For those who argue that members of Nxivm – except his inner circle – were never exposed to his perverted teachings, here is more evidence that the sickness of Keith Alan Raniere was known to all – and many accepted it – because he is the world’s smartest and most ethical man.
This time the teachings are not from a video of him speaking, but from the actual teaching manual of Nxivm.
The Topic Is: Abuse, Rights, and Injury
It comes from the Nxivm manual for head trainers and was taught to thousands of students – and is still being taught wherever Nxivm is operational in Mexico, Canada, France, Florida, and even Brooklyn. This is what Nxivm has to teach about sex with children.
The Human Experiment: Module 9
First, there are the questions head trainers are supposed to ask Nxivm students:
What is abuse?
What does it mean to abuse someone?
Are all abuses against right?
Why would someone want to abuse babies?
If someone comes from a country where adults orally stimulate children and they find out according to American culture they have been abused, have they?
Who did the abusing?
Who is the injured party?
Who injured them?
A person at age six had a sexual experience with three adults, two male and one female, one of which was a priest another was their parent, and the third was a neighbor…. The person is now 50 years old with no physical effects.
How were they injured?
Were they abused?
What if they enjoyed it, were they abused?
What if they later find out it was only a dream, were they still abused?
When does a hypothesis of past become abuse?
What present data, if any, is needed to support this?
If someone comes from a country where adults orally stimulate children and they find out according to American culture they have been abused, have they?
Answer, Yes.
But who did the abusing? The abuser is our culture, our society.
Who is the injured party? The person who suffered the abuse is the injured party.
Where is the injury if an adult parent has sex with a child and the child enjoys it?
The person who suffered the abuse is injured.
Parents are not supposed to have sex with children in our society. If a parent does have sex with a child, it undermines the societal definition of the parent. The child will go forth and either never disclose it or live with the fact that the parent is not a standard parent.
Is this a problem?
You have to think this through.
An adult and a child are having sex. What’s the difference between the child feeling good about being tickled and being stimulated?
One may say nothing, but there’s a possibility of disease transfer and pregnancy. This makes it a slightly different act. In the case of pregnancy, it is a profound act.
Still, is there anything wrong with feeling good through sex?
There is sex that involves disease transfer and no procreation. There is also sex that minimally involves no disease transfer and no procreation. For example, an adult manually stimulates the child. Should the child be allowed to masturbate the adult? Should the adult be allowed to masturbate the child?
Answer: These are things students have to think out for themselves. We are raising the issues on how to think about the issue and generate an opinion.
Be careful as head trainer not to give an opinion.
[End of module]
Now Let’s Dissect Some of These Questions and Theories
This sickness is from Keith Raniere, but his teachers – and coaches — people like Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman, Sara Bronfman-Igtet, Esther Chiappone Carlson, James Del Negro, Kristin Kreuk, Allison Mack, Clare Bronfman, Emiliano Salinas, Alex Betancourt, and many others – all learned and taught these theories.
Raniere uses a combination of outrageous questions and less outrageous questions to subtly indoctrinate in the minds of his students some of the behaviors he is seemingly asking neutral questions about.
He tells teachers to let the student form their own conclusion, but it is evident, by the nature of the questions, he is laying the groundwork for his students to accept child or rather teen sexual abuse – by, I submit, Raniere himself.
As ethicist for his community, he wants his insular Nxivm group to look at the world differently – his way.
Let’s examine some of the questions [in bold] with my comments following.
Why would someone want to abuse babies?
No one in class, of course, ever agrees that it is OK to abuse babies. He knows this and is introducing the topic of abusing babies as pure misdirection, a red herring to lead to the next question – his real point:
If someone comes from a country where adults orally stimulate children and they find out according to American culture they have been abused, have they? Who is the injured party? Who injured them?
He is plainly promoting sex with children [or rather teen girls] by suggesting there are countries where adults orally stimulate children. What country is he referring to? I know of no country where this is accepted. Do you?
I submit Raniere wants to do this with teen girls and is conditioning followers to consider it as normal in some societies, some countries.
[It has been suggested Raniere’s mother regularly did this with him.]
Raniere goes on:
A person at age six had a sexual experience with three adults…. The person is now 50 years old with no physical effects…. What if they enjoyed it, were they abused?
Here, in essence, is his secret teaching – if a child [read teen girl] enjoys sex with an adult, she is not abused. Period.
He obfuscates with the question – What if they later find out it was only a dream, were they still abused?
Well, of course not – not if it was a dream. He knows everyone will answer that question the same – if it was a dream, it is not abuse.
While some will answer that if the child enjoyed sex, it is still abuse, he knows everyone will answer that if the child dreamed it, it is not abuse. Then he goes back to hammering home his point using his adults having oral sex with children in mythical countries.
If someone comes from a country where adults orally stimulate children and they find out according to American culture they have been abused, have they?
This time he answers his own question:
Answer, Yes.
But he pulls the old switcheroo. He is not saying the adult who had sex with the child is the abuser. Again, he answers his own question:
Who did the abusing? The abuser is our culture, our society.
He, now answering his own questions, says that the adult who had sex with the child is not an abuser – as long as the child “enjoyed” sex – but rather society is the abuser because they condemn the adult and make the child feel guilty.
Where is the injury if an adult parent has sex with a child and the child enjoys it?
He is indoctrinating followers to ignore society’s customs if they do not conform with their [his] idea of morality. This is classic cult brainwashing. Now, he cleverly gives his definition of morality:
Parents are not supposed to have sex with children in our society. If a parent does have sex with a child, it undermines the societal definition of the parent. The child will go forth and either never disclose it or live with the fact that the parent is not a standard parent. Is this a problem? You have to think this through.
Sure think it through – society is to blame – because the child cannot disclose her parent abused her when she was a child. And she has to think that her parent who had sex with her was not a standard parent.
So, the problem he wants his students to think through is that – when adults have sex with their children [or someone else’s child or teen girl], is it inherently wrong and abusive?
He is looking for students to seem so intelligent when they discover the answer – “Eureka – no – nothing is good or bad except thinking makes it so. What the hell, if the child enjoys sex with her father [or Vanguard] perhaps it is not wrong.”
Raniere leads his followers -– by his questions – to consider that the problem is society which condemns the adult and, hence, makes the child a victim – of society. He is, by his questions, advocating statutory rape.
Now there are some who believe it is a problem for children to have sex with adults – because it is fundamentally wrong and harmful to the child – whether a child enjoys it or thinks she enjoys it – or whether the adult decides the child enjoys it.
A child may not know that this brutal, selfish, violative, invasive, childhood-stealing and brutally ugly act is always wrong. For the child has no frame of reference. The fact is there is no place anywhere, no country, no time, no world – where it can ever be right.
But Raniere is inculcating his mostly female followers, I submit, to gain access to a few of their daughters, that there is a whole new way of thinking about adult-child sex. He continues:
An adult and a child are having sex. What’s the difference between the child feeling good about being tickled and being stimulated?
He equates innocently ticking a child with having sex with them – since both are fun, he suggests.
Switching to the obvious and rational, he makes a serious and sober exception for pregnancy [It is wrong to get a child {read teen girl} pregnant.]
In the case of pregnancy, it is a profound act.
Otherwise, sex with a pubescent girl is not profound or immoral, according to Raniere. It can be fun [like tickling] and good for the girl – if society does not find out and condemn it – unless, of course, it is in one of Raniere’s made up countries where adults have sex with their children.
Still is there anything wrong with feeling good through sex?
Yeah, if it is with a child.
For example, an adult manually stimulates the child. Should the child be allowed to masturbate the adult? Should the adult be allowed to masturbate the child?
Answer: These are things students have to think out for themselves. We are raising the issues on how to think about the issue and generate an opinion. Be careful as head trainer not to give an opinion.
Well, of course, the head trainer has to be careful not to give an opinion. The questions themselves, in the order that they are posed, will help lead the right women to form the opinion Raniere desires.
Not everyone in the class will agree. Raniere knows this. That is why he tells his trainers not to give an opinion.
When Pam Cafrtiz was alive, she would be in touch with head trainers and cull answers of the Human Experiment Module 9 to find out which parents had teen daughters that might be suitable and where the parent might be amenable.
Her illness and incapacitation was a great blow to Raniere and one of the reasons for his downfall. [That does not mean he did not murder her – as I will explain in a later post.]
Stupid Allison Mack or clownish Nicki Clyne could not be expected to ferret out teen girls for him. And Camila Fernandez was a clod.
She wanted to find him virgins and expended a lot of energy to do so, but she largely failed.
Raniere is Wrong
I am sorry I cannot see it even a little Raniere’s way. There is something wrong with an adult having sex with a child and not just because it is against the law. It is wrong in any country and almost all parents understand it naturally because they are imbued with decency and a desire to protect their children.
It is wrong because the child is in no position to decide for herself about sex and because the adult wields too much power and control over the child to ever make it consensual. A child is dependent on adults – that dependency eliminates consent. And a child is simply incapable of making these decisions. A child is growing and developing and it is impossible that sex with a child could ever be good for a child.
Reasonable people might debate the age of consent – but Raniere is not talking about 17 or 18-year old girls. He is talking about 12-year-old girls and 13-14 –15-year-old girls – like the LeBaron girls who came from Chihuahua to be mentored by him under the auspices of Rosa Laura Junco.
Keith Raniere is an utterly amoral man without respect for anyone’s welfare – other than his own. In essence, he taught his female followers that adults [him] having sex with children [pubescent girls] is not a crime because the girls will enjoy it [with him].
Sure, it did not work with everyone. But he had Camilia searching for virgins for him and he persuaded the heiress Rosa Laura Junco to offer him her 15-year-old virgin daughter – to be his successor – for him to deflower.
There were many others whose stories have yet to be told.
Thank god the EDNY had the ability and courage to tackle this monster.
The NDNY let him run savage for years.
Why Is This Important?
Keith Alan Raniere is locked up and will remain so for years. It is important because Nxivm still exists under the auspices of the monstrous Clare Bronfman, her sister Sara Bronfman-Igtet, Esther Chiappone Carlson, SOP leader James Del Negro, Omar ‘Cuckie’ Boone and his wife Jimena Garza in Mexico, Edgar Boone and his wife Vanessa Sahagun, Camila Fernandez and Loreta Garza [head of Rainbow Cultural Garden – Raniere’s teachings for little children], Mariana Fernandez, Hector Fernandez, Nicki Clyne, head of DOS, Michele Hatchette, Samantha LeBaron, Justin, Mark and Brian Elliot – Nxivm Brooklyn – and the brutal branding doctor, Danielle Roberts D.O. and the former docto,r the human fright modern-day version of Josef Mengele – Brandon Porter and others.
Still teaching and still recruiting – and maybe trolling for children to have sex with.
It is also important to detect whenever this kind of teaching crops up anywhere, in any form; we have a frame of reference, thanks to Raniere.
It if looks cross-eyed like Raniere, or speaks word salad like Raniere, or oafishly walks like Raniere, or even smells like Raniere according to numerous Nxivm sources in Mexico it is likely a cult and the harm it will do to its followers is likely to be enormous.
It is time to expose the evil of Nxivm and its remaining followers and to warn others of like dangers.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
[…] did not outright demand that his students believe the adult–child sex was acceptable but he posed the concepts as questions – [a pedophile 7 style questionnaire?] asking each student to decide for themselves. This was […]
Yes, cult leaders use gradual, subtle influences to invoke a climate which will encourage further and further falling into human indecencies amongst the followers. The mind control chips away at what might be called primal fundaments. The natural is opined to be unnatural, and the unnatural is touted as being enlightened…and enlightening. Raniere is not unique as a leader who was not only pushing his own debased agendas but who was also working to dissolve his group’s previously-held standards of behavior into something more malleable. How to remove someone’s conscience, as well as any sense of collective conscience,step by step and to supplant it with destructive, secretive, “esoteric and exclusive” cannibal shit.
L. Ron Hubbard worked a similar angle with Scientologists. To offer a couple of examples, Hubbard had a “Commodore’s Messenger Service” who served him both aboard ship and ashore. The messengers were teen and pre-teen girls whose uniform after awhile evolved into mostly white short shorts and nautically-themed tops. These young girls ran around delivering Hubbard’s orders and communications. When one of them “aged out,” she’d be moved to other duties and replaced by fresh blood. They traveled with him and some have said that they helped him to bathe, dress, shave, eat blah blah blah.
Hubbard also delivered lectures, some of which have been printed in full publicly, wherein he insisted that children are just adults (reincarnated) in small bodies and should be treated, handled as such. There is a Hubbard discourse saying that a there is no reason that a seven year-old girl should not enjoy a passionate kiss from a man, as Hubbard conjectured, oh-so-pompously, that the reasoning behind such sexually limiting compunctions are societal more than realistic or authentically “ethical.”
Hubbard was sexually handicapped from pickling himself for decades with heavy boozing, binge use of amphetamines and downers to shut it all off. But he got some pleasure by surrounding himself with a troop of underage girls, easy to control, manipulate, command and more fun to look at than the rest of his hallucinated Navy.
Epstein, while perhaps not viewed as a cult leader, used a psychological normalization routine as justification for having sex with kids. He told the sexually abused girls that what he wanted was natural and normal. He called them special and beautiful and promised them the moon but at the same time insisted that satifying his sexual appetites had to be their predominant endeavor.
Maxwell did the same.
I have been listening to Shaun Attwood’s You Tube podcast today reading aloud Virginia Giuffre’s deposition. In it she details that not only did Jeffrey Epstein require underage girls to bring him to orgasm several times a day, Ghislaine Maxwell was described as being “all about sex” too. Virginia told of Maxwell as having regular sex with underage girls, both privately and à trois avec Epstein. Virginia also said in her deposition that Maxwell was into rough, mean sex with the poor kids.
Virginia Giuffre also talked about how Epstein and Maxwell trained girls to be sexually pleasing to other men with whom they were assigned to have sexual encounters. She specifically describes how Epstein and Maxwell demanded that the teens report back to them all details of these sexual encounters. Epstein even told Virginia that he wanted to have the goods about these sexual encounters to use as control over the “recipients,” many of whom were mega-rich, prominent men.
Epstein would pay the girls, but his payments were usually laden with further entrapments. He paid a girl hungry for education by taking her to bookstores on spending sprees and paying for some schooling. He paid a girl who loved fashion with different temptations. He figured out what people wanted, took sex and pretended to be helping the girls to further their own wishes and dreams.
Imposible to read this sh.. Thank God this monster is behind bars. May he stay there forever
I think I’m going to get sick.
I’m curious to get the big picture – what is this “Module 9” part of? The initial NXIVM “intensive,” or something participants did at a later point? And Is the way NXIVM’s program was structured, explained or laid out anywhere?
It’s interesting to see an example of Raniere’s crude amateur philosophizing, obviously biased and “loaded” towards trying to indoctrinate followers in particular beliefs or a worldview, from a supposed “teaching manual.” This is very sketchy, shoddy stuff. I did philosophy as an undergraduate, and have helped out in a national program to teach the basics of philosophy and logic to high schools students, and it is far from how things that are sound or rigorous are constructed and implemented. Did Raniere ever reference any outside source or authority, or recommend or assign readings, for instance? (of course actual research was probably never mentioned)
This is also what conspiracy theories do as well, take ambiguous anecdotes and dubious assumptions, and string them together into something that satisfies a particular ideology or worldview – which is why they are often a facet of high control group or cult teachings and doctrine.
In teaching or discussing ethics, a branch of philosophy, there is nothing wrong with asking provocative questions or posing outrageous hypotheses. It gets students to think, it challenges them. Philosophy, after all, is not about accepting what is generally thought and accepted as being some kind of eternal truth. Asking difficult questions is part and parcel of philosophical inquiry.
But Nxivm wasn’t about inquiry or discussion. Rainiere was the guru, the holy man, the expert on all subjects, and what he said was not to be questioned. Good teachers do not act that way, at least not when they’re teaching adults. A good college professor, in a seminar, will challenge his students with questions, get them involved. A good professor enjoys being disagreed with, having his statements challenged by his students. That is, after all, how they are to learn. Every impression I’ve gotten of Nxivm is the exact opposite. Rainier’s word was law. So these questions he posed weren’t questions at all. He wasn’t inviting debate.
What he was doing was raising doubt. His followers were intended to doubt their own minds. Their moral standards, their principles. I remember back when Allison Mack posed a question on her blog as to what people thought of the idea of “human construct”. Seemed odd to me, and I suspected Keith Raniere her “friend and mentor” had put this idea in her head. The concept of human construct is central to Postmodern theory. Postmodernists are big on the idea that nearly everything is a social construct. It’s an interesting concept, that things we take as “natural” are in fact the products of culture, and could be, or maybe should be different. I mean, not that long ago, it was considered “natural” that women stayed at home and took care of the cooking and the kids while men were the breadwinners. A lot of gender roles are pretty clearly social constructs.
It’s an interesting idea that can be dangerous when misused. Rainiere was of course misusing it, transparently for his own purposes. He was instilling the idea in his followers that social constructs are somehow illegitimate. In fact socially constructed rules, even arbitrary ones, can be very useful and even essential. The idea that a drivers license expires, say, four years from the date of issue is a social construct and pretty arbitrary. Why is the license in my pocket that was valid yesterday no good today, and why am I in trouble with the law? Why is it legal to have sex with the girl the day after her eighteenth birthday, and a felony the day before her birthday? Because these arbitrary socially constructed rules are useful.
Rainiere’s dumbass followers were too stupid, or too cowardly, to question his idiotic teachings. His transparent sophistries. They chose to believe every thing the self serving jackass said, and some of them are going to prison on account of it. Serves them right.
Very well put, Acteon.
I take it that is intended to build on what I said – I certainly didn’t intend to say anything not in the same vein of thought as this.
I’ll comment on your thoughts on the new topic where this was posted.
Yes, asking difficult questions and getting people to come up with answers and think about things is not wrong. However, this subject is not one it is wise for most people to discuss. Some cultures have had sex with children – mostly girls past puberty but certainly adult on child – Ancient Greeks.
However, Raniere clearly wanted sex with a lot of ideal young women so he had an ulterior motive in the questions. Whenever groups stray into this kind of thing it is very difficult and their undoing. The FLDS in the US rarely in modern times had young child marriage until sex pest Warren Jeffs came along and started marrying them younger and younger.
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NXIVM/esp10.html#10
A nxvium ESP analysis back from 2013
I think that’s actually an analysis that Rick Ross’ had done in 2003 for his Cult Education Institute after a client gave him NXIVM training materials – which is one of the things that lead to his getting sued. It was originally posted at:
https://culteducation.com/group/907-nxivm/5969-a-critical-analysis-of-the-executive-success-programs-inc.html
It goes along with:
A Forensic Psychiatrist Evaluates ESP
https://culteducation.com/group/907-nxivm/6047-a-forensic-psychiatrist-evaluates-esp.html
See also:
https://culteducation.com/group/907-nxivm.html
https://cultnews.com/category/executivesuccessprogramsesp/
https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?4,34394,34481
I agree with teachings. Module 9 asks each student to make up their own minds. What could be fairer or more honest than this ?
It’s hard to know where to start with everything that is subtly leading or directive, but we could begin with the second time that the unsourced reference about a supposed “country where adults orally stimulate children” is given – when in fact no such thing exists.*
After that, three questions are asked – and answers are given. That’s not asking the student to make up their own mind, that’s telling them what to think. The rest of it is equally oriented towards indoctrination, not honesty – more like mandatory “study sessions” under communism.
* there are some marginal subcultures with practices that could-be mis-described that way, but it’s a complex sociological and anthropological situation that would require extensive discussion, not something to throw out as a single-clause anecdote.
Does Frank Parlato have any “course materials” or group ethos stuff for the SOP?
“It is time to expose the evil of Nxivm and its remaining followers and to warn others of like dangers.”
It is also time to prosecute the NXIVM gangsters who have tried to recruit sex slaves in the past and those who try to recruit sex slaves in the future.
There is a very thin line between recruiting twenty year olds as sex slaves and recruiting 12 year olds.
Once the camel gets its nose in the tent the whole camel will follow.
Once young women are enslaved, the enslavement of teen age girls will follow.
And historically sex trafficking or pimping has involved female perpetrators as often as male offenders.
The NXIVM case in the EDNY is quickly coming to an end.
Will the NDNY have the motivation to uncover the festering wounds that NXIVM caused in the Albany area?
Will the bosses of the New York Democratic party want to kill off a criminal gang that is populated by Democratic party constituencies?
Wow, revolting.
Frank, when did a student of NXIVM get taught this drivel? Was it on a five day or sixteen-day intensive?
Kristin Kreuk and Allison Mack we’re both yellow sashes with two stripes by 2011. Presumably, they were already taught this by that level. Were they really teaching it too?
No wonder the Feb 2012 expose about Keith Raniere’s pedophilia did not turn them from the cult. Sick.
This makes Girls By Design more disturbing. It’s one thing to know Raniere is a pedophile, but to actually read the words and what his stupid followers taught others just makes it more gross.
You don’t know what modules people took or were taught. Each person enters these groups with a specific goal in mind and then follow a path of coursework based on it. They don’t take every module, nor do they know about the content of all of them.
yes….Frank (or ex Nx-ians) when did a student of NXIVM get taught this drivel? Was it on a five day or sixteen-day intensive?