Legal and Linguistic Analysis of A.L. Dvorkin’s Book “Sectology”

A favorite practice of Alexander Dvorkin and his associates is the use of pseudoscientific expert evaluations aimed not at objective analysis, but rather at confirming predetermined accusatory rhetoric. Those evaluations are usually based on evaluative judgments that are not supported with strict methodology, but perform a totally practical function: they create a tool of pressure on investigative bodies and courts. As a result, investigative and judicial authorities find themselves under the influence of a pseudoscientific “opinion” that forces them to make a predetermined decision — one that benefits Dvorkin and his circle. Thus, the evaluations themselves are used as a mechanism to legitimize court rulings aimed at designating the activities and literature of religious and social groups as extremist — groups that Dvorkin’s network deliberately seeks to destroy.

However, if we apply similar criteria and methods of analysis to the works of Alexander Dvorkin himself, but do it in an independent manner, an objective linguistic and legal analysis reveals in them a number of characteristics that can be regarded as indicators of extremist materials.

In particular, we’re referring to his most famous book, “Sectology” (“Cult Studies”). The first edition of this work was published in 1998 under the title “Introduction to Sectology. Textbook for Sectology Course.” It was basically a brochure compiled of lectures that Dvorkin started delivering back in 1995 at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Institute. Subsequently, the author significantly revised and expanded the material, and in 2000 a new edition was released — “Sectology. Totalitarian Sects: Experience of Systematic Research.” It was this very expanded edition that became the most famous. It was repeatedly republished and became the main textbook for students of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University of Humanities where Dvorkin taught.

Over time, the book “Sectology” acquired the status of a kind of “bible” for all those in Russia and abroad engaged in the fight against the so-called “sects” and “cults.” Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), Russian public figures, deputies and officials systematically refer to it, forming their ideological and legal arguments based on the ideas outlined in this book. Therefore, “Sectology” has become a fundamental source for the entire anticult campaign carried out in Russia and broadcast to other countries through RACIRS’ anticult network supervised by Dvorkin.

Even with a preliminary linguistic and psychological analysis, it can be revealed that “Sectology” contains clear signs of an ideology of religious exclusivity and superiority. In its logic and rhetoric, it reproduces a model similar to the ideology of racial purity during the Nazi era, but applied to the religious sphere. It consistently conveys an idea that only the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Moscow Patriarchate, is a “true and pure religion,” while all other faiths are treated as false, diabolical, and subject to eradication. These attitudes are disguised under sophisticated pseudoscientific wordings and academic appearances, but a careful linguistic analysis exposes their true meaning: formation of hostile mindsets, incitement to hatred, and justification for excluding other religious traditions from the societal and legal space and destroying them as such.

The above conclusion isn’t a subjective opinion or journalistic judgment. Independent linguistic and legal examinations conducted using recognized methods of text analysis confirm the presence in the book “Sectology” of a set of characteristics that can be regarded as indicators of extremist literature. The key criteria for extremist materials are contents that publicly manifest elements of incitement to hatred or enmity, humiliation of dignity, or propaganda of discrimination, including on religious grounds, and “Sectology” largely meets these criteria.

If enforcement of law in Russia was truly democratic and impartial, the legal consequences that are currently inflicted on religious minorities as a result of Dvorkin’s expert evaluations should have equally applied to Dvorkin himself as the author of the book containing signs of religious enmity.

It is especially important to emphasize that forensic linguistics as a discipline doesn’t use ideological criteria for analysis, but purely formal and legal ones: semantics of texts, pragmatic impact of speech acts, and a presence of markers of discrimination and calls for alienation. In this case, objective markers, such as the use of generalizing negative characteristics against entire religious groups, appeals to social exclusion, and discrediting of religious associations, are found in the book “Sectology” repeatedly, not once or twice.

That is why independent experts who carried out a comprehensive legal and linguistic examination using scientifically recognized and proven methods of text analysis (lexical, semantic, contextual, discursive, and pragmatic), without any political or other bias, come to a reasoned opinion: “Sectology” contains all indicators of extremist literature. This conclusion corresponds not only to the norms of Russian legislation (in particular, the Federal Law “On Countering Extremist Activities”), but also complies with the criteria of the European Court of Human Rights and the Ukrainian legislation.

Below we present excerpts from the above-mentioned legal opinion and some pieces of linguistic evaluation prepared by independent experts who consistently and reasonably prove why Dvorkin’s book “Sectology” has characteristics that make it fall under the definition of extremist material both under Russian laws and under the provisions of European and Ukrainian law.

Legal Opinion on the Evaluation of the Contents of A.L. Dvorkin’s Book “Sectology” for Signs of Extremist Activity and Incitement of Religious Enmity

1. Introduction

This legal opinion has been prepared to conduct a comprehensive legal evaluation of the contents of A.L. Dvorkin’s book “Sectology. Totalitarian Sects: Experience of Systematic Research” for the presence of indicators in the text that qualify as extremist activity or incitement to enmity in various legal systems. The analysis is based on conclusions of psychological and linguistic expert reports, as well as on a study and comparative analysis of the legislation and law enforcement practice of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and relevant international norms (including UN recommendations and European Union norms and regulations).

List of Investigated Materials and Jurisdictions:

• A.L. Dvorkin’s book “Sectology. Totalitarian Sects: Experience of Systematic Research.”
• Psychological and linguistic expert opinions on individual chapters of the book.
• Federal Law of the Russian Federation, dated July 25, 2002 No. 114-FZ, “On Countering Extremist Activities,” and relevant articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 280, 282, 282.1, 282.2, 282.3) and the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (Articles 20.3.1 and 20.29).
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 19 and 20), the Rabat Plan of Action, the EU Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA, the EU Digital Services Act (DSA).

2. Consolidated Analysis of Psychological and Linguistic Expert Evaluations

Based on the reviewed expert opinions, it has been established that the text of A.L. Dvorkin’s book “Sectology” contains numerous systematically organized linguistic and psycholinguistic indicators characteristic of hate speech. Linguistic evaluations consistently identify the deliberate use of linguistic means and speech strategies in the text aimed at forming a sharply negative, hostile, and derogatory attitude in a reader toward certain religious and para-religious groups and their followers (in particular, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Pentecostals, Scientologists, Krishna devotees, adherents of Hinduism, and others). 

2.1 Representative Samples of Linguistic Analysis of Quotations from the Book Text Conducted under Expert Linguistic Evaluations

Quotes from A.L. Dvorkin’s book “Sectology”

Legal Characterization

• (On Hinduism): “Hinduism, especially in its occult aspect, nourishes and, possibly, constitutes the core of the religion forming before our eyes or rather the consensus of the religions of the Antichrist.”
• (On Krishna): “How can one not recall here the words of the Savior about
• (On Mormon rituals): “From the Orthodox point of view, such ‘substitute baptisms’… are a terrible blasphemy, comparable only to the desecration of graves by Satanists…”

These statements are intentional actions aimed at the incitement of religious enmity. Identifying world religions, their deities, and sacred practices with the existential enemy of Christianity (Antichrist, devil, Satanism) constitutes an act of verbal aggression. The purpose of such assertions is to evoke the feelings of horror, disgust, and hatred in the reader by portraying religious opponents as absolute, infernal evil, the fight against which becomes a sacred duty.

The author deliberately attributes intentions associated with violence, genocide, and malicious anticipation of the death of the rest of humanity to to religious groups, forming an image of inhumane and socially dangerous enemies.

Quotes from A.L. Dvorkin’s book “Sectology”

Legal Characterization

• (On Jehovah’s Witnesses): “However, now ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’… will merely enjoy the spectacle of the heavenly army beating all their enemies, and when it is over, they will take part in cleansing the Earth of the remaining ‘trash’ (obviously, as well as of billions of human bodies).”
•  (On Jehovah’s Witnesses): “…the Jehovah’s Witnesses have no moral obstacles to genocide.”

These statements are qualified as intentional actions aimed at incitement of religious hatred and enmity.

Attributing sadistic “pleasure” in violence to the group and directly accusing it of being prepared for genocide are manifestations of a strategy of intimidation. The text creates an image of a mortal threat, which instills a sense of hatred in the reader and psychologically justifies any “defensive” measures against such an enemy.

The author consistently employs offensive vocabulary and dehumanizing neologisms in order to portray the adherents of the described religions as primitive, inferior, and weak-willed beings.

Quotes from A.L. Dvorkin’s Book “Sectology”

Legal Characterization

• (On Jehovah’s Witnesses): “…creates its own man… homo jehovisticum… speaking in an ugly  mediocre language, reading mediocre ruminant printed media…”.
• (On the Hare Krishnas): “There were also those who, being outcasts and losers, did not find a place for themselves in Western society… gladly rushed into the wide-open arms of Prabhupada, who readily took them into slavery.”
• (On the Book of Mormon): “…the Mormon bible is nothing more than a talentless fiction…”, “in the end, delivered a bastard…” (about the language of the book).

The cited fragments contain indicators of propaganda of the inferiority of citizens and intentional actions aimed at the humiliation of the dignity of a group of persons based on their religious beliefs.

The use of the pseudo-scientific neologism “homo jehovisticum,” offensive epithets (“ugly,” “ruminant”), crude abusive vocabulary (“bastard”) to characterize a sacred text, and attributing low social status (“outcasts,” “slaves”)  to believers  are direct acts of humiliation, forming a sense of contempt and aversion in the reader.

The text constructs a rigid hierarchy, in which one religious position (the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate) is implicitly presented as the only valid and salvific one, while all others are declared false, destructive, and spiritually inferior.

Quotes from A.L. Dvorkin’s Book “Sectology”

Legal Characterization

• (General Thesis): “Unlike the salvific path offered by the Orthodox Church, the teachings of sects lead their followers to spiritual and psychological degradation…”.
• (On the Mormons): “…Mormons are neither Reformers nor Protestants but a
• (On Jehovah’s Witnesses): “Any freedom of personality for a sect member is out of the question.”

These statements contain direct signs of propaganda of exclusivity, the superiority of one group of citizens over another, and the inferiority of other groups on the basis of their religious beliefs. The direct opposition of “the salvific path” and “degradation” asserts a hierarchy of religions. The deprivation of other groups of Christian identity (“pagans”) and the assertion of the absence of “freedom of personality” among their followers is a direct declaration of their social and spiritual inferiority.

2.2 Evaluation of Intent and Systematic Nature of the Author’s Actions

The analysis conducted demonstrates that the author’s use of the above-mentioned speech strategies is not accidental but systematic and deliberate. Throughout the entire text of the book, with regard to various unrelated religious movements, one and the same set of techniques is employed (demonization, dehumanization, attribution of hostility, and propaganda of inferiority).

Such systemic and uniform methods of linguistic impact attest to the presence of express intent on the part of the author, aimed not at objective research or criticism, but specifically at incitement of religious enmity and discord, humiliation of the dignity of groups of persons, and propaganda of their inferiority.

The communicative purpose of the book is to persuade the reader of the absolute danger and depravity of the religions described, to instill in them and their followers a lasting sense of hatred, fear, and contempt, and also to ideologically justify the need to fight against them. At the same time, the text is aimed at forming in the reader, who identifies with Orthodoxy within the framework of the Moscow Patriarchate, a sense of their own superiority as a “full-fledged and developed citizen” in contrast to representatives of other creeds, who are described as “inferior” or “slavish.” Such rhetoric reproduces elements of a discriminatory ideology and, by its nature, corresponds with signs of Nazi propaganda, based on the assertion of the superiority of one group and the disparagement of others.

2.3 Key Findings of the Expert Evaluations:

• •  Presence of indications of creating a negative image and inciting hatred/hostility: The text constructs an “enemy image” by attributing to the described groups destructive, socially dangerous, immoral, criminal, and even demonic qualities and intentions. Techniques of stigmatization are employed (labeling groups as “totalitarian sect,” “destructive cult,” “pseudo-,” “occult”), demonization (making associations with “demons,” “the devil,” “the religion of the Antichrist,” “Satanism,” death cults, etc.), pathologization (describing members as persons with a “crippled psyche,” victims of “zombification,” “mind control,” group leaders as individuals with mental disorders), as well as the generalization of negative characteristics to all followers of the group. A strict binary opposition is created — “we” (bearers of truth and order) versus “they” (bearers of lies, evil, and chaos) — based on religious criteria.
  • Presence of indications of humiliating human dignity: The use of derogatory, offensive, and abusive language directed at groups, their leaders, teachings, and sacred texts was identified (e.g., “bastard” with respect to the language of a sacred text, “trash” with respect to people, as well as comparing rituals with the actions of “Satanists”). Techniques of dehumanization are applied (comparisons with animals, mechanisms, the creation of derogatory neologisms such as “homo jehovisticum”), mockery and sarcasm, as well as the attribution of base qualities and vices (lewdness, fraud, and charlatanism).
  • Presence of indications of propaganda of inferiority and superiority: The text asserts the inferiority (intellectual, moral, spiritual, psychological) of the followers of the described groups and of their teachings (absurdity, illogicality, falsity, and deficiency), while simultaneously — implicitly or explicitly — asserting the superiority of its own religious position (connected with Orthodoxy of the Moscow Patriarchate) as the only true norm.
  • Presence of indications of indirect inducement to hostile actions and their justification: The text contains no direct imperative calls to commit physical violence. However, linguistic expert evaluations note the presence of indirect inducement to hostile, restrictive, or discriminatory actions and their justification. This is achieved through the systematic construction of the image of the group as an existential threat, as a bearer of an ideology of violence (e.g., assertions about readiness for “genocide,” descriptions of “enjoying beatings”), the use of military rhetoric, and the creation of an informational background in which any countermeasures (including potentially unlawful ones) are perceived as necessary self-defense of society.

Final Evaluation by Jurisdictions

On the basis of a consolidated analysis of the expert opinions and a comparison of the identified linguistic markers with the legal criteria of each jurisdiction:

3.1. Russian Federation

• Whether the book falls under the definition of extremist material: Yes. The identified systematic markers of incitement of religious hatred and enmity, humiliation of dignity on the grounds of religious affiliation, as well as propaganda of inferiority/superiority, fully correspond to the definitions of extremist activity set forth in Article 1 of Federal Law No. 114-FZ, “On Countering Extremist Activities.” These markers also fall under the disposition of Article 282 CC RF and Article 20.3.1 of the CAO RF. The markers of incitement to use of violence may be qualified as a form of extremist activity or aiding and abetting such activity.

The focus of Russian legislation is on incitement of social, racial, national, or religious discord, as well as on propaganda of exclusivity, superiority, or inferiority on the corresponding grounds. The systematic and deliberate nature of the author’s use of hate speech and humiliation, as identified by linguistic expert evaluations, constitutes persuasive grounds for the law enforcement. The presence of indirect inducement to hostility and its justification also plays a role.

3.2. Ukraine

• Whether the book falls under the definition of extremist material: Yes. The found indications of incitement of religious enmity and hatred, humiliation of human dignity, and offending the religious feelings of citizens based on their religious beliefs directly correspond to the elements of an offense provided for in Article 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (“Violation of equality of citizens depending on their race, nationality, religious beliefs, and other grounds”). This provision covers both public statements inciting enmity and hatred on religious grounds and actions aimed at the humiliation of dignity and restriction of the rights of citizens depending on their religious beliefs.

Thus, the totality of the found indications allows for the conclusion that the book under review may be recognized as material containing elements of an offense under Article 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (incitement of religious enmity, humiliation of dignity, and offending feelings on the basis of religious beliefs);

3.3. International Norms (UN and EU)

• Whether the book falls under the definition of extremist material (in the context of internationally recognized grounds for restricting freedom of speech): Yes. The found systematic indications of incitement of religious hatred, humiliation of dignity, propaganda of inferiority, and indirect inducement to hostile actions exhibit the characteristics of incitement to religious enmity and discrimination, which are prohibited by Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In accordance with the UN Rabat Plan of Action, such forms of expression fall under a high threshold of evaluation as speech acts creating a risk of discrimination and hostility, and in the presence of sufficient evidence of intent and likelihood of harm may be qualified as subject to restriction. Similarly, the Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA classifies public incitement to hatred on religious grounds as a criminally punishable act. Therefore, in the international legal context, this book may be categorized as material not protected by Article 19 of the ICCPR and subject to lawful restriction for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and of public security.

Relevant International Norms:

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 19 guarantees the right to freedom of expression. Article 20 prohibits any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.
• Rabat Plan of Action (2012): A UN OHCHR document clarifies the scope of application of Article 20 ICCPR. It proposes a six-part threshold test to determine whether a statement constitutes incitement to hatred: (1) social and political context, (2) status of the speaker, (3) intent to incite the audience against the target group, (4) content and form of the statement, (5) extent of the speech act, and (6) likelihood of harm, including imminence. The Rabat Plan sets a high threshold for restrictions on freedom of expression.
• Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA: Requires member states to criminalize public incitement to violence or hatred defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.
• EU Digital Services Act (DSA, 2022): Establishes obligations for online platforms to remove illegal content, including hate speech and extremist expressions, in accordance with national law and EU law.

Correlation of the Book’s Content with International Standards (Based on Expert Findings):

Expert opinions identify linguistic indicators to be considered in light of Article 20 ICCPR and the EU Framework Decision, particularly markers of incitement of religious hatred, humiliation of dignity, propaganda of inferiority, and indirect inducement to hostile actions.

Application of the Rabat Test (Six Factors):

(1) Context: The book was published during a period of active debate on “sects” in Russia and beyond, in the context of anticult movement activities. Expert evaluations note a polemical, anti-sectarian discourse.

(2) Status of the Speaker: The author is a well-known figure in the anticult movement. His book is perceived as an authoritative source in certain circles. The book is used as a textbook in higher educational institutions in Russia and, in particular, at the university where the author taught — PSTGU.

(3) Intent: Expert evaluations identified the author’s deliberate communicative intent — polemical persuasion of the reader regarding the falsity, immorality, and danger of groups; the formation of a sharply negative, hostile attitude; discrediting and dehumanization. Experts state an implicit intention to incite violence, noting the intent to foster hostility and to justify restrictive measures.

(4) Content and Form: Expert evaluations describe in detail the use of demonizing, dehumanizing, and derogatory language; the creation of an enemy image; attribution of dangerous intentions (including potential genocide); as well as use of military rhetoric. The form — a published book claiming scientific/analytical status — may reinforce its impact.

(5) Extent of dissemination: The book is a published print edition, available to a wide audience. The book is freely available for download online on multiple websites. Publication of the book constitutes a public act.

(6) Likelihood of Harm: Expert evaluations indicate that the text can evoke in readers fear, disgust, anger, a sense of moral superiority, animosity, and effectively lower the threshold of tolerance, up to an (implicit) sense of necessity for opposition, isolation, and pressure. This can be qualified as creating conditions for discrimination, hostility, or potential violence.

Evaluation Under the Rabat Plan: Based on expert findings, factors (1)–(5) may be qualified as contributing to the characterization of the statements as incitement to hatred or discrimination. The author’s identified intent to foster hostility, content and form evoking strong rejection and demonizing groups, and the public nature of dissemination are significant. Factor (6) — the likelihood of harm, including imminence — is the most complex. Expert evaluations note a lowering of tolerance thresholds and the creation of preconditions for hostile actions, rather than immediate violence. However, under Article 20 ICCPR, the matter concerns incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. Systematic incitement of hatred, humiliation of dignity, and propaganda of inferiority may be classified as incitement to hostility and discrimination, even in the absence of direct calls for violence. However, implicit speech constructions have been identified that shape negative attitudes in the audience and encourage hostile attitudes and violence. Thus, the book bears significant indicators of incitement to religious hatred and discrimination under the Rabat standards.

Evaluation of the book under international standards may have the following consequences:

• Serve as grounds for recognition of the book as extremist material or as inciting hatred under the national law of states that are parties to the ICCPR or members of the EU.
• Be used by international human rights bodies (for example, the UN Human Rights Committee, ECHR) in evaluating the conformity of national legislation or judicial decisions with international obligations in the field of freedom of expression and countering discrimination/hatred.
• Lead to public condemnation of the book’s content by international organizations and experts.

International norms emphasize the need to balance combating hate speech with protecting freedom of expression. Any restrictions must be necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. However, the speech that systematically incites hatred and humiliates the dignity of a group on religious grounds, as identified in the case of Dvorkin’s book, is generally not considered protected under international law and may lawfully be restricted.

4. Final Conclusion

On the basis of a comprehensive legal analysis and taking into account the findings of the psychological and linguistic expert evaluations, A.L. Dvorkin’s book “Sectology” contains numerous and systemically expressed indicators of hate speech, aimed at incitement of religious hatred and enmity, humiliation of dignity, and propaganda of the inferiority of citizens based on their religious affiliation, as well as indirect inducement to hostile actions.

The speech strategies employed by A.L. Dvorkin are not random stylistic devices. They form a unified, interconnected system directed at achieving a specific perlocutionary effect — incitement of hatred, enmity, and humiliation of human dignity. The text does not merely criticize religious doctrines, but deliberately constructs an enemy image designed to evoke fear, disgust, and aggression in the reader.

The combined use of demonization, dehumanization, pathologization, and enemy construction creates an informational environment in which discrimination and hostile actions toward members of “sects” and “cults” begin to be perceived not merely as possible, but as necessary and justified. Thus, the content of the book directly contributes to the formation in society of an atmosphere of religious intolerance and discord.

Therefore, based on the findings of the psychological and linguistic expert evaluations, A.L. Dvorkin’s book “Sectology” contains numerous and systemically organized linguistic indicators characteristic of hate speech, aimed at incitement of religious hatred and enmity, humiliation of dignity, and propaganda of the inferiority of citizens based on their religious beliefs.

• Under the legislation of the Russian Federation: as identified by experts, the systemic indicators of incitement of religious hatred and enmity, humiliation of dignity based on religious affiliation, as well as propaganda of inferiority and superiority on religious grounds, fully correspond to the definitions of extremist activity in Federal Law of the Russian Federation, dated July 25, 2002 No. 114-FZ, “On Countering Extremist Activities” (Article 1) and constitute grounds for the application of Article 282 CC RF or Article 20.3.1 CAO RF. Indicators of indirect inducement to hostile actions may also be qualified as a form of extremist activity.
• Under the legislation of Ukraine: as identified by experts, the indicators of incitement of religious enmity and hatred, humiliation of dignity and offending religious feelings, as well as indicators of propaganda of inferiority/superiority, directly correlate with Article 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
• Under international norms (UN and EU): as identified by experts, the systemic indicators of incitement of religious hatred and enmity, humiliation of dignity, propaganda of inferiority, and indirect inducement to hostile actions contain prominent elements of incitement to religious enmity and discrimination under the standards of the Rabat Plan of Action of the UN OHCHR (Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and of public incitement to hatred under the standards of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of the EU.

The findings of the conducted expert evaluations contain sufficient and convincing grounds for the legal characterization of A.L. Dvorkin’s book “Sectology” as extremist material and/or a work inciting religious hatred and enmity in accordance with the provisions of national legislation of various states.

Excerpts From Linguistic Expert Evaluations

Expert Evaluation of the Chapter “Society for Krishna Consciousness” of the book “Sectology”

Object of the Evaluation: Text constituting Section 4 “Pseudo-Hindu Sects” of A.L. Dvorkin’s book “Sectology. Totalitarian Sects: Experience of Systematic Research,” in particular, Chapter 9 “Society for Krishna Consciousness.” 

Subject of the Expert Evaluation: Linguistic and psychological indicators pointing to the possible presence in the evaluated text of statements aimed at incitement of hatred or enmity, humiliation of the dignity of a person or group of persons based on religion or membership in a social group; propaganda of exclusivity, superiority, or inferiority of citizens based on their religious affiliation or attitude toward religion; as well as calls to carry out unlawful acts.

Questions Posed to the Expert:

1. Does the presented text contain linguistic and psychological indicators of incitement of hatred, enmity, discord against groups of persons distinguished on religious or social grounds (in particular, followers of Hinduism, its movements, referred to by the author as “pseudo-Hindu sects”)?
2. Does the presented text contain linguistic and psychological indicators of humiliation of dignity of a person or group of persons based on religious or social affiliation (in particular, followers of Hinduism, its movements, as well as persons not sharing religious views)?

Research Section

The research was conducted using methods of semantic, stylistic, pragmatic, and discourse analysis with the aim of identifying in the text linguistic and psychological indicators relevant to answering the posed questions. The research aims to analyze A.L. Dvorkin’s original text, including his interpretations, opinions, and methods of presenting the cited material.

1.Analysis of the presence of linguistic and psychological indicators of incitement of hatred, enmity, discord (Re. Question No. 1)

Incitement of hatred, enmity, or discord as a communicative effect implies the deliberate formation in the audience of a sharply negative, aggressive attitude toward a certain group of persons. Linguistically, this is achieved through the creation of a generalized “enemy” image, attribution to this group of destructive, immoral, or socially dangerous intentions and qualities, as well as the use of expressive hate speech.

1.1. Building a Generalized Negative Image of Hinduism and Its Currents

The author repeatedly employs lexical and rhetorical devices to construct the image of Hinduism and related movements as an alien, hostile, and dangerous force for Christianity and Western civilization.

Analysis of Excerpt 1: Characterization of Hinduism as “Paganism” and “the Religion of the Antichrist”

Thus, “Hinduism as it is” is the most powerful pagan tradition of our time. …Hinduism, especially in its occult aspect, nourishes and, possibly, constitutes the core of the religion forming before our eyes or rather the consensus of the religions of the Antichrist. Modern Hinduism, and above all the guruist sects, is a missionary challenge to the Church of Christ…

Linguistic Analysis:

• Lexical and semantic aspects: The author applies terms that bear sharply negative connotations within the framework of Christian discourse.
• “Pagan tradition”: In the context of Orthodox apologetics, the term “paganism” conveys the meaning of a false religion, the worship of creation instead of the Creator; delusion. The application of this term to an entire world religion with a billion followers is a generalized negative label.
• “Occult aspect”: The word “occult” is associated with secret, harmful, demonic practices, contrasted with the open Divine Revelation.
• “Religion of the Antichrist”: This is the strongest means of demonization. The author directly links Hinduism with the eschatological enemy of Christianity — the Antichrist. This is not mere criticism but the declaration of Hinduism as absolute evil from the standpoint of Christian faith.
• “Missionary challenge to the Church of Christ”: This phrase reinforces the paradigm of war and opposition set by the epigraph.

Pragmatic aspect: The author does not analyze but passes a sentence. Assertions are presented as a matter of fact (“constitutes the core,” “is a challenge”). Such a categorical tone is intended to leave the reader no room for doubt and to shape an unambiguously hostile attitude toward Hinduism as a phenomenon bringing spiritual ruin.

Psychological aspect: The association of the religious opponent with the figure of the Antichrist is a powerful means of arousing religious hatred and fear. This moves the polemic out of the rational field into that of irrational, existential hostility, where compromise is impossible, and the struggle against the “religion of the Antichrist” becomes a sacred duty.

1.2. Demonization of Deities and Religious Practices 

The author consistently employs the technique of negative interpretation to discredit objects of worship and key practices of the religions under description.

Analysis of Excerpt 2: Description of the Goddess Kali

The word Kali is the feminine form of kala, one of Shiva’s names, meaning “black,” “time,” “fate,” and “death.” The descriptions of Kali’s appearance offered in tantric literature for meditation are repulsive. Blood, severed hands and heads as decorations, corpses, frenzy – this is the “imagery” used here. …And yet, the pagan indistinction between God and demons, good and evil, and the temptation with the false beauty of the latter are fully evident here…

Linguistic Analysis:

• Word choice: The author deliberately selects words with the most negative emotional connotations: “repulsive,” “blood,” “severed hands and heads,” “corpses,” “frenzy.” The symbolic interpretation of these attributes is mentioned in Hinduism itself (“interpreted symbolically”), but is immediately rejected by the rhetorical device “And yet…”, followed by the author’s conclusion, presented as the ultimate truth.
• Imposed evaluation: The phrase “the pagan confusion of God and demons, good and evil” is not an analysis, but an evaluative judgment that attributes a fundamental moral flaw to an entire religious tradition. The statement “are fully evident here” categorically presents the author’s subjective interpretation as an objective, self-evident fact.
• Psychological aspect: The text shapes in the reader a sense of revulsion and horror toward the object of worship of millions of people. The goddess Kali is presented not as a complex symbol but as a concentration of cruelty and evil. Such a description is aimed at arousing hostility and enmity toward followers of Shaktism who, according to the author’s logic, worship this “horror.”

Analysis of Excerpt 3: Interpretation of the Name “Krishna”

They worship a god whom they call Krishna (in Sanskrit “black,” “dark,” or “dark blue” — a telling name).

…the word Krishna… means “black,” “dark,” i.e., “a dark spiritual entity.”

Linguistic Analysis:

• Manipulative interpretation: The author shifts from the neutral etymological meaning (“black,” “dark”) to his own negatively judgmental and demonizing interpretation: “a dark spiritual entity.” This semantic leap is not substantiated linguistically and constitutes a manipulation by the author aimed at discrediting the deity.
• Rhetorical device: The phrase “a telling name” is used as a hint at a hidden, sinister meaning. It prompts the reader for a negative interpretation, which the author later makes explicit. This creates an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility.
• Psychological aspect: An attack on the name of a deity is an attack on the core of faith. By presenting Krishna as “a dark spiritual entity,” the author seeks to instill in the reader aversion and fear toward Krishnaism, forming the image of a hostile, demonic cult.

Analysis of Excerpt 4: Comparison of Krishna with the Devil

(About Krishna) How can one not recall here the words of the Savior about the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning.

Linguistic Analysis:

• Explicit demonization: This is the most straightforward device for inciting religious hatred. The author draws a direct parallel between Krishna, the supreme deity for Krishna devotees, and the devil, the embodiment of absolute evil in Christianity. The rhetorical question “How can one not recall…” creates the illusion that such an association is natural and inevitable.
• Discursive conflict: The author pits two religious paradigms against each other, using the authority of the Gospel to completely destroy the authority of the Bhagavad Gita and its main character. This is not a dialogue or a debate, but an act of verbal aggression aimed at complete rejection and repudiation of other people’s beliefs.
• Psychological aspect: The assertion is aimed to instill in the Christian reader horror and revulsion at the mere thought of Krishnaism, presenting it as a form of Satanism. This fosters an attitude of hostility and intolerance toward the followers of this teaching.

Analysis of the Presence of Linguistic and Psychological Indicators of Humiliation of Dignity (Re. Question No. 2)

Humiliation of a group of persons is achieved through the use of derogatory, offensive names, attributing base qualities to them, comparing them to animals or inanimate objects, as well as through dehumanization.

2.1. Use of Derogatory Vocabulary and Labels

Analysis of Excerpt 5: The Term “Pseudo-Hinduist”

They may be called Neo-Hinduist, although for most of them, in our view, the name pseudo-Hinduist is more appropriate.

Linguistic Analysis:

• Lexical and semantic aspects: The prefix “pseudo-” (from Greek pseudos meaning “false”, “fake”) carries an overtly negative semantics of falsity, spuriousness, and counterfeit. By labeling religious movements “pseudo-Hinduist,” the author denies them authenticity and legitimacy, portraying them as deception and imitation. This is a derogatory label rather than a scholarly term.
• Pragmatic aspect: The phrase “in our view, the name… is more appropriate” presents the author’s subjective evaluative opinion as a more precise and correct classification than the neutral term “Neo-Hinduist.” This is a rhetorical device to impose a negative judgment on the reader.

Analysis of Excerpt 6: Characterization of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness)

ISKCON may be characterized as a pseudo-Hinduist syncretic proselytizing postmodernist neo-pagan totalitarian sect.

Linguistic Analysis:

• Accumulation of negative connotations: The author employs the technique of “stringing together” terms, most of which carry a negative or derogatory meaning in this context. “Pseudo-Hinduist,” “neo-pagan,” “totalitarian sect” are not neutral descriptors but evaluative labels intended for discreditation.
• The term “sect”: In common and journalistic usage in Russia, the word “sect” has a consistently negative connotation, associated with deception, manipulation, psychological abuse, and social danger. Applying this term to a registered religious organization is an act of stigmatization and opposition to “normal,” “traditional” religions.
• Psychological aspect: Such a “characterization” creates in the reader a complex, predetermined negative image of the organization, leaving no room for objective perception. This is an example of verbal “labeling” aimed at the humiliation and social isolation of the group.

2.2. Dehumanization and Attribution of Antisocial Qualities to Followers

The most powerful means of humiliation is dehumanization — depriving a group of people of human status by comparing them to animals or attributing to them exclusively base, vicious motives.

Analysis of Excerpt 7: Characterization of Prabhupada Followers 

There were also those who, being outcasts and losers, did not find a place for themselves in Western society, and, embittered by a world that had cast them on the margins, gladly rushed into the wide-open arms of Prabhupada, who readily took them into slavery. 

Linguistic Analysis:

• Social stigmatization: The author attributes exclusively negative social characteristics to the movement’s followers (“outcasts,” “losers”). Their religious choice is explained not by spiritual search but by personal insolvency and embitterment. This deprives them of personal agency and humiliates their human dignity.
• Words of humiliation: The use of words such as “embittered,” “rushed,” “slavery” creates the image of weak-willed, primitive beings driven by base emotions and incapable of independent, conscious choice. This shapes in the reader a contemptuous attitude toward these people.

Analysis of Excerpt 8: Accusation of Criminal Intent

…ordinary Krishna followers, without hesitation, engaged in crimes. Krishnaite booksellers whom you meet on the streets are victims of deception, but they (willingly or unwillingly) seek to deceive you as well.

These nice and sincere guys are drilled so that, through deception and shameless psychological blackmail, they force people to give them money.

Linguistic Analysis:

• Generalized accusation: The author makes a sweeping statement about the readiness of “ordinary Krishna followers” to commit crimes. This unfounded generalization extends the negative characterization to the entire group.
• Words of criminalization: Words such as “deception,” “shameless psychological blackmail,” “force” directly accuse members of the group of unethical and unlawful conduct. The verb “drilled” carries a derogatory connotation, likening the process of education to animal training.
• Psychological aspect: Such assertions aim to instill in the reader fear and distrust toward members of the group, portraying them as dangerous and dishonest people who should be avoided. This contributes to social isolation and hostility toward them.

Analysis of Excerpt 9: The Doctrine of “Transcendental Deception”

Prabhupada taught that for the sake of Krishna, “transcendental deception” is permissible. And this justifies any deceit and any fraud…

Linguistic Analysis:

• Justification of unlawful actions: The author asserts the existence in Prabhupada’s teaching of a doctrine that legitimizes deceit and fraud. The phrase “justifies any deceit and any fraud” is a direct indication that the teaching provides a rationale for actions that are unlawful and immoral.
• Pragmatic aspect: By presenting this doctrine, the author leads the reader to the conclusion that followers of the movement cannot be trusted, since their religion allows and even encourages lying in order to achieve its goals. This creates the image of the group as socially dangerous and dishonest.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the conducted psychological and linguistic research of the text of the fourth section of A.L. Dvorkin’s book “Sectology”, the expert arrives at the following conclusions:

Regarding Question 1:

The text submitted for evaluation contains linguistic and psychological indicators aimed at incitement of hatred and enmity toward groups of persons distinguished by religious affiliation, in particular, toward Hinduism as a whole and toward certain of its movements, referred to by the author as “pseudo-Hinduist sects.” This is achieved by means of:

• Formation of a generalized “enemy” image through the representation of Hinduism as an aggressive, expansionist force striving for the destruction of Christianity.
• Use of vocabulary with strongly negative connotations to demonize religious traditions and their founders (for example, “paganism,” “religion of the Antichrist,” “demonic,” comparison of deities with the devil).
• Creation of an atmosphere of fear and distrust by attributing hidden destructive and criminal intentions to the described groups.

Regarding Question 2:

The text submitted for evaluation contains numerous linguistic and psychological indicators of humiliation of the dignity of groups of persons based on religious and social affiliation. This is expressed in:

Use of derogatory names and labels (“pseudo-Hinduist,” “totalitarian sect”).

Dehumanization of followers of the described teachings by attributing to them exclusively base motives (personal insolvency, embitterness).

Dissemination of generalized negative characteristics to all members of the group (for example, assertions about the readiness of all “ordinary Krishna followers” to engage in crimes and deception). The author’s strategy consists in selecting and emphasizing such quotations from primary sources that contain similar derogatory characterizations, and in reinforcing them with the author’s own comments.

Psychological and Linguistic Expert Evaluation Concerning the Chapter “Jehovah’s Witnesses” of the Book “Sectology”

Object of the Evaluation: Text of a chapter from A.L. Dvorkin’s book “Sectology. Totalitarian Sects: Experience of Systematic Research,” devoted to criticism of the religious organization Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Purpose of the Expert Evaluation: To establish the presence or absence in the material under examination of psychological and linguistic indicators of extremist activity (hate speech), namely: incitement of hatred or enmity, humiliation of the dignity of a person or group of persons, propaganda of exclusivity, superiority, or inferiority, as well as calls to carry out unlawful acts.

Questions Posed to the Expert:

1. Does the text submitted for expert evaluation contain statements aimed at incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of the dignity of a person or group of persons based on religious affiliation (with respect to the followers of the religious teaching Jehovah’s Witnesses)?
2. Does the text contain statements propagating exclusivity, superiority, or inferiority of a person based on religious affiliation?
3. Does the text contain calls to carry out hostile or violent actions, or assertions justifying or affirming the necessity of carrying out such actions with respect to a group of persons united by religious affiliation?

Methodological and Theoretical Basis of the Expert Evaluation

General Provisions

This study is conducted on the basis of a comprehensive psychological and linguistic approach, which is the standard in forensic expert evaluation of materials suspected of containing indicators of extremism. The expert evaluation is aimed at the objective analysis of the linguistic and rhetorical devices used by the author in order to identify their semantic orientation and potential pragmatic effect (impact on the reader’s consciousness and attitudes). What is analyzed is not the subjective perception of the text, but the meanings, communicative intentions, and strategies objectively embedded in it by the author.

Methods of Analysis Applied

In the course of the study, a set of mutually complementary methods was applied to provide a comprehensive analysis of the object:

Linguistic Analysis:

• Semantic Analysis: Study of lexical and phraseological meanings of words and expressions, their connotations (additional, evaluative meanings), semantic fields (groups of words united by a common theme). Particular attention was paid to vocabulary with negative semantics.
• Stylistic Analysis: Study of the author’s use of tropes (metaphors, comparisons, epithets) and figures of speech (antitheses, hyperboles, rhetorical questions) to create expressiveness, evaluative judgment, and to form a certain image of the object of description.
• Pragmatic Analysis: Analysis of the text as a speech act. The author’s communicative intentions were determined, as well as the effect the text was intended to produce on the addressee (its perlocutionary effect). Speech acts (assertions, accusations, insults, appeals) were analyzed.

Psycholinguistic Analysis:

• Analysis of Speech Impact: Evaluation of how linguistic means are used to influence the psychological mindsets of the reader. This includes identification of manipulative techniques, methods of stereotype formation, suggestion, and persuasion.
• Analysis of Communicative Strategies and Tactics: Identification of general lines of the author’s speech behavior (strategies), such as the strategy of discreditation, the strategy of intimidation, and specific methods of their implementation (tactics), for example, labeling, false analogies, and generalization.

Discourse Analysis:

Consideration of the text in its social and cultural context. The analysis examined how the text constructs social reality, in particular, how it creates and maintains the opposition “we–they,” forms an “enemy image,” and defines relations between social groups.

Key Concepts and Categories of Analysis

• Incitement of Hatred/Enmity: Formation in the addressee’s consciousness of strong dislike, aversion, anger, and aggressive attitudes toward a certain group of persons. Linguistically, this is achieved by creating a negative image of the group, attributing to it dangerous and immoral qualities, and accusing it of causing harm to society.
• Humiliation of Dignity: Attribution to a group or its individual representatives of qualities that, in the system of societal values, are regarded as low, shameful, or inferior. This may be expressed in offensive names, dehumanizing metaphors, or ridicule of values significant for the group.
• Propaganda of Inferiority/Superiority: Promotion of the idea that a group of persons, by its very nature (in this case, based on religious affiliation), is inferior or defective, while another (often the group with which the author or reader identifies) is full-fledged and superior.

Research Section

Analysis for Question No. 1: Statements aimed at incitement of hatred, enmity, and humiliation of dignity

Section 1.1. Formation of the Image of a Hostile and Socially Dangerous Organization Through Stigmatization and Discrediting Analogies

The author systematically applies the strategy of discreditation, using linguistic means that from the very start set a negative framework for perception of the described group.

Quote: “In this sense, ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ can quite well be regarded as a commercial cult or a trade and financial pyramid with an ideological pseudo-religious superstructure…”

Psycholinguistic Commentary:

• Lexical and Semantic Analysis (Discreditation): In this statement the author attacks the religious essence of the group, reducing it to base motives. The definitions “commercial cult” and “trade and financial pyramid” place the group in the semantic field of fraud, deception, and unlawful enrichment. This is a direct accusation that the religious activity is merely a cover for the financial exploitation of its followers.
• Word Formation Analysis: The use of the prefix “pseudo-” in the word “pseudo-religious” is a key marker of humiliation. “Pseudo” means “false, fake.” The author directly states that the group’s religious beliefs and practices are not genuine, but instead represent a fake, an imitation. This is not criticism of doctrine, but a complete denial of its religious character, which constitutes humiliation of the dignity of believers, since their deepest convictions are presented as deception.
• Pragmatic Effect: The statement is aimed at undermining trust in the group and humiliating its followers. Believers are represented either as naive victims of a financial fraud or as its accomplices. This provokes not only aversion toward them but also contempt.

Section 1.2. Attributing Aggressive Intentions and Provocative Activity to the Group

The author actively employs the tactic of attributing hostile intentions (attribution of hostility), presenting the group as a source of social tension.

Quote: “…these and similar statements sharply set Jehovists* against adherents of all other religions… This aggression breaks out and, naturally, gives rise to a retaliatory reaction… Thus, the leadership of the sect provokes interreligious tension and conflict situations…”

*Jehovists is a derogatory term that originated in Russia for Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Psycholinguistic Commentary:

• Analysis of Predicates (Words of Aggression): The author uses verbs and nouns with pronounced semantics of conflict and aggression: “sharply set against,” “aggression,” “provokes,” “interreligious tension,” “conflict situations.” The group (“Jehovists,” “leadership of the sect”) is presented as the active subject of these destructive actions.
• Construction of Causality: The author builds a logical chain in which Jehovah’s Witnesses are the primary cause of all conflicts. Their statements → set them against everyone else → their aggression → retaliatory reaction → they provoke tension. In this model, any negative reaction toward Jehovah’s Witnesses is presented as “natural” and provoked by them.
• Pragmatic Effect: This strategy shifts responsibility for any potential conflicts onto the group itself. It creates an image of an instigator who deliberately seeks conflict and destroys social harmony. This incites hostility by portraying the group as a socially destabilizing force that cannot coexist peacefully.

Section 1.3. Use of Derogatory, Offensive, and Dehumanizing Words

The humiliation of the dignity of a group is achieved through direct insult and the use of linguistic means that deprive its members of human qualities.

Quote: “…The sect exists in its own little world and creates its own person — existing outside culture, outside society, outside the community. A person speaking in an ugly  mediocre language, reading mediocre ruminant printed media, listening to the most banal and boring music (hymns written in Bethel), and reviewing propaganda art materials (comics and illustrations for Jehovah’s Witness magazines and journals). Thus, the sect accomplished what the totalitarian, communist regimes failed to achieve: a new man, forever done with the legacy of the ‘cursed past’ — homo jehovisticum — was created…”

Psycholinguistic Commentary:

• Stylistic Device (Dehumanization): The creation of the neologism “homo jehovisticum,” by analogy with the scientific biological term Homo sapiens, is a powerful device of dehumanization. A person ceases to be an individual and is reduced to a function, to a specimen of a species produced by the “sect.” This deprives followers of individuality, portraying them as a homogeneous, cloned mass.
• Lexical Analysis (Offensive Epithets): The author uses expressive evaluative adjectives with sharply negative connotations: “ugly  mediocre language,”  “mediocre ruminant.” The epithet “ugly” directly points to aesthetic and moral wretchedness. The lexeme “ruminant” (from “chewing gum”) evokes associations with meaningless, mechanical chewing of primitive information devoid of nutritional value.
• Pragmatic Effect: This is direct and crude humiliation of the dignity of a group of persons based on their religious affiliation. The author attributes to them intellectual, cultural, and linguistic inferiority. Their language is “ugly,” their literature is a “chewing gum,” and they themselves are not full-fledged people, but “homo jehovisticum.” This generates feelings of contempt and disgust toward them.

Analysis for Question No. 2: Propaganda of exclusivity, superiority, or inferiority

Section 2.1. Claims of Social and Personal Inferiority of Followers

The author explicitly or implicitly claims that belonging to the group makes a person inferior.
Quote: “Any freedom of personality for a sect member is out of the question.”

Psycholinguistic Commentary:

• Syntactic Analysis (Categorical Nature): A syntactic construction with double negation and categorical generalization is used (“Any…is out of the question.”). This form allows no exceptions or objections. The author presents his opinion as absolute truth.
• Lexical Analysis: The key concept is “freedom of personality” — one of the highest values in modern humanistic culture. By denying  “a sect member” (a derogatory name) this basic characteristic, the author effectively places him on a lower level of social and personal development. He is presented not as a subject, but as an object of manipulation, deprived of will and reason.
• Pragmatic Effect: This is a direct assertion of a person’s inferiority based on group affiliation. The reader is led to believe that a “sect member” is an inferior person, a slave, a zombie — which justifies paternalistic, dismissive, and ultimately hostile attitudes toward him.

Section 2.2. Manipulative Use of Ideas of Superiority to Incite Hostility

The author uses real or attributed doctrinal provisions of the group regarding their chosenness not for objective description, but as a tool to demonstrate their hostility toward the rest of the world.

Quote: “Naturally, Jehovah’s Witnesses consider themselves the only true church… all other religions are one hundred percent false… Religious leaders of ‘false religions’ are called ‘some of the most notorious liars.’”

Psycholinguistic Commentary:

• Communicative Tactic (Manipulative Information): The author does not himself assert the superiority of “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” but reports it as a fact of their doctrine. However, the presentation of this fact is accusatory. The adverb “naturally” presents this position as self-evident and aggressive. The use of the lexemes “one hundred percent false,” “notorious liars” (even if these are quotations) emphasizes the uncompromising and offensive nature of this position toward others.
• Pragmatic Effect: The idea of exclusivity (“the only true church”), which in one form or another is inherent in many religions, is presented by the author not as a theological dogma but as proof of their social danger, intolerance, and hostility. The author uses their own statements against them, to incite hatred and enmity on the part of representatives of other religions and society at large. This is a classic device of hate speech: to present the opponent’s dogmas of faith as a direct threat to everyone else.

Analysis for Question No. 3: Calls for Hostile/Violent Actions or Their Justification

No direct calls for violence were found in the text. However, the author uses a subtler and more dangerous strategy: he constructs the image of the group as bearers of an ideology of genocide, thereby implicitly (covertly) justifying and even making “necessary” hostility toward them.

Section 3.1. Creation of the Image of a Group Approving and Expecting Mass Violence

Quote: “However, now ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’… will merely enjoy the spectacle of the heavenly army beating all their enemies, and when it is over, they will take part in cleansing the Earth of the remaining ‘trash’ (obviously, as well as of billions of human bodies).”

Psycholinguistic Commentary:

• Lexical Analysis (Attribution of Sadistic Motives): The author attributes to group members not merely belief in an eschatological battle, but an active, perverse “enjoyment of the spectacle of beating.” The verb “enjoy” in this context characterizes them as cruel, immoral sadists who derive pleasure from the suffering of others.
• Stylistic Analysis (Dehumanizing Metaphor): The peak of linguistic aggression is the use of the word “trash” in reference to human bodies of those who do not share their faith. This is the ultimate degree of dehumanization, equating a human being with filth to be disposed of.
• Author’s Remark: By inserting the parenthetical clarification “(obviously, as well as of billions of human bodies),” the author removes any possible ambiguity and imposes on the reader precisely this most monstrous interpretation. The author acts as an interpreter who “exposes” the group’s true intentions.
• Pragmatic Effect: This statement creates the image of absolute evil. The group is presented as a community of inhuman monsters who crave mass killings and revel in the suffering of their victims. This produces in the reader a sense of horror and existential threat, which is the most powerful catalyst for hatred and justifies any defensive measures.

Section 3.2. Direct Accusation of the Group’s Readiness for Genocide as a Form of Implicit Justification of Hostility

Quote: “…Jehovah’s Witnesses have no moral obstacles to genocide.”

Psycholinguistic Commentary:

• Speech Act Analysis (Accusation): This is not a retelling of doctrine or a quotation, but a direct, categorical inference and accusation made by the author himself. He delivers his own verdict.
• Lexical Analysis (Use of a Term with Strong Negative Charge): The lexeme “genocide” is a legal term denoting the gravest crime against humanity and carries an immense negative weight after the tragedies of the 20th century. By accusing the group of having no obstacles to genocide, the author places it alongside the most criminal regimes in human history.
• Pragmatic Effect (Creation of Existential Threat): This statement is the culmination of the intimidation strategy. It presents Jehovah’s Witnesses not merely as misguided or intolerant, but as a deathly, existential threat to society as a whole — as potential mass murderers. In the mind of a reader who accepts this statement as true, the conviction is formed that such a threat cannot be tolerated and must be neutralized. Thus, the text, while containing no direct calls to violence, leads the reader to the conclusion that hostile, defensive actions are necessary, thereby implicitly justifying them.

Synthesizing Part: Analysis of Communicative Strategies and Pragmatic Potential of the Text 

Section 4.1. Author’s Communicative Strategies and Tactics

The analysis of the text makes it possible to identify several dominant communicative strategies deliberately employed by the author to achieve his goals:

1. Strategy of Discreditation: The main goal is to undermine the authority and legitimacy of the religious group. It is implemented through the following tactics:

• Labeling: “totalitarian sect,” “commercial cult.”
• Discrediting analogies: comparison with “mafia” and “financial pyramid.”
• Denial of authenticity: use of prefixes “pseudo-” and “quasi-.”

2. Strategy of Intimidation: The goal is to evoke fear of the group in the reader. It is implemented through the following tactics:

• Attribution of aggressive intents: “provokes tension.”
• Creation of an image of an existential threat: accusations of readiness for “genocide,” description of “enjoying beating.”

3. Strategy of Dehumanization: The goal is to deprive group members of their human character, which facilitates the formation of hatred toward them and removes moral barriers against hostile attitudes. It is implemented through the following tactics:

• Animalistic/object metaphors: “trash.”
• Creation of derogatory neologisms: “homo jehovisticum.”
• Attribution of intellectual and cultural inferiority: “ugly mediocre language”, “ruminant printed media…”.

Section 4.2. Potential Pragmatic Effect (Impact on the Addressee)

The text possesses high pragmatic potential and is highly likely to produce the following effects on an uncritical reader:

• Formation of a persistent hostile mindset: The text does not merely inform, but deliberately constructs a negative attitude that may become entrenched in the reader’s consciousness as a stereotype.
• Provocation of social rejection: The created image of a dangerous, inhuman group motivates isolation, rejection, and discrimination against it in society.
• Legitimation of discriminatory attitudes: By presenting the group as absolute evil, the text implicitly justifies any, even the harshest, measures against it, relieving the reader of potential guilt for intolerance.

Section 4.3. Study of Implicit (Hidden) Meanings

Behind the set of direct statements and accusations in the text lies a core implicit message (implicature): “Jehovah’s Witnesses” are not a religion in the generally accepted sense, but a hostile ideological machine posing a deathly threat. Therefore, the principles of freedom of conscience and religious tolerance do not apply to it, and the struggle against it is not an act of religious intolerance, but necessary self-defense of society. This conclusion, unspoken directly but logically derived from the entire text, constitutes its main and most dangerous pragmatic core.

Conclusion (Expert Findings)

On the basis of a comprehensive psychological and linguistic analysis of the text submitted for evaluation, the expert reaches the following conclusions in response to the posed questions:

1. Regarding Question 1: The presented text contains numerous systemically organized statements aimed at incitement to hatred and enmity, as well as humiliation of the dignity of a group of persons united by religious affiliation (“Jehovah’s Witnesses”). This is achieved by employing communicative strategies of discreditation, intimidation, and dehumanization, manifested through the use of stigmatizing vocabulary (“totalitarian sect”), discrediting analogies (“financial pyramid”), attribution of aggressive and provocative intentions to the group, as well as the use of derogatory, insulting, and dehumanizing vocabulary (“homo jehovisticum,” “trash,” “ugly mediocre language”). The totality of these techniques is directed toward the creation of an enemy image.

2.Regarding Question 2: The text contains statements propagating the inferiority of adherents of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” teaching. This propaganda is carried out through direct assertions of depriving them of basic human qualities (“Any freedom of personality…is out of the question”) and through attributing to them intellectual and cultural degradation. Ideas of superiority, attributed to the group itself, are used manipulatively by the author, not to describe their theology, but to reinforce the image of an intolerant and hostile force, which likewise works toward incitement to enmity.

3. Question 3: The text contains no direct, explicitly expressed calls by the author to commit violent or unlawful acts. However, it does contain assertions that justify and affirm the necessity of hostile attitude toward the group. This is achieved by constructing the image of the group as an existential threat, a carrier of a violent ideology, ready for “genocide.” Authorial conclusions such as “Jehovists have no moral barriers to genocide” as well as the description of “enjoyment” of violence are powerful means of implicit (hidden) inducement to enmity. They create in the reader the conviction of the necessity of adopting the harshest measures against the group, presenting this as an act of necessary self-defense, which constitutes a form of psychological and ideological justification of hostility.

General Conclusion: The examined text has a clearly expressed hostile bias toward the religious group “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and contains a complex of psychological and linguistic indicators characteristic of “hate speech.”

“Sectology” by Dvorkin as a Form of Speech Extremism and Incitement to Hatred

Thus, on the basis of independent expert evaluations conducted, it can be confidently asserted that A.L. Dvorkin’s book “Sectology” is, by a combination of indicators, an example of systemic extremism in the form of “hate speech.” It deliberately constructs an enemy image, using strategies of demonization, dehumanization, and denigration of religious minorities, and incites enmity and violence. Such comprehensive discourse corresponds to the characteristics of extremist materials as defined both in the Federal Law of the Russian Federation, dated July 25, 2002 No. 114-FZ, “On Countering Extremist Activities” and Article 282 of the CC RF, as well as in Ukrainian legislation (Article 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), and in norms of international law — in particular, Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Rabat Plan of Action of the UN OHCHR, and Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA.

The analysis of the book according to the Rabat test criteria demonstrates the presence of all key factors of incitement to hatred: high social and political resonance, authoritative status of the speaker, deliberate construction of hostile attitudes toward entire groups, use of derogatory and demonizing rhetoric, wide dissemination of the text, and its availability in educational and public spheres. The content of the book systematically lowers the threshold of tolerance, justifies discrimination, and effectively legitimizes the exclusion, suppression, and destruction of all religious movements except the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. This fully falls under the category of incitement to discrimination and hostility, which international law does not consider to be protected freedom of expression.

Thus, Dvorkin’s “Sectology” represents the ideological equivalent of the Nazi concept of “racial purity,” only transposed into the religious sphere. Dvorkin’s network in Russia and beyond uses this book as a methodological basis for pressuring investigative authorities and courts, which leads to the systematic designation of other confessions and religious movements as “extremist.” In conditions of preserving democracy and the rule of law, the international community and national legal systems are obliged to respond to such incidents before this ideology destroys the foundations of human rights and freedom of religion on a global scale.