This a text emanating from the pro-cultic associate of the self-called Professor Introvigne,
"Luigi Zoccatelli".
[I've added few comments, between square bracket, in case readers were
not aware of the situation prevalent in the apologists milieu.]
Voir à ce propos: Le terrorisme chez les anti-sectes, selon
les apologistes...
(Review of Massimo Introvigne's article in "Terrorism and Political Violence" for Spring 2000)
Is there an anti-cult terrorism? The use of this category by Massimo Introvigne in papers presented at several
scholarly conferences raised some eyebrows. The category has been now somewhat consecrated by the acceptance, peer
review and publication of Introvigne's article "Moral Panics and Anti-Cult Terrorism in Western Europe"
in the journal "Terrorism and Political Violence" (12:1, Spring 2000, pp. 47-59). The latter may be safely
regarded as the most authoritative academic forum on terrorism internationally, and is widely read by both academic
scholars and the law enforcement community throughout the world.
After a discussion of moral panics [abuse of words. Where has there been a moral panics
regarding this?] about "cults" and "sects", and parliamentary reports followed by governmental
action (particularly in France) as increasing moral panics, thus contributing to the problem, [again,
we find here the illogics reigning into the field of pro-cultists: here, saying that the study of a problem will
add to the problem, or pretending that speaking of an existing problem could build the problem: nonsense] Introvigne
mentions deviance amplification theories and the possibility that "a group publicly maligned in a moral panic
environment may react by perpetuating and accentuating precisely these features publicly perceived as less desirable"
[yes, but the group was already a large problem. When a crazy guru asks to his troop to commit
suicides en masse, the group was already a problem long before].
Deviance amplification, thus, combined with certain internal features pre-existing in a limited number of movements,
may contribute to generate a "cultic terrorism" of the kind studied in Robert Lifton's recent study of
Aum Shinri-kyo. On the other hand, according to Introvigne, "violence may also erupt from organized opposition
to new religious movements". The author mentions the bombing of Mormon chapels and the killing of missionaries
in Latin America, and the bombing of premises of both the Unification Church and New Acropolis in Paris, as evidences
of anti-cult terrorism. [forgetting most probably to say that no such example is in any way
directly linked to any serious anti-cultist, but by people exxasperated by some crimes committed inside the movement
attacked]
Physical terrorism is in turn prepared by verbal terrorism in the form of "extreme manifestations of discrimination
and hate". [Where could he find such manifestations of hate etc. in anti-cultists movements?
There are none since decades. Anti-cultists are very often moderate people trying to obtain that those criminal
cults change and respect the freedom of their members or ex-members. Also, what Introvigne seems to ignore completely,
it's the fact that we have gotten rid of many anticultists having extremist tendancies, when we discover one, he
does not get help from us, and is very often asked to moderate its speech. A good example would be Enrico Riboni,
a rabid anti-christianism, who is regularly criticized for his extremist opinions on the subject, voiced onto the
NGs : ch.general, fr.soc.religion and fr.soc.sectes]
Introvigne returns on a theme already discussed in recent issues of the journal, quoting Israeli political violence
scholar Ehud Sprinzak to the effect that "governments and government agencies are responsible for the generation
of large amounts of violence", and concludes that "governments may carry a heavy responsibility in generating
violence both against and by assaulted minorities. The extreme discourse of the most lunatic anti-cult fringe may
claim legitimation by the similar rhetoric used in French or Belgian official documents". [this
is a very great illustration of the lunatic language used against very moderate reports such as the french or belgian
ones. Plus, no example of such assaults exist in France or Belgium]
The author identifies four roots of anti-cult terrorism in Europe: an extreme anti-religious language in the
most militant fringe of secular humanism; "a left-wing" and "a right-wing" "anti-globalization
discourses", both violently anti-American; and "some Islamic fundamentalist groups" that "have
welcomed a violent anti-cult discourse, both as a tactical manoeuvre in order not to be involved in the anti-cult
public repression, and because cults may target Moslems for proselytization". [Introvigne,
as an extremist of the catholicism - therefore, he's between those who could start a new Crusade against Infidels;
we'll never have such executives recognized as valuable supports in the anti-cultic movement]
Introvigne invites to use the category of anti-cult terrorism with caution, without confusing the legitimate cult
awareness community with the extreme fringe movements and figures .
He argues, however, that the category is necessary precisely in order to direct international law enforcement to
focus both "on the minority of violent religious and millennialist movements and the small extreme anti-cult
fringes". [There, if what Locatelli says corresponds to what Introvigne says, he's right: we don't need extremists.
Therefore, getting rid of all the extremist cults like scientology, moon, sokka-gakkai and a few others, can only
be profitable. ]
PierLuigi Zoccatelli
