Rajavis and Cult Leadership

Exclusivism in the mind control system of the cults

The leaders of MKO cult, as well as ,all other cult leaders try to convince the members that their organization’s belief is the best of the world and eventually cult leaders will tell you can only be "saved" (or can only be successful) in their organization alone. they are superior to the other people because they are saved by their leaders and they can since then be the saviors of the world. Ann Singleton, the former member of the cult of Rajavi affirms this fact:” I though I was superior to the world .. I wanted to save the world.”
Howcultswork calls such phenomenon as the exclusivism in the mind control system of the cults. According to Howcultswork , the cults prevent the members from joining any other belief or ideology system. The membership in the cult matters.
cult leaders will tell you can only be "saved" (or can only be successful) in their organization alone. No other organization has the truth, all others miss the mark. So it is not the belief system that decides your future, but it the belief system AND your membership with that particular group.

ANY GROUP WHICH SAYS YOU MUST BELONG TO THEIR ORGANIZATION TO BE SAVED IS ALMOST CERTAINLY A CULT

The cult leaders need to make you believe that there is no where else you can go and still be saved, and if you ever leave the "one true church" then you are going to hell. This is a fear based control mechanism designed to keep you in the cult. It also gives the cult leaders tremendous power over you. If you really believe that leaving the group equals leaving God (or means you are leaving your only chance to succeed in life), then you will obey the cult leaders even when you disagree with them instead of risking being kicked out of the group. Exclusivism is used as a threat, it controls your behavior through fear.

Note
Be very suspicious of any group that claims to be better than all the others. A religious group may say that other groups following the same religion are OK, but they are the ones who have a better grasp of the truth and they are superior to the rest. This is often just a subtle version of exclusivism.

Note
This is one of the practices that cults are often very deceptive about. For example, first off they may give you the impression that they think you are a true Christian, Buddhist or Muslim and it’s not until later that their true position is revealed.
Reference: Howcultswork
By Mazdak Parsi

February 15, 2009 0 comments

The Ideology of the MEK

Roots of totalitarianism in MKO

Totalitarianism, as an ideological system, has various external manifestations in the world like totalitarian governments or cultic relations under the influence of totalistic ambitions of cult leaders. It is a commonly seen phenomenon in the contemporary world and is to be investigated in depth. Here the aim is to trace signs of totalitarianism in the cult of Mojahedin and personality traits of its leadership as the symbol of MKO, Masoud Rajavi. First of all this question arises: whether MKO totalitarianism has its roots in the personality of Rajavi or it constitutes one of the organizational principles of MKO. The history of the organization has to be reviewed to find an appropriate answer for the question mentioned. The history of the organization reveals that MKO founders maintained that their ideology aimed to complete the chain of social evolution of man and many believe that the main problem of Mojahedin has been the same consideration and the fact that from the early years of their development, Mojahedin considered their ideology and leadership as:
A mutation in the chain of the mutations of social evolution. 1

The slogan “Iran-Rajavi”, “Rajavi-Iran” may be considered one of the most strategic slogans of Mojahedin in line with their totalistic viewpoints.

In other words, organization founders distinguished between MKO and other political trends even leftist and religious ones and draw a qualitative and quantitative boundary between the two. In theoretical fundamentals and indoctrinations as well as methodological resources of Mojahedin, absoluteness and definiteness of ideological, social, and historical ideas have been focused on. The early Mojahedin introduced themselves as extreme leftists in dealing with Marxists and as an iconoclastic trend when faced with religious activists. In fact, Mojahedin recognized no external criterion and principle based on which to be judged upon. They pretended to be in line with the absolute truth; however, made an attempt to manipulate truth and make it parallel to their own totalistic objectives. This idea has its roots in the fact that Mojahedin considered their ideology as a factor determining the correct path of social evolution as it was declared in their theoretical principles, political position takings and even military communiqués.
In contrast to other totalitarian trends that pretend to favor democratic systems, peaceful activities and social and ideological concord at least in their external relations to pave the ground for achieving political power, Mojahedin followed a different path. MKO ideology is neither an interpretation of religious principles nor Marxist ideas, rather it is an eclectic one based on paradoxical viewpoints intermingling metaphysics with absolute science and experience. Taking a closer look at the history of the organization by means of the statements made by MKO former members may reveal the duality found in the policies of Mojahedin and its determining role in the formation of MKO and its leadership. One of the remnants of MKO quitting the organization after the ideological schism of 1975 states:
The creed of worshipping leader is intrinsic in this organization and nothing, religion, ideology, Islam nor Marxism, can limit the latitude of leadership. The leadership of MKO denied whatever he considered undesirable of the instructions of Islam and Marxism and refrains to adhere to any principle, neither religion nor ideology. There is no wall or boundary to limit the realm of MKO leadership lest make him subject to judgment and criticism…Yet religion and ideology have been deconstructed in the organization to be grabbed at by leader whenever necessary and justify all unjustifiable issues in the era of tradition and modernity. This is the root of inconvincible and illegitimate activities of MKO leadership that is not to be pertained to a particular leader. 2
These statements are made by a person who has taken part almost in all phases of composing theoretical resources of the organization. Here, he elaborates on the absoluteness of leadership in MKO lacking any rational or moral foundation. He is of the idea that MKO principles are beyond ideological and religious considerations and have an eclectic origin. Consequently, the totalitarian inclinations of Mojahedin are not to be pertained to Rajavi and his egocentric views and have their roots in the very formation of the organization and ideology of its founders. Even it is said that Mojahedin have modeled a historical cut called Batinis. He further states that:
The significant point is that the role of Mohammad Hanifnejad in the formation of interior inclination of the organization was more than others. Almost all analyses are based on the perversion that the source of organizational principles is Rajavi. These analyses aim to raised the status of Rajavi and introduce him as elite as if he managed to keep the integrity of the organization. To the best of my knowledge, he was not so important and lacked the necessary talent to do so. 3
There are many other statements made by early members of MKO concentrating on the point that from the very beginning Mojahedin refrained to believe in a particular religious or ideological creed and recognized no forum; a naïve viewpoint in contrast to ration and reason. In one of these statements, it has been stated that:
Our approach never was to alter our ideological and organizational principles according to will of individuals. 4
The most prominent manifestations of totalitarianism in MKO at the time being is that of persuasive theories of Masoud Rajavi. There remains the question whether the totalistic approach of MKO in all its political and ideological aspects is out-and-out the result of the early policies of Mojahedin or other factors have contributed to its survival and development. What is clear is that the present position takings and policies of Mojahedin and Rajavi are surprisingly the same as that of the early founders of Mojahedin; an eclectic ideology of leftist and religious ideas. In addition, the internal relations of the organization are similar to historical cults and Batinis in particular. The slogan “Iran-Rajavi”, “Rajavi-Iran” may be considered one of the most strategic slogans of Mojahedin in line with their totalistic viewpoints. Although in the first look it looks insignificant, but many are unanimous that it can be considered the main sign of the totalitarian ideas of Rajavi. As an Iranian activist and theorist puts into words:
The pass of time has revealed that ideology, activities and organizational relations of MKO are imperative and non-democratic; a fact that prevents even the critics of my interview to defend the organization. Therefore, it is easy to understand that I am talking about a totalitarian and violent cult that even far from political power treats its allies, members and advocators in the most extremist Stalinist approaches. 5

References:
1. Bahman Bazargani’s interview with the journal of Cheshmandaz on the events of 20 June 1981, 2008, No. 52.
2. ibid.
3. ibid.
4. Torab Haqshenas’s interview with the journal of Peykar, 1980, No. 67, pp.11-12.
5. Mostafa Tajzadeh’s interview with the journal of Cheshmandaz, No.35.

February 12, 2009 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

The Mind Control Gun of Mujahedin Leadership

As the two previous parts of these articles read, the definition of a modern cult lays in the techniques the cults use to control the members psychologically and sometimes physically. The terrorist cult of MKO has been so successful to function the process of manipulative mind control on its members that the members are purely devoted to the cult leaders and prepared to commit any crime ( Ex. Self- immolations) along with the leaders’ objectives.

Mind Control is a suite of psychological techniques that cult leaders attempt to control their members with.

Cultwatch does not consider Mind Control to be some magical device which can take away peoples’ free will. In other words it does not turn people into some sort of remote control robot. Rather we see Mind Control as a dishonest influence placed covertly on cult members by the cult. So instead of Mind Control being some sort of irresistible force like the aliens in the movies that take over peoples minds, rather it is more like a gun. The cult leader points the Mind Control "gun" at a member and says, "if you leave us then you will lose all of your friends and family", "if you don’t conform then you will go to Hell", "if you don’t give us money then you will fail in business".

According to the testimonies of former members of MKO cult, the ” Mind Control Gun” that is commonly used by MKO leaders is the fear of “ being executed by Iranian regime”,” being disliked by the leaders”, “ being labeled as a problematic member who has sexual or mental problems”

As Ann Singleton mentions in her interviews the “Peer Pressure” is a useful gun MKO uses against the members who are willing to leave the cult. They are insulted by their colleagues in case of any disobey.

We have broken Mind Control up into a series of techniques that the cults use. Together these techniques make up Mind Control.

Deception

A cult needs to recruit and operate using deception. Why?
Because if people knew their true practices and beliefs beforehand then they would not join. A cult needs to hide the truth from you until they think you are ready to accept it.

NO LEGITIMATE GROUP NEEDS TO LIE OR MISLEAD YOU ABOUT WHAT THEY PRACTICE OR BELIEVE

Deception is a phenomenon, dominating the whole activities of Rajavi’s destructive cult: they deceive people to recruit them, they deceive the recruited members to keep them in the cult, they deceive the politicmen to have their political support, and they deceive the society to have their financial support.

" For example, imagine if the leader of Heavens Gate cult was open and honest about the group and had said to new recruits, "Join us, wear strange clothes, get castrated and then drink poison!" he would not have had many takers.
A cult will have a slick well-rehearsed Public Relations front which hides what the group is really like. You will hear how they help the poor, or support research, or peace, or the environment. They will tell you how happy you will be in their group (and everyone in the cult will always seem very happy and enthusiastic, mainly because they have been told to act happy and will get in trouble if they don’t). But you will not be told what life is really like in the group, nor what they really believe. These things will be introduced to you slowly, one at a time, so you will not notice the gradual change, until eventually you are practicing and believing things which at the start would have caused you to run a mile. "

There are many evidences for any of the ways the cults deceive people to run their goals. The seven MKO members who were arrested by FBI at LA airport” were soliciting the public at the airport to give money for the so-called orphans they showed in their pictures. Thousands of dollars were collected by the MKO members and laundered to reach a bank in UAE.” In their TV shows of Camp Ashraf they always show scenic pictures of the camp, showing members chanting ,singing, playing music, marching, but this is the outside view, the reality is something completely different, members who are living in absolute isolation, without a free access to mass media, working long hours a day, are mentally and physically captured. They have to obey all the deceitful orders of the cult leaders.

By Mazdak Parsi
Reference: HowCultsWork.com

Honorable Doctors Without Borders

On Wednesday 11th of Feb 2009, a group of separated veteran members of the PMOI had a meeting with the authorities of Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in PARIS and they submitted a letter regarding their concerns about psychological pressures and an imposed unlimited hunger strike upon the residents of ASHRAF garrison by PMOI leaders and operatives.
——
HONORABLE Doctors Without Borders

We, the signatories of this important letter, would like to notify you of a humane crisis which will likely happen in ASHRAF GARRISON in the near future. We are all victims of RAJAVI’s cult and recently were able to escape Iraq and come to the free world in European countries. As you know the PMOI has participated and co-operated in killing Iraqi people during the reign of SADDAM HUSSEIN, and as a result of that they have to leave Iraq in the coming two months. The PMOI’s leader MASSOUD RAJAVI in his recent speech has ordered the residents of ASHRAF garrison to be ready to go on an unlimited hunger strike to the point of death. MASSOUD RAJAVI’s intention in issuing such a brutal and violent order is to keep those desperate and hopeless residents of ASHRAF garrison trapped in ASHRAF for the rest of their lives and not to allow them to choose the free life of which they have been deprived for decades.

This unlimited hunger strike will lead to disaster for these people. The PMOI’s leaders and operatives will exert a great deal of psychological pressure upon the desperate residents and push them to go on unlimited hunger strike to death. We would like all humanitarian organizations to intervene to stop the PMOI’s leaders and operatives from imposing such a disaster and calamity upon the residents of ASHRAF garrison.

BEST REGARDS
PARIS – 11 FEB 2009

SIGNATORIES
1.MR. HASSAN PIRANSAR
2. MR. HAMID SIAHMANSOURI
3. MR. HAMED SARAFPOUR
4. MR. NADER NADERI
5. MR. MOHAMMAD BAZIARPOUR
6. MR. MOHAMMAD RAZAGHI
7. MR. MANSOUR NAZARI

February 12, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

PMOI-NCRI: The Siamese twins of terror!

Terrorists and assassins of all ideological bases often use the same method when they understand that the violent side of their actions can serve their policy and to miss their objectives: they create a political wing.
ETA Basque party Herri Batasuna, the IRA was Sinn Fein, the Corsican FLNC took A Cuncolta Naziunalista, the CCC had the Belgian collective Red Line, etc …
Officially, there are independent terrorist groups and parties, but in reality the funding, objectives and even some leaders have in common. We think the No. 2 Sinn Fein it was known he was at one time the military leader of the IRA.
Despite these links, and connivance, it is rare that a terrorist group and its political wing are as mixed as are the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (known in French OMPI) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (the NCRI in French CNRI ). So much so that in this case, one can hardly speak of a single organization that changes its name in public or objectives of the moment.
We invite you to this radioscopy two Siamese twins of terror: PMOI / NCRI.

The NCRI: an empty shell
At its inception in 1981, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) includes around PMOI, its main component, other movements of the Iranian opposition, such as the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) , the independence movement led by Ghasem Loo, the National Democratic Front (NDF), the Hoviyat (a branch of the Fedayeen), the Union of Communists of Iran (UCI), the Workers’ Party (PT), the Union for liberation of workers (ULT), the Council of the unified left for Democracy and Independence (CGUDI) and other leftist groups.
Mujahidin however refuse the support of other opposition movements, such as the Liberation Movement of Iran (MLI) or the Freedom Party (PL), Mehdi Bazargan, the first president of the Islamic Republic of Iran and former right arm of Khomeini, the People’s Fedayeen, the Tudeh Party (Iranian Communist Party or) and the Monarchists, especially the Iranian constitutionalists (IC) and the Organization of the flag of freedom of Iran (ODLI). As for the National Front Nationalist Party of former Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, which rejects the very concept of Islamic government, he himself refused to join this forum.

Political coalition of democratic forces in Iran, which according to the so called parliament in exile, NCRI is supposed to act as a provisional government after the overthrow of the current Iranian government. Soon, its members drawn from the ranks of the Mujahidin stumble against the authoritarian style of Massoud Rajavi, whose unilateral decision to link the Council on Iraq raises a public outcry. This alliance, which is regarded by some as an act of treason, has been formally negotiated by the head of the Mujahidin Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz during a meeting in January 1983 in France. Abolhassan Bani Sadr, the most important member of NCRI, protested against this alliance . Two groups coexisted in the NCRI. The first called for the overthrow of the Islamic regime by all means, even if it means accepting help from abroad. While seeking the same goal, the second was opposed, in principle, to any foreign aid. PMOI was one of the first and will run in collaboration with Saddam Hussein during the war between Iran and Iraq.
The NCRI began a slow process of disintegration. To protest against the dictatorial methods of Massoud Rajavi (leader of PMOI), most groups that make up their deck one after another. The leader of Mujahidin which tries to control of that body, opposes any form of democratic debate within it. Mujahidin determined who could join them, which deserved the right to vote. Critics have rejected the National Council or silenced.

The Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), which officially left NCRI in 1986, explained the reasons for its departure, eight years later, in these terms:”We consider the Mujahidin, in the light of our own experience with them between 1981 and 1986, and their attitude vis-à-vis other formations of the Iranian democratic opposition, as a sectarian and undemocratic. We can not, therefore, trust their loyalty to the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people.”

Asked about the reasons for his departure from NCRI, Baba Khan Tehrani, a militant left-wing former member of the Confederation of Iranian Students (CIS), who currently lives in Hamburg, Germany, said:”The Mujahidin have not played the federating and unifying role that was supposed to be theirs. They have always sought, instead, to impose their domination and were not embarrassed to drive a wedge among the other forces of the Iranian opposition.”
Become an empty shell, the NCRI is now composed of hundreds of members (between 200 and 300 according to versions), most of the leaders of the PMOI, entirely controlled by Rajavi. Associated groups, which bear different names (Muslim Students Association, Association of Teachers and professionals Iranian .Association of Iranian women, etc..), There are only dummy. They are supposed to give the appearance of NCRI a forum bringing together”all political forces fighting the religious, dictatorship in Iran and who represent various social strata of the Iranian people,”according to the phraseology of the movement.

In this council, where individual members have voting rights equal to those groups, the membership criteria are not clearly defined. In fact, the PMOI membership that decides what he wants, which empty the instance of any legitimacy and credibility and is an additional instrument of control in the hands of a small sectarian group.

Frameworks
There are more than 110 NCRI executives also have functions within PMOI. The self-proclaimed president and official spokesman is no one other than Massoud Rajavi, grand guru of PMOI. Besides the best known figure of NCRI, is no one other than his wife Maryan Rajavi, designated (by a vote of who, for what it promises to give more freedom to Iranians …) as the future president of Iran. As a token of independence of NCRI compared to PMOI, it is bad strikeout.

In addition to the cut”divine”of Rajavi, here are 3 examples among hundreds of others that demonstrate not only the connections between PMOI and the NCRI but also prove that the NCRI has called political wing but is is a gathering of terrorists having learned just temporarily, to put a costume tie.

Mahmoud Attaei Karizi

– Member of PMOI since 1969. Responsible in 1979 of refueling para-military units of PMOI. In 1987, he became chief of the National Liberation Army (NLA), which was composed of members of PMOI and to serve as a supplementary force to the troops of Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran. It is wanted by Interpol for murder. He is responsible for the study of strategy and defense of NCRI

Fereshteh Yeganeh

– Militants in the first hours of PMOI. In 1982, she became a member of the state major terrorist operations in urban areas, responsible for numerous attacks in Iran. She was later responsible for the logistics of training camps in Iraq PMOI in 1988 and became a member Executive Committee of PMOI and eventually lead the Ashraf camp in Iraq that was the main camp of PMOI. It will eventually be the second in command of the NLA and is as such a responsibility in the massacre of Kurds who rebelled against Saddam in 1991. It is also sought by Interpol. The Democrat in the soul of NCRI is a member since 1992 and was responsible for the Committee for Research and Education.

Mahmoud Azedanlou
– Began its activities in PMOI before the Iranian Revolution. After the failure of a coup against Khomeini, he is one of the most ardent advocates of armed struggle. He became in 1985, central committee member of PMOI and come finally to the leadership of the Movement. It will also have responsibilities within the NLA and, as such, is wanted by Interpol for murder. He was in charge of the NCRI to economic issues.

In event
In essence, the”Siamese twins”terrorists do not hide their proximity. Thus on these exclusive pictures of a demonstration which took place in Brussels in November 2005 and where we see distinctly the flags of NCRI and PMOI coast to coast. Note that there is no other flag Iranian opposition organization.

For experts on terrorism also …
… There is no doubt that PMOI and the NCRI are one and the same organization. Thus in the annual report published by the U.S. State Department on terrorism, the NCRI is regarded as just another name for the People’s Mujahideen
Mujahedin-eKhalq Organization (MEK) aka MKO; Mujahedin-e Khalq, Muslim Iranian Students’ Society, National Council of Resistance, National Council of Resistance (NCR), Organization of the People’s Holy Warriors of Iran, The Army of National Liberation Iran (NLA), The People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI); Sazeman-e Mujahedin-e Khalq-e Iran (from the Country Reports on Terrorism of the U.S. Department of State )

Conclusion
PMOI / NCRI have the same leaders, the same framework, the same structure, the same practices and sectarian violence. The uniform and the Islamic veil, the insignia of paramilitary type, this shows that PMOI is the NCRI and that, whatever the name used, they are of a single sectarian and terrorist organization: the Mujahideen of the People.
The whole is that the EU does not fall into the trap of these Siamese of terror and continue to regard them as a single criminal group.
Posted by geostratos in French

February 9, 2009 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

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

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

Newer Posts

Older Posts