planned, he was placed in jail to please the Iranian masses.
On November 3, 1978, the Shah decided to create a militarcabinet. His nominee was General Oveissi.…The Shah ordered General Oveissi to start selecting his cabinet members. On November 4 botBritish Ambassador Anthony Parsons and U.S. Ambassador WilliaSullivan had audiences with the Shah. They convinced him that people
called Oveissi a butcher for the way he had put down protests in 1963.14

The ambassadors suggested that the Shah appoint General Gholam-Reza Azharas prime minister. Was this just another attempt on the part of the U.S. and British governments to manipulate Pahlavi?

It seemed the Shahs government could do nothing to prevent Khomeini from attracting like-minded revolutionaries to his chateau outside Paris. In my interview witSamuel Segev, he confirmed that two of Khomeinis visitors in France were Farouk Kaddoumi, PLO department head, and a Libyan representative of Muammar al-Qaddafi. Khomeini was tendered arms and money in support of the revolution. Soon after, Radio Tripoli broadcast messages in Persian to Khomeini backers in Iran, and PLO terrorists
were dispatched to Tehran.15

As the turmoil fueled by Khomeinis subversive methods in his country increased, the Shah tried appeasement measures to placate the rioters and strikers. He eased
curfews, allowed processions to mark holy days, and ultimately succumbed to the pressure to put a new government in place. He chose Shahpour Bakhtiar, a forthright critic of the monarchy, as the new leader. Ardeshir Zahedi urged General Oveissi to secure Bakhtiar’s agreement that he would work with the army to restore order not undermine it, and Bakhtiar agreed.
At Bakhtiars urging the Shah agreed to leave Iran for what was labeled “rest and recuperation.” Empress Farah Pahlavi writes that even though Bakhtiar urged the Shah tleave, The Chief of Staff General Abbas Gharabaghi was opposed to the move and warnethe empress that if the Shah lefIran, the army would collapse.
This evaluation was supported by Ambassador Lubrani. He dressed himself as middle-class Iranian and went out among the rioters and demonstrators. He related thathe soldiers simply stood by while women in the crowd placed carnations in the muzzles of their rifles. The army was effectively neutralized by the massive crowds of Iranians.

The question then became: Had the Shah given the order to shoot into the crowd, woulthe army have complied?16
The Shah assumed that upon his return, he would become a constitutionamonarcmuch like Queen Elizabeth II in England. Little did he know that once airborne, he would have caught his last glimpse of his beloved country, and that Iran would plunge back into the Dark Ages from which he had tried so hard to lead his people. Pahlavi waconvinced the French government was ignoring Khomeinis clever plot to incitrevolution in Iran.
From Paris, Khomeini had called upon the Iranian military to forestall any attempt by the Shah to promote a military coup. He had also urged the Iranian people to
overthrow the Bakhtiar government, calling iillegal and illegitimate. The Ayatollah wrote:

There is a possibility that the treacherous Shah, now about to depart, will commit a further crime, a military coup d'état. I have frequently warned that this is probable.…The courageous people oIran know that there are only a few slavish and bloodthirsty individuals in the army, who apparently occupy important positions and whose identities are known to me, and that the honorable elements in the army will never
permit these slaves of the Shah to commit such a crime against their nation and religion. In accordance with my God-given and national duty, I alerthe Iranian army to this danger, and I demand that all commanders and officers resolutely prevent the enactment of any such conspiracy and not

permit a few bloodthirsty individuals to plunge the noble people of Irainto a bloodbath. Iranian army, this is your God-given dutyIf you obethese congenital traitors, you will be accountable to God, Exalted and Almighty, condemned by all humanitarians, and cursed by futurgenerations.…The Iranian peoplemust recognize that a few treacherous members of the army cannot sully the army as a whole. The record and responsibility of a few bloodthirsty individuals is something separate from the army as a whole. The army belongs to the people, and the people
belong to the army. The army will not suffer any harm as a result of the

departure of the Shah.

According to President Carter’s memoir, Keeping Faith, President dEstaing offered to deport Khomeini to halt the discord and stop Khomeinis rabble-rousing from French shores. Carter writes that the Shah had thought it would be better to keep Khomeini there [France], instead of letting him go to Iraq or Libya or some place where he might orchestrate even more trouble.18 A poll taken among the French people found that half [of those] questioned were sorry that their government granted political asylum to the Ayatollah.19
In July 1979 President Jimmy Carter inked a document launching America on the

path that on September 11, 2001, would lead to the deaths of 2,974 innocent civilians;

another twenty-four individuals are still listed as missing. What was the document? It was

17 Imam Khomeini, Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations, translated and annotated by Hamid
Algar (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981), pp. 247-248.
18 Jimmy Carter, Keeping Faith (Fayetteville, AR: The University of Arkansas Press, 1995), p.454.
19 Discovery Channel, Koppel on Iran, December 31979,9171,948624,00.html. (Accessed January 2008.)

the first order to send aito the Afghanistan rebels fighting against the Soviet invaders. The aid would provide the weapons and know-how to train the rebels in terror tactics; lead to the creation of the Taliban; and give rise to the scion of a Saudi prince, a ruthless young man named Osama biLaden, founder of the vile and violent al-Qaeda.
In 1980 the Afghan rebels were aided by a $30 million infusion from the Carteadministration. The ante was raised in Carter's 1981 budget to $50 million. Imarked rise in significant aid for the resistance from international sources.
The Iranians under Khomeinis leadership were relentless in the pursuit of the Shahs assets purported to be stashed in American banks. In a move seemingly designetfurther insult the United States, Khomeinis negotiators demanded a total of $24 billion dollars be transferred to a bank in Algeria. On the heels of the ridiculous stipulation, the Iranians distributed a synopsis of their demands. The U.S. retaliated by printing a summation of its own correspondence with the rogue nation. The deadlock between the two countries seemed insurmountable until January 15, 1981. Just days before Carter
was to leave office, Iran capitulated and agreed to Carter’s demands to pay off loans owned to U.S. banks. In marathon sessions, new drafts were produced, new documents drawn and the Bank of England was approved as the repository of escrow funds. Shortlafter 4:00 A.M. on Inauguration Day, January 20, 1981, the Carter administration relinquished $7.977 billion to the Iranians. According to one source, the transfer required
fourteen banks and the participation of five nations acting concurrently.20

20Gary Sick, All Fall Down (Lincoln, NE:, Inc., 2001)P. 397398.


My deepest gratitude goes to the men and women who have agreed to interviews: HeMajesty Farah Pahlavi, wife of the former Shah of Iran; Mr. Atabai Kambiz, chief of stafto Empress Farah Pahlavi; editorial journalist Samuel Segev; journalist and terrorism expert Charles Villeneuve; Robert Baxter, research associate in Paris; DrParviz Mina, Director, National Iranian Oil Company (under the Shah); Dr. Abol-Majid Majidiminister of planning and budget (under the Shah); Valerie Giscard dEstaing, formePresident of the French Republic; Hubert Vedrine, adviser to President FrancoiMitterrand, and secretary-general, 1991-1995; Benjamin Netanyahu, former primminister of Israel; Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; Yitzhak Rabin, former primminister of Israel; Shimon Peres, former prime minister of Israel; UrLubrani, formeIsraeli ambassador to Iran; former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Dore Gold; Marvin
Kalb, award-winning reporter for CBS and NBC; Dr. Alan Dershowitz, professor, Harvard School of Law; Israeli Mossad agent Eliezer Zafrir; General David Ivricommander Israeli Air Force and ambassador to U.S.; General Yitzhak Segev; Dr.
Ahmed Tehrani; Lt. General Shapour Azarbarzin; Ambassador Ardeshir Zahedi; researcassistant Dan Godzich, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Ronen Cohen who provided invaluablresearch information from Israel; and Arlen Young, who spent hours proofreading the pages of this manuscript.

This story began with late Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and my talks with him during the Carter presidency. This book would not be complete without recognizing hiinfluence and that of many others over the years: Dr. Reuben Hecht; Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir; Major General James E. Freeze, assistant deputy director for Plans and Policy, national security; General Jerry Curry, department of defense in the Pentagon; General George Keegan (retired), chief of Air Force intelligence from 1972 to 1977; Lt. General Richard F. Schaeffer (retired) Deputy Chairman of NATO Military Committefrom January 1974 to June 1975; Isser Harel, former head oIsraeli intelligence and security; Lieutenant General Moshe Ya’alon, former chief of staffIDF; and to Mr. JameWoolsey, former director, CIA; General Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Yossi Peled, chief of the Northern Command, Israel; General Dani Yatom, head of Mossad, Israeli intelligence Service; General Ya-akov Amidrorformer chief of IDF intelligence; Lt. General Tom McInerney; Masoud Barzani, president of Iraqi Kurdistan; and the late General Robert Dutch” Huyser, Deputy Commander-in- Chief, United States European Command.