Zoroastrian, British spy, freemason and propagator of Haifan Bahaism: Ardeshir Reporter

[SalarHaqq]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardeshir_Reporter

Hailing from the British Raj, this subject of Zoroastrian background, a freemason and a spy of the Rothschild/Sassoon-controlled British empire, the same empire that murdered around 10 million Iranians between 1914 and 1919 in what has to be one of the biggest acts of genocide in modern times, was dispatched to Iran on a mission to advance British interests.

The subject was instrumental in making British general Ironside choose the illiterate Cossack brigade officer Reza Khan as the "nationalist" and secularist ruler of Iran in the early 1920's. Some historians tend to highlight the role of Seyyed Ziaa od-Din Tabaatabaai (anglophile Prime Minister of Iran under the last Qaajaar monarch Ahmad Shah) in Reza Khan's accession to power, however, careful examination of historical sources show that in the grand scheme of things, the mediocre Ziaa was but a second fiddle to Ardeshir Reporter.

Thus, it was this masonic-zionist cabal which brought the traitorous Pahlavi dynasty to power in Iran. Years later, in 1953 to be more exact, the zionist-controlled US regime would coup into power the second Pahlavi king, finally overthrown by the 1979 Islamic Revolution. What is more, when Reza shah began annoying his British masters and sought to balance Iran's foreign relations by striking deals with Germany and to a leser extent the Soviet Union, London humiliatingly deposed him and sent him into exile on the island of Mauritius in 1941, consequently making his son follow him on the Peacock Throne.

Apart from that, Ardeshir Reporter illustrated himself by encouraging the conversion of Iranians from his own Zoroastrian community into Haifaite Bahaism, another auxiliary of zionism.

As we can see, last time Iranian secular "nationalists" were in power they turned out to be mere puppets to zionism: placed in charge by the zionist-controlled British and then US empires, they furthermore allowed zionist banksters, freemasons and the Haifaite Bahai organization to gain control of Iranian media, key sectors of the Iranian economy, as well as to exert unparalleled political, social and cultural influence on Iran.

Illustrating their domination over Iran during the Pahlavi years, the so-called Shahyaad monument (renamed Azadi tower after the 1979 Revolution), presented by the regime as synonymous with a "modern", revived imperial Iran and still one of the most characteristic buildings of Tehran, was in fact designed by a Bahai architect. It sports Bahai symbols (such as the geometry of the row of vertical windows at the top of the tower).

Under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, close cooperation with Tel Aviv in the realm of national security was added to this sinister mix, since the zionist regime's Mossad intelligence agency set up the counter-espionage and internal security bureaus of the shah's secret police SAVAK. This gave Isra"el" direct access and influence over a most sensitive area of Iranian state institutions.

Let us close this brief reminder with a photograph from a less glorious period in the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty's carreer, depicting a time when officer Reza Khan was tasked with guarding the donkey of the Dutch ambassador to Tehran:

 

[Muhammed45]

Reza khan was a stooge. The 5 years projects the so called "طرح های 5 ساله" were in fact British designed projects aimed at changing and turning Iranian society into a secular anti Islam Pro Zionist Entity. They successfuly did it in Turkey through their lackey Ata Turk who ordered people remove Quranic symbols and pray in Turkish language
Reza khan failed to Advance British plots in Iran because Iranianians were ultra orthodox Muslims. The anti-hijab campaign failed because of people's protests. Reza khan the British stooge massacred protesters in Mashhad and its well recorded in the history.
No need to say about Ale Saud in Middle East and their role in recruitting Muslims for Western interests.
Iranian Revolution was never a sectarian One as American British media are trying to portray. Irans Revolution was rising of Islam and Muslims.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Reza khan was a stooge. The 5 years projects the so called "طرح های 5 ساله" were in fact British designed projects aimed at changing and turning Iranian society into a secular anti Islam Pro Zionist Entity. They successfuly did it in Turkey through their lackey Ata Turk who ordered people remove Quranic symbols and pray in Turkish language
Reza khan failed to Advance British plots in Iran because Iranianians were ultra orthodox Muslims. The anti-hijab campaign failed because of people's protests. Reza khan the British stooge massacred protesters in Mashhad and its well recorded in the history.
No need to say about Ale Saud in Middle East and their role in recruitting Muslims for Western interests.
Iranian Revolution was never a sectarian One as American British media are trying to portray. Irans Revolution was rising of Islam and Muslims.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Lawrence of Arabia of Iran failed, much to the chagrin of padamchen. Iran couldn't go back to Zoroastrianism.

I appreciate to loyalty to Islam of Iranian populace. Well done. Thanks for the tag brother.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Interesting read.

Basically every Muslim nation, political entities in past and present were/are infiltrated by the moles.


Muslims are bunch of docile and lazy people if you ask me. They ruled better part of Europe for 700 years yet didn't impose their ways, culture, change the thinking of the local people under their rule. No long term planning.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Interesting read.

Basically every Muslim nation, political entities in past and present were/are infiltrated by the moles.


Muslims are bunch of docile and lazy people if you ask me. They ruled better part of Europe for 700 years yet didn't impose their ways, culture, change the thinking of the local people under their rule. No long term planning.

Complacency and lack of innovstion had destroyed many civilizations of the past. Muslims lost the fire inside of them, and subsequently were ill-suited to meet the upcoming challenges. The biggest blame lies with ourselves.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

Reza khan was a stooge. The 5 years projects the so called "طرح های 5 ساله" were in fact British designed projects aimed at changing and turning Iranian society into a secular anti Islam Pro Zionist Entity. They successfuly did it in Turkey through their lackey Ata Turk who ordered people remove Quranic symbols and pray in Turkish language
Reza khan failed to Advance British plots in Iran because Iranianians were ultra orthodox Muslims. The anti-hijab campaign failed because of people's protests. Reza khan the British stooge massacred protesters in Mashhad and its well recorded in the history.
No need to say about Ale Saud in Middle East and their role in recruitting Muslims for Western interests.
Iranian Revolution was never a sectarian One as American British media are trying to portray. Irans Revolution was rising of Islam and Muslims.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

He acted well upon separatists (Iron fist method). Unfortunately Islamic republic allows them into parliament. We can say whatever we want about him, he created a central government from a backward feudal disunited country and built universities and infrastructure, using Iron fist method.
We need someone with Iron fists now as well, who would hang all those including their families who steal billions and safely exist the country. Do we have people in Islamic republic who allow these criminals to steal and escape? What is the role of "leader" and military and intelligence agencies then? Why they fail? what is the reason of the failure? What happened with Larijani gang? Leader said they are ok peope? How Asgaroladi jews became billionair in short time and were close to Khomeini and khamenei? where is their money now? What will judge Raisi do with all this mess?
Unanswered questions.

 

[Sineva]

Let us close this brief reminder with a photograph from a less glorious period in the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty's carreer, depicting a time when officer Reza Khan was tasked with guarding the donkey of the Dutch ambassador to Tehran:

Dear god that picture is unreal,tho I do have to laugh at that twat with the hat striking a pose on his horse.
Judging by the pile of horse sh!t on the ground in the picture,one really gets the feeling that this was actually reza snr job,ie not guarding ambassador twats horse[donkey] but picking up its sh!t.

 

[SalarHaqq]

He acted well upon separatists (Iron fist method). Unfortunately Islamic republic allows them into parliament.

That's simply because the tyrant had a general tendency to order the killing of those who opposed him or whom he simply grew suspicious of, including his own confidants, to which effect he had his notorious executioner Dr. Ahmadi give them poisonous or air injections. It's not as if Reza Khan had firmly rooted ideological convictions, as shown by the political opportunism characterizing the initial phase of his rise to power: at first he intended to establish a Republic modeled after Atatürk's Turkey but then changed his mind, likewise he initially reached out to the ulemaa to legitimize his rule but then operated a turnaround and ended up pounding the holy shrine of Imam Reza in Mashhad.

His son M-R. Pahlavi was in talks with SAVAK/Mossad-sponsored separatist Kurds of Iraq (Barzani clan) to open up the Iranian border with northern Iraq, which would have allowed these separatists to expand their zone of influence into Kurdish-speaking areas of Iran (although this didn't materialize in the end).

As for the Islamic Republic, it's a democracy albeit a religious and not a secular liberal one, and the presence of a variety of political tendencies in parliament, some likeable some less, is something that comes with a democratic form of governance. That said, there are no explicitly separatist MPs in the Majles. If they cross the lines and openly advocate secession, they will not be allowed to run like Nader Ghazipour.

When it comes to openly separatist and worse, armed separatist groups, they don't seem to agree with the notion that the Islamic Republic has been particularly "lenient" towards them: restoration of order in the western Kurdish inhabited regions by Sayyad Shirazi, elimination of less significant separatist elements in Khuzestan, Turkmen Sahra and even Gilan in the early 80's, unprecedented defrocking of grand ayatollah Shariatmadaari in Tabriz, and more recently crushing of Abdolmalek Rigi's terrorist cells in Sistan-Baluchistan and defeat of PJAK (branch of the PKK) terrorist group in north-western Iran. Clearly the IR has a flawless record in safeguarding Iran's territorial integrity against separatists despite the far more powerful enemies it is facing, and unlike Reza Khan it does not proceed to counterproductive large scale massacres of civilians in the process.

We can say whatever we want about him, he created a central government from a backward feudal disunited country and built universities and infrastructure, using Iron fist method

Universities that mainly functioned as vectors of cultural westernization. White elephant infrastructure development not in line with the needs of the Iranian people (but very much with those of the British), as Dr. Mossadeq highlighted in parliament.

And he didn't exactly put and end to feudal rule: what Reza Khan actually did, was to transfer feudal types of privileges from local landlords onto his own self. Indeed, he went around confiscating land only to add it to his personal possessions.

In this way, Reza Khan had built a regime that had no real leg to stand on, despite the apparent solidity: cut off and insulated from the popular masses due to its autocratic, top-down nature and lacking mechanisms of participatory mobilization (unlike say, the Islamic Republic's Basij popular mobilization force), it simultaneously burnt bridges with traditional notables and landed nobility while failing to give rise to a sufficiently developed "modern" bourgeois middle class that could have acted as its backbone.

Needles to say, such a regime was bound to be far weaker and shakier at the core than the Islamic Republic, despite the superior use of force. Everything was about appearance with the Pahlavi dynasty, its outwardly facade of power was mostly an illusion since when you began to scratch the surface there was not much beneath. With the Islamic Republic it's pretty much the opposite.

We need someone with Iron fists now as well, who would hang all those including their families who steal billions and safely exist the country.

As if Reza Khan's heavy handed rule prevented corruption and in particular his own corrupt practices. The man was known for expropriating land to his own benefit whenever he passed by a parcel that appealed to him!

Do we have people in Islamic republic who allow these criminals to steal and escape? What is the role of "leader" and military and intelligence agencies then? Why they fail? what is the reason of the failure?

During the 80's the Islamic Republic managed to reduce corruption at all levels to nearly zero from the astronomical voumes it had reached under the last king. This is a well documented fact for which Iran even received international recognition from otherwise hostile UN agencies.

It was not until the rule of Hashemi Rasanjani that corruption reappeared. Iran had been weakened by 8 years of imposed war and had pressing priorities to deal with such as reconstruction. Since then, the liberal fifth column took shape in Iran, fracturing the political landscape and blackmailing the leadership, which makes it hard for the latter to take radical measures. Plus, rooting out corruption is not something that can be achieved overnight anyway due to the nature of the issue.

However it is also a well known fact that the Supreme Leaders of the Islamic Revolution, whether Imam Khomeini or Ali Khamenei have not been corrupt persons nor interested in accumulating material wealth, as demonstrated by their extremely simple and exemplary lifestyles.

I would take this any day over the shah regime, which was hopelessly marred by corruption from top to bottom.

By the way, covert agents of influence presently acting to undermine Iran are linked to former security officials of the shah regime, such as Parviz Saabeti, now living in exile in Tel Aviv and head of the SAVAK-Mossad stay behind network responsible for acts of sabotage inside Iran through his network of undercover agents recruited under M-R. Pahlavi. Another poisonous legacy and postumous harmful gift of the shah regime to Iran.

What happened with Larijani gang?

Their right hand man Akbar Tabari, former deputy head of the judiciary, was sentenced to jail while Sadeq Laarijaani was largely sidelined.

Leader said they are ok peope?

It's called politics. The Leader is no dictator, he permanently has to strike a balance between power centers and factions and keep all parties sweet while simultaneously advancing his anti-corruption agenda in a calculated way. He needs to strengthen the hand of his Hezbollahi supporters first. Radical, sporadic and hasty action could end up being counterproductive. When the time is ripe, he will no longer need to tolerate any corrupt element.

How Asgaroladi jews became billionair in short time and were close to Khomeini and khamenei? where is their money now?

Shah regime = immense levels of corruption + fully fledged subservience to the US, Isra"el", international freemasonry and Haifaite Bahai organization.

Islamic Republic = average levels of corruption + anti-zionist and anti-imperialist policy orientation as a matter of principle.

Between the two, it is obvious which government a patriot would choose irregardless of ideological preferences.

What will judge Raisi do with all this mess?

He is doing better already than anything the ousted shah could come up with: dozens of corrupt judges dismissed, one trial of corrupt officials after the other.

Also, there's iron fist and iron fist: Reza Khan resorted to autocratic, moody, brutish, compulsive and arbitrary use of force, whereas in the Islamc Republic, rule of the law and checks and balances are present to a far greater degee. Meaning that under the Islamic Republic, we will conceivably have iron fisted justice dispensed by the judiciary, reflecting institutionalized, skillfully dosed use force.

Of course the latter proves far more efficient than the former. Which is why Reza Khan's regime was so easy for the Britishers to topple once its usefulness had expired, given that it did not enjoy any source of legitimacy to speak of other than the blatant use of violence, deprived as it was of both popular and organized, networked elite backing.

The opposite is the case with the Islamic Republic, whose legitimacy is founded upon grassroots popular support in addition to multiple intricate, sophisticated and extensive centers of power. Hence the enormous difficulties encountered by enemies in their relentless attempts to overthrow a political system which ended their privileges in Iran and set out to resist and combat their illegitimate domination throughout the region and the world.

Unanswered questions.

Biggest unanswered questions are about the identities of stay-behind shahi SAVAK agents of influence sabotaging Iran on orders of Tel Aviv.

 

[S Hussain]

The British put the Ghulam Mirza Ahmed as the new messiah for Indian Muslims. Even though he died with his head in the toilet he still has many followers in Pakistan. Its the Muslims own fault for themselves being allowed to ruled by the kaafirs. Even today in Pakistan we have Jew and Hindu lovers.

At least today Iran is giving a middle finger to the Zionist West. It needs to do the same with India.

 

[Myself]

Reza khan failed to Advance British plots in Iran because Iranianians were ultra orthodox Muslims. The anti-hijab campaign failed because of people's protests. Reza khan the British stooge massacred protesters in Mashhad and its well recorded in the history.


@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Well recorded in the history?? Which history? As usual you are spreading misleading and falsified information in this public forum, and definitely you are not doing it for free. Following your clearly assigned agenda, you are citing a fake history here. Your so called anti-hijab campaign was launched in Winter 1314 (Persian Calendar); while the Goharshad protest happened in Summer 1314 (Persian Calendar). In other words, the Mashhad protest happened almost six months before the order for removal of Hijab in public!!
Mullahs triggered uneducated people, mainly villagers, for this opposition in Mashhad b/c they were about to lose their power completely during the Reza Shah governance. In fact, for a long time they were looking for a chance to demonstrate their power to the government, and finally they found it after a new order for men was issued earlier that year, forcing them to put on Fedora hat in public!
Reza Shah was a dedicated and great nationalist man, and he had his own leadership style. But, at the same time he was a typical Iranian man belonging to an era were the majority of Iranians were not ‘politically educated’. Now, in Summer 1399, I don’t understand why he ordered men to wear Fedora hat! To me it sounds silly, in all honesty. Even forcing women to remove Hijab doesn’t sound logical. He could leave it as a personal choice for the citizens. But, maybe we shouldn’t expect too much from that great man, after almost 100 years, as the world is now completely different from then. He tried his best for his country, and that is enough for me; especially when I compare it with the current corrupt gang running Iran. God bless his soul, and may he Rest In Peace.
By the way, at least 20 officers and soldiers were also killed by angry people during this bloody event, and no one mentions about them.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Your so called anti-hijab campaign was launched in Winter 1314 (Persian Calendar); while the Goharshad protest happened in Summer 1314 (Persian Calendar). In other words, the Mashhad protest happened almost six months before the order for removal of Hijab in public!!

The notion of failure does not necessarily imply that the order was revised or annulled. It can also mean that it failed in gaining social acceptance, which was indeed the case as the popular mass upheaval in Mashhad proves. There's nothing wrong with mohammad45's statement.

Mullahs triggered uneducated people, mainly villagers, for this opposition in Mashhad b/c they were about to lose their power completely during the Reza Shah governance.

People rose up because they opposed forced secularization inspired by masonic principles. And this sentiment was far from being a local one, it was widespread accross Iran's geography and population. The people of Mashhad were just exceptionally courageous to dare take their grievance to the streets.

Reza Shah was a dedicated and great nationalist man,

Reza Khan had no strong ideological convictions, having experienced changes of heart on various essential topics.

and he had his own leadership style.

That of a classical textbook autocratic despot. Not a particularly original "style" of leadership.

But, maybe we shouldn’t expect too much from that great man, after almost 100 years, as the world is now completely different from then. He tried his best for his country, and that is enough for me; especially when I compare it with the current corrupt gang running Iran.

Sure, let's be excessively lenient towards Reza Khan and apply maximum severity to our judgement regarding the Islamic Republic, despite the fact that there's no comparison between the way in which the IR has managed to strengthen and develop Iran as well as to preserve its independence and self-determination, and the way in which the Pahlavis not onmy failed to score any remotely comparable achievement but were actually simple lackeys to foreign powers and oligarchic networks hostile to Iran, her identity and her people.

As for corruption, I'd take the IR (which in the 1980's managed to uproot from every sphere of public life the astronomic levels of corruption witnessed under the shah) over a despot like Reza Khan who toured the land to confiscate land at sight.

Interesting read.

Basically every Muslim nation, political entities in past and present were/are infiltrated by the moles.


Muslims are bunch of docile and lazy people if you ask me. They ruled better part of Europe for 700 years yet didn't impose their ways, culture, change the thinking of the local people under their rule. No long term planning.

Generally true but I believe one can also give credit where due.

Iran went from this:

...to this thanks to the 1979 Revolution:

Very few nations managed this feat to be honest. In fact this partcular Iranian experience can and should serve as a model of emulation for everyone else.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Generally true but I believe one can also give credit where due.

Iran went from this:

...to this thanks to the 1979 Revolution:

Very few nations managed this feat to be honest. In fact this partcular Iranian experience can and should serve as a model of emulation for everyone else.

Its all gimmickry tbh and if you ask me, its actually Pakistan which has taken all mighty panga with all the major hostile super powers of this day and age. First the Soviet Union and its destruction, and now America and clipping its wings as sole super power to its current state.


The point I was trying to make, when Muslims ruled far and distant lands from their heartlands, they simply did not impose their ways, cultures, created a breed within local population which will mimic them like we have "brown sahabs" in Pakistan. Nothing of any that sort. Its always been a "white man burden" to "civilize" the lesser beings. Muslims ruled Europe for 700 damn years, yet ZERO influence.

 

[dani92]

Lawrence of Arabia of Iran failed, much to the chagrin of padamchen. Iran couldn't go back to Zoroastrianism.

I appreciate to loyalty to Islam of Iranian populace. Well done. Thanks for the tag brother.

Yeah the mullah did what the shah couldn’t do

 

[padamchen]

Yeah the mullah did what the shah couldn’t do

Shah and Mullas are both modern constructs.

The Persian race has no Zoroastrian memory or consciousness remaining.

They are born Muslim. They think Muslim. Their history and heroes are Muslim.

That's not going to change anytime soon.

Cheers, Doc

 

[SalarHaqq]

Yeah the mullah did what the shah couldn’t do

Are you Sumerian?