Lauren Salzman was the top slave master in DOS. She had the most slaves and “grandslaves”: i.e., slaves of her slaves.
So how did she manage them?
In the trial of Keith Alan Raniere, a trial where Lauren was a star witness against him, she goes into detail.
Presented during the trial were Lauren’s texts to one of her slaves by the name of Audrey, and they bring us into Lauren’s world of managing slaves.
It is instructive and I believe of interest since Lauren is expected to be sentenced sometime next year, perhaps after she once again comes forward to testify against Raniere, Clare Bronfman and possibly others.
This is Part 6, of our study of Lauren Salzman as we seek to learn which she is – victim or perpetrator or a combination of both.
Part 1 How Lauren Salzman Described Her Branding Session
Part 3 Lauren Salzman Describes Collateral She Got From Her Slaves, After Lying to Them About DOS
Part 5 Lauren Salzman and Her Slaves Got Bare-Ass Paddling
Lauren Salzman is being examined by Assistant US Attorney Tanya Hajjar in the trial of Keith Alan Raniere.
Q Did you continue to recruit other DOS slaves after the branding ceremony? [where Lauren had five of her slaves – Sarah, Amanda, Audrey, Jimena and Carola, branded.]
A One more.
Q Who?
A C— . I recruited her the week after the branding ceremony.
Q … Was the process of recruiting her similar to the recruitment process for the other slaves?
A Yes, always the same.
Q What did C- submit as collateral?
A C– submitted a letter to her children that would have effectively severed their relationship.
Q How did you communicate with your DOS slaves?
A Through Telegram chats, program, the app — it’s the app on the phone.
AUSA Hajjar showed Lauren some exhibits. They were screenshots of Telegram chats [texts] with her slave Audrey.
Q So the first message: “Amanda and I want to do our ‘mega penance’ from our readiness failure while we are in San Diego with you. Can you advise on what method instrument we should use?….
Q And … can you just read your response, please?
A “Go to the sex store and get a paddle,” which is what my group did. And they have leather ones. I sent Jimena a picture. “There’s one in the mission by your house, I think.” Mission is just an area of …. San Francisco…..
Q Did you send a photograph of the paddle?
A I did.
[Lauren continued to testify about the texts, explaining that Amanda, who by the way, is an attorney, whose collateral included admissions which could get her disbarred, wanted to back out of DOS, after she gave damning collateral.]
When questioned about it and why Lauren refused to return the collateral, Lauren testified “[Amanda] was having a reaction of wanting the collateral back. And I saw it as a two-step process. Like first let’s help her understand why she wanted to do this in the first place [be in DOS] or connect with what she wanted out of it in the first place. And then talk to her about the collateral, which is precisely what she put down because she wanted that thing [to be in DOS] in the first place.
Q Why defer mentioning collateral?
A I thought it was too much at once. She was having a reaction and it was progressive. But it was inductive as well. I said to Audrey: “Give me the collateral anyway. Turn it in any way.” She said she doesn’t want it [turned in], but she gave it with the intent — at the time, she gave it with the intent to give the collateral. We’re going to uphold that part.
Like sometimes she says yes; sometimes no; sometimes yes; sometimes no. We’re going to honor the part that’s yes. She gave the collateral when she meant yes. Give it to me and we’re going to hold it and talk to her and see if she wants to stay or not. But ultimately the collateral is not subject to be released. But see if she wants to say first.
Q So it could be released back to her?
A I’m sorry, it wasn’t going to be given back. It wasn’t going to be given back.
Q On page 10 of Government Exhibit 432, Audrey writes that this person [Amanda] had asked whether her final collateral was submitted. And on the following page, you say: “But turn in her collateral anyway.”
A Yes.
Q [quoting Lauren’s text] “I believe she’s staying [in DOS], but even if she doesn’t, she shouldn’t get it [her collateral] back.”
A Exactly.
Q “Given with the intent to stay.” Is that what you’re referring to?
A That’s what I’m referring to, yes.
Q The bottom of the following page, page 12, you say: “She’s asking because she’s run by her viscera, but she knows it’s bad to back out. She’s just feels scared.” What’s her viscera?
A She wants to do what’s more comfortable. Viscera is what feels better.
Q And when “she’s asking, because she’s run by her viscera.” In plain English, what does that mean?
A It means I was looking at it like this: That she… had this ideal that she wanted to grow, but it may not always be comfortable to grow. And so you put down the collateral so that you’ll grow even when not it’s comfortable. But right now she’s feeling uncomfortable, so she’s saying “I don’t want this.”
But that was the whole reason we did it in the first place. We joined this organization in this collateralized vow to help us when we felt uncomfortable push through and stay consistent.
So I was looking at it like that. Like, so right now she’s in the uncomfortable part saying, “I don’t want this,” but when she’s not feeling uncomfortable, she’s [says] “this is something that I want.”
And so I was saying… right now she’s asking [to get her collateral back] because she’s feeling uncomfortable, but she knows it’s bad to back out because we discussed it several times, and she agreed that she didn’t want to be the kind of person who backed out when she got uncomfortable. So she’s feeling scared right now and that’s what’s going on, and that’s how I was framing it to Audrey.
And that’s why I was making the decision to continue to keep the collateral because when she wasn’t in the moment of feeling uncomfortable, she kept saying she did want to stay.
Q Do you have a different view of this exchange now?
A Yes. And also because subsequently, she said every time she talked to me she felt like I kept talking her back into things she didn’t want to. I thought that she was agreeing because she did want to do it not because I was pushing her in an area she didn’t want to be pushed, and she didn’t feel strong enough to say, no, or felt afraid because of her collateral. Because I had substantial collateral on her.
Q Turn to page 16. Is this the message you sent? “In theory, each act should be doing about an hour of work per week for their M [master] as a normal contribution or act of care.” Is that something you considered?
A Yes, after Keith came to a meeting and shared that that was what he thought should be, I communicated it to Audrey.
Q And what does that mean?
A That means each slave should be doing about an hour per week of work for the master as a moral act of care, which should be going on any way.
Q And the following message: “What generally helps me most is you considering where you can bring the most and highest level of skills you have to my life and objectives at the highest standard possible. I have an assistant. I have a cleaning lady. So that doesn’t really help me that much and it’s lowering the value of what you could be attributing to furthering me.”
A Correct.
Q Can you explain what you meant by that?
A Yes. And this was a concept that we looked at earlier in the [DOS hand] book, which is that ideally you want be to be providing most value at all times that you can to your master to be furthering them in the most valuable contribution way.
Q So what did that mean with respect to Audrey, as you were conveying this to her?
A The highest skills that she could bring, she should bring. The work that she could do, she should do.
Q Turning to page 20. This is Audrey message to you: “Master, may I eat extra today calories today. I felt really hungry for past two days since I got my period. Much stronger [period] than usual. I have tried to pace my calories throughout the day; 100, 200 at a time, as you suggested, but I’m still feeling very hungry. Last night I had trouble falling asleep because of it. My period also stopped after one day. I don’t know if this is related, but I think it might be.” Were these types of requests for — was Audrey on a restricted diet in terms of her calories?
A Audrey — when Audrey first joined, she communicated that she didn’t feel that she was meeting her health and fitness goals, and I asked her to track her calories to see how much she was eating. So she did that. And then I suggested — or I told her to go down 100 calories. So she was on 1500 calories a day diet, I believe.
Q Did she have to ask you permission to eat more than that?
A I did.
Q Did you refuse her?
A I did.
Q And so the next message when you say: “No, I don’t think you need this, I believe your calories are already high.”
A Yes.
Q She was not permitted to eat the remaining calories she wanted?
A Correct.
Q Turning to page 21. Are these three messages your messages to Audrey?
A Yes.
Q Can you read them, please?
A “I am pushing you on this because you’re doing a very weenie version of a program that you think is a big deal. Your capacity for discomfort and self-denial is super low and this limits your capacity to even vision an ideology beyond a very low level of morality. You need to push against this to gain a sense of self. Part of the masturbation denial is also denying the fantasy shit you link with it, which is counter growth for you overcoming self-victimization and suffering.
“I’m telling you this not as your master but as a green in ESP and head of stripe path. If you want to get a [to become] proctor, [a teacher in ESP] you must evolve this and the long circuitous road is not a good option.”
Q The second message refers to masturbation denial. Did you require Audrey to refrain from masturbation?
A She suggested it as an option, and I said that she should take that option, that would be good.
Q In what context did she raise it as an option?
A The context of — I don’t recall specifically, but absence of self-denial in getting over being led to the body.
Q Was that something you suggested?
A Yes. Yes, I mean I was — at the time looking at it as she needed to overcome is exactly what I said. She didn’t have a good capacity to do this and she should be doing this if she wanted to grow and if she was really committed to growth she would be doing this.
Q When you say: “I’m telling you this not just as your M [master] but as a green [sash] in ESP and head of the stripe path. If you get [to become] a proctor, you must evolve this?”
A Yes. I shouldn’t have said that, but, yes.
Q What does that mean?
A That I’m telling her as a green in ESP and as head of the stripe path, these are the requirements that we look for to see that you’ll qualify to evolve. So if you’re not getting passed it, you’re not going to meet those requirements for promotion.
So she’s saying she wanted to get promotion in ESP and she wasn’t meeting the promotion and I wanted her to know that if she got through this, she would get that.
Q So by saying that, you are linking promotion in ESP — professional promotion to her being a good DOS slave?
A Yes. And it shouldn’t have been linked.
Q What does that mean, it shouldn’t have been linked?
A More important, DOS was never a requirement for promotion in ESP and it should not have been factored into promotion in ESP, but I linked them in this conversation.
Q Why? Why did you do that?
A Because I knew she wanted to get to proctor and I wanted her to get to proctor. I knew what was required for her to get to proctor. So I thought if I told her this was important it would help connect it with a goal that she had, and help motivate her to do it.
Q Was your input important in terms of who was promoted within ESP?
A Yeah, I was head of the promotion program.
Q What about the defendant [Keith Raniere]?
A Yes, ultimately I mean he did reject or override — he could reject or promote anybody, whether we had suggested or denied promotions.
Q Turning to page 23 of Government Exhibit 432. You write: “If you want to use that again for failure, penance should be modified to three hard whacks [on her bare ass with a paddle]. If you snap the wrist right, it should really hurt. That’s how you know you’re doing it right. Please relay to all.”
What are you talking about there?
A I’m talking about what Keith told us should be how we paddle each other. And I left the meeting where he told us how to paddle each other, communicate to Audrey specifically how they should be paddling each other.
Q Was that a direction?
A Yes.
Q Turning to page 26, you write: “I don’t think everyone handed in monthly guarantees. I didn’t get anything from C— or Sarah for anyone below our line. Can you follow up with everyone? Audrey refers to bank accounts for May. And after that: What’s your take of Amanda’s.”
What are you talking about here, you and Audrey?
A Amanda submitted — we’re talking about monthly collateral that she submitted, which she said — the bank accounts were for May.
And that her take on Amanda’s was Amanda had submitted a video and I wasn’t able to watch the whole thing, but Audrey made the video with Amanda, so I wanted Audrey’s take on it, whether Audrey thought it was strong enough. And I told Audrey to assess that without me watching the video.
Q So when Audrey replied: “It’s good, I think. She basically says she’s only marrying him to use him for his money because she had no other options.” What does that refer to?
A What she said about her fiancé in the video.
Q Amanda?
A Correct.
Q And “it’s good, I think” refers to strengthening the collateral?
A Yeah. That it should be sufficiently damaging to their relationship were it to come out.
Q Turning to page 29, you write: “We haven’t really started training you guys yet.” What are you talking about?
A Keith said that he hadn’t really started disciplining us yet and so we didn’t know — we weren’t doing things as we needed to be doing with the slaves because we hadn’t been disciplining them yet. So I relayed that as well, that we hadn’t started discipline. I hadn’t started training them in disciplining them yet.
Q The next message down, you say: “I have so much on my plate that I cannot keep up and I have not had time to discipline you guys properly.” Is that something the defendant told you and the other first line slaves as well?
A Yes. And I did have so much on my plate that I wasn’t able to keep track of what was going on with them. And a lot of what I had on my plate were the things that we were doing in DOS.
Q Turning to page 48, you write: “Good morning, with respect to your check-in last night…. Any efforts you put in here will come back exponentially. And once you build your organization here, you will have six Ss,[slaves] plus however many branded Ss will devote time weekly, moving your life and projects forward.”
What are you telling Audrey here?
A I’m telling her that — she was concerned that she didn’t have enough time and obviously because of the things she was doing here, and I was telling her if she had six slaves who … each had six slaves, she would have weekly time committed to her for life, of help and support that would save her time with her life.
Q So when you write: “Any efforts you put in here will come back exponentially.” What does “here” refer to?
A In DOS.
Q The next page you write: “Imagine if you have six people, who each have six, so 36 people, who each devote one hour of time per week to moving your life forward. That’s a full-time employee’s amount of work times for life.”
A Yes.
Q What are you referring to here?
A I’m referring to the same thing, that active care that Keith said, if you had everybody who you enrolled in one hour for their master and grandmaster, everybody would have almost 40 hours of week of full-time work.
Q And what’s the point of telling this to Audrey at this moment?
A Because she was upset she didn’t have a lot of time because of the things she was doing in DOS.
Q And you’re telling her she will benefit from being in DOS and having slaves to work for her?
A Yes.
Q You write: “Do you want to be a proctor?… Do you see how you’re antihumanitarian, anti-interdependence?” What are you talking about here?
A That she was being — that she was communicating things that were not humanitarian in nature or of a team perspective. And she’s saying she wanted to be a proctor in a humanitarian organization [Nxivm] where the whole idea was that the whole is bigger than the sum of the parts. It was a whole team environment. And if she wanted to become a proctor in a humanitarian organization that was focused on being part of a larger team, she needed to overcome the issues that made her not want to be around people and the antihumanitarian in the way she related with them.
Q Were you connecting her progress in terms of making proctor to her performance in DOS?
A I didn’t mean to, but I did it. Yes. It wasn’t my intent, but I did that, yes.
Q Looking at page — on page 53, you write: “You will never be a proctor in this organization as long as you believe that helping others is not a high priority.” And Audrey says: “No, I’m sorry, master, that is not what I’m intending to say.” Did Audrey want to be a proctor?
A Yes, she did.
Q And then the following page, page 56: [Audrey writes] “I just talked to KT. She had a full throttle tantrum about the guarantee [collateral]. Flatly refused to do it and is painting this whole thing as bad in her mind.” What is she {Audrey] talking about there?
A That Kristin doesn’t want to submit her collateral. And that she is refusing to submit collateral. And believes that DOS is bad and that the whole collateralization is bad.
Q How did you respond to that?
A I don’t recall specifically, but I likely told Audrey to just help her try to work with her and see if she can get her through it.
***
Let’s recap:
Lauren’s slave “C—” gives for collateral a letter to her children that would have severed their relationship.
Her slave Amanda wants to do penance and Lauren advises her “Go to the sex store and get a paddle,” a leather one.
Amanda, an attorney, whose collateral included admissions which could cause her to be disbarred, wants to back out of DOS and get her collateral back. Lauren gives a long bullshit explanation about why she refused to return it.
Lauren spends a lot of time selling her slaves on how beneficial it will be to have their own slaves who will provide them with free labor.
Lauren wants her slaves to do important work because she already has an assistant and a cleaning lady.
When Audrey wants to eat some food, an extra 100 calories, Lauren denies her.
Lauren forbids Audrey to masturbate.
Lauren uses her high-rank position in Nxivm to prompt and rule her slaves.
She gets collateral from Amanda in which she admits in a video she is only marrying her fiance for money.
Lauren refers [laughably] to Nxivm as a humanitarian organization.
Lauren instructs her slaves on how to paddle each other – three hard whacks. And make sure it hurts. It’s all in the wrist action.
Can we excuse Lauren and these other women on the grounds of total insanity?
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Hmmmn. Lauren in some ways is less tricky than the others given that she was in love(shudder) with KR. You could argue that his hold on her was absolute and she is totally 100% locked in indoctrinated. The very information given by her in this account shows that she is all consumed by not only KRs ideas but there is literally no room for anything not KR related not nxivm not her own mother. Nothing else has been in her life except this and the need for a child. She has done everything except drink the kook aid and had that been available she would have drunk two. Not insane no( although the term follie a deux does spring to mind) Completely and utterly manipulated beyond recognition and no longer able to think as an individual. Yes. Having said all of that she remains responsible for her part in it. No?
[…] Part 6: Lauren Salzman Manages Her Slaves – With Cruelty and Insanity […]
[…] Part 6: Lauren Salzman Manages Her Slaves – With Cruelty and Insanity […]
[…] Part 6: Lauren Salzman Manages Her Slaves – With Cruelty and Insanity […]
[…] Part 6: Lauren Salzman Manages Her Slaves – With Cruelty and Insanity […]
It really kind of does sound like a bizarre religion or pursuit of enlightenment or something. Aren’t Bhuddists into selling all their earthly possessions and shaving their heads to become monks? It sort of sounds like that, with all the talk of self denial. (Except for Keith of course….) I grew up across the street from a guy who became a Bhuddist, although not to that level, so personally I don’t find it so weird to join a group where you deny yourself things and do penance. It’s just sort of the extreme that this group takes it to which is shocking.
[…] Source link […]
It’s funny how these ethically pretentious members mock religion and then go and form a religion themselves while trying to deny that they follow one just because they don’t believe in a so-called “supernatural” entity. Philosophically illiterate members of this group deemed a cult, why do you think the prophets of Semitic religions considered themselves only to be the servants/slaves of God? Because they knew with a certainty within their souls that there was only one being worthy of considering themselves servants/slaves to, which means they would never become such to another, especially a ridiculous self-aggrandizing, humble-bragging, fraud who self-titled himself as Vanguard and his way of living, i.e., his *religion*.
“By their fruits you shall know them.” Or as a corollary, by their fruits you shall know that they are not who they claim to be.
It looks obvious that Lauren Salzman will not do prison time even remotely close to the number of years which she has spent devoutly and smugly tormenting others. She threw herself quite a pity party on the witness stand. It almost sounded as though she was breaking away from her decades of thundering delusions. But I have moved on to a more realistic assessment of Miss Thang. She has been so accustomed to being enslaved and then, at last, to having her own little goon squad of slaves to supervise, ever so vigilantly. What a veteran! She is like a chimpanzee obsessively examining her lice, accustomed to nitpicking.
Her mental and emotional impotence shows as so pronounced, and she is so very absorbed, chock full of clever-not-clever Nxivm/DOS concepts and linguistics, to the point that she seems to be completely oblivious to its all-encompassing foulness. Tunnel vision.
She has spent most of her life trying to please her mother’s evilness and Raniere’s. Recently we saw photos of her, still tied to her repugnant mother, over the Thanksgiving holiday, photographed in a line at Starbucks. She had her head down, staring into her cellphone hypnotically, in what now passes for normality. It’s likely that none of the Salzman crackpots are rehabilitatable. Their souls were mangled and sold so long ago. What else do these bimbos know? Huh?
When does a “victim” of group insanity become a perpetrator? Apparently, there are no hard and fast rules about that. Lauren seemed so dutiful, dedicated, even anal about her self-importance, as a major contributor to everything and anything Raniere decided to implement. Yet, Lauren always seems to look at herself privately as never being really good enough.
It is as if she has spent her entire adulthood eagerly adapting herself to drowning in a huge vat of communal shit. Pardon me for wondering if she has ever even had an orgasm. Perhaps she will someday find the guts to discuss that. How loose was her goose? Or was she resigned to pain masquerading as pleasure and chanting “I am not worthy!”
Maybe for once, she’s right. She’s like the mythic cauldron-soaked frog who was simmered and then fully boiled. Never quite “worthy” enough for her God but with him until the bitter end. She ingested the tricks and has nothing to trade beyond strategic tattling (do NOT tell on Mummy dearest) and nauseating self-pity and selective regrets.
Lauren Salzman, the cauldron soaked FROG, but then Lauren Salzman is missing more than one little “f,” and I’m not in the mood to give an “f.” Not to Lauren Salzman, and she probably won’t have much of a menopause, although perhaps her eyebrows will grow back in, black, gray and bushy. She has spent so long in mental-pause. That could be the title of her autobiography. My Life in Mental-Pause. With no effs to give.
Let’s examine Lauren Pimp Salzman for a while.
What has this woman ever done her whole life but cheat and bully people?
Pimp Salzman took the over priced fraudulent self help program which her demonic mother Nancy Salzman plagiarized
from Scientology and peddled it to unknowing consumers.
When Lauren Pimp Salzman was not teaching a bogus self-help program she was confining a young Mexican woman to a small room for 18 months to compel that women to engage in sex against her will.
Then Lauren Pimp Salzman became the Vice Pimp to Allison Pimp Mack in charge of dozens of slaves.
Perhaps as many as 100 slaves or more.
It seems that Lauren Pimp Salzman was in a competition with Allison Pimp Mack over who could be the biggest, baddest Pimp in NXIVM.
Lauren Pimp Salzman’s insanity manifested itself when she recruited Sarah Edmondson to be a sex slave.
Sarah Edmondson is a middle aged married woman with a child.
The very type of woman least likely to want to serve as a sex slave.
Lauren Pimp Salzman’s cruelty and insanity were a major factor in the collapse of NXIVM.
Lauren Pimp Salzman did not start to wake up until Mexican Federales pointed machine guns at her empty head and the DOJ indicted her Vanguard with pedophilia.
Who needs any advice from the likes of Lauren Pimp Salzman?
I have made fun of Nicki Clyne.
But let’s compare Lauren Pimp Salzman to Nicki Clyne.
Ms. Clyne endeavored to become a journalist with the Knife Media, NXIVM’s propaganda mouthpiece.
But at least that is a legitimate job.
And Ms. Clyne attempted a career in stand up comedy, another legitimate job.
And Nicki Clyne attempted these jobs before NXIVM collapsed.
Can anyone imagine Lauren Pimp Salzman as a journalist?
Would anyone want to hear Lauren Pimp Salzman tell a joke?
“Well a funny thing happened the other day while I was branding a sex slave…..”
Note that when the slave was texting she always referred to Salzman as “You,” and “Your” with capital letters, and as soon as she quit it changed to “you” and “your,” in lower case.
The defendant has to assert insanity, it’s not anybody elses’ job to suggest it. They have already forfeited that option by pleading guilty, it’s just too bad the DOJ made a deal with them instead of either going to trial or getting them to plead guilty to a lot more of the charges.
This is one sick group. They should be locked up for the maximum time possible. The evil Salzman daughter lived under this belief system for her entire adult life, there is little hope she will ever change her outlook.
Lauren was and still is one of the most evil persons I have ever met. Smug, full of herself, greedy and a punishing bitch. This testimony proves it.
I hope the feds still give her and her mother a hefty prison sentence. If they are both dumb enough to give the feds info on the wealthy Mexicans, they may be lined up for a bullet in the head or a fate like the women in the films supplied to Raniere and Dr Porter.
The Salzmans are a greedy pair and the idea of no prison time may blind them to the danger of talking too much. I smell a couple of canaries or was that a dead fish?
If the Salzmans squeal on the Mexicans, the safest place to be may in prison, but not by much.
Right. So. Lauren saw herself as the more 2nd generation, continuing for St. Pam Cafritz?
Ok. So. Tell me all about how Prefect, Clare, and the rest “compartmentalized” this.
ALL of them compartmentalized it.
Behold, the selfish, regressive goal of this “humanitarian” mission according to Mistress Lauren: get a personal assistant, a cleaning lady (all ladies, all the time), and plus get with the lying. Learn ways to humiliate! Also, debase. Learn to debase so you may debase others. Slavery! Work will set you…on the proctor path! Don’t eat. Go to the sex store and get a paddle….doo-dah, I am soo stressed out! It is *so* hard to be a “humanitarian.”
Ah, just like Mother Prefect!
This testimony was compelling.
Good point.
I had a similar thought, that it’s striking that it mostly seems to be about controlling food and sex.
Real growth and spiritually oriented penitence could include things like making amends with someone over lies told or harm done, or providing actual service to humanity by working in a soup kitchen or helping clean a homeless shelter. Instead, it was all just about their narcissistic little polygamous BDSM sex club.