Dear Dr. Introvigne:
You just published an article in your Bitter Winter magazine that contains this famous photo of Thomas Gandow, Alexander Dvorkin, Luigi Corvaglia, Archbishop Nikolay (Chashin) and me in Salekhard, Russia on September 29, 2017.
I have not discovered any logical connection between your article and the five of us or the Salekhard conference we were attending. It appears you could have used the photo purely for black PR purposes. In your caption, bizarrely, you call us “an international network,” and, contemptuously, you lump us together as “anti-cultists.”
It isn’t necessary for me to mount a defense for the others you label “anti-cultists.” It is sufficient to know that your assertion that I am an “anti-cultist” is both ridiculous and a lie. Having dealt with you and your lies for some time, I am sure you know it’s a lie. I think you also sense its ridiculousness. “Anti-cultist” is a dishonest label that you know is dishonest.
Your term’s nebulousness and its meaninglessness render it ridiculous. Because of this, its users use it as a black propaganda epithet, just as its users use “cultist” or “cult,” or the Scientology hate term “Suppressive Person,” and even “SP.” That the source is an “academic” adds to its black PR value, and also adds to its ridiculousness.
Qualifying your term, it could be said, but still not very accurately, that I am an “anti-destructive-cultist.” That is cumbersome, of course, and rarely if ever tagged to people. Oddly enough, it is the position that a majority of people might very well say they hold if ever asked if they were pro or anti destructive cults. Who or what would not be anti destructive cults?
Although “anti-cultist” is a false label for me, it is the essential term for understanding and analyzing the paradigm you posit when you label or mislabel me as one. Because I am not in any form or measure a cultist or “cultist,” it would be an improvement in the direction of truth to say I am, like so many people, anti destructive cults. Admittedly, I was a serious Scientology cultist, but I have not been a cultist in any cult ever since, almost forty years. It is conceivable that there is a cult, or are cults, of antis; they could be anti cults or anti pretty well everything else. They might even call themselves “anti-cultists,” but I am not a member, and would never call myself one.
I am sure you know I am not anti all cults, or whatever someone said were cults. Your false implication that I am anti all cults, makes me sound extreme, or perhaps a bit of a fruitcake, don’t you think? I think all cults are legitimate subjects for legitimate research, analysis and comprehension. I would only end up anti, however, the dangerous ones.
In your article, you even link to an apparently pro destructive cult site that identifies the title of the conference in Salekhard in 2017 as “Destructive and pseudo-religious organizations, sects and cults: challenges and solutions.” (Ital. mine) All the participants knew that they were there about destructive cults or sects, not benign constructive cults. The guests at the conference also had to know that the topic was destructive cults, not brotherly benevolence-driven cults.
I am aware of cults, indeed destructive cults in society. I do not know enough about any destructive cults, except for Scientology, to actually do something anti them to the point of studying them, writing about them, and taking a known stand against their antisocial actions. I know enough and do enough about Scientology to semi-properly be called anti Scientology, or an anti-scientology specialist.
In fact, in Scientology scripture, the Scientologists also call Suppressive Persons like me “Anti-Scientologists,” and defame us as being afflicted with “antisocial personality disorder.” See, e.g., HCOB 27 September 1966 “The Antisocial Personality – the Anti-Scientologist.” The Scientology cult leaders labeled me an “Anti-Scientologist” before I ever considered myself anti Scientology. They attacked and pursued me as an “enemy” before I ever considered myself one.
What I am actually anti is Scientology antisociality, by which I mean the Scientologists’ antisocial doctrines, policies, practices and actions. Antisocial actions include fraud, abuses and crimes. Because Scientology is so well known for its fraud, abuses and crimes, because of the human habit of abbreviating terms, and because of the preference to avoid semantic redundancy, although it would be more correct to say I am anti Scientology antisociality, it is not incorrect to simply say I am anti Scientology.
The reason I am anti Scientology or Scientology antisociality is because its practitioners victimize people for base purposes. My basic classification, still staying within your paradigm, is “Scientology victim,” or “victim of Scientology antisociality.” I am pro Scientology victims. You are anti Scientology victims.
Obviously you are distinguishing yourself from me, and from others in the group you label “anti-cultists.” This means that you would be a pro-cultist. As I am anti destructive cults — not in truth, but in your projected paradigm — you are pro destructive cults. This is not news. You have been widely known as pro destructive cults for many years. I learned of you because of your being pro the Scientology destructive cult and, anti, inter alios, Gerry Armstrong.
I expect you have already read Tony Ortega’s August 26 article that touches on your pro destructive cults history, specifically pro the Scientology cult. 2 Some of the comments also show that intelligent people exist who know about your being pro destructive cults. These commenters could probably be classified, among your paradigm’s classifications, as anti your pro destructive cult proclivities and activities.
Your work pro destructive cults, even over many years, is eminently understandable. Support for destructive activities, teachings, persons, groups, governments, or cults, or dark forces is, it seems, almost everywhere one would look. Pro destructivity is so prevalent it isn’t far out of the ordinary. Despite being so destructive, it’s so banal.
I’ve written about this previously, but it clearly requires repeating. I am anti the things, to the depth of my understanding, abilities and obedience, which God’s children should be anti. I am not particularly professional at this task, but it is one of my labors. Again fitting into your anti-pro paradigm, you are pro the things, or pro a set of things, that God’s children should be anti.
You can easily change this, simply by telling the truth about what you’ve been lying about. Pretended ignorance of the truth is a common defense of lying – it is standard among Scientologists — but, being pretended, is an anti-defense, another lie. In the subject paradigm, you appear to be pro-pretended ignorance.
You have a responsibility to demonstrate that you have been honestly ignorant, or, now that the sincerity of the ignorance you present has been challenged, to henceforth undertake to be honestly unignorant in these matters; and help the persons you have helped victimize with your intellect, skills, positions, organizations, connections, knowledge, time and lies.
Ortega ends his August 26 article with this:
We choose to believe Gerry Armstrong because of his long history of credibility and integrity.
CESNUR, on the other hand, has already proved that it has no credibility at all.
As with the letter proving that Hubbard did boast about having a nonexistent engineering degree that CESNUR never apologized for claiming didn’t exist, do you think CESNUR will now issue an apology for smearing Gerry Armstrong?
Of course not. It will simply move on to its next attempt to rescue L. Ron Hubbard from his own well documented history of ignominy.
I get Ortega’s dim view of your redemption odds. I still, however, retain hope, not for you to issue an apology for smearing me, because I do not seek one, but just that you would have a total change of heart.