Page 788 – Nejat Society

MKO tactic of duplicity to stay in business

Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) has spared no efforts under the cult-like hegemony of the Rajavis and its innate hypocrisy to conduct a violent regime change in Iran and to destroy chances of rehabilitation of relations between Iran and some other Western countries. For instance, only eight days after the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) summary assured the world that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, MKO’s alias, NCRI, challenged against the report’s findings. No other Iranian opposition group has actively challenged the new NIE’s credibility. Following the organizational tendency of duplicity to escalate the tension whenever it grabs any opportunity, NCRI’s Washington spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh, claimed that Iran’s nuclear program is managed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp’s (IRGC) scientists during a Fox News interview. That is what Rostam Pourzal, heading the U.S. branch of the Campaign against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, expands on in his article published in AlterNet. He believes that “NCRI’s scare campaign against Iran is an attempt to overcome its own infamy. The "Council" is a front group based in Paris for the Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (known also as MEK, MKO, or PMOI), according to the U.S. State Department, which bans both as a single terrorist organization. MEK’s pariah status makes it entirely dependent on the goodwill of the U.S. military, which has since the spring of 2003 sheltered its 3,500-plus fighters in northern Iraq after they disarmed”. The militia has for a quarter-century topped Tehran’s "most wanted" terrorist list and is now sought by Iraq’s government for atrocities it allegedly committed in Saddam’s service. It fled Iran in the mid 1980s and fought on the Iraqi side during the Iran-Iraq war, hoping to overthrow the young Islamic Republic. Its campaign to deepen Western distrust of Iran is motivated primarily by the real possibility that its key figures will face capital crimes charges in Iraq and Iran if a U.S. accommodation with Iran ends the militia’s utility to U.S. strategists as a bargaining chip. The latest sign of MEK’s vulnerability emerged December 16 when Iran asked that the next round of U.S.-Iran negotiations in Baghdad address MEK’s status.

Mojahedin.ws-December 28, 2007

December 30, 2007 0 comments

USA

Neocons Find New Exile Group Patsies to Push War with Iran

Many of us remember the Iraqi exile groups whose tall tales the Administration used to justify the invasion of their country in 2003. Fewer people are aware that similar groups from other Middle Eastern countries frequent the halls of Congress and editorial board rooms carrying their frightening ghost-written books with guidance from pro-war think tanks. The organized challenge against the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) summary on Iran this month included such a group, which for years cried wolf about Iran.

The NIE’s critics are complaining that it falsely weakens the Bush administration’s campaign against Iran. Trusting that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons is suicidal, warn the neoconservatives who prompted the invasion of Iraq in search of imaginary banned weapons. As in the period that preceded the Iraq War, the hawks are now validated by an exile entity dedicated to violent regime change. The Iranian enabler group that has replaced the old Iraqi National Congress is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). In cooperation with leading neoconservative figures, NCRI has for over a decade spared no effort to destroy any chance of a U.S.-Iranian détente.

Eight days after the NIE summary assured the world that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons at this time international media reported that NCRI dismissed the report’s findings. No other Iranian opposition group has actively challenged the new NIE’s credibility.

Going even farther, NCRI’s Washington spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh, claimed that Iran’s nuclear program is managed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp’s (IRGC) scientists during a Fox News interview. As the most trusted branch of Iran’s armed forces, the IRGC was late this year designated by the White House as a sponsor of international terrorism. The exile group has also echoed the Washington war party’s claims that Iran is arming Iraqi resistance groups with advanced weapons resulting in U.S. casualties.

NCRI’s scare campaign against Iran is an attempt to overcome its own infamy. The”Council”is a front group based in Paris for the Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (known also as MEK, MKO, or PMOI), according to the U.S. State Department, which bans both as a single terrorist organization. MEK’s pariah status makes it entirely dependent on the goodwill of the U.S. military, which has since the spring of 2003 sheltered its 3,500-plus fighters in northern Iraq after they disarmed.

The militia has for a quarter-century topped Tehran’s”most wanted”terrorist list and is now sought by Iraq’s government for atrocities it allegedly committed in Saddam’s service. It fled Iran in the mid 1980s and fought on the Iraqi side during the Iran-Iraq war, hoping to overthrow the young Islamic Republic. Its campaign to deepen Western distrust of Iran is motivated primarily by the real possibility that its key figures will face capital crimes charges in Iraq and Iran if a U.S. accommodation with Iran ends the militia’s utility to U.S. strategists as a bargaining chip. The latest sign of MEK’s vulnerability emerged December 16 when Iran asked that the next round of U.S.-Iran negotiations in Baghdad address MEK’s status.

Like the old Iraqi National Congress headed by Ahmad Chalabi, the MEK has powerful conservative backers in Western capitals that promote it as a democratic alternative. In Washington, these have included John Ashcroft, Dick Armey, Richard Perle, and members of Congress Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Tom Tancredo, all of whom were and remain advocates of the Iraq invasion. Among officially designated foreign terrorist organizations, MEK is the only one that can obtain street demonstration permits in Washington through its thinly disguised front operations. Poster-size portraits of the husband and wife team that have headed MEK for a generation are in abundance at such rallies, including one held on the grounds of U.S. Congress in 2004.

The surest way for the MEK to stay in business appears to be just the path they are following. They need to make themselves indispensable to the warmongers in the United States by helping subvert accommodation with Iran. (In this, they share the predicament of their neocon masters, who will be out of a job if peace prevails for too long.)

If Washington decides against an all out war on Iran and opts instead for a”low intensity conflict,”as Ronald Reagan’s wars of attrition in Central America came to be known, the MEK can well be the core of a Contra-style mercenary force. Claiming the mantle of the”Reagan Revolution,”the neoconservatives would certainly welcome that as the next best thing to the war that they want badly even after the NIE largely vindicated Iran. There have been persistent rumors over the past year that American military or intelligence agencies have trained selected MEK operatives for clandestine missions in Iran, after having them renounce terrorism and swear allegiance to”democracy.”

If, on the other hand, the Bush administration or its successor chooses sustained dialog instead of confrontation with Iran, the future of the MEK will never be far from the minds of Iranian negotiators. The White House has stressed its twin objectives of strengthening the government of”liberated”Iraq and limiting Tehran’s influence there. Iranian leaders see an inherent contradiction in that policy. They are anxious to find out whether the U.S. will continue to shelter the MEK as an irritant to Iran or will transfer custody of the militia to Iran’s trusted Iraqi authorities as an affirmation of Iraqi sovereignty. As Washington prepares for its next round of talks on Iraqi security with Iran in January, a sure way it can build confidence would be to agree to discuss this sensitive matter.

Rostam Pourzal, Alternet.org, December 28, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/audits/71664/

December 30, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

Cheney’s slaves

No Comments

December 30, 2007 0 comments

The Ideology of the MEK

The Sand-Clock Counting down a Cult’s Days

There are evidences indicating the critical situation within MKO. It is far more serious than what the organization has been suffering through the past recent years. Two strategic causes, among some others, seem to be noteworthy:

1- Uncertainty of the organization’s next destination to encamp

2- The start of countdown to the US president election

In his messages delivered from the hideout after a long interval and incommunicado, Rajavi has reiterated two important issues; the preservation of Camp Ashraf regardless of the price it might cost and the promise that the Iranian regime would collapse in a span of two years. In a message issued in 2006, he fixed January 2009 as the deadline for the collapse. In fact, when he was fixing the time, the Bush Administration had just entered the countdown to its last two years and Rajavi promised that if nothing happen at the end of the two years, all the Ashraf residents were free to stay or leave: “Anyone who wants may leave, and I will myself throw out all those who are worthless. I will keep the rest who are pure, and then, I will tell them what they can do for me”.

It is not the first time Rajavi has fixed a deadline. But even if his prediction of intensification of the tension between the US and Iran that could led to war came true, no fish would be the share of MKO out of this troubled water. The ploy has so far worked for Rajavi, since he believes that to promise the insiders the moon at least can keep them waiting a bit more.

Something is different this time. On the one hand, Rajavi has fixed a deadline; and on the other hand, the Iraqi government is determined to expel MKO from Iraq. There are other factors, like a new assessment by American intelligence agencies that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, which have totally disappointed MKO. Disclosure of Iran’s nuclear threat made the cornerstone of the group’s democratic campaign; an issue that MKO believed could keep the friction between Iran and other countries at its highest.

However, Rajavi’s fixed deadline is the question of to be or not to be, the survival or demise of MKO. A device is needed to measure the pulse rate of MKO to be vigilant of the time passing; a sand-clock seems to suffice. The significance of a sand-clock lies in the fact that first it can make Rajavi sit watching the countdown to his fixed deadline and stop him of making empty rhetoric. Second, it grants Ashraf residents and other members in Western countries enough time for further contemplation and to decide for their future. Third, it counts and illustrates the last remained days of the organization to think of any ploy to escape the cries.

Noteworthy, Rajavi’s deadline for the first time delineates the truth over which the members have long been kept in dark. At least through the past three decades, Rajavi in many occasions has outlined short and long-term plans for toppling the Iranian regime, none of which came true. Following the failed strategy of the armed struggle and its proscription as a terrorist organization, MKO temporarily abandoned the guerrilla warfare and resorted to a gambit of pro-democracy. Even its pseudo-democratic activities that were nothing beyond mercenary and espionage acts proved to be unproductive.

The promised deadline decides Rajavi’s own destiny and that of his forces. Besides, it grants the members an opportunity, after many years of indecisiveness, to make a rational decision. The sand-clock might keep them alert of Rajavi’s further tricks if he intends to take them in by his tempting promises. Rajavi is well aware that he cannot possibly hold the members through a verity of cult-like brainwashing techniques and persuasion against their will forever. The sand-clock keeps count of the days that promises the insiders’ release from the bond of the terrorist cult of the Rajavis and the therapy that they would eventually receive to be relieved of the mind-numbing techniques that had long blocked critical and evaluative thinking and had subjugated their independent choice in a context of strictly enforced cult hierarchy.

Mojahedin.ws,December 28, 2007

December 30, 2007 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

The Real Interpretation of the Ending Paragraph of Masud’s Last Message

Although the main origin of the message issued by Rajavi is seriously doubted and due to many reasons it is believed to be forged and fabricated, both Mojahedin and their opponents agree that the message related to Rajavi has been a vital response to the need of group’s forces.

To view Mojahedin’s confession to this need you can consider their several articles they put on their websites. Also it seems that they don’t insist on denying such a need.

But in this article we still review the proper message rather than viewing the need of Mujahedin or the forgery of the message.

In the last paragraph of his last message Rajavi says:

"Our last words, like the first words, are again to the hero people of Iran and all the people eager for the freedom and independence of Iran territory, all those who share the same opinion and practice for republic, democracy and Iranian’s ruling Iran far from religious dictatorship and Velayat Faqih totalitarian regime."

In 1990, after Rajavi realized that he ‘s forced to a locked cul-de-sac in Iraq and had no way out, he inquired his European partners ( who ,during the war ,had supported the group variously, for a decade) but they remind him explicitly that they couldn’t continue supporting a terrorist group any more.

In order to open their locked situation the Europeans suggested some solutions of which if the MEK could have used successfully, the way would have been paved for the west to use MEK. One suggestion was the alliance with monarchists, nationalists and even communists and finally shifting the so-called National Council of Resistance of Iran from its impractical form.

Since Rajavi believes that the competition with other alternative claiming groups is much more serious than fighting Islamic Regime, with his plan of "solidarity Front" he has resorted to a formality pretending that he has put that suggestion in to practice, but he is well aware that no solidarity will be achieved between his group and other groups. As Mehdi Samè said:" we called for solidarity, now it’s the others’ turn to welcome our call, but we see no one."!

Therefore," Solidarity Front" has practically become a slogan which is a winning card in Rajavi’s hand to offer the Western countries claiming his old claim that no other opposition is on the scene except MKO and also respond the expect of some supporters and members of MKO relying on the necessity of alliance with other oppositions.

In practice the action has changed into its opposite since the West understood the MEK’s deceit and that Rajavi hasn’t done any activity except contacting some singers who were related to the right wing and originally from monarchist groups"

A lot of individuals and groups in order to associate with MKO declared their conditions which ended with the critics to MKO’s ideology and relations. Thus it was disgraced more and more.

With the presupposition that " democracy is at my hand",Rajavi considered no need to change his relationships but continually followed his formalistic method in Los Angeles and Washington resorting to the least famous singers ( such as Masud Amini and Saeed Mohammadi) but they also sat down finally because they realized the indecency of cooperation with a traitor, anti-Iranian group and declared their regret of their past activities.

Approximately after the American statement was issued, MEK deeply realized that one of the reasons that the West has always called them " undemocratic ",is the lack of possibility of cooperation with other oppositions especially Monarchists. Thus, to open a way to cooperate with other groups is always considered a vital necessity for MKO and Rajavi has found out that lack of acceptance of MKO by other groups or individuals is so influential on Western thinking. That’s why he discusses the matter of "National Solidarity" from time to time."

From the other side, Rajavi tries slyly to prevent from paying the price of such cooperation since he knows that the price of this alliance ends to be dissolved in one front so that necessarily they should desist from their undemocratic methods to which their life is dependant.

Therefore MEK, like many other situations and crisis they are captured in, suffer from a substantial contradiction and an insoluble contrast. Rajavi’s policies are stuck in a cul-de-sac.

The bottom line is that the last paragraph (issued by any person) denounces a serious entreaty to receive aid. The call affirms the benefit Mujahedin used at the beginning of American invasion including the support of other groups or individuals during that critical period. This time understanding the serious decision of Iraqi officials to expel MKO, Rajavi does his best deceitfully to use this potentiality for his bankrupt group.

December 29, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

Many Roads to Serfdom

Unlike many excellent articles approved for postings at progressive Web sites, Julian Edney’s “The Libertarian Threat”, OpEdNews.com (June 27, 2006) is an example of how anyone can claim to be a progressive, libertarian, conservative, liberal, or any other political label. Obviously, progressives do not have a monopoly on brilliant political analyses. Hopefully, Julian Edney will write a sequel “The Progressive Threat”.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_julian_e_060627_the_libertarian_thre.htm

In 1944, George Orwell wrote a book review of Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and of K. Zilliacus’ The Mirror of the Past. Orwell noted that the important lesson to be learned from these authors from opposite ends of the political spectrum is that there is more than one road to slavery. Orwell, who fought for the communists in the Spanish Civil War, wrote Homage to Catalonia to explain how different political groups used lies in their pursuit of totalitarian power. Orwell left communist groups and regarded himself as a democratic socialist. However, Orwell understood that totalitarians can join and take over democratic socialist parties, too.

Professor Paul Sheldon Foote

California State University, Fullerton

pfoote@fullerton.edu

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/

July 2, 2006

_____________________________________________________________

Review:

The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek The Mirror of the Past by K. Zilliacus

Taken together, these two books give grounds for dismay. The first of them is an eloquent defence of laissez-faire capitalism, the other is an even more vehement denunciation of it. They cover to some extent the same ground, they frequently quote the same authorities, and they even start out with the same premise, since each of them assumes that Western civilization depends on the sanctity of the individual. Yet each writer is convinced that the other’s policy leads directly to slavery, and the alarming thing is that they may both be right….

Between them these two books sum up our present predicament. Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.

Both of these writers are aware of this, more or less; but since they can show no practicable way of bringing it about the combined effect of their books is a depressing one.

Observer, 9 April 1944

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/twobooks.html

___________________________________________________________

While Julian Edney noted briefly that true libertarians do not support neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) or objectivists, his article created the impression that libertarians are a threat. Does the threat include the libertarian left? Edney failed to name or to cite even one true libertarian. Edney failed to praise those on the libertarian right who have exposed and have opposed the totalitarian objectives of the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites).

The neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) are not capitalists. They are supporters of Trotsky who aided President Reagan to seek to cause the collapse of the communist leaders who inherited the totalitarian state from Stalin. Irving Kristol did write Two Cheers for Capitalism. However, many of the neo-conservatives support the totalitarian takeover of countries, including of Iran by the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran). Apparently, the neo-conservatives are only anti-Stalin, not anti-communist or anti-totalitarian.

The neo-conservatives are not religious, unless you count worshiping at the altar of Machiavelli. See Michael Ledeen’s book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago. Of course, the chickenhawk neoconservative cowards have no objections to evangelical Christian soldiers marching off to war to achieve their ungodly goals.

Professor Claes Ryn, in his book America the Virtuous: The Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire, classified the neoconservatives as similar to the Jacobins of the French Revolution (and counter to the values of the American Revolution). On page 145, Ryn noted the usage of “democratic capitalism” to have a meaning very different from capitalism. Does Julian Edney regard Communist China’s totalitarian model with some free market elements as communist or as capitalist?

Paul A. Lindahl has claimed to be both a neoconservative and a capitalist. However, he has rejected any suggestion that neoconservatives are Social Darwinists. http://www-tech.mit.edu/V105/N10/lindah.10o.html

Edney needs to support his Social Darwinism claim.

Edney noted correctly that the objectivists are not true libertarians. Ayn Rand was a philosopher, not an economist, whose vague writings can be used to support even totalitarians. For details of the philosophy of objectivism, see The Ayn Rand Institute’s Web site: http://www.aynrand.org/

Claiming to be a capitalist does not make one a capitalist: http://www.capitalism.org/ . How does capitalism lead by extension to “Israel is Moral”? http://www.israelismoral.com/

A good researcher would have found the writings of Murray Rothbard about the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and about the objectivists. Justin Raimondo’s book, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard, would be a good starting point for Edney’s future research. He could continue by reviewing the large number of excellent articles by Justin Raimondo on the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and on the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran) posted at http://www.antiwar.com/justin . Justin Raimondo is a former Libertarian Party and Republican Party candidate for public offices. Can anyone name even one progressive who has done more than Justin Raimondo to oppose the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites), the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran), and war?

Edney explained poorly also the divisions within the Libertarian Party. There is a big difference between libertarians (left and right) and Libertarian Party factions: http://www.lp.org/ Some members of the Libertarian Party believe that the only way to win elections is to copy the big tent approaches of the Democratic and Republican parties. Other members of the Libertarian Party believe the way to win elections is to be a party of principles.

Edney can attempt to explain how it is possible for both Carol Moore and Neal Boortz to attend Libertarian Party conventions together.

Carol Moore has been a tireless campaigner for peace. Her Web groups include those who are attempting to stop a war with Iran. She has demonstrated against the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists. http://www.carolmoore.net/

By contrast, Edney can research the positions of Neal Boortz on the Iraq War and on other issues. http://boortz.com/

In March 2006, I attended a stop war on Iran presentation in Los Angeles by Ardeshir Ommani, a Workers World Party activist (http://www.workers.org). Ommani quoted favorably only one member of Congress: Ron Paul, a libertarian Republican (and former Libertarian Party candidate for President). Ommani opposed the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran). While many who claim to be progressives support Democrats, who else on the left has been honest enough to admit that libertarian Republican Congressman Ron Paul is one of the very few members of Congress worth re-electing?

The more than 6,000 signers of the Stop War on Iran Statement include:

Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Detroit Archdiocese*, Founding President, Pax Christi*

The Most Rev. Filipe C Teixeira, OFSJC, Diocesan Bishop, Diocese of Saint Francis of Assisi, CCA

Michael Parenti, author

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General

Howard Zinn, author, historian

George Galloway, MP, Britain

Tony Benn, MP, Britain

Denis J. Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary-General

Harold Pinter, 2005 Nobel Laureate in Literature

Margarita Papandreou, former First Lady of Greece

Ardeshir Ommani, co-founder of American-Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC)

Ervand Abrahamian, Prof. ME History, Author, Between Two Revolutions

David N. Rahni, Professor and scholar, NY

David Sole, President UAW, Local 2334*, Detroit

Steve Gillis, President, USWA Local 8751*

Fellowship of Reconciliation, Nyack, NY

Thomas Koppel and Annisette, of the Scandinavian Popular Music Band Savage Rose

Paul Foote, Professor, California State University, Fullerton*, Fullerton, CA [Republican Party]

Carol Moore, webmaster, Stopthewarnow.org*, Washington, DC [Libertarian Party]

… and many progressive organizations.

Why is Julian Edney’s name missing from this list?

http://stopwaroniran.org/statement.shtml

For an example of a progressive Web site, Edney needs to study:

American-Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC)

http://www.progressiveportals.com/Default.aspx?alias=www.progressiveportals.com/aifc

By contrast, one of the leading supporters of the totalitarian takeover of Iran by the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran) is Bob Filner, the son of a Communist Party candidate for Congress, a Democrat, and a member of the Progressive Caucus in Congress. Where are the real progressives condemning Bob Filner and the other false progressives?

Julian Edney is correct that John Perkins wrote an important book, The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. However, Edney is wrong about claiming that the greedy thieves are capitalists. Why did greedy Wall Street and European thieves give $5 million to Lenin to return to Russian and start a communist revolution? There are more detailed books by authors across the political spectrum on how the greedy thieves operate, such as:

1. Mark Hulbert’s Interlock: The untold story of American banks, oil interests, the Shah’s money, debts, and the astounding connections between them

2. James Perloff’s The Shadows of Power

3. Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope

4. Anthony C. Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution

5. Anthony C. Sutton’s Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler

Sixty years after the writings of George Orwell, it is unfortunate that so much ignorance and dishonesty remains in political discourse. Orwell was correct that there is more than one road to slavery. Some examples of failures across the political spectrum of persons to understand and to oppose totalitarians are:

1. How could many Republicans and Democrats be duped by the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites)?

2. Which real progressives have done as much as Lew Rockwell, on the libertarian right, (http://www.LewRockwell.com) in opposing totalitarians, including exposing the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran) and the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) who support them?

3. Why are real progressives failing to condemn fake progressives and totalitarian Democrats such as Congressman Bob Filner?

____________________________________________________________

The Libertarian threat

by Julian Edney

June 27, 2006

http://www.opednews.com/

We are losing ground against a rhetorical assault.

The Libertarian star, hurled by the upward burst of American business which occurred in the Reagan era after the fall of the Berlin Wall, has risen. This global expansion over the last two decades is capitalism’s second Big Bang, and it still accelerates. Mercantile missionaries have been flying to remote and backward nations in Indonesia, Latin America and the Middle East to show them liberty, democracy and wealth. The message: business is the solution; as your nation gets richer, it will benefit everybody.

The actual sequence is floridly exposed by writers like John Perkins (1). Ostensibly we send bold venture capitalists traipsing from country to backwater country, nailing freedom into place and unfurling banners of abundance. In practice it takes money to get started. First, corporate reps fly in and propose to arrange gargantuan loans for improvements. The lenders include the World Bank, and the loans may be used partly to bribe local officials, but they come with many rules and conditions that the construction work be done by American contractors. It is big money and it is made clear to local politicians they will get a fabulous rakeoff. The paperwork is set. Next the contractors move in and install concrete ports, iron factories, fences, oil wells, roads, telephones and mines. The factories fill with local workers. The big money loans also come with big interest payments (always in American dollars.) If the loans are not paid off quickly (they never are – these improvements take time) they compound into mountainous obligation. This brings whole sectors of the nation under the control of the foreign lenders. This may be used to extort political changes. Obstructing local leaders may be removed.

The pattern is an old one. On a local scale it used to be called carpetbagging. After the American Civil War northern profiteers traveled south taking advantage of Southern chaos and loss, buying property and plantations from devastated landowners, hiring at starvation wages, getting rich, and leveraging themselves into political office, arguing that the employment they brought benefited all. They were hated as exploiters. A poster from the period shows the KKK threatening to lynch carpetbaggers.

Our international version has brought backward nations in Indonesia, Latin America and the Middle East phones, satellite TV, and clinics, while natural resources are taken under the lender’s rules. This was supposed to lead to local wealth but most of the money goes to pay off the contractors and the lenders.

On this side, reports seep back to American shareholders of indigenous people working twelve-hour shifts for five dollars a day in the new concrete sweatshops surrounded by barbed wire and having no standards and no labor laws; walled hells of exploitation – but cheap labor means bonanza profits. Some mansions appear on the hillside. But not everybody is lifted. Years later, there are acres of slums. Instead of gratitude come street demonstrations against Americans.

But challenge the working conditions and you get corporate table pounding: ‘Five dollars a day is much better than the dollar a day they made herding goats.’ And if you object that it doesn’t look like liberty for the workers – ‘but we saved them from communism.’ Perkins goes on to relate how corporate reps, poolside at shimmering hotels, talk about civilizing the savages, the way the colonial British talked a century ago.

Some very wealthy American politicians are entangled in these corporations. When these politicians are interviewed on talk shows or the evening news, it’s a familiar line: we bring freedom and economic opportunity to oppressed nations (if they sit on oil fields).

The better known of these politicians are called neocons, or new (born again) conservatives. The rhetoric they use is that a rise in corporate wealth – and their wealth – benefits all. They sometimes must struggle to make these small countries see sense, as well as liberal doubters at home. They must explain. This is where ideology comes in.

Neocon business ideology is smudged, a mix of market principles with a subtext of Social Darwinism, and more subtext conveyed in TV images, and that all this is prayed on in church; clumsy. So Libertarian principles are used.

The Libertarian Party was invented in 1971 and it has never won any national elections. Actually, true Libertarians are against expansionism. They do not want foreign wars. They hate wiretapping, domestic spying, police powers, and big government. At the Libertarian center is an anarchist’s desire for as little government as possible. New as it is, the Libertarian movement has a towering advantage: a crisp ideology.

Ultimately, policy is steered by ideas. So while neocons and their lobbyists guide huge money around, they must fall back on quoting an ideology that’s not quite theirs. So Libertarians get outsize respect.

Libertarian ideology is both powerful and backward-looking. It is expounded by older authorities like Ayn Rand (2) and new, and its principles may be found in a few quite readable books (3-5). It insists on maximizing personal freedom. It uses ancient concepts like natural law, and its goals are a reversion to the ‘natural state’ – simple communities based on the rightness of inequality, and natural selection among humans. It is not democratic. It does not deal with conscience, nor with justice, nor compassion; its single-minded focus is on liberty, and it embraces concepts like survival of the fittest. It claims Adam Smith’s principle of the ‘invisible hand,’ and it promotes concepts like laissez-faire that businessmen want to use.

Libertarianism is not to be confused with populism, because populism is egalitarian and focuses on the good of the common man. Libertarians avoid anything common; they talk about natural nobilities and elites.

Throw in Libertarians’ insistence that the ‘common good’ is a deception, throw in their exaggerated assertions of the total failure of socialism, throw in their insistence that taxation is theft – and businessmen are ready to do battle at high pitch.

No matter how they press us with this, and expect us to see sense, we never will. Adam Smith’s principles are over two hundred years old. Forcing it on global markets is perverse.

And this is my thesis: Libertarian ideology throws us in jeopardy.

First, their foundation is flawed. They present freedom as shining and obvious, a self-evident good. Actually she is an ambiguous woman, surrounded by a logjam of philosophy. Many, many crimes have been committed in her name.

Second, a point on the nature of democracy. The two basic values of democracy are freedom and equality. They are the wings on which this precious bird flies, and for flying they should be equal. But as de Tocqueville originally pointed out, the two values are in conflict. Especially in big societies, the more freedom, the less equality. It’s like water in a U-shaped tube: as freedom increases on one side, equality drops. But as the equality side goes down, so do things that adhere to it: equity, equal treatment, justice.

Water always seeks its own level. If the Libertarians persist in artificially raising one side, nature will eventually reassert. Sensing this, some Libertarians propose a radical method to preserve this arrangement. Hans-Herman Hoppe demands we dismantle democracy – like dismantling the whole U-shaped tube – and reinstall ancient natural nobilities (6). This is an atavistic proposal. Hoppe (called an "international treasure" by Lew Rockwell) actually states the Constitution was an error (7) – and Ayn Rand was not far behind.

Third, a newly discovered hazard of social inequality.

There is new evidence, collected in the health sciences and published in medical journals, showing hierarchy is a killer. Simply: social inequality (aside from poverty) hurts people’s health and shortens their lives. These are based on correlations in states, countries, and cities: wherever there is marked social inequality, violence is up, health is down, infant mortality is up, and life expectancy is shorter – and this affects all levels within the community. These scientific findings, published over the last ten years in both the United States and Britain, are powerful and clear. They show egalitarian societies are simply healthier (8-10).

So the expansion of free markets under Libertarian principles cannot benefit everybody. A few people get exponentially rich, but at the same time we are exporting threats to both health and justice. If there were truth-in-lending packages attached to these foreign loans, they should include photos of our own skid rows, and statistics on American hunger.

Some of America’s political rights are formulated as freedoms – of speech, of assembly. Another is to select who will govern. By derivation, another – through elections, a slow process – is to select the shape of our society. We should protect this if we are to care for our health.

The Libertarians are up to no good.

And I am not proposing a coercive new program, nor a new political machinery, nor an end to business, nor new social engineering.

I am suggesting we let water find its own level.

Notes

1. Perkins, J. Confessions of an economic hit man. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers, 2004.

2. Rand, A. Capitalism: the unknown ideal. New York: Signet Books, 1946.

3. Murray, C. What it means to be a Libertarian. New York: Broadway Books, 1997.

4. Boaz, D. Libertarianism: A primer. New York: The Free Press, 1997.

5. Hoppe, H. H. Democracy, the god that failed. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2004.

6. Hoppe, H.H. "Down with Democracy" retrieved at http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe12.html

7. Hoppe, H.H. Democracy, the god that failed. p. 279.

8. Wilkinson, R. The impact of inequality: how to make sick societies healthier. New York: The New Press, 2005.

9. Kawachi, I., B.P. Kennedy and R.C.Wilkinson, The society and population health reader. New York: The New Press, 1999.

10. Sapolsky, R. "Sick of poverty." Scientific American, 2005, 293, 92-99.

Author Julian Edney can be contacted from his website.

http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm

Author: Julian Edney teaches college in Los Angeles. His book Greed: A treatise expands on these themes. He can be contacted through his website.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_julian_e_060627_the_libertarian_thre.htm

December 28, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Efforts in Favor of Terrorism

Two days ago, I saw a report by NCRI stating that the Rt Hon the Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC, speaking to a conference at the British Houses of Parliament on December 7, had stressed de-proscription of MKO. He was quoted to have started by saying:

Some time ago, earlier this year, I had the privilege and the pleasure of going over to Paris to meet with Mrs. Rajavi and if anyone here has not met her, I entirely agree with the assessment of her, that she is one of the most charismatic leaders in the world and if you haven’t met her, it is time people took the opportunity to try and see her.

I do not know whether Lord Fraser was beguiled by Maryam Rajavi’s ceremonial and stylish manner of conduct of the husband nominated president and naïve of her past terrorist conducts when he assessed her as a charismatic leader of the world or he believes in the same policy she does. I have tried convincing myself that Lord Fraser, a nice man expressing deep concern about Iranian people’s suffering, has never heard Maryam Rajavi’s expression, a military commander active in Iraq under Saddam, that all girls and women under her command were ready to fight shoulder to shoulder with Iraqi forces to die for the great leader Saddam Hussein as she did.

Maryam Rajavi, traveled from Iraq to France in 1993 as the conductor of deception strategy to fill the political campaign gap out of the cult. In all her messages from Paris to the military system based in Iraq, she emphasized that “everything at the end is bomb, bullet and gun.” Her disguise as a pro-democrat does not imply she has quit terrorist acts forever, but temporarily in order to dupe a few unaware parliamentarians.

Karim Haghi, a defected member once serving as a bodyguard of the Rajavis, in an interview confirmed that "Mrs. Rajavi told us to kill them [Kurds] with tanks and try to preserve our bullets for other operations. We were forced to kill both Kurds and Shiites, and I said I didn’t come here to kill other people."

Lord Fraser’s concluding words does indicate that he is fully aware of what he intends:

Mr. Chairman, as you well you know, I am strongly supportive of all the endeavours of this group to achieve its aims and the first thing we must do is the de-proscription of the PMOI.

It is so regrettable to see that at a time when the world is distressed by the nightmare of a terrorism domination and has initiated a unanimous battle to thwart its threat, some people representing as the defenders of their nation’s rights vow to be defenders of globally blacklisted terrorists who have betrayed their own nation.

December 28, 2007 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

An Alcatraz Named Ashraf

The Israeli sponsored Ynetnews, citing a report by NCRI web-site wherein it distorted an Iranian official’s statement, reports that in Iran "everyday 2,600 people are sent to prison; thus, in a year the figure grows to 1 million," a figure described as an "unprecedented world record."

MKO was itself well aware of the apocryphal exaggeration it had woven as an adopted propaganda blitz against Iran. Rarely any news agency and trusted news reporter trust what MKO reveals, as a simple calculation of what is given as facts proves to be nothing more that distortion.

Imagine that, as Ynetnews quotes, everyday 2,600 people were sent to prison in Iran and there is no report of how many were released. Then, what would happen to a population of nearly 70 million after a few years and how many prisons and guards are needed to house the prisoners and to watchdog?

No doubt, in Iran, like any other country, there are prisons. But who can believe that a long existing terrorist cult posing as pro-democratic has structured an Alcatraz named Ashraf in Iraq wherein all insiders and combatants of freedom, as the organization claims, are held prisoners and whose cries hardly reaches the world outside?

mojahedin.ws – 26/12/2006

December 28, 2007 0 comments

Raymond Tanter

Another Part of Tanter’s Background

In Yossi Melman’s article, published in Israeli newspaper Haaretz, part of the records of Raymond Tanter- as the main supporter of MKO in the U.S.- has been exposed:

"Tanter, 67, is considered a genius in international relations. At the age of 25, he completed his doctorate at the University of Indiana. He belongs to the school that introduced the use of mathematical models and quantitative studies in international relations. He has taught at top American universities, and in 1974 he spent his sabbatical at Hebrew University’s Institute for International Relations (in the interest of proper disclosure, I was his student at the time.)

Between one academic job and the next, Tanter filled several positions in the White House and the Pentagon, mainly during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. For two years (1981-1982) he was a member of the National Security Council, in charge of Libya and Lebanon (among his other assignments, Tanter followed Israeli policy which led to the invasion at the time.) He is identified with the Republican Party and has for the most part held conservative opinions. In his opinion, however, President George W. Bush’s administration is not sufficiently conservative."

This much of his records, and his support for the terrorist organization of MKO, is enough to understand how anti-people the MKO is.

For more information, we can point to his mission on using the Contras (similar to his opinions on using the MKO).

However, the most important issue in his case is that despite all Melman’s complements about him, Tanter is so discredited that he’s currently acting as an agent of the MKO.

Irandidban – 2006/12/25

December 28, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

Again the Ultimate Solution

Following Iran’s immediate reacted, declaring it invalid and illegal, to the UN Security Council vote to impose restrictions on Tehran if its uranium enrichment program did not halted immediately, BBC Radio, Five Live, on December 24 arranged a phone interview with Ali Safavi, a member of MKO. The interview aimed to obtain some first hand information, disappointed the reporter as Mr. Safavi had nothing to tell but unrelated answers to clear questions and the same old blathers.

For instance, when he was questioned “Where is the Tehran as far as the nuclear program is concerned? How far is Tehran in their enrichment program?”, he referred to the same previously stated claims concluding with an unrelated comment saying:

I would have to say that in order to meet the increasing threats posed by the Iranian regime not only with respect to its nuclear weapons program, but also its meddling in Iraq and its bellicose attitude to the rest of the Middle East, including in Lebanon, the ultimate solution is democratic change by the Iranian people and their organized resistance movement.

But the reporter’s immediate remark stating “That probably would be a bit of a journey before that is actually likely to happen” reminded him that the group’s “the ultimate solution” is something of the past. You might awake a sleeping man but impossible if one pretends.

mojahedin.ws – 26/12/2006

December 28, 2007 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts