Cult De-programmer Steve Hassan’s BITE list fits Nxivm to a ‘T’

A reader, who uses the moniker, AnonyMaker, advises us to have a look at cult deprogrammer and mental health counselor Steve Hassan’s BITE model in analyzing Nxivm.

Hassan has been helping families and cult members get their lives back for decades. He has worked with Nxivm members as well.

AnonyMaker writes, “I’d suggest consideration of Steven Hassan’s BITE Model of Undue Influence and Cult Mind Control.  Many of the first steps of behavior control will sound quite familiar from NXIVM, Raniere’s inner circle and DOS.”

This is from Hassan’s Freedom Of The Mind resource center website:

“Many people think of mind control as an ambiguous, mystical process that cannot be defined in concrete terms. In reality, mind control refers to a specific set of methods and techniques, such as hypnosis or thought-stopping, that influence how a person thinks, feels, and acts.

“Based on research and theory by Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Singer, Edgar Schein, Louis Jolyon West, and others who studied brainwashing in Maoist China as well as cognitive dissonance theory by Leon Festinger, Steven Hassan developed the BITE Model to describe the specific methods that cults use to recruit and maintain control over people. “BITE” stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control.”

The BITE Model
I. Behavior Control
II. Information Control
III. Thought Control
IV. Emotional Control

Behavior Control

  1.  Regulate individual’s physical reality
  2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates
  3. When, how and with whom the member has sex
  4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles
  5. Regulate diet – food and drink, hunger and/or fasting
  6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep
  7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence
  8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time
  9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet
  10. Permission required for major decisions
  11. Thoughts, feelings, and activities (of self and others) reported to superiors
  12. Rewards and punishments used to modify behaviors, both positive and negative
  13. Discourage individualism, encourage group-think
  14. Impose rigid rules and regulations
  15. Instill dependency and obedience
  16. Threaten harm to family and friends
  17. Force individual to rape or be raped
  18. Instill dependency and obedience
  19. Encourage and engage in corporal punishment

Information Control

  1. Deception:
    1. Deliberately withhold information
    2. Distort information to make it more acceptable
    3. Systematically lie to the cult member
  2. Minimize or discourage access to non-cult sources of information, including:
    1. Internet, TV, radio, books, articles, newspapers, magazines, other media
    2. Critical information
    3. Former members
    4. Keep members busy so they don’t have time to think and investigate
    5. Control through cell phone with texting, calls, internet tracking
  3. Compartmentalize information into Outsider vs. Insider doctrines
    1. Ensure that information is not freely accessible
    2. Control information at different levels and missions within group
    3. Allow only leadership to decide who needs to know what and when
  4. Encourage spying on other members
    1. Impose a buddy system to monitor and control member
    2. Report deviant thoughts, feelings and actions to leadership
    3. Ensure that individual behavior is monitored by group
  5. Extensive use of cult-generated information and propaganda, including:
  6. Newsletters, magazines, journals, audiotapes, videotapes, YouTube, movies and other media
  7. Misquoting statements or using them out of context from non-cult sources
  8. Unethical use of confession
    1. Information about sins used to disrupt and/or dissolve identity boundaries
    2. Withholding forgiveness or absolution
    3. Manipulation of memory, possible false memories

Thought Control

  1. Require members to internalize the group’s doctrine as truth
    1. Adopting the group’s ‘map of reality’ as reality
    2. Instill black and white thinking
    3. Decide between good vs. evil
    4. Organize people into us vs. them (insiders vs. outsiders)
  2. Change person’s name and identity
  3. Use of loaded language and cliches which constrict knowledge, stop critical thoughts and reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz words
  4. Encourage only ‘good and proper’ thoughts
  5. Hypnotic techniques are used to alter mental states, undermine critical thinking and even to age regress the member
  6. Memories are manipulated and false memories are created
  7. Teaching thought-stopping techniques which shut down reality testing by stopping negative thoughts and allowing only positive thoughts, including:
    1. Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking
    2. Chanting
    3. Meditating
    4. Praying
    5. Speaking in tongues
    6. Singing or humming
  8. Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism
  9. Forbid critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy allowed
  10. Labeling alternative belief systems as illegitimate, evil, or not useful

Emotional Control

  1. Manipulate and narrow the range of feelings – some emotions and/or needs are deemed as evil, wrong or selfish
  2. Teach emotion-stopping techniques to block feelings of homesickness, anger, doubt
  3. Make the person feel that problems are always their own fault, never the leader’s or the group’s fault
  4. Promote feelings of guilt or unworthiness, such as
    1. Identity guilt
    2. You are not living up to your potential
    3. Your family is deficient
    4. Your past is suspect
    5. Your affiliations are unwise
    6. Your thoughts, feelings, actions are irrelevant or selfish
    7. Social guilt
    8. Historical guilt
  5. Instill fear, such as fear of:
    1. Thinking independently
    2. The outside world
    3. Enemies
    4. Losing one’s salvation
    5. Leaving or being shunned by the group
    6. Other’s disapproval
  6. Extremes of emotional highs and lows – love bombing and praise one moment and then declaring you are horrible sinner
    7. Ritualistic and sometimes public confession of sins
    8. Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about leaving the group or questioning the leader’s authority

    1.  No happiness or fulfillment possible outside of the group
    2. Terrible consequences if you leave: hell, demon possession, incurable diseases, accidents, suicide, insanity, 10,000 reincarnations, etc.
    3. Shunning of those who leave; fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family
    4. Never a legitimate reason to leave; those who leave are weak, undisciplined, unspiritual, worldly, brainwashed by family or counselor, or seduced by money, sex, or rock and roll
    5. Threats of harm to ex-member and family

***

Reading the above, it seems to me that Hassan’s BITE model is almost a play-by-play description of what Raniere intended to achieve.

Some of the points in BITE are eerily on point and perhaps Hassan, who has studied many cults, saw striking similarities between Nxivm and other cults. The devious and the wicked are strikingly similar all over the world.

Clearly, this is what Raniere designed and imposed on his followers. I am often struck at how he thought he could escape punishment because he had nothing in his name.

He had everyone else put everything in their name – dividing it up among his followers – so that he could keep control of Nxivm and its followers.

None of it worked out too well for the Vanguard.  He has the hardest charges and is likely to go away the longest.

His miscalculations were stupendous and I wonder if he still thinks he is the world’s smartest man.  If smartness can be measured by success – in whatever one intends to achieve – right now Keith is looking rather stupid.

Not just foolish, not just errant, not even just wicked or gross or mean or even insane – but stupid. Just plain stupid.

It’s been said before, but bears repeating: Viva Executive Success!

About the author

Frank Parlato

Frank Report’s founder and lead writer Frank Parlato is one of the internet’s most acclaimed investigative journalists. His writing and investigations have helped expose major criminal organizations and scandals.

Frank’s work has been cited in major publications all over the world, including The New York Times, New York Post, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CNN, Rolling Stone, and more.

He is also the publisher and editor-in-chief of Artvoice, The Niagara Falls Reporter, Front Page and the South Buffalo News.

29 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • For further consideration, I’d offer the example of The Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame, one of several scales that provide a way to rate and compare high control groups or cults. Like a number of similar lists, it’s generally useful, though its specific merits and possible flaws are open to debate; I’ve offered notes at the bottom, about a couple of points that I would modify.

    Most organizations in human society will indeed rate at least a couple of points – but it’s the ones that rate relatively higher, that start to become dangerous, and the ones highest on the scale that typically are engaged in significant abuses bordering on criminality, though many abusive groups become quite adept at bending and skirting the law, or even influencing and co-opting the legal and judicial systems to get away with things that seem as if they should be illegal.

    Ratings also very based on context, and the different levels of a organizations with which members become involved; In the case of NXIVM, something like the now-defunct Vancouver center would likely get a lower rating than say the NXIVM community around Albany, and that in turn would be eclipsed by very high numbers for Raniere’s inner circle, SOP and DOS.

    This version is taken from the religioustolerance.org website:

    The Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (Version 2.7)

    Item Factors (rated on a scale of 1 to 10):

    1 Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members. _________________________

    2 External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior. _________________________

    3 Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed. _________________________

    4 Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts. _______________________

    5 Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism. _________________________

    6 Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones. _________________________

    7 Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden. _________________________

    8 Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members. _________________________

    9 Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners. _________________________

    10 Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups. _________________________

    11 Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s). _________________________

    12 Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers. _________________________

    13 Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts. _________________________

    14 Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s). _________________________

    15 Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories. _________________________

    16 Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). _________________________

    17 Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). _________________________

    18 Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain. _________________________

    On the last item in particular, I’d offer some additional nuances: similar to what is stated, what I would refer to as ends-justifies-the-the-means thinking and situational ethics (even if the dogma is non-situational) used as rationalizations to violate everything from the group’s nominal philosophy and policies, to society’s norms and laws; and the extent to which the leadership carries on, particularly with regards to materialism and sexuality, in ways that are in contradiction to what they try to impose on their followers.

    I would probably also modify or add to the points to take into consideration the extent to which the group or organization may both hold up its membership as an elect or superior elite; and yet objectify individual members as dispensable, as well as outsiders and the broader society as “others” in an us-against-them mentality.

  • Curious if the above list was modified to fit NXIVM. Because, if not – this is so spot on – it’s almost like ESP was modeled after this.

  • This is a great article. Would be well worth the time and expense for anyone directly or indirectly related to this case to make arrangements to attend the trial.

  • Interesting, but I’m skeptical of this idea of “mind control”. Sounds the same as the old “brainwashing” thing. Sure, a person can be coerced, or belabored, or browbeaten. But nobody can control your mind; if there really were a way to do this, everybody would be in a cult.

    This idea of cults controlling people’s minds seems simplistic. It’s also a copout, an evasion of responsibility. I don’t like this idea of everyone claiming victim status. I suspect most people join cults because they think it’s going to give them what they want; a happy life, success (meaning $$$), a place in Heaven. NXIUM was promoting an “executive success program”– just the thing to appeal to pea-brained go-getters who wanted it all. They weren’t brainwashed, they were eager to get in on a good thing. And stupid enough to fall for a scam. Some of them let all morality fall by the wayside, and some of those got caught by the Feds. Well, screw ’em, they belong in prison.

    I remember Allison Mack’s blog. It was clear from her writings that she was yearning to make a big splash in the world, to do good things, promoting that nebulous JNESS or being a producer promoting female artists or whatever. All very nice– but obviously blinding ambition as well. Well, she did make a name for herself, in People Magazine and the Hollywood Reporter covering her arrest on multiple felony charges. Good intentions? sure, the road to hell is paved with them. She wasn’t brainwashed: she was ambitious and really, really foolish. Made some terrible choices and now she’s paying for them. Two of the Smallville cast got involved with NXIVM, why not the rest? Maybe because they weren’t stupid.

    • Some people are more susceptible to brainwashing/mind-control than others. Maybe that’s why the hypnotist passes you over and picks your friends.

    • Experts and professionals now use terms like undue influence – which actually has connotations in the law – though sometimes for the purpose of publicity or catching the attention of the public, more sensational or better-known terms still get used.

      I agree that that the subject involves some fraught issues that are difficult to figure out how to contextualize or address. I myself go back and forth on some of the nuances even after years of studying and pondering the issues and situations involved. Quickly, here are a couple of sort of parallels I’d offer for consideration:

      One thing groups do, is to use make false promises, what might be said to be something like bait-and-switch in multiple iterations over an extended period of time. If you bought a BMW at a used car dealership, had trouble with it and were then sold on taking a Lexus in exchange, were pressured into taking a Honda when that broke down, and finally on down the line to the point where you were left with an old Yugo, society and the law would recognize that you had been defrauded, subjected to used car dealer tricks and manipulations. Related, there are reasons that many states have laws that specify a 3 day “cooling down” period after which certain sorts of sales particularly prone to involving high-pressure tactics, can be rescinded, because it has been recognized that people can be talked or pressured into things that, on consideration, are not actually in their best interest.

      Society and the law also recognize that minors and elders are subject to undue influence, and can be persuaded or coerced into doing things against their best interest, and even subject to abuse. We also recognize that certain adults with diminished capacity or actual disabilities are similarly vulnerable, and need to be protected. Is it not then possible that some broader categories of adults, are similarly susceptible to at least some extent, and merit both sympathy and additional legal protections from highly manipulative individuals and groups?

      However, you might want to watch of couple of Derren Brown’s “Mind Control” videos. He is a master of tricks of hypnosis and suggestion, distraction and confusion, and misdirection, and raises some uncomfortable questions as to just how much really skilled manipulators may be able to virtually control people, especially those most susceptible to hypnosis or suggestion – and it’s a well known and proven phenomenon, that some people are in fact more susceptible than others, something that I suspect that the leaders of high control groups or cults exploit as they gather around them individuals most susceptible to forms of influence or control.

  • Rick Ross cautions against using Hassan for cult interventions as I believe SH has had several formal complaints against him here in Boston. I don’t have the details handy but culteducation.com has the full story.

    • That’s interesting to hear. I don’t follow whatever controversies or infighting there might be. Rick strikes me as a bit old-school, but I have a lot of respect for both.

      Both have somewhat different approaches and perspectives, but both offer a lot of good understanding through their various works and educational efforts, such as their websites. I’d certainly recommend performing due diligence before actually engaging someone for help with a specific situation; there may actually be others less well known, who could be better choices.

      For people coming out of cults or high control groups, there are a number of resources including the Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center, and a number of psychological professionals including particularly a woman in Southern California who I believe will do sessions over the internet. Again, it’s not something I keep up on or am going get into making specific recommendations about, but anyone in need of such should be aware that there are resources, and that they can look around and investigate what might be good options in a particular situation.

  • That defines just about every group or organization that one joins. Glad I’m not a joiner. Welcome to my cult

    • This is a good point, and it isn’t a black and white issue, there is a continuum of influence from 0 to 100%. The key isn’t so much the cultish factors, it’s whether the organization is intentionally lying to get others to join. All of the voodoo-like cult factors are mere distractions to more useful things to look for. Lying is the primary mark of a dangerous organization, it’s called fraud. Amway is an excellent example of this concept. Knowing the true motivations behind the lies reveals why the lies are told in the first place. It’s all about money and power.

    • Scott made a good point in another reply, that it’s a continuum. There are other lists or scales for evaluating high control groups and cults, that allow for some rating and ranking. Some groups or organizations are barely a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10, and others, like the DOS group within NEXIUM, are pegging the scale. One of the oldest and best-known is Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame, which there is now an Advanced version of.

      I actually occasionally pose the argument, that even a hermit is a cult of one in some ways – just look at the “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski in his Montana cabin, for instance….

    • Forced deprogramming is a thing of the past, and I certainly don’t agree with it. On the other hand, knowing a family that resorted to it long ago, I think it was also a product of the times; when there wasn’t as much understanding of what to be aware of, young people were almost literally being taken off the streets, sometimes disappearing without families even knowing where they’d gone. Can you imagine the desperation of a family who was told that their child had gotten in to a van to go off for a weekend (a typical ruse of groups at the time, that inquisitive and trusting 60s and 70s era kids fell for), and didn’t hear from them again, only to finally discover that the were in some communal living situation subject to food and sleep deprivation?

      I’m particularly impressed with Hassan’s thoughtful approach these days. Have you read any of his more recent work?

      Interestingly, Hassan studied NLP back when it was relatively new, and seemed like a potential tool for reaching and influencing people non-coercively; so he’s particularly familiar with the sort of techniques used in NXIVM.

      • I think this might interest you Anonymaker,

        In the early nineties there was an influx of Bosnian refugees into the UK. I had a couple of students who had been journalists in Bosnia and on being rescued by UN personnel and granted asylum found themselves transported in the first instance to a place called ‘The Curragh’ in the Irish Republic to be debriefed. The technique used was NLP they were there for approx 12 weeks.

        During a standard class on third conditional grammar [If you had read the map correctly, we would have been there by now] perfect tenses – the grammar that enables us to reflect, express gratitude, apportion blame – the grammar that helps us to link the past to the present and learn from it. These students made a request to absent themselves – turns out they had been instructed to avoid third conditional thinking, even in their L1, as possible stimulus for their PTSD. Is this NLP protocol?

        • Great anecdote, well wisher. That’s like cutting out a piece of their tongues to specifically deny third conditional language instruction to try to prevent them from having the language ability to ever blow the whistle. And we thought KAR and Nancy were sneaky.

          Was it, is it, effective? In combination with other gag tactics? I wonder if among the uneducated or young that might not alter thinking and reasoning ability as well?

          • I notice that many self help methodologies and buddhist theologies lay great emphasis on living in the ‘present’ – as no living thing can avoid living in the present unless it dies – this imperative only really makes sense as a restriction on thought=language.

            The fact is if you obeyed the imperative, you would be restricted to a sort of running commentary on your living in the now: perhaps a bit of ‘I feel…’ giving and receiving basic orders, responding in the ‘now’ to another’s commentary and so on,,

            Like twitter or insta, so much ‘now’ that the time&space in which to abstract away from present circs, to comment on a process not contemporaneous, and then to have ideas about that process, then to have ideas about the ideas of that process. or any other thing you like.. requires 2nd and 3rd conditional thought, one of the plainer pedagogical explanatory models is that of Lots and Hots.

            Think of it as a building, the ground floor is Lots= lower order thought 0 to1 conditionality: labelling –
            x is y, stating facts – if x then y, in language terms the ground floor is straight gossip:
            describing things/people attributing some quality to them, approving not approving etc.

            the first floor is 2nd (counterfactual) conditional: if I won the lottery, then… If KAR spontaneously combusts, then… but also, if we use this grindstone, we will mill more grain faster. In language terms we plan, speculate, joke, wonder, also dissemble, in the 2nd. I think of it as the charm conditional.

            Then finally the penthouse, Hots or Higher order thoughts, this is where our thoughts are free to travel back into our experience, or indeed any unreal past or future or subjunctive unreal territory of our wildest, some would say genius imagination. Problems occur if you tarry too long in any of these levels, or if you can be persuaded that some third conditional unreality say ‘Nancy was Hitler in a past life” has the same kind of truth value as statements in the !st. Enough. Heidi don’t get me started!

        • Thanks for that interesting anecdote.

          Are you saying that they had been instructed to avoid the third conditional as part of their counseling about dealing with PTSD? Or that somehow they had been indoctrinated in that thinking, related to whatever stimuli might have caused their PTSD? I wasn’t clear at first reading, but I’m going to assume the former.

          I was never an NLP therapist or expert, and haven’t done much with it in a long time – though now I’m curious to dust off my old NLP books, as well as order a couple of things including one strange reference related to what Nancy Salzman may have been taught. I wouldn’t say such an approach was necessarily “NLP protocol”; there’s not really even such structure among NLP practitioners, as far as I’m aware. A search does show that a couple of NLP PTSD protocols have been developed; such could well be part of one or more of them, but it would also generally make sense in terms of CBT and other strategies. I did find one study that isn’t available in full, but in its summary reported:

          “No guidelines were found on the use of NLP for the treatment of adults with PTSD or GAD.”

          Neuro-Linguistic Programming for the Treatment of Adults with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, General Anxiety Disorder, or Depression: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness and Guidelines
          Rapid Response Report: Summary with Critical Appraisal

          Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2014 Nov 3.

          • They had been told to ‘avoid’ I doubt it was any sort of covert indoctrination. After being rescued and debriefed, they were at liberty I assume, since my place of work is a public college. It just always interested me –

      • Please stop your childish “gotcha” bs Schlock. The man (or woman) is here to accomplish something and help. If you annoy away another intelligent, humane, informed voice on here…so help me.

        Scott will go back before recorded history, when he can just make shit up, to find fault to try to “top dog” you and, more often, make an ass of himself.

        Of course, times and intervention methods have changed and there was even a time when KAR ET AL did resort to old fashioned kidnapping. They did it to Toni Natalie but that’s part of her story.

        Then, like other cults you say, KAR ET AL cultivated more refined and subtle ways to kidnap one’s mind and hold hostages even from afar. The “collateral” maybe even the “brands” speak to that, IMO.

        Sounds like intervention methods have evolved to counteract the entrapment techniques and NX’s were extreme, leading edge, VANGUARD if you will.

        personally, I wouldn’t have minded — would have paid, beg, borrowed or stolen — for someone to have rushed in and thrown a bag over Gina’s head and dragged her away. Wouldn’t wonder if Ally’s folks don’t some day soon feel the same way!

  • Thanks AnnoyMaker for sharing and many thanks to Frank for posting the Bite list.

    The BITE list is incredible interesting and so much like Maoist party and teaching doctrine.

    I am actually reading Mao the untold story its fascinating how much NXIVM’ framework is just like communist thought control.

  • Certainly, this is clear and informative! Perhaps anyone who reads it will be mindful of these aspects of the groups they join in the future or may be able to help someone who is tangled up in a cult right now. Cults are evil and destroy the lives of all those who join. Cults destroy families and friendships. I do hope KR gets the maximum punishment. Of course, the others also, but most especially him.

  • I’m glad that was of interest.

    Hassan was in a cult himself, and his somewhat sensationally titled book Combating Cult Mind Control, which tells the stories of others who were in different groups as well, is a very good, and very approachable, explanation of the dynamics of such groups.

    He originally started out as a deprogrammer, but has evolved over the years to taking a more nuanced approach to influencing people to reflect on and reconsider their involvement in high control groups or cults, particularly in situations where concerned family and friends have little opportunity to interact with the group member outside the milieu of the group. This addresses the sort of situation that Catherine Oxenberg found herself in with her daughter India, for instance, where just telling someone that they’re in a cult, and attempting aggressive interventions, are apt to fail.

    His more recent book Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults, and Beliefs is an excellent guide.

      • I’ve been curious to find out more about her story, though I haven’t had time to really look into it. It certainly doesn’t sound like she was following actual good advice, and definitely not the approach Hassan recommends.

        For instance, one of Hassan’s basic suggestions, applicable to many situations, is to try to get people to recall and reflect on what their values and aspirations were prior to involvement in a high control group or cult. The basic idea is to take someone who’s been subject to that sort of frog-in-the-pot conversion of their ideals, such as having gone from wanting to empower women, to branding them in preparation for receiving their guru’s supposedly magical ejaculate, and get them to step back and see how incongruent that in fact is – the way we of course see it, from afar. But who among us hasn’t gotten involved in something that we didn’t see for what it was, until we stepped back?

    • Thanks, Anony, I’m ordering those Hassan ROSS titles pronto. (Btw, is this the same famous Rick Ross, first NX fighter and defender of justice with Peter Skolnik — whom we love so well?)

      From what little I’ve read, I’m already astounded at how well Hassan’s BITE model fits KAR’s pattern even going way back. I can show you evidence of it being implemented on Gina (and attempted on me) from at least the mid-90’s, using the human pyramid, MLM, later, “master-slave” format — with Kristin Keefe acting as Gina’s master or coach and she, in turn, being trained to work these tricks on me — somewhat unwittingly at least as to the intent.

      There was a lot of deception as to KAR’s intent, btw, from the start that grew over time. He learned from the girls themselves that Miss America always wants world peace — so to speak.

      Btw, some of my BFF’s are gay.

About Frank Parlato

About Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in major publications all over the world, including The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CNN, Fox News, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, and more.

Frank Report is dedicated to Frank's investigative journalism and the pursuit of truth.

Read more about Frank Report's mission.

Got A Tip?

If you have a tip for Frank Report, send it here.
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com
Phone / Text: (716) 990-5740

Archives

Loading cart ...
%d bloggers like this: