Hoderpad

Hoder according to his readers

Why is Hoder different?

Ramin Jahanbagloo's confessions after he was released has been a controversial subject since. Many doubts on the accuracy of such statements arise because we have had so many examples where political activist made surprising confessions under sever pressure from the authorities.

On 2 September Hoder told us he has a rave article about Jahanbagloo and his confessions and that he seeks to find an English newspaper to publish it. One day later he published the Persian version of the article. It is very interesting and important mainly because of two things:

First Hoder tells us he is sure Jahanbagloo was not under threat or pressure from Iran's judicial or security system to make those statements: "Ramin is right when he says he was misused and the result of his academic projects was in the end used by American security officers – which their numbers are considerable in academic environments… He was deceived because of academic and economic limitations… Ramin was lucky enough that he lived in Iran and that was saved by Iran's security authorities to become another Sazgara…" Well, it is soon to judge which version can be right unless Jahanbagloo can confirm or deny his statements in a secure condition.

Secondly this is an outstanding article to show what and how Hoder thinks about himself and his position as an intellectual person in comparison with others, specially other activists. At the very first line Hoder asks his readers to break their "thinking habits". And few lines later: "Unlike to the analysis of people's lazy minds, Ramin was not arrested for his intellectual activities…" Hoder then continues by reflecting on a paradox: "Ganji shows an anti-Bush gesture, but, on the other hand defends USA's most favorite project, toppling Iran's regime through civil disobedience. How is it possible to explain this contradiction?" He has already the answer: "That is why I say Ganji is a fool”.

He also refers to two other activists and writes:" For example Washington institute in where Mehdi Khalaji and Sazgara work or have worked, openly supports Iran's regime change even by military action. Just imagine that Mehdi Khalaji has worked both for Entekhab newspaper which is related to Khamenei's office and for the institute which tries to destroy that office. What a consistent moral system!" Hoder then amazingly reveals the "secret policy" of The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center . Inconsistency in the moral system or just being a fool are the reasons which make other activists to be for or against something, if we are going to agree with Hoder.

But what if Hoder changes his mind and standpoints? Should we use the same criteria? Has it something to do with silliness? Let me formulate a question in this way: "Hoder shows an anti-Khamenei, anti-Ahmadinejad gesture, but, on the other hand defends (in fact encourages) regimes's most favorite project, producing nuclear bombs. How is it possible to explain this contradiction?" No. We should never suppose that because someone employs the tricks of a charlatan he cannot also have genuine talent.

On October 2004 he wrote: "It's really a shame that people have been kept uninformed about the dangers of achieving nukes by this regime and now a few dozen are deciding for the future of millions of ordinary Iranians" And "Needless to say that if people were aware of how easily this technology, if not curbed by the UN, could be used by the regime to produce nuclear weapons, and how such power could weaken the already humble foundations of democracy in Iran by giving more military power to the most radical and fundamentalist parts of the regime, they'd hardly be backing it as they do now – if we accept that they really are" But now: "For this reason, I believe Iran needs to produce nuclear weapons as a defensive mechanism, to deter the U.S. today and the ever-expanding and equally energy-hungry China tomorrow". Reason:"what's happening in Iraq, along with last year's presidential election and other unfortunate events in the region" Is this because of inconsistency of his moral system? No!. One should not compare Hoder with those activists. Hoder is a genius fearless thinker that his active and creative mind has broken traditional thinking habits long time ago, and his ideas and standpoints are based on solid facts. It is mere accident that his approach to Iran's nuclear program is in the same line with Ahmadinejad.

Finally Hoder in his rave article writes: "Now billions of dollars and euros are available for various political groups to help to know Iran and Middle East better and to predict or change them". Hoder in the past 3 years has tried to acquire some of this money to his endless projects namely a TV-channel and recently a foundation to make peace between Iran and Israel. He has laid the foundation for such a lasting peace when he was in Israel. Unfortunately his share was limited to the fame and newspaper's cover. For a while ago Hoder put his finger on an important issue when he advised (and here)the Iranian girls to support Iran's nuclear program in front of western journalists as a ticket to watch football camps in the stadiums. Iran's regime desperately tries to verify its atomic program and has no limits on investing on groups or influential people, or to remove some restrictions in order to get more support. Best candidates are those who have shown anti-regimes gesture before and have relatively easy access to western media. That was why sometimes it was difficult to refute the claims of people who say Hoder was an easy target for Iran's regime because of his "economic limitations" and being jobless and living on handouts from others for a long time.