Follow the money
From 2008 to 2020, the major Christian conservative associations in the United States spent more than $280 million abroad. At least 90 million of that went to Europe, while the rest went to Africa and Asia. This is according to an analysis by the US investigative website OpenDemocracy, in which authors Claire Provost and Nandini Archer analysed thousands of financial records from 28 mostly Christian extremist and ultra-pro-free market US groups with strong links to the conservative, sometimes far right.
In recent years, thanks in part to these investments, these groups have become increasingly influential in American and international politics. Indeed, the funds have the explicit purpose of supporting both initiatives and other satellite organisations around the world, which in turn work to influence public opinion, laws and national policies to prevent the enforcement of sexual and reproductive rights. But that's not all. Among the aims of all these organisations, the protection of “religious freedom” is of great importance
The list of 28 groups under consideration includes the Acton Institute, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, the Federalist Society, the American Center for Law and Justice, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. The latter is nothing other than the American branch of the Brazilian organisation for the defence of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP), which was founded by Plinio Correa de Oliveira and to which the Italian traditionalist Catholic associations Alleanza Cattolica and Fondazione Lepanto refer, as we have seen (see Fascists, spies and gurus. 4. The black network). From the first part of this report, we know that the main objective of this organisation since the mid-1980s has been to defend religious freedom and thus promote an anti-secular vision of society. It is therefore likely that the funds of this society - 3,123,131 dollars between 2008 and 2020 - will flow to European organisations pursuing the same goal. In Italy, the most important organisation of this kind is the Centro Studi Nuove Religioni (CESNUR), which has emerged from a rib of Alleanza Cattolica, with which it has long shared a top figure. On the other hand, De Mattei, the head of the Lepanto Foundation, is a member of the expert panel of the Heritage Foundation and the Acton Institute, both of which are included in the list analysed by Open Democracy.
The Acton Institute calls itself an “Institute for Religion and Liberty” and was founded in 1990 by Robert Sirico and Betsy DeVos. Sirico is an original personality. He is a Catholic priest, former member of David Berg's “Children of God” (notorious for sexual promiscuity and paedophilia scandals), former evangelical Pentecostal pastor, and an advocate of conservative anarcho-capitalism. he is now well established in the Vatican and in 2004, he was even one of the editors of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, the very doctrine that Sirico, a rampant anarcho-cpitalist, has fought against all his life. He was arrested in 1976 for auctioning young naked male slaves. The charge of reduction to involuntary servitude fell a few days later, when it was discovered that the slaves were all consenting adults who were members of a sadomasochistic organization called Leather Fraternity.
Betsy DeVos is part of the family that owns Amway. Amway is a multinational multi-level marketing (MLM) company that distributes various soaps and detergents and whose executives are militant evangelicals closely aligned with the American economic, political and military right who claim to speak directly with God.
The Acton Institute is headquartered in the same city as Amway, Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Institute is a member of the Atlas Network, a large network of Christian pro-free market organisations. The organisation has been described as a “self-replicating think tank that creates think tanks” Major US think tanks that belong to the network include the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute (which is dedicated to refuting climate change), the Heritage Foundation (which is particularly opposed to abortion and LGBT rights) and the American Legislative Exchange Council.
This flow of money to Europe is driven primarily by two groups that focus their battles on the courts. One is the organisation American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), led by Trump's personal lawyer Jay Sekulow, and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The latter boasts Betsy DeVos's family among its founders.
“Although both the ACLJ and the ADF” ”present themselves as simple human rights organisations," says IRPI Media, " their aim is actually much more political: they protect conservative positions similar to the ultra-Catholic world. The ability to intervene in European and international courts is in reality a tool for lobbying and influencing national regulations.”
Both groups are part of Agenda Europe, an informal network of associations that came together in January 2013 with the aim of building a Christian-inspired European think tank and supporting the “pro-life” movement in Europe. This was reported by the EPF in a report summarising documents from this network, which were kept secret until 2017 and published following a leak from a still anonymous source.
It is interesting to note that while the foundations listed are an expression of the neo-conservative world of the USA, Agenda Europe's donors include Alexey Komov, a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, who is supported by the far-right Russian multimillionaire and oligarch Konstantin Malofeev, who was also officially responsible for the foundation's international projects. Malofeev is the chairman of the board of directors of Tsargrad (Imperial City), a platform used by such people as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and far-right political analyst Aleksandr Dugin. Since 2014, Malofeev and his companies are designated to the lists of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine maintained by the European Union, United States, and Canada. In September 2019, the Bulgarian government banned him from entering the country for ten years over an alleged spying conspiracy aimed at turning the country away from its pro-Western orientation and further toward Moscow.
On the visible level, there is currently probably a rift between CESNUR and other groups, that nonetheless come from the same root of TFP, about Russia. CESNUR director Introvigne told the Catholic magazine 'La bussola quotidiana' the following:
The fact that Russia behaves well towards the LGBT lobby and fundamentalist Islam does not justify its aggressive and expansionist policies in the West, and at the same time condemning these expansionist policies does not diminish the appreciation for the fight against the gay lobby and fundamentalist Islam that Russia is waging.
The closeness to the US government repeatedly professed by Introvigne places CESNUR in an undeniable Atlanticism. It is surely to be found in this that the well-known study centre, which always presents itself as the defender of whatever cult is the subject of public disrepute, has not said a word about the pro-Russian cult AlltRa: At the level of deep dynamics, however, the situation is far less clear.
The close links between this world and Russia are obvious. It seems that some American freedom foundations serve as a clearing house for interests that converge despite the diversity of ideologies. It has been said that TFP has taken a strong Atlanticist position, followed by its Italian sisters, such as AC and its offshoot CESNUR. From this position, its representatives allow themselves to accuse the FECRIS of collaborating with Russia simply because a Russian, Alexander Dvorkin, was its vice president for a long time (and there is photographic evidence of my acquaintance with him!). Yet, it seems quite certain that the Polish branch of TFP, the Ordo Iuris Association, has regular dealings with and is funded by the Kremlin.
The World Congress of Families (WCF), in which the Polish section of TFP has participated so often, is a cyclical event that brings together an international group of ultra-conservative organisations opposed to women's rights and LGBT rights. It was initiated in 1995 by a Russian and an American, Anatoly Anatov and Allan Carlson. The World Congress of Families acts as a platform for far-right religious and social groups. On its website, Ordo Iuris presents a list of “partner organisations” including, for example, the 'Catholic Institute for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam)'. C-Fam is headed by Austin Ruse. Thanks to a hacker group called Shaltai Boltai, which hacked the inbox of Alexey Komov and his boss, the oligarch Malofeev, we know that Ruse was on the guest list for the Kremlin congress known as the "Black International”. The following scan comes from the list of 357 guests invited by Russians to the Kremlin congress:
According to the BuzzFeed News portal, the list shows that “Russian nationalists and social conservatives appear to be working together to use connections with ‘pro-family’ organizations in the United States and around the world to promote Russia's geopolitical agenda.
The Guardian writes that Austin Ruse has praised Malofeev for “working to bring Russian Orthodox and US Christianity closer together”. Despite the stance of some organizations close to parts of the US government, the positions in the culture war become more nuanced when the goals coincide.
Religious right and the defense of cults
This whole world of Christian fundamentalists and enemies of sexual freedoms and self-determination is strangely interested in the defence of cults that are furthest removed from Christian orthodoxy. To give an example, the Conservative Summit 2024 held in Bratislava, Slovakia, featured OndřejDostàl among the speakers. He is a a Czech politician but also a representative of the Creative Society, a project of the AllatRa cult. Ján Figeľ is a Slovakian politician with links to CitizenGo, a Spanish fundamentalist association, which is particularly committed to the defence of religious freedom and is close to both Scientology and the Unification Church. He is a key figure of Agenda Europe.
In 2022, he participated in the symposium "Religious Freedom: A Human Right Under Attack," co-organized by Figeľ's Tunega, Púčik and Tesár Foundation with the Universasl Peace federation (Unification Church). Aaron Rhodes (Forum for Religious Freedom-Europe) was among the speakers. Aaron Rhodes served as Executive Director of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) that is said to be infiltrated by Scientology. Rhodes is also a member of the Common Sense Society, an organisation full of pro-Russians.
In 2023, Ján Figeľ together with Willy Fautré (HRWF), Massimo Introvigne (CESNUR) and Aaron Rhodes (Forum for Religious Freedom-Europe), signed a letter to Japanese Prime Minister Kishida in defence of the Unification Church. A month earlier, together with Massimo Introvigne, he had already spoken out in favour of this issue at the International Summit for Religious Freedom (as stated on the church's own website).
The Citizens Commission for Human Rights (CCHR), a well-known Scientology front organisation, funded Paul Weyrich's American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), according to a letter from CCHR board member Carol Steinke.
A branch of Paul Weyrich's American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) also honoured the wife of Sun Myung Moon, the leader of the Unification Church, Hak Ja Han Moon. The award was presented by Robin Brunelli, president of the National Foundation for Women Legislators and wife of Sam Brunelli, ALEC director and long-time CNP member. In an AFN radio interview by Kelleigh Nelson with Chey Simonton, the far-reaching connections between the Council for National Policy (CNP) and the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church were discussed at length.
As we have seen in part four of this report, Moon's Unification Church helped the Reagan administration fund the Nicaraguan Contras as part of the secret plan for which former USCIRF Chairman Abrams was convicted.
In 2020, Figel' founded the Clementy Group LTD. It is based in London and its sole purpose is to fund the Clementy Foundation. Their mission? "Youth mindset enhancement", "Forstering a sustainable peace in Europe" and "Nature preservation". Here are the members of the board besides Figel':
Pierre Louvrier. Belgian. Investigations by journalists revealed that he was involved in business with the Russian oligarch Malofeev.
Sigmar Gabriel. German. Former Vice-Chancellor of Germany, former SPD Minister for Economic Affairs and Foreign Affairs. He is considered a Gazprom lobby.
Mick Mulvaney. US Citizen. Former director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump administration, then Trump's Chief of Staff. He was involved in the Trump-Ukranian scandal, cospirationist reguarding COVID.
Domenico Giani. Italian. Ex Vatican's longtime security chief and Pope Francis' with a past for the Italian secret services. He resigned in 2019 over leaks related to an investigation into alleged financial wrongdoing in the Vatican.
Nothing is known about the LTD's economic activities, nor how they intend to implement the "youth mindset"and "nature preservation".
At the 2014 summit of Agenda Europe, Gudrun Kugler and Paul Coleman of Alliance Defending Freedom International emphasised the need for network organisations to accredit themselves with all relevant institutions and to keep each other informed about what is happening at the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OECD) and the European Court of Human Rights.
All of this sounds very familiar to those involved in the fight against totalitarian cults. Those who, like the author, are involved in combating organisations that defend totalitarian cults on the international stage, observe the coordinated lobbying of associations “in defence of religious freedom” at the OSCE and the Council of Europe. This coordination “strangely” includes “study centres", which should be theoretically avalutative and scientifically aseptic, and even the Church of Scientology.
The photo below (Fig. 72) was taken in October 2023 at a meeting of the OSCE Human Rights Office in Warsaw and shows a briefing attended by high-ranking representatives of Scientology and the directors of two of the best-known European associations for the defence of religious freedom, namely the Belgian organisation Human Rights Without Frontiesr (HRWF) and the French Coordination of Associations and Individuals for Freedom of Conscience (CAP LC). This is roughly the same line-up that took part in a meeting on religious freedom at the European Parliament in Brussels about a month later (see Fig. 22).
Lee Fang writes that the “libertarian” network that funds European organisations is itself subsidised by the State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy. The latter is an essential arm of American soft power. It is therefore “a silent extension of US foreign policy”
The prototype of all these associations is the John Birch Society, which was already mentioned in the fourth part of this dossier. It was the channel that made it possible to avoid the direct financing of “dirty” operations by the secret service to the Aginter press. It is likely that the organisations linked to Atlas and the DeVos family perform the same functions in relation to spiritual groups, study centres and non-governmental organisations involved in the defence of “religious freedom", aimed at reorienting public opinion by creating a benevolent view of minority cults and lobbying powerfully in supranational contexts to prevent the law of modern secular states from interfering with the actions of these cults.
The Vicar Regent of Alleanza Cattolica himself, Introvigne, wrote in his book “Una battaglia nella notte” (2008) about the TFP that the American TFP maintains close relations with the world of conservative foundations in the USA (page 210).
To understand that there is more than just mutual appreciation between conservative foundations and think tanks and organizations of cults and their apologists, one only has to think of the network at the centre of which was the late Paul Weyrich. The latter, an Austrian-born traditionalist Catholic, founded both the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation, of which he was president, the International Policy Forum (IPF) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), described as “the largest bipartisan organization of legislators dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism”. Above all, however, Weyrich was one of the founders and one of the most important members of the Council for National Policy (CNP). This is a secret organisation described by the New York Times as “a little-known club of a few hundred of the country's most influential conservatives” who meet three times a year behind closed doors at undisclosed locations for a confidential conference. Weyrich and other CNP members actively collaborated with Plinio de Oliveira's Tradition, Family and Property (TFP). It was at the suggestion of Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira and inspired by the example of the TFP, that Paul Weyrich founded the International Policy Forum (IPF). This alliance of conservative associations was conceived by Paul Weyrich and chaired by Morton Blackwell. “The construction of a transnational New Right,” writes Bemjamin A. Cowan, "took place through organizations specifically created for this purpose. [...] The International Policy Forum (IPF) was one such organization, perhaps the paradigmatic example. [...)].
Representatives of TFP were pioneers in networking with similar organisations in Northern America, a collaboration that laid the foundations for the establishment of a transnational New Right.
To summarise, there is an intricate international network, including US government commissions, controversial cults and conservative think tanks, which appears to work in synergy and whose members appear to support each other, albeit discreetly and behind the useful fig leaf of “religious freedom.
Geopolitics consists of three forms of action: a) a hard and visible action, which consists of political or economic antagonism up to and including war; b) a hard but less visible action, because it is carried out in secret or clandestinely, and finally c) a ‘soft’ and invisible action, which consists of disinformation and the orientation of public opinion. The first is carried out by politicians, the second by the intelligence services and the third by ‘agents of influence’, i.e. people who produce cultural products to disseminate ideas that are in line with a particular geopolitical project. This is a form of unconventional warfare known as soft power, which also includes the issue of religion. Organisations defending "religious freedom" play an important role in this.
The true and profound reasons for the defence of cults by libertarian foundations
The Theory of Religious Economy
Rodney Stark is an American know-it-all scientist who vehemently advocates Darwinism in all fields except the one that is its own, biology (in his opinion, evolution is an invention to discredit religion).
This is how blogger Miguel Martinez sums up this character. An effective and keen synthesis that's enriched in the following lines:
Rodney Stark's main concern is to justify neoliberalism theologically, as is evident from the triumphant title of one of his books, The Victory of Reason. How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success. A concept we might translate as, "If they foreclose on your house, it's because Jesus wanted it that way" [2].
The author is witty and shows very well the conditions under which the "American know-it-all" works. However, to say that Stark merely "justifies neoliberalism theologically" falls short; in fact, his main concern is to justify theology on "neoliberal" grounds. We should proceed in order. We can say it better. Rodney Stark can be considered the founder of the theory of religious economy. This is the notion that the religious is a "market' equal in all respects to the commodity market. As in all markets, different consumers buy goods, which in this case are the "religious goods" (the various creeds) of competing religious enterprises (the more or less organized religions) [3]. Consistent with this paradigm, the theory states that.
as in any other market for material or symbolic goods, and contrary to what some theorists of secularization think - also in (institutional) religion competition is good for the market and within certain limits supply feeds demand [4]
As evidence of this, authors working in the wake of this mercantilist conception point out that.
The countries with the greatest religious pluralism - that's, with the greatest competition among religious enterprises - such as the United States (...), are also the countries where the total number of religious practitioners remains stable or increases [5].
Whereas,
Where, on the other hand, the state obstructs religious pluralism and, in particular, opposes the entry into the market of new entities branded as "cults" or enemies of national identity, there-as in France and Russia-the number of religious practitioners generally declines spectacularly [6].
In other words, the conclusion is "more market and less state," according to the classic Lassiz-Faire paradigm. This position is based on two premises and an implicit assumption. The first presupposition is that the increase in the number of people practicing religions is a positive and desirable fact; the second presupposition is that the "consumer," the actor who makes his choice in the market of religions, is "rational" and knows what he's buying, in short, that this person is the homo oeconomicus imagined by neoclassical economics, who tends to maximize his own utility; the implicit assumption of the theory is that the various religious "firms" compete with each other and try to satisfy the buyers they compete for better than the others.
The consequences are manifold. If the basic assumptions are accepted, it follows that there's a need for strong "deregulation" of the religious market. Stark and Iannaccone write:
To the extent that a religious economy is competitive and pluralistic, overall levels of religious participation will tend to be high. On the contrary, to the extent that the religious economy is monopolized by one or two state-supported enterprises, participation tends to be low [7].
In short, it appears that the enemy of the religious market, as with any other market, is the state; for it's natural for state institutions to favor monopolies to the detriment of free competition and to brand new potential competitors as "sects" or destructive cults. The attraction that the Theory of Religious Economy has for some cult apologists is obviously due to this ideological notion, which relabels criticism of abusive cults as an attempt to suppress the free market in favor of monopolistic religions protected by a planning state that seeks to protect them from competition. The implication, then, is that anti-cult activism is interested work carried out by people who're somehow connected to the state and/or the religious apparatus. In other words, the conspiratorial idea that's already part of relativist and postmodern apologetics reappears in a discrete form. Of course, only the large organized religions can claim a monopoly, certainly not the secular states of the West, whose founding value is precisely secularism. Nevertheless, the anti-cult movement has no relation to institutional religions, to the point of being accused of "secularism"...
The profane reader of the religious economics, however, is still unsatisfied with the curiosity of how the various religions can compete with each other to satisfy customers better than their competitors.The answer is simple: the religions that satisfy customers the most are the most demanding and restrictive. One of the proponents of this mercantile view is Massimo Introvigne, president of CESNUR, the best example of what I call the differentialist apologists. He places great emphasis on this aspect of competitors improving the quality of the offer. He writes, for example:
... there is a kind of Darwinian struggle even in the religious field. The most demanding religious proposals tend to prevail: among Jews, the Orthodox, in Islam the fundamentalists, and among Catholics, the most rigid movements and congregations [8].
Competition would select the faiths that are more rigid and strict in demanding adherence, in short, the more integralist and fundamentalist versions. Competition, then, selects the fundamentalisms. The more neutral term used by these authors is "strict." This selection of extremist versions can be explained by the phenomenon of free riders who literally "travel cheap." Those who want to enjoy the benefits of a collective enterprise, but don't want to bear the costs, travel without a ticket. In the religious realm, the collective enterprise is a church or faith community. An organization can tolerate a few free riders, i.e., uncommitted members, but not too many. Introvigne writes:
In the realm of religions, the less strict and rigorous organizations, which charge low admission fees and unobtrusively check that members have paid their admission ticket, i.e., that they're sufficiently committed, take on board such a high number of free riders that they offer their faithful a diluted and unsatisfying religious experience, (...) The more rigorous organizations charge a more expensive admission ticket and check that everyone pays for it: In this way, they allow fewer free riders, and the symbolic goods of a group where there are no free riders are usually perceived as more satisfying by consumers [9].
One concludes that the outcome of this beneficial competition between religions is an increase in religious zeal and commitment, i.e., an increase in what's most hostile to competition (in this case, other commitments and zeal). This competition feeds the monopolistic claims of fundamentalisms, which are by definition incompatible. A free market that generates hostility to the free market! This is an incompatibility that cannot be reconciled and cannot harmonize in an ecumenism precisely because of the rigidity chosen by the market.
In conclusion, any representative of a conservative spiritual vision who wanted to strengthen it would have to work to ensure the continued existence of all other faiths on the market and to defend even the most controversial spiritual groups (e.g. Scientology) with all their might. This would have the double effect of strengthening his own incontrovertible "truth" and at the same time - paradoxically - becoming a defender of religious freedom.
Defending the indefensible: the crypto-paleolibertarianism of apologists
This free market, with its less than liberal results, is very reminiscent of the "paleolibertarian" strain of a doctrine known as anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism is one of the directions of contemporary political and legal philosophy that proposes the abolition of the state and replaces it with market relations. The main intellectual reference for anarcho-capitalism is the economist Murray Rothbard [10], who in the 1960s proposed a political theory that focused on the inviolable sovereignty of the individual. Based on the axiom of non-aggression [11], an ethical principle of natural law that states that it's not legitimate to attack the person and property of an individual, all forms of taxation that constitute a theft of individual property and all coercive measures by the state, which is seen as inherently authoritarian, should be abolished. In this society, every service would be provided by private individuals on a voluntary basis. A less extreme version is called mini-archism, and its proponents want to maintain a "minimal state" whose only function is to legitimize the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Both versions agree on the central idea that the state wouldn't be authorized to use its monopoly to interfere with free transactions between individuals. Every transaction between individuals is a "market" transaction, even those that cannot be monetized in a concrete sense, such as the choice of friends or partners, because they're based on incentives and disincentives, on costs and benefits. Freedom and economic prosperity can therefore only be guaranteed by universal laissez-faire, in the economy as in any other sphere. The state, even minimalist mini-archism, therefore has no right to interfere in individual choices such as sexual orientation, drug use, lifestyle, and religious affiliation.
When using European political categories, American libertarianism is usually considered "right-wing" in economic terms and "left-wing" in rights terms because of its radical advocacy of individual liberties. However, many of those who held this view were culturally conservative and considered total freedom in the area of personal choices to be libertine excess. Therefore, in 1990, an article by Lew Rockwell [12] gave rise to a conservative current called "paleolibertarianism" which traces its origins to the old American paleoconservative right of Ludwig von Mises and Albert J. Nock. What distinguishes it from classical anarcho-capitalism, especially in its "left" version, is the strong defense of traditional values and customs, especially those associated with Christian morality. This creates a correspondence with the European criteria of the "right", since paleolibertarianism combines economic conservatism and cultural conservatism. This current is historically associated with the Von Mises Institute, an academic organization that sponsors hundreds of conferences and meetings to combat etatism and promote conservative moral values. Von Mises, the Austrian economist to whom the institute is dedicated, based his praxeology (the science of human action) on the assumption that "human action is always rational." [13]
The results of this logic may seem confusing to advocates of market libertarianism. In a classic of anarcho-capitalist thought entitled Defending the Indefensible [14], Walter Block goes so far as to exonerate and justify behavior deemed reprehensible on the basis of the individual's free and consensual choice. "The 'blackmailer,' the 'filthy male chauvinist,' the 'employer of minors,' the 'garbage distributor,' the 'loan shark,' the 'homeless man,' the 'corrupt policeman,' even the 'person who yells 'fire' in a crowded club,' and other unsympathetic figures are defended on the basis of the principle of nonaggression. To give an example of the otherwise brilliant argumentative style that characterizes this provocative book, this excerpt from the speech in favor of the blackmailer is worthwhile:
What exactly is blackmail? Blackmail is the offer of trade. It is the offer to trade something, usually silence, for some other good, usually money. If the offer of the trade is accepted, the blackmailer then maintains his silence and the blackmailed pays the agreed-upon price. If the blackmail offer is rejected, the blackmailer may exercise his rights of free speech and publicize the secret. There is nothing amiss here. All that is happening is that an offer to maintain silence is being made. If the offer is rejected, the blackmailer does no more than exercise his right of free speech.The sole difference between a gossip and a blackmailer is that the blackmailer will refrain from speaking — for a price. [15].
Among the 28 figures that benefit from Block's defense, the one of "guru" or "leader of a coercive group" is missing, but it can be argued with reasonable certainty that the arguments used would be based on the principle of non-aggression and on free intercourse between individuals. Moreover, it's the same defense that Block voices with respect to the "capitalist pig exploiter of labor." These arguments overlap with those of cult apologists of all kinds, who're generally also extremely pro-free market.
The connections and sometimes the overlaps between the characters and institutions of the various environments considered here, i.e., the conservative Christian environment, that of promoting aggressive economic laissez-faire, and that of the cults, are consistent, even if little known. Suffice it to look at the Acton Institute
At this point it's particularly interesting to return to and reflect on a biographical episode in Robert Sirico's life, namely the slave auction. For voluntary slavery is a topic that serves as a good metaphor for the situation of the followers of coercive cults and is also one of the most discussed topics in the libertarian world. Paleolibertarian Walter Block, for example, defends so-called "slave contracts" as the result of private ownership of one's own body rather than imposed voluntary choices [23]. For Rothbard, on the other hand, the will, that's, control over one's own body and mind, is a structural and immutable fact of human nature and therefore inalienable [24].
In this framework, the theory of Religious Economy fits perfectly, because it corresponds to a forma mentis that's mercantilist and Christianist (a neologism that denotes the use of Christianity for political purposes). At the very least, the convergence of religious economics and paleolibertarian theorists on common goals that represent areas of ideological overlap for the two groups that we could only euphemistically call extensive is natural. It's no accident that the Acton Institute calls itself the "Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty." The two aspects are brought together in one. For this reason, we see that the same people keep meeting in the two contexts.
The embrace that becomes an inextricable tangle between the market without controls and the defense of "religious freedom" allows some reflections. Among the latter is the clear recognition that the constant denial of thought manipulation by a certain group of scholars of the "New Religious Movements" isn't a real denial of its existence, but rather a form of "anti-prohibitionism" based on libertarian thought. This would be consistent with the tenets of leftist anarcho-capitalism, but the paleolibertarian vulgate that seems to unite most of the cult apologists is characterized by a conservatism and such disregard for alternative lifestyles that defending the sole right to join a religious group seems truly inconsistent.
Fascists, spies and gurus. 2. Mind Games
Comments