Allison Mack Questions Her Sex Slaver Leader Keith Raniere on ‘What Is Creativity?’

A thank you to Marie White for transcribing Keith Raniere’s conversation with Allison Mack.  The video of the conversation is available on YouTube.

Their conversation occurred prior to 2017, when the two of them were master and slave but not yet revealed to the world for their perverse relationship that led to the branding and blackmailing of other women and their subsequent arrests.

So why did a successful actress like Allison throw away everything to follow Keith Raniere?

I believe she thought he was the smartest man in the world. That he had insights that normal people could never have – and if she was a good student, he might bring her into his super-high state of understanding. I think it quite possible that she also had deep romantic feelings towards him as well.

At one time, she believed he would sire babies with her – and that she and the other “sister wives” would raise their Raniere-babies together.

DOS First-Line Slaves. Would they raise their babies together?

But there was a philosophy, or at least a veneer of philosophy – that Raniere was a philosopher and had a message for the world – that was part and parcel of Nxivm, its foundation.

It was not so much the philosophy itself but the existence, the fact of having a philosophy that was the glue that held Nxivm together.

We can perhaps judge this philosophy a little better when we read it, as opposed to hearing it from the lips of the Vanguard.

If we can get beyond his occasional inarticulateness, his inability to sometimes make incomplete and grammatically incorrect sentences, we can then ask, does he have a point? Is this a coherent philosophy?

In this, the first part of our series on Raniere’s philosophy, we hear his views on creativity.

Does it make sense?

The purpose then of this little study is not only to judge Raniere’s philosophy but to see how he held together his group of slaves with it.

He was not having sex with all of them, all the time. He couldn’t keep up with that impossible task. It seems at best he could do was have threesomes and he had scheduled a group blow job.  But it was not enough.

So, he would come out of his sex lair and offer his philosophy. And his followers would listen and be thankful and go away and ponder his deep and hard to understand messages. This kept them in, and engaged, for they thought that they did not understand all he said, but they knew it was quite great, unique and world-affirming.

They needed to stay and learn and share this great, unique teacher and not just in the bedroom.

One of Allison Mack’s social media messages.

They had never seen anyone like him before. And yes, for people like Allison and Lauren Salzman, Nicki Clyne, Cami, Rosa Laura, Dani, Monica, Loreta, and many other women, he was a once in a lifetime genius and they were fortunate to be able to sit at his feet or across the table [semi-starved and sleep-deprived as part of their advanced spiritual training] and be part of the world mission to make a more noble society.

This became the all-encompassing goal, and the fact that he was having sex with them secretly was their privilege, and the fact that they lied for him and that he lied to others was a mere necessity to advance his brilliance and the cause – for the world itself is dishonest and any lie he told or they told was required only because of the ignoble level of civilization that presently exists.

This is part one of Allison’s questions for her Vanguard.

A. Okay, so the first question I wanted to ask is something, thank you, by the way.

K. You have your list of questions, oh my.

A. I do you have my list. It was funny, when I sat down yesterday to write up my questions I was like, wow, I have a lot of questions for you even though I’ve been your student for years and I get to spend all this time with you, I feel like there’s always such a wealth that I can…

K. But when you have the opportunity to put a bright light on me and just question me, what the hey?

A Yeah, exactly, I have to take advantage. Um, so the first question I came up with is something that sort of, it seems like, kind of like, the trend right now, like Elizabeth Gilbert started it before with the TED talk about creativity, and then there’s like all these books, and all these processes, of like, what is creativity, it’s like this gift from the gods and I know for myself there are these moments in time when I feel like creatively abounds and then there’s other times when I feel like I’m just the most boringest person on the planet. I can’t come up with anything and I was just wondering if you could just explain, sort of your take on the nature of creativity and if there is a process of creating it.

K. I could say a bunch of things that are, are just not creating creativity.

A Creating creativity? Or is it like a muscle that you can build?

K. There’s a creative act or a scientific act. I, I normally speak of science and creativity as sort of being somewhat opposite but that they’re not real, I mean, inherent in science is this notion that we can have free will and that there is even in science things like the Heisenberg principle that the talks about our limits and how we can observe things and stuff like that but you know a point is if we have something that we can predict, it becomes not creative at all. It has no free will and it’s science and if it seems to have free will, we see it as things, things, that parts that are not predictable and thereby creative. It creates. It is the thing that comes from it, is not a function of that which comes before in, in any way that we can predict. It’s as if this thing birthed something totally new and unpredictable. If it’s predictable it’s not creative.

A. Right

Image result for Heisenberg principle

K So, of course, we, as humans, feel we have free will and that’s sort of interesting but that doesn’t mean we do it, just means we can’t see our own programming enough to say that we’re just robots. You know, if it ever comes about that we find that we are truly just robots automaton of sorts, um, I think all creativity is out the window then.

A. Totally, cuz then it’s just pre-programmed into you.

K. Yeah, so that which makes us not a scientific, um, predictable thing is creativity. No, most people take creativity and you know, they, unfortunately, creativity in itself has a more rigorous or, ah, I would say, pure aspect and then, as with many things, and we, as humans love to do this, use it as an excuse. Um, you know, I, I, there’s a saying that talent, its by Schopenhauer ‘talent hits the target no one else can see,’ I mean ‘no one else can hit’ and genius hits the target no one else can see, so whenever I hit my volleyball, I serve my volleyball off of the court completely, it’s just genius.

A. Laughing

Image result for schopenhauer
Schopenhauer “Talent hits a target no one else can hit.”.

K. That’s using something as an excuse you know, the same thing as creativity, you know, someone comes up with something that has no, no rhyme or reason, it’s creative and somehow a lot of times that, that it imparts a type of virtue to it, you know, so, for example, if someone is just being lazy some people think it’s creative. There’s a lot of things like that, but I would say in, it’s good sense, creativity is an expression of the human spirit, if we see ourselves as not robots and we have this somehow innate anima, this, this portion of us, this, what you might say metaphysical, this soul. Creativity has that as its source. Now some people might say “oh well creativity comes through, well maybe it’s the window” but, um, all the other predictable parts of the universe operate much like a machine and then you have this creative anima. It is true that people are sort of an intersection between what you might call the explainable science and the never explainable mysticism. The whole notion of qualia, you know, the fact that I see something that has redness but redness is something that’s unexplainable and really unmeasurable.

We can measure red. Both of us can consistently see something as red. We can create a machine that detects red but the redness in red is something that, as of now, is something very personal to us. Our whole experience of the universe, whether it’s Beethoven or the stars, or redness, is personal to us and right now stands behind an impenetrable veil, is thereby a type of mysticism.

A. Um hum

K. So are humans completely programmable, predictable, um, at least right now by human expression and thinking? No, we can’t explain ourselves like machines. We can’t write the equations of our behavior yet, um, and creativity is that which we can’t explain.

Now, of course, we like to think of creative creativity in a functional sense, ah, creativity as applied to the arts, but one could say that the essence of creativity is by osmosis, which is the creation of life. Here we have this inanimate planet. We have all these different chemical sorts of things going on this environment, um, maybe even creating things like amino acids and then somewhere along the line there’s this spark, a flash, whatever it was, and now there’s this thing that we call life that we can’t quite explain and accept it has certain characteristics it holds itself out against physics. You know life maintains itself in a certain way that non-life doesn’t and, of course, as we get more advanced in science, we see a number of things that seem to straddle this boundary. We can’t tell if they’re alive or not but the robust experience of life is it, it’s this thing that, that goes of its own accord, body. When life leaves the human body it, it seems now to just decay into just the physics of the universe, chemicals and mass, all these different things that just and it’s the life is gone. So creativity seems to sprout out, out of nowhere because if it’s sprouted from somewhere, if we could write an equation from where it came from, then it would be definable.

A. (Giggles)

K  So you might have to say that creativity thereby sort of provides the universe it goes through, it and is, is there an inherent somehow in it um so you might say that between chaos and structure, between science and creativity, we have this structure that we experience as the universe and when we are being creative hopefully we tap into that force, um, unexplainable by science, as opposed to being in the force that’s very explainable by science, inertia, and just calling that our creativity just because we are lazy.

A So then if that’s the nature of creativity, is there some way that you can practice the muscle so that it doesn’t feel so reactive and still not pre-programmed but it’s something you can slip into easily or you can access that at will or something like that?

K. Well when you say that you’re asking more for applied creativity.

A. Umm

K. You know your subconscious, the way your pupils move, a whole bunch of things may have creativity involved.

A. Right

K You know, um, I mean certainly you can say they move with respect to light a certain way and things like that, but in all of physics, we find that there’s this, what you might call a minor unpredictability and in behavior, there’s these things that are minor unpredictability, so we call free will, so creativity abounds so what you want to do is channel it into something that’s socially acceptable and labeled as creativity.

A. I guess so or maybe just the root of something that you produce. I mean how do you know you are being creative?

K. I produce a bunch of curriculum. I have no idea if that is creative

A. Yeah well I mean.

K. It’s useful.

A. I think creativity to me like it has to do with generating something that hasn’t existed before to share a feeling, share an experience. It has to do with art.

K. It’s just an expression

A. OK but then there’s this expression that is very rote, in control, and very overlaid and something that you see over and over. Then there’s the expression that’s like very new or profound or effective, innovative, you can even say. So, to me, there’s different levels of creativity in that.

K. Well you know it’s interesting. Do you think the best actors are the most creative?

A. Think that they are the most authentic.

K. Right, so I would ask, what’s the use of being able to label as creativity where someone’s being creative?

A Interesting. I don’t know I just think like I have an interest in and I think it’s pretty common. I guess it has more to do with like generating work that’s relatable, generating, I guess, work. Something that’s original. Something interesting and compelling.

K. Well, that’s the thing. Creativity somehow comports with it. That’s positive. That’s interesting, um, you know, new and surprising, and all sorts of fireworks and flowers and butterflies.

A. Yeah

K. And rocks. But, see creative–

A. Giggles

K. But you know the opposite of creative, if you look at it as either rote or scientific or method, methodological, or whatever you want to call it, um, that’s almost become pejorative. That person, it’s not creative. Oh well, then what are they? They’re boring.

A. Right

K. No fun, you see. You’re going to entertain me. That’s creative because it’s totally by surprise.

A. Right.

K If I know it’s coming and I completely know it’s coming then it’s not creative, its scientific there for there’s no fun.

A. Um-hum, interesting

K. But I, I don’t necessarily agree with the cultural tints and slants on creativity.

A. Interesting

K. So I think, what is the basis of actually what are you asking?

A. So it’s like, it’s almost like I’m seeing it more as like difference that’s like entertaining versus something that’s just original.

K. Or surprising.

A. Or surprising but surprising even leads to entertaining you know.

K. Yeah, yeah.


Here is a genuine example of Keith teaching, or posing as a teacher, spouting his words of profundity, or as one critic described it “bogus deep.”

But is it bogus? Are his thoughts not brilliant and deep? This is a question I think each reader should decide for themselves.

The value of the transcript is it cuts away from the visual of the pontificating Raniere and his silly acolyte Mack and helps us read into what he is saying more so than what they are doing and how they look.

We can read this as coming from not two future convicts whose sexual exploits ruined both of them, but rather judge it apart – as Socrates teaching Plato or just two inane fools, one basically bloviating and the other trying to absorb it as special wisdom.

I think it was a characteristic of Raniere’s followers to all believe he was completely unique as a teacher and that his teachings were not found anywhere else.

Whatever you could find anywhere else, in any other philosophy, you could find in Raniere, but, there were a great many things in Raniere that are not found in any other philosophy.

In reality, almost everything he says can be found in some philosophy and what is not found in any other philosophy is incomprehensible nonsense.

To paraphrase Johnson, I would say, Raniere’s philosophy is both original and good – whatever is good is not original and whatever is original is not good.



About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • “Whatever you could find anywhere else, in any other philosophy, you could find in Raniere, but, there were a great many things in Raniere that are not found in any other philosophy.”

    So what you are saying here, I assume, is that the former is boring and the latter is creative.


    • Just to be clear, Frank is saying that Raniere’s followers believed that – being ignorant of all the sources he plagiarized, and with typical hypocrisy in contravention of his own mission statement that “Copying without permission or tribute is not a compliment, it is a robbery.”

      NXIVM was indeed mostly pretty boring – probably actually one of the reasons it never attracted more than a few thousand people – though the angle of incorporating pyramid scheme features was somewhat innovative (though Scientology has a hidden commission scheme, as well as a lot of members involved in MLMs), and their use for sex slaving in DOS was indeed sickly creative.

  • Watching this video is like watching a dinghy-broad get picked up by her college professor at a………Community college.

    Don’t tell me the peroxide that women put on their hair to dye it blonde doesn’t affect their IQ.

  • “Stupidity is much more impressive than intelligence as intelligence has its limits, and all of my dedicated followers are limitless”

  • Raniere can baffle, impress, and entertain the non-technical/uneducated folks by throwing out a scientific term, a philosopher’s name, and then make a quick joke about his [lack of] volleyball prowess. The rest of it is pure word salad, with no meaning or even a structure. He does mention lazy a couple of times, he must have been thinking of himself at the time. Reading this was as tedious as a Hutchinson comment or Shivani story. The video at least distracted away from the pure stupidity of the words. LOL

    Actresses and spoiled rich brats are very unsecure and looking for meaning, and that’s what Raniere was serving up, a constant heaping portion of word salad. Mostly colorless and flavorless water, not very filling, but they thought they were eating at a banquet. LOL

  • Christina Oxenberg Is Related to Royalty and Hollywood Stars—And She Is Ready to Tell All Her Stories
    Oxenberg spills the tea on the Kennedys, Jeffrey Epstein, her cousin Prince Andrew. “It’s everything I’ve been asked never to repeat.”

    DEC 19, 2019

    Christina Oxenberg is the cousin of Prince Andrew and past friend of Ghislaine Maxwell.

    Christina Oxenberg is also the sister of Catherine Oxenberg, who’s daughter India Oxenberg was a branded member of NXIVM.

    Christina Oxenberg contacted the FBI and is willing to testify what she knows about Epstein/Maxwell.

    • “Christina Oxenberg contacted the FBI and is willing to testify what she knows about Epstein/Maxwell.” Anonymous

      Rumor has it that Ghislane Maxwell, like her late father Robert Maxwell, was a spy for the Israeli Mossad and is now hiding out in Israel.
      If that is the case, don’t expect her to be extradited to the US by Israel.

      • If Maxwell were that concerned about extradition, she wouldn’t have been spending time in Connecticut and California last year.

        I check on the news about her from time to time, and according to reports, including from people who claim to be friends in contact with her, she is moving around to avoid being found, and Israel is only one of the countries where she may spend time.

        “Rumor has it” that the earth is flat, too, and the truth is being covered up by NASA – a guy even died last week trying to “investigate” that in a homemade rocket.

  • This is so beautiful that I nearly was beside myself that you dared to publish it. Maybe Frank Report can finally do some good. Creativity. He has it all. Read and reread this interview. Bless our Vanguard. Do not doubt he has all things well in hand. He will be emerging from prison in short order to lead us again. Peace. Faith. Know that Vanguard sees and knows all.

    • Pea Onyu, aka Nicki Clyne:

      Give credit to Marie White for transcribing Raniere’s meandering drivel.
      So who does Allison Pimp Mack, the great thespian, go to to learn about creativity and authenticity?
      None other than a so-called man who has never written a book or painted a picture or sculpted a statue or composed a song or crafted a screenplay or invented a useful device.
      Of course, Horny Allison is too dumb to notice that Keith Raniere is singularly untalented.

      Did Raniere ever warn you gals about the RICO statute that allows sex trafficking victims to sue their tormentors?
      Did Raniere ever warn you gals that every so-called slave is a potential future plaintiff in a lawsuit against you?
      Did Raniere ever warn Allison that she will be the poster girl for female servility, cruelty and deviousness?
      It wouldn’t have made any difference.
      Allison was too busy enjoying an orgasm being in the same room with the hairy turd.

  • Thanks for laying this out – and the work in transcribing it.

    One thing I want to note to start, is that Raniere leaves off an important part of Schopenhauer’s quote, perhaps deliberately. In it’s typically cited more full form it is:

    “Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.”

    One thing I’ve observed about gurus and cult leaders like Raniere, is that they’re rather effective, particularly in person, in speaking in a way that seems engaging and impresses the audience, while often being virtually meaningless – and we get to see that more clearly in reading a transcript. Academics now even have a term of art for it: pseudo profound bullshit.*

    Mack continually tries to ask a question along the lines of, as she puts it in one place, “if that’s the nature of creativity, is there some way that you can practice”. Raniere never really addresses that, instead just beating around the bush with vague musings and generalizations about what creativity is or isn’t, even though there is actually good research in the area, for example:

    The science of creativity
    “Use these empirically backed tips to capture your next big idea.”

    That article actually starts off “Stress is a well-known creativity killer, says psychologist Robert Epstein, PhD. Time constraints are another, he says.” But that obviously wouldn’t fit with Raniere’s techniques of subjecting his inner circle members like Mack stresses such as food and slip deprivation; if anything it points to a real agenda of stifling original thought and enforcing conformity. Interesting, in Scientology, which is the source of a number of major techniques and other approaches of NXIVM, it can be observed that member actors and artists’ careers tend to actually spiral downwards after they get involved, except for their ability to aggressively promote themselves (Tom Cruise is a high-hype action movie franchise figure, but now fails at other roles, when early in his career he was nominated for serious acting awards).

    Human beings tend – are actually wired to – see patterns and find meaning where they do not necessarily exist. It’s obvious in Raniere’s credulous followers, though I think we also see some of that tendency at work here sometimes.


    See, for instance: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit –

    • The “talent and genius” quote is rather good. I think it is fair to say that Raniere possessed neither, and the tragedy is that none of his paying followers seemed to realize this.

      • Glad you appreciated that. I suspect that the way Raniere truncated the quote shows that while he thought he could at least pretend to have talent, Schopenhauer’s definition of genius would have exposed him as an emperor with no clothes.

    • I also meant to mention, that it’s classic for high control groups or cults and their leaders to have such philosophical pretensions (or religious ones, if they’re religiously-oriented) – that’s one of the things that either attracts people, typically somewhat less educated and in search of meaning, or at least keeps them in by giving them the sense of being involved in something profound.

      There’s a common profile I’ve seen, that the young people they recruit often haven’t read any real philosophy, or any real rigorous intellectual work, in order to give them a basis for comparison; and they also usually haven’t explored enough on their own to have realized that any “good” material like communication and motivation techniques can be found through other, more legitimate, sources.

        • Which cult in Islam? There are many divergent groups – just as in Christianity. Have you noticed all the Christian cults in the news these days, like the one that spread coronavirus all over Korea, or the Preparing a People apocalyptic prepper group implicated in murders and child disappearances around Yellowstone?

  • “Creavity is like two Pokemon cards in a bowl of lard; or to put it another way, it’s like when two balls roll down a hill, and one comes to rest on its end, and the other on its side.*

    – ” Wow! Just Wow!”

    • Great ball analogy. I would like to add that with Raniere, knowing the answer to a question is not knowing. Why answer a question when he can ask the same question (cue head tilt, pucker bottom lip and slap table) Raniere has Divergent Cognitive Disorder, which isn’t an actual disorder by scientific standards. It’s the only logical creative diagnosis I could give him while researching the true meaning of creativity. Divergent Cognitive Disorder can now be linked to Keith Raniere. The abbreviation is CDC (pun intended do to vast poisonings and herpes outbreaks within the Nxivm community)

  • A large pile of horseshit with a larger pile of word salad.

    Yes, they thought he was a god and brilliant, never realizing the reason they couldn’t understand him despite years of training was because he is a sociopath.

  • A. Master, I’m a complete imbecile – what is creativity mean to you?
    K. Yeah, you know, take a walk with me slave and record me while we discuss a creative way to burn our initials onto women’s pussies
    A. Yes, Master, shall I wear my red panties?

  • No where in this NXIVM Dog and Pony Show does it ever occur to Allison Pimp Mack that her intended boyfriend Keith Raniere, the Expert on Creativity, has never written a book, composed any music, invented any real device — colored scarves do not count, or done anything beyond eating, drinking, copulating, sleeping, urinating or defecating.
    Your family dog can do as much.

    But Allison Pimp Mack did gain something from NXIVM and Keith Raniere.
    Allison Pimp Mack is an insecure person with a low sense of self-esteem.
    Pimp Mack craves constant adoration and needs love bombing.
    And NXIVM gave her power and enhanced her feelings about herself.

    And nothing builds one’s self-esteem like have a stable of slaves to cater to one’s whims.
    Someone failed to tell Pimp Mack that slavery has been illegal for over 150 years.

    Here is why Allison Pimp Mack is smiling so much.
    This passage comes from the lawsuit recently filed by Neil Glazer:

    The Defendants (including Allison Pimp Mack) benefitted from participation in the forced labor and trafficking
    Venture within the Enterprise in several ways. First, they received enhanced status, titles, and
    power to wield over the rank-and-file members, as well as enhanced feelings of self-esteem and
    worth, because they were deemed “successes” within the Enterprise. Second, they benefitted
    financially through the receipt of profits and substantial access to free labor, including personal
    assistants, housekeepers, drivers, personal shoppers and others.
    Page 13

    Allison Pimp Mack went from being a fourth rate washed up TV actress to being the Mistress of a harem.
    There is no aphrodisiac like power.

    Allison Pimp Mack had to keep her slaves in line by branding them with hot irons and collecting blackmail material on them.
    But that just added to Allison’s fun and her sense of entitlement.
    And if worse came to worse Allison Pimp Mack could call upon the financial resources of the Bronfman sisters to sue any recalcitrant slaves into oblivion.
    Not bad for a young woman from the small town of Los Alamitos.
    Not bad for a young woman who barely graduated from Los Alamitos High School.

    Allison Pimp Mack did not need a TV show or movie when she could extort gifts and free labor from her slaves.
    And of course the free labor included satisfying Pimp Mack sexually.

    And Allison Pimp Mack enjoyed the profits from the bogus Source Acting School, which was really more of a recruitment tool for the NXIVM Vow harem than an actual acting school.

    Allison Pimp Mack had it made in the shade.
    No wonder she’s smiling and laughing and giggling while Keith Raniere rambles on saying nothing.
    Being a Pimp is more remunerative than being an actress and it’s steadier work.
    Let the other actresses travel about for auditions.
    Allison Pimp Mack had oodles of money, free labor and the sexual services of her own slaves when Keith Raniere did not need them.
    How do you think that Pimp Mack paid for the town house she owned as well as the one she rented and the swank Brooklyn apartment.
    How else did Pimp Mack afford the nice BMW she tooled around in?
    You wouldn’t expect a high class pimp like Allison Mack to drive around in a Volkswagen would you?

    • And the first comment on this article goes to the guy who so desperately wanted to be in Allie’s vagina. Like a cat chasing a laser pointer..

      • Anonymous,

        You couldn’t possibly be more wrong!!!!

        Everyone who knows Shadow knows he is an ardent anal-man [pardon the alliteration] at heart!

        • You couldn’t. One can only imagine your first episode of Smallville and how you were smitten with the Clhoe character and how feverishly you learned everything about the relative unknown actress Allison Mack. As the series progressed you never missed an episode, and soon mere watching was joined by your feverish fantasizing. If only you could be Tom Welling for an episode, you would show Allie the real rod of steel.

          All that masturbation shot to hell when you found out that your crush was a common Hollywood whore with a rather uncommon and kinky sexual appetite. Many a night as you cried yourself to sleep amidst your despair and loneliness Allie was fucking some of the biggest degenerates in the world. Meanwhile as you were wasting your time thinking about a sexual rendezvous with Allie, a poor lonely old lady in your local nursing home longed for the touch of a real man, yes shadow that man was you.

        • Shadow, 2 bits? I will not remember because I will not be sleeping with Allison. You should remember to pay her some bits for sleeping under her window at night.

    • Another rambling semi-coherent missive, further evidence that you are not at all OBSESSED with Allison Mack. You are the clown prince of the Frank Report, thanks for the laughs.

      By the way, the first paragraph of the passage from the Glazer complaint which you quote, describing the defendants, also describes (to a degree) plaintiff Sarah Edmondson. Which could be a problem if Glazerpalooza ever gets to court.

      • “also describes (to a degree) plaintiff Sarah Edmondson. Which could be a problem if Glazerpalooza ever gets to court.”
        All of Them Witches

        There are EIGHTY PLAINTIFFS.

        Are you implying that one plaintiff’s involvement with NXIVM will cause a court to dismiss the claims of around 79 plaintiffs?
        If you are then you are indeed dumber than Scott Johnson.

    • It’s important to note, though, that from the accounts we have, followers were told that Raniere had one of the world’s highest IQs (he’d even managed to fabricate a bit of evidence for that) and was a top problem solver, and that he also held patents – and that they believed those things. An illusion was created that gave him seeming credibility.

      And credulous types like Mack failed to ask hard questions or fact check on their own. Can you believe people would just slurp up what’s in a video like that without thinking through whether they were being served up someone’s faulty narrative? 🙂

      Also, Mack bought her place in Clifton Park when she was still working as an actress. By all accounts money from her professional work was being spent down while she was in NXIVM – like most others she was being impoverished, not enriched, and she emerged nearly broke after having originally been fairly well-off. You really do have trouble keeping sight of the facts once you get caught up in the drama of a narrative, don’t you?

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

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.” In addition, he was credited in the Starz docuseries 'Seduced' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

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 premieres on May 22, 2022.

IMDb — Frank Parlato,_Jr.

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083