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

Demonstrators hold up a poster of exiled Shiite Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini during an anti-shah demonstration in Tehran, the Iranian capital, on Dec. 10, 1978. The Iranian revolution in 1979 had a powerful effect on the wider Muslim world, particularly among Shiites.

[Editor’s note: Sadly, I was unable to find the author’s name for this superb essay, but regardless, it is essential reading to understand the geopolitical agenda behind the wars and conflicts of the Middle East in the last half a century and continuing today. This is a follow-on to my earlier post about the 1953 coup that installed the Shah into power in Iran, which everyone knows was a US-British intel operation, but few know the 1979 removal of the Shah was likewise, the work of the US & British. What this article also exposes in detail is the role the British and Americans played in the creation of ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’ and the way this was used to destabilise and control the Middle East. Without understanding these machinations it is impossible to properly understand current events in the region. Ian]

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 read 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.

Share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on Tumblr

Related Posts:



All content herein is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network and its assigns. In addition, all images within this post are the full responsibility of the author and NOT Veterans Today Network.
Legal Notice - Comment Policy

Posted by on June 20, 2017, With 4814 Reads Filed under Investigations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

16 Responses to "The British And U.S. Governments Installed Khomeini Into Power In 1979"

  1. JS  June 25, 2017 at 6:30 am

    I found the original article. It was written by The Excavator, Saman Mohammadi, on Nov 3, 2011.
    “The British And U.S. Governments Installed Khomeini Into Power In 1979”
    http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com/2011/11/british-and-us-governments-installed.html

    Btw, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was involved in the taking of the American hostages in Iran. He was later rewarded with the Presidency of Iran, among other jobs.

  2. Peter Johnson  June 22, 2017 at 12:45 am

    With respect — you have this all wrong, Ian.

    • Ian Greenhalgh, Managing Editor  June 22, 2017 at 5:17 am

      I didn’t write the article, but how is it ‘all wrong?’

    • Peter Johnson  June 22, 2017 at 8:49 pm

      I will email you this weekend.

  3. Jaffer Jamil  June 21, 2017 at 5:50 pm

    Any bets Shrimpton would find a Germans behind this one also? I always did did wonder why Ayatollah Khomeini would live so close to the Rothschilds.

  4. Cosmodrome  June 21, 2017 at 6:22 am

    Omg that was a good article! About Khomeini – as a young man I could never understand how Khomeini had lived in exile in Paris and then went and took over in Iran! How was that possible? I was not politically savvy, it just didn’t make sense somehow. Now everything makes sense.

  5. irv  June 20, 2017 at 7:50 pm

    So according to VT, Soros and Hillary are anti-zionist, but the Iranian Regime post Shah is zionist, the regime currently under permanent hybrid (economic, electronic, commercial, diplomatic, etc.) and covert warfare from all the zionist lackey states.

    • FrigidInferno  June 20, 2017 at 9:30 pm

      Well the current Iranian regime could hardly be considered zionist, is under covert and overt warfare by zionist lackeys, and I think that shows through in VT’s reporting. Nonetheless what VT showcases here is that despite the current rivalry and enmity between the mullahs and zionists, there have always been backdoor connections and backroom deals. Reality is almost never black and white.

  6. FrigidInferno  June 20, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    It should also be noted that while there was coordination with the West bringing the mullahs to power, and afterward (e.g. Iran-contra), the West also turned the tables on Iran numerous times (Iran-Iraq war, recent Iraqi war, etc). However, in most of these examples, the West ostensibly miscalculated the outcomes, which invariably were the solidification and strengthening of Iran’s Islamic regime. As one example, though the Iran-Iraq war was intended as a population control operation, and certainly killed at least 1 million Iranians, it also prompted Iranian families to have more children, particularly religious and pro-regime families. There was a subsequent population boom in Iran. This may be part of the reason for the use of depleted uranium and more “soft kill” weapons in modern theaters of war like Iraq and Afghanistan.

  7. methuselah  June 20, 2017 at 12:18 am

    clavell’s whirlwind implicates corrupt police and opensewer advocates granting themselves imam status

  8. FrigidInferno  June 19, 2017 at 9:24 pm

    Yes, this article is a great find. The relationship between the current regime in Iran and the West has been complicated and intertwined from the beginning. It seems as the though the West (particularly US,UK) have had a relationship with radical elements in the clergy in Iran since at least Mossadegh’s time. Through using these elements to overthrow Mossadegh then backstabbing these elements by installing the Shah and guiding his oppressive tactics, this current ‘velayat-e-faqih’ twelver theocratic political movement took form. Then through backdoor deals and betrayal of the Shah, this movement came to power through revolution. Hostage to Khomeini covers the connections to the Carter administration but not the connections to the Bush and the Reagan campaign a-la the “October surprise.” These connections and backroom dealing between the new regime in Iran and the US govt evidently continued as revealed in the Iran-contra scandal, ostensibly to generate an income for other operations. It should be noted that the Shah’s brutal intelligance service, the SAVAK, was trained by US and Israeli intelligence. Allegedly many former SAVAK members became part of the new VEVAK force.

    • FrigidInferno  June 19, 2017 at 9:33 pm

      The British had attempted to gain control over key Iranian economic and political assets since at least the 1800’s. There were several famous controversies/rebellions such as the Reuters Concession and Tobacco protests in Iran. The monarch of Iran, in return for wealth and luxuries, would concede various assets to the British, to ire of the populace. This culminated with the constitutional revolution of Iran, a revolution by the people to keep the king “on a leash,” i.e. bound to a constitution as opposed to an absolute monarch. This alarmed the British who interfered and dampened the progress of the constitutional movement. If you look at British intelligence telegrams from these periods, they were keeping very close tabs on the local power structures and local power conflicts, often supporting one side against another. They worked with the monarchy to take down many powerful, altruistic, albeit mostly still flawed, leaders who were often trying to provide more for local populations.

  9. Mr. Jang  June 19, 2017 at 4:28 pm

    Now, now ‘Edward.’ Are you looking to have yourself rebuked by the editors again?
    Be nice.
    We’ve all developed different opinions regarding how the world works. Not everyone can know everything like you, ya know!
    (That’s a joke, btw.)

  10. JohninMK  June 19, 2017 at 12:44 pm

    Very, indeed too, plausible.

    We need an article on who controlled Iran for the following 35 years.

  11. Paedo hunter  June 19, 2017 at 10:14 am

    Ian….this is a masterpiece of an article…..the author deserves recognition of this…..and they say the rabbit hole goes deep…..looks like it goes deeper than anyone thought plausible……and everytime the Rothschild’s have their stinking big noses into everyone’s affairs…..they should be on Interpol’s ‘most wanted’ list

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network