Massoud Rajavi

Pseudo-Charismatic leader of the Cult of Mojahedin

Talking of the mechanisms the cults exploit to force members submit to the wills of the leaders, the charisma and techniques of persuasion are of the two important factors. The priority of the one over the other has always been the subject of studies and discussions but one thing is clear for certain that the charisma and charismatic features avoid making any negative value in general. However, made judgments indicate that the mentality of charisma plays a crucial role in the structure of a group itself, its pattern of recruitment, its ideology and its contradictions, the mechanisms used to gain commitment, and the maintenance and evolution of the group within a given social context.
Charisma on its own is not evil and does not necessarily breed a cult leader. The negative image of the charismatic context and process that is characteristic of most modern social theory is derived from the history of those charismatic leaders who are most feared because of their anti-human and atrocious activities that have risked many lives and intensified social antagonisms. To define charisma first, one dictionary definition of charisma is "a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader or military commander); a special magnetic charm or appeal”. 1
Charisma was studied in depth by the German sociologist Max Weber, who defined it as "an exceptional quality in an individual who, through appearing to possess supernatural, providential, or extraordinary powers, succeeds in gathering disciples around him." 2
Thus, charisma is the first factor and the magnetic appeal that helps formation of a new cult by convincing recruits that the leader is giving them the ideal they had long been seeking for:
For the cult leader, having charisma is perhaps most useful during the stage of cult formation. It takes a strong-willed and persuasive leader to convince people of a new belief, then gather the newly converted around him as devoted followers. 3
It is actually true of political cults and their charismatic leader compared with other forms of cults. And again it is more typical of the leftist political cults than rightists since the formers basically claim to be relying on the support of the masses. However, the magnetism of a charismatic leader depends on a follower’s demands. Sometimes it happens that somebody’s love and devotion in a leader turns to be absolute aversion and hatred in another’s eye in the same way that the members of the Marxist camp can never live in harmony with those from the capitalist camp.

So we see that charisma is indeed a desirable trait for someone who wishes to attract a following. However, like beauty, charisma is in the eye of the beholder. Mary, for example, may be completely taken with a particular seminar leader, practically swooning at his every word, while her friend Susie doesn’t feel the slightest tingle. Certainly at the time a person is under the sway of charisma the effect is very real. Yet, in reality, charisma does nothing more than create a certain worshipful reaction to an idealized figure in the mind of the one who is smitten. 4
In fact, the magic of a cult leader is his/her ability to allure recruits and build statuses to which all devotedly bow down. But it has to be pointed out that it is not at all the product of an overnight process but skilful application of various techniques of persuasion and brainwashing. It is through these brainwashing techniques that a seemingly non-destructive cult overturns its peaceful codes of conduct and becomes a destructive and even a terrorist cult.
Once considered a charismatic political leader by the help of his organizational comrades, since he lacked the needed appealing characteristics of a charismatic leader, Massoud Rajavi took himself to the status of a deified cult leader for whom many were ready to sacrifice themselves. The process clearly depicts the effectiveness of cult techniques exploited by the falsely created magnetism of a cult leader. It was much because his close ranking cadres idolized him as a divinely inspired figure whose orders for operations, being them terrorist operations that shed many innocents’ blood or suicide and self-immolation operations, had to be blindly submitted to. Although one may wonder to learn about the horrible potentialities of Mojahedin Khalq with Rajavi at the lead, but it is a true example of an existing terrorist cult in the modern world:
Political cults include terrorist groups that resort to the killing of innocent citizens to promote their cause. Suicide bombers are often members of these extremist political groups. When you hear about a suicide bombing in the Middle East, for instance, you may wonder how someone could give his life in order to kill others. 5
It is hard to develop a deep understanding of Rajavi’s personality especially for the Western people and his advocates there. They will come to know his real nature only when it is too late and they have to pay a great deal for their false calculations. In a discourse on the unnoticed, terrible potentialities of Mojahedin Khalq we read:
As I know Mojahedin, they are too hard a wall to climb. I take the opportunity to inform the US and European states; as a theoretician to whom neither MKO nor NCRI have the least responsibility and to whom neither of them establishes any organizational link, I believe Mojahedin are benefitting a remarkably terrible potentiality which break the control, … . 6
It has to be pointed out that emergence of Rajavi as a propagated charismatic leader depended much on the circumstances that well approve the idea that a “charismatic leadership depends not only on personality but on circumstance: the leader must ride the zeitgeist. Chance and timing playa large part in determining whether a would-be cult leader, for example, ends up as Manson or Moses”.7
It was in the midst of a great revolution that Rajavi was released from the prison and found the opportunity of playing a militia leader especially for the zealous revolutionary Iranian youths who could easily follow a Che Guevara-like model. Hardly believing in what people willed, he would express a new mixture of radicalism and idealism and cleverly played the role of a revolutionary who pretended to respect demands of the rising people based on novel political, social and religious claims. In fact, Rajavi bore no charismatic appeal but it was his adventurous charm that allured inexperienced people to join him in his claimed combat against imperialism. But it did not take long to shock Iranian people and the world in general that the anti-imperialists turned to conduct many assassination and terror operations inside Iran and Iraq, claiming thousands of innocent lives.
Who knows, maybe it was the charismatic charm of the Rajavis that fascinated the Europeans to rub off the terrorist label long attached to their cult!

References:
1. Tobias, Madeleine and Janja Lalich; Captive Hearts, Captive Minds, Alameda, CA: Hunter House 1994.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Steven Hassan; Releasing the Bonds; Empowering People to Think for Themselves, Freedom of Mind Press Somerville, 2000, p. 8.
6. On Mojahedin’s future in Iraq, www.goftogoo.net.
7. Tobias, Madeleine and Janja Lalich; Captive Hearts, Captive Minds, Alameda, CA: Hunter House 1994.

January 31, 2009 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Claimed celestial power of Rajavi as a cult leader

Massoud Rajavi, affected by leftist and political cultic relations, grabbed hold of religious considerations to immunize himself against encountered challenges and criticisms and hence, stabilizing his unquestionable leadership in MKO. A significant point to be mentioned is Rajavi’s misusing of religious and ideological factors simultaneously. Singleton elaborates on the interpretation Rajavi made of democracy and responsibility of leaders writing:
Rajavi’s idea of democracy has always been that everybody has the chance of choosing a leader once in their life. As far as he is concerned, people chose either him or Khomeini. After that, the responsibility lay only with the leader, not the individual. People should have no moral guilt if they are totally obedient to the leader. Therefore, good and bad are not for the individual to decide. Members are not even responsible before God because the leader has sacrificed himself to take all their responsibility before God. 1
In fact, Rajavi pursued two objectives. On the one hand, he was likely to convince members to carry out organizational tasks submissively and on the other hand, he was after making himself free from any challenge and criticism. As singleton puts into words, Rajavi justifies his policies as follows:
Later Rajavi implied in his speeches that if such a leader has done his job well enough, then he starts a relationship with the Imam Zaman (the last and still awaited Imam in Shiite Islam) and therefore has direct contact with God. He brought examples from Prophet Mohammad and compared himself to the Shiite Imams. The result of this was to create a mentality of complete lack of responsibility, which would allow the person to take part in suicide bombings or Forouq-e Javidan or any other actions. 2
There are parallel instances of the same mechanisms used by other cults concerning the immunity of leaders against challenges. A look at the statements made by former cult members may bring into eyes the similarities found between cults in this regard. Steven Hassan, a detached cult member himself, refers to the mechanisms used by Marshall Applewhite, his cult leader, and writes:
Charismatic cult leaders often make extreme claims of divine or "otherworldly" power to exercise influence over their members. Many legitimate religions have had powerful figures who have inspired enormous dedication in people. Being a powerful leader is not inherently wrong, though it carries a high potential for abuse. A group becomes destructive when its leader actively uses such power to deceive members and to rob them of their individuality and free will. For example, I was told to surrender my free will (viewed as Satanic) to God’s representative, Moon, and his sub-leaders. Marshall Applewhite told followers that an alien entity was speaking through him, and used this message to justify his absolute control over their lives. Leaders of numerous groups-including the Twelve Tribes, International Churches of Christ, and Jehovah’s Witnesses-claim it is God’s will that members follow them. 3
The effects Stalin had on Rajavi has not to be ignored. Rajavi followed Stalin who claimed to assume political as well as ideological leadership of Marxism and introduced himself as he unquestionable interpreter of Marxist principles. In fact, opposition to Stalin was considered as opposition to Marxist ideology rather than Stalin’s political and strategic theories. As a result, his opponents were considered ideological deviants and were accused of betrayal, espionage, being agents of capitalism, and were sentenced to death by Stalin. Before the development of ideological revolution, Rajavi like Stalin favored democratic centralism and council leadership. Contrary to what is common in MKO at the time being, its organizational principles and pamphlets have referred to leader’s criticism as an organizational necessity:
The necessity of establishing democracy is not just for the sake of claiming to have democracy in the organization (as a liberalist decoration), rather its full implementation aims to revise the decisions made by the organization and its leader on the part of the rank-and-file who are in direct contact with the public and immune leadership against errors and deviations. Since, the leader responsible for decision-makings is likely to make mistakes and is not free from error. 4
The ideological revolution of Mojahedin was initiated under the influence of cultic relations to justify unquestionable as well as cultic leadership of Rajavi by means of controlling mechanisms and brainwashing techniques. It managed to immune leader against all likely criticisms and challenges; from then on the dissidents were known to be the deviated and any posed question an unforgivable sin. The leader was no more responsible fir organizational errors and failures but it was on rank-and-files. As an example, after the failure of the operation Eternal Light, Rajavi accused members and absolved himself from assuming its responsibility. From a psychological point of view, this kind of relationship puts the leader always in an offensive position and members in a position of responsiveness to leader as is common in almost all cults.

Resources:
1. Anne Singleton, Saddam’s private Army, Iran-Interlink, 2003.
2. ibid
3. Hassan, Steven, releasing the bonds, Freedom of mind press, 2000, p.4.
4. The study of the possibility of democratic centralism or the difference between scientific and non-scientific doubt in organizational issues, MKO publication,1980, pp. 40-43.

January 28, 2009 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Cult leaders accountable to nobody- Part 2

Cult leaders grab at all means and levers to stabilize their position within cults in a manner of unaccountability to members; a feature leading finally to fascism and individual leadership. Religion and religious beliefs of followers are factors at the hands of cult leaders to be excused of accountability. In fact, they legitimize all their wrongdoings and egocentric decisions based on religious tenets and ideological concerns in a way not to be challenged by outsiders as well as insiders.

Identification of the same features in MKO and on the part of Masoud Rajavi necessitates taking a closer look at his activities and statements. Keeping this issue into mind may give us a better understanding of the reasons why Rajavi introduced his ideological revolution as a manifestation of an exalted truth and unique value in terms of ideological and political concerns. He did so to conceal the apparent contradiction between the fulfillment of ideological objectives of Mojahedin as reflected in the early organizational principles of MKO and the consequences of his self-fabricated ideological revolution.

Of the consequences of the ideological revolution elaborated on by Rajavi as well as his catalysts is introducing Mojahedin leadership as a phenomenon beyond challenge and criticism, a timeless issue and one that is no longer selective and democratic. The result of this consideration is a wide gap made between the status of the leadership and that of the rank-and-files as well as minimization of organizational hierarchy.

Rajavi and his theoreticians made use of religious levers as well as scientific theories like Einstein’s theory of relativity to justify his self-appointed position at the top of MKO. Rajavi was much eager to follow footsteps of Hitler and Stalin in making use of religion, science and ideology to stabilize a status of unaccountability. He held grab to his ideological revolution, based simply on a divorce (that of Maryam Azdanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi) and remarriage (that of Maryam Azdanlu and Masoud Rajavi), in order to achieve his egocentric objectives. The reaction of the outside world and a leftist party in particular to this action may suffice to show the feedback of the world outside to this dishonorable event:

The news on the marriage of Masoud Rajavi and Maryam Azdanlu, ex-wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi,aroused the complaint and aversion of revolutionary forces and public opinion

The news on the marriage of Masoud Rajavi and Maryam Azdanlu, ex-wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi, in recent weeks has aroused the complaint and aversion of revolutionary forces and public opinion. This action that is contrary to revolutionary morale and convention of the socity…surely leads to public complaint and hate… since this indecent and immoral activity is justified in a 14-page statement signed by the organization’s The news on the marriage of Masoud Rajavi and Maryam Azdanlu, ex-wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi,aroused the complaint and aversion of revolutionary forces and public opinion leader who has a long history of revolutionary struggle and claims to lead Iranian revolution against the current oppressive regime. The significance of this issue has its roots in the fact that while the act is a scandal offending woman and distorting the meaning of leadership, it is introduced as an ideological revolution aiming to esteem the status of women. 1

Despite all the negative consequences of the ideological revolution, it led to the irresistibility of Rajavi to inside challenges. The factor of surprise caused by the initiation of the ideological revolution under the issue of Rajavi had paradoxical results inside and outside MKO. While the world outside refused to recognize the legitimacy of Rajavi’s initiated ideological revolution, he managed to turn it into a belief system within MKO just as a cult leader. As Hoffer put into words:

It is the certitude of his (a cult leader) infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him. 2

Cult leaders claim that understanding cultic codes and doctrines is problematic and difficult and it is just the true believer who manages to understand them. Cult leaders have the ability to deceive members by making false illustrations and predictions of the world from the beginning to the end to the point that turn followers to blind subordinates who consider it as a guilt if they demand accountability on the part of their leader who claims self-sacrificing for his followers’ salvation. When this belief is indoctrinated in members, they turn to devoted followers with absolute confidence in their leader and it may suffice to immune leaders of being challenged from inside. Hoffer believes that:

To be in possession of an absolute truth is to have a net of familiarity spread over the whole of eternity. There are no surprises and no unknowns. All questions have already been answered, all decisions made, all eventualities foreseen. The true believer is without wonder and hesitation. "Who knows Jesus knows the reason of all things." The true doctrine is a master key to all the world’s problems. With it the world can be taken apart and put together. 3

In a nutshell, the attempts made by the theoreticians of the ideological revolution of Mojahedin mainly aim to raise the status of Rajavi to a point beyond all challenges, questions, and doubts and free from accountability and responsibility to his decision makings and activities.

References:

1. The theoretical and political journal of the organization of Fada’yian-e Khalq, 1985.

2. Hoffer, Eric, the true believer, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1951, p.76.

3. ibid, p.77.

January 8, 2009 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Cult leaders accountable to nobody

Of the common characteristics of cult leaders referred to in most academic resources is a lack of accountability for their activities and decision-makings. This practice is in full contrast to the norms of leadership in democratic and free societies in which leaders’ decisions and activities have to be parallel to the social major interests and demands of the public. However, leaders in cults not only consider themselves too superior to be reprimanded for what they do but also regard themselves as heavenly gifts bestowed to earthly followers; super-humans beyond restrictions of ordinary people and free from any error. Their self-appointed position necessitates that cult leaders assume responsibility only to a higher position like that of a god or ideology. These features are easily traceable within the notorious cultist relations of MKO, already blacklisted as a terrorist political cult.

Where this approach is rooted and on what basis it is founded constitutes one of the most basic discussions of the field of cult studies. However, it has to be pointed out that its scope depends on the specific content and orientation of each cult and despite the existing subtle differences, it is exercised commonly within all cults. Also, it has to be noted that unaccountability is more outstanding in political cults due to their external manifestations and broad objectives compared to other cults. A factor distinguishing MKO from other parallel political groups is that its leadership is not only unaccountable to the insiders but also prevents other opposition groups to assume responsibility of their doings by means of many factors like accusation, labeling, perversion, threat, subornation and other levers and sometimes even resorts to improper language to beat them off in the course of political struggle and eliminate all rivals. Therefore, the study of this aspect of cultic relations is of a wider dimension in MKO.

Here, there is an attempt to review these aspects in cults in general and in social relations of MKO in particular. First, the fundamentals and foundations of cults are taken into consideration. Stated in the Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame, Bonewits, classifies unaccountability of cult leaders as one of the cults’ 16 factors:

Charismatic and self-appointed leader who claims divinity or special knowledge and demands his followers unquestioning and total loyalty and obedience. 1

And, according to Ian Haworth of the Cult Information Centre:

All cults share the same characteristics. The definition of any cult is that it indoctrinates its members; forms a closed, totalitarian society; has a self-appointed, Messianic and charismatic leader. 2

This is the very prominent feature of Mojahedin leadership particularly after the development of the ideological revolution that aimed at the legitimization of the idea that the ideological leadership of Rajavi would be no longer accountable to anybody. In addition, it was assumed that faultfinding with Rajavi would be a great and unforgivable sin. The study of the background and reasons of the occurrence of this feature in cult relations from a historical and theoretical point of view may give us a better understanding of the issue.

The factor of unaccountability has an obvious manifestation in all political cults and leftist parties in particular and even has influenced the right groups of fascist orientations. In the contemporary history, and especially in the reign of Stalin in USSR Communist Party as well as that of Hitler in the world of capitalism, there appeared more cases of this orientation. It has to be noted that this feature is found almost in all totalitarian and dictator leaders but it is unlikely to imply that all political leaders are cultic. In fact, this factor along with other features may confirm the cultic nature of a group.

Despite the liberal and modern gestures of some contemporary leaders like Stalin and Hitler, they were of a full totalitarian and dictator nature. Stalin made use of ideological basics of Marxism-Leninism to stabilize his god-like position at the top of the Communist Party and Hitler used the factors of ideology, science and religion to exercise his authority on Nazis. As Stalin used his self-fabricated interpretations of historical and philosophical materialism as the basis of his unaccountable leadership, Hitler grabbed at scientific theories like that of Darwin to impose his leadership on Nazis. Therefore, these leaders paved the way for constituting categorized cults of personality relying on their unaccountable status free from any challenge and question.

The main lever of these leaders for stabilizing their unaccountable position in an egocentric manner is religious taboos and deceiving members by claiming to be connected with the unseen world. However, every cult has its own unique approach in furthering the personal interests of its leader.

References:

1. www.la.info.org/library/programming/bonewits.shtml

2. Singleton, A., Saddam’s private army, Iran-Interlink, 2003, p.xvii.

January 1, 2009 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi, archetype of a cult leader

In describing the characteristics of cult leaders, their anomalous skills and potentiality to enslave recruits, it is commonly referred to as complimentary factors closely related to their charisma. Cult leaders make use of their charisma as well as other psychological and thought-reform techniques in order to control their followers. However, these levers and techniques are to be parallel to the belief system of their followers and is of utmost effect. In fact, cult leaders hold grab to members’ background and misuse through weird means to deprive members of their systems of values and beliefs and to replace them with heretical ones. However, it is not clear whether they believe in their magic power or just use it for deceiving members. According to a researcher working on cults:

Harder to evaluate, of course, is whether these leaders’ belief in their magical powers, omnipotence, and connection to God (or whatever higher power or belief system they are espousing) is delusional or simply part of the con. Megalomania–the belief that one is able or entitled to rule the world–is equally hard to evaluate without psychological testing of the individual, although numerous cult leaders state quite readily that their goal is to rule the world. In any case, beneath the surface gloss of intelligence, charm, and professed humility seethes an inner world of rage, depression, and fear. 1

Although this evaluation seems to be paradoxical, but well illustrates the complex personality of cult leaders. They pretend to act as a savior and a social reformist, while are well aware of the egocentric motives behind their actions and behaviors. According to Weber, an expert on cults, cult leaders in general and political cult leaders in particular, aim to propagate a new religion. He believes that they spread anarchy in the world and exhibit highly destructive behaviors. There are also other features distinguishing political cult leaders from other parallel cases:

Charismatic leader is "a sorcerer with an innovative aura and a personal magnetic gift, [who] promoted a specific doctrine…. [and was] concerned with himself rather than involved with others….[He] held an exceptional type of power: it set aside the usages of normal political life and assumed instead those of demagoguery, dictatorship, or revolution, [which induced] men’s whole-hearted devotion to the charismatic individual through a blind and fanatical trust and an unrestrained and uncritical faith. 2

In the morphology of the leadership of MKO as a political cult, almost all above features are found. The following classification of cult leaders’ characteristics may give us a better understanding of the issue.

1. Believing pretentiously in God,

2. Showing narcissism and megalomania,

3. Aiming to rule the world and develop a global revolution,

4. Fostering innovation and fabricating false religious interpretations,

5. Adopting unusual and unique procedures and approaches,

6. Trying to convince and control individuals,

7. Leading to destruction and anarchy using all possible means,

8. Seeking personal interests.

All these features can be traced in Masoud Rajavi, the leader of MKO, a notorious cult blacklisted in the terrorist list. It has to be noted that he got a number of these features after the development of the ideological revolution of Mojahedin in MKO. However, it is not our intent here to identify the above factors and their instances in Rajavi. Although it is difficult to make a generalization on whether all cult leaders believe in their own magic power and connection to God or not but there can be a clear-cut judgment on Masoud Rajavi in this regard. Taking a closer look at his past history clarifies his inconsistent personality and traits and his grabbing at cultic relations in order to conceal his problematic personality.

Rajavi’s paradoxical personality is apparent where he makes an attempt to stabilize his position by all means either by resorting to the religion or by opposing it

Rajavi’s paradoxical personality is apparent where he makes an attempt to stabilize his position by all means either by resorting to the religion or by opposing it. In other words, Rajavi is not even an out-and-out cult leader yet has grabbed at cultic relations and techniques in order to achieve his personal and totalitarian ambitions. Having some features of cult leaders like megalomania and narcissism as well as borrowing cultic thought-reform techniques facilitated his furthering of personal interests. Therefore, he has a more complex personality compared to other cult leaders. His charisma is not an inherent feature but is an instrument intentionally used to subordinate members. In fact, it is a combination of charisma and psychopathy that is common in most cult leaders:

In the case of cults, of course, we know that this induction of whole hearted devotion does not happen spontaneously but is the result of the cult leader’s skillful use of thought-reform techniques. Charisma on its own is not evil and does not necessarily breed a cult leader. Charisma is, however, a powerful and awesome attribute found in many cult leaders who use it in ways that are both self-serving and destructive to others. The combination of charisma and psychopathy is a lethal mixture. 3

It seems that the complexity of Rajavi’s personality cannot be understood without taking general cult leaders’ characteristics into consideration.

References:

1. Madeline, Tobias and Jania Lalich; Captive hearts, Captive minds, Halter House, 1994

2. ibid

3. ibid

December 30, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi’s new version of his cult history

Rajavi and his catalysts have misused the history of the organization and its founders in order to justify members that early founders of MKO, and Mohammad Hanifnejad in particular, have appointed Rajavi as the next leader of the organization. In this regard, a number of Rajavi’s fellows have fabricated some statements and have attributed them to Hanifnejad in order to legitimize the ideological leadership of Rajavi. Following the previous articles on the statements made by Lotfollah Meisami and others, here we take a look at those made by Mehdi Abrishamchi and one of the MKO former members. Abrishamchi summarizes all we mean by his manipulation of the history of the organization in one sentence, sacrificing all the alive and dead of the organization to Rajavi and says:

When Masoud speaks, it seems as if he speaks as the representative of all the alive and dead of the organization. 1

He further shows the spirit of Hanifnejad full of praise for Rajavi and makes an attempt to raise the status of Masoud, stating:

Evidently, no one but Masoud is aware of his own status, and hardly anybody can grasp that Masoud has arrived at the high summits of our ideals and has developed our revolution, ideas, and organization to a point that would for sure elevate the soul of Hanifnejad to appreciate. 2

Although the organizational principles of MKO are opposed to centering on just one individual, he introduces Rajavi as the history of the organization and says:

Our greetings and songs, cries and slogans, love and affection, will and determination, poems and stories, all aim to imply the fact that if Mojahedin have reached the present position and have developed their revolution up to this point, serving the humanity and achieving many honors, they owe all these to the ideological leadership of Masoud. Also, we owe our recent ideological revolution to Masoud and Maryam. 3

Manipulating the history of the organization and its victims in Rajavi’s favor is so disgraceful and repulsive that Anne Singleton, an MKO former member, refers to Rajavi as misusing the members’ ignorance, writing:

Rajavi is very good at spending from other people’s pockets, especially in using the deaths of his followers. 4

She further expounds on the fact that Rajavi consents to subordinate all the historical achievements of the organization obtained as a result of so much blood shed for achieving his personal ambitions:

Rajavi clearly wanted power and was prepared to subordinate the whole organisation and all its members into a means for him to achieve this. 5

Interestingly, Rajavi and his fellows claim that he is inheritor of all the ideological principles and the history of the organization. However, the fact is that the ideological principles of the organization have been manipulated, distorted, held in archive and even eliminated under the command of Rajavi and in his favor whenever necessary:

It is worth mentioning Rajavi’s other motive for removing and then burning all of the books from the camp libraries and safe houses abroad, (libraries which incidentally only had approved books in them anyway), and that is that these books and documents were in contradiction to having an ideological leader. Even his own speeches in Tehran University in the political phase before 30th Khordad were destroyed. These speeches had been published and avidly read at the time. Their essence was taken from Marx and Mao and was to compare the evolution of species with the evolution of society and, of course, Islamicise it. Another reason was that these books and documents were very much in contradiction with capitalism and harmful to Rajavi’s new approach to his new Western masters. Until now, the whole ideology and activities of the Mojahedin, including the killing of Americans, all their songs etc, had been built on Maoism and the fight against the West and imperialism. 6

She further elaborates on perverting the ideology of the organization by Rajavi for instrumentalizing the ideology:

Rajavi perverted the ideology of the Mojahedin from its original conception to something, which allowed him total control of all aspects of the organisation including the personal lives of the members. Alongside this internal change, the organisation also lost its direction in the political scene. 7

It has to be pointed out that the history of the organization, its founders and its ideological principles, are of no significance for Rajavi. Their value depends on the extent to which Rajavi can abuse them for the achievement of his ambitions and stabilization of his cultic leadership in the organization. He has attempted to fabricate some memories and accounts to present himself and pretend to be the sole inheritor of the organization and its principles to which he is not hew. He has exploited all the resources of the organization for the fulfillment of his personal interests at the hands of a number of his ignorant fellows.

References:

1. The lecture of Mehdi Abrishamchi on the ideological revolution, Mojahed journal, no. 255

2. ibid

3. ibid

4. Singleton, Anne, Saddam’s private army.

5. ibid

6. ibid

7. ibid

December 27, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

The instrumental misuse of MKO history – part 2

The instrumental misuse of MKO founders and history – part 2

Of the current issues prevalent in the world of politics regarding the challenges MKO has risen to is that Rajavi has manipulated the history of MKO and its founders. It is said that he and his fellows have made an attempt to misuse the history of the organization in a way to legitimize his unauthentic leadership imposed on the organization and its members. Here a number of fabricated memories made by a number of self-seeker MKO members are reviewed in order to bring the matter to light. In this regard, Mohammad Hayati, one of the theoreticians of the ideological revolution introduces Rajavi as the sole advisor of Hanifnejad and says:

I saw no one closer and more active than Masoud in discussion and negotiation with Mohammad [Hanifnejad], no one even Saeed [Mohsen] and Asqar [Badizadegan]. 1

Mehdi Khodaee-Sefat who has not met Hanifnejad grabs at other techniques in order to exalt Rajavi, saying:

Once in 1972, I met Masoud in cell No. 3 in Qasr prison and discovered the mysteries of life in him. Again, in 1975, in the cell No. 6 when I heard his voice for the second time, it was as if I got everything in a blink of an eye and considered the tortures of prison and Savak unimportant. 2

Hamid Asadian, Mojahedin’s poet, makes a generalization and states:

Masoud represents the revolutionary values of a generation who had a historical presence in the political, social, and cultural scene of Iran since 1965. 3

He adds:

All resistances, solution findings, victories and in a nutshell the survival of Mojahedin depends on one person who represents the ideals of Mojahed generation. He is the story of Mojahedin and Mojahedin are his story. 4

And Abrishamchi introduces Rajavi as the sole discoverer of Hanifnejad, stating:

His role [Hanifnejad] was a unique historical and ideological one which was unknown at his time. Just one person, Masoud, discovered it and made a close relationship with him and paid a considerable cost for doing so. 5

In order to check the truthfulness of these statements, we’d better take a brief look at the statements made by Lotfollah Meisami, one of the closest cadres to Hanifnejad, and raise the question that why all these fabricated memories have been recalled simultaneously and after a number of decades and all have a similar theme and form.

Meisami expounds on some points in contradiction to those mentioned before. In contrast to what Rajavi’s allies mean by fabricating theses memories, he says that the main reason Hanifnejad paid more attention to Rajavi was the flaws he had had noticed in Rajavi including selfishness, vanity, egoism and so forth. Thus, Hanifnejad always had him under full control and warned him of his flaws. According to Meisami:

It has to be pointed out that everyone has some traces of egoism and vanity. Yet, in a well-formed organization, all these defects can be surmounted. It was so for Rajavi too and whenever he was in their companion, Mohammad and Saeed kept close to him and controlled him fully. 6

Or:

In the same period of time, the personality of Masoud Rajavi came under question and there appeared many quotations from Hanifnejad. For instance, Hanifnejad was quoted saying that the prevalent egoism in Masoud would be destructive for the organization. The members of central council of leadership were well aware of this statement. 7

Interestingly, in these memories there are some individuals who took a hostile position toward Rajavi at that time and now have changed their mind and come to remember, or better to say fabricating, memories in Rajavi’s favor:

After the schism of 1971 and its consequences, the issue of the leadership was raised in Qasr prison. There were seventy members therein and they needed to be organized so Masoud was already in charge of solving problems. For example, if someone or something was snitched he informed those outside and also made us aware of the outside news. After the imprisonment of Bahman Bazargan, they cooperated with each other, yet when the number of members increased and almost all Mojahedin came to prison, Masoud came under question to some extent. Some members like Musa Khiabani, Fathollah Khamene’i, Kazem Shafiee, Nabi Moazemi, Ebrahim Avoukh, and those gone to Palestine criticized Masoud for his flaws. 8

Furthermore, Meisami points out that Rajavi was so isolated in goal and neglected by MKO prisoners that despite assuming the leadership of the organization, prisoners formed a council of leadership in the prison and conducted polls in which Rajavi was defeated:

There were a lot of members in Qasr prison and it seemed that nothing could fill the void left by the martyrdom of the founders. Also, members were unsure of Rajavi. It was said that there had to open polls for selecting the central cadre in which Musa Khiabani and two other candidates were at the lead; but Rajavi got no vote. 9

In another part of the memories of Meisami, it has been stated that:

Members refrained to accept a fixed leadership. So polls were carried out in which Fathollah Khamene’i, Kazem Shafiee and Musa Khiabani were elected for the first central cadre in the prison yet Rajavi got just a single vote. 10

Most important of all, Meisami believes that Rajavi followed a different path after the execution of founders and even considered them as outsiders:

After the martyrdom of the founders, some members like Masoud Rajavi had a different viewpoint against the early founders and even refrained to consider the former members of the organization as true insiders. 11

References:

1. The book of founders, MKO publications, p.121.

2. ibid, p.138

3. ibid, p.160

4. ibid, p.161

5. ibid, p.87

6. Meisami, Lotfollah; Degeneration of a Mojahed, Mojahed journal, No. 32.

7. The memoirs of Lotfollah Meisami, 2003, p.74

8. ibid, p.194

9. Meisami, Lotfollah; Degeneration of a Mojahed, Mojahed journal, No. 32.

10. The memoirs of Lotfollah Meisami, 2003, p.194.

11. ibid, p.157

December 23, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

The instrumental misuse of MKO history

Rajavi owes his leadership to a number of factors among which misusing and manipulating the history of the organization and its founders is of utmost significance paving the way for imposing Rajavi on the organization and expansion of his authoritarian leadership therein. The short-term relationship of Rajavi with the organization’s founders, and Mohammad Hanifnejad in particular, is an instrument in the hands of Rajavi and his fellows to manipulate the history of the organization in his favor.

A number of factors like the mass arrests of the early founders and high-rankings in 1971 and their execution as well as Rajavi’s escape from execution made the background for him to manipulate the history of the organization at avail himself of the critical conditions after the schism of the organization. Promotion of Rajavi to the membership of the central cadre after the assertion of Hanifnejad was the beginning of the later seizure of leadership. According to many eyewitnesses it was most accelerated due to Rajavi’s egocentricity and narcissism that prepared for Rajavi and his catalysts to make false interpretations of it. Step by step and especially after the initiation of the armed phase, this illusion turned to reality and many newcomers came to believe that Rajavi was the heir to the leadership after Hanifnejad. It would not be wrong to say that Rajavi’s had a key role in creating this illusion either in gaol or after their freedom in 1979.

There are evidences that the main part of this process has been taken place since 1985 when Rajavi used the ideological revolution as an instrument to stabilize his totalitarian and egocentric leadership in the organization and to legitimize the ideological revolution and its consequences. In the early days of the ideological revolution, some members like Davari, Abrishamchi, and Hayati were tasked with fabricating false memories of the interest of Hanifnejad in Rajavi and the complimentary statements made by Hanifnejad on the political, organizational, and ideological qualifications of Rajavi.

This process was externalized when the central office of the organization issued a declaration on the initiation of the ideological revolution and the ideological leadership of Masoud Rajavi. The declaration asserted that after the execution of the organization’s founders, and Hanifnejad in particular, Rajavi would be the leader of the organization, responsible for its survival and development. It focused on the point that Hanifnejad himself had appointed Rajavi as his successor and the next leader of MKO. Since Rajavi was well aware that his own fabrication of memories was of no effect, he ordered his fellows and catalysts including those arrested in 1971, to make false statements in the intra-organizational sessions of the ideological revolution. Here some of these fabrications will be reviewed. Abbas Davari, whose some instances of offensive behavior towards Rajavi was quoted by some MKO former members, in his article “The point of perfection” published in the organization’s official organ, Mojahed, writes:

Saeed Mohsen was very sensitive about the freedom of Masoud and when Masoud was offered a clemency and his execution was replaced by life imprisonment as a result of the efforts of Dr.Kazem Rajavi [his brother], Mohsen was too happy and asked me to convey his message to Masoud. He said: “Extend my greetings to Masoud and tell him that his responsibility is very heavy at the time being since he is the only remnant of the central cadre and the manifestation of our principles and experiences. He is endowed with a great responsibility in this phase. He will be beset with many problems and may suffer many disturbances. We will receive all praises since we enter the reign of martyrdom yet he will face all accusations since he will continue the struggle and would have a status much higher than ours. He will be martyred every day and every hour. Yes, he will be an alive martyr. 1

In another article, he has pointed out that:

The necessity of ensuring the continuity of this way and developing the revolutionary Islam was evident to the founders and the person who arrived at the very summits of honor. The organization founders accomplished their responsibility and before their martyrdom appointed Masoud as the next leader not to leave the organization without a head. 2

These statements are pre-determined reactions to the objections and accusations made against the ideological marriage of Masoud and Maryam and the issue of Rajavi’s fabricated Imamate. Mohammad Seyedi Kashani makes a statement in this regard, stating:

The most significant thing I remember from the martyr Asqar Badizadegan is the statements he made about Masoud and his seriousness and rigidity. He always said that Mohammad (Hanifnejad) was more interested in Masoud among all members of the central cadre and loved him more than others doing his best to train and teach him as a true Mojahed. Some years later when I got acquainted with Masoud, I found out the reason why the founders had appointed him preferably as the leader among all members of central cadre and those with a longer history in the organization. 3

References:

1. Davari, Abbas, Mojahed journal, no. 456

2. The book of Founders, MKO publications, 2002, p.91.

3. ibid, the statements of Mohammad Seyedi Kashani, p.111

December 21, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi, the ideological symbol of his cult

In MKO, the terms Rajavi and ideology are not distinguishable and are actually identical. Despite all disputes on the factor of ideology and its function in social issues, the main blunder of Rajavi is that he hews not to the organizational principles and ideology of MKO; rather he has made an attempt to replace the ideology with himself representing the ideology and the one in the focus of attention. Rajavi has manipulated MKO ideology for justifying his wrongdoings and cultic behaviors imposed on the members under his command a number of which can be enumerated as self-immolation, conducting terrorist attacks, Machiavellian relations, procuring a god-like status, undermining religious norms and values, spying for alien powers, threatening the dissidents and plotting their physical annihilation, assuming an authoritarian leadership and many more.

In fact, ideology has turned out to be an instrument at the hands of Rajavi in order to seize political power, oppose dissidents in an act of retaliation, and justify his strategic failures. Rajavi has misused ideology for the accomplishment of his egocentric ambitions. In other words, Rajavi has formed a personal ideology of his own and has imposed it on the organization and its members.

This complex process is fabricated in a way that gives many of his followers the illusion that he is the human’s savior. However, this process is borrowed from other cultic groups and organizations. According to Madeleine Tobias:

Cultic groups usually originate with a living leader who is believed to be "god" or godlike by a cadre of dedicated believers. Along with a dramatic and convincing talent for self-expression, these leaders have an intuitive ability to sense their followers’ needs and draw them closer with promises of fulfillment. Gradually, the leader inculcates the group with his own private ideology (or craziness!), then creates conditions so that his victims cannot or dare not test his claims. How can you prove someone is not the Messiah? 1

Rajavi misuses the ignorance of his followers in his favor for satisfying his abnormal, psychopath, and revengeful personality and raising his status to a godlike position. He even sanctifies aggression and terror by means of ideology and regards them as the achievements of the ideological revolution and as Eric Hoffer puts into words goes beyond all limits: “The holy terror only knows no limit and never flags”. 2

The political and theoretical splits formed within the followers of Marxism and other like doctrines may be justified based on their diverse interpretations of the fundamentals of their ideology. In fact, Marxism, Stalinism and Maoism are more the result of the egocentric and totalitarian ideas of humans rather than resourceful ideas and doctrines. However, in MKO ideology has turned into an instrument that is pretended to be valued and adhered upon but in fact is manipulated and fabricated to the point that even is used to legitimize the status and leadership of Rajavi:

In MKO, it’s the ideas of Masoud that solve the problems and determine the ideological limits. Yet it is of no surprise. Every ideology has its own interpreter and expositor. Like all Marxists, Leninists, and Maoists whose ideology is represented by the name of one person. The difference between Mojahedin and others regarding their strategy, tactics and activities has its roots in Mojahedin’s particular ideology. 3

Although Rajavi theorized even the most murderous and aggressive behaviors and terrorist attacks of MKO by means of ideology and considered the sole solution for his ideological dispute with capitalism the so-called liberal war, today he has a rightabout-face, pretending to support peaceful activities, democratic Islam, and finding solution for global disputes due to the concerns caused by the very ideology of MKO. The issue of misusing the ideology by Rajavi is a wide one far beyond the factors mentioned here and calls for taking a close look at the activities of MKO leadership in recent three decades.

December 18, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Cult leaders as psychopath

As it is the same with majority of the cults, the cult of Mojahedin cannot be truly explored and understood without understanding its leader. Massoud Rajavi is known to be an egocentric power maniac whose character and leading flaws has so far suggested exhibiting many of the behavioral characteristics of marked megalomania and paranoia. Many even go beyond to state that he is a psychopath who has succeeded to enforce himself onto the leadership position. Their assertion is in no way an arbitrary judgment but based on comprehensive researches done by prominent academics and cult experts.

It is also said that most cult leaders, especially those who lead a destructive cult, have suffered personality disorders of some kind that relate to certain unyielding, maladaptive behaviors that cause a person to develop prejudice and anti-social functioning. Psychiatrists are of the opinion that the roots of these disorders can be traced to have often been manifested in the person’s childhood and which later set the ground to create problems in how to deal with the society and the rest of the world.

Similarities between cult leaders of all sorts are in fact character disorders commonly identified with the psychopathic personality as asserted by psychiatrists who have studied the behaviors of the leaders from the very beginning when cults came to jeopardize the society around them and even in a global scale. No cult originates unless established and run by people who believe to possess superhuman talents and skills who gathers around themselves a collection of devoted followers to convince them that they are ordained leaders with the ability to sense their followers’ needs and draw them closer with promises of fulfillment. It is only the beginning and gradually, as Madeleine Landau explains, “the leader inculcates the group with his own private ideology (or craziness!), then creates conditions so that his victims cannot or dare not test his claims. How can you prove someone is not the Messiah? That the world won’t end tomorrow? That humans are not possessed by aliens from another world or dimension? Through psychological manipulation and control, cult leaders trick their followers into believing in something, then prevent them from testing and disproving that mythology or belief system”.

In the same way that Thaler Singers’ Cults in Our Midst played a great role to prove Mojahedin Khalq’s cultic nature, there are many more other sources that may help reach a conclusion that the group’s leader Rajavi inherits psychopathological traits studied and traced in most cult leaders. The following is an excerpt from the book entitled "Captive Hearts, Captive Minds" by Madeleine Landau Tobias and Janja Lalich studying the cult leaders as psychopath.

Cultic groups and relationships are formed primarily to meet specific emotional needs of the leader, many of whom suffer from one or another unotional or character disorder. Few, if any, cult leaders subject them- selves to the psychological tests or prolonged clinical interviews that allow for an accurate diagnosis.

However, researchers and clinicians who have observed these individuals describe them variously as neurotic, psychotic, on a spectrum exhibiting neurotic, sociopathic, and psychotic characteristics, or suffering from a diagnosed personality disorder.

It is not our intent here to make an overarching diagnosis, nor do we intend to imply that all cult leaders or the leaders of any of the groups mentioned here are psychopaths. In reviewing the data, however, we can surmise that there is significant psychological dysfunctioning in some cult leaders and that their behavior demonstrates features rather consistent with the disorder known as psychopathy.

Dr. Robert Hare, one of the world’s foremost experts in the field, estimates that there are at least two million psychopaths in North America. He writes, "Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret."

Psychopathy falls within the section on personality disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is the standard source book used in making psychiatric evaluations and diagnoses. In the draft version of the manual’s 4th edition (to be released Spring 1994), this disorder is listed as "personality disorder not otherwise specified/Cleckley-type psychopath," named after psychiatrist Hervey Cleckley who carried out the first major studies of psychopaths. The combination of personality and behavioral traits that allows for this diagnosis must be evident in the person’s history, not simply apparent during a particular episode. That is, psychopathy is a long-term personality disorder. The term psychopath is often used interchangeably with sociopath, or sociopathic personality because it is more commonly recognized, we use the term psychopath here.

Personality disorders, as a diagnosis, relate to certain inflexible and maladaptive behaviors and traits that cause a person to have significantly impaired social or occupational functioning. Signs of this are often first manifested in childhood and adolescence, and are expressed through distorted patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and oneself. In simple terms this means that something is amiss, awry, not quite right in the person, and this creates problems in how he or she relates to the rest of the world.

The psychopathic personality is sometimes confused with the "anti- social personality," another disorder; however, the psychopath exhibits more extreme behavior than the antisocial personality. The antisocial personality is identified by a mix of antisocial and criminal behaviors–he is the common criminal. The psychopath, on the other hand, is characterized by a mix of criminal and socially deviant behavior.

Psychopathy is not the same as psychosis either. The latter is characterized by an inability to differentiate what is real from what is imagined: boundaries between self and others are lost, and critical thinking is greatly impaired. While generally not psychotic, cult leaders may experience psychotic episodes, which may lead to the destruction of themselves or the group. An extreme example of this is the mass murder-suicide that occurred in November 1978 in Tonestown, Guyana, at the People’s Temple led by Jim Jones. On his orders, over 900 men, women, and children perished as Jones deteriorated into what was probably a paranoid psychosis.

The psychopathic personality has been well described by Hervey ClecMey in his classic work, The Mask of Sanity, first published in 1941 and updated and reissued in 1982. Cleckley is perhaps best known for The Three Faces of Eve, a book and later a popular movie on multiple personality. Cleckley also gave the world a detailed study of the personality and behavior of the psychopath, listing 16 characteristics to be used in evaluating and treating psychopaths.

Neuropsychiatrist Richard M. Restak stated, "At the heart of the diagnosis of psychopathy was the recognition that a person could appear normal and yet dose observation would reveal the personality to be irrational or even violent." Indeed, initially most psychopaths appear quite normal. They present themselves to us as charming, interesting, even humble. The majority "don’t suffer from delusions, hallucinations, or memory impairment, their contact with reality appears solid." Some, on the other hand, may demonstrate marked paranoia and megalomania. In one clinical study of psychopathic inpatients, the authors wrote: "We found that our psychopaths were similar to normals (in the reference group) with regard to their capacity to experience external event~ as real and with regard to their sense of bodily reality. They generally had good memory, concentration attention, and language function. They had a high barrier against external, aversive stimulation….In some ways they dearly resemble normal people and can thus ‘pass’ as reasonably normal or sane. Yet we found them to be extremely primitive in other ways, even more primitive than frankly schizophrenic patients. In some ways their thinking was sane and reasonable, but in others it was psychotically inefficient and/or convoluted."

Another researcher described psychopaths in this way: "These people are impulsive, unable to tolerate frustration and delay, and have problems with trusting. They take a paranoid position or externalize their emotional experience. They have little ability to form a working alliance and a poor capacity for self-observation. Their anger is frightening. Frequently they take flight. Their relations with others are highly problematic. When dose to another person they fear engulfment or fusion or loss of self. At the same time, paradoxically, they desire closeness; frustration of their entitled wishes to be nourished, cared for, and assisted often leads to rage. They are capable of a child’s primitive fury enacted with an adult’s physical capabilities, and action is always in the offing.

Ultimately, "the psychopath must have what he wants, no matter what the cost to those in his way."

November 22, 2008 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts