Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2009, Page 34
3. Isolation, psychological and/or physical, from the wider society, or perhaps, as
Lifton calls it milieu. In isolation, you can have dependency of group members on
the cult or leader, you can have obedience, and eventually you can control the
minds of your disciples.
Now, if you compare the main ingredients of both a terrorist organization and an extreme
cult, you can see that both share the first two elements namely, a charismatic leader, and
a cause or an ideology. What remains for a terrorist organization to change into an extreme
terrorist cult is Isolation from larger society.27
Hate and Phobia: A Path Toward Absolute Isolation
Questions that you might ask concerning the ideology of a terrorist group include the
following: Is the ideology of a terrorist organization important and decisive? Is the
organization bound by the moral code of that ideology? My answer to the first question is
that the type of ideology or doctrine, although it might be important at the beginning for
current and potential group members, and could play a decisive role then, gradually it will
lose its importance. It is the leader who defines the ideology and where it goes. For
example, MEK and Al-Qaeda both have claimed that their doctrine is ―true Islam,‖ and at
times they both have demonstrated great dogma regarding the behavior of their members,
to fit with Islamic principles concerning individual behavior—things such as not eating pork
or drinking alcohol. They also have used the Islamic vocabulary extensively to legitimize
their actions, using words like ―lesser Jihad‖ to legitimize terrorism and ―greater Jihad‖ to
control the minds and behavior of their members. But at the same time, both have shown
that when the principles of Islam are in conflict with the interests of the cult, it is the
interest of the cult that comes first. In my view, the main ingredient of the ideology of these
groups is to believe in the world of black and white: People, governments, and other
organizations are either with them or are against them there is no grey area. The
immediate result of believing in a black and white world is hate, paranoia and phobia.
I don‘t think there is any need for me to talk about hate because we have seen more than
enough of it in the media, unfortunately sometimes from the liberal side as well (I mean
this in terms of the liberal-democracy side, and not of the political position of the politicians
or writers or reporters who act as agents of hate in the West). An example is a short,
controversial, anti-Islam film made recently in the Netherlands by a member of parliament,
Geert Wilders.28
The second result of this ideology is phobia. The difference between phobia and fear, in my
opinion, is reflected in two elements: First, fear generally is rational, but phobia as a rule is
irrational. Because of this irrationality, it is very difficult to overcome a phobia. When you
have a phobia about a mouse or a spider, for example, it is not rational because neither of
them is likely to harm you seriously, but still you are horrified by them. This irrationality
stops you from facing your fear and finding out the truth of the matter. The second element
is disgust. A phobia is a mixture of fear and usually disgust. Both irrationality and disgust,
as elements of phobia, force you toward isolating yourself from the so-called enemy and
eventually from whoever has some kind of connection with the enemy, and later from
whoever doesn‘t think like you. Gradually, you see other people as inhuman or subhuman.
In MEK, we used to call them ―ordinary‖ people, and as a result, it was an insult to us to be
called ordinary.
In a tiny book called Advice to Revolutionary Youth (Rahnamodha‘e be‘a javanan
enghalabi), we can see how MEK used to define ―ordinary‖ people. According to this book,
―...[the] mind of those who grew up during the Shah era, through education at school and
high school and especially Western programs and movies of television, were educated and
directed toward things unrelated to our problems and cultures.
3. Isolation, psychological and/or physical, from the wider society, or perhaps, as
Lifton calls it milieu. In isolation, you can have dependency of group members on
the cult or leader, you can have obedience, and eventually you can control the
minds of your disciples.
Now, if you compare the main ingredients of both a terrorist organization and an extreme
cult, you can see that both share the first two elements namely, a charismatic leader, and
a cause or an ideology. What remains for a terrorist organization to change into an extreme
terrorist cult is Isolation from larger society.27
Hate and Phobia: A Path Toward Absolute Isolation
Questions that you might ask concerning the ideology of a terrorist group include the
following: Is the ideology of a terrorist organization important and decisive? Is the
organization bound by the moral code of that ideology? My answer to the first question is
that the type of ideology or doctrine, although it might be important at the beginning for
current and potential group members, and could play a decisive role then, gradually it will
lose its importance. It is the leader who defines the ideology and where it goes. For
example, MEK and Al-Qaeda both have claimed that their doctrine is ―true Islam,‖ and at
times they both have demonstrated great dogma regarding the behavior of their members,
to fit with Islamic principles concerning individual behavior—things such as not eating pork
or drinking alcohol. They also have used the Islamic vocabulary extensively to legitimize
their actions, using words like ―lesser Jihad‖ to legitimize terrorism and ―greater Jihad‖ to
control the minds and behavior of their members. But at the same time, both have shown
that when the principles of Islam are in conflict with the interests of the cult, it is the
interest of the cult that comes first. In my view, the main ingredient of the ideology of these
groups is to believe in the world of black and white: People, governments, and other
organizations are either with them or are against them there is no grey area. The
immediate result of believing in a black and white world is hate, paranoia and phobia.
I don‘t think there is any need for me to talk about hate because we have seen more than
enough of it in the media, unfortunately sometimes from the liberal side as well (I mean
this in terms of the liberal-democracy side, and not of the political position of the politicians
or writers or reporters who act as agents of hate in the West). An example is a short,
controversial, anti-Islam film made recently in the Netherlands by a member of parliament,
Geert Wilders.28
The second result of this ideology is phobia. The difference between phobia and fear, in my
opinion, is reflected in two elements: First, fear generally is rational, but phobia as a rule is
irrational. Because of this irrationality, it is very difficult to overcome a phobia. When you
have a phobia about a mouse or a spider, for example, it is not rational because neither of
them is likely to harm you seriously, but still you are horrified by them. This irrationality
stops you from facing your fear and finding out the truth of the matter. The second element
is disgust. A phobia is a mixture of fear and usually disgust. Both irrationality and disgust,
as elements of phobia, force you toward isolating yourself from the so-called enemy and
eventually from whoever has some kind of connection with the enemy, and later from
whoever doesn‘t think like you. Gradually, you see other people as inhuman or subhuman.
In MEK, we used to call them ―ordinary‖ people, and as a result, it was an insult to us to be
called ordinary.
In a tiny book called Advice to Revolutionary Youth (Rahnamodha‘e be‘a javanan
enghalabi), we can see how MEK used to define ―ordinary‖ people. According to this book,
―...[the] mind of those who grew up during the Shah era, through education at school and
high school and especially Western programs and movies of television, were educated and
directed toward things unrelated to our problems and cultures.
