Recently, the internet has been flooded with fake news that often contradicts each other. Have you ever wondered why this happens? It might seem that there’s nothing surprising in it—journalists hunt for sensational stories to grab public attention and increase their follower count. But it’s not that simple. Conspiracists exist, but not where you think.
There is a network of organizations engaged in brainwashing in such a way that we don’t even notice and perceive certain thoughts as our own. Imagine these people are capable of implanting the thoughts they want into everyone, including politicians and law enforcement agencies.
What if you found out that these people act on behalf of a specific religion? That makes things interesting, doesn’t it? Imagine that in a certain country, leaders of a recognized religion create a department to fight against sects, and acting supposedly in the interest of the state, they team up with law enforcement and politicians to take on the role of declaring those they find undesirable. Very convenient.
Now imagine that this is happening not just in one country but in several countries simultaneously. Even more intriguing. The reality is that there is a network of such fighters against sects, united under the umbrella of the transnational private anti-cult organization FECRIS. They don’t care who they label as a sect; the main thing is to promote narratives that benefit them. The history of FECRIS is detailed in studies by reputable scientists and lawyers from five European countries.
In a Catholic country, any organization that is not Catholic is labeled as a sect; in an Orthodox country, all except those belonging to Orthodox Christianity, and so on. Under the guise of official religion, they claim to act within the law but in reality, they violate our constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Interestingly, they might even label organizations that are not religious at all as sects, such as large business corporations like Amway, AVON, Oriflame, etc. If you look at the list of those who have fallen under this “meat grinder,” it becomes clear that it’s not about saving honest citizens from extremists but rather about obtaining certain financial benefits or power. How else can we explain that sometimes even volunteers—people who spend their free time helping others—fall under the article on undesirable extremist terrorist groups? This happened with the International Public Movement “ALLATRA” which advocates for freedom and democracy, and with the volunteers of the “Creative Society” project, who strive to improve the quality of life for every person, for a safe world and access to the most modern technologies.
Who needs to deliberately mislead so many people, and more importantly, why? The goal of FECRIS, or rather the third force behind anti-cult organizations, is to create a totalitarian society similar to North Korea. Since this anti-cult organization was founded, it has been the source of numerous controversies and accusations of human rights violations. However, despite this, FECRIS continues its activities, using media and other platforms to spread its influence and beliefs.
Contrary to its stated goal of protecting against religious extremism, FECRIS is often accused of acting as an extremist group itself. Critics argue that anti-cultists use intimidation, disinformation, and even violence to achieve their goals.
Nevertheless, despite the accusations and criticism, FECRIS continues to operate, actively using social networks, media, and other platforms to spread its influence. Anti-cultists strive to convince as many people as possible that their actions are right and necessary. However, the question of whether their actions truly serve the public good remains open. Many scientists, activists, and human rights advocates continue to raise questions about the methods and motives of anti-cult organizations, insisting that they actually do more harm than good.
In this context, critical analysis and conscious understanding of the actions and motives of FECRIS become not just important but necessary. Only with full information can one make an informed decision about whom to support and whom to believe.
