Swiftly Losing Money

When the Shah was in charge of Iran, one could go to Iran with a Mastercard or Visa or any other major credit card or Traveler's Cheques and pretty much spend them, getting Iranian currency as change, and, upon leaving, one could change all Iranian currency back to the currency of wherever one was going next.

Then the Ayatollah took over, and the US cut Iran off from all International Finance. Anyone going to Iran had to bring US dollars, change them in Iranian currency at whatever rate Iran set, and probably be unable to change your Iranian currency back into some Internationally recognised currency when you left, because the US had complete control over all International Banking. The US built the system that allows money to move freely between nations, and so the US can cut off any nation they wish to cut off, and the US wish the Ayatollahs would go away and let the Shah come back, take over, and return all the BP oil that was stolen when the Ayatollah took over in 1979.

The two big countries where US bans the international money network that allows credit cards to work just about everywhere are Russia and Iran, but also countries like the DPRK, Cuba, Myanmar, Sudan, and a few others that have recently gone pro-US but the banking system hasn't been fully reintegrated, such as Venezuela.

But times are changing. The PRC want to trade with as many different countries as possible as easily as possible, and have set up banking networks independent of the US international monetary system (based in Belgium).

 Life is easier for those doing international transactions if one can use SWIFT, but, where there are great bargains banned by SWIFT, some are using some of the other systems, such as the PRC or the Russian system (I understand Iran now uses the PRC system to sell oil to the PRC and buy PRC manufactured products, and it makes these transactions fairly facile).

The US are determined to destroy any international monetary systems trying to compete with SWIFT, but the US are now playing against some rather large, powerful competitors, a game with which the US are not terribly familiar.

So, as of now, no one knows how this is going to turn out, but Iran and Russia are looking forward to finding out. 

Russia claims the Black Sea as a Russian Sea

After Victoria Nuland convinced the Aryans in the Ukraine to overthrow the government that was a mixture of Slavs, Aryans, and Jews and replace it with a government that was all Aryans in 2014, the new government applied to join NATO and said the Russian naval port in Crimea would become a NATO naval port.

Russia refused to accept this and moved the Crimea back into Russia, where it had been until it was moved from the Soviet Republic of Russia to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine  by Khrushchev in 1954.

NATO do not accept this and plan to move the Crimea back into NATO, where it obviously belongs. But not just yet.

The latest news is that, for some reason, President Putin declared that the Black Sea is now a Russian sea, and no Ukrainian boats are allowed to sail on it. The Ukraine had already declared the Black Sea a Ukrainian Sea, and this was accepted by NATO, and Russia were told to keep out and some Russian boats were attacked.

But, it seems, Russia are serious now, and no Ukrainian ships are sailing the Black Sea, so the Ukraine no longer have any way to ship anything in or out over the Black Sea (but the Ukraine did shell an Iranian ship in the Caspian Sea).

So far, NATO haven't done anything, and there is no sign of any NATO ships heading in the direction of the Black Sea.

And the port of Odessa isn't getting any traffic taking Ukrainian produce out for sale or bringing anything in.

This seems like a fairly major development in the war. Along with the collapse of some Ukrainian defensive lines that have held strong since 2022. 

Prof. Doctorow, who has felt that Russia are losing the war, says it looks like the new and improved Russian strategy is turning things around.

Prof. Doctorow

The US/UK/EU mainstream media (TV/news'papers':, i.e., mostly online descendants of what were once ink stamped onto paper/radio/etc.) all agree that the Ukraine, making all their own weapons from non-weapon items bought for them by NATO, are easily defeating the Russians: I saw a map showing that, in the first days of the war, the Russian Army were around Kiev, giving them the overwhelming majority of the Ukraine, but the brave Ukrainian Army have forced the Russians back to less than 25% of the Ukraine, and the Russians also lost a Russian Oblast (since recaptured by the Russians, but likely to be retaken by the Ukrainians). So the Ukraine are obviously winning this war.

The Russians are losing 10 times as many soldiers as the Ukraine, and Russia only has less than 25% of the Ukraine while the Ukraine are striking deep into Russia, destroying homes, military facilities, energy production facilities, & etc., so Russia can no longer sell energy to the evil nations of the world willing to buy Russian energy in violation of International Law that says Russia are not allowed to sell anything to anyone, especially Russian energy resources.

There are some podcasters who keep saying Russia are winning in the Ukraine, that the mainstream media are all owned by a very few corporations who hope to profit from the destruction of Russia and distribution of all Russian wealth as war reparations, all going to people like the owners of those mainstream media, but these podcasters say that isn't really happening, the mainstream media just make it up in support of their self-interest.

One podcaster who says that the total destruction of Russia is likely to happen is Prof. Doctorow, who says Russia is afraid that, if they strike any NATO assets, NATO will respond by nuking Russia, and that is too high a price, so Russia will only use weapons they are approved to use by NATO, lower grade weapons, and Russia must not inflict too much damage on the Ukraine, while the Ukraine are free to destroy as much of Russia as they can manage with those 'Ukrainian built' weapons (made from parts that all come from NATO, including Starlink navigation to get the Ukrainian weapons to wherever they will do the most damage to Russia).

Prof. Doctorow says that NATO are doing massive damage to Russia, while Russia are afraid to use any but their least lethal weapons, and NATO are helping the Ukraine find and draft as many candidates for cannon fodder as they possibly can.

So NATO are throwing everything they have at Russia who are fighting with both their hands self-tied behind their back, and Russia cannot possibly win this way.

NATO, meanwhile, say all Russian energy, gold, and uranium are all NATO property, and will soon be confiscated, and Russia are afraid to object, and so are taking no steps to prevent NATO from taking all Russian assets to enrich the NATO leadership.

Prof Doctorow says he hopes Russia will wake up in time, since he is not fond of what NATO are doing, but the world, including Russia, seem too afraid of NATO to try to stop them or even slow them down a bit.

Prof Doctorow says that if Russia do not start fighting back with the full force of the Russian military, NATO will overwhelm them, and this is what seems to be happening, with no sign that Russia dare do anything to stop NATO.

It wasn't much in the mainstream media how Russia took the Crimea back in 2014 (this has happened before, and it wasn't reported much then, either, only the massive and unnecessary losses by the Light Brigade charging a fortified Russian artillery battery, but the British still defeated the Russians and won possession of the Crimea in 1856). But Doctorow says the Ukrainians have cut off energy and food to the Crimea so most Russians are leaving the Crimea and going back to Russia, all the roads and railways have been destroyed by the Ukrainians, so Crimea has been lost again, just as it was in 1856.

(The mainstream US/UK/EU media don't say much about the Crimea, and nor does Russian news, so I have no idea what the current situation really is.)

Sailboats

Humans have had sailboats for at least 10,000 years. Those sailboats could only sail in the same direction the wind was blowing, so if the winds were west winds, the boats could sail east (or they could lower their sails and travel in whatever direction they wanted to row, but galleys require lots of oarsmen, and oarsmen require lots of food and water, so not much space for cargo or paying passengers).

For fishermen if there was no storm, the winds are seaward at dawn and landward at dusk, so they can use the sails going out to catch fish and coming back home, maybe catching a few more fish as they sail homeward.

But the Vikings wanted to travel west when the North Atlantic winds were mostly west winds, so they lowered their sails and rowed. We know they made it to Canada, started a small colony, and then all died out. Likewise in Greenland. Iceland was close enough they could carry enough stuff (including women, of course) to set up a colony that remains to this day in Iceland, but Iceland was about as far west as those old ships, mostly moved by oarsmen, could travel and set up permanent colonies.

Until the 15th century, when some Italian came up with a ship that could sail into the wind: with a west wind, the ship could sail south-southwest by south or north-northwest by north, and, by sailing between south-southwest by south and north-northwest by north, the ship could tack her way westward into a west wind.

However, no rich and powerful people in Italy had any desire to sail west, they wanted to sail east to fight the Ottomans (and claim all the Ottoman treasures for Christians who G_d wanted to have all those treasures), and when an Italian begged for a ship to sail west, he was refused.

And then the Spanish royalty threw a huge party in 1492 to celebrate the total defeat of Islam in Spain, and when that Italian asked for money to buy one ship, they gave him enough for three ships, and the Europeans began colonising the rest of the world (and figured G_d must have wanted them to do so).

Those sailing ships allowed Europeans to colonise just about the entire world, and also allowed Europeans to have huge naval wars over which European power would have which colony. And, of course, the colonists in the Americas/Western Hemisphere mostly declared independence from their European Imperial masters, and, logistics being what they are, mostly succeeded, with a few minor exceptions.

The US of A started as a British colony, declared independence, won, and then, in 1823, condemned colonialism for 75 years, until someone said no nation can be a Great Nation without colonies, so, in 1898, the US declared war on Spain based on the lie that Spain had attacked the US, and took over just about all of the Spanish colonies. Many in the US decided they hated being Imperialists and demanded that the US 'free' the colonies and make them into neo-colonies, with a faux 'Independent Government' that is entirely run from the US. Of course, a few of those neo-colonies refused 'independence' and remain colonies, and, after most of Cuba was made into a neo-colony, a small part remains a US colony/military base and prison, and the rest, with Soviet support, moved from an American neo-colony to a Soviet neo-colony to a state forced into poverty by harsh US sanctions (and, the US hope, will return to the kind of US neo-colony it was in 1955, with lots of resorts for US tourists, and lots of sugar and tobacco farms owned by US companies).

But the US have returned from a significant Imperial Power into an insignificant Imperial Power, with most of the US vassal states nominally 'Independent States' (with governments who always do what the US leadership order them to do, or else, are maybe killed, or maybe sentenced, like Noriega, to Life in the lowest basement of a US Federal Prison).

So now we're all hoping that All will soon for the Best, in this, the Best of All Possible Worlds (thanks to the brilliant American leadership of just about all the nominally independent governments of the entire world). 

The US and Iran have starting shooting at each other, as have Saudi and AnserUllah, so what now???

I noted that, while both the US and Iran signed a MOU the Iranians believed the US had agreed to peace, while the US figured they had agreed to break Iran into pieces.

Many think the US are planning a ground invasion of Iran. After all, the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Korea were not being won by constant bombing runs, it took boots on the ground to bring those wars to a total US victory, and the top US military leadership have realised that and are getting ready for that ground invasion, preferably in July/August when the weather is perfect, there won't be any fierce rainstorms bogging the US troops down in fields of mud. The weather should be just about perfect: 120º. In the shade. Of which there isn't any.

The evil Iranian government are shuddering at the thought of US troops marching into Iran to mete out the punishment the Iranian leadership deserves as much as the German leadership did in the Nuremberg Trials of '45-'46.

And the US troops are ready, willing, and able to march in perfect weather, not a cloud in the sky, not a drop of rain to slow them down.

Meanwhile, the Ansarullah group in the Yemen, often called the Houthis, because some of the members of Ansarullah are members of the Houthi tribe, responded to perfectly reasonable Saudi bombings of the Sanaa Airport by a totally illegal bombing of a major Saudi airport. As large, and as rich as Saudi is, they mostly outsource their defences, and those to whom they normally outsource those defences are a bit tied up just now destroying Iran, so Saudi are not getting the help they expect and deserve.

So it's not clear how safe it is to fly into or out of Saudi now, since Saudi airports are now subject to illegal, unjustified bombings by both Ansarullah and Iran.  Not to mention the odd false flag bombings of Saudi Airports by those who know they need to give us further proof of why we must attack Iran and Ansarullah.

 

How the US/UK/EU know that almost every Iranian wants the Shah back, and are ready to overthrow the Ayatollahs with just a little help from their (US/UK/EU) friends

Back when the Shah was in charge, many Iranians came to the US. Some came with the Shah's blessings and some money, so they could live and study in the US and bring US technological expertise back to Iran, and some, like the Marandi family, came because they hated the Shah (but they probably knew not to say that), and lived quietly in the US until the Shah was overthrown, then they went back to Iran with a son who speaks perfect American (and now teaches it to students in Tehran).

In any case, the US/UK/EU interviewed all the Iranians living in the US/UK/EU, and all hate the Ayatollahs and want the Shah back. The US/UK/EU couldn't interview the Iranians in Iran, but if 100% of the Iranians in the US/UK/EU want the Shah back, simple statistics say that almost all the Iranians in Iran must want the Shah back, and are all ready to rise up against the Ayatollahs, remove them, and then welcome the Shah back with open arms. That's just simple statistics, so we know it must be true, and we are sure most of the Iranians are ready to overthrow the Ayatollahs if we just give them a little help.

Those who saw 50 million Iranians at the funeral for the Ayatollah and his family know they were forced to be there, all are secretly rejoicing that the Ayatollah and his family are all dead and can no longer terrify the Iranian people.

And the undecided Iranians, given the choice of having the US and Israel totally destroy everything in Iran, leaving all of Iran just like Ghaza, will be convinced by the bombing that they must support the Shah and get rid of the Ayatollahs, just so the Americans, who only want to bring peace and freedom to Iran, will be able to see that the good Iranians have gotten rid of the Ayatollahs, so they can stop bombing all of Iran to rubble and bring the Shah back to Iran. That's obvious (at least to all the leadership in the US/UK/EU, and they obviously know what is best for the entire world, even if some have the temerity to question their ability to understand simple statistics).

9/11: A Confession

 On 9/11/2001 four planes were hijacked. Two were crashed into the World Trade Center, one was crashed into the Pentagon, and one was crashed into a field. Whodunit????

The official, September, 2001 verdict: it was all done by Afghan terrorists, so the US sent the US military into Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power. The evil Taliban had banned  the growth of opium poppies, and the CIA got that business thriving again, selling the opium and heroin to Iran, Russia, and the PRC, clearly a good use of the poppies to weaken the evil enemies of the US, so good work on the part of the US military and the CIA.

But then, in the 2003 State of the Union Address, rated as one of the very best State of the Union Addresses ever by the Washington Post, Bush, Jr. announced that he had discovered that the hijackers were not all Afghans. The organiser and funder of the attack was Iran who paid and trained all the terrorists, and while many of the terrorists were Afghans, others were Iraqis and DPRK agents. A day or two later, Bush, Jr. admitted that he'd forgotten three more nations that had sent hijackers: Syria, Libya, and Cuba.

So in 2003, Bush, Jr. ordered the US military to go into Iraq, arrest all the government leaders and try them and execute them as the Allies did to the Nazi leadership after WWII. Ordinary Iraqis were imprisoned in torture camps, which they well deserved for the part they had played in the 9/11 attack.

And the US military are still in Iraq, but they did leave Afghanistan in 2021, after a brief 20 years. The US also decapitated the Libyan government, which was great. The evil Gaddafi stole American oil and used the money so Libyans did not need to work, they just sponged off US assets, but the US got back all that oil and gas and generously gave 10% to the UK and 10% to France for helping recover it, after which the Libyans went back to their traditional work in the aswaq aleabid (العبيد أسواق), which is much better than stealing American oil money. Also, where the evil Qaddafi had stopped people from using Libya as a gateway to Europe, Libyans began selling tickets to Europe, providing the European oligarchs with a huge supply of very cheap labour, so another great success and benefit to the world!

*** 

But I was at a dinner party in 2010 sitting next to a Saudi who spoke both Arabic and English, and he told me that, starting with the items from the '70s only recorded in 2004 in the the book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins. Mr Perkins starts his book with his recruitment in the early '70s by unknown persons working for an unknown organisation, and his first very well-paid job was to stand up, say '20%' and sit down. The Indonesians were convinced that a loan at 10% would return 20%, so a no-brainer. They took out the loan, the contractors took the money and left, so the net return was a whopping 0% and Indonesia owed the 10% interest annually, and had to sell subsistence farms, so the farmers starved to death, and mineral rights, and the waste from the mines was dumped in the water so many died from drinking poisoned water (or from thirst). And just about everyone in Indonesia is Muslim.

The second job Perkins records in his book was selling modernity to the Saudis. They had lots of money, and Perkins arranged for Pakistanis to come and do all the work so the Saudis could live like rich people, but word spread about what Perkins had done to Indonesia. The story grew until the mysterious company for which Perkins worked (the name and management of which Perkins says he did not know) was responsible for killing one billion Muslims and must be punished, and all of them worked in the World Trade Center, and they were protected by people who worked in the Pentagon.

And so, the Saudi told me that in many, many mosques, during the Friday khutba, the Imam spoke about the importance of punishing those responsible for all those billion Muslim deaths, and this started in the '70s and continued through the '80s and '90s.

And so 15 Saudis and 4 more Arabs hijacked four planes and destroyed the World Trade Center, did rather minor damage to the Pentagon, and crashed the fourth plane killing all the passengers.

This is a story that made perfect sense to me, since I had just read Perkins' book. Of course, while he only writes about killing Indonesians, he says other economic hitmen killed many other people the same way in many other countries, but a little geography shows that many were in Latin America, which has a very small population of Muslims, and in Africa, where, again, there are some parts with many Muslims, but many other parts where other religions predominate, so while many were killed by the economic hitmen, not too many were Muslim except for Indonesia, most were other religions. But the 'billion Muslims murdered' caught on in the Saudi mosques and khutbas, and so we got 9/11.

Or maybe it was all done by the CIA using remote control to take over and crash the airplanes.

But I heard a 'confession' from a Saudi who heard the khutbas and knew some people who'd been part of the plot, and I still believe him. And I knew some cousins of one of the hijackers, and they said they knew their cousin, an Arab, was definitely one of the hijackers. And I am reasonably certain none of those Saudis or other Arabs were working for the CIA when they hijacked those planes.

Still, invading Ira and Libya got us all their oil (well, 90% of all the Iraqi oil and 80% of all the Libyan oil), so that was a much better story than blaming it on the Saudis, who paid good money not to be accused, and, in fact, for all Saudi suspects (who might have helped plan but did not take part in the hijackings) freedom to return safely to Saudi.

And one can strongly suspect that the US people who were supposed to be preventing things like 9/11 looked the other way, either under orders or for a little baksheesh (or both).