Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi’s lingering promise

It has been assumed that the US presidential election might bring about dramatic effects on the final destiny of Mojahedin. In this regard, Masoud Rajavi and his theoretician in shadow, Bijan Niyabati, have made false predictions about the occurrence of fundamental changes in the Middle East turning it to the Great Middle East under the control of the US. They have also taken it for granted that there would be a fateful decision making on the US policy in dealing with the Iranian government. However, contrary to their naïve remarks, there appeared faint traces of Iran-U.S relevant détente.

Here we avoid reflecting upon the foolish delusions of Mojahedin leadership, as it is a common practice committed in MKO. However, keeping silent on the fantastic and simplistic views of Masoud Rajavi is highly favored by Mojahedin at the time being so as to conceal their low level of political awareness.

It has to be pointed out that the main strategy of Mojahedin leadership in recent years has been grabbing hold of empty promises to keep on his illegitimate hold over the body and soul of a number of deceived and ill-fated individuals. Two years ago, Rajavi promised to make the grounds for the overthrow of the Iranian regime up to the U.S presidential election; otherwise, members would be free to either remain in Camp Ashraf (dwelling of Mojahedin rank-and-files in Iraqi soil) or quit the organization. Now the countdown reaching the zero, Mojahedin members, advocates, and sympathizer are expected to bring into question Rajavi’s last unfulfilled promise and make a just analysis of his rhetoric the true nature of his cultic and totalitarian leadership.

At the time being, Rajavi would certainly seek another excuse at least to keep his control over the remnants of his cult. He is well aware of his lack of the least social support inside Iran due to his disloyalty to his own country in cooperating with Saddam in invading the Iranian soil in 1980s. Also, he has encountered an impasse in Iraq pretending to stop armed warfare. Being blacklisted as a terrorist organization is another challenge worsening the state of affairs for Rajavi. A strong reaction to the present critical conditions is expected of him by those familiar with his manner of conduct. It may be an imminent statement or a message issued by him.

What is of interest here is speculating the content of Rajavi’s forthcoming message. The justifications he would give as for the reasons why he has been wrong in his predictions once more is of no importance since they are the result of a psychopathic personality that grabs at cultic, brainwashing techniques and thought reform to lead the organization that is no more considered a political but notorious terrorist cult having secured a position among global terrorists. Therefore, we are more concerned with the new plot he has contrived to distract the world’s attention away from his last blunder. The removal of the name of the organization from terrorist list of the EU seems to be the focus of his next message.

Despite anti-imperialist and anti-American nature of MKO reflected in its principles and creeds, as well as its assassination of American employees and military personnel and its active participation in the US Embassy hostage-taking crisis, Rajavi’s new remedy to pass over the critical situation has proved to be the White House. Maybe he intended to lead the way of the new president to achieve his political objective and make his way of assuming political power in Iran. He may also be under the illusion that once “imperialist and enemy’s of the nations” proceeds to recognize it as an alternative. In any case, many are still laughing at his naïve remarks while others are waiting to see how he will let his followers free to choose their own destiny now that the time has drawn to its limit.

November 12, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Opposition to ideological revision

Errors of a cult leader; Opposition to ideological revision

The crushing coup over the body of the organization following the mass arrests in 1971 as well as the ideological schism of MKO in 1975 were two alarming incidents that could well help its leaders to start a thorough analysis of strategic and ideological failures so as to make revisions to overcome further encountered challenges. Although the former incident gave the warning and made the remnant cadres and the Central Council to seat analyzing the past errors, yet, as their analyses failed to be accurate and precise, it added more pile of errors to those already leading the organization to a serious state. The role of Masoud Rajavi in all these deteriorating process is known to have been critical. However, the failure in the identification of the main source of impasse within the organization intensified the crises and resulted in the ideological schism of MKO into two wings of Marxist and non-Marxist in 1975.

In any case, the organization achieved partial recovery from the 1971 coup due to the social support it had broadened among different factions and classes of religious and bourgeois as well as the capability of some Central Council members like Ahmad Rezaee. However, it took the organization no long to suffer its schism in 1975. It is said that from the blow of 1971 onwards, the policy of the organization turned out to be in apparent contradiction to the religious principles established by the early Mojahedin leading to substantial discrepancies not accounted for by the newly formed leading cadre. Also, there are some evidences that a number of high-rankings had converted to Marxism prior to the mass arrests. According to Dr. Karim Rastegar, a former member who was witnessing the course of events during 1970s:

In 1971, I was sent to section 4 in Qasr prison. Many MKO rank and files as well as all high-rankings were there including Reza Bakeri, Bahman Bazargani, Mehdi Khosroshahi, Musa Khiabani, and Masoud Rajavi. There were heated ideological discussions there and many expressed their viewpoints. In other words, they openly declared their conversion to Marxism. 1

The members’ false perception of the true nature of Islam as well as leaders’ negligence in conceptualizing Islamic principles resulted in the repulsion of Islamic orders and conversion to Marxism on the part of a great number of Mojahedin. As Abrahamian puts into words:

According to the Marxist Mojahedin, their ‘political consciousness’ had been raised once they began to study systematically ‘dialectical materialism’, especially the works of Marx, Lenin, and Mao Tse-tung. Hence, they claimed, Marxism had revealed to them the fallacies of Islam. 2

The Marxist Mojahedin were neither raw recruits nor ideological simpletons. On the contrary, among them were many surviving intellectuals of the early Mojahedin like Taqi Shahram, Bahram Aram, and Vahid Afrakhteh whose conversion led to the domination of Marxist ideology over the organization. However, Rajavi issued an order to keep their conversion secret. Consequently, converted members maintained their presence and activities in the organization following a dual policy.

The majority of those observing Rajavi’s performance indicate that his passivity, negligence, and indifference caused some problematic members such as Taqi Shahram, Bahram Aram enter the central committee while they were known to be Marxist. Mohammad Mehdi Jafari, an eyewitness, states:

They [Shahram and Aram] concealed their Marxist inclination as they joined the organization and when the top leaders of the organization were arrested and executed, they started to declare their conversion to Marxism openly. Some revisionists such as Aram, Shahram, and Afrakhteh dared to express their opposition to Islam and conversion to Marxism due to the weak personality of top officials like Masoud Rajavi and Masoud Bazargani. 3

There were some intellectual members warning Rajavi against the forthcoming crises even before the declaration of the Marxists wing’s manifesto in which the ideological position of Mojahedin had been explained; however, Rajavi acted indifferently and even accused those members of having dogmatic views, hence paving the way for the occurrence of the great schism of 1975. One of those members was Dr. Karim Rastegar who repeatedly notified Rajavi that how risky the ideological metamorphosis could be but he paid no heed. Even when Rajavi was convinced that Taqi Shahram, the guerrilla fighter blamed for the 1975 schism, was about to expand Marxist views within the organization, he told Karim Rastegar that the world of politics necessitated it to ignore some issues; otherwise, they would be blamed for their past mistakes. Yet again, Rastegar insisted on his viewpoints and asked Rajavi for preventive measures but he said:

Shut up! We are a political group. In a political group, withdrawal means suicide. You will be dismissed if I hear you tell other members that the organization is ideologically problematic. You have to either obey my words or quit the organization. 4

Lotfollah Meisami, an MKO former member, expounds on the fact that Rajavi resorted to a variety of methods to prevent ideological revision of organizational principles and preserved the dialectical and dualistic policy of MKO. For instance, he asked critics and dissident members to work individually on their viewpoints. Evidently, they failed to come to a valid conclusion on their own. Then, suffering from isolation, they were compelled to ignore their ideology and conform to the group’s set of beliefs.

Rajavi deliberately kept silent up to the declaration of the manifesto of schism. Then, he promised to revise the organizational principles of MKO having another look at Islamic doctrines. However, after the victory of Islamic revolution in Iran, as Rastegar asserts, he broke his promise and moved on his past career to synthesize Islam and Marxism to form a dialectical ideology to achieve his primary objective of assuming an egocentric political power.

References

1. An interview with Dr. Karim Rastegar, Cheshmandaz Weekly, No. 21.

2. Abrahamian, Ervand. The Iranian Mojahedin, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, p. 146

3. Meisami, Lotfollah; Those who went away.

4. An interview with Dr. Karim Rastegar, Cheshmandaz Weekly, No. 21.

November 10, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

The secretary of US embassy exposed PMOI leadership

The Second secretary of US embassy report on the horrible crimes of MKO leader

The second secretary of the American embassy in Baghdad, published a documented report on the crimes committed by the MEK’s leaders who bloodshed their own colleagues, raped the women of Ashraf, poisoned and executed dozens of the defectors.

According to FNA reporter in Baghdad, the second secretary of American embassy in Baghdad, William, revealed the bloody violence of Masud Rajavi, MKO leader, against the dissident members, in the third and forth chapter of the report on the actual situation of Mujahedin.

The American official, who investigated the documents and files on Mujahedin, has been one of the authorities who control Camp Ashraf. The report reads:

Like Malik Farough, the former king of Jordan, Masud Rajavi abuses even his female colleagues.”

In another part of the report you can read:

” Rajavi has expanded sexual relations with the female military, political and administrative ranks of the group. He also ordered the doctors to do hysterectomy surgery on some of them.

He noted that he has watched the films of the confessions of the women.

The second secretary of the American embassy mentioned that Rajavi sent the husbands to the deadly operations so as he can reach the wives and possess them in Napoleon’s way. In the existing documents in Ashraf you find out that some of the deaths in the group were not random but intentionally planned. In his long report William noted three cases of the planned deaths and wrote:

”the confessions of some of group members reveal that Rajavi was involved in 19 cases of death personally ordering the assassination.”

This American authority points out poisoning of the members and writes:

“Rajavi ordered the silent death, poisoning some friends or colleagues.

He added:

Now, it is clear for the US that MEK’s leader was involved in the suspicious death of his colleagues who were killed under his order but their death was reported falsely as the result of sickness or accident.

He continued mentioning that the forces of MEK are disappointed at the present time in Iraq and present no benefit to the US administration in the current Iraqi scene.

In a part of the report he writes:

Most of Mujahedin forces are suffering dangerous mental diseases and are likely to commit suicide or homicide.

Besides the Iraqi security authorities stressed that the Americans investigated some individuals who confessed that the MEK leader was involved in the assassination of Iranians residing abroad and some defectors of the group. To commit the assassinations, MKO enjoyed the assistance of embassies of the Saddam’s regime and his security organizations.

Translation: Nejat Society

October 22, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Cloaking conversion of ranking members of PMOI

Errors of a cult leader; cloaking conversion of ranking members

Of the major strategic mistakes made by Rajavi is his issued order to conceal a number of the group members’ conversion to Marxism. Additionally, as underlined by eye witnesses and prison-mates, Rajavi himself has confessed to have been converted to Marxism but desisted to declare it to prevent negative consequences. A big bulk of deviation within the organization, at least after its schism in 1975, may be pertained to its adoption of a divisive and dual policy. Rajavi’s strategic turnabout may be the very same reason compelling him to insist on concealing the conversion of other members like Bahman Bazargani. Had Rajavi been a Muslim, he would not have allowed Marxist members like Bahman Bazargani to have their hold on the organization and, above all, ask them to show as true Muslim who even stood as others’ prayer leaders.

Many of Marxist members wanted to announce their strategic turnabout even before the declaration of Marxist wing manifesto. There are many statements made by imprisoned Mojahedin in this regard some of which may be mentioned here. All of them focus on Rajavi refusing to reveal the identity of Marxist members as well as his own conversion from Islam to Marxism. It has to be pointed out that the formation of Marxist wing of Mojahedin has its roots in 1971 mass arrests. Marxist members justified that religious inclination rooted in Mojahedin was the reason they restricted them to make due decision in some events such kidnapping prince Shahram, Shah’s nephew. They further pointed out that ethical and ideological bonds of Mojahedin to Islamic rituals like that of saying daily prayers and the like reduced their organizational freedom. Finally they concluded that religion was the source of external challenges the organization was faced with so they had to fight against whatever hindering ethical and religious considerations.

One of the early activists of MKO, Mohammad Mehdi Jafari, collects his observations in a book called “An internal look at MKO”. Although many members are referred to in his statements, but the main focus is on Rajavi having the leading role in the organization’s dualistic relations. He believes that a number of members like Rajavi who joined the organization after its formation were Marxist. Though he refers not directly to Marxist leaning of Rajavi and other members, but expounding on such matters like stopping saying prayers and being highly affected by philosophy of Marxism confirms that they walked on an anti-religion path. In this regard, he writes:

Those who joined the organization later on, such as Masoud Rajavi, Musa Khiabani, etc never declared overtly to be Marxist and even pretended to be anti-Marxism; however, they were so influenced by Marxism that legitimized some forbidden actions in Islam. For example, they asked some members not express publicly their Marxist conversion and to pretend performing daily rituals. 1

He further refers to some points affirmed by other former members too such as Bahman Bazargani’s conversion to Marxism and Rajavi’s refusal to reveal it. This action resulted in the development of ideological discord within MKO. In this regard, it is said:

It is said that Masoud Rajavi knew Bahman Bazargani was no longer Muslim but a Marxist and communist. He advised Bazargani to continue to say his prayers and also lead others’ prayer to conceal his conversion. 2

Dr. Karim Rastegar, an early member of MKO, believes that many years before the schism of Marxism wing, a number of members in Qasr prison had already adopted Marxist ideology. He refers to Masoud Rajavi among other members and writes:

In late 1971, I was sent to cell number 3 in Qasr prison. Many MKO high-ranking members like Reza Bakeri, Bahman Bazargani, Mehdi Khosroshahi, Musa Khiabani, and Masoud Rajavi were there. There were heated ideological discussions there and some members expressed their beliefs. In other word, they said that they no longer believed in Islam and were Marxist. 3

He also adds that one of the interrogators of SAVAK (Pahlavi’s regime’s security and intelligence organization) was well aware that Rajavi was a Marxist and called him a Marxist in front of others:

One night Rasouli, a SAVAK interrogator, came to our cell. As usual, every one was silent and motionless. He told me “stand over there Osqof”. I knew this name was not recorded in my dossier and wondered how he had come to know that. Then he addressed Masoud Rajavi calling him a damned communist. Then he told Rajavi “we know you are all Marxist”. We did not understand what he meant by that. It happened coincident with the arrest of Khalil Dezfuli through whom the information had been leaked to SAVAK. But we did not know that. 4

He also considers Rajavi to be more at fault than Taqi Shahram (the guerrilla fighter blamed for the organization’s 1975 schism) in the organizational schism:

I think Rajavi was more responsible for this adversity than Shahram since Shahram was performing his evolutionary responsibility in cleansing members’ mind off the bourgeoisie thoughts, but Rajavi, playing a pro-Islamist, endorsed the rupture by keeping silent. In fact he betrayed his own ideology. 5

Lotfollah Meisami, being Rajavi’s intimate in prison and team-houses, is a reliable witness who can well disclos aspects of Rajavi’s dual behavior. He explains the causes behind the ideological shift of the organization and the passive role some members like Rajavi’s played in unveiling the identity of Marxist members:

Bahman Bazargani had already talked about his ideological problems with Masoud Rajavi, Musa Khiabani, and some other members saying that he was no longer a Muslim and could not perform related rituals since he considered it to be an act of insincerity. Masoud Rajavi asked him to say his prayers for three more years and to cease talking about it further. Interestingly, he was forced to lead others’ prayers too. Zein-al Abedin Haqani told me parts of the fact when I was sent to the prison in Shiraz, Bahram told me all about it after I was set free. 6

He points out that in spring 1975 in Qasr prison, Parviz Yaqubi was asked to try Rajavi for his refusal to reveal the beliefs of Marxist members.

In 1974, I was arrested for the third time. Losing the sight of my eye and being in solitary confinement for 16 months, I was sent to Qasr prison. There I met Parviz Yaqubi and told him to try Masoud since if in Qasr prison he informed us that Bahman was a Marxist, we would try to find a solution. He should not have made such a mistake. 7

Rajavi asked Bazargani to hide his ideological turnabout for three yeas. The reason might have been an attempt by Rajavi to hang on an opportunity to announce the organization’s total ideological shift to Marxism. Although there is no clear reason why Rajavi insisted on disguising the ideological identity of members, however, he was well aware of the fact that religious beliefs could secure social support for the organization without which it could never survive. Furthermore, he knew that improvement of any organizational doctrine depended on restoration of Islamic values and putting Marxist ideology into discard. Therefore, he hides members’ as well as his own Marxist conversion. Now the question is whether Rajavi did so to keep the integration of the organization and prevent its split or he was concerned about his own organizational status and hegemonic rule. A brief look at the evidences on Rajavi’s narcissism well answers this question. Therefore, such events can not be ignored easily as accidentally made mistakes of Rajavi.

References:

1. An interview with Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Jafari on MKO.

2. ibid

3. An interview with Dr. Karim Rastegar on 20 June.

4. ibid

5. ibid

6. Meisami, Lotfollah, Those who went

7. ibid

October 18, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Errors of a cult leader

Today’s man has undergone substantial changes compared to past centuries concerning his lifestyle, means of livelihood, manner of thinking, demands, Errors of a cult leader expectations and the like. Modern economics, politics, ethics, institutions, governments, and leaders can hardly be comparable to their historical counterparts; rather they are highly distinct issues. Now, man challenges the past and its social organizations; makes an attempt to free himself from past attachments; bears no passivity; and refrains to submit to those leaders seeking to accomplish their own ambitious objectives. Rather, he is willing to find the logic behind all decisions made by leaders and submits just to the legitimate ones. Therefore, the role of hegemonic leaders seems to have been faded away and man chooses to be the master of his own destiny. Consequently, historical leaders come to be subject to criticism and many have lost their godlike and hallowed status.

Throughout history, leaders have served a twofold role. Some leaders have brought about fundamental positive changes in social and political structure of societies; on the contrary, many caused the disintegration of societies due to their corruption, oppression and violence. Leaders come to power on the demand of masses, by means of political and military coup d’état, or through holding national referendum and legitimate elections. Thus, they can be classified as legitimate, corrupt and oppressive and those who force themselves unto the power to lead a hegemonic rule.

Among them, the latter ones receive much criticism and have a variety of dissenters. The overall disagreement on their nature has its roots in the lack of a consensus over the appropriate style of leadership. Although fascists advocate the policies adopted by Hitler and Mussolini, democrats consider them to be against democracy and freedom. Likewise, Stalinists considered his dictatorship inevitable in that particular period when he reined the USSR. Quite the opposite, his opponents considered it a factor relevantly resulting in the development of an anti-communist trend in the world. Now years after the fall of the main communist camp, the communism-phobia is still dominating over the Western countries. Relatively, a leader has cons and pros even within his own party. Any made judgment on these leaders depends on some factors such as their ideological orientation, strategic objectives, and adopted tactics for the fulfillment of those objectives. In addition to ideological leaders, there are national and ethnic leaders who are judged by their extent of success in maintaining and safeguarding national interests, power of resistance against the invasion of invaders, and determination to preserve national sovereignty. Such leaders like Alexander the Great and many others are subject to different and even paradoxical judgments though many believe that personal traits and genius of leaders as well as their social support may guarantee their success.

Except for some ideological and cultic groups, hegemonic leadership is hardly submitted to in today’s world. The above comments on the status of historical leaders hold true for ideological and cultic leaders as well; however, their paradoxical nature and activities put a stop to coming upon an accurate judgment on them. Of the most paradoxically active cultic leaders in our modern world is Masoud Rajavi who leads the globally blacklisted terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq with its own proponent and opponents. He is a self-appointed leader who secured a godlike position for himself, a status nobody has permission to question and which is claimed to be devoid of any strategic, political, and ideological fault. However, his critics believe that he has been responsible for numerous deviations and challenges MKO has met. A passing look at his past career and the role he has played in different organizational phases may give us a better and deeper understanding of his true nature.

From among his critics, and even sympathizers, are many who are unanimous that Rajavi has made critical mistakes leading the organization to the precipice of demise. The mistakes made by Rajavi can be classified as those made in the early years of his seizing the power as the leader of MKO and those made after the victory of Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. Unlike the internal idealist factions that travailed to stabilize post-revolution chaotic state, Rajavi made his first big mistake of resorting to armed struggle just to achieve his totalitarian ambitions. In fact, he was fighting against the development of democracy in Iran under the pretext of working to overcome social challenges. Many Mojahedin ex-members, observing the course of the changes made in Iran’s newly shaped society as well as within the organization, truly predicted that MKO would be converted into a religious cult as a result of Rajavi’s wrongdoings, heretical deviations, and strategic failures. Here the aim is to have a detailed study of personal, strategic, and ideological mistakes made by Rajavi especially in recent three decades based on the existing evidences and the statements made by a great number of the organization former members.

October 13, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Autopsy of a Cult Leader

Autopsy of a Cult Leader (Massoud Rajavi leader of Mojahedin Khalq)

Most cults promulgate stories and legends concerning the cult leader. Research into the dynamics of persuasion has long established that the credibility and attractiveness of a message’s source are vital ingredients in determining its overall impact. Accordingly, cults credit their leaders with superhuman qualities. Lenin on the left and Hitler on the right are viewed in a semi-divine light by their followers. They are regarded as possessing uncommon insight into society’s problems, and with personal characteristics such as honesty, genius, and compassion which it is assumed will be attractive to prospective recruits. If such founders are dead then the present leaders, in effect, present themselves as the reincarnation of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Hitler or whoever. Often, the real problems of the leaders (such as alcoholism and drug dependency) are concealed from both prospective and current members.

– Tourish & Dennis, On the edge, 2000

It is meaningless to talk of a cult in the absence of its leader because formation of a cult depends on the outstanding ability of the founder termed as the leader or guru who charms and wins over followers. In fact, the life and survival of a cult is strongly tied to the leader that steers it. That is mostly because the purpose of a cultic group is to serve the emotional, financial, political, and in general power ambitions of the leader. Thus, the most important thing that obsesses a leader is power. The dynamic around which cults are formed is similar to that of other power relationships and is essentially ultra-authoritarian, based on a power imbalance.

Formation of cults has a history as long as man’s history; from the very days he lived in the caves until there emerged protestants to challenge pre-historic religions and beliefs. In all these instances, cults have called to change for the better; they have claimed to have attained, and of course are ready to share, occult knowledge and secretes beyond current human understanding. Therefore, every cult has something to offer and they exploit the weaknesses of individuals. They typically offer knowledge or wisdom that the individuals think they need to achieve an end. Often it is knowledge of eternal life, schism from a religion, techniques for enlightenment and happiness, or even achieving a political ambition.

In general, a cult cannot be truly explored or understood without understanding its leader. No follower is to attain what is he or she looking for unless through a leader who is believed to be endowed with magical powers or has connection to God or whatever higher power or belief system he is espousing. Some are so strongly possessed by megalomania that they publicize to be anointed to rule the world. A cult’s formation, proselytizing methods, and means of control "are determined by certain salient personality characteristics of [the] cult leader….Such individuals are authoritarian personalities who attempt to compensate for their deep, intense feelings of inferiority, insecurity, and hostility by forming cultic groups primarily to attract those whom they can psychologically coerce into and keep in a passive-submissive state, and secondarily to use them to increase their income." 1

Unfortunately, leaders often have beliefs which are very far from matching reality and which can become more extreme as they are encouraged by their followers. The predilection of many cult leaders for abstract, ambiguous, and therefore unchallengeable ideas reduce the likelihood of reality testing and hardly any follower dares to question or challenge the accuracy of the leaders’ status and the ideology they preach; “Gradually, the leader inculcates the group with his own private ideology (or craziness!), then creates conditions so that his victims cannot or dare not test his claims. How can you prove someone is not the Messiah? That the world won’t end tomorrow? That humans are not possessed by aliens from another world or dimension? Through psychological manipulation and control, cult leaders trick their followers into believing in something and then prevent them from testing and disproving that mythology or belief system”. 2

Although not all cults springing up like mushrooms in today’s’ modern society are destructive and malignant, however, most of them exercise extraordinary control over followers’ lives and use thought-reform processes to influence and control them and induce whole hearted devotion. Of course, this induction of devotion does not happen spontaneously but is the result of the cult leader’s skillful use of thought-reform techniques. Thaler Singer believes that “While the conduct of certain cults causes nonmembers to criticize them, the term cult is not in itself pejorative but simply descriptive. It denotes a group that forms around a person who claims he or she has a special mission or knowledge, which will be shared with those who turn over most of their decision making to that self-‘appointed leader”. 3

The power and hold of most cults depend on the particular environment shaped by the thought-reform program and control mechanisms that are usually conceptualized and put in practice by the leaders. Thus, it is the psychopathology of the leader that causes the systematic manipulative abuse and exploitation found in cults; “I prefer to use the phrase "cultic relationships" to signify more precisely the processes and interactions that go on in a cult. A cultic relationship is one in which a person intentionally induces others to become totally or nearly totally dependent on him or her for almost all major life decisions, and inculcates in these followers a belief that he or she has some special talent, gift, or knowledge”. 4

Hence, cultic groups and relationships are formed primarily to meet specific demands of the leaders, many of whom suffer from one or another form of character disorder. Some of them are even described as neurotic, psychotic individuals or suffering from a diagnosed personality disorder. We can conclude, and we intend to discuss it further, that before engaging to describe a certain cult, it is necessary to conduct a thorough study of its leader whose personal, behavioral features foster his followers’ belief in his special qualities.

To be continued

References:

www.anandainfo.com/cult_leaders.html

Ibid.

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

Ibid, p. 7.

September 14, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Recommendations to Mojahedin Khalq Organisation leader

Recommendations to Mojahedin Khalq Organisation leader Massoud Rajavi (by Soltani, an Ex leadership Council member of MKO)

From Batool Soltani, ex-Leadership Council member

To Massoud Rajavi, the leader of Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (MKO)

Since my separation from your organization and stepping into the free world one and a half years ago, I have concluded, through a variety of studies, that your organization is definitely a cult with all scientifically recognized cult characteristics and you are known to be a cult leader that has made, and makes use of psychological approaches and brainwashing techniques to recruit and control your forces.

It is typical of cult leaders to take nobody’s advice and it is a vain attempt to change them. But since I have wasted twenty of my best years in your organization and have lost my dearest things, the most precious of whom are my family and children, I feel obligated to give you pieces of advice hoping that there are ears to listen.

A study of cults and their leaders indicate that cults have all come to a bad fate and the leaders’ inhuman methods to have members under total control have misfired. The leaders have wildly perverted any means to accumulate wealth and assume power but the path they have taken leads to nowhere.

I am sure, and please you also come to believe that, that Camp Ashraf in Iraq will have no better ending than David Koresh’s Mount Carmel complex outside of Waco in Texas or the Peoples Temple’s Jonestown located in Guyana in South America. Nobody has ever succeeded to assume power by exploiting mind control techniques and psychological enchaining of people; any achievement of remarkable concern has lasted but a short period and ebbed soon.

To impose their mind control on the members, cults need to brag about groundless victories. I ask you, with regard to your present ongoing struggle, what have been the achievements for you and your organization? For instance, I want to know how it can turn to be a success if the organization is removed from the terror list and where it may lead you to. And have you ever considered it a defeat following the proscription of the organization as a terrorist group?

I suggest you open your eyes and see lots of people you have enslaved, the many families you have disintegrated, and the numerous people who are lamenting the loss of fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, children and husbands.

Mr. Rajavi,

You will profit greatly if you consider my recommendation and consider the following issues:

1. Let the Camp Ashraf residents have permission to use satellite aired programs, telephones, cellophanes, TV and radio programs, internet, books and the press.

2. Let the Camp Ashraf residents have permission to have direct and uninterrupted contacts and visits, of course unaccompained by the organization’s agents, with their families.

3. End imposed mind control techniques, including the inhuman and unethical weekly cleansing sessions, immediately and grant the forces the possibility of free thinking.

4. Excuse the members that old age has debilitated from the heavy physical labor enforced on the members only to keep them busy as a contrived technique to restrain them from thinking.

5. And finally, confer on the captive members in Camp Ashraf the free will of deciding for their own destiny.

You would probably say that these all mean and will lead to the disintegration of Camp Ashraf and your ouster as the leader, which I believe is a privilege and at least will lessen the burden of the sin and oppression you have done to these people for nothing. May God forgive you! The prime victims of a cult are its followers. Let them free before it is too late.

My concluding advice, resign if you ever think of the organization and the members so more qualified persons with matured, novel ideas may assume to lead the organization as a political force.

Batool Soltani

Baghdad

Sahar Family Foundation, Baghdad, Translated by Mojahedin.ws, July 22, 2008

http://www.mojahedin.ws/article/show_en.php?id=2818

Link to the original letter (Persian):

http://saharngo.com/

or:

http://iran-interlink.org/fa/?mod=view&id=4863

July 28, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi’s Authority on MKO Echelon

To extend his hegemonic leadership over the whole organizational echelon, Rajavi first needed to subjugate high-ranking members hitting upon their personal weaknesses, threatening to dispossess them of organizational positions, fabricating stories about the first founders with himself playing a connection, and more.

Masud Rajavi- leader of the destructive cult

The mass execution of the founder leaders of Mojahedin following SAVAK’s mass arrests in 1970s paved the way for Rajavi to take a different methodology to steer the organization. Although the later ideological schism of the organization could procure a good opportunity to deeply reexamine its ideological infrastructures to restructure it anew, Massoud Rajavi’s insist to lead the organization on the ruins of the past on one hand, and his gaping demarcation with faithful members on the other hand, totally changed the destiny of the organization. Rajavi’s hegemony is the second round of a past totalitarian leadership phase that ended and was remodeled in the ousted Pahlavi’s prisons.

The Iranian Islamic revolution was at its climax when Rajavi was released from the prison but he had managed to win over the majority of high-rankings to be identified as the leader. In fact, the opponents had been already purged inside the prison under the pretexts of being ultra-rightists or reactionaries and much more names and who were known to have jeopardized the organizational entity: there was not a single rival to challenge him then. Pointing out the widespread purgation by Rajavi while in prison, Bijan Nyabati, a left member of the NCRI, states:

Unlike normal procedures, Massoud Rajavi, by the effective aid of the brave martyred commander Musa Khyabani, disregarded many existing potentialities and started reorganization by purging all reactionary inclinations in an attempt to accomplish Hanif’s unfulfilled plan of bringing together a versatile cadre. He suspended all previous memberships and started a new recruitment out of the imprisoned Mojahedin. 1

Nobody doubts that Rajavi opportunistically took advantage of the created gap due to a power vacuum and his personal potentialities following the execution of the founder leaders to secure a status among the cadres. Majority of those who got separated in the course of the first ideological revolution that led to the ideological schism of the organization strongly criticized Rajavi’s opportunistic and power-seeking ambitions to succeed an autocratic leadership. Lotfollah Meisami is one the long detached members of the organization that is fully acquainted with Rajavi’s personal profile and ambitions and how he managed to expose as chosen leader even when his activities were limited in the prison:

Another issue concerning Rajavi was the ostentation he carried. For instance, when he arranged to meet others in a different section of the prison, there were escorts of some kind that came to prepare before his arrival. In fact, they made others wait on him as a man of high dignity. It was the same case with high-ranking official when they happened to visit the prison. 2

Rajavi being self-appointed as the autocratic political and ideological leadership following the internal ideological schism, he could see that he had guaranteed a permanent leadership with the potential rivals taking their portion of leading ambitions away with the split branch. He emerged out of prison while he was accompanied with a number of loyalists to start a new autocratic leadership that has continued for three decades promoting him to the status of a guru.

Refrences:

1. Niyabati, Bijan; A Different Look at the Ideological Revolution within MKO, Khavaran Publication, 7.

2. Meisami, L.; The moral decline of a Mojahed. Raah-e Mojahed journal, 1985.

Research Bureau – Mojahedin.ws – May 30, 2008

June 30, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi The cult of Rajavi

Rajavi, the absolute cult authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

2- Ibid, 193.

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

Research Bureau – Mojahedin.ws – May 24, 2008

May 24, 2008 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

Masud Rajavi and the Paranoia of Power

Self-delusion is most apparent in those politicians who least consider their supporters and their people in the policies and strategies which they pursue. These are the kind of leaders who do not see the fear in the faces of the people under their autocracy. Rather they relate all such signs of disfavour to the external enemy. When they do find their internal opponents standing opposed to them, they become astonished and fail to analyse the situation realistically.

Self-delusion is the scourge of power that has no popular support. Self-delusion is the illness of those who are unable to evaluate their power and do not understand their true position in either the international or internal political scene. This inability means there is always a vast divergence between the minds of such politicians and real life. On the one hand they are arrogant of their growing power, and on the other hand pass their lives in fear of their enemies; and finally they become the victims of their own phobia. Their self-delusion directs them to only refer to their self-created fantasy. Disaster occurs when the realities of the outside world threaten to destroy their misinterpretation.

Massoud Rajavi, the leader of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organisation (MKO) of Iran, is an example of an idealistic leader whose absolute power over his followers in the organisation has both shattered his ideals and increased his self-delusion. As Rajavi discovered his power over the organisation to be unlimited, he distanced himself from the realities of life in both his sayings and in his actions. To this end the picture of the social and political life of the people of Iran today is totally different from what he sees or talks about. He is miles away from today’s world.

Massoud Rajavi is so certain about the outcome of the manipulation of the members of his organisation with his ideas that he does not see the rows of people tired of his "ideological revolution" and those who are trying to escape the boundaries of Camp Ashraf in Iraq. He is, of course, not worried about the increasing critics and opponents to his policies and ideas. According to his so-called revolutionary criteria, those who leave him or turn against him are traitors who will sooner or later destroy themselves by their own hands.

Rajavi is a charismatic leader who enjoys the natural supremacy of all such leaders over his followers. He has managed to instil his own fear and paranoia in the minds of his followers so that they are also unable to see the truth of the outside world. Currently the world is deeply concerned about the outbreak of further wars and conflict here and there, and people are working hard everywhere to prevent this. But living in his own self-deluded world Massoud Rajavi is strongly disturbed that there is no war and that the US does not quickly launch a militarily attack on Iran.

Today Massoud Rajavi has gone into hiding and does not give public appearances – apparently for reasons of security. But he is in fact living in his own dream world of self-delusion and the nightmare of fear as all totalitarians of his kind must do.

Ebrahim Khodabandeh, 15 November 2007

ebrahim_khodabandeh_2006@yahoo.com

January 22, 2008 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts