A frequent commenter on this site, sometimes known as LOL, in other words, Scott Johnson, sets out to prove fairly convincingly that Keith Alan Raniere did not mean anything murderous when he said his now infamous “I’ve had people killed for my beliefs and for theirs” on a video in 2009.
Scott attempts to prove the entire conversation when taken in context, which he generously transcribed for readers of the Frank Report whom he likes so much, makes it pretty clear that he means people can get killed when an important leader simply says the wrong thing or leads people to follow him without that leader fully understanding the consequences.
By Scott Johnson
This is in response to Susan Dones statement at the sentencing hearing of Keith Raniere, where she said she was afraid of him killing her based on his statement in a video [where he tells Barbara Bouchey] that he has had “people killed for his beliefs.”
I do not interpret this as a murderous threat.
Here’s the context of the “I’ve had people killed” quote, as taken from the YouTube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuStK6xg-7g
After you get done chomping on the usual Raniere word salad for several minutes, the applicable part starts at 06:21 with Raniere being told by Bouchey that he doesn’t have leadership experience.
Raniere tries to defend himself claiming that he does.
At 06:35, Raniere is told the only experience he has was with Consumers’ Buyline and that was an illegal failure.
Raniere is not used to being called out like this. He normally has his evil harem to insulate himself from these things and they weren’t there.
At 06:48 Raniere interrupts Bouchey in order to change the subject and claims that he’s been shot at.
At 06:58 Raniere talks about having bodyguards to protect him from being shot at, and the quandary is whether those guards should be armed or not.
At 07:02 is the “famous” I’ve had people killed statement, suggesting this isn’t merely a theoretical idea, but real people using Raniere’s silly technique have really been killed, perhaps by cartel members, for his beliefs when these beliefs were stupidly followed by some of his Mexican followers.
Then at 07:12, he ties this back to leadership,. He thinks he is leading a protest against violent drug and human cartels, which merely reinforces he is a poor leader because he doesn’t have a clue that the cartel members couldn’t care less about his silly group.
Then at 07:19, he attempts to use an “old Christian adage” that doesn’t exist.
For Frank to continue this fairy tale of Raniere killing others is extremely disappointing, Frank is either clueless or is looking for sympathetic eyeballs. In either case, it’s very disappointing as a so-called and self-claimed journalist.
Here is the transcript of the video:
[Keith is sitting on the coach speaking to Barbara Bouchey, also on the couch, and seated below is another woman, believed to be Kim Woolhouse. The time is April, 2009.]
KR: To put a note I do have because I’ve been pondering how to free the process up.
BB: Ok
KR: And I was going to make a statement but it’s not appropriate to make the statement without everyone here just to hear it. The statement, I want to make it in isolation and it does not request a response.
BB: OK.
KR: I think that will help free things up.
BB: OK, but you don’t want to say it here now you mean?
KR: I can if you want. It’s very simply, the process that you are doing. For example, you have accused at times people of ganging up collaborative, ganging up on you. It is yet what you sort of manifest here.
BB: Right
KR You may want to also think that in a process where a group of people get together, make some decisions based on data. Data may not be complete, may not be true, make conclusions on that data, execute the conclusions, especially with someone like myself who, as I said, no matter what you say, I’m not even going to bring up the controverting data. So you will not get it from me. You may want to, to some degree, make the process more transparent and open it.
BB: OK.
KR: So you can get the other data.
BB No, I think that’s great.
KR: It’s not a statement for exchange. You do you what you want with it.
BB: Yeah I would agree with that though.
KR: I don’t care to be right or wrong, integrated or not integrated. Whether you think I am or not. Could provide proof, yes, could provide proof, no. I do care about what’s right with respect to conduct. Understand, for example. the structure that you raise, in the hands of certain types of people, works very well. In the hands of not of those type of people, doesn’t. Blames, destroys, lack of blame. The way you can counter blame is to be a dictator which I won’t do. So to allow both is a very difficult thing. In corporations, it’s the same thing. In governments, it’s the same thing. Ever notice how, for example, the President of the United States ages. Just take before and after shots of him going into office and out. Why do you think, I mean, even though they don’t maybe understand ethics completely or whatever they get a quick primer on what happens if they speak one word sideways and people, if you believe it, maybe people die, maybe people are hurt, maybe economies change or whatever. You know you become an EF Hutton. If you say your own opinion, you can destroy people’s lives. That is the nature of becoming prominent.
[This is a clue that Raniere did not mean anything murderous. He is saying that an important person like the president or a Vanguard, a leader of a movement, of EF Hutton, who people trust and do what he says, because they trust his judgment, has to be very careful with his words or people could die, or their lives could be ruined by following him.]
BB: So but do you see this as a problem?
KR: I see that this group does not understand this.
BB: OK.
KR: I see also that if you had some more of the data with respect to the other people it would have dynamics with respect to not just you but others and other things you would start to see more of the reality of it.
BB: Ok
KR: In some ways, the company isn’t this bad or it wasn’t as bad a situation as you thought it was. But I believe that the way this was done will destroy the company itself when it did not have to, which is the conundrum
BB: Mm-hmm.
[At this point, it is probably a good idea to explain that Bouchey and other woman are expressing concern with the way Raniere is running the company, including that he is sleeping with many students and the women on the executive board.]
KR: I think you’ll see that if you think about it and watch it through.
BB: Are you saying that you don’t think that we’re in a very critical state in the company?
KR: Now we are.
BB: We were before.
KR: Not the same way. One’s critical in terms of–
BB: Based on your opinion.
KR: Yeah, in other words, you can arbitrate. As long as you have a certain type of ethic within a system, a certain type of procedure, you can cut through garbage eventually. It may, that’s why I told you, when you were saying some things to me that I thought were quite contrary, but I told you ‘bring it up the process.’
BB: Right, right.
KR: I said you know the part of the problem is people don’t bring it up the process and you say well people don’t know about the process. I said ‘Great that’s why you should bring out the process so they can,’ but understand that will fortify the company. That will fortify —
BB: Well but do you understand that I think that’s part of the problem is that we don’t teach that process. So nobody knows even about it.
KR: Did you hear what I said?
BB: That you think that it’s good that
KR: Yeah and that having you pursue it. Bring it up so it went even arbitrating between Nancy and yourself with me.
BB: Right
KR: That was very good.
BB: But what I’m trying to say though, Keith, is that we believe that there are certain problems, that pink or white elephants, whatever we want to call them, in the room and eclectically a group of us and there are many people outside of this group of 10. There about 40 people that I could list for you right now that see these similar elephants and yet we, as a company, don’t ever address those elephants and —
KR: I don’t necessarily agree with you, but maybe not address it the way you think it should be addressed.
BB: OK, but we’ve open that, that’s possibly true but what I see are the effects–
KR: I know.
BB: The effects are, our company is falling apart.
KR: You don’t have the experience of leadership.
BB: OK.
KR: You don’t have the experience of preserving people’s lives with what you say, and the truth of the matter is —
BB: In a way, neither do you.
KR: Yes, I do.
BB: No you don’t, because the only company before this was Consumers’ Buyline, and that, in my understanding, fell apart within a few years or was on the downhill after a couple of years when you got sued or whatever it was.
KR: That’s not– well, here’s the thing. I’ve been shot at because of my beliefs. I’ve had to make choices, should I have bodyguards? Should I have them armed or not? I’ve had people killed because of my beliefs and because of their beliefs, and because of things that I’ve said, and I’m mindful of that and I’m leading an organization that’s doing something very good. The bright, you might say, you know this is an old Christian adage which I think is very true “The brighter the light, the more the bugs.”
BB: Right.
KR: So what I think what we have is a very bright light.
[I think Scott has made a potentially good point. A more complete or contextual quote might be: “I’ve had people killed because of my beliefs and because of their beliefs, and because of things that I’ve said.”
It may have been true, or he may have been bullshitting about people who followed him closely dying, or him getting bodyguards or being shot at. It sounds like bullshit. But, before we rule it out altogether, maybe he was shot at, or maybe he thought of bodyguards once.
On the other hand, there was Gina Hutchinson and Kristin Snyder – who both listened to what he said, and now both are gone. Did he talk them into suicide? We can’t rule that out either.]
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Dear Mr. LOL
—America has always been based on energized debate, not a big circle-jerk of brown nosers.
Frank has asked us to be adults. I have enjoyed greatly our low-grade-insults, low-brow-banter, foul-crass-jibes, and other tomfoolery. Dumping on you was one of my few pleasures in life. I am done.
The Frank Report is not our personal sandbox. The Frank Report comment section could be a powerful tool for people to share information and to help support one another heal.
…May you always have a full tank of gas, a pack of smokes, and a six-pack as you drive through life.
Take care of yourself, Ke-mo sah-bee.
FYI Frank(Tonto) Censor…Ke-mo sah-bee is from The Lone Ranger.
😉
“America has always been based on energized debate, not a big circle-jerk of brown nosers.” Tell it to the Lamestream media. LOL
I hardly noticed that you “dumped” on me, so it wasn’t very effective. LOL
The time for people to use a website as a powerful tool for people to share information and to help support one another heal was at least a decade ago, now we’re just cleaning up the much larger mess that resulted from people not doing so. LOL
I never stop at every gas station to keep the tank full, never smoked, and don’t drink and drive. LOL
Thanks for the tip of the hat, but I’m not a Lone Ranger, there just a very few of us doing and promoting the right things. LOL
Here’s the quote: “That’s [Consumers’ Buyline being shut down for being an illegal pyramid] not – well, here’s the thing. I’ve been shot at because of my beliefs. I’ve had to make choices, should I have bodyguards? Should I have them armed or not? I’ve had people killed because of my beliefs and because of their beliefs, and because of things that I’ve said, and I’m mindful of that and I’m leading an organization that’s doing something very good.”
Raniere responds to the Consumers’ Buyline topic being illegal and shut down, him being sued, etc., demonstrating that he sucks at being a leader by immediately changing the subject to being shot at – in other words, a victim, which is not allowed in NXIVM “thinking,” made even more complex because arming bodyguards would lead to cartel violence while he’s trying to teach Mexicans an anti-violent method of rejecting the cartels, which in and of itself is a stupid idea, because the cartels don’t care whether they shoot and kill people. To then suggest that he would pivot 180 degrees and say he’s ordered killing others because of what he believes is preposterous, and then pivot 180 degrees again in the very same sentence and say that he’s leading a peaceful organization is far beyond even Raniere’s usual word salad.
There are enough real crimes without misconstruing this quote to be bragging about ordering others to be killed.
Scott, is this the comment you referred to? It’s difficult to distinguish between all the comments posted under “Anonymous “.
I totally agree with the above comment. I’ve listened to the entire video clip, and this how I understood Keith’s comment in context with the rest of the conversation.
Raniere did a lot of criminal things, but in this instance it is clear that his statement is not meant to claim that he ordered the deaths of anyone. Rather, it is a bit of Jesus-like bragging meaning, “People have died in my name,” or more literally, “People have been murdered because they professed belief in my teachings.” His only crime in this case, other than self-aggrandizement, is bad syntax. He’s not the smartest man in the world, so his syntax is as poor as the next person’s.
He may very well have used his Bronfman connections to off people, he may have bragged about it, but he’s not claiming it here. I am reminded of one of the jurors who acquitted Michael Jackson in his molestation trial. After hearing the evidence he said there was no doubt in his mind that Michael Jackson was a child molester. He voted for acquittal, however, because the state failed to prove he had molested the specific child in question.
Rhetorically, what Keith did just after Barbara Bouchey stated that he had no experience running a successful company, was an escalation. His response indicates that he perceived a breach into his narcissism; in other words, he perceived a threat. He immediately aggressed (indirectly, of course, since he rarely speaks clearly enough to say exactly what he’s thinking) and told her instances where he had power and used it. I don’t see any reason to try to whitewash Raniere’s intentions. He may very well have had people killed. Take out “for their beliefs” or “for his beliefs” or any other “reason” he tries to give. Once again, Raniere is telling you who he is and at the same time, confuses and befuddles anyone who just cannot believe that he’s as toxic as he is. Don’t make excuses for him, don’t fall into this vortex where Raniere cannot possibly mean what he just said. Ask yourself what is his emotive reality in the moment he speaks against Barbara Bouchey? She is saying words he considers aggressive and wounding, and he aggresses back—again. This is rhetoric, which means he is using these specific words intentionally, with purpose, to shut her up through intimidation. Again, this is rhetorical escalation. He didn’t have to use ‘god’ terms like “kill,” or “death,” or any of the markers he used to shock. He uses that terminology very specifically.
Yeah, I’m going to tell people today [naughty students] that ‘I’ve had people killed for my beliefs’ which will be kind of true, because I represent in my job, a type of public service, that, people certainly died in huge numbers for.
The welfare state, including free education, became a reality to rebuild the country after the deleterious effects of two world wars. I’ll leave out the context though. I’ll only bring that up when I’m standing in front of the school governors, about to be fired.
Did Keith ever gaslight the inner circle cancer patients into thinking they could be indulgent princesses that warranted attention normally frowned upon, if they did not have cancer?
What kind of treatments and diets were they given? Who nursed them?
Keith may or may not have known. Imagine if he could influence Karmic Adolf Hitler,
“ Parlato reported last year that Raniere once explained to his followers that one of his duties is to purify the world of the bad karma belonging to past Nazis and make them ethical human beings. Each of his disciples were told by Raniere who they were in a past life. If the women did not obey his orders, they were told they would return to the kind of behavior they exhibited during their Nazi past.”
It seems once you put him in your will as beneficiary, you become a parasite standing in the way of a cheaper replacement. Pam trained hers.
Unpopular opinion: Keith influenced it, but it was Nancy or Clare, or the Misunderstood Mengle that did the deed.
Great points. Pam signed her will and then she was easily replaceable.
How was Pam like? Was she a doormat? It must have been a horrible life
Pam seemed to love her life with Raniere.
Most NXIVM people used to love their lives with Raniere. LOL
Don’t know that it’s an unpopular opinion. My initial thought is its either an uninformed opinion, or you’re willfully tossing blind darts in hopes of striking gold. But, what do you mean by “did the deed”? Kill? If yes, then I’m sticking with my initial thought.
I first saw this video years ago. Raniere is trying to be frightening- not very successfully, I might add. He’s pissed that he’s just been told he’s a poor leader and his “business” (the illegal MLM/Ponzi scheme Consumers Buyline) was a failure.
So he thinks he can scare these two women by telling them he’s had people killed.
It’s “I’ve had people killed because of my beliefs” Not “People have been killed because of my beliefs”
It follows immediately after his remark about him maybe having armed bodyguards.
Big talk from a little man. Meant to scare women. Because he sure as hell could never scare a man.
As I’m sure he’s learning in prison.
Apparently Raniere DID scare these women, or at least Dones. LOL
However, I maintain that was how they received the message not how he intended it to be sent, it was confusing in his usual world-salad manner of expressing himself, which is why context is so important. LOL
However, Raniere didn’t scare at least some women, either, because he ran into bathrooms when confronted. LOL
This is such a fascinating piece of tape and I really enjoyed reading your comment, Ms. Dones. I agree that Raniere was obviously trying to intimidate and otherwise express how seriously he took his position and how little someone like BB would understand about the gravity and problems that a “great leader” like Keith experienced.
I wish we had the entire tape for context but the conversation starts with them talking about people ganging up on BB. Keith, I think, is trying to say to BB that he, Keith, is above trying to play the petty blame game that BB is playing. Keith says “The way you counter blame is to be a dictator, which I won’t do”. Which is a statement that could be analyzed for pages on its own. But to me, Keith is saying to BB, look, I could just squash all this petty squabbling but I don’t because I am benevolent and I suffer because of it. Keith is expressing to her how hard it is for him to be a leader, pointing to the way presidents age as an example of how much pressure and stress leaders face on behalf of their flock.
It seems to me that at the beginning of the exchange, Keith is trying to get across to BB how being a leader of NXIVM is like being on a knife’s edge and anything he says can have grave consequences. People can die, economies can change. He invokes the name of EF Hutton, which was once one of the most prominent financial institutions in the first half of the 20th century but became mired in legal issues because of a scandal that involved kiting fraudulent checks among various member banks to avoid paying interest on loans. Keith was like a bank, and BB and others were customers at that bank. Keith was expressing to BB that if he gets involved in a conflict between customers, it could make the other customers wary or set a bad precedent, or otherwise have unintended consequences. Keith is trying to tell BB that there are mechanisms for her to resolve her conflicts without having to drag Keith into it.
Keith’s basically telling BB that the answer to her conflict should be self-evident based on Keith’s teachings. “Bring it up the process” Keith emphasizes a couple of different times. Then BB seems to be saying to Keith, well a lot of members don’t know about this process. BB is saying that a lot of people on the periphery of the inner circle can’t see the conflicts or “elephants” that are present and they maybe aren’t as familiar with the group dynamics and teachings. BB seems to be concerned about turning others off to NXIVM and trying to explain to Keith why their current dynamic is not great for recruiting or expanding the group. BB is basically telling Keith that he, in part, is to blame because he is in the middle of everyone and that is causing issues. And these issues are further compounded by Keith not addressing them to the group. Who knew that when you sleep with over ten women in a social circle that it might cause problems. If nothing else, this just shows how much of a master at manipulation Keith was. I know I could not deal with that many women at once. I have my hands more than full with one.
Keith then pushes back and says, well, I’m not addressing them in the way you (BB) would like. Then they have the exchange about leadership. Just from reading this, I can tell that I would like BB a lot because she’s a real one. She tells Keith that he doesn’t really have any leadership experience, either, and if Keith were to let this stand he would’ve basically lost control. Keith has to express to BB and others listening (it was being videotaped, after all, and I would imagine Keith was aware it was being taped) that he does have the bona fides to be their leader.
Here’s the sentence in question: “I’ve had people killed because of my beliefs and because of their beliefs, and because of things that I’ve said, and I’m mindful of that and I’m leading an organization that’s doing something very good.”
Keith directly says “I’ve had people killed”. He is speaking in the active voice. He’s not saying in that portion of the sentence that people have died because they share his beliefs, but rather that Keith has directly caused the deaths of others. Now I think that LOL or whoever might be confused, in part, because later in the sentence Keith also implies that people may have died indirectly because of Keith’s beliefs or teachings as well. The way I read his statement is that Keith is telling her, yeah, I’ve had to order people’s lives to be taken, and people have died because they shared my beliefs, and my word is so powerful that people trust it and act on it and that, too, may have caused people to lose their lives. Keith thinks he is like a President of the United States. He’s had to order airstrikes and had to make decisions to go to war or to kill an enemy of the state. I think that this is what Keith is trying to express as well; that he is the leader of the most important organization and BB’s internecine struggle is just a distraction from the goals of the group which are critical to the future of mankind in Keith’s view. The bottom line, in my interpretation, is that Keith was confronted by BB directly and belittled in his view in probably the harshest manner that he had experienced in his years of leading a cult. Keith was trying to impress on BB and others the stakes of his leadership and how serious and dangerous his mission and, thus, their common mission, was. Keith was doing his best to be intimidating and to demonstrate to BB and anyone else who might be listening that would challenge his leadership that the very act of challenging him in the future or not following his teachings might imperil their life or someone else’s. A challenge like BB’s that Keith wasn’t an especially good or experienced leader had to be met with the strongest possible rhetorical response and Keith’s trump card always seemed to invoke life and death. As in, Keith’s spiritual energy is so strong that he will die if he doesn’t get off with a woman. Keith threatening women that he might die if they cheat on him. Etc. Etc. It fits Keith’s pattern and I think it was obviously an implicit threat.
–this just shows how much of a master at manipulation Keith was
If by manipulation, you mean being free of conscience and having no qualms about lying through his teeth and making up semi-plausible stories at whim to get try to get whatever he wants.
“The way you counter blame is to be a dictator, which I won’t do.” That is one way to counter blame, the right way is to counter it with facts. LOL
This is well put…he was becoming unhinged as he was in the hot seat for maybe the first time with several key members of the organization…this was a statement born of his self-aggrandizing, narcissistic, bogus, delusional god complex….as one of the 9 women confronting him…this is my take..just sayin’.
Susan Dones, it would be nice to hear more from you. These are terrible things, relationships need to be investigated further, what happened needs to be made public. Dead victims should have a fair justice system. Thank you for sharing your writing!
It would have been nice to hear more from [redacted] over a decade ago, but she largely stayed silent and isolated, which led to the events of recent years – way to go, [redacted] LOL
So, now instead of being a failure at soap sales and trying to shut Amway down, Scott has become a Cult/Raniere expert.
Hip Hip Hooray, what’s next,t Scott, exit counseling for cult members?
Raniere didn’t have bodyguards in 2009 or before, that was all horse shit. I don’t believe he had ever been shot at unless it was in CBI when visiting a married woman on a cattle ranch.
As far as the Cartel, Bahahahahahaha. Raniere’s lawyer tried to pass along the same lie about him telling a family not to pay the kidnappers and a couple of family members were killed because of it.
I researched this believing it might be true and I had been misguided in my interpretation of his words.
The sad death of the family members happened six months after Raniere made this statement on tape.
Good try, Keith (and Scott for buying such a lie) but being psychic isn’t in one of the many claims of Raniere’s many accomplishments he has lied about.
I’m sure it was the damage control lie he told his faithful believers. I released the video long after he said this and long after the deaths of the Mexican family members, but it was recorded months before their deaths, April of 2009.
I knew when I was going into my legal battle with NXIVM, things would be released in court documents they would not like.
Then we have the criminal charges placed upon Barbara Bouchey, Toni Natalie, myself and my partner that Emiliano working with Keith who bribed a judge in Mexico and then invited the four of us to an anti-cult conference in Mexico. We would have immediately been arrested, thrown in prison and tortured, raped and eventually killed once we signed a confession saying that we lied about everything we said against NXIVM.
This was told to be the plan as told to us after Kristin Keefee left NXIVM.
We didn’t go as a gut feeling told us we wouldn’t be seen of again if we went to Mexico.
When Kristen Keeffe left, she was so scared of Raniere would do to her, she left everything behind. The police went and picked up her son. She was afraid also of being killed, why is that Scott? If anyone knew Keith Raniere best, she would have been one of them.
Would he do the killing himself? He’s too chicken. He would hire to have it done or have his zombie army he was developing do it for him.
Is that hard to believe? Manson was able to get people to kill for him, was Keith Rainier that far off from Manson? Maybe you can answer with your new-found Ph.D. in Cult Expertise, Scott.
I’m sure all your years in fighting Amway has made you an expert in all things NXIVM and one all should perk up and listen over someone who spent years inside and years on the front lines of the real battlefield fighting the evil ones.
I will let people make up their own minds now that they more real facts than your armchair cult decisions.
Susan, so do you claim that you never gave the following testimony:
From a sworn deposition by Susan Dones regarding aforementioned video tape:
Question: And what portion of the video tape did you single out for putting on YouTube?
Susan Dones: The only– the only thing that I did put on YouTube, which is under a private link– the only way anybody would know about that is to have that link. It’s not like it is a public video– is the part where Keith Raniere mentions that people have died for his beliefs and that he has had people killed for his beliefs.
Question: And did you know at the time when he was talking about people dying for him and people being killed for him related to the documentary that was being filmed in Mexico?
Susan Dones: My understanding–I didn’t know about–I knew about the documentary in Mexico. I’d never seen that, but when he said “I have had people killed for my beliefs,” that scared me.
Question: Well, you were there when he said that; correct?
Susan Dones: No, I wasn’t at that meeting.
Question: All right. Did you know that when Mr. Raniere stated that people–that he had people killed because of his beliefs that he was talking about the consequences of a documentary that was filmed in Mexico when a member of the LeBaron family was killed by drug lords in the middle of the documentary by Mark Vicente?
Susan Dones: No, sir.
Question: No. Have you ever–did you know that Mark Vicente was filming a documentary of the LeBaron family in Mexico?
Susan Dones: I knew he was filming a documentary. I didn’t know what it was about.
Question: Did you know Benjamin Le Baron was murdered by cartel members in the middle of the documentary?
Susan Dones: No, sir.
Question: Did you know that the documentary documents Keith’s apparent advice to the family to avoid paying ransom?
Susan Dones: No, Sir.
Question: And did you know that the documentary says that the family decided not to pay ransom and their son was released, and then the father was killed for not paying ransom?
Susan Dones: No, sir.
Question: You’ve never heard Keith say something like”And I feel like I’m responsible for that. I’ve had people killed for my beliefs”?
Susan Dones: No, sir. I spent very little time with Keith in my time in NXIVM. (This is NOT the impression given by Parlato or Dones in The Lost Women documentary; in fact, it is a complete contradiction.)
*I have to agree with Scott on this one.
“ Question: All right. Did you know that when Mr. Raniere stated that people–that he had people killed because of his beliefs that he was talking about the consequences of a documentary that was filmed in Mexico when a member of the LeBaron family was killed by drug lords in the middle of the documentary by Mark Vicente?”
I haven’t gone down that path yet. I thought the deaths of the girls were tied to NXIVM? I watched the Vice episode about the Le Barons and I don’t recall any mention of Keith or NXIVM.
Frank, the Mexico story is untapped in the US English speaking market. Hint hint hint…
Was the kidnapping retaliation for bringing foreign filmmakers into their territory? For exposing and threatening their trade?
I wouldn’t know one source from another in Mexico. Maybe after “the biggies” are sentenced, a series of stories ready to go on Mexico from a selected guest contributor?
Anonymous
What are you talking about? The deaths referred to are the the deaths of Benjamin Le Baron and his brother-in- law in 2009.
Benjamin LeBaron and his brother-in-law Luis Stubbs were killed on July 7, 2009. The Raniere “I’ve had people killed for my beliefs” video was published on YouTube in 2010, making it appear that Raniere might have been referring to the two deceased men.
The problem with this notion, Flowers, is that the video of Raniere saying this was indisputably filmed in April 2009 – months before LeBaron and Stubbs were killed.
Did you notice that squiggle with the little dot underneath? Just like that one.
Frank, what’s curious then, if the date of the video is indisputable, is why the lawyer even questioned Susan about it.
And no matter when the video was really recorded, it still doesn’t prove what Keith’s intended meaning was. Either way, we are just making assumptions about what Keith actually meant.
The lawyer questioned Susan with the assumption that Lebaron was killed after the video. But you are right, it is all speculation about what Keith meant.
i explained the lawyer’s questions in my response to Dones. LOL
Hi, Flowers. We’ve missed your act. You know, the act of calling everyone with first-hand knowledge a liar. Where have you been and why did you decide to return?
How dare you! Flowers is one of Frank’s most cherished commenters.
Someone got booted from Twitter again.
Nutjob
So what are you insinuating? That I invented this testimony? Or can’t you understand that this means that Susan Dones was aware that Keith’s comment referred to the documentary, and yet she keeps insisting otherwise?
Flowers, you are wrong. When Raniere said “I’ve had people killed” Ben LeBaron and Luis Stubbs were alive and well.
Flowers, you would get more feedback and replies if you didn’t do a passive-aggressive imitation of Scott Johnson – and people would not be mean to you and treat you in a negative way.
For the record, I only mess with my buddies, Scott Johnson and Shadowstate.
And once upon a time, a…precocious-nubile-lass named Bangkok.
****
Dear Censors,
The comment above is positive in nature and not an insult.
If you read my response really slowly…Flowers… The death of the Lebanon family member took place about SIX MONTHS AFTER we filmed Keith Rainier saying “I’ve had people killed…”
I released the video about a year and a half after these deaths took place.
So your saying Keith could see into the future predicting these deaths happened?
Susan-
You are a quality first class act and above the fray.
You have always acted with self-respect and treated others with the same respect.
For what it’s worth, you are my favorite of the Nxivm 9. I know you don’t care. 😉
I wish you much joy. Take care!
Now, this is the kind of comment we like and respect, Thanks, Nice Guy.
[redacted]
America has always been based on energized debate, not a big circle-jerk of brown nosers. LOL
Thanks for sharing this – the timeline on the kidnapping/death in Mexico, in particular, puts Raniere’s words in a broader context. I can see why his statement was so alarming to people at that point. I hope his sentencing brought you some peace.
Hi L and Nutjob-
I agree with what you are saying totally.
**********
You and Nut job asked and challenged me to write a limerick. Here is my response:
Ode to VainGuard
-There once was a man named after a game
-Who slept with women who’d see a blue flame
-Once he met an Italian
-Who was really a stallion
-Who he tried to tame, oh the shame
-The man lost his game and all his fame
-Because you see mustangs, can’t be made tame.
Frank this is my last off-topic post. I actually took some time to write the limerick. Please publish it.
Very impressive. Niceguy. The first two lines already had me cracking up. This deserves its own FR article. Maybe Flowers can tweet it out. Guess the pressure is on for me to deliver a haiku…
Nutjob,
You have a Twitter account…so why don’t you go ahead and tweet out Niceguy’s amazing and awesome poetry? Almost as good as the one about the guy from Nantucket.
The fact that people Keith wanted dead were killed should end all such speculation as to what he really meant.
[redacted] Keith Raniere is prolly not the best example of innocence.
Which people did Raniere want dead? LOL
Ahem! Excuse me!
Kristin Keefe said, “Keith had tried to kill us once, I was afraid.”
Scott Johnson possess more knowledge than Kristin Keefe?
I don’t trust anything that Keeffe says. LOL
It’s simple math and probabilities. When young women like Gina and Kristen die under suspicious circumstances – when women around him go off the charts in the number of cases of cancer – and when there is a mass outbreak of vomiting at one of his retreats, Keith is behind it.
I take his words at face value. Why repeatedly state it, if it isn’t true?
There is no reason to believe his words mean something else.
What is the pattern?
Seriously. What is the pattern of manipulation that Keith uses to make a point or get people to do things without actually directly asking?
You are meant to infer or insert your own belief or understanding in his field of straw men that watch over a crop of word salad.
He isn’t saying it, but he’s saying it in his own well-established method of manipulating thought and words.
Frank and Scott often miss the nuances and take them at face value.
For this analysis to be correct, it would be incongruous with Keith’s pattern.
I miss nothing. LOL
The pattern is Raniere hides in bathrooms when confronted by women, he hides in the closet when the Mexicans show up. LOL
Some women have mentioned physical abuse, Scott. Ask the editor
He “hides in the closet”. Do you share any experiences with Keith?
I remember the story you told, Scott.
M Butterfly with a Mardi Gras twist.
Scott does share experiences with Raniere, they were both in Amway. LOL
This seems very accurate to me: “You are meant to infer or insert your own belief or understanding in his field of straw men that watch over a crop of word salad.”
—For this analysis to be correct, it would be incongruous with Keith’s pattern.
Keith forcibly raped his first known victim before Cami.
What’s incongruous?
Forcible rape is violent.
Raniere never forcibly raped anybody, it was pure coercion. LOL
He made all of them think that they were Raniere’s sole interest and they fell for it. LOL
At this stage in the game, given the myriad of crimes that have been revealed re: KAR, it really doesn’t matter what his intent behind the comment was – as an ethical person with a moral compass he never would have said it at all. The reality here is that he could have been telling the truth, cult leaders tend to do bizarre things like bite the hand that feeds them and wipe out naysayers, or he could have been lying with the intent to continue to manipulate his followers, making them think that he could and would off them should they stray. Either way, again, it doesn’t matter what the intent was – the fact that KAR said it, obviously more than once, shows that there was an unethical intent behind it making it just as inappropriate as everything else immoral and illegal that the man perpetrated.
Maybe it doesn’t matter for legal purposes, but it’s a good thing trying to be able to put a finger on what is that gives its efficacy to one of his “technics”; like in this comment I read above: “You are meant to infer or insert your own belief or understanding in his field of straw men that watch over a crop of word salad.”
I had a hard time just trying to get through all his garbled word salad nonsense. His ego would like to think he “had people killed” but he likely was responsible for slow and psychological deaths.
“Scott Johnson: Raniere Never Meant He Murdered Anyone When He Said ‘I’ve Had People Killed for My Beliefs’”
Scott is-a-humdinger, folks. He’s psychic. Raniere’s mind was read by Scott.
BTW: Frank, before you edit this comment, humdinger is a compliment.
Raniere never had anyone killed……just ignore the dead or missing women.
Remember…Frank’s tv ID Discovery episode “The Lost Women of Nxivm”.
Yeah, sure, Scott. You’re on top of things.
The question isn’t whether Raniere caused people to die or not, the question is whether what he is saying in the video was meant as a threat or defending his pride and ego against these women who are telling him that he’s a total loser with no leadership skills. LOL
Keep looking to find a clue, NiceGuy 666 – I’m so far ahead of you that it’s hilarious. LOL
—Keep looking to find a clue, NiceGuy 666 I am so far ahead of you that it’s hilarious.
Whatever it is you’re ahead of me with I am happy for you. So keep going on ahead. I am fairly certain there is no direction in life I would want to follow you in, besides the beer-line at a Red Sox game.
I am not going to approve these kinds of comments anymore. They add no value to the topic of the post. I know it’s fun to take a snipe at Scott Johnson and vice versa, he likes to insult you. But it is not productive — not with the serious posts I am going to be publishing very soon on this case.
Each of you, Nice Guy and Scott – take one more swipe at each other — insult each other to your heart’s content. I’ll publish it and then we’re done.
Frank
Don’t worry I will act my age. I will have you know that I am a crank that knows he is a crank unlike Scott.
Have a good day and I hope you get laid.
This will be my final comment as the
Nice Guy alias.
It’s been fun. We have laughed and laughed and cried and laughed some more.
I will be going by a new moniker.
Toodaloo everybody!
😉
Someone once told me that words have creative meaning. I believe in that. In addition to Keith’s words about the murder, he didn’t have to “kill” anyone in order for him to become a murderer himself. It was enough to say that he had interfered with the medical treatment of women who had fallen ill in his environment (due to barium), that he did not feel any responsibility for them in the disappearance of Kristin, who was pregnant with her child, and in Gina’s case. These had to be explored by Frank Report, otherwise would not be anything happened. Keith would still be floating in the water with impunity.
I agree with Scott that Raniere’s statement at the time was not equivalent to “Back off or I’ll have you murdered”. Think of Raniere’s semantics in terms of his psychology – he is pathologically selfish. So while an empathetic (and ethical in the true sense of the word) person might state it as “People have died while following or defending my beliefs”, Raniere talks about his followers as objects that have been taken away from him. Sometimes the semantics of the situation makes you sit up and say “Wait a minute – something’s wrong there.” I can see why people thought it was a threat; but taken in the context of Raniere’s narcissistic pathology, I believe it was a melodramatic statement to buttress how important his words should be to his followers.
That does not negate the possible involvement he had in the deaths of those in his circle of influence. I do think he deliberately worked to see if he could get people to suicide. I cannot speak for what he may have done prior to my experience with him, but I believe he made some gestures towards that with me.
Scott – I’ve had him say the same thing to me and others. Twice. “I’ve had people killed for my beliefs.” This was a go-to line that he said. It is very recognizable. I heard him say it before Mexico was anywhere near the picture. He said it when he percieved a threat and wanted to squash it. The first time I heard him say it, he got no reaction. I think he said it a second time to make sure the meaning of the statement was understood.
I am not self proclaiming myself to be an expert. I’m simply sharing info.
And I’m saying that Scott has a very narrow, uninformed, one-track opinion on the topic. By Scott presenting himself as an expert with “The answer”, he’s boxed himself into a position where he covers his ears and screams LA LA LA LA LA LA, every time information comes out that doesn’t fit his simplistic narrative.
I don’t know if Keith has had people killed. I do know that he wanted people to think that he’s had people killed.
What you say is believable considering what Keefe said in her statement here:
“Once he jokingly said instead of Executive Success Progams, Inc. the company should be called Shattered Souls, Inc. and laughed.”
Yeah, it’s possible Keith made a mistake–how dare I claim such a thing for the smartest man in the world?–but the more stories one hears from first-hand witnesses like this, it’s more likely that he’s just a psychopathic asshole who has no real feel or sense for moral decorum. One time is a mistake. Two or more times is likely intentional. Whether it was actually a threat, a bluff, or a related truth, it is an unethical matter to some degree. They all contradict his claim as an ethical example and only exemplify that he’s more likely just malevolent.
Thanks for sharing that. It definitely broadens the scope if it was used frequently as a tool of manipulation. I wonder if he stopped using that phrase once that video became public; seems like he might drop a tool if it caused too much negative attention towards himself.
Applause and standing ovation.
And there it is. BAM!
That article was tampered with, what was published wasn’t written that way by me or Scott. LOL
Raniere is a wimp, he runs and hides in bathrooms when confronted by women, he hides in a closet when the Mexican police barge into where he was staying, which was about to hold a group BJ. LOL
If it makes you feel better, I didn’t read your article. I’ve seen enough of your comments on the topic to know better than waste my time. And my reply was a lazy copy/paste job. Good to see you give me confirmation on my time saving choice by continuing to ignore my inconvenient truth.
Then it was the ghost of Scott. Or another ghost. It’s haunted. Just a joke. We believe you.
Hard to tell and he might just be showing off and making it up or not. He says a lot of words. Anyone who does can have things taken out of context. However, a lot of people around him did die.
That’s why I put the sentence back in context. LOL
Maybe. But shouldn’t the smartest man in the world know the difference between “I’ve had people killed” and “People have been killed”?
The first implies a known and willing act which was perpetrated by himself or by other(s) via an order. The second does not.
So he’s either not that smart, or he was trying to be cunning and knew exactly what he was saying.
No, because Raniere is known for his word salad and strange ways of stringing words together. LOL
You are again trying to isolate a single sentence from the context, which is the point of this entire article. LOL
—No, because Raniere is known for his word salad and strange ways of stringing words together.
Scott, telling nine women you have had people killed is explicit. It’s not mincing words or making word salad. It’s a veiled threat maybe in the state of Texas. Everywhere else it’s a direct threat or it’s meant definitively.
*******************************
Raniere may view driving people to commit suicide as murdering them.
Did you ever stop to think of that one?
I did…..And guess what, he has had people killed.
*******************************
The entire premise of this article is to consider the quote within the context of what was said before and after, so that is a meaningless retort. LOL
Nice Guy, I am using this insult as part of a post on Scott. Do not bother to respond to it.
There is no insult, it is a statement of fact. LOL
Sultan-
From our previous dialogue…
I agree with you in part; your perspective/argument has changed my viewpoint.
By your own declaration, “virtual reality” is then real with an outcome affecting/effecting the real world.
Do you now find your viewpoint at all tenuous? Or are you as confident in your beliefs as before?
Seriously.
*******
Like I always say, I recognize your writing anywhere.
The point is that it was used as an example to show a legitimate threat.
It does rank as a threat in the context of a defense response to a dog pile confrontation.
Dones used it in the context of Snyder’s disappearance and probable death. That’s close to “home”.
Dones had valid fear, the judge agreed.
The video and Snyder’s apparent death were referenced at Dones’ statement at the sentencing hearing, I don’t believe either was ever entered as evidence during the trial. LOL
Therefore, the video and Snyder were used as emotional tools by Dones during the sentencing hearing as opposed to legitimate threats, but not as an evidence-based part of convicting Ranere, because these issues could have been challenged during the trial. LOL
Good clarification, Scott
I haven’t believed that KAR has actually had people killed.
Furthermore, suicide and cancer are facts of life. Very sad facts, but regular occurrences.
It’s terrible for the surviving family members who’ve lost someone from suicide.
You’re new to FR or just stick around while not believing whatcha read here?
I wish I could get on board, but I’ve got all these people with firsthand experiences drowning out your pollyanna skepticism.
We have no idea who you are, you could easily be making up all of your claims as anonymous poster. LOL
I do know who nutjob is – and he did know Raniere and others
Nutjob is a dude? LOL
[redacted]
Well, that’s using reasoning to get to a conclusión regarding one of the fucked Up things that Raniere did. Like he is a sociopath. Even if you are right, talking lightly of someone dying for your stupidity – or tools that you still use – is a monstrous thing. So whatever for that argument, if he understood how wrong he is he would change right? He continúe to use those tools tio a other fucked Up extreme, something Evil in nature, well more But he also said that the branding should look like a human sacrifice, snyder, Cafritz deaths, the pedophilia, he spread the idea that the war of narcos where just victim mentallity, and he created dos to control elections which un the hands of a pedo could be far more harmfull . So thank you for that pile of shit thoughts , and defend a sociopath, there are thousands of millions of actual inocent people that you could you know defend, without explicitly show the lack of moral you have . Thank you for defending the pedophile hoy are mother Teresa
The truth’s going to make its way, but we’re going to have to wait. I’m thinking about Kristin Snyder and Gina Hutchinson primarily and of course, about the womens who got sick and died next to Vanguard. There seems to be a little too much coincidence around deaths, which can’t be random. The time and investigation would give us an answer.
It could be innocent or not. The fact that so many close to him ended up dying suspiciously (cancer from high does of barium slipped in their food, suspicious suicides etc.) has to be considered.
It could also be a Freudian slip. Sometimes the mind says what it really means without intending it.
Anything “could” be true, the question is whether the context of the “I’ve had people killed” can be taken at face value or whether it probably has a different meaning when looked at in the context of the video. LOL