


In with the madding crowd

Why did Iran favour a reactionary Shia divine over a wealth-creating king?

See article

Readers' comments


Humble Harbinger

One fact is wrong. There is absolutely no evidence that Khomeini supported the taking over of the Iranian embassy. The fatc of the matter is that some students wanted to do it. They knew Khomeini would never give them permission for it. They asked a different Ayatullah who told them to do it without telling Khomeini. They did it. Khomeini never originally bestowed his assent for the people to take the Americans hostage. It is very misleading to say that he did!
Blogger at middl3east.wordpress.com


"...And yet, in the villages visited by Mr Buchan, then reading Persian at Oxford, the people lived in houses made of mud."

this is the argument many make to discredit what the shah was trying to do. iran had been through decades of foreign wars and occupation and disgraceful Qajari rule that lost more than 1/3 of iranian territory to the brits and russians. what can we expect? to transform the entire country in a few short years? although im not monarcist and i totally admit that he wasnt democratic whatsoever and he was not in touch with his own people, but i do truly believe that he was a patriot and that he was on the right track in many ways, more noticeably on economy, which would eventually in time improve the quality of life of rural iran. why did iran favour a reactionary shia divine over a wealth creating king? well this is a quation that my generation that was shorly born after the revolution and, my parents generation who were the sreet force behind it, have been asking themselves for over thirty years. people were simply reactionary and poor in their judgement. khomeini was not even recogonized by the majority of iranians until the last few months. ultimately, the documents will come out so that everyone finally gets it, they will get the role jimmy carter played, the money his government poured into khomeini's camp, the role bbc played, and so on... this video clip might interest some: shah's speach in iranian parlimant 6 years before his reign ended:

A. Andros

Khomeni was a remarkable man, if not admirable in many respects. His career epitomized a phenomenon that recurs throughout history -- the principled individual. These are fewer than one might expect, given the numbers of humanity, but their influence can be awesome. They have several things in common. They, first, have thoroughly thought-out their beliefs and those beliefs are beyond reconsideration. A second characteristic is that the success or failure of the cause to which they cleave does not increase or mitigate their loyalty to it. They are, furthermore, endlessly patient -- they are convinced they are right and that the rest of the world must come to them. (They are rarely surprised when it does so -- although the world often is surprised!) Finally, the principle they embody is one that others perceive in themselves, even if they choose to suppress it or self-consciously reject it at first.

Here are a few other individuals who fit this profile: Gandhi, William Lloyd Garrison, Wilberforce, Francis of Assisi, Muhammed, St. Paul, Lincoln, Martin Luther, Winston Churchill, MLK Jr. and Thomas Paine. Once in the thrall of an idea, principle or faith, humans like this will wait for the mountain to come to them. And, their very certainty and lack of doubt often begins to attract others who are more sail than rudder.

With the exception of Churchill and Paine, all the men mentioned just above embodied spirituality. They perceived a moral truth (as they thought) and it became inseparable from their very existence. Gandhi could be jailed or half-starved, St. Paul ship-wrecked and imprisoned, King beaten and reviled, Francis excoriated by his own family again and again, Garrison led about Boston with a noose around his neck . . . all the persecution and hatred of their own families, friends and countrymen did not cause them to retreat, prevaricate or compromise. And, these individuals drew to themselves the great majority of good-willed but feckless men and women who were at first annoyed, then amazed, then awed and, finally, converted to the same point of view.

Khomeni was one of these. The same has been true of every saint and martyr of the Church and also, sadly, of Hitler (who followers, believe it or not, regarded him as a great spiritual leader.)

Khomeni's career makes a mockery of the most subtle, devious and skilled political tactician. It is, at last, the supple trimmer, the artful dodger, who, for all his skill, finally fails. We revere Lincoln for his unyielding compassion and fixed purpose. We have, despite all his cleverness, contempt for LBJ who, like Clinton, was all tactics. It is King, with all his defeats, who we memorialize every January and not George Wallace with all his election victories.

This phenomenon can also be seen in contemporary American religiosity, not just politics. The "Trendier than thou" churches such as the UCC, Presbyterians, ELCA, etc., gather applause from the bien-pensants but do not gather followers. The very lack of ballast that makes these ecclesiastical vessels able to so quickly trim and tack at last causes them to capsize and founder.

Khomeni was bitter, angry and unreasonable. But, like Gandhi -- like Luther -- his moral fixedness and clarity of vision eventually brought the world to his door as supplicant.

indica in reply to A. Andros

Yes, there have been remarkable identities who have had a great impact. But for how long does the impact last?

I have a cynical view of history - 'this too shall pass'!! The needle stays pointing to 'off north'

I am unsure how much the world stays 'reformed' through the efforts of great people, including the different prophets and great teachers of different religions.

Hence my complete agreement with the post below by 'CA-Oxonian' on religions and what sustains them.

Is Iran today what the good Ayotollah envisaged? Is Iran today a much happier place than the one Aryamehr Shah ruled? Are there fewer people hanged in Iran or fewer in prisons today as compared to the dreaded Shah's time?

Hope is what we live on, march on. Facts, well, we had better not look too closely!!

ab173 in reply to A. Andros

Khomeni was a remarkable man,

-he executed more than 3000 political prisoners in only two months, one year after the end of iran-iraq war
-he extended an iran iraq war that could have been ended in less than 2 years and caused the loss of life and permamnantly disabelling hundreds of thousands of iranian youth
-he portrayed himself as the champion of democracy before the revolution and right after the revolution he turned 180 degrees and executed every senior official from shah regime who dared to stay in the country
-when on the flight back to iran after 12 years of exile asked, "how do you feel to go back to iran after all these years", he responded "hich" meaning "nothing"
-an example of his writings in his Resaleh, which is like a set of religious guideline, is: in the even of an earthquake when a man falls penis down from a top floor, and lands onto a woman's vegina therefore impregnating the woman, the man has commited no sin

khomeini was a remarkable man


I haven't read the book myself to comment on it, but Iran's revolution was the end result of a clash of old system vs new system:

* tradition vs modernity
religious values vs western values,
seminary/clergy vs university/professor
monarchy vs republic

In the end the traditional elements of religious values (seminary and clergy) won, but the monarchy was modernized into a republic. A complex religious republic which has an elected clergy chamber which nominates the clergy leader (who himself nominates a clergy head of judiciary). An elected parliament of religious MPs which has been allowed to transition from a clergy head of parliament to a non clergy. And it is fluctuating between an elected clergy president vs a non clergy.

The presidency of this religious republic is the new center of struggle between traditions vs modernity.


Underlying everything is the fact that people are simple animals and want simple stories to guide them. Modernity is complex, challenging, frightening. All over the world we see people running away to hide under the comforting bed of religious dogma, whether it's Islamic fundamentalism or born-again Christianity. The fact that religion is a flight from reality doesn't matter when all you want is to hide somewhere that seems to offer order and meaning in an increasingly alien and apparently arbitrary world. Who can stare unblinking at the indifferent universe when mummy god or daddy god is there to tell us that everything revolves around us and everything will be all right if only we do/don't eat X,Y, and Z? The psuedo-scientific religions of the industrial period (Marxism, Freudianism, etc.) were the anomaly. For most of history humans have been slaughtering each other in disagreements about who has the best invisible friend. All we're doing now, in the 21st century, is returning to the age-old conflicts of unreason and savage superstition. It's not the poor who will always be with us - it's the religious.

Realignment in California Prisons Should Be More Than Just Moving Bodies Around by Glenn Langohr

The prison yard is stacked with prisoners bursting at the seams like a slow moving tsunami. A gun tower guard stands holding a block gun 30 feet in the air watching the exercise bars below. A couple of Mexican prisoners aren't working out. They're facing the gym and using their fingers to sign words into sentences that could spell violence to inmates inside the gym 10 feet away. I walk by on the cement track that circles the yard, in pain with a limp from a pinched sciatic nerve, and look inside the gym through bullet proof glass. On the other side of the glass, it's stacked with 150 prisoners and is just a little larger than the size of a basketball court. A handful of prisoners stand naked other than white boxer shorts and shoes studying the yard. Further inside, inmates are stacked on triple bunks like sardines. I silently thank God again that I'm not in there where the inmates are left in charge of figuring out who can use 8 toilets and 6 showers. When they're not doing that, they're busy trying to establish rules and regulations to keep respect in tact amidst so much noisy warring chaos. With so much pressure and the constant threat of violence, inmates sleep with their state boots on. During the day, another way they try to maintain the perception of respect, is by blasting ink into gangland tattoos and another identity far away from home.

Even though the yard I'm on is a level 4 California prison next to the border of Mexico, the prison administrators are still trying to find inmates to stick in the overcrowded gym. The inmates serving life sentences are safe and are excluded at this prison so far and make up about 20% of the inmate population. After that, most of the prisoners serving 20 years or more are pretty safe, so far. From there, prisoners who had been involved in surviving a number of riots and other violence in rule violations used to be safe. Not anymore. Up to this point I had been in solitary confinement for a couple of prison riots, 3 mutual combats and a couple of other investigations. On my last trip to solitary the prison administrators had written in my file that I wasn't to be housed in a gym or dorm environment. It didn't matter. With the overcrowding, I was still on deck to get housed in the gym. I knew because prison guard Security Escort Heart warned me. My cell mate Scott had just been transferred to the gym yesterday. He was a 19 year old surfer looking kid without a tattoo on him. He was doing his time for a prison sentence related to his heroin drug habit.

Walking the track full circle I saw Security Escort Heart in front of the gym. He was shooing away the Mexican inmates on the yard still communicating with their fingers to inmates inside the gym. He walked my way and noticed me. "Inmate Langohr your back looks bad. You probably have a herniated disk from all the burpies you used to do."

Heart's face looked authentic, like he cared. I said, "Every time I go to the hospital all they give me is aspirin."

Heart shook his head and said, "You're supposed to get better medical attention with the Supreme Court ruling and this realignment. Do you think moving prisoners to the county jails is going to fix anything?"

Now I was shaking my head. "You know just moving bodies around isn't a solution. The solution to start with is to stop sending people to prison for drug and poverty crimes. This is what we get for warehousing a bunch of drug addicts. We're breeding an addiction into an affliction much harder to escape and spitting out tattooed displaced souls back onto the streets."

I limped passed Heart and saw Scott in the gym. He was standing on the other side of the bullet proof window with a fresh tattoo on his chest. I nodded to him and thought about his mom he often wrote. Her name was Sally and I wondered if Sally the soccer mom realized her son was now a skin head.


I guess they rejected the wealth-creator because they all wanted to be poor. Go figure.
A better question would be why elements in the US/UK favored the religous conservative? And in so doing, released the Islamist genie out of the bottle that would so bedevil us in the future. Could it be for the same reason the blue-eyed boys of the Taliban Mujahadeen would be lionised in the West?

Kurt Lessing

Wealth creating king. Nice one. Never mind he was a torturing oppressor. The U.S. paid a high price for the coup against Mossadegh and their murderous stooge Pahlevi and they are paying to this day for that mistake.


The comments below miss the point entirely in my opinion. The Shah failed because he (and his father) did not understand that the religious mindset/worldview is utterly different to the currently dominant secular scientific mindset in the Western world. The difference is quite well shown in the current US election campaign where a significant portion of the US electorate are fundamentalist Christians and as such make it clear that if they got their hands on the levers of absolute power they would remake America as a theocratic state where a prescribed belief is paramount and empirical science must be at best the handmaiden of belief and suppressed if contradictory.

bernardpalmer in reply to eroteme

Hi Mark?
I like your thinking. So well educated, possibly a roving Vice Chancellor, taught history? Read most of your comments. Thought for a while you were British now I think you're probably an Anglo-American ex-CIA type not that it matters, it's what you write that counts. So informative. To me anyway. Logical song.
Here's my take on things.

Excerpt from 'What is the Primary Fundamental Right?'

"Modern politicians are a motley collection of elites or elite's representatives made up from the ancient cabals now called political parties, and their leadership is always made up of lawyers. Everything is still controlled by these clerics and they still use the Laws of God and fear of His punishment to exercise their control over the general population. Therefore possibly all western governments are actually theocracies, virtually the same as the Mullahs government of Iran but without the fancy dress and long beards. Knowing that makes it easier to see what western politicians really are, clerics in business suits.


Every American president has started their term of office by breaking the rules of the US Constitution, (Article 2 section 1 clause 8), when they added the words "So help me God" at the end of their swearing in oath. This traditional practice appears to be in defiance of the intent of the 1st Amendment, as does the words "In God We Trust" found on US currency and the "one Nation under God" pronouncement in the allegiance to the flag. This is possibly an indication of an innate desire of many religious elite people, often lawyers, to live in a theocracy where everyone is similar and 'God fearing'.

All religions are basically gatherings of Conformists and are probably fundamentally opposed to Individualism. Throughout modern history there has been strong links between Religionism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism as all four practice Totalitarianism to varying degrees."

eroteme in reply to bernardpalmer

Who is Mark?
I still think that there is a huge difference between the whole mindset of the average secular westerner and the average Iranian citizen and it comes down in the end to the latter utterly believing in a god (Allah in this case) and that everything in life is and must be subordinate to belief.

New Conservative in reply to eroteme

The Shah failed because he was an autocrat blatantly propped up by outside interests to get Iran's oil wealth.

Modernization probably was a negative for him, but not as big a negative as dismissing his own prime minister and signing off on sending Iran's oil to the west.

bernardpalmer in reply to eroteme

I thought eroteme was the old word for question mark Mark.

Well they won't have long to wait as the 12th Imam should be arriving around the same time as the next GFC. That could sort us all out especially if Jesus appears at the same time along with the Jewish Messiah. The 3 Amigos.

More juicy bits from 'What is the Primary Fundamental Right?'

"Probably only by employing the ever expanding Super Imperialism model can the US fiat currency remain relatively stable to pay for all the goods it consumes on credit including the War on Drugs, the War on Terror and now the War on Islam. With Islam the USA is fighting the precepts of a successful 1400 year old religion that probably only works well in conditions of relative poverty and close communal conformity.

To many Muslim men the War on Islam is actually a War on Men fermented and controlled by strong females in the west. The apparent acquiescing of this rise to power of women by their menfolk is seen as proof of the general decay of western society caused by the feminization crusade and the failure of the western male to be naturally dominant over their women. In many religions sin is a by-product of associating with lascivious women and the tool of Satan.

It is interesting that the Mullah controlled Iran, with supposedly the world's fourth largest known oil reserves, is comparatively poor. Over 70% of all businesses are run by the Mullahs and they all languish in apparently contrived inefficiencies so bad as to keep the general population in a perpetual state of quiet desperation and destitution, a situation probably ideal for the promotion and adherence to Islamic teachings. The Mullahs must surmise that they would soon lose out to the US lead Consumerism god if they allowed the country to become prosperous."

eroteme in reply to New Conservative

There many absolute autocrats/oligarchies in the ME sitting on lakes of oil and most have signed over the development and production of oil to western companies. Even if the origins of the particular oligarchy were secular (eg the Baath), the one characteristic though is that they all at least publicly espouse a very conservative form of Islam. A key factor in them staying in power is that they ensure the Islamic religious leaders have de facto great power to order day to day life for the common man or woman in the country and a high degree of control over the content and structure of the education system ensuring that every new generation is brought up steeped in superstition. As a quid pro quo these religious leaders never criticize the autocrat/oligarchy and the mullah in every mosque acts as a very efficient intelligence system for weeding out dissidents who if dangerous enough will be eliminated quietly in the shadows by the secret police. Yes the Shah was also a tyrant with a secret police but his family would probably still be in place today if he had not tried to cut out in influence of the mullahs altogether and remake Iran as something it cannot be.

Yes, bernardpalmer... "To many Muslim men, the War on Islam is actually a War on Men fermented and controlled by strong females in the west".

It really would help reconcile the west with the Muslim world if we recognised sexual normality ... i.e the breadwinner and homemaker marriage partnership... and came off our life-negating gender-hating kick

It is revolting how the runt males in the west operate behind sexually-deformed females... They make the perfect cover

The solution... a homemaker allowance... is too obvious for words

Keeping the females in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant probably won't stop different religious twits from killing each other.

More excerpts from 'What is the Primary Fundamental Right?'

"Because probably most conflict in the world is due to religious differences between the Muslims and the Jews/Christians, then peace is possibly impossible until one side is wiped out or they all embrace more or less one religion and become friends. Interestingly the Arabs and the Jews including Jesus are all Semites and descendants of Abraham, so theoretically they are half way there 'already'. Unfortunately it appears all religions always split into warring groups which is possibly nature's way of regulating male population growth. Fanatics who die for their religion are usually young unmarried males who often believe that great sexual pleasures await them in Heaven.

Christians believe the time is fast approaching when their god Jesus will reappear and convert the Jews and the Muslims to Christianity after a huge battle called the Armageddon, centered around the mountains close to Tel Aviv in Israel. Interestingly Shite Muslims believe that about the same time Imam Mahdi, the 12th Imam, will return and also perform a mass religious realignment.

For Christians Jesus is the son of the same male god from the Old Testament that both the Jews and the Muslims worship, the God of Abraham. The Jews call God Yahweh or Allah and the Muslims just Allah but neither believe God had a son though supposedly some Muslims believe He had three daughters. They all believe God resides in Heaven.

None of them seem to know where Heaven is, though many of them must of at some time associated it with the Sun simply because the Sun is the reason for life in this solar system. If Heaven does exists in real time then it probably is inside the Sun and that could mean that God actually lives in this solar system as well as every other solar system throughout the Universe. Maybe this is why the stars above were for centuries referred to as 'the Heavens', the ancient peoples instinctively knew that Heaven was 'up there'. If these warring religious groups could also see this possibility then they might be able to find a common ground for friendship instead of just endlessly blowing each other up.

Between them they now have the technology and money to go and take a closer look and 'knock on Heavens door' so to speak. This could possibly be achieved by riding behind a speeded up diverted ice comet, aiming for a spiralling vortex located beneath Sunspots, when they are there. It is interesting that Christians believe that the only way to reach God is through the Son.

It also means it is possible that death is not the only way to get into Heaven though diving through the 2 million degrees Kelvin corona into a cooler 4 thousand degrees Kelvin Sunspot might be a good each way bet. But if God does exist and does live in Heaven and Heaven is 93 million miles away (150 million kilometres), then maybe it is important to seek out our possible creator. Maybe that's the ultimate objective of the human mind, to locate Heaven in the real world. Now would be a good time to find out while we are all still alive. Homo Sapien Scientifica at the moment probably only has about 150 years left on this planet due to low birth rates. By that time the world could have lost the desirability and capability of flight.

If it could be confirmed that God lives inside the Sun then there would be no point in having any religions as all religions are based on having a method to find God while still alive. Therefore it would probably be worth while to try and find out while there is still some time left."

bernardpalmer in reply to eroteme

That's what I like about religion, control, control, control. And it all starts with shifting the neural pathways from birth into the proceeding pattern of our parents as required by all religious instruction.

Further scintillating excerpts from 'What is the Primary Fundamental Right?'
"When a child is taught something supposedly important from birth to age 7 the imprint is usually permanent and it is hard for them to change their views as adults. Try and make a Christian, a Jew and a Muslim swap religions, even though they all worship the same God they'd probably rather die first and without really knowing why. Try telling the majority of voters, who have been educated for a long time under a government controlled indoctrination system, that the Drug Wars is wrong and people should be allowed to make their own decisions. Their reaction would probably be much the same."

I must protest... What have you got against housewives?

We agree that Moslem men are revolted by the strident females and weakling males of the West

I propose a homemaker allowance... And you think it means... 'Keeping the females in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant'

What's wrong with you?

The vast majority of women only work full-time out of financial necessity, and would much rather be homemakers given the choice...

And the feminists and the runt males don't want them to have that choice

How can you be such a loser?

Werner S in reply to great uncle clive

Homemaker allowance to be paid by whom?
Your view on what the majority of womens' free choice would be (homemaker) if financial constraints were removed, is IMHO based on a limited portion of the population in a limited number of (especially developed) countries.
Any women care to comment?

Werner S in reply to bernardpalmer

Shite is slang in parts of UK + Ireland for human faeces, and used as an adjective is a rather derogatory description, which I did not get the sense was the intent of your comment.
From personal experience I know about the sometimes unintended consequences of typos, have embarassed myself in the past.

bernardpalmer in reply to A. Andros

"Do you write your own material?

Just wondering."

Yes. Amazing isn't it, that I write my own material that is. Actually as some one who left school very early I thought it show's up like canine testes.


Yes, it would seem that The Economist only favors democracy when it isn't bad for business. Of course,

The British Empire put muslims in Burma, and much pain ensued.
The British Empire put Indians in Fiji, and much pain ensued.
The British Empire put opium in China, and much pain ensued.
The British Empire put South Sudanese and Darfurians under Khartoum, and much pain ensued.
The British Empire put Assam and Kashmir under Delhi, and much pain ensued.
The British Empire put their criminals in Australia, and much pain ensued.
The British Empire put Basra under Baghdad, and much pain ensued.
The British Empire put the Kurds under everyone, and much pain ensued.
The British Empire put the Pashtun under Kabul and Islamabad, and much pain ensued.
The British Empire put the Palestinians under Jews, and much pain ensued.
And the British Empire put Iran under the Shah, and much pain ensued.

Now I'm not saying I could've run an empire any better, and I'm not here to score points on anyone. But as a simple matter of fact, you cannot understand the modern history of any region on earth without understanding the (often malignant) influence of (often British) Imperialism there. I eagerly await The Economist's review of any books ambitious enough to attempt an even partial understanding of the immense and enduring social impact of British Imperialism on every continent save the one Englishmen call home.

One of these impacts, I would assert, is that the world must now live with Ayatollahs in Tehran because the British could not tolerate a Mossadegh there.

Cuchullen in reply to typingmonkey

A wise man in Ireland commented some years back, with reference to the sort of people who end up in control of countries after upheavals, that if you don't listen to reasonable men then you end up having to listen to unreasonable men.
This could be applied to Syria where the most motivated and extreme are likely to inherit power when the Assad regime implodes, which it must eventually.
The Shah however seems to have been really quite out of touch with what Iranians felt about his policies and their effects at the time.
And yes, the role of Empire emerges yet again, the smell of the Raj lingers on, the entire Middle East region has been held back and hugely damaged by the competing Great Powers arguing over the corpse of the Ottoman Empire.
Of course it's far easier to just condemn the entire population of the Muslim world as hopelessly backward, that avoids any need for thought or analysis.

You might have added

The British Empire put Moslems in England, and much pain ensued

Our supra-national corporate masters treat us much the same as we treated those we had in our power... The empire was 'British' in name only... The empire endureth... the same people, the same institutions, the same values, the same policies

The New World Order is just old world colonialism lightly warmed over

nickcox in reply to typingmonkey

This is a rather bizarre rant against the British Empire.
"Much pain ensured in Australia"? I was under the impression that Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world,with the vast majority of the people living a life that the rest of the world would envy.
About the only example cited which has any merit is the mistake of the creation of the Jewish state in 1948,but that was hardly a uniquely British creation.
Where I live in Singapore,the country has thrived by building on the solid foundations laid down by the British and improving upon them.Other post-colonial societies around the world might have had similar success if they had not blamed their failings on a colonial past.

New Conservative

Dear Economist,

I know that you have always been uncomfortable with acknowledging the times in the past 60 years when corporate interests whistled up American and British intelligence agencies and got them to "do something" about uncooperative democratic governments. It's ok. Whether it's Pinochet in Chile or Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, we understand.

But extending that bias into a book review and making it seem like that book review shares that bias is a journalistic travesty.

James Buchan is a scholar so I'm sure he doesn't omit the single most crucial piece of information for understanding the revolution and it's anti western feeling like the way you do in this review.
So for the edification of your readers.

"The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran, and its head of government Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project). The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979."

Maybe that was all secretly included in the subtext of "wealth creating king" but I doubt it.

teacup775 in reply to New Conservative

It would seem the thesis of the book is to imply that certain populations naturally shun 'proper' civilization. What a joke for the millions for whom modernity has come to be defined as cruel dictatorship.

Thing is all the mullahs have is tradition on their side. Their hold on power and their sustaining narrative is just a little different from our power mongers.

ConoSurf in reply to New Conservative

Thanks for clarifying the facts,
I'm no left winger but
Sometimes it seems TE acts as a propagandist for said intelligence agencies and their cronies
In outfits like the Boston consulting group and corporate America in general.
Where's the objectivity?



Products & events