Dvorkin’s Totalitarian Sect. Revival of Nazism

“The first gnostic sectarian was Satan himself, who used typical sect recruitment techniques when speaking with Eve.”  

(from the book “Sectology. Totalitarian Sects” by A.L. Dvorkin)

Trying to understand how it happened that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the people of Russia who sincerely aspired to democratic reforms found themselves once again under a harsh totalitarian regime three decades later, we increasingly identify among the key reasons for this regression the destructive influence of anticult ideology. It was this ideology, cloaked in the fight against “dangerous” religious beliefs, that initiated this kind of reversal in 1993 when the first anticult center named after Irenaeus of Lyons was established. It was anticultism that, by systematically suppressing dissent, dismantling independent communities, and strengthening the system of government control, turned Russian society into a hostage of a repressive machine. This was the case in Nazi Germany (watch “The IMPACT” documentary), and it has happened again 80 years later in Russia.

Step by step, we continue on the path of studying this destructive phenomenon. We still have to deeply understand and acknowledge how detrimental anticultism has been to the nascent democracy in this country. However, in its original essence, it was aimed not only at suppressing free thought, limiting civil rights, and establishing ideological control of the titular religion — the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Moscow Patriarchate, but also at creating a very specific pseudo-Orthodox structure that employs dehumanization methods under the ideological guidance by a single individual who, on top of it all, also had documented mental deviations in his youth. The essence of anticultism is in the revival of Nazi ideas of superiority and creation of conditions for the future establishment of a totalitarian society claiming global dominance, a society focused on destroying the foundations of democracy. All these processes were launched in Russia by just one man — Alexander Dvorkin. We wrote extensively about him previously and continue to do so.

The anticult entity he created, which has been mentioned multiple times on our website, is generally understood as RACIRS (Russian Association of Centers for the Study of Religions and Sects). Why do we say “generally understood”? Because during the existence of this organization, its radical ideas have been supported and actively promoted by many individuals who are not part of RACIRS formally.

In this regard, we believe it’s important not only to recognize the harmful consequences of Dvorkin’s anticultism as a phenomenon, but also to document for history the names of those who contributed to these regressive changes, so that similar mistakes are not repeated in other countries in the future. It is also crucial to understand how and why this occurred.

In the article “Dvorkin’s Totalitarian Sect,” we explained why we will henceforth use this term. In the following articles of this series, we will examine in detail some stages in the formation of Dvorkin’s cult, the scale of its influence and methods of hidden manipulation, and we will attempt to answer the question of what role the main “fighter against sects and cults,” Alexander Dvorkin, played in the destruction of democratic foundations in Russia.

Dvorkin’s totalitarian sect and incitement of large-scale war

Any national tragedy or large-scale war begins long before the first shots are fired; it begins with ideological conditioning of society. This process is invariably accompanied by imposition of xenophobia, formation of an enemy image, and targeted manipulation of public consciousness through brainwashing. Through mass information injections and extremist propaganda, fear, hatred, and intolerance are cultivated within society.

One of the most striking examples of such long-term ideological conditioning in Russia is the anticult activity of RACIRS led by Alexander Dvorkin. Since the establishment of the apologetic center named after Irenaeus of Lyons in 1993, Dvorkin has been systematically working on demonization of religious minorities, instilling the idea of “destructive” cults and sects into public consciousness. For 30 years, he has been shaping a perception of religious dissenters as a serious threat, laying the groundwork for their subsequent persecution by state repressive mechanisms. That’s exactly what eventually occurred. However, the processes taking place in this context have proven so detrimental that few people today can discern their depth and understand their consequences. 

Let’s try to analyze what goals these actions might have pursued. At first glance, the answer seems obvious: preparing society for a total suppression of dissent. But what for? The fight for absolute dominance of the titular religion, the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Moscow Patriarchate, is one of the reasons. It’s understandable and logical, implying elimination of competition in the religious field. Yet, knowing the history of anticultism, we can consider something else, too: the planning of a large-scale aggressive war. When it is necessary to ideologically prepare the population for armed invasion into a neighboring country in the short term, repressive purges of small religious groups, or simply put, sects, are employed.

Anticult campaigns on the eve of large-scale war

The historical analogy is striking: what Walter Künneth and his Apologetic Centrale did in pre-war Nazi Germany, prior to the armed invasion of Poland and later the Soviet Union, is mirrored in the actions of Alexander Dvorkin and his RACIRS in pre-war Russia, before the Russian army’s attack on Ukraine. Both figures continuously identified dissenters, created blacklists, and closely collaborated with law enforcement agencies — Künneth with the Gestapo and Dvorkin with the FSB — with the aim of subsequently suppressing certain segments of the population, the so-called “sectarians” (dissenters).

In our view, the similarity in their actions isn’t coincidental as they may have been aimed, firstly, at creating ideological unity among the population by the ruling regime in order to unleash the war, and secondly, it resembles a deliberate strategy to form a society ready for totalitarian governance.

This example clearly illustrates that increased anticult activities and successful elimination of “undesirable cultists and sectarians” served in both cases as a necessary pretext and harbinger of a large-scale war. In the case of Walter Künneth’s Apologetic Center, this was the attack of fascist Germany on Poland and the Soviet Union, while in the case of Alexander Dvorkin’s RACIRS, it was Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the subsequent undermining of democracy worldwide. 

As a matter of fact, in conditions of religious and cultural diversity where various faiths coexist peacefully and are recognized as equal, it is extremely difficult to mobilize the population for aggressive military actions. When the principle of religious pluralism is maintained in society, people are less susceptible to hate propaganda and less inclined to perceive neighboring nations as enemies. Conversely, in conditions where the state seeks to mobilize the population for war, a key instrument is to revive the so-called “gene of superiority” within society. This term is essentially a euphemism for Nazism, based on the belief in exceptionality of one group of people (nation, race, or religious community) and its right to dominate others. Historically, such ideas have been used to justify aggression, repression, and genocide.

Furthermore, this process involves not only ideological conditioning, but also creating an image of an external enemy, as well as formation of a repressive apparatus to suppress dissent. One of the active creators and participants in all these processes has been Alexander Dvorkin himself along with the organization he leads, RACIRS (Russian Association of Centers for the Study of Religions and Sects).

RACIRS has played a significant role in several key areas:

1. Religion as a tool of ideology. RACIRS actively contributed to transforming the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC, or MP) into a titular religion of global significance, which helped strengthen the ideological foundation for future geopolitical ambitions. One of the objectives was to eradicate religious pluralism viewed as a threat to the unity of ideological control. According to the ideologists, cultural diversity also had to be eliminated as it hindered the formation of a unified and controlled society.
2. Creation of an enemy image. Positioning themselves as “experts,” Dvorkin and his colleagues participated in shaping a negative image of both internal and external enemies. This was achieved through acts of informational terrorism that heightened fear and xenophobia within society. Russians are well acquainted with the warning that “dangerous cults and sects operate everywhere, preying on their money and souls.” Religious and cultural minorities have been portrayed as “agents of influence” for external forces and intelligence agencies, which justified the need to combat them.
3. Amendments to legislation. RACIRS actively participated in the development and tightening of laws aimed at suppressing dissent. Their legislative initiatives subsequently formed a legal framework for repressions against those who didn’t support the official line. In particular, religious organizations that do not fit into the mold of the “titular” religion, as well as cultural groups defending their right to uniqueness, have come under attack.
4. Collaboration with law enforcement. RACIRS has been closely collaborating with law enforcement agencies, providing “expert” support for the forceful suppression of so-called “cultists” and “sectarians.” This collaboration made it possible to test repressive methods on internal groups before applying them on a broader scale. Religious pluralism and cultural diversity have been declared a “threat to national security,” justifying the use of harsh measures.
5. Incitement of fear and xenophobia. Through public speeches, articles, and “expert opinions,” RACIRS contributed to creating an atmosphere of fear and submission within society, which was an important element in preparing for potential military conflicts. Religious and cultural minorities were portrayed as a “fifth column,” which increased public support for repressive measures.
6. Compilation of blacklists and elimination of unwanted individuals. As a result of RACIRS’ long-standing efforts to eradicate “cultists” and “sectarians,” many leaders and members of new religious movements included in RACIRS’ blacklists ended up imprisoned or expelled from the country.

All of these actions have been part of a large-scale strategy aimed at mobilizing society and suppressing any forms of resistance. As a result, an atmosphere has been created where fear and xenophobia became a norm and repressive methods served as tools of control. Moreover, destruction of religious pluralism, democratic principles, and cultural diversity is viewed as a necessary condition for creating a monolithic and controlled society ready for war.

Hence, an interim conclusion can be drawn: if Alexander Dvorkin and his long-standing fight against religious pluralism had not existed in modern Russian history, we believe that Russian society wouldn’t have been so susceptible to ideas of violent suppression of other nations and wouldn’t have been prone to Nazism. This means that the war between Russia and Ukraine might not have taken place. Without years-long conditioning of public consciousness with Nazi ideas by Alexander Dvorkin, there would have been neither a million people dead nor tens of millions of ruined destinies or cities wiped off the face of the earth today.

Resurgence of nazism in Russia

We have already written extensively about the origins of xenophobic ideas in Alexander Dvorkin’s mind, which later transformed into a powerful propaganda tool reminiscent of Goebbels’ methods. Once again, we would like to remind you that within the framework of an independent international investigation covered in “The IMPACT” documentary, a direct connection was established between Walter Künneth’s Apologetic Center and its modern counterpart, RACIRS (Russian Association of Centers for the Study of Religion and Sects). To avoid misunderstanding, it’s important to emphasize that this organization has never engaged in objective studies of religions, but merely used its name as a cover. Dvorkin himself has never concealed that his goal is forceful suppression of the population categories he labels as “cultists” and “sectarians.”

In this regard, it is crucial to highlight that there has always been a sharp confrontation between Russian religious scholars and the academic community on one side and Alexander Dvorkin’s totalitarian sect on the other. This confrontation is rooted in fundamental disagreements regarding the approaches to studying and interpreting religious movements. We’ll elaborate on this topic later.

“The IMPACT” documentary released in the summer of 2024 proved that Dvorkin’s radical ideas weren’t original. He borrowed them from Johannes Aagaard and Friedrich-Wilhelm Haack, leading European anticultists of the late 20th century. Haack, in turn, inherited his ideology directly from Walter Künneth. In 1921, the Apologetic Center was established under the Protestant Church, serving as a precursor to modern anticult organizations, with Künneth taking the helm a few years later, according to a number of sources. These ideas, like seeds of Nazism, later reemerged through Dvorkin’s totalitarian sect, foreshadowing new human sacrifices and upheavals. We have detailed anticult methods and succession relationships in the articles:

• The New Face of Nazism: Anti-Cultism (The IMPACT. Video & Text Version)
• Ideology Of Nazism As A Threat To Modern Democracy
• Method of “Marking with Yellow Stars”
• Lies and Propaganda: Foundation of Anticultism

Nazi nethods of Dvorkin’s sect

Among the destructive Nazi methods employed for a long time by Dvorkin’s totalitarian sect, we can highlight the following:

1. Dehumanization and demonization  

• Use of stigmatizing terminology: Dvorkin actively employs terms such as “totalitarian sects,” “destructive cults,” “psychocults,” and “dangerous sects,” which create an enemy image and contribute to dehumanization of members of targeted groups. This rhetoric is reminiscent of Nazi language where certain groups (e.g. Jews and Roma) were depicted as “subhumans” or “threats to society.”
• Creating an “internal enemy” image: Members of new religious movements (NRMs) are portrayed as dangerous to society, which results in their social isolation and discrimination. 
• Creating an “external enemy” image: This tactic allows Dvorkin to shape the perception of Russia as a victim of aggressive external influence, justifying repressions against religious minorities and dissenters. “The West is a source of decay;” “Sects and cults are weapons against Russia.”

2. Propaganda and manipulation of public opinion  

• Spreading fear and panic: Dvorkin actively involves mass media to disseminate information about the “sectarian and cultist threat,” which causes mass hysteria and suspicion towards any non-traditional religious groups. 
• Distortion of facts: Critics point out that in his works, Dvorkin consistently exaggerated or distorted information about the activities of NRMs to enhance their negative image.
• Multiple repetition of lies: Anticultists from RACIRS adopted the principles of Goebbels’ propaganda: they employ the same key tactic — incessant repetition of lies. In Nazi Germany, this method led to even the most absurd information being perceived as truth, and this was another key principle of Nazi propaganda articulated by Joseph Goebbels: “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” 

It’s important to emphasize the principle successfully used by anticultists: the more absurd and illogical a statement is, the easier it is for the masses to accept it if it is repeated frequently enough. In this case, the mechanism of emotional memory is engaged. When information is reinforced by vivid emotions and fear, it becomes much more deeply rooted in consciousness than simple facts which are quickly forgotten.

3. Ideological justification for persecution

• Creation of a pseudoscientific basis: Dvorkin positions himself as an expert on cults and sects, although his methods and conclusions have often been criticized as lacking scientific rigor. This resembles the Nazi practice of using pseudoscience to justify discrimination.  
• Classification of various groups as “enemies of the state”: In his works, Dvorkin equated NRMs with extremist organizations, thus creating an ideological foundation for persecuting them.

4. Support for repressive measures

• Lobbying for anticult laws: Dvorkin actively participated in the development of legislative initiatives aimed at restricting the activities of NRMs. This included proposals to ban certain groups and increase control over religious life.  
• Involvement in court proceedings: His expert opinions were used in courts to justify persecution of NRM members, which sometimes led to unjust verdicts.

5. Collective responsibility  

• Blaming all members of a group: Dvorkin often views all participants in NRMs as potentially dangerous, regardless of their personal beliefs or behavior. This resembles the Nazi practice of collective responsibility where entire groups of people were persecuted for the actions of some individuals.

6. Guilt by association  

• Guilt by association is a tactic where a particular religious group or movement is labeled a “sect” or “destructive cult,” while their members are labeled “sectarians” or “cultists,” solely based on their alleged connections to someone already classified as part of “totalitarian” organizations. It serves as a convenient tool for discrediting opponents and religious movements without a real analysis of their activities. 
• Comparison: A new religious movement can be declared a cult or a sect simply because it uses methods resembling those employed by “dangerous” organizations in the past.
• Creation of mythical connections: If a religious leader or members have contact with a representative of another, already “stigmatized” group, this can become grounds for accusations even if their teachings and practices differ. 
• Ideological proximity: A criticized group may be labeled a “cult” or a “sect” on the basis that its ideas resemble the concepts of another, previously condemned organization.

7. Using fear of “brainwashing”  

• The concept of “mind control”: Dvorkin actively promotes the idea that members of NRMs are being “brainwashed,” which strips them of their status as independent individuals and justifies interference in their lives. This is similar to Nazi rhetoric where certain groups were portrayed as “zombified” or “deficient.”  

8. Creating an atmosphere of intolerance  

• Encouragement of whistleblowing: Dvorkin urges the public to report on “sectarian and cultist activities,” fostering an atmosphere of suspicion and fear.  
• Marginalization of victims: Persecuted members of NRMs often encounter social isolation, job loss, and other forms of discrimination.

9. Incitement to genocide against the Ukrainian people 

• Creation of an external enemy image: In his public statements, Alexander Dvorkin claimed that the Ukrainian government, both before and after 2014, was shaped under the influence of totalitarian sects which, as he argued, were alien to traditional values and Russian spiritual culture. This kind of stance, framed through the lens of “sectology,” became a powerful ideological tool capable of “heating up” public consciousness with xenophobic sentiments.

Instead of conclusions

A legitimate question arises: why hasn’t Dvorkin’s destructive activity been stopped? Why hasn’t it been duly resisted? Those who could have opposed it — the victims of anticult propaganda, the so-called “cultists” and “sectarians,” and representatives of the academic community — found themselves either suppressed or ignored. The former, who became victims of RACIRS’ attacks, lost court cases and faced criminal charges, which deprived them of the ability to fight back. The latter, the scientific community, although it attempted to voice criticism and warnings, ultimately ended up unheard. Dvorkin’s totalitarian sect has simply pushed them to the sidelines.  

We will discuss the conflict between the academic community and Dvorkin’s anticult sect in our next article.