Mojahedin. WS

Death of Another Member of the MKO’s Leadership Council

Premature deaths are among most critical challenges many of cults encounter. The cult of Mojahedin is not an exception. Only a few days after death report of Faezeh Daneshvar, a member of the MKO’s Leadership Council, another compeer, Zohere Ghobari, was reported to have met her death after a sever apoplexy. She was only 46 and was heading a MKO’s HQ in Europe when she died. No report was released by the organization on her death.

The remarks of Batool Soltani, a separated member of MKO and once a member of Leadership Council, on the death of many female members indicates the internal critical crises in the organization that is critically in need of maintaining its experienced rankings:

The tragic death of some of the members of the MKO’s Leadership Council who were presumed to be hegemonic leads in MKO well indicate victimization of women in the organization. A number of these deaths include suicides of Mehri Moussavi and Minoo Fath-ali, Mahin Amini who died of cancer, Zahra Noori working in intelligence section, Hamideh Kozehgar and Nasrin Parsian both died in car accident, Sedigheh Mojaveri who committed self-immolation in Paris, Simin Feizbakhsh, Naghmeh Hakimi and Ziba Daneshvar and much more.

As a former member of the MKO’s Leadership Council, Mrs. Soltani has been a Batul Soltani witness of different forms of physical and psychological pressures imposed on women inside MKO:

Physical and psychological pressures inflicted over MKO’s rank and file and particularly on the opponent members is so crushing that these members end in a variety of physical and psychological afflictions which, of course because of the cultic atmosphere, remain unattended of the least medical care.

The only working measure to relive women of their critical condition within MKO is an overall interfere by international humanitarian organizations and that is what Mrs. Soltani urges:

All the international organizations and human rights activists must be alerted of the members’ critical physical and psychological condition in Rajavi’s destructive cult and they do have to interfere to rescue them of physical and mental slavery.

There are also reports of another female member, Sima Dadjoo, living in a serious condition after undergoing a number of surgeries.

June 19, 2008 0 comments

Europe

Spy-Agents of An EP Intergroup

As the co-chair of the Friends of a Free Iran Intergroup of the European Parliament, Struan Stevenson along with his colleagues have discovered that the terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO/PMOI/MEK) backs exactly the same objectives of restoration of democracy, rule of law, human rights, women’s rights, and the abolition of the death penalty and nuclear weapons in Iran. How they have come to such a glorious conclusion requires a discussion of its own.

But one thing is for certain and that they endorse the group is fighting a war, or carrying out terrorist attacks depending how they might view it, against Iran’s regime to bring it down. Does it really have anything to do with the goals they seek to accomplish for Iranian people? Furthermore, who has appointed them as the advocates of another nation to befriend the enemies of that nation?

Mr. Stevenson broadly boasts that his meetings with Maryam Rajavi, the self-elected leader of a cult of personality, has been a success but criticizes press articles that accuse him and his colleagues of being "friends of terrorists". What should really people call those who are in accomplice with globally proscribed terrorists? Not only people like Struan Stevenson are interfering in the internal affairs of another country which is in absolute contradiction to principles of democracy, but also exploiting terrorists as tools in a variety of ways for political interests. Here is Mr. Stevenson’s approbation of utilizing MKO as spy agents to collect intelligence against Iran:

I recently received detailed information from the Transatlantic Institute proving that major European companies are working with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) inside Iran. I then asked the PMOI to verify this information from their sources within Iran.

Last week they delivered the answer; a major Italian company is supplying dual-use equipment, while a leading German company is supplying a mass of sophisticated tunnelling machinery. Pictures given to me clearly show the emblems of IRGC, which is on the US list of nuclear proliferators, above the tunnels.

Based on Struan Stevenson’s The west stands in the way of a democratic Iran released by THE HERALED.

June 19, 2008 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi

The leadership Catalyst in MKO

Leadership is the most pivotal position that preserves a cult. A fact that cannot be gainsaid is that cults are authoritarian in structure but the guru needs assistants who may help him in administering the members and making the most of them. So, together with his selected aids, the leader forms a hierarchical structure of leadership that is of great significance in handling the cult. For a better understanding of leadership structure in a cult Singer describes it in this form:

For a simple visual portrayal of a cult, imagine an inverted T. The leader is alone at the top, and the followers are all at the bottom. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority although he may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to his wishes and rules. There is no appeal outside of the leader’s system to greater systems of justice. 1

Singer’s described T can also be drawn as a triangle which forms a dynamical harmony which turns into a total disorder in case of angles disarray. The leadership at the top establishes a hierarchical cohesion with other appointed subordinates who in turn guarantee his authority. An investigation into the cult of Mojahedin’s fundamental leadership change, especially after the forced internal ideological revolution in 1985, signifies that Mojahedin’s long maintained democratic centralism, simply meaning obedience to the central leader, was abolished only to pave the path for Rajavi’s hegemony. Now appointing himself at the top, Rajavi needed to establish a different structure with devoted and trustful assistants to work as binding links between him and other ranks and to transcend his status analogous to that of a god.

The role of Maryam Rajavi, his wife, in this revolution was the same as a catalyst. Appointed second in rank to Rajavi, she was evolved as the archetype for other members to achieve her status of being unquestionably devoted to Rajavi’s ideological leadership. She was the catalyst between the unattainable at the top and lower ranks. Thus, Maryam being closely attached to Rajavi, recognition of him was only possible through attachment to her. She plays the role of a qualified subordinate for the purpose of seeing that other members adhere to her husband’s wishes and rules:

Maryam was held up as an example to the women in the organisation. It was claimed that women could free themselves from their oppression as women, only by following her example. But although the move was a pretext for freeing the energy of the women in the organisation, it had the very real value of being able to exploit the women members’ devotion, and keeping the men in a state of permanent confusion over their role. 2

In the same way that the personality of Maryam is made so tangible and immediate that it can act as a catalyst to help lower ranks transcend, her attachment to Rajavi and his ideological adulation increases her transcendental advancement. Expounding on the recognition of Maryam as a pivotal catalyst, Bijan Nyabati observes:

First, Maryam has to be turn into a value in Mojahedin’s mind whatever the cost might be; otherwise no other valuable alternative can possibly be substituted. 3

That is where Maryam’s unconventional divorce and remarriage is gauged an ideological value and an example of absolute devotion for others to follow. She is much described as a rebel against the tradition and the norms conventionally adhered to in Iranian culture:

Here, Maryam becomes an anti-traditionalist and family iconoclast! She aims at the foundations of the long-lasted social traditions and divorces her man. Again, she is the one who picks her man and weds herself to him. 4

It was a move that totally questioned traditionally and religiously adopted laws and rituals and hardly anybody could comprehend what the couple was weaving as a revolutionary ideology. Of course, in the same way that nobody could understand and grasp the devised revolution, they failed to gain the necessary competence to get close to leader’s ideological sanctum. Unlike them, Maryam due to her rebellious move gained the essential competence to allow her to hold the position of co-leader:

The third phase of Mojahedin’s internal ideological revolution exposed Massoud’s factual status, tangible only for Mojahedin’s heads, for the lower ranks. Hereon, Massoud is beyond the reach of Mojahedin. He is unachievable unless through a catalyst who is Maryam for certain. Massoud is inaccessible unless those in his quest are melted in Maryam. To understand it in the words, all the members one by one have to follow Maryam as an example. 5

But the real purpose of the phase was to strengthen Rajavi’s hegemonic leadership. He intended to make a sanctuary that no rival could penetrate it. As explained by Anne Singleton:

The real purpose of this phase was to guarantee that there would be no leadership challenge. Rajavi had now removed himself from the ordinary level of leader and elevated himself beyond the normal leader’s role to that of link with God. An unassailable position. 6

Accordingly, any leadership challenge could mean criticising God’s vicegerent which would be considered an unforgivable sin. Besides, any challenge could only be aimed at Maryam and, consequently, left his status untouched. He demanded members total devotion and his hallowed position had to be instilled into the members through chosen apostles who necessarily formed the base angle of the leadership triangle:

What Rajavi was asking everyone in the Mojahedin to do was to give him total obedience. He implied to them (through the mouths of Maryam and Fahimeh) that he had links with God and therefore knew things that ordinary members couldn’t be expected to understand. This meant that anyone who rejected him was blaspheming against God. The members were mostly willing to allow themselves to be indoctrinated with this new concept. 7

Maryam’s credibility could best be instituted by Rajavi himself. Through a variety of illustrated allegories, Rajavi in his internal meetings frequently referred to Maryam’s highly elevated status and her angel-like salvation power. In fact, he meant appreciation and recognition of his own transcendent and god-like position. Imparted in the memoirs of an ex-member quoting Rajavi we read:

In one of his meetings Rajavi said: actually you are in a grave. Is there anything worse than it? With a stone covering it. We send Maryam to push it away so you could see a shining light. It is the light coming from Massoud. See how you are distanced? She becomes light while you are sleeping in your graves with a stone over them. Who has made self-sacrifice to save you? Maryam, for sure. Then, if you intend to come out and reach me, you have to take advantage of Maryam’s aid. You cannot possibly reach the source of light but you have to be thankful of being extricated from your graves. You will come to understand little by little. 8

Hardly will you encounter people other than Massoud and Maryam with highly elevated position as leading cadre in the cult of Mojahedin. Other ranks get their legitimacy from the couple. While Rajavi is holding hegemonic control of the cult, his wife, Maryam, is granted the legitimacy of a catalyst to mobilize members’ devotion and heightens their vision of an urgent commitment to justify destructive cult-like activities that not only threatens the world peace but also jeopardizes the insiders’ life as human beings.

References:

1. Thaler Singer, Margaret; Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace, p. 9.

2. Iran-Interlink; Anne Singleton’s Saddam Private Army.

3. Niyabati, Bijan; A Different Look at the Ideological Revolution within MKO, Khavaran Publication.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Iran-Interlink; Anne Singleton’s Saddam Private Army.

7. Ibid.

8. [7]. Soliloquies in solitude, a collection; interview with an ex-member of MKO.

June 19, 2008 0 comments

Raymond Tanter

Open Letter to Raymond Tanter on His Siding with Terrorists

Dear Raymond Tanter,

As people say, the truth will out. That is to say, there will come the day when your real intention behind supporting Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) is brought to light. It appears that the main goal behind your advocating of MKO is to bring democratic change in Iran through recognition of the organization as the sole legitimate, pro-democratic alternative. You know, as we believe, that the very made claims proves no legitimacy since there are costs to be paid. In the same way that costs work to ascertain any legitimacy, they can discriminate between the intentions of good or evil.

The current terrorist operations in Iran, allegedly masterminded and carried out to change situation in Iran, is of the type that can well decide the accuracy of your claims concerning the establishment of democratic change. Reportedly, an Iranian opposition identified as the Kingdom Assembly of Iran claimed responsibility for Shiraz Mosque attack on April 12 killing a number of innocent civilians. The operation was in many ways similar to those perpetrated by terrorist MKO. Surprisingly, the group’s issued statement claiming responsibility for the attack was identical with those issued by MKO. It seems that these operations, occurring concurrently with your attempts to take MKO out of terrorist lists, induces you to feel under obligation to take a clear position for or against such terrorist activities that will help best explain the real intention of supporting MKO.

Such acts of violence, regardless of imposing heavy costs on Iranian people, have the merit of challenging your siding with a party in general. No doubt, MKO and its advocates’ meaningful silence over the Kingdom Assembly’s terrorist assault have to be justifiably explained for the Iran Policy Committee and whoever struggles for a free, democratic Iran. Otherwise, there would be assumptions that your passivity in taking any position means a contradictory-nature approval of terrorism for a democratic cause.

In many occasions through the past three decades, you approved MKO’s terrorist deeds against Iranian people referring to them as ‘legitimate defense’ long after the group had ceased terrorist activities. Now it is different since MKO and you insist to be pro-democratic and logically, you have to take a clear position in the face of terrorism and the Kingdom Assembly’s terrorist operation in particular to prove sincerity of the claims.

There is also a supposition that you back up MKO seeing as its militarism potentialities have reached a stalemate which would be regenerated being removed from the terrorist list. The supposition emerges to be closer to truth when one sees you move to acquit Mojahedin of terrorist atrocities they themselves have accepted the responsibility of perpetration. Furthermore, you prefer to remain silent over a bloody terrorist deed committed by a similar group. It would not be improbable that you take a siding of supporting the Kingdom Assembly of Iran as well.

A point to be noted, MKO has repeatedly announced political illegitimacy of Monarchist groups and slams their political activities as opposition. The group has also discarded these groups having any share in NCRI’s interim government and believes they are close accomplices to the Islamic Republic ruling. Surprisingly, the proven fact is that in the present critical conjuncture there has developed an alliance among MKO, the Monarchist groups and you as their advocates notwithstanding all pretentions of disagreement. Naturally, the best taken strategy at the present would be to keep silent for fulfilling the greater cause of regime change in Iran. It is even probable that you stand up for any military and terrorist stratagem against Iran which might explain in reaching out for any reason why a blacklisted terrorist group is taken for a pro-democratic group.

Dear Raymond Tanter,

For sure, what might happen in future fails to be the outcome of some imposed wills and that is too appealing that no fate is sealed. In the course of events curtains may fall to reveal truths and dreamers will be the real losers. Now there is an opportunity, in spite of being a condemned tragedy that has touched all men’s consciences, that helps to assay sincerity of claims that have become confusing by your supporting MKO. For the cause of your obligation to moral-political considerations be sure of the propriety of an appropriate position taking and give priority to your political prestige and stature over any supposed political interests.

Yours Sincerely,

Mojahedin.ws

May, 2008

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale

Mr. Paulo Casaca

Mojahedin.ws – May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

compliance with ethical obligations

The Cult of Mojahedin: compliance with ethical obligations

Many believe that the US will use Machiavelli MKO until it is usable and until tensions exist between the two countries, otherwise Americans consider the organization as a mob of war criminals and terrorists that have to be tried for different charges such as killing thousands of Iranian civilians. Of course, MKO has nothing to lose as an opposition group that hardly respects political ethics in its struggle. It is much a new challenge for the US for having put any trust in a proscribed terrorist group that is heavily built on the structure of a cult of personality.

MKO’s inherent tendency toward Machiavellianism frustrates having any trust in its promises and Americans are well aware of the fact that even the group’s surrendering of weapons following the invasion of the coalition forces to Iraq was a tactic to prevent its complete demise. Completely disregarding to respect any codes of ethics in its political conducts with the world outside, MKO is among the rare political and the so-called revolutionary organizations that from its very formation preferably adopted a stealthy policy so as not to bring its strategic and ideological rudiments into view.

As a terrorist group, MKO considered violence and aggressive actions as ethical and legitimate for the accomplishment of the cause since the Machiavellian motto of “the end justifies the means” permitted it to take advantage of any unconventional and violent means in the power struggle. As Walter Reich explains; “A terrorist if considers something ethical, according to his understanding of ideology, it turns to be accepted ethics by all members. Thus, according to that same ideology, the killing of anybody as enemy would be justifiable and necessary”. 1

The group’s duality of conducts took a turn for the worse when it transformed into a cult of personality and mingled terrorism with cultism. Explaining on the inherent double set of ethics in the cults Thaler Singer sates:

Cults tend to have a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within the group and to confess all to the leader. At the same time, members are encouraged to deceive and manipulate nonmembers. In contrast, established religions and ethical groups teach members to be honest and truthful to all and to abide by one set of ethics. The overriding philosophy in cults, however, is that the ends justify the means, a view that allows cults to establish their own brand of morality, outside normal social bounds. 2

The most unequivocal reason behind the cults’ duality seems to be the created rift that splits the members from the world outside. In fact, under the influence of the cult’s dogmatism, a member, even if he wills, can hardly swing to any other transcendental belief than what the cult has convinced him to have belief in. Thus, a cult fanatic sees no need to undergo any conversion but to assume a false identity for some time. Eric Hoffer states that:

The fanatic cannot be weaned away from his cause by an appeal to his reason or moral sense. He fears Compromise and cannot be persuaded to qualify the certitude and righteousness of his holy cause. But he lings no difficulty in swinging suddenly and wildly from one holy cause to another. He cannot be convinced but only converted. His passionate attachment is more vital than the I quality of the cause to which he is attached. 3

In the same way, what forces MKO to get closer to the US in spite of its totally ideological contradiction with the imperialism is the need. MKO respects no political principles unless they could be of any instrumental use:

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness and holiness but because of his desperate need of something to hold on to. 4

Regardless of all these views, the main focus is on the supposition that Mojahedin’s dual character and contradictory conducts in its political dealings with the West and the US in particular endorse its untruthful cult feature. Developing cult methodology, MKO gave especial trainings to selected members working in foreign affairs offices of the organization. Massoud Bani-sadr, an ex-member, in his memorial well expounds on the duality of his chosen cult and the instructions he received to perform on the political scene:

Soon I learned we have to act in meetings as Liberal and as Bourgeois as possible. Those were my own characters that for past seven years I was running from them, for changing myself into a Mojahed. In this type of work, I had to have double character, double life and double behaviour, a character, which I hated most. Within the organisation we had to be, straight, simple, honest, humble, and very modest in dressing ourselves. While in work we had to be very careful in what we were going to say. Honesty didn’t have any meaning, nobody was advising us to lie, but we had to be very careful in not saying the whole truth in any subject, which we were talking about it. Only that part of truth had to be said and magnified which were beneficial for us. At this point, we had to give a lot of useless information, as much as making the listener tired of asking any question, especially questions related to those things, which we were not keen in talking about them. Our wording had to be as complex as possible to make it more sophisticated, and difficult to find the existed holes among our arguments. 5

The remarks made by a Western born and raised ex-member can also well explain MKO’s double face when attempting to craft viaduct to pass over the crisis and challenges:

A further look at the controversy of Rajavi’s political history shows an unprincipled avoidance of risk. The Mojahedin is an anti-imperialist group with a history of killing Americans, now happily having petitions signed by American Senators in 1991 while they stayed in Iraq. These Senators quickly withdrew their signatures when they discovered what they had been hoodwinked into supporting. The Mojahedin is a Muslim group with historical ties with the PLO, seeking the support of the Jewish lobby in the United States against the Iranian regime, and at the same time holding meetings with Yassir Arafat. The Mojahedin fought for Saddam in the Gulf War and at the same time took money from Saudi Arabia. Both the Jewish lobby and Saudi Arabia have now stopped any support. The Mojahedin have their main base in Paris, but at the same time threatened the French during the Gabon crisis with suicide bombings. 6

Well acquainted with MKO’s double set of ethics in political conducts, the US is reluctant to risk singling out MKO as a reliable alternative. MKO’s present claim of being the sole democratic alternative is nothing beyond pointless advertisements following the cultivated hope in it by some Western advocates and which is listened to only by a trivial number of misled sympathizers.

References:

Reich Walter; Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind (Woodrow Wilson Center Press).

2. Thaler Singer, Margaret; Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace, p. 9.

3. Eric Hoffer; The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, New York: First Perennial Classics 2002, p. 62.

4. Ibid. 61.

5. Massoud Bani-sadr’s memories of an Iranian rebel.

6. Iran-Interlink; Anne Singleton’s Saddam Private Army.

Mojahedin.ws, Research Bureau,

May 27, 2008 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi The cult of Rajavi

Rajavi, the absolute cult authority

No cult begins unless lead by a charismatic religious or political entrepreneur and hardly a cult can survive following the death of its charismatic founder unless succeeded by another charismatic successor. A charismatic leader does not appear in a vacuum and is in part the product of a larger social or political trend. To build a hierarchical authority with him atop, a charismatic leader claims divinity or special knowledge and demands unquestioning obedience and devotion from the followers. Doubting or questioning the leader’s authority is not at all tolerated and the leader may be aided by one or more core of leaders.

The guru in a cult plays the key role to lead and influence the followers. In fact, the process of brainwashing in a cult can be carried out within a structure of an absolute charismatic authority. Besides, in facing the outsiders, the built courage within the insiders originates out of the charismatic impact of the guru before whom they cringe and bow. Thus, first the recruits have to be convinced to put all trust in the leader before anything else and as Singer analyses:

Legend has it that all cult leaders are charismatic. In reality, charisma is less important than skills of persuasion and the ability to manipulate others. In order to start a group, a leader has to have ways of convincing others to follow him or her, and such leaders tend not to relinquish their control. Cult leadership can be a heady role when the leader comes to see the amount of control he or she holds and how easily he or she can influence followers. 1

Unquestionably, the spirit of self-sacrifice within a cult is fostered by devotion and absolute faith in a leader. As a result, the first step following the entry of a new recruit is to build in him/her a sense of devotion to a specific and exceptional sanctity or exemplary character by whose authority instructions or orders are revealed or ordained:

Day one is usually devoted to demonstrating the leader’s absolute authority. The leader, often called a facilitator or trainer, immediately takes control of the setting with a demeanor that suggests he is a powerful, in-charge person and no one is to challenge what he says.”This program works,”the trainer proclaims.”It’s all up to you to obey and get the maximum benefits.”He remains totally in charge, acts knowledgeable, and is practiced in verbal skills, so that he never loses an encounter. Anyone who challenges the trainer will be humiliated and verbally mashed. 2

The idea is strongly infused into the members and, going through the totalitarian authority of Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization or the cult of Mojahedin’s leadership, one can easily notice the cult-like leadership in its most excessive practice in the group. The complexity of leadership relations within MKO requires a study of its own which comes in the category of a variety of phases. There are also differences in the hegemonic styles in each phase as the members’ impression of the leader changed continually as each phase came to engage the organization in a different enterprise according to circumstances. In any case, it was the hegemonic authority of the leadership that compelled the members to take on ventures that were doomed to failure from the very beginning and no logic advocate them. Explaining the authoritative relationship between the leader and the followers in a cult Hoffer states:

It is somewhat terrifying to realize that the totalitarian leaders of our day, in recognizing this source of desperate courage, made use of it not only to steel the spirit of their followers but also to break the spirit of their opponents. In his purges of the old Bolshevik leaders, Stalin succeeded in turning proud and brave men into cringing cowards by depriving them of any possibility of identification with the party they had served all their lives and with the Russian masses. 3

Notwithstanding the deception and cult manipulation within MKO, Rajavi’s authoritative leadership has played a totally influential role in the nature of converting a political group into a destructive cult of personality. Rajavi’s hegemonic leadership can be discussed in two aspects; a) employing leadership absolutism to subjugate high-ranking members and b) to deploy the relationship between the charismatic authority and followers to establish an organizational leadership hegemony entailing absolute devotion.

References:

1- Thaler Singer, Margaret; Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace, introduction..

2- Ibid, 193.

3. Eric Hoffer; The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, New York: First Perennial Classics 2002, p. 62.

Research Bureau – Mojahedin.ws – May 24, 2008

May 24, 2008 0 comments

The Ideology of the MEK

An Ultra-Left Trend

The Cult of Mojahedin; An Ultra-Left Trend

The Americans and some capitalist disposed European countries have always been mistrustful of the leftist parties. That is mainly because the leftists believe the ideology and policies of liberalism and capitalism are doomed to failure. At least through the cold war phase, Americans invest a big bulk of energy and resource potentialities in beating or deflecting the left movements rising in other countries. A Marxism-Capitalism conflict, among other political and economical disputes, is a battle of two ideologies. During the cold war era, the two blocks fought in a variety of political, cultural, social and even arts fronts. We have nothing to do with the winner or loser but it is evident that it has given rise to complex and widespread tensions and challenges in the contemporary modern world.

The battle ceased to halt even after the collapse of the main communist camp and Americans have been insisting on dissolving the remaining undeveloped or progressing left oriented countries. Furthermore, it is unlikely they ever consent to utilize leftist movements or oppositions to make changes in a region. In fact, Americans can never be convinced that it can rely on the counter-capitalist currents that focus the sharp point of their struggle, as part of their Marxist ideology and teachings, mainly on the annihilation or diminishing the influence of imperialism. According to Marxist social thought, particularly in its analysis of feudalism, capitalism, and imperialism, the capitalist camp with America atop is the historical enemy that has to be confronted. That is raison d’être behind the US’s peaceful coexisting with the former Soviet Union representing the left camp regardless of existing controversies.

There are instances of some European left movements that mid-way shifted from the Marxist to totalitarian and fascist slant. For instance, following Great Depression, which affected France in 1931 and caused much anxiety and disturbance, new solutions were being looked for. As a result, Jacques Doriot, a member of the Presidium of the Executive Committee of the French Communist Party from 1922 on, and from 1923 on Secretary of the French Federation of Young Communists, came to advocate an alliance between the Communists and Social Democrats and later moved sharply to the right and formed the Parti Populaire Français.

Today, from a different angle, MKO, developing a leftist, anti-democratic ideology and pursuing a lead of totalitarianism, is seemingly moving quantitatively from the left to the right. Is it possible that the US is convinced MKO has retreated from its originally left, anti-imperialist ideology to receive American support? It is against all expectations.

At the first look it might seem hard to believe that following the collapse of the communism camp, any group might assent to the left ideology. But MKO does.

Americans have officially announced their academic recognition of the group’s eclectic ideology which is an amalgamation of Islam and Marxism with the emphasis on the latter’s social thought as the ideological infrastructure. They have also come to recognize that MKO will do anything to overthrow the Iranian regime. The finding is that MKO’s apparent shift from the left to the right is more a shift of tactic to accomplish power struggle ambitions rather than actually forswear anti-imperialist mentality. Despite harshly denying its references to Marxism at the present, MKO is strongly bound to the belief in the obliteration of capitalism. That is how Gessler depicts MKO’s ideological birth:

The Sixties, the time of the PMOI’s birth, are defined in black and white. Perhaps the colours red and white would be more accurate since the East-West conflict deeply divided the mid-20th Century world. On one side, the Soviet bloc under Moscow’s command gathered in the Warsaw Pact. It was held together by a rigid Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. On the other, stood the western countries inside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) led by the United States. They were bound together by their belief in the triumph of capitalism…. Moscow and Washington, on the other hand, set off local points of conflict which opened the way for their bids to control strategic regions. Whether it was in Asia, Latin America, or Africa, these centripetal forces led back to the Kremlin or the White House. It was basically in the Middle East that the East-West rivalry found its most serious field of action: the key to access to extraordinary oil reserves. It is in this basic paradigm that it is best to understand the birth of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran. Like many similar organisations, the PMOI was not born ex nihilo. It comes right out of our contemporary history. This was a period of chances and changes which shed light on the triple political nature of the PMOI: political, religious and social. Like his "colleagues" elsewhere, Massoud Rajavi invented nothing new. 1

The analysis well indicates that the birth of MKO was an out-of-question issue devoid of the two blocs’ challenges. In the same way, the made claims to be backing away from the left ideology is a tactic of fooling Americans. It is taking a chance by wearing pro-democratic mask in European countries more to win Americans’ attention. As explained in Gessler’s book:

The People’s Mojahedin of Iran have hardly any choice but to begin moving their activities to Europe. To do this, they can count on active support from a certain "Progressive International" which has hoped for years to weaken the West. This ultra-Left has no roots in the traditional political currents of thought, even using the idea of "democracy" as bait to lead the unsuspecting into the maze of a kind of instinctive socialism. 2

Referring to Gerard Chaliand as specialist in geopolitics and strategy and the author of the best analytical works available today on the subject of terrorism, Gessler classifies MKO as a terrorist movement that is a devoted anti-imperialist or revolutionary group without a mass base:

In his classification of terrorist movements, he [Gerard Chaliand] devotes an entire chapter to "anti-imperialist or revolutionary groups without a mass base, usually committed to class struggle and armed struggle – almost exclusively in the form of urban guerrilla warfare – in non-democratic countries. This type of movement took root first in Latin America, like the Marighella group in Brazil, Uruguay’s Tupamaros, and the Argentinean Monteneros. Within this category, we also find, with small variations, the small Turkish extreme left groups, [and] the Fedayeen and the People’s Mojahedin of Iran. The efforts of these groups, given the weakness of their social support, usually lead to failure, the hardening of the State and the rise to power of the most repressive elements". 3

Thus, the ideological infrastructure of MKO being Marxism, it cannot possibly adapt itself to the right current but showing a lay-democrat. Of course, the US can never trust the quasi-democrats as a liable alternative. And besides, MKO because of its totalitarian mannerism can hardly walk in the same line with pro-democratic movements and will turn to confront ultra-right if assuming power. As Ervand Abrahamian quotes Mojahedin’s members revealing the gist of their ideology exactly following the Iranian Islamic revolution, there remains no doubt MKO’s ideological background:

A Mojahedin handbook published on the eve of the Islamic Revolution declared: ‘We say "no" to Marxist philosophy, especially to atheism. But we say "yes" to Marxist social thought, particularly to its analysis of feudalism, capitalism, and imperialism’. The same theme was further elaborated in a Mojahedin pamphlet published immediately after the revolution. Beginning with the premise that Marxism is a ‘complex ideology’ containing a ‘scientific’ as well as a ‘philosophical’ component, the pamphlet stressed that the Mojahedin organization from its very inception had accepted much of its science -of course, in an ‘undogmatic manner’- but had rejected most of its philosophy, its denial of the soul and the afterlife, and its dismissal of all religions as the opiate of the masses. 4

References:

1. Gessler, Antoine; the autopsy of an ideological drift, pp. 23-24.

2. Ibid, 22.

3. Ibid, 29.

4. Ervand Abrahamian; The Iranian Mojahedin, Yale University Press New Haven and London, p. 93.

Research Bureau – Mojahedin.ws – May 20, 2008

May 20, 2008 0 comments

Open Letter to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown

Dear Prime Minister,

The ruling of the UK court of appeal on May 7 indicates that the government has failed to win an appeal against a previous court ruling to keep the terrorist MKO on its proscribed list. However, the ruling has led to an increased tension that may face your country with new challenges. Although your government has insisted that it will ensure that public safety is not endangered by de-proscription of the terrorist MKO, and as the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith reiterated "We will ensure that the safety of the public is not in any way jeopardised by this and tighten legislation if necessary”, it might imply that the government and the judiciary system walk on opposite lines.

We come to understand that you are well aware of the four past decades’ notorious activities of MKO and its future terrorist potentialities when we hear the Home Secretary saying the group has "a long history of terrorism and this is why it was proscribed both in the UK and by other countries around the world”. For sure, such a perception is based on confidential intelligences that for security reasons the public opinion has to be uninformed but are raison d’être for keeping MKO on the list.

In contrast, the court relies only on some partial evidences of the past four years for its judgment. MKO cessation of militarism and terrorism claimed by the group and to which the court refers as an evidence has never been the result of a deliberate choice but forced on it following the coalition forces attack to Iraq as part of fulfilling a mission of uprooting terrorism. There are clear evidences to show that MKO military activities continued right up to the allied invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Even right now they are openly promoting terrorism and threatening their critics in the EU and US.

How is that a globally blacklisted terrorist group decides overnight to abandon all military action and instead to use political will as a means of bringing about freedom and democracy to Iranian people while majority of its fighters are still active in a military camp, many of them held against their will. Furthermore, have you ever received any officially issued statement concerning MKO’s forswearing terrorism?

It is an undeniable fact that MKO remains a terrorist group and will retain its terrorist potentialities even if removed from all countries’ lists. It might only question credibility of claims to combat terrorist threats. MKO’s resort to militarism is not the outcome of a once deliberate decision to abandon it deliberately but innate in its early ideology and methodology of struggle. As once openly asserted by Mehdi Abrishamchi, Maryam Rajavi’s first husband, military infrastructure of the organization stems from its ideology; “We are not the ones to decide the necessity of an organized or aggressive struggle; we are not the ones to decide where to an organized or unorganized struggle leads us. It is not our mentality to decide the necessity of an armed struggle”.

At the time when the terrorist cult of Mojahedin has to be prosecuted for countless instances of terrorist operations against Iranian and Iraqi people, we are shocked to see it is nearly acquitted of its crimes and orders to unleash it of its controlling tag, and somehow, apologized for the injustice done against it by its proscription! It won’t be out of the blue to picture MKO and Maryam Rajavi in particular insisting on an official apology from the UK government, Ministry of Justice and even Her Majesty’s Court.

There are some speculations for the reasons behind the court’s ruling; political reasons, ties of some kind and lack of knowledge about the group’s terrorist nature. No doubt, the escalated tension between Iran and the West plays a role to keep MKO on the scene for instrumental use against Iran. That is the case with a number of the US politicians causing challenges among the country’s administration. It is also the same with some British MPs. It has to be studied to what extent such condemned relations can influence and benefit a country’s national interests and solve internal as well as global problems if the politicians feel a responsibility to have a share.

The stigma of conducting ties with proscribed terrorists is too bad for the advocates of a nation. For any political or maybe personal reasons, ties with the individuals and entities that threaten people’s security is a blameworthy act.

It has to be also pointed out that MKO manipulate sophisticated techniques to establish close friendly ties with politicians who are in dark about the true nature of the organization and fail to have access to accurate evidences on the group’s past history. It is mostly because MKO’s history is a mess of complexity and hardly any outsider can become acquainted with the complexities of its history. Presented evidences on the group’s history in the three past court rulings are good examples to notice.

MKO only believe in a black and white world and whoever walks in the former side is the foe and has to be confronted. If the supposed foe is too powerful to confront, the language of profanity and threat will substitute. MKO’s blasphemous and threatening tone in reaction to the EU Council of Ministers’ decision and other international and humanitarian organizations that disclosed truths on violent nature of the group portend heavy costs that the European states have to sustain. Your country, as a member of European Union, can well prevent unexpected violent moves by MKO agents if well ordered countermeasures are taken and the members are put under close surveillance. Any remiss in close monitoring and investigating of MKO’s activities results in irreparable damages that make statesmen confront great challenges regardless of the heavy price that will be imposed on Western citizens.

Long known as a globally blacklisted terrorist group, MKO is transformed into a destructive cult and a cult of personality as proscribed by the US state Department report in May 2007. In many cases, MKO is referred to as second to al-Qaeda for its globally threatening features and, in spite of being expelled from Iraq, majority of Western countries’ security apparatus are cautious about penetration of its members since they know they would have a hard task to deal with the organization. And your country is not an exception.

The killing of a Brazilian man by armed plainclothes Metropolitan police who shot him as a preventive measure to guarantee the national security is a plain evidence that you are concerned about further possible violent, terrorist operations. It has to be taken into consideration that MKO is a bigger threat since it has merged terrorism with cultism, the latter being the second modern world’s nightmare along the former. Regardless of any court’s ruling, security systems have to be necessarily more watchful of the organization since it will be too late to deal with it after it has struck. A look at Iranian’s contemporary history depicting countless instances of MKO atrocities will be sufficient to remove any subsisting doubts.

Mojahedin.ws – May 17, 2008

May 17, 2008 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

The victims of terrorism never cheer for terrorists’ victory

Is it ever important for Over 3000 MKO members confined in Camp Ashraf whether the organization’s terrorist tag is removed? As reported by MKO’s official website, the Iraqi News Agency in an article entitled ‘Ashraf people win again’ stated “the skies of London, Paris and Ashraf embraced the new victorious and jubilant cheers for removing the terrorist tag from the PMOI. The new victory was not only the victory of Ashraf residents and the Resistance inside and outside Iran, but it was also the victory for all supporters of this steely resistance across the world”.

No doubt, Camp Ashraf is more than a strategic base for the cult of Mojahedin, Ashraf Base namely, the ideological fortress of the cult that must be maintained at all costs. There is no need to say that living conditions in this camp are below any reasonable standard and any humanitarian move is appreciated for a smooth outlet out of a hell of anguish and agony to a world wherein they could live as human beings.

The members’ avalanche-like drift to TIPF indicates their desperate attempt to be relieved of the painful misery there. To stop them, the organization initiated a new move to resurrect its cult-like control over the dissatisfied members and put them under enormous physical and psychological pressure and brainwashing methods. A few have also committed suicide because they could not bear the imposed pressure and failed to join others in TIPF.

How do Mojahedin and their advocates define terrorism? Is the world fully informed of the condition of Ashraf’s residents? In fact, the reported celebrations in Camp Ashraf in nature mean opposition demonstration. A question torments the camp residents that if the organization has really foresworn militarism making it liable to be removed from the terrorist list, then, for what reason they are still wearing the uniforms of the so-called Liberation Army and are held as captives? Many wonder that how can the captives in Ashraf, many of them women, ever chant jubilant cheers for removing the terrorist tag from the group while they are the ostensible victims of terrorism themselves! Mojahedin.ws, May 14, 2008

http://www.mojahedin.ws/news/text_news_en.php?id=1671

May 15, 2008 0 comments

Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

The Cult of Mojahedin; devoid of minimum obligation to human rights

Since the presidency of Jimmy Carter up to now, one of the main factors the US relies on for any supposed alternative to assume another country’s political control is the least ostensible evidences of adhering to universal declaration of human rights. In fact, it has turned into a seemingly legal bound that the US has adopted when planning to interfere in internal affairs of a country or regimes’ change. For instance, the US invasion to Iraq was under the banner of combating terrorism and preventing violation of human rights by the ousted despotic there. As a result, a certain alternative has to be necessarily respecting the least accepted international conventions on human rights and be free of any stigma of human rights abuse.

Human Rights Abuse inside MKO Considering itself an alternative, MKO, in spite of chanting slogans, hardly believes in and adheres to the principles of human rights. Reportedly, the organization is notoriously known to be abusing its insiders through a various instances of human rights violations. Reported by Human Rights Watch, “abuses carried out by MKO leaders against dissident members ranged from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death”. 1

The abuse techniques varied according to the group’s shift of policies. For instance, following the internal ideological revolution, divorce of married couples and gender revolutions became complementary. It is worth noting that before divorce revolution, members were said to marry each other to compensate for emotional problems of those members losing their partner in the military assault of the so-called Eternal Light. Moreover, in divorce revolution, couples were forced to give pledge never remarry. Such actions by MKO turned it into an extremist religious cult exceeding human rights. Solidarity confinement within Ahraf Camp

The US is well aware of the violation of human rights within Mojahedin as well as its terrorist inclinations and the fact that leftist groups cannot abide by the content of international conventions adopted to stop violations against human. The reason is that the universal human rights declaration is mainly based on liberalist and humanist thoughts and considers human rights regardless of the type of ideology, religion, nationality, ethnic characteristics, class, etc. Mojahedin can hardly adapt themselves to the thought since it is under heavy Marxist dogmatism explicitly apparent in its adopted eclectic ideology.

Beside evident instances of human rights violations, Mojahedin have abused strong humanistic sentiments of the Europeans under the cover of charity associations with the purported aim of supporting Iranian children and asylum seekers. By gaining the sympathy of ignorant people and extracting money from them, Mojahedin managed to collected considerable amount of money to finance its terrorist operations. Reported by the LA Times quoting the FBI:

MKO members in the name of a Charity Committee for the Defence of Human Rights collected money from passengers, mostly Asians, under the false pretences of helping refugees. They showed the photos of children suffering from hunger and apparently victims of mistreatment and torture in Iran. In this way, they gained the sympathy of passengers by telling them that they want the money to help the refugees.” 2

The main focus of MKO former members is on the organization’s false claims as to its adherence to human rights conventions and at the same time exploiting members. Ann Singleton, an MKO ex-member writes:

One of the main criticisms of former members of the Mojahedin, concerns the internal structure of the organisation. It is described as operating an iron discipline over its members, to the extent of practicing serious violations of human rights in an attempt to make members conform. 3

In some cases, responsible organizations have been denied to have access to accurate information of human abuses within MKO since it could face the organization with global challenges. Referring to Amnesty International Annual Report, Singleton writes:

Amnesty International in its 2002 Annual Report, being unable to investigate in the Mojahedin’s headquarters and camps in Iraq, the hundreds of accusations of human rights abuses which had reached its office, resigned itself to stating:”There were unconfirmed reports that the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, an armed political group, ill-treated its own members at a base in Iraq. The reports were denied by the organization but it failed to provide substantive information to allay AI’s concerns. 4

MKO former members refer to the organizational and ideological structure of Mojahedin as a factor contributing to anti-humanistic actions of the organization. Their testimonies are well appraised evidences of disrespecting the least human rights principles within the group:

The greatest concerns then as regards the Mojahedin are firstly, that membership of any cult is damaging to the mental, physical and emotional health of all its members. In addition, membership of this particular cult deprives the person of every basic human right as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 5

Singleton also expounds on the paradoxical nature of organization mottos on the one hand its activities resulting in the violation of absolute rights of the members on the other hand as the reason why many members separated from MKO:

These are surely disturbing reports concerning an organisation which presents itself as the foremost critic of Iran’s human rights record, and an organisation which purports to promote women’s rights and democracy. It has become clear that most of those who have left did so because they were loyal to their understanding of what the Mojahedin organization originally represented. The fact is that Rajavi moved the organisation away from its original form and made it into something unrecognisable for these people. It is they who have remained loyal to the Mojahedin, not Rajavi. 6

Human rights watch report, the US State Department announcement, former MKO member’s testimonies and many other unquestionable evidences indicate that Mojahedin do not recognize the content of universal human rights declaration neither ideologically nor practically. If such an organization that violates the basic human rights of its members under the banner of ideological revolution and cultist relations manages to assume power, not only the present challenges of the US and other European countries fail to be met but it may result in an overall political and social blockade.

References

1. No Exit: Human Rights Abuses in the MKO Camps, Human Rights Watch Report, May 2005

2. Nimrouz, No. 628, March 10, 2000, page 1 and 49.

3. Iran-Interlink; Anne Singleton’s Saddam Private Army.

4. ibid.

5. ibid.

6. ibid.

Mojahedin.ws, Research Bureau, May 14, 2008

http://www.mojahedin.ws/article/show_en.php?id=2708

May 15, 2008 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts