Nxivm Sex-Slaver Raniere Teaches Sex-Slave Allison Mack About Acting and Ethics of Film and Stage

This is Part 7 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 #2 Allison Mack Breaks Down and Cries When Sex-Slaver Raniere Speaks to Her About ‘Authenticity’ 

Part #3 Sex-Slave Allison Mack Gets Lessons on Acting From Her Sex-Slaver Master Raniere

Part #4 Allison Mack’s Incredible Conversation With Sex-Slaver Raniere on the World Calling Her ‘Terrible, Terrible, Terrible’ 

Part #5 Sex Slave Allison Mack Learns From Her Master Keith Raniere About Suicide and ‘the Magnitude of Love Is Through Pain’

Part # 6 Allison Mack Tells Her Master Her Sex-Slavery ‘Educated My Inner Light’

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

In this excerpt, Raniere, who never acted professionally, teaches the professional and successful actress about the ethics of acting. The gullible Mack left her acting career to follow Raniere who she thinks knows all.

In this excerpt, we find Raniere somewhat more inarticulate than ever, with broken sentences, run-on sentences, and downright incomprehensible sentences. All of it together makes a rather sickening stew of bullshit and manipulation meant to deceive not only Mack but others who are viewing that this cad knows what the hell he is talking about.

Try to follow it if you can.

Allison leads off with a question.

A. I was going to ask you something, a little more of what I’m thinking about recently with respect to the responsibility of the media and the work that we [The Source] put out, and how we seem to be going down an interesting path as far as the things that we produce both in the news, and also just in films and television shows and things like that where they seem to be becoming less and less responsible and less and less moral, less consistent.

I’m just wondering how do you work in a commercialized field where it seems that’s what the audience wants, and that’s what people are feeding, the audience? How do you work in a commercialized field and make the impact that you want to make, yet have it still be something viable, is that possible even like?

K. It’s a system and it’s  interesting problem in politics, it’s the problem in some degree, justice in media, and also in what you might call the acting field. You know when I talk about media in this case, talk about reporting media and acting media.

A. Right

K. You know you can make a great movie that grosses a lot of dollars if you give the public what they want to hear.

A. Right.

K. And what they want to hear does not necessarily make them happy. Sometimes they want to hear a tragedy; sometimes they want to hear something that bothers them; sometimes they don’t want to hear something that bothers them, but if you give them the right thing at the right time, you can make a lot of money. That is reflective of society; that’s acting media, movie media, when it reflects society’s wants and in a very mild sense helps form them, but it actually helps more solidify them.

A. Hum.

K. Then you have this sort of more progressive things that leads society, that change their views. The problem right now with society is society is not self-reflective because we don’t have a strong community structure, a strong national structure and down to the strong family structure and the individual structure. These things are not reflective of really a specific type of morality. You question most people and in some of our most educational programs, you know, one of the modules is “good and bad.” And a lot of people say, ‘oh this is good; this is bad” but they don’t have a real definition for it. And when they’re put to the task suddenly they realize, well the reason you think it’s good, is because I thought it was good, because I thought it was good, I thought it was good, and I was told it was good, and I thought it was good, was it good? and I’m not sure if it’s good and if I had heard that from someone else and told, was told it was bad and believed it was bad, it was bad, and duhduhda and we find that we have this programming that is nothing much to do with our experience in life other than it is being dictated to us. Society in itself, if it continues the way it’s going, we’ll end up where it’s headed, it’s sort of, ah, almost as though we were along for the ride.

A. Yeah.

K. But humans have the capacity to actually sit and think about where we wanted to be, think about how we would like it to change. And that contemplation has to become something that’s understood in society. That family that people understand it, families understand it, communities understand it, and that the different ethical issues come up are discussed. I believe, and I believe this for a while that’s why we have this specific ethicist curriculum and think that being an ethicist will be as much of a, a foundation to society as being a business person.

That and communities and even and families there will be people who are ethicist and ethical minded that help guide that. No, right now that doesn’t exist so much, so when you go into the movie industry you have a problem because you see a special someone like yourself now who has thought about these things quite a bit, ah, and you are expressing to me earlier about you know of, I think it’s a TV opportunity, is it or something along those lines? And when you examine it you see that it actually supports something that you find not so good in society, innocent in itself, but supporting something that is not good.

A. Right.

K. And you’re ethical consideration is, you know, what will it do if I contribute to it, and what will it do if I don’t contribute to it, what will it do for society? what will it do for me? All of these different things, back and forth it goes, that sort of consideration is very important, unfortunately, if more and more actors did that, um, there would be more and more poorer, poorer actors.

A. Right

K. Because a lot of actors would not stomach what they were actually doing. Because the industry right now is a place where it’s reflecting society’s values and society’s values are somewhat haphazardly put together.

A. Right.

K. It’s the same reason why you can have someone who, I say this know I love rock, I play, you know, the keyboards and synthesizer, but I do know that someone who plays around with, you know, some sort of instruments and makes a pop song sometimes, it’s really rough, not even particularly musical, in a number of ways, but it’s a type of emotional fancy can make more money with that song then a classical musician that trained for 40 years who is far, what you might say, far, well more trained, and even represents something far, far lasting, you know, the, ah, lot of the rock music or contemporary music, pop, popular music, a hundred years from now won’t stand the test of time. Some will, but a lot won’t, but we do have classical pieces that have withstood the test of more than a hundred years.

A. Right.

K. Hundreds of years and yet and they will probably be around a hundred years from now but yet people are not paid the same way. Payment reflects society’s values. In, ah, you know, a long time ago there was quite a bit of payment for being a gladiator and going out in an arena and slaying people who are brought in front of you, or maybe being eaten by lions or things like that — not that the people get paid who are eating the lions, but the people. If that happened now, that would be appalling, all those same people say there are some, whether it’s full fighting, or whatever that’s similar to that, um, but certainly things like both fighting, boxing, football, have something very primitive affixed to them and maybe in a hundred years from now when we’re beyond that, those sports will be seen as we see gladiator fights and people being tortured now.

Society values change and what people are willing to pay for change and what people are willing to pay for is reflective of their current value set. But if you want to be involved in transforming people, educating people, moving them forward, unless people are aware of, they’re paying money for where they are at, as opposed to where they want to be, you’ll become less viable commercially.

A. Umhum

K. So, it’s an interesting problem. If people were educated and if the industry were educated not only will the film industry be extremely transformational, it would be a wonderful educational tool. But people would go forth willingly to do that, as they go forth to a health club for people now recognize we don’t get enough exercise. Long ago when we had to plant all of our food and, and go in the jungle and hunt, we didn’t have to worry about going into health clubs. We got enough exercise but now we don’t so now we go to health clubs and we love it.

A. Umhum

K. Some of us don’t, but we love it. When we start to have a certain type of media that is more responsible than that would be supported as health clubs are, but right now the state of affairs, especially people in the film industry, as I have explained to you, you know, there is a big difference between film and stage. Someday the whole profession of actors in film will be gone.

I don’t know if that’s in 50 years or two hundred years or what but it will all be able to be done with computer-generated characters or computer-generated simulated characters of real people and film is extremely limited. Film is one of the, in some ways, it’s dehumanizing because when I’m in a film and I’m doing some sort of performance I can’t form a rapport with my audience.

A. Hahum um

K. But the stage actor that goes out on stage can touch each individual in the audience and every performance is difference because of that human contact. What the world needs I believe is more human to human contact. It’s been shown time and time again that the more people can separate from being personally involved with each other the more they’re able to punish. Whether it’s the Milgram experiments or even in a courtroom where you know the, ah, prosecution refers to the person only as the, you know, the defendant whereas the defense refers to them by their full name and tries to humanize them. It’s this whole battle between humanization and dehumanization and some of what happens in a film is a practice of dehumanization.

Film is a very powerful tool. It’s not film that is bad. It’s how that tool is used in society but our current society is using film more as, if you will, more as a fortifier of a set of chaotic values a fortifier of entertainment and a fortifier of dehumanization.

There is a statistic that I had heard and I don’t know if this is true but in the United States by the time someone is 18, I think they have witnessed, they say, like something like, something 20 or 40,000 murders. Whether it’s cartoons or whatever, human getting killed, human getting killed, human that’s far more than the gladiators even witnessed and they become used to it. It doesn’t become as profoundly as tragic as the ending of a life, the ending of a legacy the ending of a whole existence.

It becomes just an act you know. You become numb and we are becoming numb to each other because we are participating in this, if you will, orgy of technology and the pendulum has to swing back the other way. There needs to be more person-to-person contact. There needs to be more of this communication, more of this direct authentic connection. so I’m a believer that, you know, going out and seeing people act on the stage is a whole different world and a very important one, because you have a group of people who have decided to get together and experience humanity with one another from one another.

END OF EXCERPT

************

What Raniere is saying is that the film industry has to be more ethical – though he himself was one of the least ethical beings we have ever come across.

His profound bullshit seems to have been entrancing to Allison Mack and perhaps some of his followers but I think most of us can see – if we can follow his extremely poor ability to express himself clearly – that his thoughts are rather mundane and not original.

In the end – and this is why I think this series is important – poor Allison followed this clod and thought he was brilliant. All he offered was bullshit and common thinking and she, uneducated and inexperienced in the world, thought he was profound.

This mistake in judgment, combined with his hypnotic induction techniques, his sleep deprivation and caloric restrictions, and his use of women to subdue other women to follow him, took Allison right out of her acting field – where she was successful and at the top of her game – and led her to poverty and insanity.

And don’t you think it is the height of irony that he did this in part by teaching her about acting and what the industry was – when she was the success and he knew had done nothing in the field?

He took the confidence away from his followers and led them to believe he knew all when, in fact, he knew nothing – and led them to believe that they knew nothing when they, in fact, really did know a lot.  Allison knew a lot about acting but she subjugated her own knowledge and assumed he knew more.

This is the secret of Nxivm and Raniere. He got people to abandon their own self-confidence.

And once you abandon your own self-confidence, you abandon hope that you can solve your own problems and that is the road to slavery, which is precisely what Allison became.

Frank Parlato