A Leauki's Writings
Published on June 10, 2010 By Leauki In War on Terror

This is essentially a translation and summary of this German Wikipedia article:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parviz_Nikkhah

I wrote it after it turned out that East-Germany was behind several murders of West-German left-wing activists, for which the other activists (but not the families of the murdered) had long blamed the "fascist" West-German state.

What the German left did to the Shah and the people of Iran cannot easily be forgiven. And the middle-east would look very different today if it hadn't been for the "peace activists" and revolutionaries in the 60s and 70s.

Many of their leaders have long sinced either abandoned their ideology or openly joined the extreme right. But the world they created still exists.

The below tells the story of an Iranian student who became the leader of the Iranian opposition movement in Europe and what his ultimate fate was at the hands of the tyranical regime in Iran.

 

Parviz Nikkhah was born in Tehran in April 1939. He was executed by the "Islamic Republic" regime on 13 March 1979.

In the 1960s Nikkhah was a student in Germany where he associated with the Confederation of Iranian Students (CIS), an anti-Shah group, and the German SDS (Socialist German Student Federation). His sister Parvin was a member of the Iranian Tudeh party, Iran's communist party. The Tudeh party was illegal in Iran. Parvin's husband was also a Tudeh activist.

Ironically Parviz' studies in Germany were paid by a state-funded project to educate Iran's population. But many or most Iranian students quickly associated with anti-Shah groups, especially after hearing from western sources how tyranical the Shah was.

Parviz quickly became the European leader of the CIS and a Maoist who rejected the official Tudeh party's course which followed the reforming Soviet-Union.

This life ended for Parviz when, in Iran, he was found to be involved in an assassination attempt on the Shah on 10 April 1965. In court Parviz made clear his opposition to the monarchy but denied involvement with the assassination itself.

"I am Marxist-Leninist, that's why I am against the Shah. But terrorism is not a part of my ideology."

Jean-Paul Satre, former SS man and famous left-wing author Guenter Grass, and Noam Chomsky wrote letters to the Shah and after a personal conversation between the Shah and Nikkhah the death penalty was changed into ten years in prison.

While in prison Nikkhah was idolised by Iranian students. The CIS and SDS used their martyr to point out the tyranny of the Shah. But Nikkhah himself changed.

Parviz Nikkhah's sister and her husband visited him often in prison. They had left the Tudeh party and had become supporters of the Shah's policies. They brought him books and magazines and managed in long conversations to change Parviz' position but not his opinions.

Parviz now supported the Shah's land reform against the great land owners and the religious establishment, the Shah's legal reforms that made men and women equal before the law, and most other policies instituted by the Shah. In particular he remembered the Shah as a man who took the time to talk to him personally rather than the bloody dictator he was told about in the west.

So Nikkhah asked to speak the Shah again in 1968 and apologised for his role in the assassination attempt and told him he now supported his policies because they seemed to be right way to create a more just society in Iran. The Shah fully pardoned him.

Nikkhah became a journalist at the Iranian state television. His former comrades saw him as a traitor.

And when his former comrades managed to liberate Iran from the Shah in 1978, Nikkhah was again sentenced to death, this time for writing an article against the "Islamic revolution". Nikkhah maintained he never even wrote the article.

However, the enlightened revolution the SDS and CIS had fought for was different from the tyranny of the Shah. There was no conversation with the tyrant and the death penalty was not modified to prison time.

Parviz Nikkhah was executed on 13 March 1979, one month after Khomeini's return.

At that time the SDS and CIS were still celebrating the victory of the just revolution over the tyrannical Shah.

But soon the students woke up. And Mehdi Khanbaba Tehrani, one of the founders of the Confederation of Iranian Students ultimately wrote:

I think the student movement had detached itself from Iranian society and its real problems. The movement propagated an image of the poor Iranian farmer who lived off only a few dates, as it was maybe the case at the times of Ahmad Shah or Reza Shah. In our imagination reforms and revolution couldn't go together.

We believed that the Shah only granted equal rights to women because he wanted to make them into civil puppets. We thought that women could not be free when the Iranian people are not free.

Such thoughts led us into an alliance with Khomeini, without thinking that the civil liberties the Shah had fought for were not enough but at least an improvement. The Confederation was built on complete opposition to the current system. The members were not part of an opposition movement deeply rooted into society with theoretical revolutionary ideas.

They were idealists who opposed social injustice and whose enemy was the Shah. They didn't have deeper knowledge of Iran and were afraid to discuss the Shah's reforms. It might have happened that we would have lost the enemy if we had done that.

---

Written in memory of the last Shah of Iran, a great man whom Germany, Israel, and the entire world owe so much and whose reforms in Iran were ultimately undone by left-wing protesters and the new regime they allowed to be created in Iran. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi died 30 years ago next month.

 


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 10, 2010

...

on Jun 11, 2010

Most people twist this history of the Shah or just ignore it.  You always hear how the 1979 Islamic Revolution liberated the country from the evil U.S supported dictatorship.  Also, most people don't realize that the Shah supported Israel and was the second person to cast support to it after they declared Independence.

on Jun 11, 2010

The Shah's support for Israel (and indeed for the Kurds) was one of the reasons people saw him as a "fascist dictator". Independence and equal rights for non-Arab peoples in the ME is not part of the left-wing agenda.

When it comes to Iran I an an unabashed monarchist. I believe the Iranian monarchy under the Shah was not only the best political system for Iran to become a modern country at the time but also the best political system for Iran to prosper forever. I know the Shah was a great man and I will never forgive the left-wing protesters for assisting in destroying the monarchy nor for the wars and violence the new regime created in the middle-east.

 

on Jun 11, 2010

The devil you know versus the devil you do not.  I guess the Iranian students know them both now.

It would be nice to say that I wish the same for the idiots in this country.  unfortunately their naivete' affects all of us, not just their own lives.  As we see today with the idiot in charge.

I do not comment much on the Shah as being an American, we were the evil puppet masters. And I firmly believe in the right of self determination (which unless it is a Parliamentarian Monarchy, the people have not decided upon).

But one thing is clear.  Iran is not better off today than it was 32 years ago.  I wonder who will be Obama's Iran?

on Jun 11, 2010

I do not comment much on the Shah as being an American, we were the evil puppet masters. And I firmly believe in the right of self determination (which unless it is a Parliamentarian Monarchy, the people have not decided upon).

You are an American and you obviously believe in self-determination. That's part of being an American.

I believe the principle if excellent but it also doesn't apply to all countries.

I have no ideological problem with a parliamentary monarchy where prime minister and government are ultimately elected by the people and only rubber-stamped by the crown. In fact, if it leads to greater stability and a more responsive government I am all for it.

But I don't believe the US were the Shah's puppet masters.

Under the Shah Iran was ahead of the US in many ways including women's rights and desegregation. The oil deals benefitted both countries and even Mohammed Mossadegh, whom many on the left see as an anti-American hero, never accused the US of anything. He remained a loyal supporter of the Shah before and after the so-called "coup". He was elected prime minister, the Shah fired him, and he accepted both the vote and the Shah's decision. That was it. The Shah had the right to use allied forces to enforce his decisions.

For the Shah's opponents on the left Mossadegh is a hero. For the Shah's supporters he remains a loyal follower of the Shah. Mossadegh's anti-Shah credentials were entirely the invention of the opposition. The current Iranian regime doesn't celebrate Mossadegh because he was loyal to the Shah (and opposed to the big land owners and clerics) and because he was pro-American, something the left love to overlook.

 

But one thing is clear.  Iran is not better off today than it was 32 years ago.

The Shah was demonised by the left because his reforms weren't fast enough while the left-wing opposition allied with those who were most opposed to the reforms. But if the left hadn't supported the clerics (who were the big land owners!), the social reforms would have proceeded further and people would have had little to complain about.

Liberals claimed and perhaps still claim that the Shah's reforms were only pretence, that he granted equal rights to women and undertook land reform only to fool people into supporting his brutal dictatorship.

But for some reason the people who finally toppled the Shah were not those who supported the reforms but those who opposed them. Had the Shah wanted to pretend to support what his enemies wanted, he shouldn't have chosen land reform and equality for women.

The Shah took a grave risk by opposing the rich and powerful (and inhumane) clerics, relying on his power and his people to enforce the reforms.

This just goes to show that no matter how loud the left scream about secularism, gender equality etc. etc., when it comes down to it, they will ALWAYS support the nasty religious freaks who think women are the slaves of man and homosexuals should be executed.

And that is exactly what I cannot forgive. That socialism ideology is one thing. But this support for the worst among humanity is unforgivable.

 

on Jun 11, 2010

Leauki


Liberals claimed and perhaps still claim that the Shah's reforms were only pretence, that he granted equal rights to women and undertook land reform only to fool people into supporting his brutal dictatorship.

 

They still do.  Don't you remember not to long ago there was member who posted a video showing the 'true' history of Iran.  This video really showed how bad off Iran was under the Shah and how Iran was a puppet of the U.S.

I am pretty sure Leauki, that you and myself had commented heavily on that person's post.  Doc, I think this was when you took your prolonged holiday from JU , so I don't think you commented. 

At least, I thought it was posted here, I might be remembering wrong which only happens on rare occasions.

 

Leauki



The Shah took a grave risk by opposing the rich and powerful (and inhumane) clerics, relying on his power and his people to enforce the reforms.
This just goes to show that no matter how loud the left scream about secularism, gender equality etc. etc., when it comes down to it, they will ALWAYS support the nasty religious freaks who think women are the slaves of man and homosexuals should be executed.
And that is exactly what I cannot forgive. That socialism ideology is one thing. But this support for the worst among humanity is unforgivable.
 

I think the word you are looking for is opportunistic.  Which shows that there are a fair amount of liberals that will latch onto something else it'll help their cause no matter what even if they have to forsake some of their own beliefs.

That is the best definition that I can come up with at this current time of day.  B.H its FRIDAY!  Leauki, are you on guard duty tonight

on Jun 11, 2010

I have no ideological problem with a parliamentary monarchy where prime minister and government are ultimately elected by the people and only rubber-stamped by the crown. In fact, if it leads to greater stability and a more responsive government I am all for it.

That was why I phrased it the way I did.  I think most of the Monarchies in Europe fall into that category.

But I don't believe the US were the Shah's puppet masters.

Nor do I, however, we did exert a great deal of control and that was how Carter was able to dethrone the Shah.

This just goes to show that no matter how loud the left scream about secularism, gender equality etc. etc., when it comes down to it, they will ALWAYS support the nasty religious freaks who think women are the slaves of man and homosexuals should be executed.

No, they do not care about the religion or politics of anyone they support.  They are just envious of the power they wield so they idolize them.  That is why Stalin is being resurrected and there are so many bigots on the left.  Birds of a feather.

on Jun 15, 2010

This is so very different then what I was taught in history class in college in the USA.

on Jun 15, 2010

taltamir
This is so very different then what I was taught in history class in college in the USA.

Of course, which way do most University lean?

on Jun 15, 2010

Leauki, are you on guard duty tonight

No, the situation has calmed down. But I am so sick of this.

 

on Jun 16, 2010

For radical left-wingers are for land reform and women's rights but against those who implement land reforms and guarantee women's rights.

For a radical left-winger the fastest way to land reform and women's rights as they understand them is support for rich land owners who happen to be clerics, who don't share and who treat women like slaves.

When a radical left-wingers says "land reform" he means protecting the supposed rights of clerics to control all the land, and when he says "women's rights" he means "no rights".

Ask a radical left-winger is he supports the socialist kibbutzim in Israel or the Arab land owners in "Palestine".

 

on Jun 16, 2010

As I mentioned in the other blog, Left wingers are for peace at all cost.  The intentions and the aggressor are irrelevant.  From that, all their beliefs and stupidity spring.

on Jun 17, 2010

As I mentioned in the other blog, Left wingers are for peace at all cost.  The intentions and the aggressor are irrelevant.  From that, all their beliefs and stupidity spring.

That is part of it... a bigger part of it and the very basis of their religion is the faith in the equality of all "cultures". If you see a competition between two identical groups and one is absolutely dominating, the only two possibilities are:

A. The winning group is better, and the losing group is worse.

B. The winning group is cheating, and the losing group is being victimized by said cheating,

But A makes you a racist, because it is impossible for a culture that treats women like property and preaches violence and intolerance is in any way inferior. Thus they must be oppressed and cheated out of their "fair share". The only proof needed that someone is doing something "wrong" is for them to be successful. The only proof of someone being a victim is for them to be unsuccessful. Being poor makes you de-facto the victim, losing the jihad you started makes you de-facto the victim, any kind of failure makes you a victim and any kind of success make you a victimizer.

Also they have a deep faith in the notion that "abuse begets abuse". If a certain culture abuses women then the only possible explanation is that someone else is abusing them... if the initial abuse is stopped they will stop abusing women. If they produce suicide bombers, then the only possible explanation is that they have suffered such horrible abuses that drove them to that sort of extreme. Since we have previously established that they "must" be victims and that the west must be the cause, then if the west would only stop victimizing them then the cycle of abuse will end and they will stop abusing women.

Another fundamental aspect of their religion is the Faith in communism despite overwhelming evidence against it. They believe that economy is a 0 sum game, that if the rich get poorer then the poor would get richer.

on Jun 17, 2010

Another fundamental aspect of their religion is the Faith in communism despite overwhelming evidence against it. They believe that economy is a 0 sum game, that if the rich get poorer then the poor would get richer.

I don't mind their faith in communism.

But I despise their hypocrisy and how they abandon their communist ideals if they have a chance to support Islamist fascists.

Read the story I wrote/translated. Parviz Nikkhah was an honest communist. Communist, honest, smart; pick two. Honest communists are not smart. But they are still honest.

Parviz Nikkhah found out, decades before the founders of the group he once led, that the Shah's policies were much closer to his communist ideals than what the Islamists wanted. Most of the big land owners in Iran were and remain clerics.

Parviz' family started supporting the Shah when they realised that he was serious about equality for women, land reform and other causes. Parviz himself started supporting the Shah when his family convinced him. Finally they were all smart and honest but they had exchanged being communists for being something that would actually help create the better society they thought communism would give them.

He never changed what he believed was the right track for society. He just acknowledged that the Shah was going into that direction, while the communists were unable to do anything useful.

Ultimately his faith in communism, or rather in those elements he liked about communism, made him a better man and a loyal subject.

For Iran's rich students communism was an intellectual exercise which they thought could create a better Iran. And for the first few miles communism and "better" really did go in the same direction so communism looked like it could work.

And this is what the left owe us. The left owe us an Iran that guarantees equal rights for women and where the land is owned by the people and not a few very rich clerics. The left owe us the Iran they promised us and, and this is even worse, the Iran the Shah had already built.

I said it before in another posting that Iran is the most important country that has ever existed and will ever exist.

The stupid left-wing protesters and their arrogant ayatollah have not only destroyed a country but they have destroyed a country that was a necessary protecter of peace in the region and an example for the surrounding societies.

And an example for us.

But maybe the left-wing protesters are happy about what they did to the Iranians because left-wing protesters are certainly happy about the existence of Hizbullah and are more than happy to support Hamas. When did they care about Jews, Iranians, Kurds and Arabs who have to suffer?

 

 

on Jun 18, 2010

hat is part of it... a bigger part of it and the very basis of their religion is the faith in the equality of all "cultures".

I agree, but see that as a correlation from the first.  After all, there is a lot of strife (and wars) that result from the clash of cultures.  Making them all "equal" in their minds means that no one has to fight!  Everyone can go around abusing whomever they degrade.

That is why liberalism is like a lobotomy.  It is easier to believe in when you use no cognitive processes.

2 Pages1 2