Frank Report permits anonymous commenters. Some use monikers, some don’t, preferring to comment under the “Anonymous” designation.
One of the latter recently accused a commenter who uses the moniker “AnonyMaker” of being a one “Sultan of Six.”
Sultan of Six is known to readers of Frank Report for his defense of all criticism of the TV actress and former Nxivm coach, Kristin Kreuk. Sultan is deeply enmeshed in what appears to be unrequited love of his noble lady Kreuk, and defends what some see as her cowardice as being instead a sterling intelligence, arguing it was not Kristin’s duty to help in the Nxivm fight.
Depiction of Sultan of Six, an anonymous commenter who has been defending Kristin Kreuk since at least 2011.Candid shot? or posed? Kristin Kreuk appears to be exercising. There is an ongoing debate on whether various Kristin Kreuk pictures are real or photoshopped.It is being debated on Frank Report: Is this a real or photoshopped pic of Kreuk.
The anonymous commenter wrote to AnonyMaker [mistaking him for being Kreuk defender, Sultan of Six],
Get lost, Sultan. Go back to Twitter and quit shitting all over the Frank Report with your different aliases and anonymous posts about your dream spank [Kreuk].
Unlike Sultan, Anonymaker has not been defending Kreuk.
AnonyMaker suggests there are others in Nxivm who deserve equal, if not more castigation than Kreuk. This is what AnonyMaker had to say about the anonymous person who accused him of being Sultan.
You actually demonstrate for us just the sort of shoddy thinking and culty mindset that resulted in Kristin Kreuk apparently not initially taking the 2012 Times Union series [about Keith Raniere] seriously enough to resign immediately, as many seem to think she should have, and then still retained some ties to the group for years afterwards.
That’s reflective of commitment or investment bias, in which people have difficulty going back on mistaken decisions and points of view once adopted, even when new information comes to light, or expectations fail to work out.
Frank can tell you time and again that I’m not Sultan and don’t post under aliases – we’ve communicated enough directly, that he knows me – while there’s even obvious evidence of it in differing writing styles, and yet you are completely stuck in being unable to accept anything that doesn’t fit with what you want to believe. One of the signs of maturity and higher-order thinking is being able to recognize, acknowledge and correct for cognitive mistakes; we can only hope that one day you and others like you will grow into that.
And it’s interesting that what seems common to all the “Anonymous” commenters is the continual schoolyard potty-talk references to feces and masturbation, which shows us the level of a lot of Frank’s current following – unfortunately.
Kristin Kreuk – real or photoshopped?
Yet another commenter, using the moniker “Peaches”, remarked that Kreuk actually deserves more scrutiny than, for instance, proactive DOS slaves such as Monica Duran or Michele Hatchette.
Mexican slave Monica Duran worked to bring other slaves into DOS.Michelle Hatchette continues the tradition of blacks being slaves to whites in the USA. Hatchette originally was owned by Allison Mack. Following Mack’s arrest, Hatchette became a slave of Nicki Clyne. Hatchette is currently seeking slaves -black or white – provided they are female – to be owned by her new slave master Clyne.
A pretty slave picture: L-R Nicki Clyne, her spouse Allison Mack, Michelle Hatchette, Samantha LeBaron and Dr. Danielle Roberts, who wielded the branding pen.
Peaches wrote,
“These ladies didn’t use their little superstar power to recruit. Kristin Kreuk did. She’s an asshole IMO. A Raniere Hench Woman. She is the Ghislaine Maxwell of Nxivm.”
Ghislaine Maxwell was a top recruiter for Jeffrey Epstein.
AnonyMaker replied:
What about Sarah Edmondson, then?
She’s also an actress who by virtue of her relatively celebrity, and also her vigorous efforts, recruited far more people into NXIVM than did Kreuk. Unlike Kreuk, she profited from it handsomely, and other than going public with her outrage when she finally herself became the victim of some of the worst of NXIVM, has arguably been quite the hypocrite, unwilling to own up to her role in perpetuating the scam that brought all sorts of harm to people.
If there’s a “Ghislaine Maxwell of Nxivm,” it would be one of Raniere’s long-time inner circle enablers, who actually facilitated his seduction and statutory rape of underage girls in Knox Woods, like Pam Cafritz.
The late Pam Cafritz was Keith Raniere’s top wing woman for years, recruiting women and girls for the boudoir of Keith Alan Raniere, her lordly master.
There is no evidence that any young women recruited by Kreuk ever ended up in Raniere’s clutches. The only place she actually took girls, was to a retreat in California run by someone unconnected to NXIVM.
***
Anonymaker seems to attribute Kreuk’s failures as mistakes – without nefarious intent. This point of view is entirely different than Sultan of Six who worships the ground Kristin walks on, the air that she breathes, salutes the sun because it shines on her and adores the stars for they share the same name as her – a star – though they be not nearly as bright as his dreamy goddess.
But unlike Sultan who would never admit that Kruek could make a mistake, AnonyMaker writes;
I’ve definitely noticed that the “armchair judges,” and the subset of conspiracy theorists, typically seem to fail to take into account that humans often just “fuck up,” and it’s neither incredibly surprising nor any real basis for ginning up some grandiose explanation. One wonders if they aren’t truly lacking in real-life experience.
Even just among the subset of people with sash rank in Vancouver, Kreuk is near the bottom of the list, with many others more deserving of scrutiny – and of being called out for the culpability, hypocrisy and even “virtue signaling.”
Here’s a list I put together in order to try to put things in perspective (I always welcome additional information, and corrections):
* Sarah Edmondson – Established and ran Vancouver Center, recruited actors and celebrities. Claims/reported recruited 2,000.
* Mark Vicente – Ran Center in California and co-founded Vancouver
* Mark Hildreth – Orange Sash by 2011. Jness senior trainer/mentor. Co-leader of The Source. Recruited Kreuk, Nicole, others. Recorded online videos with/for Raniere. Stayed until reportedly cuckolded 2016-7.
* Lucas Roberts– Orange sash 2 stripes. Stayed in.
* Leah Lim Mottishaw– Orange sash 1 stripe. Stayed in.
* Allison Mack – Orange sash 1 stripe. Recruited by Kreuk. Co-leader of The Source. Stayed in.
* Nicki Clyne – Orange sash 1 stripe. Recruited by Edmondson. Stayed in, diehard loyalist.
* Valerie Ward – Orange sash 1 stripe as of 2017.
* Pam Cooley – Yellow sash 4 stripes as of 2011.
* Diane Lim – DOS maybe branded†, Yellow sash 3 stripes. Stayed in, loyalist.
* Grace Park – Yellow Sash. Recruited by Edmondson. Made at least 9 online videos with Raniere. Reported left 2017.
* [note that by reported count there were 2 Yellow Sash 4 stripes and 2 2 stripes coaches additional as of 2011, with names not listed here]
* Kristen Kreuk – Yellow Sash 2 Stripes. Recruited by Hildreth, recruited Voth. Co-founded GBD abortive recruiting effort, turned down OneAsian. “Resignation” after 2012 expose’, later coached twice around 2015/16 before finally cutting ties†.
* Olivia Cheng – Yellow Sash 2 stripes by 2011. One Asian. Actress, recruited by Cline.
* Kendra Voth – Yellow sash 1 stripe as of 2011. Recruited by Kreuk. Co-founded GBD abortive recruiting effort. Reported/claimed left c. 2012, but posted about GBD in 2013?
Diane Goodman – orange two stripes
Pamela Arstikaltis– yellow, two stripes, branded slave.
Mark Vicente and Sarah Edmondson – standing – Mark Hildreth and Kristin Kreuk below.
Above are the four former powerhouses of the Nxivm Vancouver movement.
While both Vicente and Edmondson worked hard to build Nxivm, they also worked hard to bring down Nxivm. Both were far removed from the sex practices of Raniere when they were involved, in my opinion. Edmondson was married and Mark was a man – which is not to Raniere’s taste.
The same may be true of Hildreth and Kreuk – as far as Nxivm sex practices were concerned.
Unlike Edmondson and Vicente, Hildreth and Kreuk never fought to take down Nxivm. They both quietly quit.
Kreuk made one solitary Tweet, a fairly misleading one, after Raniere was arrested and it was safe to do so.
Hildreth has made no public comment.
The argument against Hildreth and Kreuk being cowards is that Nxivm was not their fight.
Mark Hildreth is an actor who has played tough guy or super hero type roles.
Ironically, Hildreth recruited into Nxivm the DOS slave Nicole – who was later sex trafficked by Keith Raniere. The sex trafficking of Nicole guarantees the public – by Raniere’s conviction on sex trafficking charges – that Raniere will get at least a 15 year prison sentence. He is likely to get much more. Still, it is a comfort – as we await his sentencing – to know he has a statutory minimum sentence which will keep him behind bars until at least 2031 – [with time served and time off for good behavior he could get out in 11 years -if he gets the minimum – which I think is unlikely].
Slave master Keith Raniere.
One might wish that Hildreth and Kreuk had done more in the fight against Nxivm. There was a time when their help would have been valuable.
There was a time when their friends Vicente, and Edmondson were at risk of being arrested via false police reports filed by Nxivm leader Clare Bronfman.
Clare was trying to get Mark and Sarah arrested in Vancouver, Los Angeles and Mexico.
A public word of support from Kreuk and Hildreth might have gone a long way to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Maybe it is understandable that Hildreth and Kreuk, who seemed to have escaped safely and quietly from Nxivm, did not want to take a chance at being ruined by Nxivm.
My attitude toward Sarah and Mark is one of support and thankfulness. They may have been forced to fight because they were the leaders of the Vancouver and Los Angeles NXIVM centers. They could not be allowed to leave quietly. But they cut no deals for silence, which they possibly could have made with Nxivm.
Instead they bravely worked to take down Nxivm. Without them, it may not have happened.
Hildreth and Kreuk were safely out of Nxivm when they were asked to help in the fight. They admitted privately that Nxivm was bad and they had erred by being part of it. Both did not see this as a fight worth risking the vicious attacks they knew they would get and so they chose to remain silent.
Frank Report writes a lot less about Hildreth than Kreuk. That is because Hildreth, who is more obscure then his former girlfriend Kreuk, is not as blatant a virtue-signaller.
Kreuk is a consummate, class A virtue-signaller. What’s worse, she virtue signals on the same topics that relate to the crimes of Nxivm and its leader Raniere.
Kristin Kreuk plays a fearless lawyer on Canadian taxpayer funded TV, a woman who risks her career to protect young women.
I could abide Kreuk playing a brave, crusading lawyer that takes on the bad guys in her make believe world on TV- and I could ignore that she did not take on the bad guys of Nxivm- a group which he helped get a lot bigger in the real world.
They used her for years to recruit members.
I suppose most actors are rather timid souls when it comes to reality, as opposed to acting.
What I can’t abide is when she ventures into the public arena trying to pretend she is as brave in real life, as the character she plays on TV.
She plays a social justice warrior on TV. Fine. But when she wants the public to believe she is that in reality, I find it hard to stomach. It begs for an expose.
Publicly Kreuk condemns sex pervert Harvey Weinstein who she does not know, but says nothing about sex pervert Raniere, who she promoted for years.
She supports violent sociopath Lorena Bobbit – who coldly cut off her husband’s penis – not during a violent fight but when he was drunk and asleep.
But never says that had someone did this to Keith after his various rapes of young women, it might have been a worthwhile thing.
Kreuk supports Indian mass murderess Phoolan Devi. who led a gang of thugs to kill 21 men who she “claimed” raped her – without a trial. They were murdered on the word of a known liar, robber, mugger and terrorist.
Kreuk seems to admire lawless, violent heroines. But she says not a word about the perv Raniere who terrorized and ruined the lives of so many women, and girls, some of whom came into his clutches because of her, and many of whom were her friends.
Mark Hildreth, Kristin Kreuk and Allison Mack. Kreuk recruited Allison Mack.
If Kreuk did not pretend to be the kind of woman she plays on TV, there would be nothing much to write about her.
Sure, she may be a coward, but Nxivm attracted cowards and liars.
But Kreuk is a coward who wants the public to think she’s brave. That’s offensive.
India’s vile mass murderer Phoolan Devi. Kristin Kreuk is executive producer of a film that seeks to do a revisionist history of Phoolan – seeking to justify her and her gang’s murder of 21 men – without a trial – because she claimed – without evidence – that they raped her.
Her support of Bobbit and Phoolan Devi is ironic, since her own mentor Keith Raniere was accused of rape and statutory rape. She did not advocate for his extralegal punishment. In fact she did not even advocate for his legal punishment.
Real picture of Kristin Kreuk.Likely real picture of Kristin Kreuk.
Likely photoshopped picture of Kristin Kreuk.
Kristin Kreuk with Nicki Clyne onstage promoting Keith Raniere [note banner behind them] at a Nxivm college recruitment effort in Albany.
Nicki Clyne in costume? Yes, at the time she donned this prison outfit – she was just having fun. It would be ironic – but possibly necessary – if she wound up wearing these for real. At least it might get her out of the dangerous sex slaver cult.
The feds says that Canadian Nicki Clyne had a fake marriage to Allison Mack [r] to keep Clyne in the USA. Mack is now convicted of racketeering and racketeering conspiracy. Curiously, Mack has not had a sentencing date scheduled, leading some to believe she is cooperating with an ongoing FBI investigation. It is customary for a cooperating witness to have her sentencing delayed until after she testifies – thus ensuring the “right kind” of testimony.
Likely photoshopped pic of Kreuk. Like many attractive female celebrities there are online fake “nudes’ of Kreuk.Real pic of Allison Mack and Kristin Kreuk at a Nxivm retreat on Necker Island.
Even though you admit sultan has responded, you are still calling him out. Who’s the real sicko?
Anonymous
4 years ago
Virtue signaling is just another form of the tu quoque logical fallacy. It shifts the argument onto the person instead of the content of it. Even if a father smokes, he can tell his son not to, and give an argument for it that is logically potent. The fact that the father may be considered a hypocrite by the son when it comes to his own actions as far as the act of smoking is concerned is irrelevant to the argument.
An actor’s primary job is to make and sell stories through a visual medium that simulates reality in an attention grabbing way, because at the end of the day, entertainment is a profit making business. They aren’t there to promote virtue as they are not priests, rabbis, imams, etc. That such comes with the business is because it is intrinsic to the telling of human stories, which is as old as humanity itself. Good and bad are encapsulated in protagonists and antagonists of stories, respectively. Producers and actors engage in all kinds of different projects. That doesn’t mean they believe in every representation of virtue or lack thereof that exists within them. Actors are not the characters they play. Kristin played a Muslim girl in the movie “Partition”. That doesn’t mean she believes in the religion or the way certain Muslim countries treat their women. It means she believed in something in the story, or she could’ve just done it for a paycheck, like many actors have done before. They’ll still promote and talk about the project because that is part of the business.
You have no idea what virtue signalling is and why it pisses people off. Virtue signalling is trying to convince people you are a virtuous person, without making any sacrifice or effort. It is 100% about showing off to others to appear virtuous. Kristin Kreuk is a prolific virtue signaller and a hypocrite. Virtue signalling and hypocrisy are not necessarily the same thing but they often go hand in hand. Example, Kristin Kreuk being asked by her fellow NXIVM cultists to help fight her cult (after they were personally affected), which was branding sex slaves. A cult led by a pedophile rapist. Kreuk refused as her “career” is much more important to her. Instead, she took a huge chunk of tax payer dollars to pretend to fight a pedophile, rapist, “racist” and spoke all big about women’s issues, Harvey Weinstein, Phoolan Devi (a criminal murderer) etc. That is mega virtue signalling and hypocrisy. She is still virtue signalling all these leftist “issues”. Nothing you say can erase these facts. It’s on public record now.
You forgot to mention that complaining about virtue signaling makes you seem silly, and that you need to find a bigger evil to fight against.
Jezz, chill, please.
I know what it is. It’s basically a criticism cast against someone for pretending to be virtuous because they want to belong to a particular group. It’s effectively an allegation of hypocrisy which is to say to do what you do not do yourself, or vice versa, where a person also doesn’t actually believe in the virtue that is “signaled” because it is a facade that is a means to another end: i.e., to belong to a group that only wants to appear to be virtuous. The problem with claiming this for actors is that it is part of their job to pretend to be something they are not. An actor can pretend to be a hero and stop a killer with a gun on film, but if they were to be put into a similar real-life situation, they may cower and do nothing. That doesn’t mean they don’t believe that killing is wrong, nor does it mean that they are hypocrites for speaking out against it. This is true for any kind of deed believed to be virtuous that is substituted for killing. That’s why virtue signaling is such a silly criticism. It is also effectively self-defeating because fundamentally it is a criticism that presupposes its own validity to speak about virtue in a particular context without establishing why it has the particular right to do so, which makes virtue signaling, virtue signaling in itself. This is particularly true when one calls out virtue signaling in the comment section of a blog to wage a criticism against a particular personality, but not actually doing anything about it in real life. It seems to me in your case that you just don’t like the “leftist issues” that she’s supposedly signaling more so than the idea that she may be doing such.
You still don’t understand. It matters not whether the virtual signaller is an actor or not. Virtue signalling is virtue signalling. Calling out virtue signalling is not virtue signalling. The one calling it out is not trying to appear virtuous. Kreuk is.
“The one calling it out is not trying to appear virtuous”
Sure you are. In calling out others for virtue signaling, you are in fact making a claim about virtue by implying that those who pretend to be virtuous are in fact being non-virtuous. While I agree with this in principle because such behavior is insincere, in order to prove this, it has to be shown that those who you claim are virtue signalling are in fact pretending to be virtuous and that they don’t actually believe in the virtue they are signalling. That Kristin acts in a television show where she plays a character who stands up to a statutory rapist but doesn’t do so in a like manner in real life does not imply that she does not really believe that statutory rape is wrong. She is an actor who plays different characters and what she does on screen doesn’t necessarily correspond with her beliefs or how she would act in real life.
Regardless, the fact that you are calling someone out for pretending to be virtuous opens yourself up to the same criticism because you’re in fact implying that you are more virtuous than the one who you are calling out. But you may simply be doing this just to criticize her because you don’t like her or her “leftist” beliefs, which means you are simply signalling virtue yourself.
Your psycho-babble just proves you don’t know what you are talking about. You are claiming calling out virtue signalling is the other half of virtue signalling like two halves of the same coin. You are saying it’s just a “point of view”, like being anti or pro ISIS, as if it’s the same thing, two sides of the same coin.
Calling out virtue signalling is not about the accuser. It’s not to make the accuser look good. It’s putting the spotlight on the one being accused. It does not matter if the virtue signaller believes 0.1% of the subject, or 100%, they want to first and foremost look good while they are doing it.
Someone might be unhappy by an Islamic terrorist attack, however, going on social media to declare your “solidarity” with the attacked city and why Muslims are peaceful, with the intention of looking good to others is hollow empty bullshit virtue signalling.
Saying “fuck these jihadi cunts”, meaning it and not giving a shit about being praised or criticised is NOT virtue signalling. It’s the intention behind it.
If you point out a virtue signalling moron, like Kristin Kreuk or one of these other leftist celebrities who are desperate to be liked and adored by being pretentious (whether they believe any of their shit or not) and you are not doing so to appear virtuous yourself, then it is NOT virtue signalling. Claiming otherwise is pure projection and makes the virtue signaller more in need of a mighty slap.
Someone can declare themselves more virtuous then another, literally uttering the words, meaning it and not giving a fuck what anyone thinks of that. He or she does not even have to do any action to prove it. That’s not signalling. That is stating.
“I’m a better person then you are”.
Virtue signalling however, is ‘hinting’ through empty words that you are morally more righteous then others without saying so, wanting to appear virtuous to others, but not actually doing anything or wanting to do anything to demonstrate it. Empty words. Bullshit behaviours. Like these celebrities at awards shows. All talk. It’s the intention to look virtuous to others as your main motivation.
If your motivation is to look and feel good by talking a certain way, with hollow words that require no effort to speak, then it is virtue signalling.
If your motivation is to point out “what a fake dickhead” she/he is, without being remotely motivated by looking virtuous, then it is NOT virtue signalling. It’s the intention and motivation that differentiates.
The one doing the accusing is not hinting they are virtuous, directly or indirectly. They are simply calling another a fake and a phoney. They are not trying to display virtuous behaviour. They are pointing out that the virtue signaller is trying to appear good.
When I see a liberal celebrity talking shit about “walls are racist” from behind their guarded mansion walls, it pisses me off. It does not make me feel virtuous and pointing out their bullshit is not an attempt to make myself look good to others, or make myself feel virtuous. I’m stating what an asshole the celebrity is, not how virtuous I am. That’s the sole motivation.
Wanting to appear virtuous to others without any sacrifice on your part is virtue signalling, irregardless whether they believe anything they say. It’s the ‘wanting’ to come across a certain way that makes it virtue signalling.
Accusing someone of bullshitting without wanting to appear virtuous yourself is not virtue signalling.
They are not two sides of the same coin as the intentions behind both are completely different.
Ok, Ok, you don’t like lefties who virtue signal. But aren’t people who praise and promote right wing causes and politics virtue signalers, too? Why don’t you criticise them?
“Your psycho-babble just proves you don’t know what you are talking about. You are claiming calling out virtue signalling is the other half of virtue signalling like two halves of the same coin. ”
No it’s not psychobabble. And no I’m not implying it’s two halves of the same coin. I am implying that you open up yourself to a like criticism as the one you are criticizing, because at the bottom, you are also making a claim about virtue and when it is appropriate to signal it in a particular context. Everyone signals virtue in some manner. But virtue signalling as the term has come to be known has the additional criteria that the person doing the signalling is simply doing it to appear to be more virtuous than others and/or belong to a particular group, but the person doesn’t truly believe that the virtue they are signalling is actually virtuous. You may not be intentionally trying to appear to be virtuous in criticizing virtue signalling, but you can’t escape the fact that the mere act of criticizing virtue signalling implies that virtue-signalling is non-virtuous and that you are more virtuous than the person you are criticizing at least when it comes what you are criticizing them for. Any act of criticizing someone for being non-virtuous in some question of morality implies that you don’t do what you are criticizing the person for (otherwise you open yourself also to a claim of hypocrisy). This means the mere act of criticizing virtue signalling can also fall under the same scrutiny of posturing of virtue as the one whom you are criticizing, because it is also a claim about what is virtuous. That’s why I said such a criticism is ultimately self-defeating. It’s a question of motives, and your motives can be just as sullied, i.e., you don’t actually care about virtue-signalling, but only care about it because it can be used as a criticism of the issues that are being signaled, or because you dislike the person doing the signaling, as I already pointed out in a previous example.
Virtue-signalling is ultimately a call out of hypocrisy which can be acceptable. If someone is out there telling people to do something they don’t do themselves you can smirk and not care what they say because that person is being a hypocrite. However if they argue for it, and the argument is logically potent, or its self-evidently right, merely saying they are a hypocrite does not counter the argument or make them wrong. Rebellion has never been in the intellect. It has always been in the will. A father who started smoking when he was young and didn’t know the ramifications of it may no longer have the will to quit anymore, but he may intellectually know all of its detriments and make a case against it for his son so that he does not pick up the habit.
“but the person doesn’t truly believe that the virtue they are signalling is actually virtuous.”
Whether they believe it or not is irrelevant. If they don’t believe it, not only are they virtue signalling, they are hypocrites too. If they want to show off to others, it’s fake. Its virtue signalling. They may not like it that Hussain blew up a movie theatre, (or they don’t give a shit), but either way, they want their group to accept them by talking hollow. Selfish intentions behind hollow words.
“You may not be intentionally trying to appear to be virtuous in criticizing virtue signalling, but you can’t escape the fact that the mere act of criticizing virtue signalling implies that virtue-signalling is non-virtuous and that you are more virtuous than the person you are criticizing at least when it comes what you are criticizing them for.”
Im stating as a FACT that virtue signalling is NOT virtuous and my criticising words about it and those who do it are superior to the empty words and actions of those who do it. Im not hinting, I’m stating. It’s not about me being virtuous, it’s about them being fake. I’m not trying to display my own virtue, or be accepted and liked. I’m telling them they are full of shit.
As already stated, it’s NOT about the one doing the accusing. I can state I am more virtuous then that annoying babbling celebrity and mean it. That is stating and not signalling or hinting.
My words however, when calling out a virtue signaller, are not to show off to anyone or to be included into a particular group. I can be in a room full of lefty retards and call them out for their empty hollow words. I don’t want to be in their group and I don’t need the approval of my own. My intention is to point out their fakeness, not show off my own virtue.
If you think I am virtuous, or appear so for calling out a virtue signalling bafoon, that is your opinion, not my intention. A man might be walking behind a woman in the street and it makes her scared. He has no intention of harming her, but she still sees him as a threat. The threat is not real, but her fear is. I have no intention of showing off virtue to any group when I call out a loser phoney. If you see a display of virtue, that’s not the intention.
If you beat the shit out of a pedophile because you hate pedophiles, you are not trying to display your virtue, but your disgust in the pedophile. If you appear virtuous to others, that was not the intention.
If you were in the NXIVM cult, loving the money, status and feelings of self importance, knowing full well about crimes and unethical behaviour, but then was on the receiving end of a scorching branding above your vajayjay, knowing full well you can’t just quit as you are too high in rank and status in the cult to leave unharmed, going to the press and authorities to ‘bring down the cult’ is not an act of virtue, but of self preservation. Then presenting yourself as an innocent naive victim/heroine who did nothing wrong but everything right is bullshit. It’s the intention behind everything, words and actions. Yes, that was a dig at Sarah Edmondson.
Actually, that’s very much the critical point, because a claim of virtue signalling presupposes the person is signalling virtue to appear to be virtuous and/or to belong to a group. They can still believe and act upon the virtue but still also want to show off and belong to the group. Or they can believe and act upon the virtue and not care about showing off or belonging to the group because they only belong to the group as a means to an end to get the point across. You can’t know for sure that they are virtue signalling if they act upon the virtue because you have to know that they only do so because they want to appear to be virtuous and/or belong to a group, which means you have to know the truth about their belief about the virtue. So the only way to know for certain is to show that they are hypocritical about it, i.e., they don’t do what they say.
That’s what you’re not getting.
Anonymous
4 years ago
“There is no evidence that any young women recruited by Kreuk ever ended up in Raniere’s clutches. The only place she actually took girls, was to a retreat in California run by someone unconnected to NXIVM.”
Allison Mack…
“Anonymaker :* Kristen Kreuk – Yellow Sash 2 Stripes. Recruited by Hildreth, recruited Voth. Co-founded GBD abortive recruiting effort, turned down OneAsian. “Resignation” after 2012 expose’, later coached twice around 2015/16 before finally cutting ties†.
Recruited Voth AND Allison…Also convinced Allison to stay using not her fame but the faith Allison had in her…it’s way worse because one is using the stupidity of “fans”, the others use friendship as an excuse.
Didn’t resign after 2012 but later (2013-14) so it was obviously not the ‘expose’ which pushed her out…the 2 coachings weren’t proved so it’s just gossip, nothing else…
Mark Hildreth didn’t leave because of the cuckolded thing but due to the public disclosure of DOS…He would still be in if it wasn’t for that.
It would be nice to precise that Edmondson and Vicente (amongst others) were actually more than simply running the center…they were executive of Nxivm (the reason why the made so much money out of it)
I put “resignation” in regards to Kreuk because Frank, and presumably his source, has described what she wrote to Nancy Salzman as a “letter of resignation;” Salzman reportedly took that as Kreuk was backing away in the wake of the Times Union revelations, and anything that happened afterward may reflect the messiness of people trying to leave groups to which they have various ties including social connections. But I can add “alleged” regarding her later coaching. It’s intended to be a brief list without a detailed explanation, so it’s going to have to condense some things to the point of risking a certain inaccuracy.
I’ve previously heard other explanations for why Hildreth left, so you’re right that should be changed – thanks for the reminder.
And I’m not sure the exact framing of Edmondson’s and Vicente’s roles makes much difference so long as its clear they were the two top dogs, but I’ll consider a change.
Also, I’ve heard through other sources that Park was a yellow sash 2 stripes – I would have expected her to have made it higher given as long as she was in, and as much of a loyalist as she was such as doing the videos with Raniere, but I’ll have to go with that unless anyone has good information otherwise.
Frank has no need to apologize. You’ll be back anyway under a different name, posting the same juvenile vulgarity that fills your empty head. Sultan said he was never coming back either, but ever the liar………..
The joke…..Actually a few dummies believed I was serious. There is so much porn on the internet, that even if Parlato posted fake porn; Why would I be upset? 😉
Anonymous
4 years ago
Nice article George, but you failed to see the similarities of sultan/anony. Your explanation of their differences comes close to actually showing how they are the same. One of the favorite tools of defending KK, by both the Mad Spanker and Anonymaker is deflection.
Anything regarding blame, responsibility, guilt, etc is simply deflected from KK onto others like Mack, Sarah E, Hildrith, Salzman, or Keith and Nxivm in general. Too many similarities to mention. Also their use of “word salad” is very much the same. I haven’t really thought to much about it until recently, but now it is obvious.
Keep up the good work.
Ask either one the time, and they will tell you how to build a clock.
AnonyMaker
4 years ago
First, I want to acknowledge that there are a lot of thoughtful commenters here who obviously take time to compose their ideas and make various sorts of arguments, in an attempt to contribute; I disagree with a number of them, and think there may be errors in their points of view that I will even challenge, but I respect them and honor their contribution to the discussion. My issue is mostly with the troll-types posting 2 to 4 line diatribes, devoid of thought or analysis, and typically filled with hatred and various sorts of bigotry, plus a few who write just a bit more but obviously haven’t taken time to familiarize themselves with the facts or to think things through – that’s indeed the same sort of mentality seen in actual cultists.
On top of other criticisms, I’ve said that it seems to me that Kreuk is a typical vapid celebrity type – probably not all that smart, or at least she doesn’t act that way. For instance, I doubt she understood, or could figure out, what Raniere’s ultimate intent behind efforts like Girls by Design probably was, and instead thought she was involved in some sort of Brownies for the generation of 21st century girls sexualized in the way epitomized by Victoria’s Secret Pink brand.
Her PR statement, whoever crafted it, did a fair job of saying something without getting into TMI, but obviously failed to tell quite enough of the truth to forestall just the sort of challenges being raised here. It gets low marks, if not a flunk, by crisis management standards – though even savvy public figures and prominent corporations have succumbed to the same pitfall:
And having seen Frobisher make a clear case, with convincing details, about how in 2017 Kreuk rejected entreaties to come out in support of her friend Sarah Edmondson, but now poses herself as taking a stand on social justice issues, I have to agree that she’s being a thoughtless hypocrite. Given that she got sucked into a cult, and stayed involved for quite a while, it’s also not entirely surprising that she’s having difficulty navigating her way afterwards.
If she is a guilty hypocrite, it’s still questionable whether she is the worst, or most deserving of being called out – regardless, I think she gets disproportionate attention here. Sarah Edmondson’s rather unrevealing whole book, for instance, could be seen as a work of “virtue signaling,” by someone without a doubt much more deeply involved and far more guilty for her involvement in NXIVM; she may have done relatively more to expose and take down NXIVM, but I’d argue that she has still fallen far, far short of atoning for extensive culpability – which ought to include giving all the proceeds from her book to victims, many of whom she profited off of when she was running the Vancouver center.
Kreuk is a consummate, class A virtue-signaller
4 years ago
Of all the “crimes” and shameful and nefarious and cowardly things that exNx Kreuk has been accused of, Virtue Signalling is the second least important, or in other words, the second silliest. The silliest is blaming her that her character in a fictional tv entertainment tries to fight for justice.
Nice pictures though. Next time, maybe provide a link to sites with her fake porn so others can blame her for being a slut.
A picture of where Kristin Kreuk’s brains are located. ?resize=463%2C375&ssl=1
I have reason to believe that NXIVM Vancouver might still be in operation to a limited extent.
There is a member of NXIVM who travels to Vancouver and Mexico on a fairly frequent basis.
Every few months.
Both Vancouver and Mexico were hot beds of NXIVM activity.
Is this person acting as a courier?
(This person is not Nicki Clyne.)
His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.
His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.
Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” Parlato was also credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.
Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.
Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.
Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.
IMDb — Frank Parlato
Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankreport76@gmail.com
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
damn you must really be a justice of insecurity to go these lengths. nobody fucking cares karen.
wouldn’t mind being the meat in an allison mack kristin kreuk sandwich
Any pic of her brand?
The brand’s KR was not Keith’s initials, but a symbol of his one true (and lost) love, KRistin KReuk.
Look again. K.K. is in the branding along with K.R. and A.M. Its all there.
Sultan squats to pee.
Not to much from spanky on this page. He must be still spanking it over the nippie photo.
Oh Kristin ooooh, come in tokyo.
Even though you admit sultan has responded, you are still calling him out. Who’s the real sicko?
Virtue signaling is just another form of the tu quoque logical fallacy. It shifts the argument onto the person instead of the content of it. Even if a father smokes, he can tell his son not to, and give an argument for it that is logically potent. The fact that the father may be considered a hypocrite by the son when it comes to his own actions as far as the act of smoking is concerned is irrelevant to the argument.
An actor’s primary job is to make and sell stories through a visual medium that simulates reality in an attention grabbing way, because at the end of the day, entertainment is a profit making business. They aren’t there to promote virtue as they are not priests, rabbis, imams, etc. That such comes with the business is because it is intrinsic to the telling of human stories, which is as old as humanity itself. Good and bad are encapsulated in protagonists and antagonists of stories, respectively. Producers and actors engage in all kinds of different projects. That doesn’t mean they believe in every representation of virtue or lack thereof that exists within them. Actors are not the characters they play. Kristin played a Muslim girl in the movie “Partition”. That doesn’t mean she believes in the religion or the way certain Muslim countries treat their women. It means she believed in something in the story, or she could’ve just done it for a paycheck, like many actors have done before. They’ll still promote and talk about the project because that is part of the business.
You have no idea what virtue signalling is and why it pisses people off. Virtue signalling is trying to convince people you are a virtuous person, without making any sacrifice or effort. It is 100% about showing off to others to appear virtuous. Kristin Kreuk is a prolific virtue signaller and a hypocrite. Virtue signalling and hypocrisy are not necessarily the same thing but they often go hand in hand. Example, Kristin Kreuk being asked by her fellow NXIVM cultists to help fight her cult (after they were personally affected), which was branding sex slaves. A cult led by a pedophile rapist. Kreuk refused as her “career” is much more important to her. Instead, she took a huge chunk of tax payer dollars to pretend to fight a pedophile, rapist, “racist” and spoke all big about women’s issues, Harvey Weinstein, Phoolan Devi (a criminal murderer) etc. That is mega virtue signalling and hypocrisy. She is still virtue signalling all these leftist “issues”. Nothing you say can erase these facts. It’s on public record now.
You forgot to mention that complaining about virtue signaling makes you seem silly, and that you need to find a bigger evil to fight against.
Jezz, chill, please.
I know what it is. It’s basically a criticism cast against someone for pretending to be virtuous because they want to belong to a particular group. It’s effectively an allegation of hypocrisy which is to say to do what you do not do yourself, or vice versa, where a person also doesn’t actually believe in the virtue that is “signaled” because it is a facade that is a means to another end: i.e., to belong to a group that only wants to appear to be virtuous. The problem with claiming this for actors is that it is part of their job to pretend to be something they are not. An actor can pretend to be a hero and stop a killer with a gun on film, but if they were to be put into a similar real-life situation, they may cower and do nothing. That doesn’t mean they don’t believe that killing is wrong, nor does it mean that they are hypocrites for speaking out against it. This is true for any kind of deed believed to be virtuous that is substituted for killing. That’s why virtue signaling is such a silly criticism. It is also effectively self-defeating because fundamentally it is a criticism that presupposes its own validity to speak about virtue in a particular context without establishing why it has the particular right to do so, which makes virtue signaling, virtue signaling in itself. This is particularly true when one calls out virtue signaling in the comment section of a blog to wage a criticism against a particular personality, but not actually doing anything about it in real life. It seems to me in your case that you just don’t like the “leftist issues” that she’s supposedly signaling more so than the idea that she may be doing such.
You still don’t understand. It matters not whether the virtual signaller is an actor or not. Virtue signalling is virtue signalling. Calling out virtue signalling is not virtue signalling. The one calling it out is not trying to appear virtuous. Kreuk is.
“The one calling it out is not trying to appear virtuous”
Sure you are. In calling out others for virtue signaling, you are in fact making a claim about virtue by implying that those who pretend to be virtuous are in fact being non-virtuous. While I agree with this in principle because such behavior is insincere, in order to prove this, it has to be shown that those who you claim are virtue signalling are in fact pretending to be virtuous and that they don’t actually believe in the virtue they are signalling. That Kristin acts in a television show where she plays a character who stands up to a statutory rapist but doesn’t do so in a like manner in real life does not imply that she does not really believe that statutory rape is wrong. She is an actor who plays different characters and what she does on screen doesn’t necessarily correspond with her beliefs or how she would act in real life.
Regardless, the fact that you are calling someone out for pretending to be virtuous opens yourself up to the same criticism because you’re in fact implying that you are more virtuous than the one who you are calling out. But you may simply be doing this just to criticize her because you don’t like her or her “leftist” beliefs, which means you are simply signalling virtue yourself.
Your psycho-babble just proves you don’t know what you are talking about. You are claiming calling out virtue signalling is the other half of virtue signalling like two halves of the same coin. You are saying it’s just a “point of view”, like being anti or pro ISIS, as if it’s the same thing, two sides of the same coin.
Calling out virtue signalling is not about the accuser. It’s not to make the accuser look good. It’s putting the spotlight on the one being accused. It does not matter if the virtue signaller believes 0.1% of the subject, or 100%, they want to first and foremost look good while they are doing it.
Someone might be unhappy by an Islamic terrorist attack, however, going on social media to declare your “solidarity” with the attacked city and why Muslims are peaceful, with the intention of looking good to others is hollow empty bullshit virtue signalling.
Saying “fuck these jihadi cunts”, meaning it and not giving a shit about being praised or criticised is NOT virtue signalling. It’s the intention behind it.
If you point out a virtue signalling moron, like Kristin Kreuk or one of these other leftist celebrities who are desperate to be liked and adored by being pretentious (whether they believe any of their shit or not) and you are not doing so to appear virtuous yourself, then it is NOT virtue signalling. Claiming otherwise is pure projection and makes the virtue signaller more in need of a mighty slap.
Someone can declare themselves more virtuous then another, literally uttering the words, meaning it and not giving a fuck what anyone thinks of that. He or she does not even have to do any action to prove it. That’s not signalling. That is stating.
“I’m a better person then you are”.
Virtue signalling however, is ‘hinting’ through empty words that you are morally more righteous then others without saying so, wanting to appear virtuous to others, but not actually doing anything or wanting to do anything to demonstrate it. Empty words. Bullshit behaviours. Like these celebrities at awards shows. All talk. It’s the intention to look virtuous to others as your main motivation.
If your motivation is to look and feel good by talking a certain way, with hollow words that require no effort to speak, then it is virtue signalling.
If your motivation is to point out “what a fake dickhead” she/he is, without being remotely motivated by looking virtuous, then it is NOT virtue signalling. It’s the intention and motivation that differentiates.
The one doing the accusing is not hinting they are virtuous, directly or indirectly. They are simply calling another a fake and a phoney. They are not trying to display virtuous behaviour. They are pointing out that the virtue signaller is trying to appear good.
When I see a liberal celebrity talking shit about “walls are racist” from behind their guarded mansion walls, it pisses me off. It does not make me feel virtuous and pointing out their bullshit is not an attempt to make myself look good to others, or make myself feel virtuous. I’m stating what an asshole the celebrity is, not how virtuous I am. That’s the sole motivation.
Wanting to appear virtuous to others without any sacrifice on your part is virtue signalling, irregardless whether they believe anything they say. It’s the ‘wanting’ to come across a certain way that makes it virtue signalling.
Accusing someone of bullshitting without wanting to appear virtuous yourself is not virtue signalling.
They are not two sides of the same coin as the intentions behind both are completely different.
That is that.
Ok, Ok, you don’t like lefties who virtue signal. But aren’t people who praise and promote right wing causes and politics virtue signalers, too? Why don’t you criticise them?
“Your psycho-babble just proves you don’t know what you are talking about. You are claiming calling out virtue signalling is the other half of virtue signalling like two halves of the same coin. ”
No it’s not psychobabble. And no I’m not implying it’s two halves of the same coin. I am implying that you open up yourself to a like criticism as the one you are criticizing, because at the bottom, you are also making a claim about virtue and when it is appropriate to signal it in a particular context. Everyone signals virtue in some manner. But virtue signalling as the term has come to be known has the additional criteria that the person doing the signalling is simply doing it to appear to be more virtuous than others and/or belong to a particular group, but the person doesn’t truly believe that the virtue they are signalling is actually virtuous. You may not be intentionally trying to appear to be virtuous in criticizing virtue signalling, but you can’t escape the fact that the mere act of criticizing virtue signalling implies that virtue-signalling is non-virtuous and that you are more virtuous than the person you are criticizing at least when it comes what you are criticizing them for. Any act of criticizing someone for being non-virtuous in some question of morality implies that you don’t do what you are criticizing the person for (otherwise you open yourself also to a claim of hypocrisy). This means the mere act of criticizing virtue signalling can also fall under the same scrutiny of posturing of virtue as the one whom you are criticizing, because it is also a claim about what is virtuous. That’s why I said such a criticism is ultimately self-defeating. It’s a question of motives, and your motives can be just as sullied, i.e., you don’t actually care about virtue-signalling, but only care about it because it can be used as a criticism of the issues that are being signaled, or because you dislike the person doing the signaling, as I already pointed out in a previous example.
Virtue-signalling is ultimately a call out of hypocrisy which can be acceptable. If someone is out there telling people to do something they don’t do themselves you can smirk and not care what they say because that person is being a hypocrite. However if they argue for it, and the argument is logically potent, or its self-evidently right, merely saying they are a hypocrite does not counter the argument or make them wrong. Rebellion has never been in the intellect. It has always been in the will. A father who started smoking when he was young and didn’t know the ramifications of it may no longer have the will to quit anymore, but he may intellectually know all of its detriments and make a case against it for his son so that he does not pick up the habit.
You STILL are not getting it.
“but the person doesn’t truly believe that the virtue they are signalling is actually virtuous.”
Whether they believe it or not is irrelevant. If they don’t believe it, not only are they virtue signalling, they are hypocrites too. If they want to show off to others, it’s fake. Its virtue signalling. They may not like it that Hussain blew up a movie theatre, (or they don’t give a shit), but either way, they want their group to accept them by talking hollow. Selfish intentions behind hollow words.
“You may not be intentionally trying to appear to be virtuous in criticizing virtue signalling, but you can’t escape the fact that the mere act of criticizing virtue signalling implies that virtue-signalling is non-virtuous and that you are more virtuous than the person you are criticizing at least when it comes what you are criticizing them for.”
Im stating as a FACT that virtue signalling is NOT virtuous and my criticising words about it and those who do it are superior to the empty words and actions of those who do it. Im not hinting, I’m stating. It’s not about me being virtuous, it’s about them being fake. I’m not trying to display my own virtue, or be accepted and liked. I’m telling them they are full of shit.
As already stated, it’s NOT about the one doing the accusing. I can state I am more virtuous then that annoying babbling celebrity and mean it. That is stating and not signalling or hinting.
My words however, when calling out a virtue signaller, are not to show off to anyone or to be included into a particular group. I can be in a room full of lefty retards and call them out for their empty hollow words. I don’t want to be in their group and I don’t need the approval of my own. My intention is to point out their fakeness, not show off my own virtue.
If you think I am virtuous, or appear so for calling out a virtue signalling bafoon, that is your opinion, not my intention. A man might be walking behind a woman in the street and it makes her scared. He has no intention of harming her, but she still sees him as a threat. The threat is not real, but her fear is. I have no intention of showing off virtue to any group when I call out a loser phoney. If you see a display of virtue, that’s not the intention.
If you beat the shit out of a pedophile because you hate pedophiles, you are not trying to display your virtue, but your disgust in the pedophile. If you appear virtuous to others, that was not the intention.
If you were in the NXIVM cult, loving the money, status and feelings of self importance, knowing full well about crimes and unethical behaviour, but then was on the receiving end of a scorching branding above your vajayjay, knowing full well you can’t just quit as you are too high in rank and status in the cult to leave unharmed, going to the press and authorities to ‘bring down the cult’ is not an act of virtue, but of self preservation. Then presenting yourself as an innocent naive victim/heroine who did nothing wrong but everything right is bullshit. It’s the intention behind everything, words and actions. Yes, that was a dig at Sarah Edmondson.
“Whether they believe it or not is irrelevant. ”
Actually, that’s very much the critical point, because a claim of virtue signalling presupposes the person is signalling virtue to appear to be virtuous and/or to belong to a group. They can still believe and act upon the virtue but still also want to show off and belong to the group. Or they can believe and act upon the virtue and not care about showing off or belonging to the group because they only belong to the group as a means to an end to get the point across. You can’t know for sure that they are virtue signalling if they act upon the virtue because you have to know that they only do so because they want to appear to be virtuous and/or belong to a group, which means you have to know the truth about their belief about the virtue. So the only way to know for certain is to show that they are hypocritical about it, i.e., they don’t do what they say.
That’s what you’re not getting.
“There is no evidence that any young women recruited by Kreuk ever ended up in Raniere’s clutches. The only place she actually took girls, was to a retreat in California run by someone unconnected to NXIVM.”
Allison Mack…
“Anonymaker :* Kristen Kreuk – Yellow Sash 2 Stripes. Recruited by Hildreth, recruited Voth. Co-founded GBD abortive recruiting effort, turned down OneAsian. “Resignation” after 2012 expose’, later coached twice around 2015/16 before finally cutting ties†.
Recruited Voth AND Allison…Also convinced Allison to stay using not her fame but the faith Allison had in her…it’s way worse because one is using the stupidity of “fans”, the others use friendship as an excuse.
Didn’t resign after 2012 but later (2013-14) so it was obviously not the ‘expose’ which pushed her out…the 2 coachings weren’t proved so it’s just gossip, nothing else…
Mark Hildreth didn’t leave because of the cuckolded thing but due to the public disclosure of DOS…He would still be in if it wasn’t for that.
It would be nice to precise that Edmondson and Vicente (amongst others) were actually more than simply running the center…they were executive of Nxivm (the reason why the made so much money out of it)
Thanks for the response.
I put “resignation” in regards to Kreuk because Frank, and presumably his source, has described what she wrote to Nancy Salzman as a “letter of resignation;” Salzman reportedly took that as Kreuk was backing away in the wake of the Times Union revelations, and anything that happened afterward may reflect the messiness of people trying to leave groups to which they have various ties including social connections. But I can add “alleged” regarding her later coaching. It’s intended to be a brief list without a detailed explanation, so it’s going to have to condense some things to the point of risking a certain inaccuracy.
I’ve previously heard other explanations for why Hildreth left, so you’re right that should be changed – thanks for the reminder.
And I’m not sure the exact framing of Edmondson’s and Vicente’s roles makes much difference so long as its clear they were the two top dogs, but I’ll consider a change.
Also, I’ve heard through other sources that Park was a yellow sash 2 stripes – I would have expected her to have made it higher given as long as she was in, and as much of a loyalist as she was such as doing the videos with Raniere, but I’ll have to go with that unless anyone has good information otherwise.
Dear George and Frank,
Only 5 comments for a Kristin Kreuk article
Dear Frank and George,
Only 5 comments for a Kristen Kreuk article?
This is what happens when you post fake-skin….. 🙂
When Frank apologizes profusely, maybe I will comeback…..
Best wishes for 2020!!!!
Frank has no need to apologize. You’ll be back anyway under a different name, posting the same juvenile vulgarity that fills your empty head. Sultan said he was never coming back either, but ever the liar………..
Mitch Immature? Yes!
Vulgarity? You get what you give in life.
Of course I will be back. Like you I have no life. 🙂
Clearly “fake skin” is a joke, yah dummy. No one but, you believed me.
… Besides, I have to come back; Scott Amway Johnson and I have a deep spiritual connection.
See you in the future Mitch! Kiss, Kiss! 🙂
Mitch,
The joke…..Actually a few dummies believed I was serious. There is so much porn on the internet, that even if Parlato posted fake porn; Why would I be upset? 😉
Nice article George, but you failed to see the similarities of sultan/anony. Your explanation of their differences comes close to actually showing how they are the same. One of the favorite tools of defending KK, by both the Mad Spanker and Anonymaker is deflection.
Anything regarding blame, responsibility, guilt, etc is simply deflected from KK onto others like Mack, Sarah E, Hildrith, Salzman, or Keith and Nxivm in general. Too many similarities to mention. Also their use of “word salad” is very much the same. I haven’t really thought to much about it until recently, but now it is obvious.
Keep up the good work.
The only thing that is obvious is your stupidity.
Ask either one the time, and they will tell you how to build a clock.
First, I want to acknowledge that there are a lot of thoughtful commenters here who obviously take time to compose their ideas and make various sorts of arguments, in an attempt to contribute; I disagree with a number of them, and think there may be errors in their points of view that I will even challenge, but I respect them and honor their contribution to the discussion. My issue is mostly with the troll-types posting 2 to 4 line diatribes, devoid of thought or analysis, and typically filled with hatred and various sorts of bigotry, plus a few who write just a bit more but obviously haven’t taken time to familiarize themselves with the facts or to think things through – that’s indeed the same sort of mentality seen in actual cultists.
On top of other criticisms, I’ve said that it seems to me that Kreuk is a typical vapid celebrity type – probably not all that smart, or at least she doesn’t act that way. For instance, I doubt she understood, or could figure out, what Raniere’s ultimate intent behind efforts like Girls by Design probably was, and instead thought she was involved in some sort of Brownies for the generation of 21st century girls sexualized in the way epitomized by Victoria’s Secret Pink brand.
Her PR statement, whoever crafted it, did a fair job of saying something without getting into TMI, but obviously failed to tell quite enough of the truth to forestall just the sort of challenges being raised here. It gets low marks, if not a flunk, by crisis management standards – though even savvy public figures and prominent corporations have succumbed to the same pitfall:
If you screw up, admit it: Tell the truth in a crisis | PR Week
“If there’s one overarching lesson to be learned it’s that companies and organizations must tell the truth if their reputation is to survive and thrive.”
https://www.prweek.com/article/1328707/screw-up-admit-it-tell-truth-crisis
And having seen Frobisher make a clear case, with convincing details, about how in 2017 Kreuk rejected entreaties to come out in support of her friend Sarah Edmondson, but now poses herself as taking a stand on social justice issues, I have to agree that she’s being a thoughtless hypocrite. Given that she got sucked into a cult, and stayed involved for quite a while, it’s also not entirely surprising that she’s having difficulty navigating her way afterwards.
If she is a guilty hypocrite, it’s still questionable whether she is the worst, or most deserving of being called out – regardless, I think she gets disproportionate attention here. Sarah Edmondson’s rather unrevealing whole book, for instance, could be seen as a work of “virtue signaling,” by someone without a doubt much more deeply involved and far more guilty for her involvement in NXIVM; she may have done relatively more to expose and take down NXIVM, but I’d argue that she has still fallen far, far short of atoning for extensive culpability – which ought to include giving all the proceeds from her book to victims, many of whom she profited off of when she was running the Vancouver center.
Of all the “crimes” and shameful and nefarious and cowardly things that exNx Kreuk has been accused of, Virtue Signalling is the second least important, or in other words, the second silliest. The silliest is blaming her that her character in a fictional tv entertainment tries to fight for justice.
Nice pictures though. Next time, maybe provide a link to sites with her fake porn so others can blame her for being a slut.
They are all phones except Toni Natalie she took down Nxivm.
A picture of where Kristin Kreuk’s brains are located.
?resize=463%2C375&ssl=1
I have reason to believe that NXIVM Vancouver might still be in operation to a limited extent.
There is a member of NXIVM who travels to Vancouver and Mexico on a fairly frequent basis.
Every few months.
Both Vancouver and Mexico were hot beds of NXIVM activity.
Is this person acting as a courier?
(This person is not Nicki Clyne.)