Rajavis and Cult Leadership

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

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

Massoud Rajavi

Pseudo-Charismatic leader of the Cult of Mojahedin

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

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

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

January 31, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Claimed celestial power of Rajavi as a cult leader

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

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

January 28, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Accepting Iranian Ben Ladan batters European Council Legitimacy

Never accept Iranian Ben Ladan in the European parliament to batter the popular legitimacy of the European nation’s House. Undoubtedly, Maryam Rajavi Accepting Iranian Ben Ladan batters European Council Legitimacy (Iranian Ben Ladan) the leader of the People Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) is more dangerous and vicious than Afghan Ben Lad an. The west should be on a high alert not to be decoyed by her new sham guise as an advertisement released via her recently under the title of “the ten- point platform for future Iran” in US daily news paper, the Washington Times in January 14 issue. Mr. President, please pay attention to my reasons as a live witness and her victim during last twenty years who has been under her authority and cage in Ashraf garrison situated in Iraq. Meanwhile, I have been separated from Mojahedin cult a year ago and came to France.
In her advertisement, she tries to express her dreams and illusions for “future Iran” with the ill-usage of the international norms and conventions. But, fortunately, she has even no place in her former Ashraf garrison, so, how she intends to make the history of Iran!?!
Let me explain an Iranian maxim which is appropriate for her conditions to make everybody snicker for a while. “A villager person was not allowed to enter the village, but she asked the address of the village bailiff home”. No doubt, Maryam Rajavi has the same story of the villager with her perpetrated crimes and deceits. So that, she has no permission to settle down in any state either USA or Europe, however, she has been indicted by international and local tribunals as such France and Iraq.
To know and understand her serial fobs and illusions, let’s focus on her contradictions in practical fields and her ten- point platform. To save time, let me compare only two of these articles of her platform with her present and past activities and thoughts. In the article 7 of her platform, she claims, ‘we are committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and…’, but, the question arises how she interprets and replies the articles 12 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in comparison with her inhuman activities e.g. forceful ideological divorces of thousands impeccable men and women as well as wrecking and shattering the family foundation and….
Article 12: “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
Article 16: “(1) men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” “(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.” “(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.”
Mr. Mirek topolank, please ask Maryam Rajavi to answer the human conscience and the public opinion of the West regarding forceful and dictated divorces and illegal marriages in her cult by her husband Masood Rajavi who is the lifetime leader of the PMOI. I think a particle of her above mentioned crimes regarding dictated divorces and marriage is enough to prove high contradictions between her false platform and her practical activities.
Mr. President, please let’s check the article 9 of her platform to discern her mock intentions and goals regarding international problems and disasters, “our foreign policy will be based on peaceful coexistence…” as a matter of fact, as a live witness, I got shock of observing such a scene at the time of the occurring of “the September 11 disaster” when Masood rajavi made such speeches, “this is reactionary Islam did such an action, thus, we, the revolutionary Islam can do much better than them. And worse than such a sentence which exposes the nature of the Mojahedin cult’s ideology and thought, was that Maryam Rajavi confirmed his speeches with nodding and smiling.
Now, the question is that is it fair and justice and a just decision to stain the scene of parliament via her presence in the nation’s house?
Yours truly
Hamid Siah Mansouri, Paris, January 25, 2009

January 27, 2009 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

The role-play of catalysts in the Cult of Mojahedin

In order to draw a clear picture of cultic groups, it is necessary to have a better understanding of the personality features of cult leaders due to the absolute dependence of cultic relations upon leadership. Almost all In MKO, a notorious cultic group already blacklisted as a terrorist cult, a number of experienced early members play the role of catalysts. psychologists and researchers in this era are unanimous that the main part of this understanding is to be concerned with personal as well as psychological features of leaders that play a crucial role in all cults. Evidently, psychology is the science that may prepare the ground for acquiring a comprehensive knowledge of various aspects of cult leaders. In this regard, it has been written:
A cult cannot be truly explored or understood without understanding its leader. A cult’s formation, proselytizing methods, and means of control "are determined by certain salient personality characteristics of [the] cult leader….Such individuals are authoritarian personalities who attempt to compensate for their deep, intense feelings of inferiority, insecurity, and hostility by forming cultic groups primarily to attract those whom they can psychologically coerce into and keep in a passive-submissive state, and secondarily to use them to increase their income. 1
Of these fundamental aspects is the leaders’ egocentric personality and unquestionable control over members. This kind of relationship is developed first as a result of leader’s charisma rather than the exercise of power and in itself requires some catalysts and incentives to convince followers of the leader’s charisma. Now the question arises, how cult leaders exercise their hegemony over followers and put them under effect. Clearly, cultic relations depend on members’ persuasion and absolute submission, however, going through this phase needs the preparation of required background, internal motives and incentives to the extent members get convinced of leader power and charisma and consent to participating in cultic activities. Most cultic groups recruit members under the disguise of educational, medicinal, and social services and then expose them to the process of persuasion yet political groups grab hold to different approaches.
In order to come to an appropriate answer, we can rely on the data and results obtained in recent studies on cults. In the book “brainwashing” the role of catalysts has been referred to but not elaborated on. Looking at the instances of political cults in the contemporary world and their cultic relations, the role of the factor of catalysts may well be clarified. Catalysts are, to a number of cult members, who play a key role in the formation and development of cults:
Cultic groups usually originate with a living leader who is believed to be "god" or godlike by a cadre of dedicated believers. Along with a dramatic and convincing talent for self expression, these leaders have an intuitive ability to sense their followers’ needs and draw them closer with promises of fulfillment. Gradually, the leader inculcates the group with his own private ideology (or craziness!), then creates conditions so that his victims cannot or dare not test his claims. How can you prove someone is not the Messiah? 2
Organizational hierarchy present in all cults implies the presence of a minority group within cults that are of a key role in stabilizing the power of the leader to the extent that their absence in cultic relations may lead to the disintegration of cults. The function of these catalysts is different in different cults depending on the approach and policy taken by the leader.
The writer’s emphasis on the god-like status of cult leaders in the eyes of their followers is due to the fact that almost all cults have metaphysical beliefs rooted in their religious inclinations. Even the leaders of leftist groups opposed to metaphysics, in practice resort to the instrument of metaphysics as is evident in the reviewing of the last moments of the life of Stalin. There are a number of cult members who have a key role in the qualitative development of cults called catalysts and are traceable almost in all cultic groups.
In MKO, a notorious cultic group already blacklisted as a terrorist cult, a number of experienced early members play the role of catalysts. In the phase of the ideological revolution of Mojahedin, they played a key role in stabilizing the status of Rajavi as a leader. Their so-called letters of ideological revolution addressing MKO members had a dual role. On the one hand, they elaborated on the contents of the ideological revolution and Rajavi’s determining role in the history of MKO and on the other hand, they convinced members to follow the catalysts in recognizing the cultic and ideological leadership of Rajavi.
The statements of MKO’s political bureau issued and signed by these catalysts, who were in fact the speakers of the leader, implied their critical role. Mehdi Abrishamchi in his lecture on the ideological revolution which lasted several hours did nothing but honoring and praising Rajavi. He would state that the organization and its members need Rajavi’s leadership to understand the reality of the ideological revolution. Maryam Azdanlu, divorced from Mehdi Abrishamchi to remarry Rajavi, had also an effective role in raising the status of Rajavi. The main point focused by these catalysts was to make the leadership of Rajavi believable. They insisted to make members believe in the charisma and leadership of Rajavi. Their main duty, in Hoffer’s terms, was to undermine the power of thinking on the part of members and replace it with an absolute submission to cultic leadership of Rajavi. As Hoffer puts into words:
It is obvious, therefore, that in order to be effective a doctrine must not be understood, but has to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand. A doctrine that is understood is shorn of its strength. Once we understand a thing, it is as if it had originated in us. And, clearly, those who are asked to renounce the self and sacrifice it cannot see eternal certitude in anything which originates in that self. The fact lat they understand a thing fully impairs its validity and certitude in their eyes. 3
Therefore, looking at the role catalysts play in cults may clarify how leaders manage to exercise their authority over members. Reviewing the history of MKO since the execution of its early founders and intra-prison control of organization by Rajavi and his catalysts may clarify the determining role of these catalysts.

References:
1. Madeline, Tobias and Jania Lalich, Captive hearts; Captive minds, Halter House, 1994.
2. ibid
3. Hoffer, Eric, the true believer, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1951, p.76,77.

January 25, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Masud Rajavi – the pattern of violence continues

We are only half way through January and the EU terrorism list (from which the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation has been removed) has still not been announced but the MKO (aka the Rajavi cult, MEK, NCRI, NLA) has been unable to refrain from showing its true nature.
Iraq’s National Security Advisor has reported the arrest of an MKO member who is currently in custody after surrendering himself to an Iraqi security unit. The man, who is a resident of Camp Ashraf, was about to perform a suicide mission, but could not go through with it. According to a statement from the office of the National Security Advisor, the MKO member has claimed the MKO use severe torture and brainwashing on its members. He claims that: “I was sent with a clear and precise plan to perform a suicide mission in this Iraqi base”.
http://iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=5720
This news will come as no surprise to those who know the MKO. Looking at Massoud Rajavi’s track record over thirty years, nothing more or less than this could be expected. While he was able to send over 2,000 civilians their deaths back in 1988 in the failed Eternal Light operation, he has since then sent numerous smaller groups to perform suicidal terrorist attacks in Iran with the added instruction that if captured the person should use their cyanide pill to kill themselves. More recently, MKO were instructed to set fire to themselves to protest the arrest of Maryam Rajavi on terrorism charges in Paris. Two died and several others sustained serious injury with their permanent disfigurement and disability a direct result of Rajavi’s order.
Massoud Rajavi who owns the MKO also owns the blood of the members and will spill it whenever he needs to. In this case to rescue himself from the mess he has made in Iraq. The MKO members are his capital which buys him power. They are expandable assets which have been used and reused shamelessly by western agencies who have found this a useful and cheap resource in their ‘regime change’ armoury. It is clear that the neoconservatives and Zionists are using the MKO against the Iraqis, and are helping them by facilitating the impunity enjoyed by MKO leaders at the cult’s headquarters in Europe.
This latest fiasco in the Rajavi saga is surely the result of negligence and apathy of the European Union toward the MKO which apparently couldn’t summon the energy or interest to properly investigate the MKO and deal with it accordingly. A feat which has been assiduously performed by successive US Governments since 1994 and which has resulted in the MKO retaining its terrorism designation to date with the added information that the group is a cult. However, the Bush Administration has also proved itself to be overly greedy in wanting to have their cake and eat it. The US army has ‘protected’ this ‘terrorist’ outfit for five and a half years in Iraq in spite of repeated demands by the Iraqis for removal of this known FTO, which collaborated with the former regime, from Iraqi territory.
It is surely time for the international community as represented by the UNHCR and UNCHR to to help the Iraqis ensure that all the individuals held captive in Camp Ashraf are accorded their basic human rights. Rajavi’s victims must be given the opportunity to renounce violence and to leave Camp Ashraf for third countries or to accept voluntary repatriation to Iran. Any delay in dismantling this notorious cult is to condemn the inhabitants to enforced membership of an illegal paramilitary terrorist group.

January 21, 2009 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Personality Cults

Throughout history, there have always been numerous cults of personality which are often found in dictatorships. As we have studied the stories of the pharaohs of ancient Egypt or Roman Empire, etc. the kings had a divine right and they were sometimes considered or in better words worshiped as god-kings.

Also, in our time, personality cults are common in the monarchist, totalitarian systems with revolutionary opinions such as Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot of Cambodia who all slaughtered a lot of innocent civilians during their ruling period.

The leader of the cult of personality usually seeks to minimize the public power and influence. The members of this type of system gradually loose their power of thinking, choosing and acting instead they submit to the absolute obedience to the person on the head.

In Mujahedin-Khalq Organization (the cult of Rajavi) as well as many other destructive cults, the leaders Masud Rajavi and his third wife Maryam Rajavi have turned the group – which was only a guerrilla force against Iranian regime – into a cult of personality where the members are manipulated to worship their leader as the messenger of God who gets his instruction directly from God. These members who are the victims of a destructive cult are so seriously brainwashed who are always ready to scarify themselves for the leaders by committing self-immolations and suicide terrorist operations. The examples of those operations are simply found in the history of MKO personality cult.

The heroic image that MKO shows to the members to provoke their praise and admiration have turned the group from an armed guerrilla opposition into a terrorist destructive cult which is much more dangerous. When a fighter of an armed guerrilla struggles for his cause he is likely to suffer some physical difficulties but when you are a captive of a cult of personality you are always under mental and physical torture and likely to become an anti-social person who might violate social norms without any sense of guilt or regret.

January 10, 2009 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts