Because Keith Raniere never testified at his trial and – and because, prior to his arrest he claimed he had nothing to do with DOS – this email, written in November 2019 to his loyal slave, Nicki Clyne, should be interesting to those studying Nxivm, for it is the first time Raniere explains his motives and methods in starting DOS.
Of course, one should keep in mind that Raniere is known to prevaricate. For instance, he claims there was a secret group or fraternity [presumably with collateral] of some 60 men. I doubt this is true for someone – one of the men – by now would have said something about it.
The reason we have this email is because the Bureau of Prisons [which apparently monitored all of Raniere’s emails] handed it to the prosecution and they released it to the court and it became public. As far as I know, the complete email has never been published in any media.
The subject heading of his email is “Sorority (part 2).” I have not seen part 1.
It should also be kept in mind that Raniere may have not only been writing for Clyne’s benefit but for other women still in DOS with whom Nicki might have been expected to share it with – and it should not be ruled out that Raniere expected that the prison authorities were monitoring his emails and he wanted his “noble” view of DOS to be on the record.
Of course, if Raniere wanted to publish his views on DOS, he could have easily been able to send this as an op-ed to any number of media outlets who would have most assuredly published it. Certainly, we would have done so on Frank Report.
My comments are in [bold and brackets.]
FROM: 57005177 [Raniere’s prisoner number] RANIERE, KEITH ALAN
TO: “Nicki Clyne”
SUBJECT: Sorority (part 2)
DATE: 11/07/2019 07:25 PM
The meaningfulness of surety is difficult to assess because the collateral underlying it is relative: $10,000 is different for a waitress than for a millionaire, nude pictures are different for a nun than for a porn star. The objective [of collateral] was as strong and complete a pledge of surety as possible.
Surety is always pledged and received with the intention it will never be forfeited, therefore it needs to be personally meaningful, and needs to at all times, match or exceed the value of that which it collateralizes. Problems soon arose with keeping pledged surety safe and current (If a woman pledges access to an account she later closes, that surety is no longer current.)
Additionally I, as the structural creator [of DOS}, wanted to be certain, as the sorority grew, there were not corruptions of the power bestowed upon each master through these earnest, life-serious, vows. A series of eight endeavors and structures were undertaken to provide healthy, safe, growth:
1. The 8 founding sisters started to develop areas specialization: one specialization was ethics to ensure morality, consistency, and safety;
2. Circles were codified: groups of sisters, normally with the same master, working together and with each other. This inspired camaraderie and also fostered a mutually helping environment;
3. The beginnings of a grand master system wherein each sister had an additional higher, or non-lineage, grand master as a resource and sounding board; [This does not seem to have a ring of truth since Raniere does not seem to be the type of grandmaster who would be willing to share that role.]
4. Some of the lawyers within the sorority (and some not in the sorority) where consulted to formalize the relationships, consequences, rights, and safeties;
5. The group responsible for the safety, sufficiency, and integrity of pledged surety began creating methods for securing, updating, maintaining, and standardizing it;
6. One of the founding sisters was the first to formally try a “switch” of master and slave wherein the slave became the master and the master became the slave for a time. This gave a wonderful perceptual shift and an experiential sense of the responsibilities, and difficulties, of each role. I suggested this should be a mainstay process throughout the organization;
[This is a strange statement by Raniere but it confirms something I gleaned from his texts with Camila. What Raniere is saying here is that he switched roles with one of his eight first-line women and became her so-called slave for a time. Based on the texts he had with Camila, I had suspected he explored this role reversal with her and it struck me, when I read the Cami texts, that it was simply for his sexual gratification. More importantly, it was temporary. He went right back to being her master, as ruthless as ever, as the text proves.]
7. Two help lines were being developed: one through which a sister could personally raise issues to the ethics committee, and the second an anonymous system for emergency abuses which could be used without fear of identification; and
[I doubt this was ever seriously considered. On top of that, one wonders why he is telling this to Nicki, since she was a first-line master and, if it was true, she would certainly know about this. This suggests to me that he intended the letter to be shared.]
8. I had created a secret society of men which now would interface with the sorority. Initially, having male members within the sorority was considered–everything from husbands to friends–it was ultimately thought best to keep men separate in general.
An ethics/resources committee was created consisting of three founding members of the partner men’s group (the group had already grown to 60 in number), and three founding members from the sorority, through which both organizations could benefit from the insights of the other. [I don’t think this is true. I find it highly improbable that there was a secret men’s group with 60 members and none of them have spoken to date?]
Although I was, through life vows, “master” to the 8 founding sisters of the sorority, I did not want to lead, nor was I in, the sorority. I did however lead the fraternity. As with SOP (The Society of Protectors–the non-secret men’s group), in the fraternity, I had ultimate power, balanced by the other founding member’s ability to, as a group, veto my orders. I also had the ultimate veto power of any initiative the board created. Initially, in SOP, the high counsel (which I led) gave me ultimate, unchecked power.
I considered this for literally 24 hours, once it was given, and decided to set up the check and balance system because I was concerned of my personal flaws, blindness, errors, and even the potential I might someday lose my faculties.
Thus, I led the fraternity (the secret men’s organization) with balanced power, and had final veto power over both it and the sorority.
Within the sorority, my influence was even further limited by my own beliefs: For example, one lineage head refused to adopt some of the more edgy (but optional for each participant) BDSM-type practices desired by several of the other lineages. I felt it was not my place to attempt to interfere, although I believed it was a vital option for all lineages.
[This shows clearly how much DOS was a sex sorority. Also, BDSM was not optional. Several DOS slaves told me they were terrified of having to be placed in a cage in a dungeon and they did not feel they had a choice. They felt they had to obey or their collateral would be released.]
I did design a number of therapeutic procedures for the sorority– things we called, “sourcings” in the companies I created- that were feminine by construction and, I feel, some of the most extraordinary work I have done. There were also a number of specialized, optional, sub-groups planned wherein women learned skills of interest within the sorority community and these women would become resources for the rest of the sisterhood.
Note: The primary witness in my sex trafficking charge [Nicole] initially helped design her own personal vulnerability challenge [being tied naked to a table and to have someone unknown to her performing oral sex on her. This was deemed sex trafficking by the jury in Raniere’s trial]. After this challenge, she aspired to be one of the heads of the specialized group that provided sisters with both emotional and physical challenges. {Nicole never testified about this and I do not think she was cross-examined about her aspiring to be the head of a specialized group within DOS.]
This included outward bound activities, any of the alternative sexual activities, vulnerability challenges, and self-defense/fighting competence. Her [Nicole’s] personal challenge [being tied naked to the table, etc.] was used against me as the centerpiece of the sex trafficking charge.
The sorority was to be a “no holds barred” organization, going boldly where no other organization had yet gone–so women could have access to many unique things without the structures or permissions of men. I certainly did not want to limit these freedoms with any involvement I might have!
[He says he did not want to “limit these freedoms.” He calls slavery “freedoms.”]
While I was in Mexico, the hate and untruth towards myself and the sorority raged; I was further distanced and completely apart from the functioning of this group. The day of my arrest had been scheduled to be a restarting; a more mature, wise, reforming of the group. [There was to be a group fellatio session with him and five first-line masters called a “Recommitment Ceremony”.] What happened with it [DOS] after my arrest is uncertain as of this writing. I believe there are still a strong number of women committed.
I believe the sorority is good–not just good and even noble, but great–and vitally important for women and humanity. It is tragic the current organization has been stymied by a few envious men abusing positions of power in government, media, and film; some women who didn’t live up to their sacred honor and vows; and people in general who just feel threatened by this idea.
The missing part of our society, found in a secret group of women like this, aches to be embraced; we should deeply mourn it’s possible loss. It is a living thing, a precious thing, and an essential thing to complete the human story: groups that are different are not necessarily bad, and ways of journeying through our lives, only for the few, and too intense for the many, are foundationally important for all of us. This sorority is such a thing: living, precious, intense, and some would say even sacred. [Who would say DOS is sacred?] If the current group of committed women, for whatever reason, do not carry this considerable body of knowledge, practices, and skills forward, some other group of brave, courageous, women should–even must–somehow, somewhere. It’s here, waiting for the right women, right now. Who will carry forth this burning torch of light? [Nicki, thinking, as she read this: ‘I will Master!”]
The sorority, also known as DOS or “The Vow”, was still undergoing formation pains when it became the subject of world discussion. The initial group of members were all life-committed (the highest level of commitment) although many lesser commitment levels were planned. At the time it reached international prominence, and infamy, the average age of the sorority sisters was just under 40 (I think the youngest was 24) and consisted of single women, married women, mothers, and even grandmothers. Many were professional, even world influential: a daughter of a past head of a country [Cecilia Salinas], a leader of a key national think tank, a daughter of a multi-billionaire and media mogul [Rosa Laura Junco] (this particular father [Alejandro Junco] is one of the key motivators behind the actions against the sorority), the wife of the CEO of a major corporation, third-generation royalty [India Oxenberg], call girls, lawyers, doctors [Danielle Roberts], research scientists, Emmy nominated performers [Alejandra Anaya Gonzales], peace movement leaders, many nationalities and races (African, Mexican, U.S. American, Chinese, Arabic, Canadian, European), [That was easy since they doubled as Rainbow Cultural Garden nannies, some of whom were illegally brought into the US] many religions and beliefs (Christian, Jewish, Agnostic, Islamic, Catholic, Spiritualist), and from 7 countries.
Could there be an “old girl’s” network as powerful as the “old boy’s” network?
Could there be a woman’s worldwide secret society, based on personal growth, with a no-glass-ceilings, no nets, no excuses, environment wherein women are “women of their word”?
The sorority was a group of women with a four-fold desire to:
1. Be part of a close, intimate, sisterhood, where it is safe and supportive to have total disclosure (they were invited by a woman they respected, normally their best friend);
2. Be brave and courageous, taking full risk to overcome limitations, with specific disciplines, practices, and skills, taking away excuses and the cultural female “net” of social safety, in ways not available in the outside world;
3. Build power and influence for themselves; and
4. Be part of completely trusted, secret network of women dedicated to obtaining power and influence to be used to forward the compassionate feminine principle in society. [By being slaves.]
Some of the sisters questioned if many women could really keep the faith, taking secrets to the grave no matter what, and live up to these conditions and aspirations.
The initial sisters of the sorority were set to be the most trusted of friends to the women already in the sisterhood. This was a temporary recruitment allowance: select women were permitted to join directly as a life-committed member (a dramatic shortcut compared to the future, multi-year process of trust-building, tests, and commitment needed to assure qualified “lifers”).
In the future, most of the women within the sorority would likely not want to be “lifers”, but would find a lesser commitment level more suitable for their lives. Analogous to the Church, not all members want to be clergy.
The seminal notions of the sorority had been in my thoughts for decades. It is part of my life-work to create new social structures and organs of society. Several persistent, independent, thought-clusters and questions informed the creation of the sorority:
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of good intentioned, compared to bad intentioned, people? How can the advantages of being good be amplified so, combined with the inextricable disadvantages, a group can be stronger than the damage of bad intentioned people? (Since a bad intentioned person is willing to do anything, he or she has more options.)
2. What is the nature, and possible need for, secret societies in the pursuit of a better civilization? Many bad actions utilize the tool of secrecy. How can this tool best be used for the good by having a secret group? Is it necessary, or does it give an advantage, in our current world?
3. Why were secret societies male oriented and the secret societies of the world almost completely of male membership? This leaves a void in civilization. What good would it do to fill this void? What in the behavior of women caused this void? Could women form a secret society without this behavioral weakness getting in the way? Would it be good to do so? [And did it needed to be headed by a man?]
4. Could one build a society based on self-determined penance and collateral, instead of based on outwardly imposed, punishment and rules, backed by violence? Penance and collateral move a society away from violence used to enforce rules, and towards conscience upholding ethics. Hopefully, by using practices of penance and collateral, one moves from fear-based, external authority, to conscience-based, internal authority.
Collateral is anything of value. In this case, it is pledged as surety by placement with the sorority for safe keeping, or bonded through agreement allowing it to be possessed if necessary.
Conscience-driven people see pledged surety as merely an effect upholding, valuing, and representing, their word. Such people keep their word because it has an independent, internal value to them, from their own internal authority. The pledged surety is a proud demonstration of that value (as the signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence who proudly pledged surety of their words with their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors).
Conscience-driven women within the sorority would not fear losing their pledged surety because they know they will keep their vow, and their pledged surety is a proud representation of their vow’s strength.
Fear-driven people, not using their conscience, reluctantly keep their word because of the pledged surety. They make the pledged surety the source, and their word an effect of it, believing they keep their word to avoid losing their pledged surety.
They value their word, in the moment, by what it can get them, and only keep it if they fear negative consequences enforced by an external authority. Such people often break their word if they are assured, or perceive, there will not be negative consequences. This gives them positive reinforcement for not seeing, or caring about, consequences, thereby inspiring a lack of conscience and conscience building.
People who indulge this pattern, break their word when convenient, do not develop a deep conscience, and regard only obvious effects in their decisions.
There were three, non-defendant, sorority sisters who testified for the prosecution at my trial [Sylvie, Nicole, Jaye]. Each of them had broken vows in multiple ways–one admitted to seemingly outright criminal behavior outside of the sorority [Sylvie in being illegally in the USA – something Raniere aided and abetted] — each admitted to fear-driven behavior. Their motivation to cause a conviction was intensified by the promise of money. They are all represented by the same civil(!) attorney [Neil Glaser] who has stated he is putting together a class-action lawsuit [he filed it after this email was written]: the heiress in this case [Clare Bronfman] is worth an estimated $200 million, and other defendants have considerable assets.
What is the likely outcome when one of these apostate sorority sisters testifies directly protected by the prosecution (including her identity), for the prosecution? Would she tell the truth if it went against the prosecution’s narrative and eliminated the chance of financial reward? Would she be charged with perjury if she lied to support the prosecution’s story? (Answer: no.)
In such a situation, can the defense charge her with perjury? (Answer: no.) It seems like this prosecutorial witnesses is pretty motivated and safe lying!
Additionally, one of my partners, a founding sister, [Lauren Salzman] testified for the prosecution in order to reduce her sentence. This is sad and a betrayal, but complicated: At her age, 40, not only is a prison sentence very scary, it might preclude her from having children which she strongly desires.
[This may be the most disgusting thing Raniere said in his email. As readers know, Raniere, for almost two decades, dangled his being the father of a child to Lauren, who had a deep desire for motherhood. He would not allow her to date any other man. In the end, in 2017, he told her she was not going to have his child after all, but Mariana Fernandez would and Lauren would be required to love the baby as if it were her own if she loved Raniere. Raniere robbed Lauren of motherhood. And who is he kidding about her still having a child? She is over 40 years old and headed to prison. She is not going to have any children. He stole that opportunity from her.]
She also has a mother [Nancy Salzman] who is gravely ill, [she seems to have recovered] and she did not want to be incarcerated during her mother’s, potentially, final days. Her cooperation is compassionately understandable, but very bad morally: Even if she felt I was guilty–and even bad–supporting a hate-type campaign in any way is wrongful. It is also a profound betrayal and breaking of both her vows to the sorority and me.
[But, in fairness, Raniere broke all his promises to Lauren. And when the police came for him, he hid in the closet while Lauren, facing machine guns, tried to cover for him and finally fearing the cowardly rascal would let her be shot to death, gave away his hiding place.]
Note: I am unmarried and have a number of long-term, life-committed, relationships simultaneously. Their durations: 42 years [Karen U], 30 years (deceased) [Pam Cafritz], 23 years (deceased) [Barbara Jeske], 22 years, and a number more of 15+ years. This generates a tremendous number of questions, and a lot of hate, in this country.
This is how the sorority “started”: At one point, for deeply personal yet independent reasons, three of my long-term partners decided to have a deeper, more total, commitment by making life-vows to me; one of them because of a personal crisis [Camila?].
They wanted me to hold them to the highest of standards, “pull no punches”, and tell them all of my preferences, so they could be as intimate and close with me as possible. It is not my way to voice my preferences, or push for my wants [that’s laughable], so I thought doing so was an important practice for me. Additionally, they pledged collateral as surety to prove their earnestness, although I did not hold it.
The benefits of this commitment were palpable to them almost immediately, and two of these women felt a few of my other partners should be added (and at least 2 women who were not my partners). Within a short time, there were a total of seven women who took life-commitment vows to me; one of them had no sexual involvement with me and never did [Rosa Laura Junco?]. She was the person I chose to hold, and keep track of, everyone’s pledged surety.
After the first seven women had taken life-vows, although the one in crisis remained apart from the group, the remaining six felt the vow and program would benefit some of their closest friends. At this point, the decision was made to create a sorority – apart from my life-vows with them–yet built with the same principles and benefits. I was to “train” these founding women as they, the leadership circle, were to “train” the rest of the organization.
My longest-term partners did not fit the spirit of the group; it did not apply to their personality types or their goals in life. So they were never invited into the sorority and never knew about it. An additional one of my partners was added much later as a founder [Lauren Salzman]. She was good for the group (and the group for her) but was not added initially because some of the other founding sisters simply did not trust her and felt unsafe with her.
Ultimately, each of the eight founding women created a lineage. Over the coming months, as the group grew to over 150 women, many challenges were addressed and contemplated which helped form the organization. The first hurdle out of the gate was how to determine an invited friend was truly worthy and committed to such a life-trust? This was a secret organization that, for purposes of privacy and freedom, needed to remain secret. How would the group know they could trust a woman that much?
To start, there was a two-step initiation process: First, the candidate was told of a secret group. In order to find out about it she needed to pledge surety [collateral] to back-up her word, convince the group of her trustworthiness, and guarantee she would keep the secret to the grave. This would give every member confidence intimate secrets would remain safe.
A good percentage of “best friends” provided this to find out about the group. What each woman learned were the four basic tenets of initiation verified in court:
1. The relationship was one of total, unqualified, obedience for life (this renders the forced labor charge a virtual impossibility, especially if it’s for such minor tasks as reading articles or getting coffee);
2. The Master/Slave terminology would be used within the relationship to affirm this;
3. She would be required to be branded with an undisclosed symbol; and [That undisclosed symbol was Keith Raniere’s initials. It should also be pointed out that it had to be undisclosed since Keith deliberately hid his role in DOS. And all the first-line masters were instructed by him to lie to women – their so-called best friends – whom they recruited – that Raniere had nothing to do with DOS.]
4. She would be required to wear a permanent piece of jewelry to visibly show this bond. [DOS slaves were required to wear a necklace, belly chain or anklet which they were to never take off. Today at least two of the first line masters, Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman, may not still be wearing their jewelry but they are wearing an ankle monitor which they may not take off.] At this point, some women were interested, some not.
The second stage, if the qualified applicant desired to go forward, involved pledging as much meaningful surety as possible to affirm life-time loyalty and commitment. This surety was evaluated by the group, and the group decided if the applicant was committed enough to uphold the obedience and fidelity for life. There is a joy in affirming one’s word through pledging surety- also a genuine desire to show one is serious and one’s word is good (Remember the signers of the US Declaration of Independence). [As far as is known none of the signors were branded]. With some applicants, this was evident. If this second collection of pledged surety was deemed sufficient, the applicant was accepted, as a sister, into the group’s life-time vow of obedience and loyalty.
[This email does not seem complete and I suspect Raniere either wrote or planned to write a part 3]
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
(Frank, please ensure my identifying information is stripped from this.)
There are a few key elements of Keith’s hypothesized psychology that can be identified in this article.
1. Bad intention vs. Good intention
2. Collateral and Surety and the premise behind giving and receiving them
3. The premise of Conscience-driven people – Keith’s version of conscience as related to cold and warm empathy
4. The nature of a secret – good and bad, legal and illegal
5. Observations on Keith’s business and social constructs (inner circles etc) and how he facilitated his cult of personality
Bad intention vs Good intention.
Keith’s own definition of bad is anything anti-humanity or destroying of value. Keith set up a premise that time with him, as creator of the EM Tech and the philosophical founder of all of these “movements”, was that his time was infinitely valuable, and therefore any direction coming with Keith must either 1) uphold humanity and create value, or 2) if you don’t see that, you need to work your issue. By positioning the community of people that followed him in this way, this premise was the foundation of everything that followed. If you question this premise and evaluate intention with Keith’s own definitions, without that premise in place, reality sinks in: Keith’s actions were measurably bad, and measurably anti-humanity. Through Clare and others, Keith was able to demean and disrespect hard-working members of his community, rarely through himself but often through others, all the while remaining immune himself from scrutiny.
Giving and Receiving Collateral and Surety
Surety is a guarantee that someone will behave as you want them to, even if they change their mind later. Surety for a mother standing at the ladder of the diving board ensuring her daughter, who wants to take her first dive but is scared, is a loving act – the mother ensures the daughter keeps at it in the face of fear and achieves her goal. Surety as a collection of trashy photos and letters as a life-ruining threat if you decide not to have intimate relations with someone is not the same thing, and is a crime Keith is guilty of. Some hypothesize that because Keith is incapable of feeling regular emotions or the consequences of his actions, Keith is unable to see the difference between these two examples, and he sees both the emotional blackmail and first dive examples I have used here as indistinguishable. Collateral is a simple term for value placed in safe keeping in exchange for a loan of greater value in hopes the collateral may be used in case of default. In a trusting friendship or loving relationship, such collateral is unnecessary – how many of us would act against a best friend or beloved family member? None of us would, because we have conscience. Because some hypothesize Keith has no conscience, it makes sense then that Keith would lean so heavily on the idea of collateral and extend it — ineffectively, inappropriately, disrespectfully, and illegally — into sexual acts, and be guilty of crimes. This is a concept that Keith’s “supporters” are failing to think through effectively.
The Premise of Conscience and Keith’s Version of Existence
Because some hypothesize Keith has no conscience or inner moral compass, he is forced to act it out. To a conscience-barren person like some hypothesize Keith to be, warm empathy consciousness — what most of us have in that when we do something wrong or bad, our body doesn’t lie — is replaced by pantomime. Keith’s body does not lie to him — it literally says nothing. He feels no love or hate or anything in between, some hypothesize, but rather exists to satisfy body cravings he cannot explain, in his case, sexual impulses. If true, Keith is sick, and is in need of help. It is unfortunate, given the many positive experiences he has given so many people, that the negative and illegal choices has has made will overshadow the positive for likely the rest of his life. Keith has cold empathy – he knows when to pantomime laughing, thoughtfulness, urgency, sadness. He is brilliant and has an amazing memory — this has been factually verified — but it is tragic how he chose to apply his gifts, and tragic further that he was unable to be diagnosed at an earlier age for his emotional struggle and eroding of his sense of self and how important other people are, and what it means to be respectful and loving. It is all a tragety.
The Nature of Secrets
A good secret is undivulged information leading to profit or gain as a result of well-placed bets and intelligence gathering. A bad secret is the oppression of another through threat or blackmail. When discussing honesty and transparency, Keith misses these ideas, because a person’s body tells them when a secret is a product of productive economy (often legal) or a product of lies and deception (often illegal). When lies and deception are widespread, the word “gaslit” or “gaslighting” is used to reflect the broad scope of untruths, and so I think that word is appropriate given the tens of thousands of people that believed Keith was a renunciate and monk-like person constantly striving to improve the world and patent inventions. He was constantly scheduling sex and sexual encounters – the inventions and patents were lies. Sex and sexual encounters are not bad – it is not the morality of sex in question, it is the widespread lying about being the person he said he was. This is what Nicki and the prison dancer movement miss completely, and it is sad they cannot see deeper than the surface beliefs they have about Keith.
Keith’s Construction of his Cult of Personality
If you look back with informed eyes over the past few years of data and what has been divulged, Keith seems to follow a pretty simple pattern in how he created a following.
1. Find a devotee to speak for him. Keith found quick devotees in Barb J and Pam C. They were both loving, caring individuals, and truly (I believe) believed Keith was what he described. So Pam and Barb went out and recruited and people loved Pam and Barb and a community quickly grew that all believed Keith was this great monk-like humanist.
2. If the devotees disappear, replace them with a new devotee or a structure. When Pam and Barb both died from cancer, Keith found himself in trouble because his model had broken down. He created DOS, some hypothesize, to replace Pam and Barb (before them, DOS was not necessary.) Keith framed it as he frames all things: How dedicated to personal growth are you? The premise being, Keith was the most gifted and treasured expert on personal growth, and he could help you become anything, as he had for countless millionaires and world leaders (who are those people, exactly? — don’t ask that, go work your issues on trust.) So, because Keith couldn’t understand why Pam and Barb were drawn to him — again, some hypothesize he has no conscience — he set up DOS as a blackmail based organization to serve him sexually and evolve what Pam and Barb gave him as a secret moon to a Death Star version of secret admiration and dedication. This was done, again, through lies and deception to each woman, beginning with the idea that Keith was not involved in DOS, which we all know to be a manufactured truth propelled by the first line DOS slaves.
This is the structure Keith puts in place to build up a following, and this is why Keith invents “movements” over and over. It mirrors the dedication and the unquestionable nature of Keith at the center of something.
Never mind, I actually remember a conversation about a secret men’s society… if it exists, the leader is Marc Elliot based on what I had heard.
It’s unlikely that the secret group of men exists. It is, however, a good tactic to spread further distrust amongst others who are out. If the group was truly secret, there is no good reason why it would be ok for Raniere to disclose it via this email. If it does exist, let’s say that ship leaks from the top and, henc,e more the reason why it’s unlikely it exists at all.
Thanks for sharing the pictures of Alejandro Junco.
I am thinking you are right. Maybe he did help to take Raniere down and, hence, why Raniere tells Mariana that a media mogul wanted him down.
I find it interesting that Laura Junco is not mentioned that much in Mexican media. Emiliano Salinas is mentioned much more.
I think this shows that media people have more power even than politicians. The media really frames the narrative.
For me, Laura Junco did things that are much worse than Emiliano: she gave her own daughter, brought minors from Mexico to Raniere. But she is hardly mentioned in Mexican media.
Keith’s letter is super long and borning. Yawn….
But yeah, he was putting a lot of effort to convince others of the sorority.
The men’s secret society is real, created about the time of DOS, with undying fealty to each other and to Vanguard. Most members are from SOP. Still investigating the name and the main leaders. Brink, Del Negro, the Asunsolo brothers, the Elliot brothers, the Boone brothers, Chakravorty, Diamond, many more..
Were these lads branded – and did they post collateral to ensure their secrecy?
I believe the point of the commenter “The game is not over” is that each of the members of SOP is a potential future Vanguard or Grand Master with his own harem.
Imagine a future NXIVM with operations in several cities around North America, each with its own Grand Master, each with its own harem.
I believe the point of the commenter is that these lads will gladly let the great Vanguard brand them on their puss.
Not exactly, just know it exists. SOP was just a testbed to find the most loyal, committed and brainwashable ‘soldiers’ for the group. Based on Keith’s beliefs, he believes in ‘collateralizing his word’, so it makes sense.
What, no mention of Mark Hildreth in the Fraternity?
Lots of troubling images,,,
Do they sit naked on the floor in front of Vanguard with their legs spread apart?
Are their collateral pix close-ups of their buttholes?
Do the ex-SOPers prove their worth by supplying pix of their women’s cum facials?
Do the frat boys show “undying fealty” to Vanguard by letting him cum on them?
Or do they just cum on each other…or maybe on their own faces?
Hard to imagine what a cuck frat would be like.
You seemed to have imagined it well. Perhaps you’re suppressing your own homosexual latencies.
Everything done in DOS with cum is replaced by feces in cuck SOP. LOL
—Everything done in DOS with cum is replaced by feces in cuck SOP.
Sounds like you [came] by your carnal knowledge firsthand.
Sounds like you’re too scared to come on Scott’s show. LOL
SOP was a mens group focusing on building an understanding of character and commitment. Each man set goals and if they failed, they were helped to understand what they were feeling about their choice and to help them build inner honesty with that choice point so they could see reality and push themselves. This was the surface activity. I don’t know anything about anything deeper, like the secret mens’ society based on elevating only certain members of SoP (I obviously wasn’t chosen and I am not surprised.) While it is delightful for most to draw parallels between DOS and SOP, SOP was really quite tame and honest in comparison to what we know now.
That proves Raniere’s theory that women are weak and inferior to men, they can’t be trusted or depended upon, etc. LOL
—can’t be trusted or depended upon
Aren’t you a woman then?
You keep projecting, NiceGuy 666. LOL
Who is the one who said they would come on Scott’s show and then chickened out? LOL
Curious to know what the real purpose of this letter is. This letter obviously was not meant to communicate to Nicki. Nicki was one of the first slaves; she was literally there when much (all?) of what’s described in the letter. She would also be aware that a number of details in this letter are either exaggerated or untrue. (Example: 150 women in DOS before it was uncovered cannot possibly be true.) Also, am I mistaken that it was later determined that he actually was in a sexual relationship with Rosa Laura Junco?
The purpose of the letter is the same as the purpose of NXIVM in general, attempt to create a Raniere centered universe. LOL
He got away with it for over two decades, but now it’s largely over, at least for him. LOL
Theres not even a tent peg anchoring this tale to reality, never mind a cornerstone. The whole racket turns on renewed pics of wide spread branded vagina and ever more gothic tales of sadean transgression, from starving sickly slaves. Raniere’s prose works like chloroform.
Brings to life the saying ‘bored to death’
Interesting (and I just watched the first 3 parts of the Vow – thanks for the link).What is fascinating is how some people are taken in by cults and leaders like this and others aren’t. I think my interest comes from the psychological side (family business in a sense) and that I had a sibling briefly in a cult so they have always interested me, secondly Keith R – and how he hooked people in and finally what looks like BDSM – presumably some of the women were into that and others weren’t made that way. I am sure KR was.
As for what can someone consent to? In the UK where I am if something is too damaging you can’t which is why poor Max Mosley’s case was interesting – he had all his private life put over the newspapers in a newspaper sting (sting – all puns intended) and part of the newspaper defence was he was caned harder than you are able to consent to in English law and so it was a crime – court did not agree and held he did have the right to privacy. (US and English often differ on privacy issues). So can you consent in NY to being branded? If you know that is going to happen you probably can actually just as you can consent to enduring childbirth without pain relief if you want to.
Anyway the strands of fascinating issues in this tale just run and run.
Had KR kept sex and collateral out of it all he would not be in jail.
I suppose that is another issue – do you have a right to send someone naked photos? obviously yes if you are over age. Do you have a right in a contract to set out how they can be used – eg topless model allows them to be published or person chooses to put them on line. Can you say if I put on lots of weight you have a right to release my photos? Is that blackmail? I expect the trial looked all this.
Had KR kept sex and collateral out of it all he would still be a computer programmer for the state of New York. LOL
As far as putting on weight, are you referring to releasing the photos before or after you got fat? LOL
Sounds like the “Illuminati”.
Even the illuminati would have more common sense than this. LOL
How the hell long did it take him to one finger type this pile of garbage?
1. Of course, he didn’t allow other men–and placed himself at the top with veto power;
2. His introduction about “surety” is deeply disturbing. A car loan is surety. Not a human being;
3. This is, to me, a clear attempt to build the group in his absence, to keep the MLM scheme going, and is meant for others to see. It is a plan.
Makes the hair on my neck stand up. Very disturbing.
These letters could result in additional charges to the existing and new defendants. LOL
“I had ultimate power, balanced by the other founding member’s ability to, as a group, veto my orders. I also had the ultimate veto power of any initiative the board created. Initially, in SOP, the high counsel (which I led) gave me ultimate, unchecked power.
I considered this for literally 24 hours, once it was given, and decided to set up the check and balance system because I was concerned of my personal flaws, blindness, errors, and even the potential I might someday lose my faculties.
Thus, I led the fraternity (the secret men’s organization) with balanced power, and had final veto power over both it and the sorority.”
You lost your marbles long ago, “Vanguard,” no matter how intellectually adept you may seem to be in manipulating through verbose word salad.
And dummy (with your false humility in “considering” something for 24 hours), “final veto power” is still ultimate power. The president of the US has veto power, but Congress has the authority to override it. You provide no such ability and, therefore, it is a fraud (just like you) as a checks and balances system.
A person in society does not have the legal right to grant permission to another person to commit a crime against them.
Murder is against the law. And just because you’re dying of cancer, doesn’t mean you have the right to grant your nurse permission to terminate your life. Killing is illegal. Period.
Likewise, blackmail is illegal. You cannot grant someone permission to blackmail you, no matter how that blackmail is achieved, or how much the person being blackmailed might benefit from the act. You could argue blackmailing an alcoholic spouse would stop them from drinking, but even if it did, it’s still illegal.
The entire foundation of DOS was built on a fallacy. You cannot re-spin blackmail and coercion as “proof of commitment” and build an organization on the misconception without creating a criminal enterprise.
Assisted suicide is legal in some states, unless you want to quibble over a nurse or doctor doing the assisting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide_in_the_United_States LOL
I didn’t really read the whole thing. (Will probably circle back and reread later). He obviously spent a lot of time and effort convincing his first line women what a wonderful organization DOS was. IMO this is an indication that the first line women really did believe in DOS as some kind of incredible growth opportunity (and displayed a shocking lack of critical thinking). It also suggests that the majority of the punishment should go to Raniere.
The attempt to continue DOS and NXIVM suggests that all those involved in this attempt to continue the Rico criminal enterprise should be harshly prosecuted and punished until this crime syndicate is completely crushed. And that includes drastic punishments that will hurt each of these criminals very badly. It is time that society and all its individuals were protected from them as they should be.
” I didn’t really read the whole thing.”
Me too. It is terribly hard to read!
Agree with this. He was putting a lot of effort into convincing others that it was worth it.
The first line women were long-term, true believers. LOL
The problem became that they tried recruiting newbies, which was their fatal flaw. LOL
Much like Amway recruited and then scammed Scott and didn’t realize what a pain in the a$$ he would become to them and all of other MLM scams. LOL
Fully agreed👍
Raniere is a Psychopath….no doubt. A serious one.
Yes, a sadistic psychopath. I would not wish for any human being to have encountered this monster.
Hey, Nicki, aka Tongue of Flame, aka Pea Onyu:
How do you like your secret NXIVM communications with your Vanguard being hacked and published?
I agree with Jim Raniere. Keith is mentally ill!
Keith Alan Raniere is a criminal sociopath and not mentally ill. And pedophilia is not a pathology but a crime.