LE SECTICIDE
L'ANTI - SCIENTOLOGIE antisectes.net

My replies (blue color) to the ridicule paper entitled "So Many Evil Things": Anti-Cult Terrorism via the Internet" from the attorney : Massimo Introvigne.

Readers could think that the comments done here against a scholar or scholars do not demonstrate politeness or respect. They are right; I'm no longer intending to show respect for some people who do not respect their own integrity or their readers or spectators. Indeed, lying is not showing much respect for others.

Le texte en français? ici.

The accomplice: M. Introvigne

Regarding the title, could we say that the choice of the word "terrorism" indicates how much M. Introvigne and his friends from some criminal (or non criminal) cults fear us and our disclosing of their motives? We'll not play the offensed virgin defending her honour, though the term he used is quite excessive: that could be interpreted as a weakness we don't have; we don't care being treated as "imbecile" as he did for me: I prefer to be an "imbecile" called that by a liar, than a liar and a dishonest defender of criminal cults.

"A paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Sociology of Religion (ASR), Chicago, 5 August 1999. Preliminary version. © Massimo Introvigne 1999. Do not cite or reproduce without the written consent of the author."

First , M. Introvigne seems unaware, though an attorney specialized into licences and copyrights problems, that I have any right to quote parts of his text, and more so, when I'm personaly targeted (as are many other anti-cult critics) in his writings. Where did he got his doctorate at laws?


Presenting first some reasons Introvigne estimates as essential ones of the flourishing of anti-cult critics on the Internet, Introvigne speaks of Heaven's Gate suicides in March 1997.

Such critics like me, an ex officer of high level of the scientology criminal cult, are criticizing cults since the very first days they left... I've criticized scientology long before Internet was even thought of, since I left the cult end 1982, and started to criticize it in january or february 1983. Introvigne is right when he says "On the other hand, it has also been suggested that "the so-called ‘anti-cult’ groups [are] the main beneficiaries of the development of the Internet at this point" (Mayer 1999)." It's true that without the help of Internet liaisons, we would'nt be able to concentrate tons of data so easily available in so little place for so cheap a cost. Internet is the death of the criminal and coercive cults and their defenders, as the readers can compare our truths against the PR texts of cults or their highly prized Introvigne & C°.

Could it be the true reason for Dottore Introvigne to use Internet as a tool to attack us and defend his pride and profits?

 

"1. Cyberspace as a social construction"


Under this title, M. Introvigne does not resist to quote lots of studies done... only to define what the cyberspace is. This is vain: readers are Internetizens, knowing what is the cyberspace. This is like defining what an automobile is to a driver driving his car. - It's true that the text was first to be used before a scholarship assembly, not necessarily aware of Internet. Adding such notions as "When cyberspace appears, through objectivation, as a given "objective" reality, new forms of interpersonal-social relations develop. Subjective understanding of the objectified cyberspace, obtained through internalization, gives rise to transpersonal-imaginary experiences, a virtual imaginary in which both "visions of heaven" and "fears of hell" develop (Jordan 1999, 185)." will not add much to his topic, which is : attacking the criminal cults enemies. Us. He keeps on drowning the fishes (see here). He allegates then that there is "information overload in the cyberspace". Nonsense for me: all the modern world is overload of informations. Nobody can take more informations than he's able to. So, why worry or even notice? M. Introvigne does not resist adding words upon words, references upon references, in the vain hope that some suckers could be convinced by his "science". He'd better choose good arguments, good sense, and cease to lie sometimes (see here or later in this text). Presenting then some differences established between the seriousness of some sources (like: "we realize that The New York Times is not infallible, but is in any case more reliable than the Weekly World News", M. Introvigne hopes probably that he'll be classed by his astonished and subjugated readers under the category of "New York Times" rather than under "Weekly World News". Alas, we have so many proofs of his twisting the truth of the bare facts, that he'll be rather classed under the "Qui Detective" sort. (note: this is the worst press in France).

An interesting passage here:

" It is true that any attempt to censor parts of cyberspace may sooner or later be bypassed. However, as Jordan (1999, 79) notes, claiming that subverting offline hierarchies automatically creates an anti-hierarchical, and truly democratic, communication may be an example of the logical fallacy known as technological determinism." Therefore, whatever he says, Dottore Introvigne - (he, who tried to censur the italian critical site "kelebeker" some months ago) is doomed to be seen for what he he is: a liar. A liar saying others are liars, like in his famous "liars liars text, (read on his site).

 

"2. Malicious Use of the Information Overload and Internet Terrorism"

Here too, we have a good example of Cesnur's style: "malicious use". Where did he find any malicious use of the truth about criminal cults elsewhere than in his, and their, motives?

"While in the early 1990s, social science pessimism about the information overload regarded it as an entirely spontaneous phenomenon, in the second half of the decade a new scholarly literature emerged, suggesting that the overload may be manipulated for the purpose of damaging specific organizations, governments or groups (Denning and Denning 1998, Denning 1999)."


For sure, Internet can be used by malicious criminal organizations like scientology, inc, to damage our reputations, or anybody attempting to stop their abuses. If you want to read much about it, take a look at how they have always treated Internet's affairs
here. It's not much needed to define, like Introvigne does to fill in some more lines, what is the terrorism or the violence. Is Massimo Introvigne paid by the word, like the Hubbard hackette was?


Besides, would we be terrorists, we could be sued. Most of us have never been sued, though scientology tried six times to
intimidate me or my ISPs by sending attorneys - having no merits to defend. The best of all is that he implies that we could use such methods as in: "An ecoterrorist group targeting a transnational corporation, for instance, may cause comparatively little damage by blowing up one or more warehouses. Additionally, after the first terrorist acts, security will inevitably be increased, as also the risk for the terrorists themselves. Successfully spreading "information" that a key product of the same corporation causes cancer, or other lethal diseases, is much more effective."


But the fact remains that such criminal cults like scientology do cause suicides, craziness, and various breaks or misfortunes; on those FACTS, Introvigne is dumb and deaf, he is therefore deserving to be called "accomplice of crimes and criminals", since we have sent him enough proofs of such crimes and sentences and rulings for him to cease to act deaf and blind. We'll see if one day, we'll sue him for such acts of omission/commission; I've been not far to do so when he defended scientology before french courts.


He quotes then an unknown "fact" of "
poisoned christmas cakes", without source. This is not a scholar work. Anyway, he does not deserve the "sociologist" title he gets sometimes when going to TVs: he does not have more university certificates on this than you and me, though I can't deny his (twisted and profitable) knowledge of the area.

Introvigne makes then an incursion in the area of air-traffic control (which he says, "could be attacked by cyber-terrorism"), or of" virus makers". Is there any similarity between this and our action? No. This is his purely malevolent intent against us. We don't even practice any sort of hacking of the various sites and internet systems used by cults, while scientology has started the internet war (over-spamming us since years: he notes it later). Who is the cyber terrorist then, and who is the support of such terrorism? Dottore Introvigne does not remember that the creation of the needed internet forum "fr.soc.sectes" was refused in France for months, because dishonest cultists had tricked the votes? Who was the terrorist then? : friends of Introvigne.


M. Destouche is then attacked; here the interesting passage, as it does quote a list of dangerous cults, a list copied by Introvigne, he who does not accept any form of listing of cults! "
Together with Aum Shinri-kyo, Destouche (1999, 38-143; 238-239) lists the Church of Scientology, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Transcendental Meditation, Soka Gakkai, the Raelians, New Acropolis and the Church of Satan. This list easily shows that everything depends on an offline evaluation of which group is "subversive" or "terrorist", followed by a quick check as to whether or not the group happens to have a Web site." [no relationship has been established by anti-cultists between having a site and being a cult]


Now comes the tour of the well-known writer Karin Spaink , whose struggle against censur is well known. M. Introvigne twists the facts, as he writes: "As a libertarian, Spaink explained, she "decided to put up a mirror of the Nuremberg Files" (Spaink 1999), and the Files are to date still available [my accentuation] through her controversial provider www.xs4all.nl. Spaink’s organization, as we shall see, also plays a role in the anti-cult Internet wars."

But the fact is that 1/ he does not communicate the correct URL of Karin Spaink, which is (http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink), where people could discover that Karin Spaink has mirrored the controversial anti-abortion site for 4 days only, from 22d to 26th feb 1999. Here is what she wrote:

"I have taken down my NF [Nuremberg Files] mirror.
The debate about the use some perverts may or not make of the list is so heated that I decided to take it down. Yet I still believe that lists are part of free speech."


Added the day after: M. Introvigne wrote me that he had the correct URL for the list and sent it to me. But it is not the not on Karin Spaink's site, but on another one. Karin is'nt responsible of other's activities regarding that list. The truth being that she has erased the files 4 days after having deposed them.

Introvigne was asking excuses from me: I'm not excusing the fact that he did not gave the true URL neither the true name of the site's holder for this file. Besides, i'm not communicating the correct URL neither, as my opinion is that extreme-right wings "christians" are sectarian - and have trespassed since long the frontier between humanity and charity and love, by killing people: I don't help any such sort of dangerous crazy.

 

3. Anti-Cult Terrorism

Here again, we are "terrorists". I'd like to know what is the feeling imposed by the self-called "religions" practicing real terrorism or infiltrations into nuclear and weapons plants. Then, another square lie: Introvigne says:" While the demise of the largest American anti-cult organization, the Cult Awareness Network, finally occurred because of its involvement in a violent and illegal activity, i.e. forcible deprogramming,..." while no proof has ever been made that the "old" Can - now property of the criminal cult scientology, had ever been engaged in "deprogramming" Plus, the CAN has won the last round before the Supreme court of Illinois. (see here). But that last ruling about the old CAN shows that scientology itself was engaged into a national conspiration to destroy one of its most vocal opponents, the "old" CAN.

Introvigne makes a new twist:

"Anti-cult movements in Europe have been less research-oriented and more pro-active from their very beginning. Following the Order of the Solar Temple suicides and homicides in 1994-1997, in particular, some European anti-cult movements experienced an unprecedented degree of public support. Parliamentary reports generated immediately after the Solar Temple incidents, inter alia in France (Assemblée Nationale 1996) and Belgium (Chambre des Représentants de Belgique 1997), simply mirrored the approach of the anti-cult organizations, explicitly distancing themselves from the work of mainline scholars."

This is pervert: the two main french associations devoted to struggle against cults, ADFI and CCMM, were active since decades before 1996. The first french parliamentary report was done since 1985, long before Solar Temple and suicide or deaths in scientology. I'll not comment the "association" of the US govt toward some dangerous criminally convicted and still indicted cults - even in US: this is treated in the special page here.


Regarding Introvigne's declaration:

"On the other hand, as noted by Usarski (1999) with reference to Germany, the publication of inflammatory documents by both private organizations sponsored by government, and by the government itself, proclaiming that literally hundreds of cults are pure evil, and that the country is at war with them, is dangerous.", I'll answer this: no govt or anti-cult association has ever issued inflamatory writings against hundreds of cults. The most inflamtory texts are always directed toward the most dangerous cults, scientology being always and in any case, the first targeted: "A tout seigneur tout honneur".

The true motives of such attacks comes now in Introvigne's text: "This danger is not purely theoretical in Europe, where the anti-cult fight has been picked up by fringe movements whose language (and, occasionally, deeds) already had a violent edge to them. ... Secondly, a left-wing anti-globalization discourse sees cults, as well as transnational corporations (and McDonald's franchises too perhaps), as agents of an evil plan to destroy Europe’s socialist identity [how can he say that Europe is particularly socialist?] in the name of the American free-market economy [1]. Thirdly, the same anti-globalization discourse is proposed, at the other end of the political spectrum, by right-wing groups as well. What we may call a European Identity Movement attacks, with similar arguments, U.S.-led globalization plans, whilst regarding the European identity as intrinsically spiritual and religious (rather than intrinsically socialist). Fourthly, some Islamic fundamentalist groups have also welcomed a violent anti-cult discourse, both as a tactical manoeuvre to avoid inclusion in the anti-cult public repression, and because cults may target Moslems for proselytization. Although very different from each other, these groups occasionally cross-fertilize. An exemplary case is the Italian magazine Orion, published since 1984 as "an anti-globalist monthly (...) against the planetary homologation of the New World Order" (see its Web site at http://space.tin.it/lettura/vileonar/orion.html). It publishes both right-wing and left-wing anti-globalization tirades, promotes a "national communism" as well as authors connected with Nazism and anti-Semitism (such as Holocaust negationist Robert Faurisson) [2]. Orion has, in fact, been quite active in the anti-cult fight, seeing cults as one of the most dangerous agents of U.S.-led globalization projects. [3]".

This is more vicious: Orion is only linked to us by Introvigne and by Introvigne only; Orion is not specifically an anti-cult movement at all, and I don't care that Orion could have links to such extremists as Faurisson or to communism: we don't recognize it as a mainly anti-cults organization, as extremisms are cultic! Here, Introvigne forgets to remind his own links to extreme right-wing, via Alleanza Catolica and TFP (see here).

 

"4. Internet Terrorism and Cult Wars"

In the next lines, Cesnur's chief establishes indirect relations between us and "messages that discredit, defame, demonize, or dehumanize an opponent", and -- strictly related to the latter -- "conspiracy theories" - "lies and distortions", fabrications, hoaxes, social engineering, "denouncement", forgetting to note the fact that such practices are mostly from cults. It is of interest to note that he has observed that most anti-cult official european organizations have few or no presence at all on the Internet, a fact which is rapidly evoluting: such organizations will soon be there too, but meanwhile, they are quite well represented by individual supports coming from cult critics such as Mathieu Cossu & Mickael Tussier or myself and some other friends - ( France; others have also similar sites).

Introvigne pretends then that our "extremist" sites have 3 elements: dehumanizing or demonizing a movement, extreme conspiracy theories, and: "attempts at immunizing the anti-cult movement from its principal problem, which has been defined as its "almost unanimous lack of support from academics" (Chryssides 1999, 263), or "lack of any convincing scientific evidence" for its theories (Usarski 1999, 238). Academics and other scholarly researchers are thus systematically discredited through ad hominem attacks as "cult apologists", or "hired guns" for "cults".

For sure, we don't like much some dishonest liars or people lacking of any really scientific analysis, who set aside anything which could be critical of certain evidences regarding criminal cults, such as inflamatory rulings from lower Courts, Appeal Courts or Supreme Courts, against such movements.

If I say "M. Introvigne is a liar, and my opinion is that he's an accomplice of criminals", I can prove it; but he couldn't prove I'm a liar without risk of being sued: that's his Achille's talon. Is that an ad-hominem attack? Yes it is.

Now, regarding the fact that we have less scholars defending anti-cultism than pro-cultist scholars, the reasons are quite evident: 1/ cults have paid more than once such "scholars" to be "studied", and 2/ academics (or judges, policemen, deputies, journalists etc.) attacking some cults are subjected to harsh campaigns of harrassment: much courage is needed to stand before criminals and billions of dollars companies.

Introvigne does not endure any risk of being "destroyed, utterly ruined", as established through scientology Hubbard policy. Reading later, we find his cesnurian excuse/apologism of anti-semitism from Kotama Okada, guru of "Sûkyô Mahikari". We take good note that some moderate anti-semitism is allowed by Cesnur's director.

After some lines "analyzing" the sites of an anti-Mahikari and an anti-Opus-Déi, Introvigne comes to his real objective: defending the criminal cult scientology. For the first time, Massimo Introvigne gives the correct URL of an anti-scientology website: Tilman Hausherr's.(http://www.snafu.de/~tilman), plus some good quotes of Tilman's pages from judges against scientology:

"The first welcome in his Web page is a quote from an early parliamentary report in Australia that "Scientology is evil; its techniques evil; its practice a serious danger to the community, medically, morally and socially; and its adherents are sadly deluded and often mentally ill". Hausherr’s page is, to some extent, redeemed by a sense of humour normally lacking among the extreme fringes of anti-cultism. ..."

"Although no actual violence is advocated, the list, a main feature of Hausherr’s site, becomes in fact a "hit list"."

[We'll note here that M. Introvigne does not like lists of private scientologists practicing some businesses like medicine or politics. Pro-cultists hate lists, but pro-cultists do forget that such lists are established by the cults themselves: where would we find such informations in such secret-ridden movements? Now others are - finally- quoted : never too late to good deeds. Introvigne does not insist much on us, but prefers rather to criticize a cultic counter-cults site: Watch Unto Prayer (http://watch.pair.com/pray.html), something he says "frequently quoted" by us: this is not true - to the point that I did not even heard once of this site; why does he extend his critic of such site? To make it appear similar to our "serious" sites, while that "Watch unto prayer" site is a cultic extremism attacking mostly other religions!

"There are other Web sites devoted to attacking Scientology in Europe, most of them subsequent national versions in the local languages of Hausherr’s enterprise, although also including domestic articles and court decisions. The trend is very much the same, from Roger Gonnet (a former Scientologist) in France (http://www.antisectes.net) to the pseudonymous "Harry" and "Martini" in Italy (http://xenu.com-it.net/)."

Now we'll find some anti-apologists sites:

"A third type of extreme anti-cult Web site is devoted primarily to assaulting "cult apologists", i.e. scholars who criticize the anti-cult movement. A primary, although extreme, example is Kelebek (http://www.ummah.net/kelebek or www.kelebekler.com) operated out of Imola, Italy by Miguel Martinez (an ex-member of New Acropolis) and Banu Sarper. It is primarily devoted to ad hominem attacks against scholars associated with CESNUR, the Center for Studies on New Religions, whose managing director is the author of this chapter" - We know, M. Introvigne: nobody could ignore that. Either, nobody could ignore that, with the help of your friends, the apologists Gordon Melton and Eileen Barker, you have called coercive or neutral cults "religions" since the start of your association, obeying their desires, whatever their motivations. We can't either ignore that criticizing you is always qualified "ad-hominem attack".

Now, il Dottore discusses at length of strategies from Miguel Martinez, who will soon answer to his prose: I'll not add to his own soon-to-be critic.

M.I. gives now some facts on scientology war against Internet, thanks to his acknowledgemnt of such cyber-attacks by the cyber terrorist cult: "The fight between the Church of Scientology and alt.religion.scientology is one of the best known Usenet sagas. If anything, Scientology has managed to scare Usenet posters into maintaining their anonymity as far as possible. Donath (1999, 52-53) quotes a participant in the apparently as much unrelated as possible newsgroup misc.fitness.weights, who also happens to be an opponent of Scientology. He has been so scared by all kind of wild rumours, that he categorically refuses to give his name. "There is more going on in this net than just misc.fitness.weights" -- he writes -- "I’m involved in the net war in alt.religion.scientology. Those cultists have so far raided four of their net critics on bogus copyright violation charges, and in one case they placed a large amount of LSD on the tooth-brush of a person who was raided (...). In my city they have been convicted of several crimes, including infiltrating the municipal, provincial, and federal police forces. So, I will not give out my name just to satisfy your curiosity. Deal with it". Alt.religion.scientology may be considered, from a certain point of view, as a useful resource insofar as any item of news, rumour, claim, true or false, of, on, or about, Scientology from anywhere in the world, sooner or later surfaces in the newsgroup. On the other hand, it is far from being user-friendly for the outsider, since what may be classified as real information is submerged by endless tirades, occasional flame wars (the Usenet name for fighting with an increasingly loud tone), and simple four-letter word sequences. Although some Scientologists participate in the newsgroup, most participants are rabid opponents of Scientology. ... In this sense, alt.religion.scientology may be interpreted by others as a collective example of information terrorism (and robotic poets, perhaps, as a measure of counter-terrorism"

[we noticed that sending some 20000 scientology spams per day against some 250 or 300 real messages from anti-scientology critics is interpreted by M.I. as "a measure of counter-terrorism". Would I use such scientological methods to drown M. Introvigne's mailbox every day God gives us, he would sue me immediately if I was stupid enough to do it under my name; we find here the "two weights two measures" again in his whinings]

I'll be silent on the "experiment" led by Introvigne on Italian forums, where he posted under a number of faked identities to enrage faithful participants: Martinez, Banu Sarper, Martini, Harry and the Gris Roma will certainly answer this better than I could; I'll link to their answers when their texts will be online.

 

"5. Some conclusions

Cult wars have found a new battleground on the Internet. Mainline anti-cult organizations are more active on the Internet in the United States than in Europe, where extreme anti-cultism and a lunatic fringe have a more dominant presence on the Internet. Cyberterrorism, in its technical sense, is almost completely absent in the Internet cult wars. Offensive information warfare, or information terrorism, as defined by its mainline scholars, on the other hand, includes what the most extreme anti-cultists do on the Web as well as on the Usenet. The most effective tool used by extreme anti-cultists has been, perhaps, the systematic copyright infringement perpetrated against the Church of Scientology."

Here, the author would have been well inspired to inform the readers on the "merits": if the criminal cult scientology has so much reacted to the disclosure of so-called secret/sacred texts, it's only because these inepties are in fact the main trap for scientology money: see here a short resume of the secrets so hardly defended by the cult before the courts.

Introvigne writes: "The claims made by Mayer (1999) that a certain number of persons have left new religious movements because of oppositional propaganda read on the Internet is interesting, but should be re-evaluated by follow-up quantitative studies. If fast-growing international movements such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses lose ten or twenty people per year because of the Internet, they are probably right in their decision not to divert too many energies to the Web but to expend their energies instead on regular proselytization activities. The damage inflicted by Greenwood on Sûkyô Mahikari may have been more extensive, but one wonders whether this is equally true outside of Europe and Australia (in Japan or even in Africa, a remarkably unwired continent), and whether Mahikari is perhaps the exception rather than the rule. Carrying online crusades offline is a notoriously difficult exercise."

Here, Introvigne forgets the fact that our sites are actually the main sources of factual and extensive informations up-to-date for journalists and media looking precise infos: they are using our data, and they take contacts to write their articles - I've had some 50 "declared" contacts during these last months, and perhaps hundreds have come to read parts of the sites documents or of the some 2000 informative messages I've posted on the two main forums alt.religion.scientology and fr.soc.sectes, during that period. Therefore, many of the best informed TV shows and newspapers articles come partly from our work.

Cesnur's dictator keeps his mainline , by comparing some of us to "deprogrammers"; we'd like to know how we could "deprogram" anyone without using force, coercion, lies, or illegal methods, as deprogrammers were supposed to do; if M. Introvigne can give us his receipt, there'll be no more members in coercive cults to-morrow.

Regarding the fact that some members of delegations sent by US govt were scientologists or not, at least something is certain: some of them are scientologists; the late and regretted JFK junior had launched an article in the August 99 of his magazine "George", where the US Congress Rep Mary Bonno. (the scientologist ex-Rep. Sonny Bonno's wife), accuses scientology of having stopped his defunct husband while he wanted to leave the cult.

Keeping the same line of defense of US "religiously inclined" decisions, Introvigne wants now to convince his spectators that US decisions are better than european ones, forgetting that most criminal cults come from there, and that most deaths happened in US, the latest one from a group qualified as "religious" by his friend Melton: one of their members killed some jews and jew children. That Introvigne wants to make believe that most anti-cultist sites could be the "tabloïds" on Internet (while Cesnur's resources could be the "New York Times"!) lets us ice cold: the day he'll prove that we lie and that he does not, we'll see qa bit better who is the New York Times.


(references snipped, see Cesnur's site)

 

"Notes


2. Orion, like several similar publications, also cares little for copyright. It reproduced an interview with Swiss scholar Jean-François Mayer from a Belgian magazine without his knowledge or permission (Jean-François Mayer, personal communication, June 1999)."

[should we note that Introvigne himself - as well as a scientology official site - violated Tilman Hausherr's copyrights by using his works without even quoting the origin?]

"4. Miguel Martinez of kelebekler.com writes about Watch Unto Prayer: "I do not share their theology, but the editors of watch.pair.com have had the courage to challenge some of the most powerful and least lovely people in the world. Perhaps in certain cases they tilt against windmills, but this only shows they are like Don Quixote. Maybe the Priory of Sion does not exist, but they have had the guts to face all the 'New Right', to say the names of those who intend to launch new wars of religion around the world. I do not know the editors of watch.pair.com personally, but they are honest people, something that cannot be said of everybody" (www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/txt/mig2.htm).

5. Not that scholarly credentials are accepted as such. According to Tilman Hausherr, "sociologists of religion who study 'new religions' are mostly cult apologists. Logic is not one of their skills" (message posted on alt.religion.scientology on May 29, 1999)."

"6. Hate E-mail occasionally includes threats of physical violence. For example, Zenon Panoussis (a well-known anti-cult cyberwarrior on alt.religion.scientology) E-mailed to me (copy to a number of colleagues) on July 5, 1999 a message threatening, inter alia, that: "If you want to be the donkey, we'll be happy to use the cane on you"."

[the readers could be quite surprised to take such locutional diatribe's part as a real threat: if M. Dottore Introvigne understood normally what the readers see here, he would'nt speak of physical menace!]

7. The undersigned. Given the keen interest of French intelligence services in the Internet and the Usenet (Destouche 1999), and the fact that they currently regard the fight against cults as a top priority, one may wonder whether these services are simply picking up "information" from the Internet, or whether they are also actively contributing to its propagation.

[hey, you'd like to know it, isn'it? to issue some conspirationist theories more on our back, perhaps, such as those famous ones from scientology against medicine, pharmacology and psychiatry?]

back

Retour index général

Retour index apologistes