At the trial of Keith Alan Raniere, the following document was admitted into evidence as Government Exhibit 1005T. It has not been published to date as far as I know. It is a transcript of portion of a video of Nancy Salzman teaching a class, quite possibly a Jness class.
Her topic is the age of consent and sexual abuse of children. Her teachings mirror Keith Raniere’s on the topic. This suggests there was accord among Raniere and Salzman on the idea of sexual abuse of children and that this was taught to some students of Nxivm.
Here are Nancy’s teachings:
Most people scream abuse and they have no idea of the morality of what they are talking about, a lot of times the screaming of abuse is abuse in itself.
Because we are talking about abusing abuse, because they have no idea what they are talking about, there is some inconvenient thing happening and they wish it were different and they yell abuse.
It is not necessarily abuse so they abuse abuse right, so one of the women noted that women can’t see how they are participating, but when they get the effects that they don’t like, which are directly related to their choices and causes, they scream abuse. Right, she thought that women were confused while causing the whole thing.
Does this make sense?
Other Women in the Class:
Ok, Ok, um it seems abuse is inconsistent depending on where you are, what culture you are in and things like that, which doesn’t mean the person is automatically abusive. They are abusive by some standard. Abuse has a standard too right, um and you have to understand not only what the standard is but the morality behind the standard. How does it relate to human conduct in the world? If you look at sexual abuse, there are different ways to determine if it’s abuse um, and one of them is the age of consent. OK, sexual abuse age of consent. In some states in the United States, the age of consent is 17, in some parts of the world the age of consent is 12.
Yes, so what’s abuse in one area is not abuse in another. But what is sexual abuse really? Is the person a child or is the person adult-like? Does the person have a certain type of understanding or cognition of morality to make such a choice?
In other words; when you are talking to a 12- year-old does the 12-year-old understand the choice she is actually making and that determines whether it is abuse or not.
Because that choice has effects potentially on her physically but also has effects in society later.
Often when you counsel people who are children, of what you might call abuse, some little children are perfectly happy with it until they find out what happens later in life.
In other words, at the time they didn’t know it was bad. They didn’t know anything about it was bad. Later they grow up and they find out that it was actually something that was bad. In that case, is it more society that’s abusing them? Because society says it’s bad but they didn’t know it was bad, right, so society is abusing them.
It’s an act. Then actually the adult then actually so more society abusing them than the adult because they didn’t even know it was bad, but society tells them it’s bad, therefore they’re bad.
Something bad was done to them. So was it the adult or was it society?
Because in some societies it might not even [be] considered bad, does that make sense? Ok. So, in other societies in the past like in Rome, standards were completely different, but we are not in Rome.