Articles

Ideological Totalitarianism

The phenomenon of totalitarianism, once particular to theoretical issues of political science, can be traced in ontological viewpoints and methodologies as well as ideological and political discussions aiming to identify and discover the absolute truth. Totalitarianism in its external aspects leads to dictatorship and totalitarian systems and governments; however, it is fundamentally based on the illusion of finding the single absolute truth. Likewise, the former classification of the world into socialism and capitalism was more a matter of ideology and differences between doctrines of liberalism and socialism rather than a kind of political and economic classification. Totalitarianism has some manifestations in much smaller echelons like that of totalitarian political trends and cults. According to Lifton, totalitarianism is closely related to the issue of dispensing of existence. It means that as cult members are captured in the realm of the totalitarian leadership of cult leaders in the internal cultic relations, the same relationship exists between cults and the world outside.
Although totalitarianism is an inherent feature of almost all cults and political systems and tends to invites the outside world to total submission and surrender regardless of the differences in practical mechanisms in various cults. As most cults exploit thought reform and psychological techniques for the cause of persuasion, in the same way totalitarian systems grab at political, economic, and military power and pressure. Here, the aim is to trace the roots of totalitarianism in cults and review its mechanisms inside and outside cultic relations. In this regard, some factors that pose a challenge for totalitarianism are to be understood theoretically. Lifton refers to dispensing of existence as one of the eight psychological themes that are central to totalistic environments and writes:
Dispensing of existence; The cult’s totalistic environment clearly emphasizes that the members are part of an elitist movement and are the select of the world. Nonmembers are unworthy, lesser beings. Most cults teach their members that "we are the best and only one," saying, in one way or another, "We are the governors of enlightenment and all outsiders are lower beings." 1
In fact, this statement depicts a clear picture of theoretical foundation of totalitarianism in micro as well as macro levels. A totalitarian individual or trend, before abusing power or other levers for stabilizing its standing, prepares some theoretical and fundamental grounds to justify its relationship with the world outside. If we agree to Dr. Singer’s idea about cult leaders’ tending to exercise their will and power over the world, the issue of totalitarianism may be considered as an inevitable consequence of this inclination. As she puts into words:
Cults tend to be totalistic, or all-encompassing, in controlling their members’ behavior and also ideologically totalistic, exhibiting zealotry and extremism in their worldview. 2
This statement may better clarify what we mean by making a relationship between the concepts of totalitarianism, absolutism, ideology and worldview. It is evident that in order to depict a clear picture of the phenomenon of totalitarianism, it is necessary to take other concepts like ideological dogmatism, chauvinism, fascism, and even Darwin theories into consideration. Considered a political cult of personality, Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO, MEK, PMOI) is infected by totalitarian tendencies of its leader, Rajavi, who has long expanded his grip over the organization and its members who have been denied of their rights and freedom.

References:
1. Margaret Thaler Singer, Cults in our midst, Jossy-Bass A Wiley Imprint, 2003, p.74.
2. ibid, p.10.

February 8, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Hypocrisy of a Marxist-biased leader

The errors of Rajavi concerning the ideological schism of 1954 and its consequences are countless. His twelve-point statement issued while in the prison indicates Rajavi’s position taking toward leftist faction and Marxists as well as his offensive attitude towards religiously inclined forces that can be considered as one of his main errors. In addition, his keeping silent on the events occurred in MKO and the issue of the Marxist wing manifesto for almost one and a half year led to the intensification of the challenges between Rajavi and non-Marxist forces.
The significance of this issue arises from the fact that hiding the internal schism of MKO and conversion of a great deal of members to Marxism made religious forces think that Mojahedin leadership considered them nothing but instruments for achieving his objectives. There are evidences that Rajavi made his utmost attempt to conceal the schism of the organization and hide it though religious forces had the right to know to where their political and social activities were drifting them. Another mistake made by Rajavi in this particular phase was coining the term leftist opportunist to refer to the converted Mojahedin. In fact he did so to have least contact and tension with Marxist trends and stabilize his status as their strategic ally. In this regard, Shahsavandi says:
Leftist opportunist trend is the label Mr. Masoud Rajavi gave to the intra organizational Marxist trend and called it as such. 1
Hence, in his twelve-point declaration he asserted that he distinguished between the Mojahedin Marxists and other Marxist groups and considered them the strategic ally of Mojahedin as did previously. On the other hand, this moderately taken position was restricted only those in prison and there was no trace of the reaction against Marxist Mojahedin active in the world outside. Even when the liberation movement published Rajavi’s statement outside, Mojahedin declared that it was not acceptable for them and that it had to be revised. They kept this position up to late 1979 when Rajavi took a position against the separated wing.
The coming event during the Iranian revolution clarified the dual and divisive stance of Rajavi. The arrest of Taqi Shahram, leader of the Marxist wing, after the victory of the Iranian revolution, and the position of MKO in this regard stating that revolutionary courts lacked the legitimacy to put him into trial and it was only Mojahedin that were qualified of trying him implied the fact that Mojahedin were under the effect of a luring attraction toward Marxist division, a fear that had already filled the early ranking cadres like Majid Sharif Vaqefi and Samadieh. There are evidences that Marxist Mojahedin collaborated with SAVAK; Rajavi was well informed of it but preferred to say nothing.
However, Rajavi’s unquestionable slant on Marxism and to follow the steps of the leftist revolutionary guerrillas emerged after the victory of the Iranian revolution. Rajavi even asked the family of Sharif Vaqefi to forgive Taqi Shahram who assassinated their son in order to save him from execution which is well reflected in the existing documents and statements of the organization. It was in a condition when Shahram was accused of doing intra-organizational clearance and preparing the background for the arrest of religious forces in late 1977 and even was tangled with the leader of Marxist wing and was subject to organizational purges.
It is not far from logic and reason if it is said that SAVAK had a role in making some high rankings of MKO declare their hidden ideology openly and remove the Qur’anic verse from their emblem. 2
In fact, the antagonist position of Rajavi toward non-Marxist forces led to his opposition to all those supporting the clerical leadership. Although his activities can be considered an organizational error resulting in the exile of MKO from Iran, the consequent events showed that he did so to stabilize his egocentric leadership over MKO and cared not the least about keeping the integration of MKO and hence he preferred Marxists to religious forces. He was unaware that his opposition to religious forces that constituted the most trustworthy members of MKO would result in his parting with Marxist trends too. On the one hand, he lost his religious followers as well as his position among leftist groups due to his ambitious and egocentric activities.

References
1. Saeed Shahsavandi interview with the voice of Iran, part 38.
2. Rohani, Hamid, The movement of Imam Khomeini, p.663.

February 7, 2009 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Mujahedin-e-Khalq as a religious political cult

The modern definition of a mind control cult is any group which employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques. In other words how cults trick people into joining and coerce them into staying. This is the definition that most people would agree with. Except the cults themselves of course!

According to howcultswork, cults use coercive manipulation techniques to keep their members in. All former members of MKO affirm the indoctrination practices in the cult of Rajavi.

Ibrahim Khodabande, a former member of the cult, writes:’’ the cult like activities and creation of gods, and the creation of a relationship of total submission and the use of mind control tactics which eventually results in insane and unbelievable actions like self immolations”

Cults include various types such as religious, commercial, political ….

Religious
Cults that use a belief system as their base are very common. Their belief system could be standard Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or any other of the world religions, or they may have invented their own belief system. What makes them a cult is the fact that they use mind control, not what they believe.

Commercial
Cults that use commercial gain as their base are called "cults of greed". They will promise you that if you join them and follow their special programme for success then you will become very rich. Often they will hold up their leader as an example and explain that if you do what he or she says then you will be successful too. Commercial cults use mind control to get you working for them for free, and to make you pay for an endless stream of motivational tapes, videos, books and seminars all of which are supposedly designed to help you succeed, but in reality are designed to enhance the cult’s mind control environment and keep you believing in their almost impossible dream of success. Of course they never mention that the primary way the leaders make money are by selling these motivation materials to their group! For more information see below under the section, "Pressure Selling".

Self Help & Counseling
Cults that use "self help" or counseling or self improvement as their base often target business people and corporations. By doing their courses and seminars they claim you and your staff will become more successful. Business people locked away in hotel rooms are subjected to quasi-religious indoctrination as they play strange games, join in group activities, and share their innermost thoughts with the group. Once you have completed one course you are told you need to do the more advanced course, which naturally costs more than the last. These cults will sometimes request that you do volunteer work and that you help recruit your friends, family and work mates. These groups specialize in creating powerful emotional experiences which are then used to validate your involvement in the cult. The religious overtones are couched in terms which don’t sound religious. They usually come to the surface as you near the end of a seminar. Many people have been bankrupted by involvement with these cults.

Political
Cults that use political ideals as their base are well known throughout history. Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Communist USSR were classic examples of mind control on a very large scale. On smaller scales white and black supremacists, terrorists, and rebel groups commonly use forms of mind control to recruit and dominate their members.

Mujahedin-e-Khalq is considered as a religious political cult for they advocate their own version of Shiite Islam mixed with Marxism ideology.
Therefore they have invented their own belief system.

Besides, they have their deceptive ways to earn money including charity foundations of which some have been outlawed in Europe, so they can be called commercial too since all the members are exploited to work for free. The terrorist cult of MKO has long been dominating its members (victims) with an illusion of a political achievement in Iran. And this is only a mirage that they have convinced the members to see for years.

Reference: HowCultsWork

By Mazdak Parsi

The MKO movement is in decline

Response to Sergio D’Elia, secretary of Hands Off Cain”, the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (1)

Caro D’Elia,
Our group had no intention of continuing to write about Mujahedin-e Khalq (MKO), but encouraged by your recent e-mail we feel obliged to make a few points. In principle, we are not against the removal of MKO from the list of terrorists. Indeed, the movement is already in decline .Since the late nineties the internal dissent in Camp Ashraf is increasing and with the fall of the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein, the MKO will be deprived of their basic logistics. However, there are things that continue to preoccupancy.

First, we believe that the leadership of MKO should answer the killing of civilian Kurds. I’m sorry, in fact, contradicting, but under Saddam the MKO were involved directly in the massacre of the Kurdish population. We have received confirmation and documentation of what we are saying by the Kurdish Democratic Party and by independent Tolerancy International, based in Erbil (Iraqi Kurdistan) and headed by a former minister of the autonomous Kurdish government, Hussein Sinjari.

Secondly, we are sure that the meetings in Europe with several supporters and / or members of MKO led you to find them available and courteous. The image that, in fact, the movement has manufactured in the West is a democratic organization. But the situation is different at Camp Ashraf. Some members of MKO have in fact discovered at their expense, the detention camps in which under the leadership of the movement they were subjected to torture, often led to death. Members of MKO are victims of their own cynical leadership. Shown below the records of known and authoritative organization Human Rights Watch on this topic.

The third point is that, as you say it, the movement does not have a libertarian government structure and in light of the facts that we have listed above and that we are committed to detail, are needed to reconstruct the truth about the movement. Surprisingly when Italian parliamentary delegations – and Sen. Perduca – go on a visit to Camp Ashraf and then write in the Italian media praises to movement who do not know at all.
Another point which we would highlight was well summarized by a message left to us by a supporter of MKO in Italy:”It is not far the day when Iran and the Iranians celebrate their freedom and democracy under the flag of the Mojahedin and their president Mrs. Maryam Rajavi.”This concerns us. We want a free Iran, celebrating their freedom under the flag of their country, not a movement, and having as president a leader elected by democratic elections.

For ease of reading we will share this letter / document into four parts. In this letter, write the abuses at Camp Ashraf (which will be divided into two parts), providing evidence. In the coming days, we will post additional material on the killing of Kurds and the armed forces and American civilian, take our information directly from the Department of State. The material here is, we were given by Human Rights Watch and the complete document in English of 28 pages is also available on-line.

Brief Background of MKO
The MKO was founded in 1965 by three student from the University of Tehran, Mohammad Hanifnezhad, Saeed Mohsen and Asghar Badizadegan. The three believed that a peaceful resistance against the Pahlavi government does not lead to any result, and that only armed struggle could fall to the monarchy. Their ideology, however, was based on an interpretation of Islam compatible with the Marxism. during 70s, thirteen members of MKO and Giodania go into Lebanon to be trained . The friendship with Yasser Arafat, remains over the years.
With the revolution of 1979, Massoud Rajavi emerged as a leader of the movement. Immediately after the revolution, MKO supported the revolution but after a while Khomeini excluded them from the division of power. It, therefore, led to an intense rivalry between the leadership of MKO and the regime of Iran. In 1981, members of MKO launched a campaign of armed attacks against the Iranian government. The same year, Massoud Rajavi moved to Paris. In 1986, France asked Rajavi to leave the country and find a new ally: the dictator Saddam Hussein. (In movies we are in possession of Rajavi called Saddam”the big boss”).

The “ideological revolution” of the MKO
In 1985, Massoud Rajavi and Maryam Azdanlu got married. Massoud and Maryam Rajavi became co-leader of the movement. They announced the marriage is an”ideological revolution”resulted from tremendous sacrifices made by both spouses. Maryam was first married to the deputy of Massoud, Mehdi Abrishamchi. The”ideological revolution”of Rajavi was imposed on the movement and required”sacrifice”. First, the leadership has asked its members to divorce by their husbands and wives, ordering”mass divorce.”

In the book “Memoirs of an Iranian Rebel,”the former member of MKO, Masoud Banisadr (not to be confused with the former president Abolhasan Banisadr) fled from the movement in 1996, recounts a meeting for senior officers of the movement page. 37 of the English version.

The first thing I was required to do in Baghdad was watch a videotape of an ideological meeting for “executive and high-ranking members.” The meeting, called “Imam Zaman,” (in the Shiite faith is the hidden Imam), started with a simple question: “To whom do we owe all our achievements and everything that we have?”… Rajavi did not claim, as I thought he might, to be the Imam of our times, but merely said we owed everything to Imam Zaman… The object was to show that we could reach Tehran if we were more united with our leader, as he was with Imam Zaman and God.
“He (Rajavi) was ready to sacrifice everything he had (which in fact meant all of us!) for God, asserting that the only thing on his mind was doing the will of God,….we were expected to draw the conclusion that no “buffer” existed between Rajavi and Imam Zaman; yet there was a buffer between ourselves and him [Rajavi] … which prevented us from seeing him clearly. This “buffer” was our weakness. If we could recognize that, we would see why and how we had failed in Operation Forogh [Eternal Light] and elsewhere. Massoud and Maryam [Rajavi] had no doubt that the buffer was in all our cases our existing spouse…

In the next letter, provide the following themes:
“Birth of dissent in Camp Ashraf”
“Violation and Abuse of Human Rights in Camp Ashraf”
“Testimonies collected by Human Rights Watch.”

Anticipation of the next letter:
Testimony of Sayed Amir Mowaseghi, collected by Human Rights Watch
Sayed Amir Mowaseghi entered a part of MKO in 1984 and was imprisoned by the Iranian government from 1984-1987. After his release, went to Pakistan, from where he could reach Iraq and join forces in the MK 1988.Nel in June 2001, had decided to leave the movement, but he was not allowed. A session of court”was agreed in September 2001 with the presence of Maryam and Masoud Rajavi, who have not granted permission to leave the MKO.

Immediately after it happened as testified:
“I was brought to a gathering of about 600 people. I was dragged into a crowd, I was taken to blows, kicked, verbally abused. I was then led in a caravan, which they called Bangala, I was confined in isolation until 2 June, 2002, and then I was handed over to Iraqi government forces (of Saddam Hussein). The Iraqi forces have put me in the prison of Abu Ghraib, I was then sent back to Iran on 18 March 2003.”

ANNA-MAHJAR of Barducci – Secretary of the”Arab Liberal Democrats

http://www.agenziaradicale.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7265&Itemid=52

Translated by Nejat Society

February 4, 2009 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Ex-member says MEK is like a cult

Ex-member says MEK ‘is like a cult’
Anne Khodabandeh, a former member of the Mojahedin-e Khalq organisation at her Leeds home. Lorne Campbell / The National
When the European Union removed a militant Iranian opposition group from its blacklist of terrorist organisations last month, it drew not only protestations from Iran but also the contempt of a former member who claims the group is little more than a cult.
The Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK, or the People’s Mujahideen of Iran, and sometimes known as MKO), a leftist Islamist organisation that has vehemently opposed the Islamic Republic since its establishment in 1979, was taken off the EU’s terrorism blacklist on Jan 26 at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, the culmination of intensive lobbying by the group and its European supporters.
But Anne Khodabandeh, née Singleton, a former member of the group for 20 years, was sceptical.
“Well, at least this shows the EU blacklist for what it really is – nothing more than a list of friend and foe,” she said.
“But realistically I don’t think it will make any difference to them in Europe. They will continue to carry on with their propaganda and fund-raising activities. They will continue to have their base in Paris where they hold their own members captive in isolation.”
Mrs Khodabandeh, 49, now a computer programmer, runs Iran-Interlink, an organisation that aims to inform the public about what she says is the reality of the MEK and provide assistance to former members, as well as current members who want to leave.
Mrs Khodabandeh said the group enforces strict segregation of men and women – even forcibly separating or divorcing couples – and employs psychological manipulation and mind control. She pointed to the practice of self-immolation at MEK demonstrations in Europe and the United States as further evidence of the group’s “cult-like” characteristics.
“The MEK is a cult, with every implication that has,” she said. “The leadership is unelected, unaccountable and perpetrates abuses against its own members.”
The MEK was established in the 1960s by a group of radical students in violent opposition to the US-backed shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and took part in the 1979 revolution.
But it soon fell out with Iran’s new ruler, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and the the country’s religious establishment and many members were jailed and executed. Most fled the country for Europe and the United States while thousands of others set up a base in northern Iraq at Camp Ashraf, which is in the process of being closed down.
Various estimates put the group’s membership at anywhere between 5,000 and 20,000.
For its part, the MEK describes itself as a secular, democratic organisation that wants to bring democracy to Iran and enjoys significant support in Europe and the United States.
Brian Binley, a member of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom, hailed the decision to remove the MEK from the EU blacklist and said descriptions of the group as a cult were “completely untrue”.
“I am delighted the battle has been won,” Mr Binley, a Conservative member of parliament, said of the EU ruling. “This is a perfectly legitimate group that opposes the medieval theocracy of Iran.
“I have found them to be good people, to be democrats who want a free and democratic Iran.”
Mrs Khodabandeh first learnt about the MEK in the early 1980s through an Iranian boyfriend while studying at Manchester University.
An idealist “who wanted to change the world”, she began attending the group’s campus meetings and gradually became more involved with its fund-raising and awareness activities.
Before long she was a fully fledged member, espousing the group’s militant opposition to the theocratic regime in Iran and calling for its overthrow.
But the MEK’s demands on her grew and through such techniques as peer pressure and “psychological manipulation”, Mrs Khodabandeh said, she came ever more under control of the group.
By the age of 30 she had lost touch with most of her friends and family, given up her job as a computer programmer and handed over her house, car and savings.
She left her home in Leeds, Yorkshire, to live with other members at a number of “safe houses” belonging to the MEK, first in London and then in Sweden, and was put to work in the “diplomacy section”, monitoring the news and writing press releases for the group.
“We were like children. We took all our orders from the leaders – we wouldn’t so much as leave the building without their permission,” she said.
Since 1985 the MEK has been led by the husband and wife team of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi – the latter a leading figure in the recent campaign to have the MEK removed from the EU’s terrorist list – both of whom, according to Mrs Khodobandeh, embody all the traits of “cult leadership”. Their authority within the group is unquestionable, she said, and Massoud Rajavi is proficient in mind-control techniques.
A number of rights groups support Mrs Khodobandeh’s claims.
“We have documented serious human rights abuses that the MKO was inflicting on its own members in their camp in Iraq,” said Tom Porteous, the London director of Human Rights Watch. “The organisation … has shown that criticism of leadership is certainly not tolerated.”
It was in 1993, at the height of her devotion to the MEK – “I was willing to die for them,” she said – that Mrs Khodabandeh began to have doubts about the group.
The Rajavis and other leading members had begun introducing bizarre rules, including the banning of marriage and compulsory divorces so that members could dedicate themselves fully to the cause.
She walked out on the MEK, though it took her another three years to finally cut her mental and emotional ties to the group and return to normal life.
In 1996 she met Massoud Khodabandeh, another member who had doubts about the organisation and who left at the same time. They married soon after and moved to Mrs Khodabandeh’s native Yorkshire, where they have lived since.
As a former member and current director of a support group for former MEK members, Mrs Khodabandeh is concerned about the inhabitants of Camp Ashraf in Iraq who will be evicted when the camp is closed in the coming months.
The group has been used by the EU over the years, she said, for a number of purposes, including as a propaganda tool against Iran and as a bargaining chip in nuclear negotiations.
And now that the MEK has been removed from the blacklist, there is no barrier to giving them refuge in Europe.
“EU countries have benefited from their existence for years. If you use them, take responsibility for them,” Mrs Khodabandeh said.
Telephone calls and e-mails to the MEK for comment went unanswered.
Jonathan Spollen, Assistant Foreign Editor – February 03. 2009
jspollen@thenational.ae
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090203/

FOREIGN/119570883&SearchID=73344134565366

February 3, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi, a disseminator of cultic dogma

There are a number of gadgets at which cult leaders grab to convince members of their unquestionable leadership and charismatic figure. Eric Hoffer refers to the case of leftist political cult of Stalinism that was developed as a result of indoctrinating individuals with a self-fabricated ideology:
The official history of the Communist party states: "The power of Marxist-Leninist theory lies in the fact that it enables the Party to find the right orientation in any situation, to understand the inner connection of current events, to foresee their course, and to perceive not only how and in what direction they are developing in the present but how and in what direction they are bound to develop in the future." The true believer is emboldened to attempt the unprecedented and the impossible not only because his doctrine gives him a sense of omnipotence but also because it gives him unqualified confidence in the future. 1
There are other factors and tools in the hands of cult leaders to make them immune against challenges and criticism. Almost all cult leaders convince members that they have some problematic personal features that have to be corrected by means of cultic techniques and mechanisms. In order to achieve this objective, cult leaders resort to ideological dogmatism and prevent members from thinking. Also they stop the development of self-confidence on the part of members and replace it with total dependence on cultic relations and absolute submission to the point that members suffer from the loss of physical as well as mental independence for ever.
In the ideological revolution of Mojahedin, a phase transforming a political group into a cult of personality, many factors exploited by cult leaders to immunize them against challenges are traceable. Cult leaders make an attempt to convince members that they are endowed with a god-like status and unearthly power in foreseeing future events, a window that is totally closed for followers to see through. Furthermore, they expose members to absolute submission that are in most cases irrational and unreasonable. In this regard, Mohsen Rezaee, an MKO member, says:
The ideological leader has a deeper and greater insight compared to that of ordinary followers. He can foresee and interpret issues in the world that are inexplicable in their own time and it is only the passing of time that reveals their truth. Therefore, a follower has to obey his/her leader devotedly and based on absolute confidence rather than individual understanding. 2
Niyabati, one of the main theoreticians of the ideological revolution of Mojahedin, tries to justify his materialistic viewpoints on the necessity of the absolute submission of followers to cult leader by means of mystical concepts:
A wayfarer [meaning followers of MKO] has no responsibility and should be submissive like a piece of wood in the hands of carpenter. 3
He further adds:
In spiritual journey, no question is allowed. The wayfarer has to put his faith in Sheikh wholeheartedly and must regard him as the most perfect person to conduct him in spiritual training, guidance and education, be his interlocutor and obey Sheikh far from any inward or outward objection. 4
Here, the factor of anathema is added to the factor of sheikh-wayfarer relationship to convince and submit individuals. Furthermore, Rajavi and his apostles have drawn a red line by elaborating on the god-like position of Rajavi and his connection to God and have made attempt to indoctrinate the belief that challenging and disobeying him is an unforgivable sin. Anne Singleton, an MKO ex-member, refers to these factors and writes:
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. 5
Abrishamchi, a theoretician of the ideological revolution, zealously tries to justify the unquestionable and unfathomable status of MKO leadership and states:
Leadership bears no responsibility downward. His responsibility is determined by the ideological-political considerations of the organization. 6
He further points out that questioning his decisions from lower-ranking members may result in serious disruption of the ideological principles and consequently destabilization of leadership status:
In order to clarify the ideological boundaries, it is necessary to introduce the ideological interpreter of the organization and the person who says the last word. In MKO, it is the thoughts of Masoud that are ideologically problem solving and determine ideological boundaries. Therefore, leader in the organization bears no responsiveness since it may disruptthe leader’s status. 7
In a nutshell, in MKO as in many other cults, there are mechanisms and devices used in order to raise the status of the leader to a point far from that of rank-and-files and to immunize him against criticism and questioning.

References:
1.Hoffer, Eric, The true believer, Harper &. Row, Publishers, New York, 1951, p.58.
2. Rezaee, Mohsen, p.249.
3. Niyabati, Bijan, A different look at the ideological revolution within Mojahedin, p.40.
4. ibid.
5. Singleton, Anne, Saddam’s private army, Iran-Interlink, 2003.
6. Mehdi Abrishamchi’s lecture on the ideological revolution of MKO, 1985, p.44.
7. Mojahed Journal, n. 255, p.23.

Research Bureau – Mojahedin.ws – February 1, 2009

February 3, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi’s position in the schism of 1975

The ideological schism of MKO in 1975, when actually the leaders of the group were in Pahlavi’s notorious prisons, resulted in different reactions on the part According to Rastegar, Rajavi made an attempt to hide his personal errors and stabilize his leadership over the organization by concealing the truth and labeling the former leaders as traitors as agents of Mojahedin. The serious errors of Rajavi after the separation of Marxist wing following its declared manifesto was elaborated on and those aware of the course of events in that particular period of time were unanimous that the main mistake made by Rajavi was issuing his twelve-point statement that was considered to be the position taken by all non-Marxist Mojahedin about the schism. It stated that Mojahedin would consider the converted members as their strategic allies and openly revealed their opposition to religious members. It happened at a time when all MKO remnants except Rajavi insisted on reviewing and revising the organizational principles and ideological errors of MKO under the impact of Marxism. Karim Rastegar, an ex-member, elaborates on the impacts of this event saying that after the Marxist wing’s manifesto, Rajavi adopted a dual mannerism of keeping unwavering inclination to the left while role-played a devoted religious inside the prison.
An interesting point is that while siding with the non-Marxist wing, Rajavi took a different position toward the leaders of Marxist wing, i.e. Taqi Shahram, Bahram Aram and against truthful leaders opposed to Marxist wing like Majid Sharif Vaqefi and Morteza Samadieh Labaf. According to Rastegar, Rajavi made an attempt to hide his personal errors and stabilize his leadership over the organization by concealing the truth and labeling the former leaders as traitors as agents:
The leaders inside prison, and Rajavi in particular, tried to acquit themselves of accusations and after the terror of Sharif Vaqefi and Samadieh for a long time overturned the truth calling them traitors and introduced the leftist Vahid Afrakhteh as a hero. For instance, they quoted falsely of committee members that Vahid Afrakhteh has turned to a mythical figure under torture. 1
A more interesting point is that his appreciation of some problematic members like Vahid Afrakhteh intensified the crises and increased the doubt of religious members in Rajavi thus making the ground for his increasingly parting with them. In addition, Rajavi took an antagonist position against religious forces inside prison and worsened the conditions:
The behaviors of Masoud inside prison resulted in marginalization of religious forces. Evidently, appropriate reactions could prevent conflicts and detachments. The organization leadership tried to conceal the realities for five months calling us extremists and compromisers while everyone was well aware of the reality. It was no longer possible for us to bear lies and labels given to the religious members Muslims. Our complaint to the conditions resulted in our total boycott. Nobody dared to communicate with us. Some were so heated that even would kill us if they were allowed to. The news of our boycott by organization leaked to SAVAK and they regarded it a precious opportunity. 2
On the other hand, there is the status and position of Marxist wing. Although they took an overall defensive position regarding the ideological schism, their position is preferred to that of Rajavi that was dualistic and divisive. However, many are unanimous that the main reason of ideological schism of MKO was the dualistic and eclectic viewpoints of the early founders of MKO toward Islam rather than the effect of Marxists therein. Torab Haqshenas, a key figure of MKO in that period of time abroad, refers to significant points on the differences between inside as well as outside looking at the ideological schism of Mojahedin and the divisive position of Rajavi in this regard, saying:
In my opinion, the ideological schism had a principle that was neglected and it was the fact that we should not lie to ourselves. It is correct that we made some mistakes and acknowledged it in 1979 and criticized it, but the main point was that we should not lie to people. When we came to the point that our guide was no longer ideologically religious and it was of no effect to help us in struggle, we had to say it clearly to all people even if it resulted in our losing of many facilities and separation of many members. 3
However, it does not mean that religion was incapable to offer solutions for the challenges of MKO. It is another issue and needs to be investigated in depth. As he says, the hypocrisy and duality of Mojahedin, their eclectic ideology, lack of knowledge on religious precepts and refraining to take a clear position in this regard resulted in the occurrence of schism. In fact, the twelve-point statement of Rajavi issued inside prison was a summary of his real intention and ideas. Shahsavandi, a member of MKO sentenced to death by the order of the Marxist wing’s central committee clarifies the effects of this statement in escalation of inter-organizational tensions and conflicts inside prison:
These twelve articles defined the identity of MKO to the point that members and sympathizers had to recognize it as the basics of their activities word by word with no addition or omission and to transfer it to other prisons and those active outside. 4
The significance of this statement lies in the fact that according to Shahsavandi, it had a decisive role in the future events like that of June 1981:
These twelve articles were in fact the manifesto of Mr. Rajavi against the Marxist drift inside organization. It was a manifesto that led to the revival and reorganization of MKO and worked as infrastructure of activities after the victory of Iranian revolution. 5
Also, he elaborates on the key role of Rajavi in the development of the statement:
The essence and core of this issue is related to Masoud Rajavi and it was mainly for this reason that he tried to stabilize his leadership and bring his role to light. 6
Reviewing the points of this statement and the mistakes made by Rajavi in this regard requires another discussion of its own.

References:
1. Dr. Karim Rastegar’s interview with Cheshmandaz journal on the events of June 1981
2. ibid
3. Torab Haqshenas
4. Saeed Shahsavandi interview with the voice of Iran, part 38.
5. ibid
6. ibid, part 40.

February 3, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

Pulling out the fangs of a viper

Pulling out the fangs of a viper is much safer than pressing the venom out of it every day. But even the vendors of the venom that keep and feed it to make fortune out of it are cautious enough to protect against its mortal bite by keeping it away in a safe box. A deadly viper pretending to be lying dormant, Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) suddenly went rampant just when the Iranian people tried to recover from the wreaks of a revolution and had just engaged in fending off the invasion of a greedy neighbor. It emptied all its venom into the nation and inflicted irreparable damages to the same people who had feed it.
And just when it was being hunted for to pull out its fangs, it escaped away to be cared by the advocates of democracy who were, of course, concerned a lot about the rights of animals. Soon it was passed to anther monster that provided for its shelter and food to extract voluminous amounts of venom to be used against both Iranian and Iraqi people. Nobody doubts how dangerously the viper has been crawling about after its escape from Iran inflicting harm by ejecting out its venom while taking shelter in the arms of its protectors who know well that it can neither be tamed nor controlled as it is a matter of nature rather than training and instruction.
The list of terrorist organizations that for some time worked as a secure cage to repulse its possible offenses against themselves was suddenly opened to take it out. Does it mean that they intend to pull out its fangs or use it to bully Iranian regime to achieve their own interests? At least they have come to know that Iranian people are waiting with shovels at the door for the vipers unless they are fangless. It is a rule that old and harmless creatures are pitied everywhere in the world.
It is best recommended that they draw the fangs out of the adders to let them free; for sure it will make the world more secure. Some believe that the howl of a toothless wolf has the magic of lullaby causing a calm, deep sleep. It won’t take long to see how wise the viper-keepers have been!
by Mahin Tajimalek

February 2, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Iran Group in Iraq Poses Thorny Issue for U.S.

many years, the roughly 3,500 members of the Iranian dissident group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) living quietly in Iraq drew little attention. But now the relatively obscure group is at the center of an increasingly contentious argument among leaders in Baghdad, Tehran and Washington, where decisions the new White House makes about the rebels will probably set the tone for U.S. relations with Iran in the near term.

The simmering issue of the MEK’s fate flashed into the open earlier this month when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki unexpectedly declared that the group would no longer be allowed to remain in Iraq. Shortly after that, Maliki’s national security adviser, Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, said the MEK’s camp roughly 40 miles north of Baghdad would be disbanded within two months, declaring during an appearance in Tehran that Iraq would not play host to threats toward its neighbor.

The issue grew more complicated on Jan. 26, when the European Union removed the MEK from its list of terrorist organizations, a roster that includes organizations such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The E.U. move, which came after a long lobbying campaign by the MEK’s supporters in Europe, sparked an outcry in Tehran. About 300 people were gathered around noon on Wednesday in front of the British Embassy in Tehran to protest the E.U. decision. Some in the crowd threw stones at the embassy, while others held up shoes on sticks in a show of deep disrespect in the Middle East.

"What people side with the enemy and kill their own people in a war?" said demonstrator Sina Zamanian, 17, referring to the MEK’s alliance with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, which led them to settle in Iraq. "They are the worst kind of opportunistic terrorists and should be forever marked as such."

Nevertheless, some in Baghdad are calling for the group to be allowed to remain in Iraq, or at least to not be turned over to Iran, for political reasons. "We have to deal with this issue very delicately," says Ayad Jamal al-Deen, an Iraqi parliamentarian aligned with Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. "I’m not here to defend this organization. I have no interest in them. But I am looking out for the Iraqi national interest." Al-Deen and other Iraqi political figures see the group essentially as a bargaining chip with Iran, one of the few Iraq holds against its powerful neighbor. They argue that simply shuttering the MEK camp as Iran demands squanders what precious little leverage Iraq has against Iran. Al-Deen adds, "In my opinion, Iraq has only this card, MEK, to pressure Iran."

At the moment, however, the MEK’s ability to remain in Iraq depends on the will of the Americans. The Bush White House continued to use the military to protect the MEK at Camp Ashraf despite its current status as a terrorist organization on the U.S. list and periodic complaints by the emerging Iraqi government and Tehran, which says the group is still involved in subversive activity inside Iran. Outwardly, U.S. officials have said disbanding the camp would be in contravention of international humanitarian law because the group’s members are likely to face persecution in Iran or Iraq. But many Iraqis and Iranians suspect that the U.S. keeps the camp open for intelligence purposes, since the MEK’s spy network played a key role in uncovering Iran’s secret uranium-enrichment program in 2002.

Maliki appears intent on pressing the issue anew with the Obama Administration, which will have to decide soon whether to keep offering U.S. protection to the group or to yield to Iraqi demands to close Camp Ashraf. If the White House allows the Iraqi government to close the camp, the Iranian leadership is likely to see the move as a sign that the new Administration is eager to ease tensions between Washington and Tehran. A continuation of the status quo, however, could chill Obama’s early outreach efforts.

At Camp Ashraf, MEK members simply wait for word on what may happen to them as discussions continue in Baghdad, Tehran and Washington. Shahriar Kia, a spokesman for the group, says a closure of the camp would be a disaster for those living in what amounts to a protective quarantine for roughly the past seven years. "Closing down Camp Ashraf and the displacement of its residents, who are protected by the Geneva Conventions, against their will is a war crime," says Kia. "This will cause a humanitarian catastrophe."
— With reporting by Tariq Anmar in Baghdad
By Mark Kukis / Baghdad

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1875917,00.html

February 1, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin-e-khalq Organization Members

MR. MEHDI ABRISHAMCHI A SNAKE IN THE GRASS

Who is MEHDI ABRISHAMCHI?
MR.ABRISHAMCHI is the second important personality in the male command section after MASSOUD RAJAVI in PMOI. He is one of the long time members of PMOI with more than thirty years record of service and partnership in this organization. He had spent many years in SHAH’s prison during shah’s sovereignty in Iran. He has an important role in PMOI’s affairs especially in the absence of PMOI’s charismatic leader MASSOUD RAJAVI.

He is ex- husband of MARYAM AZDANLO[ Maryam Rajavi ], who got divorced to get married to MASSOUD RAJAVI in an ideological event, which is known as the ideological revolution. He is totally against western countries’ politics specifically the US- government. He believes that the only way to reach to the true and genuine freedom and democracy is the destruction and annihilation of Imperialism led by the USA. He was the main political mediator between SADDAM HUSSEIN’s government and PMOI. He and MR. ABBAS DAVARI and MR. MEHDI BARAIEE were a team designated by MASSOUD RAJAVI to handle all political and military affairs from PMOI’s side with the dictator of Iraq.
He believes in MASSOUD RAJAVI as a prophet and a representative of God on earth. For that reason he agreed to hand his wife MARYAM AZDANLO over to MASSOUD RAJAVI and watched them get married. He is too devoted to MASSOUD and he worships him and he believes MASSOUD will take him and the rest of PMOI’s combatants to God’s promised paradise after their death. MR. ABRISHAMCHI in his task as a mediator and go between had handed over many of PMOI’s combatants who separated from PMOI, to Iraqi secret police during SADDAM HOSSEIN’s sovereignty, to be exchanged with Iraqi soldiers who were captured by Iranian army in Iran – Iraq war. SADDAM HUSSEIN was paying him and his organization very good money for this transaction. MR. ABRISHAMCHI believed in execution and assassination of the dissidents who wanted to secede and separate from PMOI. He believes in armed struggle and knows it as the only solution to conquer and defeat all kinds of enemies who are against his ideology and the PMOI’s commander in chief, MASSOUD RAJAVI.
This man is very dangerous for European people especially French and Americans. While the catastrophic event of 9/11 happened in USA, MR ABRISHAMCHI congratulated MASSOUD RAJAVI and MARYAM RAJAVI (AZDANLO) in the big gathering of PMOI in Iraq. He mentioned that the destruction of the TWIN TOWERS in USA is a big sign of decomposition and annihilation of USA. He adored those who carried out such an attack. MR. ABRISHAMCHI had a significant and important role in suppressing and killing Iraqi people especially KURDS during the uprising of Iraqi people against SADDAM HUSSEIN. He as a mediator was receiving orders from SADDAM HUSSEIN’s military generals to give to NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY (NLA) to destroy and demolish any resistance from Iraqi people. MR. ABRISHAMCHI is currently living in FRANCE. He is taking advantage of your freedom and democracy to propagandize his cultish ideology which believes in annihilation and destruction of any thoughts and believes which are against PMOI’s ideology, politics and platforms.
I as a victim of this barbaric cult, would like to inform you and your government that he and the rest of PMOI in FRANCE are very dangerous and they are capable of creating horrifying and horrendous scenes like they did in 2003 in Paris. At the end, I would like to reiterate, do not trust any snake especially MR. MEHDI ABRISHAMCHI.

HASSAN PIRANSAR
A victim of RAJAVI’s cult

February 1, 2009 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts