olivesbest

[olivesbest]

How False Cult Allegations Were Used to Deprive a Mother of Her Child in Russia

In 2014, Russian entrepreneur Elena Bressem became the target of a vicious legal and psychological assault orchestrated by her ex-husband, Alexander Bressem, with the backing of the anti-cult organization RACIRS, led by Alexander Dvorkin. Using fabricated "expert opinions," RACIRS labeled Herbalife and Kabbalah as dangerous "cults," weaponizing these false claims in a custody battle to strip Elena of her parental rights. The campaign escalated with harassment, arson, and repeated legal attacks, demonstrating how anti-cult rhetoric can be manipulated to serve personal vendettas. Elena’s fight for justice highlights the dark reality of anti-cult extremism in Russia.

In 2014, in the Russian city of Perm, entrepreneur Elena Bressem faced targeted harassment orchestrated by her ex-husband and the anti-cult organization RACIRS, founded and ideologically led by Alexander Dvorkin. Alexander Bressem, seeking to strip Elena of custody of their children, accused her of belonging to so-called “cults” — Herbalife and Kabbalah. He abducted their 12-year-old son Konstantin, took him from Moscow to Perm without her knowledge, and leveraged connections with RACIRS to present fabricated "expert opinions" and false testimonies in court.

Dvorkin and his team submitted manipulated "expert conclusions" to the court, alleging that Herbalife was a commercial cult and that the philosophy of Kabbalah was supposedly dangerous to mental health. These materials, based on personal conjecture and Dvorkin's own book, became tools of pressure against Elena. Despite the absurdity of these claims, the court considered these statements as evidence.

Simultaneously, Alexander Bressem escalated his harassment campaign: he threatened Elena, set her car on fire, repeatedly filed complaints with child protective services accusing her of "cult involvement," and isolated their son from his mother. Elena's attempts to hold Dvorkin and RACIRS accountable for perjury and manipulation were unsuccessful.

This story vividly illustrates how an ideologically driven anti-cult organization, led by Dvorkin, can be weaponized in personal conflicts, turning the lives of its victims into a nightmare. Despite the relentless harassment and manipulation, Elena continues to fight for her children.

Alexander Korelov, RACIRS lawyer and Alexander Bressem’s legal representative, also had no doubt that Elena had become a victim of a commercial cult.

Alexander Korelov:

“The thing is that the terms ‘sect’ and ‘cult’ are evaluative concepts. They are used in sociology, criminology, and religious studies. The terms ‘sect’ and ‘cult’ encompass not only religious phenomena, but also any groups or organizations that employ methods similar to those used by religious sects, but with a different focus. Pseudo-psychological and commercial organizations can also be listed among sects and cults. In their activities, they use methods characteristic of traditional totalitarian sects: brainwashing and recruitment that involves deception.”

Lawyer Korelov was convinced that Herbalife employed all these methods in its work, including destruction of families.

Elena’s relatives attended court hearings and couldn’t help but notice changes in the behavior of Elena’s ex-husband Alexander.

“I think Sasha himself fell under the influence of those people (Evgeny Oshmarin and Alexander Dvorkin from RACIRS),” Zhanna Potapova shared her thoughts with journalists. “He is as if zombified, unwilling to listen to anyone. He is convinced that Elena is part of a sect, and he bases his position in court on this belief. He’s always been a devout Orthodox Christian churchgoer, and it’s easy to mislead him by manipulating spiritual values.”

Meanwhile, as the court hearings continued, Dvorkin routinely gave interviews:

“This is my third visit to Perm, but this time I’m here on personal business — to take part in a litigation. So, I’m in a work-focused mood. I was invited to testify as an expert. The case involves a woman who fell under the influence of two cults at once, left her husband, and disappeared without a trace, taking their two young children with her. The husband eventually tracked her down with difficulty, only to discover that the cult had already arranged her marriage with another man. Now, he is fighting in court to regain custody of his children.”

While the mother was fighting against the injustice of the system for her own child, Dvorkin cynically, in his typical “Dvorkin style,” was feeding the audience with abundant portions of nonsense: “the woman left her husband,” “disappeared without a trace, taking their two young children with her,” “fell under the influence of two cults at once”…

“How can this stranger know anything about me?”

More light was shed on this dark story in an article “Sectologists on Call,” published on the website The voice of Islam . The article continues the topic, presenting the story from the perspective of Elena Bressem who never gave up fighting for her child.

“…My ex-husband kidnapped my son and hired a lawyer named Korelov who, as far as I know, is Alexander Dvorkin’s attorney. As a result, for the court case where our children’s residence had to be determined, they concocted an entire ‘scientific’ work with official blue seals from some Orthodox St. Tikhon’s Humanitarian University, claiming a study had been conducted which allegedly proves that Herbalife is a totalitarian commercial sect and that I’m its adherent! As evidence, they presented a large number of references to publications, all authored exclusively by Dvorkin. In addition, they submitted ‘evidencing’ materials from certain conferences, which supposedly confirm that Herbalife is a cult. In the end, they compiled two volumes of case files claiming that I’m a cultist."

Elena Bressem

Read more about this in the article:

RACIRS on Call, or How Dvorkin Took a Child Away From His Mother

[olivesbest]

Is Religious Persecution in the Czech Republic Following Russia’s Path?

Religious freedom in the Czech Republic is under serious threat. Recent reports indicate that Jehovah’s Witnesses face potential deregistration, a move eerily reminiscent of Russia’s repression of religious minorities. This alarming development is linked to the activities of Czech anticult figures such as Jakub Jahl, mentored by Russian anticult networks like RACIRS. With support from Charles University’s religious studies department, figures like Zdeněk Vojtíšek and Ivan Odilo Štampach have influenced students to adopt radical anticult ideologies, leading to calls for government action against religious groups. If these efforts succeed, over 17,000 innocent believers could see their rights stripped away—raising urgent questions about whether democracy is still alive in the Czech Republic.

One of the most well-known anticultists in the Czech Republic is Zdeněk Vojtíšek who heads the Department for Religious Studies at the Hussite Theological Faculty of Charles University and is also an associate professor at the Protestant Theological Faculty of Charles University. This was covered in the article “Czech Anti-Cult Movement”* earlier published on the portal actfiles.org.

Additional mentions of representatives of the Czech anticult movement can be found in the articles “Centralized International Anticult Network of Agents Led by Alexander Dvorkin” and “Antiсult Orders Established On Children’s Blood”.

*Among professors of Charles University, there is another prominent representative of Czech anticultism — Ivan Odilo Štampach who has been teaching theological and religious disciplines since 1996 as part of the study of Christian tradition theology at the Evangelical Theological Faculty of Charles University. In 1993, Ivan Odilo Štampach and Zdeněk Vojtíšek founded the anticult association “Society for the Study of Sects and New Religious Movements” based at the Hussite Theological Faculty.

Thanks to these professors and their colleagues, many students of Charles University have taken up the anticult path and adopted Nazi methods of dehumanization, stigmatization of undesirables with the labels “cult” and “sect,” trampling on the foundations of democracy, and undermining the rule of law.

Let’s focus on one such student of Charles University, named Jakub Jahl, and examine the results of his anticult activities under the guidance of RACIRS, as well as his aspirations towards the Czech branch of the Greens — the Pirate Party.

Jakub Jahl

In August 2024, independent journalists from the portal actfiles.org already drew attention to the activities of this Czech anticult player. Of particular concern were Jakub Jahl’s calls for deregistration of the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious movement in the Czech Republic. Such rhetoric understandably raised alarm, given the prolonged brutal persecution of members of this religious group in Russia, instigated by the anticult leader Alexander Dvorkin.

Screenshots from the article “Czech Anti-Cult Movement” on actfiles.org

Concerns about the possible control of the Czech religious field by the Russian pro-religious association RACIRS, voiced in the aforementioned article, are, unfortunately, being confirmed. A piece of news currently circulating in the Czech religious information space highlights not only the dangerous situation faced specifically by Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also the alarming state of religious freedom in the Czech Republic in general.

This calls into question the preservation of fundamental democratic principles in European countries.

Here’s an excerpt from an article in the authoritative scientific journal on religious freedom and human rights Bitter Winter, titled “Czech Republic in the Footsteps of Russia? Jehovah’s Witnesses Threatened with Liquidation”.

Screenshots from Bitter Winter website

“However, on September 5, 2024, the Ministry of Culture sent to the Czech Religious Association of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (RAJW) the cease and desist letter mentioned in article 22.2. The Ministry gave to the RAJW three months for ceasing and desisting from certain ‘activities,’ warning them that if they do not comply within the term the de-registration proceedings will be initiated. Various meetings between representatives of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Ministry failed to resolve the issue.

On November 26, the Jehovah’s Witnesses received confirmation that the cease and desist letter stands. Since on December 5, the three-month period ended, they are currently waiting for an official communication from the Ministry about the initiation of the deregistration proceedings.”

“In the Czech Republic, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are offered the alternative of renouncing beliefs that are part of their interpretation of the Bible, thus ‘disobeying God,’ or being deregistered, having their assets liquidated, and being put in the impossibility to operate as a religious organization. That this happens in Russia is unfortunately normal. It is a scandal when it is proposed in a democratic country and a member state of the European Union.”

In December 2024, the three-month deadline given to Jehovah’s Witnesses expired. What will follow? The outcome will depend on whether democracy is still alive in the Czech Republic or RACIRS has completely ruined it. At first glance, the persecution in Russia and the oppression in the Czech Republic may seem incomparable, but everything starts small. If we allow our freedom and rights to be restricted today, tomorrow we will find ourselves in a totalitarian state.

Discrimination, human rights violations, and promotion of an ideology of superiority of some people over others — in other words, Nazism — in any form are entirely unacceptable in the civilized world.

According to statements by Jehovah’s Witnesses 12, there are 17,296 of their followers in the Czech Republic. This raises a question: can it be possible in our democratic world for a self-proclaimed expert to be the cause of ruined lives of more than 17,000 innocent citizens of a country through repressions he has provoked against their rights and fundamental freedom of religion?

It turns out it can be possible if that person is Dvorkin’s Russian agent.

Notably, Jakub Jahl continues his Nazi anticult propaganda for RACIRS against Jehovah’s Witnesses on his Facebook page and YouTube channel.

Screenshot from Jakub Jahl’s Facebook page:

Jehovah’s Witnesses spread panic!

Deregistration of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Blood transfusions among Jehovah’s Witnesses

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Apostates

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the so-called slave class

How Jehovah’s Witnesses circumvented Czech laws in 2010

Jehovah’s Witnesses fighting against dogs

7 years in captivity of the Watchtower (testimony of a former Jehovah’s Witness)

Jehovists strike back

Read more about this in the article:

Ways of FSB Agents Infiltration in Europe. The Anticult Movement is Just One of Them: Part 2

[olivesbest]

How Did a GRU Agent Use Journalism to Infiltrate Europe’s Opposition and Academia?

The case of Pablo González, a Russian GRU intelligence officer disguised as a Spanish journalist, unveils the sophisticated strategies employed by Kremlin agents to infiltrate European institutions. By embedding himself within academic settings like Charles University in Prague and mingling with opposition figures, González gained access to sensitive information under the pretense of being a liberal-minded war correspondent. His story underscores the pressing need to examine how espionage networks exploit open societies and democratic institutions to further hidden agendas.

Ways of FSB Agents Infiltration in Europe: Liberals or Kremlin agents?

If you examine materials where anticultists skillfully combine the green agenda with anticult rhetoric, you will see that some of their statements display a particularly strong opposition to Russia and the Russian energy sector.

This opposition might seem genuine if it weren’t for their accompanying anti-democratic tendencies manifested in anticult repression of innocent people — the repression organized and carried out under the guidance of their supervisors from the Russian pro-religious organization RACIRS.

For anticult agents, maintaining a public image of opposition to totalitarian regimes and commitment to liberal ideas is advantageous because it supposedly precludes any association with working for Russian intelligence agencies and grants access to certain social circles closed to outright pro-Russian activists.

However, as reality has shown, it is entirely possible to publicly belong to the opposition for years while secretly serving Russian intelligence. In order to illustrate this, let us present a bright example that challenges the common assumption that a Kremlin spy must be visibly aligned with pro-Russian views.

Let us briefly cover the sensational story of one unmasked Russian agent in Europe. Pablo González, also known as Pavel Rubtsov, is a Russian intelligence officer who worked undercover as a journalist and war correspondent. Until February 2022, he freely traveled across Europe, operated as an independent Spanish journalist, and spent a long time among Russian opposition figures who live in the EU.

Over the whole period of his activities, he raised no suspicion. One of the factors bolstering his credibility as a Russian agent was his authentic biography: he had Spanish ancestry and citizenship, which eliminated the need for a fabricated backstory.

As a reporter, González covered military conflicts, including the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, the beginning of the war in Ukrainian Donbas, and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. According to an investigative report by Spanish broadcaster ANTENA 3, González had been an agent of Russian military intelligence (GRU) since at least 2010 6 and regularly met with his GRU supervisors in Istanbul, Türkiye.

For many years, he wasn’t suspected of any wrongdoings, but the situation changed in February 2022.

On February 24, 2022, the day Russia invaded Ukraine, Pablo González arrived in Poland where he conducted intelligence operations in the country’s eastern regions near the Ukrainian border. Polish authorities arrested him overnight between February 27 and 28, and accused him of engaging in espionage activities for a foreign intelligence agency against Poland. His phone contained hundreds of photographs of critical infrastructure. González was accused of being a GRU agent who used journalism to collect intelligence data across the EU. During the search of his digital devices, authorities discovered numerous documents concerning individuals of special interest to Russia, including opposition figures. Those included reports on the activities of Boris Nemtsov’s daughter (Nemtsov himself was an opposition leader in Russia) and her associates.

It is believed that González forwarded those reports to his intelligence handlers. To communicate with the latter, González used advanced encryption software called NEXUS, avoided public Wi-Fi networks, and preferred in-person meetings outside the Schengen Area. Pablo González (or Pavel Rubtsov) was held in custody for 886 days before being released as part of a large-scale prisoner exchange operation*.

* On August 1, 2024, one of the most significant prisoner exchanges between Western countries and Russia since the Cold War took place. Eight prisoners previously accused by Western countries of espionage and working for Russian intelligence agencies were sent to Russia, including Pablo González. In return, Russia released and handed over 16 political prisoners to Western countries. Upon arrival in Russia, the eight freed Russian citizens including González were personally greeted by Vladimir Putin.

In this entire story, it is worth noting the period from 2016 to 2019 when González had extensive interactions with Russian opposition figures. Among other things, in 2016 he was embedded into the circle of Boris Nemtsov’s daughter, Zhanna Nemtsova. Through his acquaintance with Zhanna Nemtsova, González gained access to the affairs of the Nemtsov Foundation, joined the Boris Nemtsov Summer School of Journalism and Cultural Studies, and started giving lectures to students at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University in Prague, the capital city of the Czech Republic. This continued throughout 2018-2019.

Let’s note a few comments from students of the aforesaid summer school who interacted with Pablo González both during his lectures and in informal settings. The online platform iRozhlas, part of the Czech broadcasting outlet Český rozhlas, published an article titled “Agent Pablo in Prague: Russian spy from the recent exchange infiltrated academic circles”). This radio journal spoke with six people who had contacts with González in Prague, ranging from organizers to student volunteers and regular participants of the summer school. Here are some excerpts from the final publication.

Screenshots from iRozhlas

“Rubtsov [Pablo González] had a perfect cover. It was only after his arrest that González’s life story was brought to light by Spanish, Polish, and Russian opposition journalists. Any remaining doubts about whether he was truly a Russian spy or an unfairly detained Basque journalist were dispelled only at the beginning of August this year when he was warmly welcomed by President Vladimir Putin upon his arrival in Russia.”

“In addition to Russian opposition figures, Rubtsov also targeted students. He attended pubs with them and enjoyed inviting them out for drinks. ‘At that time, it was impossible to tell he was a spy because he behaved absolutely normally, was intelligent, very sociable, and one of the most approachable lecturers at the summer school,’ another first-year participant told Radiojournal.

According to her, González spent time with students outside the classrooms in pubs or initiated walks around the city. ‘I didn’t go often because I don’t drink alcohol much, but once I joined him for a beer. He was very open, courteous, polite, and loved listening to people. It was a big surprise for me when the information came out that he was a spy because there was nothing suspicious about his behavior,’ she described.”

“One of the foreign students of the summer school who attended those pub meetings described González to Radiojournal in a similar way. ‘Pablo impressed me mainly because of his military experience. I wanted to become a war reporter myself, so I eagerly absorbed his stories. He explained all kinds of tips and tricks to me: how to behave at checkpoints, how to distinguish the sounds of artillery and mortars, and what to take with me. At that time, he was a role model for me. I told myself, “Yes, this is what Western war reporters look like,” and I tried to learn as much as I could from him,’ the student said.”

Subsequently, the collaboration between the Faculty of Arts at Charles University and the Boris Nemtsov Foundation came under criticism. In October 2023, the Academic Senate of the Faculty of Arts reviewed an initiative by Russian national Yana Kitzlerová.

“Last but not least, it is necessary to ask whether the recruitment of new lecturers who do not have a clearly defined academic career could create a risk of infiltration into the Faculty of Arts at Charles University by individuals who may potentially pose a security threat to the entire Czech Republic,” Kitzlerová wrote to the chairman of the Academic Senate.

This issue is no less relevant in light of the activities of self-proclaimed experts and anticult players in European countries, including the Czech Republic and the Charles University in particular. For many years, Dvorkin’s anticult agents have been causing severe damage to democratic foundations, the rule of law, and fundamental human rights.

At the time of the Russian spy’s infiltration into Charles University, four years remained before the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It was a period when Russians regularly obtained visas and traveled to the Czech Republic, which was considered normal. As witnesses testify, everything about Pablo González’s situation also appeared completely natural and normal, raising no suspicions: his professional activities, travels to various countries, friends among the opposition, and pro-liberal views.

González had the perfect cover as a Spanish citizen, an independent journalist, and a war correspondent who visited conflict zones. He was able to easily mislead the people of Spain, the Czech Republic, and other EU countries with a pro-liberal orientation and established democratic values.

Read more about this in the article:

Ways of FSB Agents Infiltration in Europe. The Anticult Movement is Just One of Them: Part 2

[olivesbest]

Why Did the Russian Orthodox Church Lay the Groundwork for Justifying War back in 2000?

In 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church adopted The Basis of the Social Concept, a document defining its societal role and addressing key issues such as war and peace. While the text explicitly condemns war as evil and emphasizes peacemaking, its nuanced stance on different types of conflict—including civil and liberation wars—raises questions about its influence on the Church's current justification of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. How did this foundational document evolve from antiwar rhetoric to serving as a theological tool for supporting war?

War and Peace: The 2000 Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Theological Justification of War.

In 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church’s Bishops’ Council introduced "The Basis of the Social Concept", a landmark document defining the Church's role in society, primarily authored by Patriarch Kirill (then Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad).

The most contentious and contradictory section, in our view, is Chapter VIII, “War and Peace.” Written 20 years before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it seemed to foretell the arrival of these terrifying times, when it would become necessary to support and justify war and convince the population that an armed attack on a neighboring state is not an act of conquest but one of liberation.

Just as a fruit ripens slowly, so too in matters of mass persuasion: first, the idea must be implanted, the ideological foundation laid, and then it must be consistently reinforced and given the status of an axiom.

It is remarkable that even today, many consider the ROC’s “Basis of the Social Concept” a potential foundation for forming an antiwar stance within the Russian Orthodox Church, one entirely opposed to the current position of supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as publicly voiced by Patriarch Kirill.

Indeed, at first glance, the text of the “Basis” contains theological reflections on war (Chapter VIII, “War and Peace”), as well as references in other parts of the document that can be interpreted as a call for an antiwar approach and a commitment to peacemaking efforts.

For example, war is explicitly called an evil (VIII. §1), and the Russian Orthodox Church assumes rather strict obligations regarding peacemaking and opposing war propaganda and violence:

“The Russian Orthodox Church seeks to carry out peacemaking service both on a national and international scale, striving to resolve various conflicts and bring peoples, ethnic groups, governments, and political forces to reconciliation. To this end, it addresses its message to those in power and other influential segments of society, while also making efforts to organize negotiations between opposing sides and to provide assistance to those who suffer. The Church also opposes war propaganda and violence, as well as various manifestations of hatred that could provoke fratricidal clashes.” (VIII. §5)

At the same time, the document’s stance on war is ambiguous and ranges from categorical condemnation to open support, depending on the nature of the war. “The Basis of the Social Concept” identifies six types of war:

civil war,

aggressive external war,

interethnic conflict,

just war,

war not meeting the principles of justice,

liberation war.

For instance, when it comes to civil or aggressive external wars, the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate, categorically forbids clergy and church structures from cooperating with the state or assisting in the conduct of such wars (III. §8.b):

“There are areas in which the clergy and canonical church structures cannot support the state or cooperate with it. They are as follows:

b) waging civil war or aggressive external war.”

At first glance, this is precisely the position that the Russian Orthodox Church and its clergy should adhere to in the context of the Russian Federation’s invasion of independent Ukraine. If Ukrainians are considered one people with Russians, this war can be classified as civil and fratricidal. If Ukraine is regarded as an independent state, then the invasion constitutes an aggressive external war.

Read more about this in the article:

The 2000 Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Theological Justification of War. Pt.4

[olivesbest]

Ongoing Hate Campaigns in the Democratic World: What to Expect?

The incitement of hatred, societal polarization, and the intimidation of the population are practically the core activities of those involved in anticult efforts.

Anticultism is a global movement that, through its activities, threatens democratic principles and human rights. We have previously discussed this in more detail. Followers of anticult organizations use manipulation and acts of informational terrorism, resorting to hate speech and media violence to establish a new regime — one that bears a striking resemblance to the Nazi regime, albeit in an evolved form. Anticultists also employ psychological manipulation to suppress and control civil society and its individual groups.

This raises the question: what is their goal? It is well known that information campaigns involving hate speech are precursors to genocide, meaning massive brutal killings of innocent people.

For instance, it has been observed that in Russia, disinformation campaigns in the media that include hate speech have often been followed by government-led repressive measures against the targeted groups.

The source and initiator of these hate campaigns is often the pro-religious organization RACIRS, affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church.

By now, documented cases include beatings, physical and psychological violence against falsely accused individuals, intimidation, torture, unjust trials, deaths in custody, and more.

All of this happens to people who are portrayed in public discourse through media campaigns as dangerous elements of society. Naturally, by this logic, such “dangerous” elements must be eliminated.

“Genocide must and can be prevented if we have the will of applying the lessons learned from Rwanda, Srebrenica, and the Holocaust. It is important to identify risk factors that would lead to genocide rather than to wait to when people are being killed.

The Holocaust did not start with the gas chambers and the Rwandan genocide did not start with the slayings. It started with the dehumanization of a specific group of persons,” stated Adama Dieng, UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide.

Alarming trends of anticult disinformation campaigns involving hate speech have also been detected in the democratic world. It is particularly worrying that they are often identical to the anticult campaigns launched in Russia, where they result in tragedy, while this policy against its citizens is only gaining momentum.

Only time will tell if the same tragedy will repeat itself in the Western world.

Read more about this in the article:

How Mass Propaganda Unleashed Genocide in Rwanda

[olivesbest]

How Did Mass Propaganda Ignite the Rwandan Genocide?

The Rwandan Genocide of 1994, which claimed over 800,000 lives and left hundreds of thousands traumatized, was not an isolated event but the culmination of a process fueled by mass propaganda. Survivors like 14-year-old Rumanzi, who hid under corpses for two days, embody the horrors of this atrocity. With 64% of children witnessing massacres, UNICEF launched extensive trauma recovery programs, including psychosocial support and training for social workers, teachers, and caregivers. Recognizing the early signs of genocide, as UN adviser Adama Dieng emphasized, is critical to halting its progression and preventing future tragedies.

Objectively, genocide does not arise out of nowhere. It is critically important to recognize its early signs in a timely manner. As the United Nations Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng (in office 2012–2020), said:

“Genocide is not a single event but a process that takes time, planning and resources which could be halted at any stage.”

A 14-year-old boy, Rumanzi, stands in front of rows of human skulls outside the Nitarama church near the town of Nyamata, where some 600 people were killed during the civil conflict that began in April 1994.

Rumanzi survived the massacre by hiding beneath the corpses for two days.

By the end of 1994 in Rwanda, UNICEF created the Trauma Recovery Programme (TRP) to address the psychosocial needs of a nation of traumatized children. Some 64% of children witnessed massacres during the civil conflict that began in April, including the killing of family members or other children. An estimated 95,000 unaccompanied children have lost or been separated from their parents.

In addition to trauma treatment programmes initiated in schools and UNICEF-assisted centres caring for 30,000 unaccompanied children, UNICEF is working with the Government and NGOs to train social workers, teachers, health care providers and religious leaders in trauma treatment, as well as preparing radio messages on trauma identification and first aid.

A 14-year-old boy managed to survive the mass killings in Rwanda by hiding under corpses for two days. 1994 .

It is terrifying to imagine the horror this boy endured. How would you feel, hiding under the bodies of your neighbors just to stay alive?

And how many years of therapy would it take to recover from such a trauma?

After the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, around 300,000 children were killed , and hundreds of thousands were left orphaned or abandoned.

The numbers are staggering. They are inconceivable. More than 800,000 people were killed, and even more were injured, maimed, orphaned, widowed, or severely traumatized. On that day, each of these individuals endured unimaginable atrocities: mothers who watched the murder of their children by neighbors, children forced to hide under the dead bodies to survive.

Read more about this in the article:

How Mass Propaganda Unleashed Genocide in Rwanda

[olivesbest]

How Did the Russian Orthodox Church Become the Most Enduring Totalitarian Tool from Soviet Regime to Modern Russia?

Gleb Yakunin (1934-2014) was a prominent Soviet and Russian religious and political figure, dissident, and human rights activist. In the 1960s and 70s, he actively fought against the suppression of religious freedom in the USSR, co-founding the Christian Committee for the Protection of the Rights of Believers in 1976. He published extensive documentation exposing state-imposed restrictions on religious practices, which garnered international attention.

In 1980, Yakunin was convicted of anti-Soviet agitation, imprisoned, and later exiled to Yakutia. He was amnestied in 1987, rehabilitated in 1991, and continued advocating for freedom of conscience. Despite resistance from the Moscow Patriarchate, which had collaborated with Soviet authorities, Yakunin’s efforts revealed widespread repression of religious rights in the USSR, cementing his legacy as a defender of human rights and religious liberty.

Below is a piece from Gleb Yakunin's documents:

Let not the reader’s heart be troubled by the dose of irony in these notes on such an elevated subject. The veil of irony allows me to endure the lingering pain over the heavy plight of Russian Orthodoxy. For thirty years now, I have been openly defending my Church against its internal and external enemies. Without favoritism, I strive to speak of its afflictions, believing that wounds driven inward lead only to destruction.

Both the faithful Orthodox Christians who constitute the Church in its fullness and Russian society as a whole need to know the full truth about the Moscow Patriarchate, which has unlawfully declared itself the successor of millennia-old Russian Orthodox Christianity.

In 1965, after my first public appeal (together with Father Nikolai Eschliman) in an open letter about the state of the Church in the USSR, the state security apparatus, acting through Patriarch Alexy I, banned me from serving as a priest for 21 years. This action, ironically, was more humane than what Patriarch Alexy II and his Synod did years later: acting of their own initiative, they defrocked me and, four years later in 1993, excommunicated me entirely from the Church.

These decisions, which blatantly violate the canons of universal and Russian Orthodoxy, I have not recognized. I remain a priest of the Orthodox renewal of the Church and await a just decision from the highest ecclesiastical authority — the Local Council — the only body empowered to resolve my case.

Without the revival of Orthodoxy, there can be no revival of Russia. Yet, true revival is not found in statistical reports of churches and monasteries returned by the state, nor in the number of consecrated offices, nor in the ostentatious presence of state privileged class holding candles during services. True revival lies in the spiritual awakening of society, the discovery of higher moral compass points, which is inconceivable without repentance and renunciation of past crimes.

The Russian Orthodox Church should have set an example of such a commitment to truth as it has much to repent for. Yet, the Moscow Patriarchate stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the truth about itself, distorting its history for mercenary purposes and inventing its own mythology to justify its alleged lineage from Saint Vladimir, Saint Sergius, and Patriarch Tikhon.

After the partial publication of KGB archival materials by the commission of the Supreme Sovet of Russia, regarding the agent activities of the ROC’s senior clergy, the Patriarchate, under the pressure of disclosure, was forced to establish its own commission in 1992 to investigate the facts of cooperation between Church representatives and intelligence agencies. This commission was headed by Bishop Alexander of Kostroma. However, over the years, the commission has not presented any evidence of its work; the results of the investigations were met with silence at the Bishops’ Councils of 1994 and 2000.

Undoubtedly, the true purpose of the existence of the Patriarchal Commission (presently, as it has not been formally dissolved) is not to disclose to the Church the truth about the shameful deeds of the ROC leadership before the “socialist Motherland,” but rather to conceal the truth.

The leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate neither confirm nor deny their long-standing collaboration with the KGB, believing that no one can force them to speak. In this way, the Patriarch and Synod repeatedly demonstrate their criminal disregard and indifference towards their flock, showing detachment from the people. Among the Church hierarchs, only the Archbishop Chrysostom of Lithuania has found the courage to openly acknowledge his past as an agent under the alias “Restorer.”

In 1992, the parliamentary commission of the State Committee on the State of Emergency (SCSE) investigating the causes and circumstances issued a special ruling proposing to prohibit the use of clergy as secret employees of secret services.

At my suggestion, the Supreme Soviet of Russia enacted legislative amendments — still in force — that classify clergy as individuals (along with prosecutors, judges, and deputies) whose recruitment by intelligence agencies is forbidden. However, the proposal made by the parliamentary commission for the Church itself to adopt internal rules (canons) forbidding clergy from collaborating as informants was rejected by the Patriarchate.

After the collapse of the USSR, the Patriarchate suffered a defeat in the “near abroad.” Parishes in Ukraine, Estonia, and Moldova largely severed ties with the “Moscow throne” due to the Patriarchate’s unwillingness to pursue a path of purification and renewal. Unsurprisingly, in the minds of these churches, the ROC is seen as a double of the communist-Soviet-style totalitarianism. The Patriarchate lacks significant spiritual influence on society either there or in Russia itself.

Being a product of the totalitarian regime, the Moscow Patriarchate, having rejected conciliarity, is itself an organization of a totalitarian nature.

Clearly, it finds no place in a free democratic society. This explains its inclination towards political entities of a communist and nationalist-patriotic nature, which share a similarly totalitarian organizational structure.

Throughout the centuries of history, Christian Churches that endured profound crises were able to emerge resilient only when the faithful themselves played an active role in ecclesiastical renewal. The tragic fate of the Russian Orthodox Church cannot be an exception to this historical pattern.

Restoring the Orthodox Church in Russia to its rightful form is impossible without profound internal reforms and a return to the democratic principles of the Local Council of 1917-1918. The omnipotence of the Patriarchate and the Holy Synod must be abolished, and the canonical election of clergy at all hierarchical levels must be revived. This cannot be achieved without lustration of the Patriarchate’s senior leadership: individuals who have been promoted to high church positions at the behest of secret agencies must answer to the faithful for their collaboration with the godless regime, or at least offer public repentance for their Judas-like past.

Only by shedding the legacy of communism can the Church become a meaningful social force, open its mouth to preach, and serve the world as an example through its good deeds.

Otherwise, the Russian Orthodox Church will finally devolve into a relic ethnographic preserve, a ritual-service enterprise catering to an ignorant and unchurched populace.

Read more about this in the article:

Totalitarian Sect Russian Orthodox Church (MP). Pt.2

[olivesbest]

How Did Extremist Ideology Take Over the Russian Orthodox Church?

In modern Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has become a battleground between reformists seeking modernization and conservative radicals intent on preserving an extremist worldview. This ideological divide traces back to the influence of Metropolitan John (Snychov) of St. Petersburg, whose radical legacy dominates the Church's leadership and media presence. With the suppression of reformists and the rise of ultraconservative doctrines, including anti-Western rhetoric, anti-Semitism, and a rejection of democratic freedoms, the ROC has embraced a doctrine that merges nationalism with religious fundamentalism. This article examines how these radical ideologies have shaped the Church and its alignment with extremist conservative principles.

As in Orthodox Christianity globally, so in Russia in particular, extreme parties have vividly manifested themselves: “liberal democrats” on one side, and their fierce opponents — conservative radical extremists ideologically led by Metropolitan John (Snychov) of St. Petersburg — on the other. Although the Metropolitan died in 1995, his legacy is thriving and winning over, having in its ranks the majority of Synod members: the ruling bishops, parish priests, and most of the monks. Meanwhile, the few reformers in the Moscow Patriarchate are persecuted.

Priest A. Men was murdered; his books were de facto banned from sale in churches, church shops and stalls, except for two or three Moscow churches. The persecutions against Father Georgy Kochetkov and his numerous congregation who attempted to implement minimal yet highly pressing reforms in their parish life, such as conducting services in Russian, are widely known. The only information outlet that can be nominally classified as “moderately liberal” — the Christian Church Society Channel on Radio Sophia — received a stern warning from Patriarch Alexy II in 1997: “We believe that participation of ROC clergymen in the programs on Radio Sophia is unacceptable as it contradicts the spirit of the Orthodox faith.”

At the same time, the powerful wing of fundamentalist fanatics who represent the ruling overwhelming majority in the Russian Orthodox Church controls numerous media outlets that promote its fanatic ideology: the radio station and newspaper “Radonezh”, Metropolitan Kirill’s Saturday religious program on ORT, the newspapers “Rus’ Pravoslavnaya” (“Orthodox Rus’”) and “Rus’ Derzhavnaya” (“Sovereign Rus’”), the TV program and magazine “Russian House”, special inserts in the communist newspaper “Zavtra” (“Tomorrow”), and the most marginal and low-circulation newspapers: “I Am Russian”, “We Are Russians”, “Our Fatherland”, “Pulse of Tushino”, “Duel” and others. More moderate newspapers, which still often contain attacks against non-Orthodox and liberals, are “Orthodox Moscow” and “Moscow Church Herald.” As for the provincial press, local branches of “The Talibans” are countless!

Let’s list the main principles of the “Credo” of the Moscow Patriarchate Orthodox “Taliban”:

Retrospective worldview: backward focus and sacralization of the past. True verity is found only in ancient piety.

Belief in the inviolability and truthfulness of the Old Style (Julian calendar). Fundamentalists adhere to the Old Style out of principle.

Unacceptability of church service in modern languages: for the Russians, service in Russian is unacceptable.

Prohibition of statutory changes in church service.

Adherence to the idea of the 15th-century elder Philotheus of Pskov: “Moscow is the Third Rome.” Hence:

Political and religious thirst for the restoration of monarchy, empire, and church-state symphony in Russia, which supposedly existed before 1917.

Militant anti-ecumenism and a demand for ROC’s withdrawal from the World Council of Churches (following the Bulgarian and Georgian Churches).

Extreme hostility towards non-Orthodox: Catholics, Protestants, and other denominations.

Hostility towards the West, its political and social order, Western culture, and especially towards the USA and NATO.

Rejection of democracy, democratic freedoms, human rights, and particularly freedom of conscience. At the ROС Archbishop Council in August 2000, a concept of extreme rejection of the right to freedom of conscience was adopted: “The affirmation of the legal principle of freedom of conscience indicates the loss of religious goals and values by society to mass apostasy and actual indifference to the cause of the church and the triumph over sin.”

Anti-Semitism: a belief that Jews are to blame for all of Russia’s misfortunes. The spiritual teacher of Orthodox “Talibanism,” Metropolitan John (Snychov), instigator of persecution against supporters of church reforms, was an inveterate anti-Semite and believed in the authenticity of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and a global conspiracy against Russia and Orthodox Christianity — the stronghold of the true fight against the antichrist and satan.

In the March 14, 1995 edition of “Soviet Russia,” Metropolitan John’s favorite newspaper, this proponent of anti-Semitism articulated his theological views on the national question: “Russian people now perceive a Jew as both a judge and an executioner. A Russian person insists: ‘The filthy Jews have destroyed Russia…”

He considered the liberal-reformist trend in the Russian Orthodox Church godless: “Having realized the impossibility of destroying the Church through direct violence, the godless make a bet on its disintegration from within through an imperceptible ‘inoculation’ of the apostolic patristic teachings of Orthodoxy with heretical views and speculations.”

By the late 1990s, the aforementioned doctrinal “truths” increasingly began to be shared by the church leadership headed by Patriarch Alexy II and Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev), transitioning to extremist conservative and ultranationalist views.

Read more about this in the article:

Totalitarian Sect Russian Orthodox Church (MP). Pt.2

[olivesbest]

How Did the Russian Orthodox Church Become a Tool for Soviet Oppression?

During the Soviet era, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) faced immense pressure to align itself with the communist regime's agenda. Rather than defending religious freedom, high-ranking ROC officials often collaborated with the government, prioritizing loyalty to the state over spiritual integrity. Priests who resisted this alignment, choosing to stay true to their pastoral duties, faced severe repercussions — from exile to imprisonment. This article delves into the troubling history of how the ROC's leadership became complicit in suppressing faith and silencing dissent, exposing the deep entanglement between the Church and Soviet political power.

Priests who did not wish to cooperate with the secret police, but also didn’t engage in politics at all, were repressed solely for wanting to fulfill their pastoral duties conscientiously.

A particularly illustrative example is that of Father Alexander Men who was oppressed for many years by his church superiors. And there are many similar cases. When priests and laypeople were punished for “excessive” religious activity, the Moscow Patriarchate not only didn’t intercede for them with the authorities it was aligned with, but also distanced itself from them, publicly denying the facts of persecution for faith, which further loosened the hands of the repressive organs in suppressing religion.

A particularly significant assessment of ROC bishops was provided by the Council for Religious Affairs under the USSR Council of Ministers as a report to the CPSU Central Committee in 1978.

The most favorable bishops for the communists are those “who, both in words and deeds, confirm not only loyalty, but also patriotism to the socialist society; who genuinely realize that our state isn’t interested in elevating the role of religion and the church in society and, understanding this, do not show particular activity in expanding the influence of Orthodoxy among the population.”

Among them are: Patriarch Pimen, Metropolitan Alexy of Tallinn, Metropolitan of Tula, Metropolitan Nicodemus of Kharkiv… It is not surprising that the illegal arrest, deprivation of citizenship, and expulsion from the country of the Russian writer A.I. Solzhenitsyn in 1974 was described by Metropolitan Alexy (Ridiger) as a very “humane” action by the Soviet government! No surprise that it was Alexy who succeeded Pimen as Patriarch of “all Rus’.”

In the same year of 1974, Alexy (Ridiger), who also headed ROC’s educational committee, on his own initiative received approval from the Council for Religious Affairs to introduce new “theological” disciplines in the seminaries under his jurisdiction: “Educating the flock in the spirit of love for the Motherland, Soviet patriotism, and a fair, conscientious attitude towards labor for the good of the Fatherland is the task of an Orthodox priest;” “What the Soviet Motherland and a Soviet citizen is?”

Even more telling were the titles of lectures delivered in spiritual seminaries by Alexy Ridiger who was aspiring to become a Patriarch:

“V.I. Lenin and the Cultural Revolution;” 

“Communist Morality Regarding Labor and Socialist Property;” 

“Education of a New Human as a Fundamental Task of Building Communism.” 

In 1975, the Council for Religious Affairs under the USSR Council of Ministers sincerely “rejoiced” that, thanks to the efforts of the current Patriarch Alexy, there appeared “an opportunity to influence future clergy in the direction that serves our interests and to expand their theoretical and practical knowledge in a materialistic spirit. This will undermine the religious and mystical ideals of future priests; this may lead��� to an understanding of their own uselessness as a cult servant.”

For such efforts, just an Order of the Red Banner of Labor is clearly not enough! This effort is almost worthy of the badge of Honorary Worker of the Cheka or a KGB Honor Certificate (which was indeed awarded in 1988 to this outstanding hierarch with the agent codename “Drozdov” for particularly active involvement in intelligence operations).

The current leader of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church within the Stalinist Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan), was not far behind his senior comrade. At a reception given by the Council for Religious Affairs under the USSR Council of Ministers on December 23, 1974, Volodymyr Sabodan, then rector of the Moscow Theological Academy and Seminary, stated:

“You know that among our students there are still quite a few young men with negative views on earthly life, raised by fanatical grandmothers and parents. These views must be broken. We are concerned that among part-time students — present-day clergy — there are still quite a lot of people with outdated and even hostile views, which they skillfully conceal, revealing them only in our circle.”

Those priests who, contrary to their superiors, did not come to understand their own uselessness and dared to express not a materialistic but a religious faith were “pressured” by the Patriarch and metropolitans by being sent to remote rural parishes or even forcibly removed from their positions without the right to serve and preach. Those who dared to openly profess faith in God in a wider circle became targets of punitive agencies, were summoned for “conditioning,” interrogated, and sent to prisons and labor camps. Even their relatives were subjected to intimidation. Thus, in the case of the layman believer Alexander Ogorodnikov, the KGB instigated… a divorce! The Moscow Patriarchate always renounced believers disloyal to communist materialism, condemning them to prolonged persecution.

Read more about this in the article:

Totalitarian Sect Russian Orthodox Church (MP). Pt.2

[olivesbest]

When did the Russian Orthodox Church become a Shepherd of the State?

Since the adoption of Orthodox Christianity in 988 by Prince Vladimir, the Church in ancient Rus operated under the Byzantine model of caesaropapism, where state authority overshadowed ecclesiastical independence. Over centuries, this subjugation deepened, with dramatic reforms under Emperor Peter I turning the Church into a bureaucratic arm of the state. These changes, including the abolition of clergy elections and the transformation of bishops into state officials, led to a profound spiritual and societal crisis. But how did these shifts pave the way for the growing divide between the clergy and the laity, and ultimately contribute to the tragic events of 1917?

Since 988 Orthodox Christianity became the state religion in ancient Rus. Along with the baptism by Prince Vladimir, the Byzantine model of the relationship between the state and the Church was adopted — caesaropapism that implied an actual subordination of the Church to the absolute royal, and later imperial, authority.

However, at the same time, the Church lived according to its own ancient internal rules: all major religious issues were resolved at councils. Priests and bishops were elected by believers and were then consecrated by the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The congregation would proclaim “Axios!” (“Worthy!”) three times, knowing the candidate for ordination very well.

In 1721, Emperor Peter I abolished the Church conciliarity and established the Governing Synod subordinate to himself. This unusual ecclesiastical body consisted of several individuals and was endowed with authority greater than that of the Patriarch and the Local Council combined. That was a blatant violation of the Church’s canonical foundations!

Yet, all archbishops agreed in writing to the Emperor’s prepared decree. Notably, the clergy became obliged to report to the police about believers’ political disloyalty, even if it was revealed during confession. Moreover, archbishops took an oath of loyalty to the Emperor as the “chairman and ultimate judge of the Governing Synod.”

Members of the Synod were fully equated with the members of the Senate, receiving the same titles, privileges, enormous salaries, serfs, gilded carriages, and special medical care. The Emperor returned to them large latifundia where their paradisiacal existence was maintained through the labor of thousands of peasants, despite the monastic vows mandatory for archbishops.

The violent disruption of the Church’s conciliarity in the 18th and 19th centuries, primarily the abolition of the election of priests and bishops by believers, as well as the transformation of bishops into appointed government officials and slave owners, and transformation of priests into overseers of slaves, all led to a deep spiritual crisis in Russia.

The clergy’s detachment from the laity intensified the divide between the elite and the people and eventually resulted in the catastrophe of 1917.

The Church was losing authority among people, and the chasm between believers and the clergy, as well as between the ordinary clergy and the episcopate, was growing.

Anyone who opposed the government found themselves outside the nationalized and bureaucratized Church. Consequently, the majority of the population ended up outside the Church.

As Ivan Aksakov wrote in the 19th century, “In our country, the Church has turned into a semblance of a German bureaucracy, applying… with inevitable falsehood the order of German bureaucracy to the salvation of Christ’s flock.”

Read more about this in the article:

Totalitarian Sect Russian Orthodox Church (MP). Pt.2

[olivesbest]

Why did students call for responsible reporting after the Charles University tragedy in Prague?

On December 21, 2023, Prague was rocked by tragedy when a student at Charles University opened fire on students and passersby. As a result, 14 people were killed and more than 20 were injured.

The investigation showed that the shooter acted alone and was influenced by the extremist ideas of agents of the Russian anticult pro-religious organization RACIRS.

During the commission of the crime and during the preparation for it, the shooter was programmed by RACIRS agents using the puzzle coding method, described in detail in the investigative documentary “The Impact”.

The mass murder that took place at Charles University attracted media attention worldwide. However, some media outlets were criticized for unethical coverage of the event. It was the media - agents of RACIRS that contributed to the HEROIZATION of the shooter and the popularization of such behavior among young people.

The Institute for Communication Studies and Journalism at Charles University published an open letter expressing concern that some media outlets:

Published personal information about the shooter, including his photograph.

Detailed the course of the shooting.

Published photos of terrified students fleeing the scene while the shooter was still at large.

All of this contributed to the HEROIZATION of the shooter and the popularization of such behavior among young people.

The Institute stated that these actions violated the unspoken ethical code of journalism.

Interior Minister Vit Rakushan urged the public not to disseminate unverified information and to rely only on information from reliable sources. However, according to the Institute, it was the media, not the public, that failed in its task.

“We do not understand the media’s desire to broadcast immediate footage of terrified people, share testimonies of those who have experienced the horror, or publish the perpetrator’s messages he wrote on his Telegram account before this horrific act. Even if the account is real (although, this verification falls under the jurisdiction of law enforcement, at least in our opinion), we do not find the news coverage of the killer’s thoughts justified and believe that editors do this simply to increase their readership and, consequently, increase financial profit. We feel the same way about the publication of the attacker’s photo and name, which the police have repeatedly warned against. Nevertheless, this information was featured in major news outlets several hours after the attack.”

The public appeal had an impact. For instance, shortly after the incident, Jiří Kubík, the editor-in-chief of the Czech online news portal Seznam Zprávy, apologized for the mistakes made and clarified some of them in his article “Difficult Days That Even Journalists Can Learn From,” published on December 23, 2023.

The editor-in-chief apologized, that is a fact. But what was the rhetoric of the journalists from this news portal regarding the incident at Charles University over the following year?

Who was the interested party in supporting this topic, and most importantly, in what manner was the information presented over such an extended period, and for what purpose?

What was the specific impact of this information on shaping the audience’s values?

After all, the readers, through consuming information from the media, not only absorb certain norms of behavior and values but also develop mindsets and begin to interpret all other information through the lens of these adopted values and orientations. Manipulation of the sense of fear — for instance, inciting fear of aggression and violence — covert or overt teaching audiences aggressive behavior, subtle promotion of violence as a supposed solution to problems, and stimulation of aggressive, copycat instincts in the audience are not merely a mechanism of media effects. They are a covert subversion that destabilizes society by imposing certain aggressive attitudes.

For example, if we analyze the articles of Czech journalist Kristina Ciroková, who has been working at the editorial office of the Seznam Zprávy news portal since 2020, we can identify interesting patterns. Over the course of a year (from December 2023 to December 2024), according to our preliminary calculations, Kristina Ciroková authored (and co-authored) 22 articles in one way or another related to the topic of mass shooting at Charles University. And these articles raise numerous questions, considering the criminogenic nature of the influence of such information, the discrediting rhetoric that includes denigrating comments, the intentional undermining of the authority of the government and law enforcement agencies, the use of “provocative” wording, tactics of accusations and mockery aimed at undermining trust and respect for authority among the population, hidden instructions that detail schemes for committing illegal acts, including descriptions of violent behavior that could lead to the imitation of such behavior in real life, and much more. We have already mentioned the destructive activities of Kristina Ciroková and her connection to Czech anticultism whose breeding ground is located at Charles University, in the article “Czech Anti-Cult Movement Nazism, Russian Influence, and Connections with American Deprogrammers.”

Read more about this in the article:

Negative (Criminogenic) Impact of the Mass Media

[olivesbest]

Are there documented proofs of the infiltration of FSB agents into European parliaments?

The Latvian case of Tatiana Zhdanoka

The Latvian politician and member of the European Parliament Tatjana Ždanoka, 73, has long made herself known for her outright support of Russia. Both in the Baltics and in Brussels, she has been spreading propaganda regarding alleged violations of Russians’ rights in the Baltic states and defended pro-Kremlin policies. In the European Parliament, she refused to condemn Russia’s attack on Ukraine.

Since at least 2004, Tatjana Ždanoka has been working under the guidance of supervisors from the FSB’s Fifth Service. This became known due to leaked emails from Ždanoka’s account and subsequent publication of those.

The Insider independent edition, in collaboration with Delfi Estonia, the Latvian Re:Baltica, and the Swedish Expressen, investigated the cooperation of this Latvian politician with Russian intelligence agencies. The investigation findings were made public in January 2024. Authors of the report include investigative journalists Christo Grozev, Michael Weiss, and Roman Dobrokhotov. It’s a key investigation of this case, so we have based our publication on it and will repeatedly cite excerpts from it below.

Ždanoka even launched a radio show called ‘The Hour of the Russian School’ in Latvia, which warned Russians in the country of the ‘possible problems of sending children from Russian families to Latvian [language] schools.’ She also noted that she was putting together a forthcoming exhibition in the European Parliament, titled ‘Russians of Latvia,’ to promote the ahistorical idea that ethnic Russians were the true indigenous population of Latvia.” This parallels the activities of Ukrainian anticultist Pavel Broyde, an associate of Alexander Dvorkin, who created his own network of agents among Ukrainian citizens. His agents’ activities significantly contributed to the dissemination of propaganda beneficial to RACIRS, the division of the Ukrainian people, and the destabilization of Ukraine, laying the groundwork for the subsequent Russia-Ukraine war.

In 2013, the protocol for Ždanoka’s correspondence with her handlers changed. On September, Dmitry Gladey forwarded a report sent to him by Ždanoka to a new disposable email address, ser2280@mail.ru. Later, Gladey introduced to Ždanoka a person named “Sergey Krasin.” “Sergey Krasin” communicated with Ždanoka using a disposable email address with a similar number — serg0680@mail.ru. Ždanoka first directly contacted “Krasin” on December 12, 2013, and subsequently sent all her future reports to him.

Email from Tatjana Ždanoka’s FSB handler Dmitry Gladey, dated September 12, 2013, to Ždanoka’s second handler Sergey Beltyukov, a.k.a. “Sergey Krasin.”

Screenshot from The Insider website

“The Insider was able to identify ‘Krasin’ based on a unique leaked password that was used by the owner of the ser2280@mail.ru email account. The password was also used for logging in to an account with a telephone number that belongs to Sergey Beltyukov, an active FSB officer from St. Petersburg. The Insider identified several other emails from the numbered range used by Beltyukov, all starting with the same letters (“ser”) and sharing the same password, thus allowing the investigative team to conclude with a high degree of certainty that ‘Sergey Krasin’ is in fact Sergey Beltyukov.

Born in 1970, Beltyukov graduated from the St. Petersburg Economic University in 1993. His employment records, obtained by The Insider, show that he has been an employee of the FSB headquarters in St. Petersburg since that year. Furthermore, leaked data shows that in 1993 Beltyukov received form-2 secrets access, the second-highest level of security clearance in Russia. The clearance restricts its holder from embarking on any international travel other than trips approved by the FSB."

On January 14, 2017, she sent him an email about organizing a delegation from Latvia to attend an event in St. Petersburg.

“Hello Sergey,

Congratulations on all the holidays that have occurred and will occur in January! I have a big request for you: Need your help in finding out whether it’s still possible for a group of 8 people from Latvia to join the foreign delegations that will be received in St. Petersburg on the anniversary of the lifting of the blockade. Traditionally, I cover travel costs of such groups, whilst the administration pays for accommodation and catering. I understand that timing is tight. We were not able to send the request on time due to a major break in the Embassy’s activities which was not much in conjunction with holidays but rather with the change of Ambassador. In addition, I got sick and was not advised that the letter to the Ambassador from the blockade survivors whom I am in charge of curating, failed to be delivered.

Best Wishes,

Tatiana Zhdanok”

Screenshot from The Insider website

These partial excerpts from The Insider report clearly confirm the connection between the Latvian deputy, Member of the European Parliament, and FSB officers.

The connection between her political party and anticultists from various countries, including members of FECRIS, has also been substantiated. Moreover, Tatjana Ždanoka herself has been observed cooperating not only with anticultists from Latvia but also with a key figure in the international anticult movement, Alexander Dvorkin (President of RACIRS, Vice President of FECRIS, and Vice President of DCI).

Read more about this in the article:

Ways of FSB Agents Infiltration in Europe. The Anticult Movement is Just One of Them: Part 1

[olivesbest]

Anti-Heretical Rhetoric in South Korea - the dark trace of anticultists in Asia

In South Korea, the influence of anti-heretical rhetoric can be traced back to theological ideologies rooted in the teachings of figures like Peter Beyerhaus. One prominent advocate of this rhetoric is Professor Seung-Goo Lee of Hapdong Theological Seminary, a highly respected scholar and founder of several theological societies in Korea. Through his work, Lee has actively promoted the labeling of groups like Shincheonji as “heresy” and “social problems,” fueling dehumanization and persecution. By examining Lee’s writings and the establishment of the Peter Beyerhaus Society, we uncover the enduring legacy of Beyerhaus’s controversial anti-heresy doctrines and their impact on South Korean religious and social dynamics.

Seung-Goo Lee is a professor at Hapdong Theological Seminary in South Korea. He was recognized as one of the most influential scholars in the field of Bible studies and theology in 2011 and has led key theological societies in Korea:

President of the Korean Evangelical Theological Society (2020–2022);

President of the Korean Presbyterian Theological Society and the Korean Reformed Theological Society.

He founded the Korean Presbyterian Theological Society, the Korean Biblical Theological Society, the Korean Kierkegaard Society, and the Peter Beyerhaus Society.

Since 2009, he has been serving as a professor of systematic theology at the Graduate School of Theology at Hapdong.

Professor Seung-Goo Lee has been noted for similar anti-heresy rhetoric. We refer to Professor Seung-Goo Lee’s article, “Heretics’ Rant, What Should the Korean Church Do?” targeting the Shincheonji movement.

This movement is persecuted and discredited in many countries by representatives of the anticult movement and is dehumanized by them through the use of derogatory labels such as “sect,” “cult,” or “heresy.”

The consequences of such informational anticult dehumanization and propaganda against this organization, which have led to the abduction of Shincheonji members for the purpose of deconversion. In the aforesaid article, Shincheonji is portrayed as “heresy,” a “social problem,” and an obstacle to the dominant denominations in Korea.

“First, we must continue to declare to both inside and outside the church that Shincheonji’s teachings are heretical teachings that are not biblical. The problem is that there are many souls who continue to fall for false teachings. Therefore, we must clearly state that the doctrines of these heretics are distorted from the truth and are therefore significantly wrong.”

Screenshots from Good News Daily website

Seung-Goo Lee and Yung-Han Kim, along with several other Korean theologians and missionaries, became the founders of the Peter Beyerhaus Society in 2018.

Founding ceremony of the Beyerhaus Society in October 2018. ⓒ Photo from “Christian Today” “크리스천투데이”

Read more about this in the article:

South Korea and Japan: Nazi Legacy of Walter Künneth in Asian Countries

[olivesbest]

Why “Brainwashing” is a Myth Used by Anticult Movements?

What happens when someone leaves a religious movement and finds themselves in the crosshairs of the anticult movement? Far from offering support or understanding, anticult deprogrammers often manipulate defectors, urging them to reinterpret their experiences through the lens of brainwashing and manipulation. These movements promote a one-size-fits-all narrative: “You were in a cult, you were brainwashed, and everything you believed was a delusion.” This oversimplified ideology reshapes the defector’s past, replacing pride with shame and inspiration with resentment. But what are the broader consequences of this approach — for individuals, religious freedom, and society as a whole?

While exploring the topic of Scientology, we have repeatedly encountered the same traps set by anticultists. Let's delve into how the anticult movement manipulates individuals, making the defector, viewer, or reader fall into their traps, pushing them to conclusions made up for them by anticultists.

The entire anticult movement rests on the stories of people who, for various reasons, didn’t like certain ideas within a religious movement.

The anticult movement teaches that religious minorities supposedly harm the mental health of their members. Hundreds of psychological practices have been built on the idea that former members of these religious minorities suffer from some form of mental damage and need to “recover” from it.

The loss of faith and rejection of former religious or spiritual aspirations — regardless of what they were — can undoubtedly become a turbulent time in a defector’s life. There’s even an expression for it: “Losing my religion.”

However, adopting the beliefs of the anticult movement drastically changes the views and attitudes of those experiencing a loss of faith in their former religion. These changes can have a deeply destructive impact and far-reaching consequences for both the defector and society at large.

As a tool for creating new meaning or reinterpreting the past, the ideology of the anticult movement is quite simple. It goes like this:

“You were in a CULT, and you were BRAINWASHED to make you believe what you believed. You were subjected to METHODS OF HYPNOSIS that made you LOSE YOUR CHOICE and adopt beliefs that created AN ENTIRE MATRIX OF THOUGHTS THAT WERE NOT YOUR OWN.”

And that’s it. The former member adopts this extremely simplified view to reinterpret their past participation, who they were, what they believed, and why they believed it. The movement against “cults” becomes their new system of beliefs.

Once the defector finds new meaning, they begin to redefine and rethink every experience they ever had in the “cult.” They adopt the ideology of the anticult movement to radically reinterpret everything they once knew about themselves and their past life. The anticultist’s goal is to make the defector ashamed of their past in the religious movement.

What they once called “religion,” they now call a “cult.” What once inspired them with sacred ideas now seems so profane that it makes them sick. What they once took pride in now brings them shame. What they once considered reasonable, they now see as delusion.

Thus, the defector’s views become radicalized. They arrive at a simple explanation for everything that happened to them before: “I was brainwashed!” This is precisely what anticultists aim for — turning a person, who should always make their own choices, into a mere victim of manipulation by a “dangerous cult.” This explains the almost manic desire of defectors to radicalize their entire experience in the “cult,” “expose” it, and frame even neutral events in an extremely negative light.

They are driven by resentment toward the “cult” leaders and the belief — instilled by anticultists — that they were deceived and “brainwashed.”

That’s where we must recall Alexander Dvorkin’s words again: “It should be noted that not everyone is prone to joining a sect. There is a particular risk group characterized by low emotional states, reduced critical thinking, heightened suggestibility, and psychological and mental instability. Thus, this group cannot be unequivocally considered psychologically and mentally healthy.”

The anticult movement is most interested in people who have spent a significant amount of time in a religious movement. These individuals possess extensive knowledge about the “cult,” which can later be twisted and used against that “cult.” Such defectors become zealous fighters against “cults.” Infected by anticult ideas, they often go on to fight against other groups labeled as cults, participating in anticult symposiums conferences, and round tables worldwide. For instance, Jerry Armstrong, a Scientology defector, spoke at international conferences, including the 2001 event “Totalitarian Sects of Siberia” in Russia. John Atack participates in FECRIS and ICSA conferences, and Leah Remini now attacks Jehovah’s Witnesses as well.

Read more about this in the article:

Scientology: A Thorn in the Side of Anticultism. Part 5. Modern Persecution of Scientologists in the U.S.

[olivesbest]

How Deeply Were Soviet KGB Agents Embedded in the Russian Orthodox Church?

For decades, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has been seen as a pillar of spiritual guidance, yet its history is entangled with surprising dark revelations that challenge this perception. Starting from the Soviet era, the ROC not only served as a spiritual institution but also as a key instrument of state propaganda and covert political influence, actively cooperating with the infamous KGB. Recent investigations have uncovered shocking evidence, including leaked documents and testimony, pointing to widespread infiltration of church hierarchs by Soviet intelligence. Was the Moscow Patriarchate shaped more by faith or by espionage? The answers lie buried in a tangled web of historical manipulation and modern political agendas.

“We’ve been fighting the church for 70 years. In particular, we ensured that the most immoral and corrupt people were appointed to the most important positions there. Yet, now we want them to arrange a spiritual renaissance for us.”

Konstantin Kharchev, Chairman of the USSR Council for Religious Affairs, 1984-1989.

The deeper we delve into researching the criminal activities of global anticultism, the more surprises come to the surface. In his video appeal “Underclared War“ Egon Cholakian called the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate a facade organization of representatives of global anticultism who infiltrate it. In another appeal, “The Crossroads,” he provided more facts:

“…the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has recently taken steps that not only contradict the fundamental principles of Christianity, but also actively contribute to the escalation of the military conflict… The administrative office of the Moscow Patriarchate recently issued a directive requiring all priests to daily recite a prayer that openly asks God for ‘victory for Russian arms.’ This prayer contains false assertions that Russia was attacked with the aim of ‘dividing and destroying its united people,’ which clearly contradicts reality.

It is deeply concerning that this is the first official document regulating intra-church support for the war. Priests who refuse to recite this pro-war and anti-Christian prayer are defrocked. There is already a known case where a priest was defrocked simply for expressing the opinion that prayers should be for peace, not for victory in war.”

Deep anxiety, misunderstanding, and contradictions embrace every believer at the sight of such a gross distortion of the foundations of Christianity. Why is this happening? Why do people execute commands silently and obsequiously? Why do they not see the terrible and destructive substitutions?

To answer these questions, it is necessary to set aside the illusions of high spirituality and infallibility of church hierarchs adorned in golden vestments and, for starters, to take a critical, unblinkered look at the history of how their religious organization was established. Perhaps, by referring to events of the past, we can gain a better understanding of what is happening in the present.

While preparing the article “Russian Anticult Trail in Latvia. Part 2,” we discovered an interesting fact: the highest clergyman of the Latvian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Alexander (Kudryashov), was recruited by the USSR Committee for State Security (KGB) during the Soviet era and had a codename “Reader.” Was it a coincidence or a pattern? We have to admit that the conclusions we reached were quite shocking for us.

The next series of analytical publications will be dedicated to collecting information and evidence confirming a close cooperation between two organizations: KGB (the USSR Committee for State Security) and the religious organization Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), alternatively legally known as the Moscow Patriarchate. We will cite the archival documents we have found, showing that the Russian Orthodox Church played the role of not only a spiritual institution, but also an important tool of political influence, both inside and outside the Iron Curtain.

In Soviet times, ROC served as a lever of propaganda and manipulation of public consciousness, actively cooperating with state security agencies and carrying out secret missions abroad. This role continued after the USSR’s collapse, which isn’t surprising, given that after the collapse, the KGB intelligence service did not disappear, but only changed its name to the FSB, while ROC was revived and reinforced.

We will start with a basic understanding: the Russian Association of Centers for the Study of Religions and Sects (RACIRS), headed by Alexander Dvorkin, is an executive entity with considerable powers that has seriously influenced the development of events. More details on this can be found in “The IMPACT” documentary. In our opinion, at the current stage, these powers may have been granted by at least three more influential entities in Russia: the elite political club Diveyevo Brotherhood, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), and the FSB (the Federal Security Service of Russia). Taking into account that representatives of global anticultism have infiltrated ROC as noted by Dr. Egon Cholakian, we decided to examine in more detail the history of the establishment of the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Moscow Patriarchate. After a brief search, we were surprised to find leaked records from secret archives available to the general public, and this is actually what we’re going to talk about in this article.

Read more about this in the article:

KGB Agents in Cassocks of the Russian Orthodox Church. Pt.1

[olivesbest]

Humanity isn't ready for this! Part 1

[olivesbest]

Are you being manipulated? Why do background shots in movies contain hidden neurocognitive triggers?

Hidden neurocognitive triggers in movies are not just a theoretical concept—they are a well-documented tool of subconscious influence, as highlighted in the article Execute Not Pardon: Where Should the Comma Be Put? These subtle yet powerful mechanisms are often embedded in the background of films, affecting viewers' thoughts, emotions, and even actions without their conscious awareness.

How Does It Work?

Neurocognitive triggers are carefully placed elements—visual cues, sound patterns, or even symbolic imagery—that bypass critical thinking and directly impact the subconscious mind. While seemingly innocuous, these background details can plant ideas, evoke emotional responses, or reinforce specific narratives.

Why Is This a Concern?

This form of manipulation isn't just about enhancing a storyline or evoking emotions for artistic purposes. In some cases, it serves a darker agenda. For instance, the article points out how these triggers are strategically used in media to spread specific ideologies, influence public opinion, or even instill fear and division in society. When amplified by organizations skilled in informational manipulation, such as those discussed in The IMPACT documentary, this technique becomes a potent weapon of psychological influence.

Real-Life Consequences

The rise in societal polarization, violent behavior, and even mental health issues like bipolar disorder among certain groups has been linked to prolonged exposure to media containing such embedded triggers. These subtle influences create an environment ripe for conflict and unrest, making viewers more susceptible to external manipulation.

Protect Yourself

Awareness is the first line of defense. Be critical of the media you consume, and question the intent behind the images, sounds, and narratives presented. Understanding the existence of neurocognitive triggers helps mitigate their influence and allows you to make informed choices about what you watch.

In conclusion, the presence of hidden neurocognitive triggers in movies is not mere speculation but a calculated strategy used in modern informational warfare. By staying vigilant and informed, you can shield yourself from their subtle yet profound impact.