This is Part 4 on our series of sex-slaver Keith Alan Raniere teaching his sex-slave, former actress Allison Mack.
Part #1 Allison Mack Questions Her Sex Slaver Leader Keith Raniere on ‘What Is Creativity?’
Part #3 Sex-Slave Allison Mack Gets Lessons on Acting From Her Sex-Slaver Master Raniere
The work of transcribing was accomplished by Marie White working off a video of Keith Raniere’s conversation with Allison Mack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PTG0CB_biM&authuser=1
This is truly the most fascinating excerpt from the conversations to date. Here we have an actual semblance of a conversation between Raniere and Mack, at least in the beginning. In time, she sort of descends into a robotic yes-woman. But there are some real exchanges, as opposed to Raniere just pontificating.
In the beginning, he seems to be setting her up to be insecure, actually seeming to preach that insecurity [something he wants from her] is a virtue. Being confident is to be like a robot. Fear is good – for Allison.
She makes a startling admission in the middle of it saying, “I think in that moment – like I was thinking about that as we were talking – it feels like I’ll be unloved forever and for the rest of my life.”
This is a great reveal from Allison. She wants to be loved. She feels she is unloved [and she is not loved by Raniere] and she conceives, perhaps in a rare moment of insight, that she will be unloved forever. It’s sad and it’s sweet and it’s pathetic, all at once.
Speaking of insight – if not downright prophecy – Raniere describes a dream that Allison might have, a frightful dream wherein she is a major flop on stage and she is hauled off with a hook and everyone mocks her. Worse, the New York Times blazons in a headline that she is “terrible.” Everywhere she goes, people think she is a bad person.
Raniere meant it as some profound lesson – to the effect that it was only a dream, and her real self is alive and well.
Needless to say, this is exactly what happened to Allison – right down to the New York Times headline. She became an object of public scorn.
Here is there conversation, one truly worth reading:.
A. How is the source of your genius the same as the source of your insecurities?
K. Well, it’s if you knew everything and can do everything, then you would be a very predictable machine. You know, creativity, one could say, is possibly a direct reflection of that which we cannot quantify, not only about other people but about ourselves. And to some degree, you either have to accept that as …an article of faith, or really understand that there is really an insecurity to it.
A. Interesting, so it’s like looking at insecurities in terms of unpredictability, as opposed to the self-loathing way that I get insecurities right now.
K . What do you think of as insecurity?
A. I think insecurities is like stage fright, like the reason why I feel–
K . What’s the root of stage fright?
A. It’s like a fear of rejection a fear of–
K. Tell me more about that.
A. That was one of my questions, because after 30 years of acting, I still get so nervous sometimes when I’m about to do something and I can’t.
K. I believe that the best actors and athletes and, and ethicists, or whatever it is have a degree, a strong degree of fright and insecurity going into something, and they say Barbra Streisand is extremely, has extreme stage fright. I think George Soros, the investor, said if he thinks he understands an investment completely and doesn’t see a way that it would fail, he feels very insecure indeed. He has to see the uncertainty to feel good about it.
A. It’s interesting that you say that because I definitely find that insecurity keeps me sharp like keeping a room a little cold like keeps you awake, but there’s a difference between that kind of insecurity that drives focus and then the kind of insecurities that paralyzes expression,
K. Well I think you, you’re confusing insecurity with the effects of insecurity. Like do you know what I’m going to say right now?
A. No.
K. You’re insecure about that?
A. Yeah.
K. Is that scary for you?
A. No.
K. Why not?
A. Because I trust that what you’re going to say is going to be good.
K . And in the end, you are going to be okay?
A. I’ll be fine, yeah.
K . When we have insecurities, and this relates to vulnerability-
A. Um ha
K. Where are we, I think we may not be okay, then it becomes scary. See, it’s not the insecurity that’s the problem. It’s the fear of the insecurity and not even fear, as in an excited fear, like a roller coaster fear. It’s fear as an, a terrorized fear.
A. Yeah.
K. Um, and you can, of course, recognize that excitement isn’t really fear in the same way and that when we talked about fear, as in fight or flight fear, it’s a certain type of a thing, but it’s not the insecurity. Insecurities doesn’t bother you and security you know is wonderful if everything you can predict, everything, you can be dull and then we would be robots again.
A . Well yeah, and like you were saying about an unpredictability versus creativity, like you need a sense of insecurities and non-predictability.
K . So you’re going to go out on stage, and you’re scared you’re going to be rejected.
A . Yeah.
K. What’s the worst that’s going to happen, really the worst?
A. I think in that moment like I was thinking about that as we were talking, it feels like I’ll be unloved forever and for the rest of my life.
K. Well but let’s talk about the mechanics of it. Let’s get into – you go out on stage. You make your entrance, a Shakespearean, you are in a Shakespeare recently, yes?
A. Yes.
K. So you make your entrance.
A. umhum
K. And suddenly there’s silence.
A. Yeah.
K. Do you know why they’re—?
A. Cuz, I’m so bad.
K. You’re not either, you’re so bad or you’re so totally blank.
A. Yes.
K. You go out on the stage and everyone’s expecting and even the audience knows the lines supposed to come, they can. I’ll say it, but you just don’t know where you are. Maybe you just mutter something totally incomprehensible.
A. Yeah.
K. Okay, now what is going to happen? Oh, you do have some critics in the front row. They start writing.
A. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
K. So what’s going to happen?
A. I think in that moment I just feel so un like worth nothing.
K. Wait, wait, it’s going a little further, now I hear some booing coming from the audience and some guffaws and people clearing their–
A. That’s the worst.
K. No why and–
A. It just feels like so much rejection.
K. What do you mean rejection? You’re not, they’re not rejecting you, they’re rejecting your performance.
A. That’s where I get so confused.
K. Yeah, you’re, you are confusing you–
A. Right.
K. — yourself with what you do.
A. Completely.
K. If that’s removed, that doesn’t mean you don’t have a type of what I might say sharpening excitement for the challenge.
A. Uh-huh.
K. But you come in touch with a part of you that is invincible, authentic, congruent and unique and that is indestructible.
A. Right.
K. Everyone starts throwing things. They put a spotlight on you and then people start making fun and then they’re yelling you know, “Allison Mack sucks” and they do all this stuff and finally someone comes out with just a hook and just pulls you off the stage and the next day the picture in the front of the New York Times, full thing, is you on stage going with a hook pulling you off the stage and they say “biggest flop ever. Do not ever listen, to listen to Allison Mack again. She’s a bad actress, a bad person. Terrible, terrible, terrible.” And then just, and your name in the words, “Terrible, terrible, terrible” written and then not only that, they take it and they put, they put it all over, not only on all the street corners, but in everywhere where you go, they put, plaster that picture up, so everyone sees then. They have people following you holding that picture over your head and they point to her like “bad Allison,” right?
A, Yeah
K. Okay?
A. It feels awful.
K. So, okay, but are you alive.
A. Yeah.
K. Are you fine?
A. Yeah.
K. All right, and then the alarm rings and you wake up and it was all a bad dream and are you still all intact?
A. Yeah.
K. So ultimately it doesn’t, it doesn’t bother you, the self, it bothers your evaluation of yourself, of your performance.
A. Right
K. But there’s a part of you, if you believe in a soul, or creativity, or whatever that’s transcendent of your performance.
A. Right.
K And that’s the very part that allows you to change your performance. If you are hooked to the laws of physics without having any sort of separation then your performance, what determined your performance, which would determine your performance, which would determine your performance, which would determine your performance.
A. Hum
K. And just like a snowball rolling downhill, you really wouldn’t be able to change the course of events but the beauty of our possible delusion that we have free will is that we can change the course of our events.
[End of excerpt of conversation]
************************************
Keith Raniere led her to her front-page New York Times headlines. And the world thinks of her as “terrible, terrible, terrible.” And maybe she is to a degree.
In the end, despite her fame and beauty, she was seeking love and ran into Raniere. He ruined her. Not that she did not play a large role in her ruination.
What is it in a person that seeks to be loved and then goes to a man who only hates – and she ends up ruined? This is not a gender thing. This is not all women are victims. It could be reversed. A woman could be the hater and the man the fool.
But one thing is clear to me. Allison Mack did not come to Raniere seeking to hate or harm. She was insecure. She wanted answers. She wanted his love and from there, she trod downhill. I think at first she went downhill slowly. You know the kind of slow descent that when you are looking forward you cannot really see how much you have gone downhill. It is not until you turn around and look back on the road behind you that you can see the descent.
For a while, it was like that for Allison Mack as she slipped out of starring in TV to doing small plays and then quitting acting almost altogether to lead The Source, the acting school founded on principles promulgated by non-actor Raniere. Then she joined DOS and went on her extreme diets and was sleep deprived. All for the same quest – to be loved by Raniere and perhaps by the other women, his slaves, her sister-wives.
Then he took her right over the precipice with his blackmail and branding and sex servitude. Sure, she went along. She wanted him and wanted to belong and to be loved and she never quite got over her insecurities. He exploited that and enhanced that – and she toppled and fell almost as far as one can fall in life.
And before she fell, there is this conversation between them. He describes a scene of her ruin:
A. It feels awful.
K. So, okay, but are you alive.
A. Yeah.
K. Are you fine?
A. Yeah.
K. All right, and then the alarm rings and you wake up and it was all a bad dream and are you still all intact?
A. Yeah.
K. So, ultimately, it doesn’t, it doesn’t bother you, the self, it bothers your evaluation of yourself, of your performance…..
Yes, but it was a little bit more. Allison won’t be waking from this dream for some time. For the immediate future, she is likely going to prison. She will be a felon for as long as she lives. And the bad dream will last many years.
Still, in my mind, I see hope for Allison Mack, hope for all of them, except perhaps Raniere. She could wake up from her Raniere-dream and by realizing what happened to her [and what she did to others] and in time really working to ensure she does not do it again, and possibly helping others who are so afflicted, she might even be forgiven and, who knows, it’s not impossible, beloved again.
If we don’t believe in comebacks, we don’t have much faith in humanity at all.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
What is interesting is Bill Cosby’s comedies were pulled from TV. Despite this case, Smallville is still available. Despite Harvey Weinstein’s guilty verdict, his movies are still on Netflix, Prime, etc.
Why is Bill’s crime worse than these 2?
So you’re telling me you’d forgive? If that’s the case why not forgive Jimmy Saville? You seem to care now.
I wouldn’t forgive her no matter how many years pass. Do you not care about her victims then? Do you think they would agree if Hollywood brought Allison back? I doubt it.
“This is a great reveal from Allison. She wants to be loved. She feels she is unloved [and she is not loved by Raniere] and she conceives, perhaps in a rare moment of insight, that she will be unloved forever. It’s sad and it’s sweet and it’s pathetic, all at once.”
And back to your usual 2 cent BS analyze…you go back with your “she want to be loved by raniere”…no she doesn’t, she pleaded AGAINST him you idiot…
Also the “pathetic” , first and foremost, it’s untrue, Allison is loved (and a lot) by her friend and people who truly know her (who cares about judgmental morons like you and others)…
Second, the only think pathetic here is your analyze showing the lack of empathy for anyone (because it’s not just Allison but the other “victims” too)
“Worse, the New York Times blazons in a headline that she is “terrible.” Everywhere she goes, people think she is a bad person.”
How prophetic is that? first the only interviews about this story is on one side a lie (since Sara changed her story to fit her financial demand) or…a lie (orchestrated by Raniere against Allison and forcing her under coercion)
Second, except around her , most people actually care about facts and know she isn’t a bad person…
If she was, so would every other “victim”…
Sara E is a bad person (she wasn’t coerced, starved, drugged or mentally abused while she recruited MANY people), Vicente is a bad person (recognizing he would prefer his wife in “the source” while making money of recruiting people and allowing Raniere to destroy their life (a true enabler…and it’s a fact he recognized at the trial!!)
Many other are but a Allison, being under all the fact that justify her fall , she was a victim at the wrong place and the wrong time…
And while Raniere aimed at her to be a scapegoat, he did it partly…authorities lost much time trying to destroy Allison…
And when they failed, they threatened her to accuse her from crime from before her time so she would end up pleading guilty (making her lose a change for a “fair” trial)
”
“Keith Raniere led her to her front-page New York Times headlines. And the world thinks of her as “terrible, terrible, terrible.” And maybe she is to a degree.”
No she isn’t…but you never tried to know the real story…it’s less click worthy to show the sad true…ask one of the victim how they end up being in this cult and you’ll get quite a pathetic answer…
Because each of them had a feeling close to Allison’s feeling…they were just “lucky” not to be dragged for as long and as deep as Allison.
Allison was aimed at by Raniere and was hated by him (suffice to see the way he was destroying her through all the years).
“In the end, despite her fame and beauty, she was seeking love and ran into Raniere. He ruined her. Not that she did not play a large role in her ruination.”
One line that make some sense…but Raniere played a role as you did too…your firsts accusations against Allison were all false but you never acknowledged it…
Worst, you created new rumours against her that made some people (idiots only) believe the most unbelievable stories about her…
Once again, you are no better than Raniere (and you do it for (sort of) the same reason…money).
“But one thing is clear to me. Allison Mack did not come to Raniere seeking to hate or harm. She was insecure. ”
And that part is true…the real Allison is mostly about Love (in fact, she didn’t use words like hate (too strong to be used and she didn’t had hate in herself)…
“She wanted answers. She wanted his love and from there, she trod downhill”
First yes, but no for his love…she didn’t cared but he trapped her into this “love me”…like all the other victims who didn’t wanted to love him but ended up being forced too…
For most of the time in Nxivm, Allison had someone in her life …only in 2013 she started to be by herself (and it’s the time he started to control her mind)
“Then she joined DOS and went on her extreme diets and was sleep deprived”
NO , it’s factual that she was on extreme diet BEFORE DOS…there is enough proof of that (non counting the many witness who saw that)
She began in 2013 her diet(and drug)…after tons of EM and then sleep deprivation was introduced when she entered DOS…
“Sure, she went along”
No she didn’t, it’s obvious when you actually don’t try to blame her all the time but READ THE FACTS…But she was stuck , like all the victims.
Forced to do things they didn’t wanted because of the coercion but Allison was in worst position as she was suffering from her extreme diets, numerous EM, drugging, sleep deprivation too.
“Yes, but it was a little bit more. Allison won’t be waking from this dream for some time. ”
She did because she accepted her (unfair) fate of a convicted (victim)…but when you permanently try to drag her back in the mud…
Luckily , she don’t care about what is said here…
“She could wake up from her Raniere-dream and by realizing what happened to her [and what she did to others] and in time really working to ensure she does not do it again, and possibly helping others who are so afflicted, she might even be forgiven and, who knows, it’s not impossible, beloved again.”
Now you sound like Raniere…Mr salad word and BS all together…
First of she awaken long ago (hence her accusation against Raniere) , Second, what did she do to other that they didn’t do themselves? nothing!
Stop putting action in hands of Allison , Actions she never did…a fact is she collected the coercive material and that’s it!
She didn’t harm physically, she did used coercion, she didn’t even knew what she was part of FFS!
She try to rebuilt herself but then come people like you…
Don’t try to pretend you care about anyone Franky…you are as pathetic as Raniere when you do that.
You talk about comeback but how can she come back when you create more BS stories and Rumours every week?
Don’t act like you care about facts because you clearly don’t…
You are obsessed by your pervert fantasy of an Allison in love with Raniere while Allison didn’t started to be under his “spell” up until she was fully coerced…it’s a fact! it’s not your fantasy story.
You hear that Allison didn’t had a relation with Raniere until she was in DOS but for you, “Wrong!!” it’s not fitting your story.
The fact is Allison loved Raniere as much as Nicole, Jayes , India and anyone considered as a victim did!
Only Lauren was in love (and Cami, and Marianna)…Most were feared to say the opposite because of the consequence of saying “i don’t love this smelly asshole”…
Allison was always distant to him until summer 2015…when she was fully coerced and it took him YEARS of mental manipulation to obtain this!
YOU can ignore the fact but that is going to bite you back in the end…
It’s not like you care about the truth.
WTF is he talking about in this clip. What a dolt. He is throwing buzz words and she is buying it. He isn’t making any sense. Because he is full of lies.
Alison Mack is both a victim and a victimizer, It’s not all one or the other. Certainly Rainere took advantage of her position as a prominent TV actress and used her. But she is responsible too, even if he took advantage of her insecurity and her being a gullible person. If I were a judge, I would give her fines, probation, and community service, but not incarceration, as there is no point in cluttering up prisons with people like that.
That is only working when you refuse to see the facts… SHE WAS COERCED, SHE WAS STARVED (and the impact on decision making is scientifically proved), SHE WAS SLEEP–DEPRIVED, SHE WAS MENTALLY ABUSED (Em and other abuses)…She didn’t do it willingly (neither did any other victims)
She doesn’t even deserve “probation” nor “Community service” but no sentence at all…
She suffered far worst abuses than the other victims while not committing more crimes than most of them…
She is a victim but certainly not a victimizer…
She didn’t gain anything out of it (not even the “power” like some idiot like to pretend around here…she was SYSTEMATICALLY receiving orders from Raniere…)
If she committed those crimes for her own interest, I would agree that she is a victimizer but it’s not the case…
And the funny thing in all this is that it’s the authorities that demonstrated without a doubt all this!
But yet, they still preferred to consider her as a culprit…
Ugh!! every time you chime in for A. Mack, I move from mercy to ‘Lock her up!’ Stop over-egging the pudding, for her sake!!
Allie Mack is a victim of predatory mind-fucking by a man who was able to dominate her own weak, mental defenses.
It’s the Patty Hearst Syndrome. Stockholm Syndrome.
I’m not sure that we can blame Allison any more than we can blame Gina Hutchinson or Kristin Snyder for their own decisions to worship Keith and do his bidding.
Both Gina and Kristin were mind-fucked and developed a form of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ by following the insane teachings of Keith Raniere.
How can we view women like Gina Hutchinson and Kristin Snyder as victims yet Allie Mack is an evil perpetrator? ….When the truth is that all 3 of these women worshiped Keith and did his bidding. They simply had weak minds and couldn’t break free from Keith’s mind-fucking program.
Can Frank LOGICALLY explain why Allie is evil while Gina and Kristin get free passes for doing Keith’s bidding?
I’m guessing that Frank won’t touch this question with a 10 foot pole cuz he’s a FUCKEN PUSSY!!!
Have a nice day. 🙂
The difference between Kristin and Gina was they did not assist in branding women and collecting blackmail. However I do think that Allison deserves leniency and probably should not go to prison.
I think I just heard Mr. Shadow’s head explode in Chicago all of the way down here in Texas. LOL
Frank, I’m surprised to see you say that.
It seems to me that after the harm she did, some prison time is in order. Plus, I think she needs some time in very uncomfortable circumstances intended to make her reflect on what she did and hopefully learn her lessons – some sort of very effective therapy and highly supervised parole might provide the same remedy, but our system isn’t set up to administer such things (particularly at the federal level) and so the correctional system is the best tool society has.
I’d also point out that she apparently didn’t learn the lesson of her manipulative and reportedly abusive first long-term boyfriend and fiancee’, instead seemingly repeating many of the same dynamics with Raniere. I’m not sure that’s a cycle that can truly be broken in her case, but at least prison time gives her and society a break from it.
And I don’t think that her home incarceration necessarily counts for anything. It’s even possible that her family of origin is somehow part of the problem, or at least has been enabling her, so we can’t count on her having really been punished or having had time to reflect hard.
My view is she doesn’t need to be placed in a cage. I am pretty sure she could be better served with therapy and community service. I knew her. I liked her. She made some horrific mistakes but I do think she’s been punished pretty well. She also cooperated with the government and handed them documents and computer drives. She was prepared to testify against the beast.
I say cut her a break. Let us show leniency whenever we can. I do not think she represents a danger to society – at least not if she gets some help.
I don’t much disagree, though I still think she ought to serve at least some time behind bars as a matter of principle, and so there’s no question of special treatment. A year in the sort of place a woman like her is likely to be sent, wouldn’t hurt her and might well provide some of the help and resources she needs.
But as I said, the federal system doesn’t provide those options as far as I can tell, so it’s either put her behind bars, or risk the possibility that she hasn’t really learned her lesson and will be back to sex trafficking for some other psychopath by the time it’s swimsuit weather. Maybe it would have been better if she’d accepted a sex offender conviction, and long-term supervised parole (it looks like there is an option for that in the federal system, for sex offenses).
Good thing Mr. Frank Parlato is not a judge. Not in this case or any other. Maybe it’s just as well you never serve on a jury. You have to put aside your emotional ties to someone or emotionally charged cases. You just have to be guided by the criminal procedure code and the law that they are applied correctly.
Sorry, not buying the “poor Allison” scenario. She is/was part of Hollyweird. A place with a massive history of sexual predators and sexual deviants. She fit in perfectly with fellow predator Raniere. Both of them should be sent to gen pop where they can get some of what they dished out!
That’s why Mack will be welcomed with open arms in Hollyweird when she gets out of prison (much to Mr. Shadow’s chagrin), assuming she survives. LOL
It’s not just “history” that Hollyweird is filled with pervs, it continues to this day.
Clark, wouldn’t your description of Hollweird mean that Allison probably had long-been a victim of sexual predators, and therefore “poor Allison” was very suceptible to Ranieri’s mindfucking?
So far Hollywood sexual predators, it seems that men are at least those who take advantage of women in the industry, and mostly are people with power, Allison has never been someone with such power, and certainly has the profile of someone who He could have been abused when he was a child star.
There are also no negative stories or testimonials about her before NXIVM. and I am sure that if I had shadowed them I would have already found them.
She had kiddy porn on computers. Children from overseas.
It was her job and to prepare children for sex slavery and rape.
FBI “loses” the hard drives.
All these sex slavery have their own defense team. Frank the Child Sex offender parlotto”she’s a poor innocent victim!!”
No she’s not. And this entire process has revealed what sick child molesting apologists half if society is.
Are you going to defend the people she’s hurt and ruined when their lives are fkd off?
Nooo
You’re only here to defend Hollywood pedophiles. That’s all you care about. Defending the majority
Congratulations to Allison Mack!
Wikipedia has put her on their list of 21st Century criminals right ahead of The Mad Pooper and Bernie Madoff.
The Mad Pooper is a woman in Colorado Springs, Colorado who publicly defecates in people’s yards.
Allison Mack
The Mad Pooper
Bernie Madoff
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:21st-century_American_criminals&pagefrom=Jones%2C+MarionMarion+Jones#mw-pages
“The Mad Pooper is the nickname given to an unidentified woman in Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States, who repeatedly defecated in public while jogging during the summer months of 2017. While she has primarily targeted one family’s property, she has not used it exclusively, leaving some of her excrement at other sites nearby. Photographs of her have been made public, but neither she nor anyone who knows her has come forward with further information that might identify her.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mad_Pooper
great thing, today this seems to make celebrities more popular
Fk your narrative and fk you, cho-mo Frank.
Allison Mack THE SEX SLAVER.
As I said before, I think this conversation is focused more on Mack’s acting [in]ability than her love interest with Raniere. You like me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWtUVDG5M1w This is the story of many actors, they are so insecure because they know they are being overpaid and over-idolized for saying words in front of a camera.
All of the Raniere psycho-babble isn’t much different than a “professional” psychiatrist or Scientologist, it’s mostly just jibberish for people messed up in the head.
Poor Allison.
She can’t stand criticism.
She must be constantly adored.
She craves Love Bombing.
When I was in Third Grade, about eight years old, my parents taught me that not everyone would love me all of the time and I had to grow a thick skin.
That part of being grown up was ignoring criticism.
Bosses will criticize you.
Teachers will criticize you.
Enemies will criticize you.
Friends will criticize you.
Actors/Actresses get criticized.
Musicians get criticized
Writers get criticized.
Public Officials get criticized.
One must do what is morally right and ignore criticism.
Allison Mack is emotionally insecure and mentally stunted.
There is nothing wrong with Allison Mack she’s just as evil as the makes of society.
And GOD DAMN a sexist child molester society/generation that makes excuses for half of society based on their HOLY gender.
GOD DAMN THEM AMD THAT SOCIETY TO EVERLASTING HELL
You will enjoy this brand new video from Paul Joseph Watson.
Finland has a problem with Muslim Rapeugees molesting women and children.
What is their solution?
A Video!
“Stop, Don’t Touch Me There.
This is my No No Square”
“Because I trust that what you’re going to say is going to be good.”
‘Nuf said.
Well said. That is exactly the way I look at her – more of pity than anything else (every time people go “she is evil” I recall John Glover’s words that she was a “shining light” on set and I cannot believe she could have set out to do harm), and with a wish that she could redeem herself. I’m reminded of a song called “Dare You To Move” which I actually associate with her in a way (has to do with a very well-written Smallville fanfic), and which lyrics go “dare you to move / dare you to pick yourself up off the floor” and the bridge says “maybe redemption has stories to tell / maybe forgiveness is right where you fell”. We can hope. Because if she is able to break free of the “spell” she fell under, her story could become a powerful one to help others, to atone for the harm she caused while blindly following Raniere.
Anyone who wants to simply wash their hands of her, I can only hope they never do something terrible, even by accident, because clearly they think that people are unredeemable after making huge mistakes. (The only one here who is likely unredeemable is, as you said, Raniere – I doubt he would ever honestly repent of anything he’s done. He might regret getting caught, but he committed himself down this path long ago; any shreds of conscience he once had are almost certainly long gone.)
Here you can pity her some more:
If you have been injured by NXIVM or the NXIVM leaders, contact attorney Neil Glazer of Kohn Swift and Graf
For information about this lawsuit please call Neil Glazer at 215-238-1700 or email him at nglazer@kohnswift.com
So how about some pity for the dozens of women she tortured and abused?
Sounds like a false dilemma/dichotomy to me. I can have pity for her and still feel sympathy for the women she abused. I don’t see too many people attacking them and saying we *shouldn’t* have pity for them (other than those who would like to claim that they’re superior to them because THEY would NEVER get into a cult, which, let me roll my eyes at those people now for their pompousness). They have a lot of people in their corner, and the ones we’ve heard about in the trial have, overall, been strong survivors who are dealing with what’s happened to them and continuing their lives. I applaud them and support their efforts to get compensation for what they’ve suffered.
I do, however, see a lot of people claiming Allison’s pure evil/malice, which I have yet to see proven and find rather hard to believe. Raniere? Quite possibly. Serial killers and genocidal maniacs such as Charles Manson, Hitler, and Pol Pot? Absolutely. But a woman who’s more pathetic than terrifying? Please. Don’t insult my intelligence and reasoning ability.
Human beings are capable of doing terrible things and still being somewhat redeemable; as long as they still have the conscience to recognize their error, there is hope. It’s impossible to know another person’s mind and heart, but what we do know is far from evidence of all conscience lost. I would rather hold out hope for her redemption than yell insults at her. For one, yelling insults does little good and is generally unpleasant for all involved. (It has a tendency to shut down critical thinking and calm discussion.) And second, if she does ever get to where she realizes just how much she has hurt others, her conscience will hurt her far worse than any insults could. No need to add to the guilt and shame. One can state her wrongs without descending into emotionally-charged vitriolic attacks.
Mack is a convicted felon, how’s that?
And your point is…?
You stated, “One can state her wrongs without descending into emotionally-charged vitriolic attacks,” so I did.
Strangely, this comment has a Reply button whereas the one below does not, so will reply here.
“You stated, ‘One can state her wrongs without descending into emotionally-charged vitriolic attacks,’ so I did.”
Actually, you didn’t. You listed society’s punishment for her crimes (convicting her as a felon), not her crimes themselves. Mind you, I don’t have any issues discussing that calmly either. It’s just not what I was talking about.
The paragraph doesn’t indent in indefinitely. Since she’s a felon, she obviously did something(s) wrong. I didn’t say what her punishment would be, because it hasn’t been decided yet. She is awaiting sentencing, which I assume will consist of some combination of prison, financial penalty, etc. She did many things wrong that she wasn’t prosecuted for, because there wasn’t enough evidence (yet) to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and she plead out of some charges to guarantee the guilty plea on others. Therefore, you don’t even know what you’re talking about. LOL
“Since she’s a felon, she obviously did something(s) wrong.”
Really? Now, I’m not arguing that she didn’t (I agree that she has done wrong things), but you’re saying that everyone who is a felon is automatically guilty? The courts NEVER convict innocent people? Slow down a little and think about what you’re saying first, because we’ve had enough evidence here of the courts convicting people wrongly that that’s just ridiculous to say as a broad statement.
“Therefore, you don’t even know what you’re talking about. LOL”
Ah yes, the resort to a personal attack when one’s logic runs out, complete with laughing at the other person. No, I stand by my earlier words. Being a felon is not an actual wrong *act* in itself. It may be the *result* of doing wrong, but one does not convict *oneself* of a felony *illegally* (the bit that makes something a crime) somehow. I recommend some closer reading of my words. I was speaking of her crimes, not whatever punishment or sentencing she may have gotten from them. They aren’t the same thing.
Anyway, since you’ve failed on reading comprehension twice in this thread, I’m not going to bother writing a reply again. I have better things to do with my time.
With Mack, there is no doubt she’s guilty, and of a lot more than she was able to cut a deal for. I never claimed every single felon committed a crime, but nice try to distort my statement. LOL
Thanks for not responding again, your “logic” is torturous. Plus, I always like to get in the last word. In fact the corrupt Amway lawyer, Charles Bundren, asked me that question during my video deposition. Guess what my answer was? If you guessed “yes,” you would be correct. LOL
Totally agree, but you waste your time telling this to Shadow. He not only considers himself morally superior to Allison, he also considers it about the other readers of Frank Report, from the beginning his way of getting involved with Allison has been questioned by many and even so he just agrees to publish long answers with lots of reasons why Allison is the most evil that any of Raniere’s other women, also continually alters the facts to match her narrative, also ensures things that no one else can with only small pieces of information.
He has more resemblance to Raniere than he thinks including telling small anecdotes of his life.
You have a very good point. Ah well, my comment will remain for those readers who would like to use critical thinking and eschew one-sided obsessions.
I think he also resembles Mack in his simple-mindedness and gullibility, plus the way he is easily lured by emotional appeals. My take is that much of what gets under his skin about Mack is the way she is like the parts of him he struggles with – psychological projection.
Shadow seems like he would make an easily recruited true-believing cult member, if he hasn’t been or isn’t already.
But I do think that if he took some such things to heart, he could moderate his worst inclinations.
This is a thoughtful and much-needed post, Doranwen. Thank you for posting it. It reminds me of the dialogue that used to be on here.
Just hope your words don’t fall on deaf ears. One poster in particular can’t see that he’s already in a cult of his own making – claiming disinterest in Mack while posting obsessively about her.
You’re welcome; I recall such dialogue months ago as well. ‘Tis a pity it’s no longer commonplace.
Some probably will; I skim the comments so much I forget who has issues of their own. As soon as I see ranting, I just drop to the next one, so I don’t even pay attention to who it is half the time. But at least the comments will be there for those like you who want rational discussion and commentary.
I appreciate your logical exposition of that fallacy, and your general compassion.
I’ve previously pointed out quite a bit of Shadow’s illogic, and tendency to fall into fallacies and cognitive biases, including providing links to some of the useful websites like Your Logical Fallacy Is and Your Cognitive Bias Is, but he doesn’t seem much interested in improving on his current shoddy and even culty thinking habits.
I appreciated your comments as well. I so rarely do comment, but I read nearly every post. This one just struck a chord with me as the perfect balance, something that is very difficult to do.
(regarding Shadow’s lack of interest in improving thinking) That does appear to be the case. It also appears Scott Johnson has some issues with logic, as evidenced by his use of what might be termed an association fallacy of a syllogism (one cannot use “she’s a convicted felon” as a premise for her guilt, or one is implying that every case of the first goes along with the second), and either unwillingness or inability to properly read what I wrote twice in a row.
Anyway, I always appreciate when Frank has an insightful article that examines some of what was going on psychologically, and people’s relative levels of guilt and harm done. It’s interesting to see just how it played out – and I will be curious to see where it’s going next. Am hopeful for some convictions of other guilty parties (and perhaps signs of some of the guilty women’s consciences waking back up), and I hope that eventually some light can be shed on the mysteries surrounding the disappearance/deaths brought up in the recent documentary, so that people will not have to live with unanswered questions for the rest of their lives.
I am no fan of Scott, but your long-winded criticism of his statement is, to use its technical term, bullshit.
You claim that “an association fallacy of a syllogism (one cannot use “she’s a convicted felon” as a premise for her guilt)”
By definition, a convicted felon is someone who has been found “guilty.” She pled guilty. It is as simple as that. “Guilt” is a legal term and it has been proven in court. Your saying she still could be an innocent person is true, remotely possible, but beside the obvious point. Her “guilt” remains until her conviction is overturned.
If Scott said being a convicted felon is proof of her guilt then he is right. If Scott said something else and you mischaracterized it, then that’s on you, and I certaining won’t waste my time reading his and your comments.
Thank you for pointing out that the word “guilt” can have legal connotations as well as moral ones. The discussion up to that point had centered on the moral guilt (i.e. someone being guilty because they did wrong, rather than being guilty because they were convicted of doing wrong, which is not the same thing of course). It doesn’t address what I had been talking about, which was definitely moral guilt rather than legal guilt, but it could explain some of the difficulty in communication, as trying to switch to a legal definition mid-discussion would confuse things. (It may clear Scott’s name as far as logic goes but it doesn’t help his case as a clear communicator, however. You can’t have a proper discussion if you are changing definitions mid-discussion without clarifying that! So my argument that he did not address what I was referring to still stands.)
Maybe I will call Neal Glazer today and see what he thinks about a deranged blogger trying to drum up business for his firm. Or better yet, maybe I will contact one of the name partners at his firm. Or maybe even better yet, I will collect some of your more bizarre posts and ask these name partners if they think you are worth the trouble.