Forged Messages, Insults and Obscenities: the Incredible Reaction of the "Friends of CESNUR" (1999)
▲ Pictured: Massimo Introvigne rings "the Bell of World Peace and Love" at a Federation of World Peace and Love (FOWPAL) conference, founded by Dr. Hong, Tao-Tze, the founder and spiritual leader of the Taiwan-based Tai Ji Men
Forged Messages, Insults and Obscenities: the Incredible Reaction of the "Friends of CESNUR" (source)
By Miguel Martínez
"Dear Martinez […] Not everybody can play with inflatable dolls. How many do you have? […] Why don't you spend your time in a more pleasant fashion? After all, I don't think it's fun to call other people imbeciles (unless they pay you, but in that case yours is truly a dirty job). There must be other outlets for frustrated anti-Semites and those who have been defeated by life, even in Imola." (the whole post)
This is only one of about one hundred similar messages, which came out in various Italian and foreign newsgroups under the name religiosus@my-dejanews. This writer, in a message dated April 9th, 1999, on alt.support.ex-cult, the same anonymous author stated that
" We wrote before that Religiosus is a collective name and that messages under this name are posted by a number of different people, in different countries, all somewhat sympathetic to CESNUR views (but not necessarily members of CESNUR)."
"Not necessarily members…". The style also shows that nine times out of ten, the person who signs himself as "Religiosus" is the same person. Besides messages signed Religiosus, other messages have also been posted with different signatures, but the style again shows the same hand behind most (the full story, written by somebody who knows Internet a lot better than I do). On April 9th, Religiosus went well beyond inflatable dolls. He spammed Italy's newsgroups with false messages attributed to me, containing attacks on religion in general, Christianity and the Jews. Of course these false messages (see here), as we have seen, allowed Religiosus to call me a "frustrated anti-Semite."
In reply to this forgery, I asked CESNUR to officially distance itself from its over-zealous supporter, something CESNUR has not yet done. I therefore hold CESNUR morally, if not legally, responsible for the insults and, above all, for the forgery. This forgery had a follow-up: on April 24th, an even more diffamatory forgery came out, where the following incredible expressions were attributed to me:
"Who says it isn't the Jews who are manoeuvring Scientology, the Jehovah's Witnesses and CESNUR too? […] The problem today is not violence against Jews, it is violence BY Jews against their opponents." (the whole post)
I have no love for law courts, and I would never think of suing anybody who criticises me openly, however loudly. But of course only a judge can discover the name and surname of the person who created such a serious forgery.
Seven simple questions
The whole debate between me and CESNUR arose around seven simple questions I posed to CESNUR. Here they are, in the form of statements:
Massimo Introvigne wrote a misleading, biased and apologetic study on New Acropolis, which included a series of false statements about me and my legal situation.
Introvigne and nearly all the Italian CESNUR activists are also members, and often officers, of Alleanza Cattolica, a right-wing organisation on the fringe of the Catholic Church, with a most pronounced ideological and political agenda which makes any objective approach to reality virtually impossible for its militants.
Cristianità, the official paper of Alleanza Cattolica, claims that CESNUR's activities are part of its "good battle".
Introvigne never wrote about "cults" until 1985, or if he did (I could not of course have read everything he wrote before that date), he did so using a tone which is the opposite of the one he uses currently, as can be seen in an article he wrote in 1985.
Alleanza Cattolica bases itself on the "teaching magisterium" of Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, the father of "Tradition, Family and Property", a millennialist organisation which provides militant support for the political and financial interests of Brazilian landowners.
In 1985, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira started teaching, as part of his "magisterium", the existence of an "anti-cult movement" and the non-existence of "brainwashing" (ideas which of course he did not invent himself).
These very special teachings of Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira coincide with the ideological foundations of CESNUR.
CESNUR can reply to each of these statements, by saying they are either true or false, and in the latter case, by explaining why.
They are quite simple questions. It is only when one doesn't want to answer that they become difficult. And polemics start.
The Fine Art of Lively Discussion
Polemics are a lovely game. The ultimate goal is to come nearer to truth through an honest battle of wits. This is why those who claim to already possess the truth find it so difficult to argue. Many still remember Introvigne's famous phrase, "Once again, I am not interested in discussing with an 'interpreter' my academic credentials or my work."
However, running away from discussion easily leads to childish - if not actually criminal activities, such as forging electronic messages, or at the very least to a nervous breakdown.
Since I don't want Dr Introvigne to suffer from a nervous breakdown, I take the liberty of teaching him a few rules of the fine art of polemics. Of course, if he learns them, he may well use them against me. However I am not at all certain he will learn.
Admitting One's Mistakes
When you make a mistake, you must admit it. Writing about CESNUR, I made several mistakes. I know them all, since they were immediately pointed out to the whole world by my adversary - who thus implicitly confirmed all my non mistakes.
I once called Introvigne "President" and not "Director" of CESNUR. This is an obvious mistake and I admitted it immediately.
On the other hand, the controversy between me and CESNUR started when Introvigne claimed that a court of law in France had established that I had made false statements. To put it very politely, this was an enormous mistake on the part of the Turin lawyer. Who has not however yet admitted it.
A good polemicist must also avoid making misleading statements.I had written that Introvigne was the President of the Transylvanian Society of Dracula. It was not false, but it was misleading. Quite rightly, he immediately let it be known that he was president only of the Italian branch of this society.
Now let us take the example of a misleading statement made by Introvigne. Speaking on a Catholic TV station, during a programme on cults, he said that Rick Ross - cult critic and former deprogrammer - was a "convicted jewellery thief." This statement is true, but it is also misleading, since the onlooker will be left with the impression that Ross either stole jewels while deprogramming someone, or that he is a professional thief who in his free time kidnaps people.
Actually, many years ago during a stormy adolescence, Ross was convicted for a theft. This experience led him to commit himself to social issues, and hence to working with cult victims. The fact is important, but for quite different reasons from what those listening to Introvigne would be led to think.
Friends and Hypotheses
Before engaging in polemics, we should first decide whether we just wants to sling mud against somebody, or else want to arrive at some truth through discussion. In the second case, we must use only those facts which are meaningful within the framework of a reasoned and plausible hypothesis. As an example - it is a fact that Italian politician Massimo D'Alema has a Stalin-like moustache, but this fact is also quite meaningless. On the other hand, when we say that D'Alema wants a certain law to pass because it suits the interests of his party, this may be true or false, but it does fit into a logical hypothesis and the statement deserves looking into.
According to the French Catholic magazine, Golias, Introvigne writes for the French Communist paper L'Humanité. Introvigne also writes for Cristianità, the organ of the Italian right-wing group Alleanza Cattolica. Now, I could make use of the first fact to damage Introvigne's reputation among anti-Communists throughout the world. However, I don't do so, because I am not interested at all in Introvigne's reputation. What I do want to do is understand what his aims are. And nothing shows that these aims have anything to do with the political Left. There is a relationship with the Communist Party, but this relationship is quite meaningless.
On the other hand, Introvigne has been a militant of Alleanza Cattolica for over a quarter of a century. Ever since his early youth, he has followed the line of this organisation without the slightest deviation, and this same organisation is deeply involved in virtually every activity of CESNUR in Italy. This appears to be a much more meaningful relationship. And this relationship can also be explained within the framework of a reasoned and plausible hypothesis.
Now, how do CESNUR and its friends engage in polemics? I first wish to say that I understand their problem. On the one hand, there is CESNUR, which claims to hold the scientific truth in the matter of cults. And hence claims to be able to tell governments, judges, media, tax officials and social workers of every kind what to do. This is why it is important for all of society to be able to thoroughly assess the reliability of CESNUR. On the other hand, there is an individual - Miguel Martinez - who has submitted some documents which cast doubt on this reliability. Martinez is simply an independent professional, who lays no claim to teaching any truth to the world. He is like a postman bringing a telegram saying we have been cheated. It hardly matters whether the postman is a good family man or an alcoholic. What does matter is whether the contents of the telegram are true or not.
So if CESNUR does not want to answer the seven simple questions I posed, it can only keep silent. Or else attack the postman. Now, it's exactly against the postman - that is, Miguel Martinez - that the friends of CESNUR have launched three accusations. First, Martinez is supposed to have written years ago one article in an "extremist" magazine. Second, Martinez is supposed to use pseudonyms. Third, Martinez is supposed to have been expelled from an Italian cult-critic organisation, ARIS. As we shall see, two of these accusations are false and the third is insignificant, but they were enough to start a daily campaign of attacks on the newsgroups.
Religiosus (writing in alt.support.ex-cult), in his usual scholarly style, sums up the accusations against me, speaking of
"one Miguel Martinez, now exposed on Italian NGs as a clown hiding under a variety of Internet aliases and (under his own name) as a former writer for the anti-semitic magazine' Orion' together with Robert Faurisson, the father of all Holocaust negationists."
I shall deal with the "pseudonyms" later on. "Together with", plus the use of the plural, makes one think of a series of articles written jointly.
The reality is quite different. Orion is a small "alternative" magazine. Authors include Right wing extremists, but also Left wing extremists, science-fiction fans, neo-pagans, Muslims and even members and friends of Alleanza Cattolica, who engage in free and fierce polemics with each other. Orion has also published articles by such diverse authors as Sub-Commander Marcos and Noam Chomsky.
Back in 1993 a single article signed Miguel Martinez was published; this article, picked up from a bullettin published by cult critics, was about the anti-Communist cult of the Korean, Sun Myung Moon. The only reference in this article to the Second World War was a mention of the fact that one of Moon's associates was a convicted war criminal. Now, according to the friends of CESNUR, at some indefinite date, Orion is also supposed to have published an article by the controversial Frenchman, Robert Faurisson. I have no idea whether this is true or not, and of course the whole matter would be of interest only if this article came out before 1993, or if there was the slightest affinity in content between the articles. Because, what does CESNUR's accusation mean: does mentioning the links between the Latin American death squads and "Reverend" Moon mean practising anti-Semitism? If this accusation cannot be fitted into a logical framework, it will be exactly like accusing Introvigne of having sent the tanks rolling into Prague simply because he writes about "new religions" in L'Humanité.
I have nothing whatsoever against extremists, whether they be of the anti-US variety (like Orion) or of the pro-US variety (like Alleanza Cattolica). I have repeatedly said that I see nothing wrong in Introvigne being a right-wing extremist. What I do find dubious is when an extremist group - of any kind - sets up a "study centre" which claims to be scientifically objective. It is reminiscent of the Creation Science study centres set up by evangelicals keen on scientifically proving the world was created 6000 years ago.
A second accusation against me involves my disagreement with ARIS, a non denominational Italian cult critic association. Here is how Religiosus, in his usual scientific style, explains the event:
"Dear Miguel Martinez […] You are so ignorant that even the most ramshackle Italian anti-cult movement, ARIS, has expelled you with a big kick on your butt for having said who knows what idiocy about Islam. I have a friend in ARIS who told me that the kick was painful, with an official press release, and that you are still crying over the pain. Ai, Miguel, que dolor!" (the whole post)
Certain details immediately show that Religiosus did not learn the story from a "friend in ARIS", as he threateningly says, but from a messageIwrote on the discussion group on "new religions", NUREL, where Massimo Introvigne too writes. In any case, I was not expelled from ARIS at all; I did not even belong to the group. To be exact, I sent them a fax explaining that I no longer intended to work together with them. This fax actually took ARIS by surprise. My opinions are different from those of ARIS. But here we are speaking about facts, and concerning these facts, ARIS too agrees with me.
How to Use Evidence
Another important rule for proper polemics is this: never make any accusation which does enjoy the support of a plausible theory, but is lacking in proof.
Let us take as an example an accusation I never made: "CESNUR is financed by Scientology." Such a statement might be supported by indirect evidence (CESNUR organises extremely expensive conferences) and a plausible theory could be set up to support it as well: CESNUR does legitimise Scientology as a religion and this does imply a vast number of privileges for this US transnational corporation. However I have no proof that Scientology pays CESNUR, so I shall never make a statement to that effect. In other words, one must never make accusations even when one does have evidence and a plausible theory, but no proof. On the other hand, the friends of CESNUR launch accusations even when all three are missing.
Let us take what, at least according to them, is an accusation. I am supposed to use several pseudonyms on Internet: Martini, Martinelli and Harry, three names which appear in a site called "Allarme Scientology" and sometimes on newsgroups (this accusation sounds a little strange, coming as it does from somebody who calls himself Religiosus). In this case, there is one piece of evidence: the names Martinez, Martini and Martinelli sound rather similar.
However there is no supporting theory at all. Why should anybody write publicly under his own name about highly controversial issues, and then use a pseudonym to write about less controversial matters? I know I am neither Martini nor Martinelli nor Harry. However, I am not asking anyone to take my word for it. There is very clear proof of what I say: Martini, Martinelli and Harry are all three experts on Scientology, a subject they have been dealing with for years, on their website. Anybody who knows the cult and cult critic scene in Italy is perfectly aware that I am no expert on Scientology. Also, a quick look at the texts written by each clearly shows we are all different people. But here is how a CESNUR friend who signs himself "Lancillotto" ("Lancelot") reacts when asked to consider these arguments:
"Sorry, nobody believes you. You are triple, as long as the money keeps pouring in."
A phrase which - in Italian - contains what some people assure us is Introvigne's favourite pun.
Martini, Martinelli and Harry are excellent people, and I have no problem in being associated with them. In fact, this accusation works, not because it is offensive, but exactly because it is false. The mechanism is childish but effective: "You are Eskimo!" "No, I have nothing against Eskimos, but I don't happen to be one!" "Liar! You see he denies being an Eskimo?" Writing, as he himself claims, from the CESNUR conference on spiritualism in Turin, an imitator of Religiosus calls me "Miguel Bugiardez," something we can translate as "Miguel the Liar." The statement made by the Cesnurians becomes defamatory - from a legal point of view as well - since it means they call me a liar whenever I deny it.
A Secret Between Me and Freud
The expression, "as long as the money keeps pouring in" is another kind of statement one should avoid when engaging in polemics between adults. The CESNUR friend is stating as a fact that somebody is paying me. Of course, everything is possible. We have seen how one can even play with the hypothesis that Scientology pays CESNUR. But "Lancillotto" makes his statement without any supporting theory at all: who is supposed to be paying for me? The Belgian parliament? The psychiatrists? International communism?
Without any supporting hypothesis, the friends of CESNUR have at least presented a small piece of evidence: the fact that the CESNUR Critical Page has an elegant lay-out. This is what Religiosus means when, in another message, he says the following about me:
"Struck by sudden richness, he set up an imposing anti-CESNUR website; an anti-Scientology site had blazed the trail for this site."
Similar statements have been made in the past by Introvigne (see here). Now it is obviously no sense to set up a site critical towards Scientology (something which notoriously involves some risk) only in order to open some pages, on that same site, which criticise CESNUR. It should also be remembered that the pages critical towards CESNUR were removed in March, and that the site has gone back to dealing with Scientology only. After a period of total suspension, I had to find a new home for this "critical page", a home which only now has become final. I agree that my "critical page" is pretty. The technical difference between this page, created by Harry, and the rest of the Kelebek site, created by me, is painfully obvious.
Anyhow, scientific research - something CESNUR often speaks of - is based on the possibility of repeating experiments and changing one's mind on the basis of evidence. I therefore invite Dr Introvigne to call up a dozen or so different webmasters. He will notice that they will all say that the costs are quite low. Of course, this does not prove I don't receive money. Perhaps I pocket the sums I get from the Communist psychiatrists. But until Introvigne can discover where I hide the receipts, this will be a secret between me and Freud.
Why it's Important to Keep Calm
Another important piece of advice. Never get hysterical. One will end up by appearing ridiculous. In a post on NUREL (March 24th, 1999), Massimo Introvigne comments a message of mine in which I had only mentioned CESNUR en passant and in quite neutral terms. Here is how his reply starts:
"While I normally do not respond to nonsense about CESNUR (serious researches should be able to recognize trash when they see it) a recent posting by a professional anti-cultist is more nonsensical than usual."
And now let's listen to Religiosus (see here):
"Martinez is a professional anti-cultist." (in the same last Religiosus post)
Actually, I am a professional interpreter, and in any case my vision of the "cult" issue is very far from that of, say Margaret Singer, the "cult enemy" par excellence.
But here is another outburst of the same author:
"Dear Miguel, as a case of multiple personality disorder (MPD) you are just second rate. So far, you have emanated Harry, Martini, Martinelli and Martinovsky plus the short-lived Andrea Vinci. Imagine, in America there are cases of MPD with fifty or sixty different personalities, each with its own different features, competences, names (and probably ways of posting on NGs). Admit it. You're a failure, you are tortured by envy when Zoccatelli [a prominent militant of both CESNUR and Alleanza Cattolica] is interviewed by the national media and nobody cares about you."
Another suggestion for CESNUR - mention personal matters only when these mean something. I hope Introvigne has a happy family life, but this is no business of mine and as a matter of fact I have never mentioned it. Now here is what the friends of CESNUR have to say in the same post about my private life:
"After all, cases of MPD are not so frequent in and around Imola and this summer on the beach even a mental dissociation case like you with only five personalities (but try to emanate some more in the meantime) can pick up some German girl (or a Muslim girl, if you prefer). Of course you run the risk of falling into an identity crisis at the crucial moment and forgetting your name. A beastly summer lies ahead of you. Send our greetings to Faurisson."
This is an example of a losing strategy. The author is obviously utterly unable to control his hatred. He goes on stating as a fact the usual hypothesis about pseudonyms. Finally, ever since the early days of the Palaeolithic, hurling insults based on sex or on mental health has always been a clear sign of when the offending party has lost its capacity for arguing. In other words, Religiosus ends up looking stupid and makes the whole institution he represents appear ridiculous.
A Forgery
I have no time to follow newsgroups. I found out about this whole story thanks to a friend of mine who forwarded me Religiosus' messages, together with a forged message signed "Demetrio Martinovskj" and attributed to me. I quote the full message, to show the incredibly low level touched by the "friends of CESNUR":
BTW, both our tireless travellers spent their Easter holidays teaching lessons on the New Age at a retreat for young Adventists (a Christian, pro-Jewish religion) in Tuscany. They never stop, do they? Were the corn flakes, at least, good?"
This forgery was written by somebody who knew where Introvigne and Zoccatelli had just spent their holidays. The reference (perfectly meaningless, of course) to a "Christian, pro-Jewish religion" of course was studied to offend religious people in general, Christians and Jews in a single blow. The forger shows such an intense affection for PierLuigi Zoccatelli that he is even unable to accuse him (as I supposedly should do) of being apologetic towards cults. "Martinovskj" merely says that Zoccatelli is famous and is a "tireless traveller": hardly a criticism.
This is quite obviously a criminal offence, since the message was studied for the sole purpose of defaming me and promoting CESNUR. So I hope it will be possible to track down the real author of this message. In any case, this forgery was not a very intelligent move, since I had not written on CESNUR for several months, and indeed I was starting to work on quite different issues. Let sleeping dogs lie… perhaps they counted on my missing what was going on in the newsgroups, but inevitably, sooner or later, somebody would have started forwarding me their messages.
Who is Religiosus?
First of all, I would like to reassure Religiosus, and above all Lancillotto - who prudently hides behind the name of Arthur's bravest knight. CESNUR knows my name and address, and I am not one bit afraid of them; why should they be afraid of me?
As soon as I replied on the Newsgroups, the anonymous defamer changed his strategy. From a group of sympathisers, if not member, of CESNUR, "Religiosus" suddenly became a joke:
"This is how the Religiosus game is played: to post as 'Religiosus' from dejanews, from any computer, all that is needed is to know the password, and this password has been sent to dozens of people ('cult apologists', 'cult members', some more sporting anti-cultist and simple practical jokers), each being asked to continue the chain."
This prudent statement in view of legal liability comes a little too late. It fully contradicts a statement made just 4 days before - on March 5th- by Religiosus on it.cultura.newage:
"Religiosus is a collective nom de plume used by several different people with the same password, who employ different computers (hence the different IP addresses, if you want to amuse yourselves by looking for them) and who share certain ideas and who are in touch with CESNUR."
In other words, they share the same ideas and are directly in touch with Massimo Introvigne's organisation. In any case, the majority of Religiosus' messages has the same style, and is anything but playful. Here is a typical example:
"If you move around the Web, you will see that CESNUR is the constant target for insults from anti-cultists, and CESNUR never replies with the same tone."
True enough - as we have seen, the tone of the friends of CESNUR is very different indeed from mine, at least.
As soon as they realised the risks they were making the reputation of CESNUR run, Religiosus disappeared, and insults began to dwindle, thus showing that the supposed "chain mail" was actually under some form of control. There is very clearly one main Religiosus, surrounded by a few colleagues whom, perhaps, he gave the password to (this does not free him of course from his liabilities).
Some friends suggested that Religiosus is forced to hide his identity, because he is actually Massimo Introvigne himself. This is their reasoning. I shall also say why I do not accept their hypothesis. Religiosus is somebody directly involved, who has totally lost his self-control because of the criticism I have moved to CESNUR's methods. Just imagine - for over one month, this person has been writing two or three messages of insults every single day against one person, that is me. Also imagine - the over one hundred messages he has sent so far are simply based on nothing. I am sure that even the most generous reader will agree that the author of these messages is a seriously disturbed individual. Now, I do not believe that Introvigne is mentally disturbed, or that he is so stupid: not even the Legionaries of Christ would allow somebody like Religiosus to teach for three days a year in one of their institutions (this is why Introvigne can use the title of "professor").
My friends claim that Religiosus employs many of Introvigne's most typical expressions. However, it is also true that everybody in CESNUR tends to speak and write like the founder. These friends also point out that Religiosus usually mails from a TIN ISP in Turin, using Netscape 3.02 on a Macintosh computer. Just as Massimo Introvigne does in his public messages. I do not see this to be compelling proof.My friends also note that Religiosus posts both in Italian and in English; but the messages in English were clearly written by an Italian who (like Introvigne) knows English quite well. Not proof enough for my scientific mind. However, there is one decisive point, which proves that Introvigne cannot be Religiosus: Introvigne has repeatedly written that he does not engage in polemics on newsgroups. And of course I take his word for it. At least until the opposite is proven.
Introvigne's silence on the most important "religious freedom" case in Italy
By Miguel Martinez
November 29, 1998
Article source http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/txt/jw2.htm
At the beginning of November 1998, the most important event in recent years involving "religious minorities" took place in Italy. Twenty senators belonging to six parties of both the ruling centre-left coalition and the opposition presented an urgent request to the government [1] not to sign an "understanding" with the Jehovah's Witnesses, accused of "not being a religious confession, indeed actually being a business enterprise which has already swindled dozens of people".
The document says that
«they are a cult [setta] which brainwashes [plagia] its members with subliminal messages, demands behaviour contrary to the law, puts its followers who do not obey on trial and gathers confidential information for purposes of blackmail.»
(Amedeo Cortese, "Una lobby cattolica contro i Testimoni di Geova", Il Messaggero, 15.11.98, p. 7.)
The attitude of Massimo Introvigne, the director of CESNUR, is interesting. One must remember that he:
has repeatedly upheld that Scientology should be recognised as a religion;
devoted the September CESNUR conference to the rights of "religious minorities";
criticises the use of the word "cult";
denies "brainwashing" exists;
claims that "behaviour contrary to the law" may be justified for religious reasons.
It should also be remembered that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the most important "religious minority" in Introvigne's own country (Muslims are more numerous than JW's, but they are nearly all foreign nationals). And never before has there has been such a serious conflict in this country about the recognition of a "new religion."
So one would expect Introvigne to react with even more passion than he did when some young Germans "threatened" not to go and see a film with Scientologist John Travolta as an actor. [2] At the time, he wrote:
«We urge the heads of the government at federal and state levels in Germany and Belgium, as well as all genuine friends of religious liberty, to take immediate action to ensure that this campaign of hate is stopped without delay.»
In the far more important case of the Italian Jehovah's Witnesses, however, Introvigne has kept silent, at least so far - seventeen days after the senators submitted their document. Of course he may well post a note on the issue (especially after we publish this essay), but we suspect that the language will be less emotional than it was when he was defending Scientology.
The reason is quite simple. Although there has been strong grass roots opposition from former members and relatives to recognition of the Jehovah's Witnesses, it is a fact that nearly all the senators who are opposing recognition of the Jehovah's Witnesses are closely connected to the Catholic Church. Not only: many belong to the CCD, the right-wing Catholic party. Now, Introvigne is a member of the board of this party, which must have conferred with him before taking this momentous decision in his very field. And before using words which Introvigne has spent years fighting against, such as "cult" and "brainwashing".
We are left wondering whether Introvigne will decided to stay on the right side of the Vatican by keeping silent, or will resign from his position in the CCD and take on the full defence of the Jehovah's Witnesses, in keeping with the ideas he expressed in September at the CESNUR conference on "religious minorities."
In either case, the outcome will be amusing.
Notes and sources below
Notes
[1] Parliamentary Question of November 12, 1998, signed by twenty italian senators: Bosi, Callegaro, Minardo, Giaretta, Zilio, Preioni, Diana Lino, D'Ali, Veraldi, Andreolli, Nava, Ragno, Cusimano, Marri, Bornacin, Fumagalli Carulli, Cimmino, Napoli Bruno, Serena and Dentamaro.
[2] See this appeal sent to German authorities on August 15, 1996, signed by directors of CESNUR Massimo Introvigne (Italy) and Rev. James Gordon Melton (USA).
In the USA, neo-conservative think tanks - dedicated to changing the way the world views itself, through studies on military, cultural, religious and economic issues - have been successfully promoting a mentality based on the justification of inequality and on total freedom of enterprise, as opposed to all other human rights. Not all think tanks of the new international right, however, come from the US. One of them, for example, comes from Italy. It is called CESNUR, the "Centre for the Study of New Religions". It puts itself across as a non denominational and non partisan study centre, whereas actually it is a militant organization, which draws its inspiration from a self-styled "counter-revolutionary" ideology. Although run by Catholic fundamentalists, CESNUR promotes a kind of ecumenism among transnational enterprises which preach global free market; as we can see, CESNUR brings together admirers of the Inquisition and supporters of Scientology, Catholic extremists and esoteric Freemasons.
Introvigne's lawyer denies Introvigne's claim that the Piedmont Region is CESNUR's "only source of funds"
By Miguel Martinez.
One year ago, when the CESNUR Critical Page first came out, we offered "unlimited space" to Dr Introvigne, should he wish to reply to our statements. Now, after a year of threats, insults and censorship, we are glad to say that Dr Introvigne has taken this opportunity, albeit through his lawyer.
However, he also asks us to change the title of our essay - CESNUR uses public funds for a study labelling all its critics as 'extreme terrorists'.
His lawyer says that, if CESNUR had actually used public funds for this study, it would be committing a
"specific felony i.e. the use of funds from the Region of Piedmont for aims other than those these funds were intended for. Funds received by CESNUR from the Region of Piedmont, in facts, are intended for the management of the library and the organization of CESNUR conferences. Any other use of these funds would amount of a criminal offense."
It is interesting to have a lawyer say so. I never claimed that CESNUR was committing a felony, only that as an Italian taxpayer I disliked having to promote the activities of a person who publicly labels anyone disagreeing with him as a "terrorist," including myself.
The lawyer's letter also says that the electricity costs and phone bills involved in three month's computer trolling were not paid for by the Italian tax payer.
She does not tell us however who paid for Dr Introvigne's trip to the ASR conference in Chicago. I am not saying the Piedmont government did, I am merely asking who did.
Nor does she explain who pays for the CESNUR website which immediately published the CESNUR "study." (http://www.cesnur.org/testi/anticult_terror.htm) Indeed, the "study" has not been published anywhere else yet.
The basic issue, however, is another:
The study we are discussing was certainly one of CESNUR's "projects."
CESNUR claims that the Piedmont government is its main or even only source of funds.
This is what the CESNUR homepage has to say (http://www.cesnur.org/about.htm):
"CESNUR International was recognized as a public non-profit entity in 1996 by the Italian authorities, who are the main current contributors to its projects. It is also financed by royalties on the books it publishes with different publishers, and by contributions of the members. As a public non-profit entity, accounts of its projects are filed with the Region of Piedmont, in Italy."
Not only is CESNUR supported by the State - it virtually claims that it is the State (a "public non-profit entity"), and that "Italian authorities" contribute to its "projects", not just to its book collections.
On June 21st, 1999, Dr Introvigne signed a post, in his role as "Managing Director of CESNUR", on
NUREL
(Home Page: http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/, an academic mailing list on new religions managed by Dr Irving Hexham of the University of Calgary in Canada) - also posted in Italian on the Usenet by Introvigne's charismatic allies of
Una voce grida!
- where he explicitly said:
[1]
"Kelebek promotes a full-scale information warfare against CESNUR, asking anti-cultists and naive Web passers-by to fload [sic] CESNUR's E-mailbox with messages of protest and to write to the State of Piedmont, CESNUR's only source of funds."
Only source of funds
... (for further information on the issue discussed by Introvigne, see
here
). Introvigne then goes on to say:
"State funds are strictly used by CESNUR for its scholarly activities."
Now, a paper - like the "anti-terrorism" one we are discussing - presented at a convention of the Association for Sociology of Religion on August 5th, 1999, should certainly be considered a "scholarly activity," at least by its author.
"you have obviously never been to CESNUR, otherwise you would be aware that CESNUR is mainly a LIBRARY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC (theoretically only three hours a day, actually often in the afternoons and on holidays too) which offers its users the use of its computers".
"Cossutta" states in capital letters (the emphasis is in the original) that CESNUR is "mainly a library", which is just what Introvigne's lawyer admits the Italian taxpayers pay for.
However, it is Introvigne who claims in the very study that we are discussing that the study was conducted from the CESNUR library:
"A small group of students associated with CESNUR's library in Turin, Italy, conducted a covert participant observation programme for more than three months extending from the original Italian to some non-Italian newsgroups as well [...] Indeed, all messages emanating from the original group involved in the research were posted from two computers in CESNUR's Turin library, using the same operating system."
So the question "who paid for the CESNUR anti-terrorism study" is the same as the question, who pays for the CESNUR library? Who pays the rent? Who bought the computers?
Introvigne's lawyer seems to confirm that these are paid for by the Piedmont government.
We therefore have two valid reasons for having chosen the title we used for our study.
The first is, that CESNUR publicly claims that its "scholarly activities" are paid for by the Italian taxpayer, sometimes presented as the "only" financial backer, at other times as the "main" one.
Second, even CESNUR's lawyer claims that the library is paid for by the Italian taxpayer; but - according to CESNUR militants - the library is synonymous with CESNUR, and Introvigne claims that the study we are talking about was done from the library, by people "associated" with the library.
Of course there is another possibility, but unfortunately this would mean Introvigne is not telling the truth when he boasts of being only/mainly funded by the State.
It may be that the Italian public authorities do not pay the expenses of the CESNUR office/library. Introvigne has previously denied that the public authorities pay for CESNUR's legal expenses; this time his lawyer denies they pay for CESNUR's study projects, its phone and electricity bills. Though her letter is anything but clear, it may actually be that we taxpayers only pay for selective purchase of some books (many books are of course donated, so in this case we the people would not even be paying for all the books in the CESNUR library).
If Introvigne's lawyer provides evidence of this, we shall be glad to amend our original title.
If we do so, of course, CESNUR should immediately correct its web page too, and explain who does pay for what are presumably the main expenses for any association: rent, computers, travel by the directors and so on, specifying that Italian "public authorities" only help out with marginal expenses.
Some days ago CESNUR lawyers and the Italian Internet provider for the notorious anti-CESNUR site reached a settlement, and the provider agreed to discontinue the site. This small legal victory by CESNUR (largely symbolic, since the site can be mirrored in countries where providers have no legal liability, making actions hopelessly long) did not please the anti-CESNUR activists.
From their new home their site Kelebek promotes a full-scale information warfare against CESNUR, asking anti-cultists and naive Web passers-by to fload CESNUR's E-mailbox with messages of protest and to write to the State of Piedmont, CESNUR's only source of funds. All this in the name of a battle against Internet censorship, while the real censorship comes from those willing to strangle CESNUR by cutting off its funding.
Obviously State funds are strictly used by CESNUR for its scholarly activities. Legal actions are funded from the private pockets of the directors and, occasionally, from lawyers themselves who donate their work on a pro bono basis.
The new home of the anti-CESNUR Web site is www.ummah.net, a well-known Islamic fundamentalist site. Go there, click on "action", and you realize that this is a gateway to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Talebans, and other similar organizations. You will be exposed to propaganda against the U.S. and Israel and in favour, among others but quite prominently, of Saddam Hussein, and may read anti-Christian Islamic texts (the latter have always been included in the anti-CESNUR site Kelebek: apparently its Christian anti-cult supporters did not care).
At least, this time there is a clear international political signature.
Friends of the anti-CESNUR Web site now know what kind of international network they are supporting. CESNUR, by the way, never dealt with Islam in its activity (oriented towards NEW religions) except that it published a booklet on Islam in its collection "Religioni e movimenti", a booklet quite well received in the mainline Islamic community.
Massimo Introvigne
Managing Director, CESNUR
==========================================
NURELWEB SITE:
Http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb
[2]
From [email protected] Sun May 16 17:43:01 1999
Path: news.tin.it!area.cu.mi.it!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!newsfeed.enteract.com! news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: it.discussioni.misteri
Subject: Re: Sesso, bugie e il CESNUR
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 15:43:01 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.52.71.94
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun May 16 15:43:01 1999 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x22.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 212.52.71.94
Xref: news.tin.it it.discussioni.misteri:4014620
CESNUR uses public funds for a study labelling all its critics as "extreme terrorists"
By Miguel Martinez
With reference to a paper by Massimo Introvigne presented at the annual conference of the Association for Sociology of Religion (ASR), Chicago, 5 August 1999.
Just after drinking my morning tea, I opened my e-mailbox and discovered that a document had been placed on a website in which I was called an extreme extreme terrorist. I suppose mainline terrorists are those who avoid killing children when they can help it; extreme terrorists couldn't care less, while the extreme extreme terrorists, like me, apparently specialise in child mutilation.
To my amazement, I also discovered that I belonged to an "anti-cult" conspiracy, involving "secular humanists" and members of the political Left, right-wing European Identity promoters, Islamic fundamentalists, Latin American guerrillas, defenders of free speech and American Evangelicals, a plot backed by the French secret services. For some reason, the Illuminati were not listed among my accomplices.
What makes this document peculiar is the fact that these allegations were made in what purports to be an "academic paper," on "Anti-Cult Terrorism via the Internet", presented on August 5, 1999, at the annual conference of the Association for Sociology of Religion (ASR) in Chicago, by Italian lawyer Massimo Introvigne.
Even more peculiar is the fact that Introvigne claims that the only source of money for CESNUR's studies is the Italian taxpayer, i.e. people like me, thanks to funds granted by the local (centre-right) government of the Piemonte Region.
If I believed in suing people, I suppose I could live the rest of my life off the author of this allegation (and possibly off the Piemonte Region).
Introvigne's Jonestown
By Miguel Martinez
November 29, 1998.
Massimo Introvigne provides us with a sample of his political agenda in an article on Jonestown, La tragedia di Jonestown. 18.11.1978 - 18.11.1998: a vent'anni dai suicidi-omicidi del "Tempio del Popolo". Curiously, though presented as an article from the Catholic daily, L'Avvenire, it actually appeared two days before on the CESNUR website. At least we did not have to buy the newspaper to read the article.
Many of Introvigne's articles are written both in Italian and English. This time, however, the English version is much shorter than the Italian version, and above all does not include his ideological thesis on Jonestown. Perhaps he realised that the Americans, who were closer to the actual event, would have more problems than Italians in accepting it.
Introvigne's point is quite simple. The People's Temple, the ultimate cult, which led over 900 people to their death in a mass suicide, was not a religious but a political movement, a Communist movement to be exact.
«The basic question however concerns the nature of the People's Temple: 'cult' or religious movement, or an extremist political group? Or both? Professor John R. Hall […] calls Jones' operation 'a deception founded on the use of religion in order to promote socialism' and believes that the many references to God in the speech of the People's Temple were simple metaphors for the Marxist notion of a world evolving towards Communism»
Practically speaking, this means that the blame is shifted from "cults" to "Communism".
Introvigne also quotes Hall as saying that Jones was "frozen into a Leninist-Stalinist orientation" and had a "Stalinist approach towards Bolshevism", a hilarious statement for anybody who has read both Jones' delirious ravings and the theological hair-splitting of Marxist theoreticians.
Of course, Introvigne puts aside the fact that, while church and government are traditionally distinct in the USA, religion and politics are almost as closely blended together as in Iran. The United States has no important tradition of European-style secular ideologies. The Founding Fathers, the abolitionist movement, populism, the temperance movement, the civil rights movement, Malcolm X, Jerry Falwell are all evidence of how every important political event in American history has strong religious undertones.
«The Scripture says: 'And let us not be weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.'
From this joyful mountaintop of celebration we hear a call to service in the valley. We have heard the trumpets, we have changed the guard, and now each in our own way, and with God's help, we must answer the call.
Thank you, and God bless you all.»
From the context, we cannot tell whether this is a preacher or a politician speaking. Actually, these were the closing words of Clinton's inaugural address in 1993.
What Harold Bloom calls the "American Religion" is largely millennialist, being based on the achievement of the Kingdom; which in its turn is a highly political notion, implying a very physical government by the Messiah over a united Mankind. Nearly all utopian aspirations born in the United States, even those publicly founded on Marxist theory, are inspired by this vision.
Especially in the case of a small millennialist group, only marginally involved in the "real" political agenda, any distinction between "religion" and "politics" in the United States is bound to be purely nominal and not, as Introvigne puts it, "the basic question."
However, cult critics will say that the issue, whether the group was "Christian" or "Communist", is not the "basic question" at all. What matters is, why did 900 members of the group commit suicide?
The answer most cult critics provide is relatively simple. Sociologist for over a century have been saying that group dynamics, especially in authoritarian groups, can lead individuals to committing the most extraordinary deeds.
Not so for Introvigne, who makes a heroic attempt to throw all social sciences overboard:
«Ultimately, it is ideology which explains why a group in conflict with society goes as far as committing suicide, while others react in a less tragic fashion.»
The explanation for the Jonestown suicide should apparently be found in the writings of Karl Marx. For this reason, Introvigne's text details a series of "Communist connections" of Reverend Jones. A friend of ours commented jokingly that these connections look almost as impressive as those between Introvigne and organisations of the political Right.
But is Communism a suicidal idea?
Marxism (and the writings of Marx' more or less legitimate heirs) can be said to have two faces - a sociological one, which certainly does not have any suicidal overtones; and a very optimistic, utopian one, based on a positive view of human life and the future (without an alternative afterlife). One can well image Lenin or Stalin calling on people to kill the enemies of the revolution; but one can hardly imagine them calling on the revolutionaries to kill themselves (the many Communists killed by Stalin were of course thought to be counter-revolutionaries).
I think I can safely challenge Introvigne to find one sentence in any work by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tze Tung or Gramsci calling on Communists to suppress themselves.
This essay allows Introvigne to play several of his roles at once.
As a lawyer, he condemns (Communism) and acquits ("cults" in general).
As an apologist, he saves such groups as Scientology from the stigma of association with the People's Temple.
As a militant anti-Communist, he adds Reverend Jones to Pol Pot.
However, Introvigne is a leader of Alleanza Cattolica, a right-wing organisation which has much of the ambiguity of the Reverend Jones' movement. It is "Catholic" and hence religious, indeed the group devotes much time to reciting the Rosary. On the other hand, its objective is to set up the "Kingdom of Mary" on earth, defeating Communism and secularism and ushering in a theocratic government. On its way towards this distant goal, Alleanza Cattolica is just as ready as Jim Jones ever was to make political alliances, to interfere in the workings of the government and to raise votes. Indeed, Introvigne himself is a member of the board of the right-wing party CCD.
Of course Alleanza Cattolica is a very peaceful organisation; however, should it hypothetically be involved one day in some dramatic issue, one wonders whether Introvigne would say that it did so because it was Catholic (religious) or right-wing (political).
One last note. Introvigne, in an essay called "Liar, liar" (*), complained that (for reasons too long to explain here) I mentioned the factthat a person associated with CESNUR was supposed to be a militant homosexual. Listen to Introvigne in his essay on Jim Jones:
«In the 70's, [Jones] in San Francisco belonged to the team of George Moscone, a radical politician - and homosexual - who in 1976 became mayor as the leader of a mixed coalition of minorities.»
For some unfathomable political reason, the words "and homosexual" appear only in the Italian version on the CESNUR website (not in the English version or in the article published in Avvenire).
Introvigne is an expert in double-speak. However weak his reasoning may be, in this essay his words are "scholarly correct." However, writing in Cristianità on the same subject some years ago, here is the rather convoluted manner in which he expressed the same notions. Cristianità is the magazine of Alleanza Cattolica, and a place where Introvigne can take his mask off. In fact he mentions his spiritual and political "master", the self-styled Brazilian "prophet" Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, as the inspiration behind his ideas about "Communism":
«Jonestown however, was the suicide of a Revolution which - to use the words of Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira - we can call the Third Revolution, the socialcommunist Revolution»
("La tragedia del Tempio Solare: il suicidio di una Rivoluzione", in Cristianità, November 1994, p. 16.)
Notes
(*) "Liar, Liar", by Massimo Introvigne, November 10, 1998. See also "The Secret Agents of the Belgian Parliament" - Miguel Martinez replies to Massimo Introvigne, November 19, 1998.
Let Pinochet go!
Let Scientology go!
By Miguel Martinez
Concerning an article published in Cristianità, the official magazine of Alleanza Cattolica. which includes CESNUR's director Massimo Introvigne among its leaders.
The January-February 1999 issue of Cristianità has just come out. To refresh the memory of our readers: this magazine is the official organ of Alleanza Cattolica, the right-wing organization one of whose five national leaders ("consultori") is Massimo Introvigne, and to which nearly all the members of CESNUR Italy also belong.
This issue has an article by Introvigne ("Reiki: technique or religion?") and an article in defence of Introvigne (against the Fraternity of Saint Pius X). The magazine claims no fewer than twenty-six activities of CESNUR as part of the "Good battle" ("La buona battaglia") of Alleanza Cattolica.
In other words, CESNUR and Cristianità are synonyms, at least for Cristianità. (CESNUR generally seems a little more embarrassed about the link.)
The "good battles" listed in the magazine include the presentation of Reverend James Gordon Melton's book on Scientology and even a lecture by Eileen Barker of the UK organization INFORM. The latter is under a special heading, "religious freedom", a title reminiscent of Introvigne's famous appeal in favour of Scientology in Germany.
However, this is not the only kind of freedom that interests Cristianità/CESNUR. Another victim of persecution, besides Scientology, receives special attention from Cristianità. This time it is Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, the expressionless Chilean former dictator.
First comes an article on Pinochet, explicitly titled "Let Pinochet go!", by American rightist Pat Buchanan. Then comes an article (four pages long) by a gentleman described as "Senator for life and General of the Reserve, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte". In this article we learn, for example, how Senator Pinochet is "…deeply convinced that those countries which are unable to discover the historical mission they are called on to perform, do not and never will have a future".
I wish to make it clear that I do not intend to dispute the right of Introvigne's organization to campaign for the release of the tough old general.
However, I think this campaign can help readers understand more clearly what CESNUR means by "freedom."
Originally posted here: http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/txt/pinogb.htm
