Massoud Rajavi

NLA, Iranian’s historical achievement

No need to say that a terrorist cult’s bastion is a matter of death and survival and that is the reason why MKO periodically upholds to groundless claims to safeguard its stronghold in Iraq. Rajavi and his propaganda machine are engaged in a never-ceasing, fervent struggle of supporting Camp Ashraf. Massoud Rajavi in his long message of January 20th once more focuses on the strategic significance of Camp Ashraf and NLA (National Liberation Army) pretending that the survival of Mojaheidn depends on keeping their ideological bastion. There is no need to say that this is merely another propaganda blitz for killing time and distracting the attention of the world from the real cultic and terrorist nature of MKO. However, he goes further making a novel claim that can be considered the latest of his serial false promises. As he puts into words:

Maryam and Ashraf proved that in the most tortuous and uneasy periods they will resist up to the last breath… Yes, now after 45 years of Mojahedin life passing in battlefields, it can be asserted that this is the supreme result of the Iranian struggle since constitutionalism in the past 103 years. It may guarantee the imminent victory of Iranians.

This illusion of grandeur and megalomania to the point of calling a cultic bastion like Camp Ashraf as the best result of Iranian struggles in last century has its roots in the Mojahedin common policy of lip service and subservience as an outdated one kept in Rajavi’s isolated museum of Camp Ashraf that is about to turn into a desolate spot after dislocation of Mojahedin. The fact is that Rajavi tries to exaggerate on the fabricated significance of Camp Ashraf from time to time under different excuses including embroidering on the position takings of some Westerners on the significance of Camp Ashraf as a result of Rajavi’s disbursing lots of money for publishing such news to infuse Ashraf residents with the idea that Western media have nothing to do but defending Camp Ashraf and the point that their resistance may result in a global support. Yet it is unclear why these European societies and media cannot persuade Iraqi Government in keeping Camp Ashraf and Rajavi has to resort to cultic procedures. The fact is that his supporters and advocators in defending Camp Ashraf are a number of retied politicians as well as some covering institutes under his command.

It seems that Rajavi has been persuaded that his tricks are of no use and new methods are required to divert the attention of Ashraf residents from realities. The new assertion of Rajavi in his message of January 20th can be evaluated in this regard. Taking a brief look at the past history of the organization and NLA may clarify the situation. Rajavi is like the man claiming to stand in the middle of the earth needing no reason for proving his assertion since nobody troubles himself to test this claim measuring all over the earth to find its middle point. Likewise, Rajavi can claim that his army is the fruit of 103 years struggle in Iran with no logical reason. Even if his whopper is accepted for his consolation, he has to bear in mind that the imminent annihilation of NLA and Camp Ashraf is equal to the total destruction of 103-year achievement of Iranians. Who can believe in such a groundless and false claim except a number of brainwashed victims of a cult of personality?

Rajavi’s grandiose claims have many irrecoverable consequences paid mainly by NLA and Ashraf residents as his false promise of short-time overthrow failed and was replaced by a promise of 6-month, 1-year and long-term overthrow that resulted in an organizational split in MKO. Rajavi has to bear into mind that time is not a phenomenon to be stopped or controlled. As three decades passed and his false promises were disclosed, his present claims will be tested in near future and may end in more disgrace for him. He can make many other false claims too, yet finally the truth will overcome illusion and fantasy and the global community will identify the real terrorist nature of Mojahedin and its leadership.

It seems that Rajavi is drowning in illusion trying to overlook what the reality is. As Don Quixote failed to recognize the reality surrounding him, Rajavi seems to live in an everlasting dream. He is far from understanding that a revolution cannot be achieved overnight through an outdated strategy and false promises. The time will prove the insubstantiality of Rajavi’s claims and then he has to answer what has been the basis of his so-called 103-year result of Iranian history that came to an end by a light breeze.

March 9, 2010 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi comes to answer!

It is common in any relatively closed, hierarchical system with an emphasis on respectful and unquestionable obedience to the leader, on whom no sufficient checks and balances is placed, that nothing can make the leader accountable to the followers and to the outside world. For sure you will be cynical when you read a leader in guiding other people’s evolution claims his readiness to be accountable for his misdeeds. You may even become more suspicious especially when you hear Massoud Rajavi, believing in the necessity of deceiving unenlightened to rule over them and to advance his cult-like ambitions, is making the claim. In his message of January 20, he calls a set of imaginary audiences and declares his readiness to be accountable for the charges imposed on him during the last three decades from inside and outside the organization:
… for the time being I suffice to mention a point on Mojahedin, NLA, council of resistance and heavy charges made against us on the part of the regime as well as its agents and supporters. I am committed to account for all accusations and to clarify them for the Iranian people.
The reason why Rajavi has seemingly retreated his egocentric position of unaccountability to the inferiors is not clear; however, his statements imply that he still deems all these accusations related to the Iranian regime and its agents. As a result, he never trouble himself to answer these questions and doubts and also accuses his critics as infiltrators and agents of the Iranian regime. However, since his desired audience is outside the cultic circle of his organization and unfamiliar with his past history, Rajavi’s democratic and self-righteous gesture may justify it that coming to answer the questions posed on him is his absolute right. In this regard, we are to take a brief look at the concept of accountability in MKO’s organizational and ideological system and ideological revolution as well as the past history of Rajavi and his companions in defining this concept. Although these discussions are not novel or significant for those who have experienced the relations of Rajavi, they may be of a high interest for those having a superficial familiarity with the organization. The statements made by Mehdi Abrishamchi, the ex-husband of Rajavi’s present wife (Maryam Azdanlu), on the position of MKO leader may clarify the demagogic and fallacious claims of Rajavi. Referring to the concept of monotheism, Abrishamchi writes:
Theoretically, we know that God is one, yes there is one God and that is the main principle of our ideology yet the significant point is knowing the effects of this principle on the life of individuals.
Furthermore, he materializes the social effect and function of the monotheism:

In a summary, when an individual knows the leadership of the revolution and put him in his own position and notices not to be entangled with those issues whose solution lays in the hands of the leader, his intervention in ideological issues will be equal to his general echelon of qualifications in the organization and a balance is achieved. This individual never takes any position upper than that of the leadership in ideological recognition, if so, he may be claiming the position of the leader who is to be followed.
In a nutshell, inside the ideological, political, and organizational framework of Rajavi and also the larger echelon of the organization, any doubt and question on leadership and his actions, purposes and objectives is equal to an attempt of usurping and claiming the leadership status; from the viewpoint of Abrishamchi and Rajavi it is absolute polytheism and heresy whose punishment is organizational and ideological apostasy. According to Abrishamchi:
As mentioned already, inferiors to the ideological leader and his deputy are all accountable to them and their own upper-rankings. Yet, who is Massoud accountable to? Just to revolution. Ideologically, he is accountable to nobody except God. All members have rankings to whom they are accountable yet Masoud is not accountable to anyone except God.
He openly states that anyone coming to doubt the leadership and to question him has intentionally or unintentionally put himself in the position of God. In other words, as God is not accountable to anybody, MKO’s leadership is not accountable to the inferiors as well. In fact “Leadership can not bear any accountability to the inferiors”.
Now the question is that what is the destiny of someone who failed to recognize the defined position of the leadership in the organization and wanted to deal with it like the ordinary relations of the society? Abrishamchi takes the same position as that of Rajavi in this statement and puts the critic in the position of a convict to be charged with any accusation like being a detached member, betrayer and infiltrator:
As soon as we sit to judge Massoud and make accusations against him, and since his past history of competence looms in our mind, we immediately notice we can be a judge of this court just when we are not charged and accused ourselves since we have to first ponder our own charges to be able to speak about the accused one (Massoud).
It has to be pointed out that if the statements of Abrishamchi are not confirmed by Rajavi or he deems them to be distorted or changed he is welcomed to deny them completely. In this way, it may be reasonable to confirm Rajavi’s honesty in his recent statement. Of course, these are some instances of Rajavi’s failure in bearing criticism and accountability. He has always promised to answer ambiguities and questions arisen yet breaks his promise to kill time. We can also refer to the destiny of a number of the critics of Rajavi inside organization who had a tragic ending like fabricated suicide, accident, drowning, self-immolation, escape, heart attack, etc and have been buried somewhere in camp Ashraf or even outside the martyred cemetery of Mojahedin mainly because Rajavi calls them fetid bodies. Others were slaughtered in forced military operations like Eternal Light and thus, Rajavi not only succeeded to get rid of them all but also benefitted a propaganda blitz on their death as martyrs.

*All references are quoted from two speeches made by Mehdi Abrishamchi titled “on the ideological revolution inside MKO”.

March 6, 2010 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Solution or an escape from challenges

The concerns that had been challenges to MKO’s leadership in the past three decades can be well met in Rajavi’s message of January 20. Of the main issues is that of overthrowing and changing the Iranian regime. The strategic cul-de-sac and failures of Mojahedin in recent years have resulted in taking some cursory policies including declaring short-term overthrow, entering the phases of armed warfare with an emphasis on urban warfare, formation of the so-called liberation army and finally resorting to western trends and politicians. However, his message indicates that he has not abandoned the failed strategy of the imminent overthrow of the regime that he has focused on in all these years. His new transition to instigation of insurgency and uprising in Iran in his recent messages is based on his superficial analysis of the internal conditions of Iran in an attempt to tie himself to the regime’s critics. Referring to this transition as the strategy of uprising and overthrow he states:

In answering to strategic questions on uprising and overthrow, it has to be clarified primarily that they are not to be answered immediately nor chimerical and delusive solution are to be found since their solving depends greatly on the occurrence of some events that have not yet happened. I mean logical analysis and thinking is mainly founded on certain conditions rather than on astrology and prevision. In other words, if the conditions are not clear enough to be understood, the first thing to do is trying to get a true understanding of them.

Before expounding on these claims, the common policy of overhanging and gamesmanship of Rajavi is to be taken into consideration. He pretends to be the sole solution for the existing challenges in Iran. Promising strategic solutions to the future conditions due to political considerations are instances of this gamesmanship and it may instill some readers with the idea that he may solve many problems inside Iran. Rajavi makes an attempt to infuse the idea that internal protestors and critics in Iran are agog to follow strategic guidelines and solutions offered by Rajavi to respond to encountered challenges. Although the internal issues of Iran have nothing to do with the outdated solutions of Rajavi and his armed and aggressive strategy, Rajavi resorts to connivance.

Evidently, Rajavi is to misuse recent disturbances in Iran. His unstable situation in Iraq, intra organizational crises and many other unsolvable challenges resulting from his lack of support and political legitimacy in Iran have made him to get rid of his present challenges by various levers including propaganda blitz and fabrication. The publication of his serial message in recent months can be evaluated in this regard. However, his January 20th message demonstrates that he is taking a new approach different from the past ones. Some differences and his objectives will be mentioned hereinafter.

1. The main objective pursued by Rajavi, particularly after delivering the message of January 20th, is infusing this idea that the depicted visage of Mojahedin in books or articles by the Iranian regime for global community is a distorted and unreal. The main part of his message is refusing the terrorist nature of Mojahedin; an issue that seems to be of a high significance for him.

2. He also tries to conform to Iranian internal critics and pretends that Mojahedin have originally been a democratic and non-aggressive trend yet the policies of the regime have victimized it by advertizing it as an aggressive organization. He mainly aims at distracting the attention of the world of the terrorism nature of MKO to the sympathy of the world.

3. His next objective is pretending that the present critics in Iran are reminders of Mojahedin who are following its footsteps after three decades absence of the organization from Iran’s political arena.

4. Furthermore, he makes the demands of Mojahedin parallel to that of Iranian internal critics and invites them to enjoy his facilities as well as strategic and tactical solutions and guidelines for meeting these demands.

5. Being aware of the fact that the internal political conflicts in Iran are solvable, knowing that the organization is of no place therein, Rajavi tries to usurp the power of their body after a short and superficial support of the leaders of Iranian critics. A look at the position taking of Rajavi during the recent Iranian election reveals that he has already noticed his lack of social support in Iran and the fact that his intervention may even endanger the social as well as political status of the critics.

In spite of all his attempts to cover his totalitarian and authoritarian visage under a pro-democratic mask, he fails to bear hearing any voice other than his own due to his egocentric and authoritative nature. His focus on giving the Iranian critics some strategic and tactical solutions has its roots in his megalomania that is evident in various parts of his message.

March 1, 2010 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi’s Revolutionary Cul-du-sac

The fugitive leader of Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO, MEK, PMOI) has started writing his memoirs to allegedly inform the Iranian youth. In the ninth part of his serial messages, he has used his last card to achieve the support of Western countries as well as other so-called opposition leaders. Massoud Rajavi addresses Reza Pahlavi (the son of the Shah of Iran) to join his alleged resistance movement

Particularly Massoud Rajavi addresses Reza Pahlavi (the son of the Shah of Iran) to join his alleged resistance movement and invites him to attend his imaginary presidential election in an Iran where there would be a democratic republic state separated from religion!

Why? After decades of accusing Pahlavi of treasons and crimes and struggling against them, Rajavi makes a U-turn and begs the remnant of Pahlavi Dynasty for support. Although Reza Pahlavi does not enjoy a significant role among Iranian opposition leaders, Massoud Rajavi seeks his impact in the US government. That’s why he directly asks Reza Pahlavi to defend PMOI and to try for its removal from terror list of Department of State.

Former members of MKO remember the Mujahed Journal (official journal of MKO) in which Rajavi had attacked US then-president Clinton who had visited Reza Pahlavi in a restaurant. Now what a change that Rajavi asks Reza “to serve his compatriots”

The illusions of Masud Rajavi have led him to a phase where he views himself as an important figure among Iranian politic men. But it is clear that Iranian’s political memory never recalls Massoud Rajavi as a notable political person but as a traitor and criminal.

Thus, the only use of such a message to the son of former Shah of Iran is paving the way for further approaches towards US government and getting removed from the list of FTOs.

Resorting to such a policy, Massoud Rajavi ruined the revolutionary background he had always pretended to have among his supporters.

However, he had already changed his slogans and claims numerous times. This time he clearly and openly contradicts all his previous slogans just as a futile effort to gain the support of the West. His message proved that all his decision and policies are made in accordance with “temporary benefits” not with his beliefs.

By Mazda Parsi

February 20, 2010 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi’s message, an art of collage

Rajavi’s 20 January message seems to be a turning point for Mojahedin Khalq Organization, a foreseeable message although a little late. Unlike Rajavi’s previous messages that were stereotypically repetitious claims, his new rhetoric is blusters for the third post-revolution generation who hardly know anything about him and his organization. This new step may have been taken because he had already been notified by the theoreticians of his red-movement that the Iranian third generation neither knew him nor considered any political and social weight for him. Usually turning a deaf ear to the warnings of advisers, this time it seems that he has bended his ears to advices to deliver a different message that is a turning point in accepting bitter truths. But, alas, he can never abandon the bad habit of going straight to the point and, as usual, he first brags the highness of his status and then holds onto rhetoric to justify his thirty-year long absence from Iran’s political arena. But, as he always feels others are indebted to him and he has no spare time to waste on inconsequential questions, he prefers to engage in polemics concerning Iranian future.

But he still fails to be relieved of the phantom that the generation he is addressing has never troubled its mind about him and his organization as the former believes the latter are a piece of Iran’s past history. Only some acquainted with the stalemates and crises the organization has recently encountered can realize what is bothering Rajavi at the present. He has been under the direct attack and criticism of the insiders and the outsiders as well as other opposition from among the ultra-left to the ultra-right. Undesirable consequences being inevitable, he is preempting to deter challenges that can further mire him and his organization. As a result, once you hear him claiming to be the instigating engine of Iran’s post-election riots, while he complains of being politically stagnated and does not hesitate to swear that terrorist tag is an attached stigma to smear the organization. But he can never deny that he is still ideologically loyal to Marx when he says:

The important point is that Marx remarks that ‘the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it’. Of course, Marx has deduced this necessity from social evolution and the historical dialectic. However, it draws us near to the conception of ‘man’s responsibility’. I have no access to texts now but if my mind helps me remind forty years ago, this is the core of Che’ Guevara’s analysis of Marx when he said ‘this is the very same point where the pens have to put down to pick up rifles to change the world’.

That is what Rajavi and all those defected members, whom he calls deserters and the agents of the Islamic Republic, have done in a thirty year-long armed struggle- grabbing guns rather than pens and peaceful campaign. On the one hand he claims to have received letters and questions from inside Iran through a variety of means and routes, on the other hand he forgets all he has said so far by stating “I tell you to know that what the regime has all these years published and distributed in its prisons and its-controlled organs under the name of Mojahedin are untrustworthy. They are either fabricated or distorted to achieve the intended goals and to instill what they want”.

In spite of Rajavi’s exploitation of all social and political schools of thought to convince the third generation they have been deprived of such a great personality and the source of secret knowledge, that is himself, his message is a mixture of ambiguities delivered from a nowhere. A message from a so-called leader whose whereabouts are unknown for those who he calls to recognize, appreciate and follow. It is neither similar to a political statement nor an organizational pronouncement and nor is it in any way a political-ideological pamphlet of instruction. It is much similar to a collage and he is like a collagist who has stuck different pieces of subjects each with a different definition and color together. It is clear that the message has emerged out of a confused mind that is itself escaping from the reality that it had to accept long ago. Anyone looking at Rajavi’s work of collage can easily discern a depicted picture of Rajavi’s betrayal, violence and egocentric ambitions recorded in the history.

February 14, 2010 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Paranoid delusions, Rajavi’s adopted solution

What is of great significance in Rajavi’s 20 January message that seems to be continued for some time is his paranoid delusions. Going through Iran’s past thirty-year history by weaving together distortions and misreports that may only emit from a paranoid mind, he is trying to put the blame of all ideological, political and strategic failures of all these years on external intrigues against his organization. Such fabrications seem to be the most influential and simple way of finding excuses to justify all his errors, defect Rajavi’s paranoid delusions is rooted in megalomania, his sense of inferiority and his attempt to escape from reality. s and failures. To find out the reasons for adopting such hypocritically untrustworthy approach, it has to be studied from different aspects.

Somebody who suffers from megalomania, as the illness is associated with a narcissistic personality disorder that strongly influences one’s mental and physical functions, feels he is under constant judgment of others. As he views himself as more important than he is and has an unrealistic belief in his superiority, he is under delusion that he is engaged in a constant conflict with adversaries who are supposed to have formed a united front for his demise. He has the misconception that the world is against him and is cynical about whatever happens in the world as a plot against him. He views himself as morally superior with the willingness to sacrifice, kill, or risk the safety of others considered inferior in order to assert his own agendas while absolutely disregards legitimate circumstances in which he must submit to legitimate measures. As he feels superior, he hallucinates a big gap distancing him from others who seek to fill the gap by non-ceasing conspiracy and collusion. He feels that others are jealous of him and that he is infallible of any mistake and error; he blames and accuses others for whatever failure and stalemate and feels a need for continuous praise for any, although unreasonable to many, achieved goals. He feels deeply wounded by any type of criticism and maybe what has caused Don Quixote to survive through the ages is his repeated boasts of strength and courage adhered to by a megalomaniac who is juxtaposed with Don Quixote.

A sense of inferiority is another face of the megalomania coin that motivates one’s paranoid delusions. If the sense of inferiority fails to juxtapose with the reality, the outcome will be a mental complex that makes one to begrudge what others have and he has failed to achieve for some reasons or has been deprived of as a result of dogmatic conceptions. Such a man when faces a situation to defend or, in contrast, to attack resorts to justifications and becomes a prey a delusion that all those around him are his enemies. The main cause of paranoia is a sense of inferiority that may be caused by a variety of condition such as failure, disgust, sense of guilt and in this delusion, people of an aggressive temperament often jeopardize the security of the society they live in.

Escape from reality can also develop a delusion that all around one are engaged in conspiracy against him. He never seeks the roots of his problems in realities; in contrast he makes his best not to open his eyes on the reality and prefers to continue his quest for reliable and scientific causes in a world of fantasy and illusion. But he, as an example of the age of wisdom and science, is likened surprisingly to the very same prehistoric men who had hardly any notion of reality; as, for instance, they knew nothing about the origin of such a blessing like the rain, they had come to believe that it omened a cabal of visible and invisible enemies. The difference lies in the fact that some people of the modern age know the realities but prefer to escape from them and accuse the illusionary enemies to justify their flaws and failures.

The fact is that Rajavi’s paranoid delusions is rooted in megalomania, his sense of inferiority and his attempt to escape from reality. His approach to put the blame on illusionary enemies for being stagnated in political, strategic and ideological backwater has turned to be a tactic to find an outlet to escape the crises and stalemates. In no way it is intended to disapprove the Islamic Republic of Iran as Rajavi’s illusionary enemy but the fact that Rjavi attributes any event and encountered crisis to the Iranian regime is a matter of consideration. When it comes to talk about the dossier of 17 June and the French governments issued arrest warrant for Maryam Rajavi on terrorist charges, the organization refers to it as a “result of political appeasement between the Iranian regime and France”. In relation to its collaboration with the ousted Iraqi dictator, it calls it the regime’s propaganda artifice and “media fabrications against the Liberation Army and the National Council of Resistance”. Concerning its ideological revolution and forced divorces, again it calls it an act of “censorship, fabrications and bruit by the regime”. When asking about the disclosures made by the defected members, it just accuses the regime’s Ministry of Information and labels the defected as “the infiltrated agent”. To acquit itself of the terrorist charges it quotes Struan Stevenson, MEP, saying “Once some officials from the UK Ministery of Foreign Affairs came to me asking to stop baking MKO. They insisted to have access to sound evidences that proved it was a terrorist group. When I asked to see them, they refused saying they were confidential. Now, in the course of the UK Court of Appeal the judges have ruled publication of the evidences which I read just to find that they were nothing but fabrication woven by the regime’s Ministery of Information and its run media”.

Suppression and killing of the Iraqi Kurds? Of course, “the scenes of Kurds and Shi’its massacre are entirely blatant fabrications conceived by the regime’s paid agents talking as the defected members of the National Council of Resistance”. A question may form in one’s mind that, then, the organization has done nothing wrong so far. But it answers, “we does not mean to say we have made no error, but, frankly speaking, not all the questions have to be necessarily furnished by correct answers and they must not be publicized for information and security and political concerns especially when they concern a political movement that is under frequent blows”.

Rajavi’s organizational worldview compels him to see the silhouette of an imaginary enemy just in attacking position. Although it originates from an ill mind, however, it is a working excuse to escape from reality, to leave questions unanswered, to ward off threats, to be acquitted of any charges and more. It is Rajavi’s adopted strategy not only for present but for some forethought and preparation that is necessary for the achievement of future plans.

February 9, 2010 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi’s worldview of violence and death

Sometimes it is really a hard job to distinguish terrorists from others of their kind or how they perceive themselves since hardly any terrorist group openly admits to be a terrorist entity. They call themselves guerrillas, fighters, warriors, revolutionaries and many other names. It is generally their ideological views that permit them to use violence to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives. “The mindset of a terrorist group reflects the personality and ideology of its top leader and other circumstantial traits, such as typology (religious, social revolutionary, separatist, anarchist, and so forth), a particular ideology or religion, culture, and nationality, as well as group dynamics.” 1

Based on many significant evidences, there are points referred to by members and the leader of Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO, MEK, PMOI, NCRI) that may lead to arrive at a deep understanding of the ideological-political indoctrinations of the terrorist cult. Furthermore, the analysis of the theoretical viewpoints of Masoud Rajavi may pave the way for depicting a clear profile of the true nature of his cultist-terrorist organization. Of the organization’s radical ideological principles is the theory of “transcending death”, disruption of the life-death equilibrium point where death is glorified and replaces strive for life. It has been manifested in various forms including suicide operations, bombing attacks (like the terror of prayer leaders in Iran), the remonstrant self-immolations (like the events of 17 June), forming human shields (like that of camp Ashraf in this year that led to the death of some members), or organizational hunger strikes that may lead to the death of some individuals (as Maryam Rajavi and MKO has warned the international bodies of a human disaster in camp Ashraf due to hunger strike), and other novel forms.

The statements of Mrs. Batool Soltani, the detached member of MKO leadership cadre, on suicide attacks contain striking points to start determining the roots of the pathological inclinations of Mojahedin. She states The aggressive approach of Mojahedin is not rooted in the will of an individual yet is more dependent on the Rajavi’s worldview on struggle, evolution and such fundamental concepts:

Being a product of Rajavi’s own mind-set than a methodological study, I think Rajavi has deduced that when man can so easily sacrifice his life, so he is capable of achieving distant, inaccessible goals. When it is politically and morally, from a certain ideological point of view, acceptable to use unconventional tactics such as violence and fear to achieve certain goals, then why should one waste time to stick to others that fail to be productive at all. 2

This assertion is seemingly the result of the practical approach of Rajavi and MKO toward the social phenomena yet in reviewing the ideological-political fundamentals of Mojahedin and the worldview of Masoud Rajavi in particular, such indoctrinations can be traced. The founders of the organization developed the theory of “transcending death” in the early years of the organization and Masoud Rajavi has extended with countless terrible results. The main challenge is that Rajavi generalizes ecological and general rules governing other phenomena to that of the society and social relations. His problem lies in the fact that he has a dogmatist viewpoint toward social and historical conditions, believing:

We accept evolution and revolution as a general principle either in the concrete world or in the nature or society. 3

According to his viewpoints, the concept of revolution or qualitative transformations in the world are not materialized but by turning the old into the new and resorting to eradication and violence. The generalization of this rule to social relations is a process pursued by Rajavi. He considers evolution not as a concrete concept but an inevitable tradition resulting from violence, aggression, victimization, torture, and struggle:

The tradition of creation is based on the principle that the “new” wins through conflict, victimization, and torture. The solution of these conflicts depends on victimization since evolution is always followed by mutation and revolution. 4

Rajavi claims that he has extracted this rule from the nature generalizing it to social and historical relations of human beings:

Our mother nature is itself revolutionary rather than reformist. It never moves step by step and never summits to such process. 5

In this way, Rajavi attributes any transition and evolution in the society and history on victimization, eradication and violence and denies the possibility of any rational, democratic and peaceful solution inside social relations due to its conflict with biological rules of the world. He refers to the principle of dissatisfaction and discontent of the existing conditions of the societies as the basis of the existing conflicts and violence in human societies and states:

The dynamisms of evolution are discontent and dissatisfaction. 6

Also, he equals any balance between an individual, group, organization with the surrounding world or any submission to the social and democratic norms to death and annihilation and a barrier for evolution and says:

Submitting to the existing conditions and failing to rise firmly and strongly against conditions as well as balance may lead to demise. 7

According to Rajavi, discontent (that can be taken as uncivil reaction) is the result of disequilibrium among the individual, group, or organization the surrounding area, i.e. society.

In this way, the individual is prepared for any uncivil and anti-social action. Rajavi tries to interpret this rule in simple words generalizing it into social- revolutionary relations:
For example, cold and hunger disrupt man’s sleep. When can you sleep? When you are to some extent full and warm to achieve balance. Then man can sleep. These trance balances –that are condemned by us- and these self-consents are the beginning of collapse and departing from the path of evolution. Since we are no more pursuing evolution and are static and motionless. Since our evolution (regardless of being an individual, group, or organization) has reached its end. 8

Rajavi attributes the mechanism of unity with the rules of evolution to the extent and quality of discontent or in other words the extent to which the individual, group, or organization are prepared to act against the social norms. He acknowledges openly that accepting torture and victimization are the focal points of this preparation and any attempt for replacing the old with the new should undergo such a process; otherwise, it may be futile:

The tradition of creation is that the “new” wins through conflict, victimization, and torture to confirm its qualification in fighting against contradictions. Therefore, it gains competency for survival, not a vain and illusionary qualification but a true and credible one. Otherwise, the torrent of selecting the competent may eradicate it. 9

In this regard, this preparation is manifested in various forms including exerting violence on others and oneself like torture, suicide attacks either for eradicating outside targets or making the society to submit by self-immolations as well as resisting civil regulations by means of all instruments and levers. Rajavi expounds on this preparation, stating:

Therefore we are open to resist harsh conditions when we face them; to find a solution for the problem of torture for example. Torture is a terrible and painful experience but cannot it be overcome? We have already talked about the Davidenkov experiment. What did it reveal? Which system was under the dominance of the other? As we said, the system of secondary signs not instincts governs in humans. The solution of the problem of torture is in the same cadre. A revolutionary under the torture can tolerate and bear it without saying even a single word. I want to note one point that our inner power is to be manifested and externalized. 10

The power referred to by Rajavi is that of preparation for “transcending death”. That is to say, the disrupted equilibrium between the life and death provokes the members to be ready for death under any condition when engaged in abnormally anarchistic deeds to disturb ruling social norms. Here death aims either at annihilating the enemies or making the society to submit to the will of the so-called revolutionary forces. From the very formation of MKO, the prerequisite for joining was accepting of death predilection to confront whoever the organization indicated as the adversaries. In Rajavi’s novel interpretation of “transcending death”, it is defined as absolute dedication, blind obedience and submission to leadership.

References:

1.The sociology and psychology of terrorism: who becomes a terrorist and why?; library of Congress, September 1999.2.Sahar family Foundation site, interviews of Mrs. Batool Soltani on suicide attacks, part 29. 3.Worldview, vol. 8, lectures of Masoud Rajavi in Tehran University, MKO publication, Tehran, 1980. 4.ibid.5.ibid, vol. 3.6.ibid, vol. 8.7.ibid.8.ibid.9.ibid.10.ibid.

January 11, 2010 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi’s big lies and misinformation apparatus

Rajavi’s disinformation apparatus, like its other misleading networks, are engaged in never ceasing propaganda, political and cultic activities in an attempt to influence on public opinion through the distorted information. The least thing observed in this ever-going blitz is ethics, that is to say, Rajavi is strictly adhering to Machiavellian codes to use available means to achieve objectives. What is most vivid in Rajavi’s ethical values in his conducts is novel definitions for these values like trustfulness, veracity and honesty.

To what extent can Rajavi be trusted in ethical considerations requires a thorough unearth of his ideological principles in this respect. In practice, it is a matter of fundamental inconsistency in the normative ethics and Rajavi defines ethics according to the interests and goals he attempts to achieve. In his newly defined ethical literature, the unethical can be identical with the ethical in the same way that wrong and right can be.

As defined in one of the organization’s early ideological, instructional pamphlets, “right can be transformed according to certain time and setting conditions”. Also “It might be possible that some means is right to use in certain conditions since it helps to achieve an end”. “There is another condition wherein the very same means is wrong because it can no more lead us to accomplish our ends.”

Thus, consistency, which is the hallmark of ethics, is absent in Mojahedin’s literature of ethics that is full of contradictions. Ethics requires consistency in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining Mojahedin’s ethical standards uncover inconsistencies that totally go against the standard values.

Stated by Rajavi, “all phenomena are constantly changing and moving and none are consistent”. No doubt, Rajavi’s inductions play a decisive role in his relations with the outside world and he has been facing a big challenge for his publicity as a violator of dominant ethical standards. Even Americans through multitudes of reports on Mojahedin have repeatedly reiterated the duality of the organization in its conducts and relations. Regardless of few advocates that try to criticize propagations they believe to be aimed at discrediting the organization, there is a broad consensus on the untrustworthiness of Mojahedin and that, they adhere to Machiavellian ethical codes to accomplish their ends.

As an evidence, take Rajavi’s message of November 4 in which he, concerning Camp Ashraf, states:
Mojahedin in Ashraf welcome the present Iraqi Government’s plan to be transferred to a third country from among the country members of the European Union or the United States.
Reading these lines, one may come to believe that the Iraqi Government has already conferred with the mentioned states to reach an agreement for the relocation of Ashraf residents. That is true that the Iraqi Government welcomes any country that will accept the organization but it has never named any certain host so far. Furthermore, the authorities have asserted that none of the 25 countries they have engaged in talks on behalf of Mojahedin to host it have agreed to accept the group. We do not know the basics of his claims but his misinformation will have their effect as he intends.

Here is another excerpt from his message:
The Iraqi Government must respect the rights of Ashraf residents according to the European Parliament’s Resolution issued on 24 April 2009 until they are transferred to the U.S. member countries of the E.U.

Some may infer that the message points to the alternates of the organization’s relocation settings agreed by the EU’s Resolution while it has nothing to do with the host countries but requiring the Iraqi Government to respect the rights of Ashraf residents. A look at the EU’s Resolution talks for itself.

Somewhere else he states:
The fighters of the National Liberation Army (NLA) surrendered 20 thousand pieces of arms and 20 thousand tones of ammunition to the American forces as a deal to give them protection until the ultimate solution.

Those who are unaware of the consequent invasion of the coalition forces and the seizure of the arms depots in Ashraf by American forces may be misled by such words that may imply the organization has surrendered its arms willingly to guarantee the camp’s security and that, the arms will be returned to them after its issue has been dealt with. It seems that Rajavi has learned his lessons associated with propaganda, conjuring lies and deceit from the known instructor of them, that is Joseph Goebbels; a master of the "Big Lie” who is quoted “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. And in fact, it has been the infrastructure of Rajavi’s propaganda machine at least during the past thirty years.

December 8, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi’s strategic bastion on sale

Rajavi and his propaganda machine are engaged in a never-ceasing, fervent struggle of supporting Camp Ashraf and encouraging the insiders to resist against the pushes to evacuate the organization’s strategic bastion.

While the organization consents to leave Iraq for a third country where it hopes to be the United The past events demonstrate proven evidences that Rajavi bargains anything to satiate his voracious appetite for the power and egocentric ambitions States or a country member of the EU, particularly after being removed from its list terrorist groups, it warns against the outbreak of a human tragedy in the camp. Nevertheless, the reports indicate that the Iraqi Government is decisive to close the camp and expel the insiders, regardless of MKO’s attempts to convince its advocates to support its stay in Iraq. The government’s determination fully comprehended, Rajavi sees no other option but to weigh anchor willingly or unwillingly.

The reality of the decision curing him of many fantasies and forcing him to act down-to-earth, Rajavi has taken a new turn to make a profitable deal before leaving the camp; to put a price on the camp.

His 200 million dollars demand for Ashraf is believed to be leading the Iraqi Government to face a serious law-suit challenge vis-a-vis the organization. Although drafted to prolong the group’s stay in Iraq, no doubt it is a problem that will be dealt with and has no effect on the arrived decision to expel the terrorists from Iraq. MKO knows well that none of its claimed, advertized millions of supporters will avail to annul what has already been decided and the victories it periodically trumpets to have achieved are nothing but an abuse of the humanitarian moves taken by the Iraqi Government to demonstrate its respect for human rights and global conventions.

Of other parameters that to a great extent disinclined Ashraf residents from reasoning to incline to Rajavi’s wrangling messages that has mislead their minds is occasional, social commotions inside Iran.

Receiving biased information about what is really going on in Iran, the members inside Ashraf are under the impact of misinformation and the illusion that they are the final winners of the riots that Rajavi refers to as revolution. Deceptive as his messages are not only them but any simple-mined in abroad may easily establish conformity between the demands of some protestors living in Iran and those of Rajavi’s group that has long lost its popularity; chanting demands of democracy, the Iranian protestors prefer to be ruled by any regime but that of led by the Rajavis.

The concluding words of Rajavi in his message of November 4, after putting a price on Ashraf, are boasting about the potentiality of Ashraf residents to overthrow the regime side by side of the Iranian people.

How can he bargain so precious a whole potentiality that can so easily play a decisive role to change a regime! But the members residing in Ashraf have to face the reality that Camp Ashraf, with all its potentialities and the made sacrifices, is on sale and the price is set by the very same person who encourages the members to resist. An estate on sale will be sold whether or not the residents like it.

The sole solution for the insiders before the sale debases them is to preserve the last vestiges of their honor and come to know their own real price. The past events demonstrate proven evidences that Rajavi bargains anything to satiate his voracious appetite for the power and egocentric ambitions. Rajavi’s past is full of such bargains whose victims are either suffering from incurable, sore wounds or regretting for the past mistakes of losing dignity in the company of a charlatan.

November 29, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Ashraf, Rajavi’s favored horse to ride

Rajavi’s message of November 4, seemingly addressed to Iranian mobs who instigated the recent sporadic domestic crises, is nothing more than desperate struggle to cease the already started measures to put an end to the issue of Mojahedin in Iraq and the Camp Ashraf residents in particular. The message contains points that explicitly indicate, in contrast to Rajavi’s But Rajavi never mentions who has paid for the construction of Ashraf instantaneous reaction to and analysis of the post-election social chaos, Rajavi has completely lost any hope of exploiting the opportunity to expend it for the accomplishment of organizational causes. Starting with lines of repetitious slogans and slanders that are typical of his messages, he suddenly changes to the main issue, that is Camp Ashraf, to express his concern about its future.

Of course, as usual his tone is threatening and warns the Iraqi Government of a possible human tragedy inside the camp and those acquainted with his words know well what he means by the stated “human tragedy”. Although he accepts the relocation of the camp to a third country, preferably to the United States or a country member of the European Union as he names, the move is subject to certain conditions that he knows will not be accomplished at least until the end of 2011. Of the interesting points to mention is his demand of over 200 million dollars as the price of Camp Ashraf from the Iraqi Government. He states:

Mojahedin in Ashraf welcome and respect the recent plan of the Iraqi Government to relocate them to a third country from among the member countries of the EU or the U.S. with the provision that the issue of their properties and belongings there, all the result of their travail for 23 years, that exceed 200 million dollars is dealt with under the judgment of the international lawyers and according to the articles 52 and 53 of the Hague Convention.

But he never mentions who has paid for the construction of Ashraf. A look at the documents disclosing huge amounts of dollars Saddam had allocated to Mojahedin indicates the real owners of the camp; for sure, if brought before the Hague Tribunal, Rajavi fails to be recognized the owner but the Iraqi poor people whose money was expended for the unwanted guests. No doubt, Mojahedin were empty handed when they arrived at Iraq in 1986 and in need of aid. Now, Rajavi has to explain how he managed to build a “city” with an empty pocket or where all the aids came from? But it is not only the question of the expenses and aids spent for Ashraf. As Rajavi points out:

The fighters of the National Liberation Army (NLA) surrendered 20 thousand pieces of arms and 20 thousand tones of ammunition to the American forces as a deal to give them protection until the ultimate solution.

Not speaking of all those granted sums of dollars by Saddam as well as paying for daily military, logistics, espionage and training expenses. However, nobody questions him why on the one hand he is trying to connect his organization to the periodically fomented crises in Iran that he believes will promise an imminent victory while on the other hand he does his utmost to stay in Iraq and to postpone the organization’s expulsion. We read:

First, the United Nation has prohibited any forceful relocation of Ashraf residents as protected persons. Second, we least expect the American forces to guarantee any violent assault against the residents and their relocation to another camp in Iraq until the end of 2011. Third, the Iraqi Government must respect the rights of Ashraf residents according to the European Parliament’s Resolution issued on 24 April 2009 until they are transferred to the U.S. member countries of the E.U.

Rajavi himself knows better than anybody that the best thing to do at the present is to do and say nothing since at least the past thirty years has proved that his promised democratic revolution is nothing more that childish fancies and that he is living by fancies and slogans rather than reality. How can he chants the slogans of leading a revolution while he is hiding somewhere far behind the people he tries to push and instigate for violence as a move to fulfill democracy? Where are these so-called vanguards of revolution and what are their legal rights when, in his message, he says:

By respecting the Iraqi sovereignty and all countries wherein the members, supporters and sympathizers of Mojahedin Khalq Organization reside, we insist on our legal rights to our last breath.”

We have nothing to do with whom are harboring Rajavi and his close disciples but one thing is clear that his stressed legal rights are acceptance of him and his adherents in the referred countries; that is the essence of his message and what you can read between the lines of his blustering and fuss. This message, as were his last messages and will be the case with his future one, focuses on the preservation of Ashraf as his cult’s main abode rather than leaving for any far better host country. To depict it in a figurative way, Ashraf is Rajavi’s favored horse he loves to ride whenever he encounters an opportunity!

November 24, 2009 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts