Alanzo is a relative newcomer to Frank Report and his comments are appreciated. He has a blog and here are several of his comments on Frank Report combined into a post.
By Alanzo
Anti-Cultism is Toxic
The truth is never tribal.
Every tribe traffics in some true things and in some false things.
After more than a decade of belonging to the anticult tribe, I found that the false things in anticultism became toxic and corrosive to me. It was an incredible relief to allow myself to acknowledge the truth of some true things that were not part of the tribe, and call out the false things that are part of anticultism, such as the superstition of ‘brainwashing’.
To some, brainwashing is very real and very dangerous as this image shows.
But that brought the tribal ninnies in anticultism down on me.
They literally follow me from forum to forum to tell everyone I’m an OSA Agent because I violate their tribal narrative. If I’ve read the science on brainwashing which has clearly debunked brainwashing since the 1940’s, and talk about this, they tell everyone I’ve flipped to the enemy tribe, and now I’m an OSA Agent, paid by David Miscavige – even though I implicate Miscavige in murders and the cover-up of rapes in Scientology, too.
Captain David Miscavige, the current leader of Scientology.
You’ll never look up the science on brainwashing yourself. And if you do, you’ll never speak of it. Because doing so would contradict the narrative you enforce. And you know where that’ll get you.
Your contorted explanation for me working for David Miscavige would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. I’ve seen it repeated over and over by the other ninnies in your tribe. Loyalty to the truth, and disloyalty to the tribe, equals OSA AGENT to you.
This is pinheaded anticultism.
Where you see contradiction, you can only see it in terms of contradiction to the tribal narrative. Debunking brainwashing, for instance, might be contradictory to your tribal narrative, but it is not contradictory to the truth.
Thus, the truth is never tribal.
***
Prosecutors Deprogrammed Witnesses
Claviger wrote:
“Things like “My understanding now is that I was being groomed to be part of his harem” – which was Nicole’s answer when, for some unknown reason, Marc Agnifilo asked her why she had so much contact with Keith shortly after she started taken NXIVM/ESP courses (Agnifilo tried to get her response stricken from the record but Judge Garaufis rejected the request).
The prosecution’s use of deprogramming on their witnesses, which was revealed in court documents, is highly problematic and should be examined more closely.
I wrote a post about this which includes a study of 154 ex-members of minority religions & the shifts in attitudes on their experience after anticult ideology deprogramming.
Did the government engage in brainwashing of their witnesses?
***
Judge Was on Revenge Trip
It is my understanding that appeals are mostly about the judge’s conduct, whether he followed the proper protocols of the court.
There are two things I’m aware of about this judge’s conduct that should be appealed: There are also many more.
1. Accepting evidence upon which the chain of custody was broken – as testified by the FBI Property & Evidence Examiner himself.
2. Cutting off Lauren Salzman’s testimony, and then saying – three times – to the defense attorney that if the defense didn’t get the verdict they wanted, they could file an appeal. This is a judge who knew he was doing something wrong – at the time he was doing it.
So yes, everyone can say how much of a scumbag human being Raniere is, and what an angel the judge is, but when it comes to due process none of those things matter. In fact those kind of hatreds and adorations get in the way of due process.
The 120 years: a sentence that was more than even the prosecution was asking for.
This is not justice, Frank, and this judge was on a revenge trip. He did a very bad job.
This needs to be corrected.
***
Throughout AntiCultism there is an ignorance of the line between illegal activity and activity which is merely perceived as immoral, but which is entirely legal. Many AntiCultists are manipulated using this illegal/immoral confusion.
If someone does something that is legal – no matter how morally outrageous you think it is – and you try to stop them, then you are the one who is arrested. People have a right to behave legally.
The presentation of legal behavior as evidence to support violations of criminal statutes is clearly meant to prejudice a jury by blurring the lines between legal behavior and that which they will perceive as immoral. It is an emotional manipulation of the jury by presenting irrelevant evidence, and the judge should have thrown it out.
Apparently, AntiCultists aren’t the only ones confused about this illegal vs immoral line: the federal prosecutors and the federal judge in this case were, too.
Not Pretending to Be a Legal Expert
I’m not in competition with Claviger to provide legal analysis on the Frank Report. I could not hope to do a better job than him.
I just feel that both Claviger and Frank are negatively biased against Raniere, and positively biased in favor of the judge in this case. And so I am making points here that are not part of the regular mix, but which I sincerely believe are important – however untrained they are.
Some people don’t like that. Some people want their comment section to be like a supper club where everyone agrees. And if someone says something that is outside the bounds of the group agreement, their whole dinner is ruined.
I’m not like that. I love lots of different viewpoints, lots of lively and friendly debate.
So I try to make jokes when things get just a little too serious.
That was my point.
Government Put Pressure on Witnesses
Eight DOS women, from the website DOSsierproject.com.
I think it’s great you guys allow the Dossier Project videos to be published here, so everyone can be exposed to all the ideas regarding NXIVM and Anti-NXIVM.
Anti-Scientology has become as shut down and controlled as Scientology in recent years, and it’s good to see you guys guard against that.
I think it’s good The Dossier Project are exposing some of the pressure the government placed on witnesses to change their stories in this case, with threats of felony charges, life imprisonment, etc.
Talk about “undue influence.”
Most people don’t get a chance to see how the government works, up close and personal, as these human beings did.
Hard Questions for DOS Defenders
And by the way. I found these questions on the Internet regarding consent and the Dossier Project, and tweeted them to the Dossier Project yesterday. I’ve heard back from Suneel on some of them on Twitter.
But no one from the Dossier Project yet.
Maybe they’ll do a new video on them. I think these questions really do get to the heart of the matter with DOS:
Would all the women of DOS would have said “Yes” if the higher-ups had disclosed the truth about the brand’s meaning?
The brand is the initials of Keith Raniere but you have to turn the photo counterclockwise 90 degrees to see it.
Can’t they see how they didn’t give true consent since there was deception involved?
Can there be consent if: they didn’t know that Keith was the puppet Grandmaster and creator of DOS?
DOS First-Line Slaves with the master in the middle
Or that men were involved in DOS at all?
Or that the entire 1st line of masters was sexually involved with Raniere?
How could the lower level women of DOS have given true consent when they didn’t know all of this?
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)Cancel reply
1. I take the general point about echo chambers whether cult or anti-cult which is why I always want freedom of speech even for views I don’t like and I remember back in the 80s when my sibling was in the Osho cult briefly making the argument in her support that in a sense all of us who go to an office job 9 – 5 for 40 years are pretty cultish too. However, there are harms in many groups and people do lose freedom of choice to a greater extent in what we call cults for want of a better word.
2., On consent to the brand initials I only got interested in KR and found this site because of those issues such as “consent” within BDSM and the like. I would have had expert witnesses from that minority sexuality group there to testify about that world but I don’t think KR did. Anyway, it does not detract from the rightness of his conviction. Some of them might have consented had they known it was his or AM’s initials (if they could consent in law – in the UK if the pain is too hard you cannot consent even if you want to – that might not be so in the USA)
3. On the case, appeals are difficult. I am a lawyer abroad and the US lawyer(s) on here have made the points here well. You just don’t get a second bite of the cherry in the way lots of lay people think. It doesn’t work like that. I think KR was rightfully found guilty and he will not win his appeal.
Yes. The principle of consent has yet to be addressed.
It’s been discussed in the season finale of “A Little Bit Culty” and also brought up by those questions I found on the internet.
Here’s the thing:
The Dossier Project, and their friends, are made up of intelligent, thinking and feeling human beings. Some of them are way more educated than me, possibly you, and clearly more than most on the Frank Report.
I figure they know the consequences of ignoring the concept of consent.
“ED” is the Executive Director, the head of a local Scientology operation and in the case of a mission franchise like Peoria, the person who is responsible to the owner for sales statistics and producing profits. In the “big league sales” world of Scientology, it’s akin to being the pit boss of a boiler room sales operation, though reportedly Peoria was run on a bit of a kinder and gentler basis than the most ruthless and rapacious franchises. Still, it would be unusual for an ED not to have overseen heavy-handed sales including encouragement of going into debt and plundering assets, not to mention repressive “ethics” punishments for perceived infractions.
He also admittedly worked for OSA, Scientology’s version of the East German Stasi. Specifically, he was involved in an effort to infiltrate, undermine and take over the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), a group that while having some ties to then-controversial deprogramming techniques, provided resources and help – and the demise of which not only completely destroyed an important resource but also resulted in its files full of personal information falling into the hands of Scientology.
I’ve never seen Alanzo (Allen) try to make any apologies or amends to the people he has deceived, lied to, exploited, and harmed in the service of the CofS. Yet he is very vocal in attacking some prominent former Scientology executives who are working to expose abuses, for not having done enough of that themselves, in his view. It seems to be a typical mechanism ingrained in Scientologists (and the whole Scientology organization), to accuse others of just the sort of things they are guilty of themselves but unable to come to terms with.
I love it when one of these guys packs 36 years of my life into a few paragraphs in order to revise my history for their propaganda purposes.
This person does not know me, nor what I’ve done in the 21 years since leaving Scientology. Nor what I did when I was a Scientologist.
But here they are, trying to make me look like one of David Miscavige’s minions.
Again.
Here’s the story of my one project I did for Mike Rinder’s OSA, and what made me stay the hell away from them forever after as a Scientologist, never to do a second project for them. It also let me know what kind of people would do a 2nd job for OSA. And a third. And what type of person would run OSA internationally for David Miscavige for 22 years – complete sociopaths..
Mike Rinder is not trying to make peace with the people he harmed when he was CO OSA. If that were the case, he would have helped Gerry Armstrong. He would have aired Victoria Britton’s interview about the murder of her son on Scientology the Aftermath. He’s doing the exact opposite of that. With regard to just these two people who were destroyed by Scientology, Rinder is still doing exactly what he did when he was CO OSA.
He is still protecting the church and its leaders from criminal prosecution.
I love it when one of these guys packs 36 years of my life into a few paragraphs in order to revise my history for their propaganda purposes.
This person does not know me, nor what I’ve done in the 21 years since leaving Scientology. Nor what I did when I was a Scientologist.
But here they are, trying to make me look like one of David Miscavige’s minions.
Again.
Here’s the story of my one project I did for Mike Rinder’s OSA, and what made me stay the hell away from them forever after as a Scientologist, never to do a second project for them. It also let me know what kind of people would do a 2nd job for OSA. And a third. And what type of person would run OSA internationally for David Miscavige for 22 years – complete sociopaths..
Mike Rinder is not trying to make peace with the people he harmed when he was CO OSA. If that were the case, he would have helped Gerry Armstrong. He would have aired Victoria Britton’s interview about the murder of her son on Scientology the Aftermath. He’s doing the exact opposite of that. With regard to just these two people who were destroyed by Scientology, Rinder is still doing exactly what he did when he was CO OSA.
He is still protecting the church and its leaders from criminal prosecution.
I just don’t get why you have gone out of your way on Twitter to support Nicki and DOS before these extremely relevant questions are answered.
I have seen Nicki retweet many of your DOS supporting tweets and now you say you want these questions answered. If you don’t have these answers, why did you go out of your way to support the Nicki/DOS side?
Also, if you are actually as interested in this case as you seem to be, why not read the trial transcript as many readers of this blog have done?
I get it brainwashing is fake but that really doesn’t explain your support of Nicki/DOS.
Maybe there is something I’m missing and you can explain.
These were women who were accused of being “brainwashed sex slaves” by “cult experts” and the global media..
To accuse someone of being “brainwashed” is to say they are less than human, they lack the ability to decide things for their own lives, incapable of thinking for themselves.
So if brainwashing is fake, as you said above, you can see that this dehumanizing slur, pushed by so-called cult experts and blasted by the media worldwide would be a huge injustice. And if unquestioned and unopposed? Dangerous for a free society.
When I read Nicole’s testimony, I saw clearly that in her case, consent was absent. But these “grown ass women” as they called themselves, said they made their own choices and did what they wanted to do.
So if they’re not brainwashed, and this is what they say about their own decisions for their own lives, who are we to know better than they do?
Humans love their tribes. We need them in whatever form they take. I remember reading of a study where they took toddlers and half in one color shirt and the other half in a different color shirt. To no surprise, the toddlers ended up playing together by shirt color. It’s just human nature. So, yeah, “anti-cult” (whatever the F that is), can be a form of tribal. The sun also comes up each day.
As for the real meat of the article, it’s a shame he didn’t/couldn’t post Suneel’s response. I suspect more of the same from him though. The posts on this site have consistently been a simple denial that none of it happened while pointing out if it did, it was consensual (and skipping over not happening yet consensual are contradictory defenses) and that none of it was illegal (confusing unethical/immoral with illegal as the two are not always one and the same).
I suspect if Nicki made the tactical mistake of responding, she too would lean heavily on the whole consensual aspect of it also. Her tweets about woman rights are almost 100% about that (She can’t escape DOS and Keith to save her life, it’s sad). She does not respond to anyone that points out she is dodging the moral and ethical problems with the behavior of DOS and Keith. Likely because they suffer from typical hero worship problem which is if their hero does it, it by default is ethical and moral. If someone not their hero does the exact same thing, it’s immoral, unethical and illegal. Or as the far-right calls it, a day that ends in y.
“I remember reading of a study where they took toddlers and half in one color shirt and the other half in a different color shirt. To no surprise, the toddlers ended up playing together by shirt color. It’s just human nature.”
While you write a lot of good stuff Erasand, how toddlers behave based on colored shirts is really no proof that humans are “tribal”. What about the toddlers who were given red shirts but subjectively liked the blue ones better and started complaining about wanting the other colored shirt? This selection is just a preference, like liking chocolate or vanilla ice cream better.
Only Suneel responded. Lmao! He’s a DOS member? Did he get the “kick-ass women’s” brand as well? How is he qualified to answer these questions? I’m betting that the women will only echo his responses if they respond at all. Even though Nicki Clyne endlessly says “Ask us anything”.
Yeah. As an Ex-member of a ‘cult’, let me tell you: Pinheaded Never-Ins Are The Worst.
They are Judgy Shamers to the Nth Degree.
In anticult circles, if an ex-cultist isn’t wearing a hair shirt & lashing himself with barbed wire 24/7 for having been in a “cult”, or if – Torquemada forbid – they have an original thought based on their own life experience?
Pin-headed never-ins are the ones fiercely demanding uniformity with thier beliefs, lest they shame you and ban you and make you pay for your individual view of the world, based on life experience the never-in doesn’t have.
And never will.
Some never-ins aren’t pinheaded. They can tolerate beliefs, sub-cultures and experiences different from their own.
So, to avoid feeling insulted when I call out pinheaded never-ins, don’t be one.
To those reading this who are in the group who gets offended whenever someone says that there were some good things in NXIVM – you are the ones being called out as pin-headed never-ins.
To Alanzo – I hope you will watch “The Lost Women of NXIVM”. It will give you perspective on just some of the horrible things going on in conman Keith’s world that never made it to trial.
I understand. We’ll see what happens. I hope the Dossier Project addresses the questions on consent because, as I said, they go straight to the heart of the matter with DOS.
I noticed that you tweeted in response to a Dossier Project video in which they claimed one of the witnesses hacked Allison Mack’s computer and downloaded the collateral.
First of all, they didn’t say she hacked the computer. And there was no need for her to hack anything. As she testified under oath (something which again needs to be said none of the members of the Dossier Project did), they were putting their collateral in a shared DropBox folder at the beginning of the month.
So for 24 hours, they all had access to whatever someone submitted. She had access to a computer that I assume Allison owned because she was renting a room at a house owned by Allison (where Allison did not live) so again this was not hacking.
That is not the way in which Nicki Clyne described the security of the collateral in the video. She also testified that on another occasion India Oxenberg had her pick up a flash drive from Allison’s apartment that contained collateral. So, again the collateral was not secure.
I hope you change your tweet since it is irresponsible to accuse someone of hacking when there is no reason to do so. Also, I suggest you fact-check anything stated by the Dossier Project since many of the things they say are misleading at best.
According to her testimony, she took the collateral and gave it to her ex in order to guarantee that if something happened to her someone else had it. And she said that she took it to make sure that her collateral would not be released since she had others’ collateral. While this was a questionable decision, it was not on par with collecting the collateral in the first place and using its existence to pressure women into compliance through fear.
I do hope that the Dossier Project responds to your request to answer the questions about deception and consent but I highly doubt that they will. They tend to focus on the parts of the narrative that support their case and ignore all other aspects. Including the deception.
“This is information I didn’t know.” Dear Alanzo, having read the entire trial transcript and having read the Dossier Project site and watched their videos, allow me to assure you this is the first of many of these statements from you.
You are welcome. I would suggest reading the trial transcripts, the civil lawsuit filing and the government’s response to Raniere’s appeal request involving Clyne and Hatchette. They paint a very different picture than what the Dossier Project is presenting. Then go back and watch the Dossier Project’s videos. You can see how they skip over or evade specific issues. One example is the sex cult video. In the government’s response to Raniere’s appeal they state that Michele Hatchette was given the seduction assignment. But while everyone else in the video discusses that they didn’t have sex with Raniere , she never comments. Of course she isn’t required to discuss this but it undermines her credibility and the credibility of anyone else on that video who knew she was concealing this. They want to have it both ways. They claim they are only describing their experiences as they saw them but then they leave out the parts that don’t work with the narrative they want to tell. That is why it is so important to fact check them.
“They tend to focus on the parts of the narrative that support their case and ignore all other aspects. Including the deception.”
Because they’re just deceptive, so it’s par for the course. Once you commit a lie, you have to perpetuate its “truth”, and so you will ignore everything that points out its actual falsehood. The scheme of DOS was rooted in deception, mixing some truth with falsehood, because that’s how manipulation works. It’s obvious to anyone who has a keen sense of observation and knows the history of Raniere’s sexual behavior. If someone blatantly lies, you’d never believe a word they said. You wouldn’t trust them and rightfully so. But someone who sounds good much of the time, and only occasionally lies “bigly”, can make you believe them and self-doubt what you thought was wrong. This is the trickery and the modus operandi of the Vanguard. Nicki and the rest of the DOS hangers-on have learned a few tricks from, or are simply messengers of, their master.
This kind of black and white view of each individual member of DOS is very off-putting. And, believe me, I know you don’t care.
But each of these people are individuals, and they’ve had their own individual experiences in DOS, and in NXIVM.
Even a retarded anticultist understands that 99.5% of the people involved in NXIVM were never in DOS. So for 99.5% of anyone ever involved in NXIVM – it was never a “brainwashing sex slave cult”.
Don’t you feel ashamed that innocent people have been slurred in this way?
As I understand it, even for the majority of those in DOS, sex was never part of the sorority. As I understand it, DOS was a sorority that was serious and dedicated to self-betterment.
I had a friend who was an Olympic athlete. I helped him to get to the 1988 Olympics. How invasive and controlling do you think the lives of Olympic athletes are with regard to self-betterment?
When you paint all members of DOS as tricksters in the modus operandi of Vanguard, you are generalizing & poisoning the well before any of these individuals have the chance to respond to your challenge. You are pre-running dehumanizing tribal stereotypes you want everyone to accept about your enemy..
People are tribal. They defend their tribes. You are defend your tribe. They defend theirs.
Just treat them like individual human beings who chose to belong to a different culture than you.
Except it has nothing to do with a “black and white” view of “all” members of DOS, only a minor subset of them and their grandmaster. All of the other DOS members left when they realized the reality behind the group. Alanzo loves to talk about the “tribal” nature of anti-cultists, but then grants excuses that show it for each individual member of this particular subset of the cult.
These particular DOS women constantly “slur” the experience of the others in the same way you claim your despised anti-cultists do. They imply that these others are liars or are playing the victim card, the media created a false narrative, and the prosecution and justice system are corrupt. If it was just a “she said, she said” scenario, then it would simply come down to who you find more credible to believe. But in the case of this cult, there was additional, objectively verifiable evidence, a trial where intent and motive was argued for, and the illegality of certain activities were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Your Olympic example is weak. It takes a superficial similarity and ignores significant differences — “collateral” (blackmail), the deception, and the possibility of an underhanded motive for DOS, all of which don’t apply to a strict, controlling regimen of an Olympic athlete the goal of which is alsonot open-ended and unconditional for life.
His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.
His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.
Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” Parlato was also credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.
Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.
Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.
Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.
IMDb — Frank Parlato
Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com
1. I take the general point about echo chambers whether cult or anti-cult which is why I always want freedom of speech even for views I don’t like and I remember back in the 80s when my sibling was in the Osho cult briefly making the argument in her support that in a sense all of us who go to an office job 9 – 5 for 40 years are pretty cultish too. However, there are harms in many groups and people do lose freedom of choice to a greater extent in what we call cults for want of a better word.
2., On consent to the brand initials I only got interested in KR and found this site because of those issues such as “consent” within BDSM and the like. I would have had expert witnesses from that minority sexuality group there to testify about that world but I don’t think KR did. Anyway, it does not detract from the rightness of his conviction. Some of them might have consented had they known it was his or AM’s initials (if they could consent in law – in the UK if the pain is too hard you cannot consent even if you want to – that might not be so in the USA)
3. On the case, appeals are difficult. I am a lawyer abroad and the US lawyer(s) on here have made the points here well. You just don’t get a second bite of the cherry in the way lots of lay people think. It doesn’t work like that. I think KR was rightfully found guilty and he will not win his appeal.
[…] commenter on Frank Report, PeaceMaker, criticized Alanzo, charging that Alanzo’s former role as Executive Director of a local […]
Alonzo, are you actually going to press Nicki and DOS for these answers or are you just going to ignore them ghosting you and give them a pass?
If you are a person of conviction as you appear to possibly be then I hope you get to the bottom of it.
Also I think you would agree that Suneel’s responses did not get the bottom of it..
Yes. The principle of consent has yet to be addressed.
It’s been discussed in the season finale of “A Little Bit Culty” and also brought up by those questions I found on the internet.
Here’s the thing:
The Dossier Project, and their friends, are made up of intelligent, thinking and feeling human beings. Some of them are way more educated than me, possibly you, and clearly more than most on the Frank Report.
I figure they know the consequences of ignoring the concept of consent.
Hmmm… Who is Alanzo?
http://alley.ethercat.com/cgi-bin/door/door.cgi?33
Thanks for that background.
“ED” is the Executive Director, the head of a local Scientology operation and in the case of a mission franchise like Peoria, the person who is responsible to the owner for sales statistics and producing profits. In the “big league sales” world of Scientology, it’s akin to being the pit boss of a boiler room sales operation, though reportedly Peoria was run on a bit of a kinder and gentler basis than the most ruthless and rapacious franchises. Still, it would be unusual for an ED not to have overseen heavy-handed sales including encouragement of going into debt and plundering assets, not to mention repressive “ethics” punishments for perceived infractions.
He also admittedly worked for OSA, Scientology’s version of the East German Stasi. Specifically, he was involved in an effort to infiltrate, undermine and take over the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), a group that while having some ties to then-controversial deprogramming techniques, provided resources and help – and the demise of which not only completely destroyed an important resource but also resulted in its files full of personal information falling into the hands of Scientology.
I’ve never seen Alanzo (Allen) try to make any apologies or amends to the people he has deceived, lied to, exploited, and harmed in the service of the CofS. Yet he is very vocal in attacking some prominent former Scientology executives who are working to expose abuses, for not having done enough of that themselves, in his view. It seems to be a typical mechanism ingrained in Scientologists (and the whole Scientology organization), to accuse others of just the sort of things they are guilty of themselves but unable to come to terms with.
I love it when one of these guys packs 36 years of my life into a few paragraphs in order to revise my history for their propaganda purposes.
This person does not know me, nor what I’ve done in the 21 years since leaving Scientology. Nor what I did when I was a Scientologist.
But here they are, trying to make me look like one of David Miscavige’s minions.
Again.
Here’s the story of my one project I did for Mike Rinder’s OSA, and what made me stay the hell away from them forever after as a Scientologist, never to do a second project for them. It also let me know what kind of people would do a 2nd job for OSA. And a third. And what type of person would run OSA internationally for David Miscavige for 22 years – complete sociopaths..
https://alanzosblog.com/undercover-as-an-agent-for-the-office-of-special-affairs/
Mike Rinder is not trying to make peace with the people he harmed when he was CO OSA. If that were the case, he would have helped Gerry Armstrong. He would have aired Victoria Britton’s interview about the murder of her son on Scientology the Aftermath. He’s doing the exact opposite of that. With regard to just these two people who were destroyed by Scientology, Rinder is still doing exactly what he did when he was CO OSA.
He is still protecting the church and its leaders from criminal prosecution.
I love it when one of these guys packs 36 years of my life into a few paragraphs in order to revise my history for their propaganda purposes.
This person does not know me, nor what I’ve done in the 21 years since leaving Scientology. Nor what I did when I was a Scientologist.
But here they are, trying to make me look like one of David Miscavige’s minions.
Again.
Here’s the story of my one project I did for Mike Rinder’s OSA, and what made me stay the hell away from them forever after as a Scientologist, never to do a second project for them. It also let me know what kind of people would do a 2nd job for OSA. And a third. And what type of person would run OSA internationally for David Miscavige for 22 years – complete sociopaths..
https://alanzosblog.com/undercover-as-an-agent-for-the-office-of-special-affairs/
Mike Rinder is not trying to make peace with the people he harmed when he was CO OSA. If that were the case, he would have helped Gerry Armstrong. He would have aired Victoria Britton’s interview about the murder of her son on Scientology the Aftermath. He’s doing the exact opposite of that. With regard to just these two people who were destroyed by Scientology, Rinder is still doing exactly what he did when he was CO OSA.
He is still protecting the church and its leaders from criminal prosecution.
I just don’t get why you have gone out of your way on Twitter to support Nicki and DOS before these extremely relevant questions are answered.
I have seen Nicki retweet many of your DOS supporting tweets and now you say you want these questions answered. If you don’t have these answers, why did you go out of your way to support the Nicki/DOS side?
Also, if you are actually as interested in this case as you seem to be, why not read the trial transcript as many readers of this blog have done?
I get it brainwashing is fake but that really doesn’t explain your support of Nicki/DOS.
Maybe there is something I’m missing and you can explain.
These were women who were accused of being “brainwashed sex slaves” by “cult experts” and the global media..
To accuse someone of being “brainwashed” is to say they are less than human, they lack the ability to decide things for their own lives, incapable of thinking for themselves.
So if brainwashing is fake, as you said above, you can see that this dehumanizing slur, pushed by so-called cult experts and blasted by the media worldwide would be a huge injustice. And if unquestioned and unopposed? Dangerous for a free society.
When I read Nicole’s testimony, I saw clearly that in her case, consent was absent. But these “grown ass women” as they called themselves, said they made their own choices and did what they wanted to do.
So if they’re not brainwashed, and this is what they say about their own decisions for their own lives, who are we to know better than they do?
Can you answer that?
Humans love their tribes. We need them in whatever form they take. I remember reading of a study where they took toddlers and half in one color shirt and the other half in a different color shirt. To no surprise, the toddlers ended up playing together by shirt color. It’s just human nature. So, yeah, “anti-cult” (whatever the F that is), can be a form of tribal. The sun also comes up each day.
As for the real meat of the article, it’s a shame he didn’t/couldn’t post Suneel’s response. I suspect more of the same from him though. The posts on this site have consistently been a simple denial that none of it happened while pointing out if it did, it was consensual (and skipping over not happening yet consensual are contradictory defenses) and that none of it was illegal (confusing unethical/immoral with illegal as the two are not always one and the same).
I suspect if Nicki made the tactical mistake of responding, she too would lean heavily on the whole consensual aspect of it also. Her tweets about woman rights are almost 100% about that (She can’t escape DOS and Keith to save her life, it’s sad). She does not respond to anyone that points out she is dodging the moral and ethical problems with the behavior of DOS and Keith. Likely because they suffer from typical hero worship problem which is if their hero does it, it by default is ethical and moral. If someone not their hero does the exact same thing, it’s immoral, unethical and illegal. Or as the far-right calls it, a day that ends in y.
“I remember reading of a study where they took toddlers and half in one color shirt and the other half in a different color shirt. To no surprise, the toddlers ended up playing together by shirt color. It’s just human nature.”
While you write a lot of good stuff Erasand, how toddlers behave based on colored shirts is really no proof that humans are “tribal”. What about the toddlers who were given red shirts but subjectively liked the blue ones better and started complaining about wanting the other colored shirt? This selection is just a preference, like liking chocolate or vanilla ice cream better.
Only Suneel responded. Lmao! He’s a DOS member? Did he get the “kick-ass women’s” brand as well? How is he qualified to answer these questions? I’m betting that the women will only echo his responses if they respond at all. Even though Nicki Clyne endlessly says “Ask us anything”.
In fairness to Nicki, she never said “We’ll answer all your questions”.
“I’m not like that. I love lots of different viewpoints, lots of lively and friendly debate.”
“Most Anti-cultists, especially most pinheaded never-ins…” – Alanzo
Yeah, dude. Obviously, you are very welcoming to other viewpoints…LMFAO.
On another note – I am surprised that you managed to go four straight posts without mentioning Torquemadan Certainty®. What’s wrong with you lately?
Ice-Nine,
Ditto!!!! LMAO!
I never normally make comments under your comments because you so eloquently, capture the way I feel. 😉
Yeah. As an Ex-member of a ‘cult’, let me tell you: Pinheaded Never-Ins Are The Worst.
They are Judgy Shamers to the Nth Degree.
In anticult circles, if an ex-cultist isn’t wearing a hair shirt & lashing himself with barbed wire 24/7 for having been in a “cult”, or if – Torquemada forbid – they have an original thought based on their own life experience?
Pin-headed never-ins are the ones fiercely demanding uniformity with thier beliefs, lest they shame you and ban you and make you pay for your individual view of the world, based on life experience the never-in doesn’t have.
And never will.
Some never-ins aren’t pinheaded. They can tolerate beliefs, sub-cultures and experiences different from their own.
So, to avoid feeling insulted when I call out pinheaded never-ins, don’t be one.
Alanzo
Alonzo-
How about — we simply want those people out of the cult so they can have a normal life and not be tortured by a sadistic bastard.
I could give a shit about penance and mea-culpas.
To those reading this who are in the group who gets offended whenever someone says that there were some good things in NXIVM – you are the ones being called out as pin-headed never-ins.
To Alanzo – I hope you will watch “The Lost Women of NXIVM”. It will give you perspective on just some of the horrible things going on in conman Keith’s world that never made it to trial.
All I can say is I appreciate you asking those questions which we all want a response to.
I would just say that you should perhaps wait to further defend DOS (Nicki in particular) until these questions are answered.
I understand. We’ll see what happens. I hope the Dossier Project addresses the questions on consent because, as I said, they go straight to the heart of the matter with DOS.
Thanks, David.
Thanks for representing my views accurately. That’s a rare thing for me these days.
Alanzo
Alanzo,
I noticed that you tweeted in response to a Dossier Project video in which they claimed one of the witnesses hacked Allison Mack’s computer and downloaded the collateral.
First of all, they didn’t say she hacked the computer. And there was no need for her to hack anything. As she testified under oath (something which again needs to be said none of the members of the Dossier Project did), they were putting their collateral in a shared DropBox folder at the beginning of the month.
So for 24 hours, they all had access to whatever someone submitted. She had access to a computer that I assume Allison owned because she was renting a room at a house owned by Allison (where Allison did not live) so again this was not hacking.
That is not the way in which Nicki Clyne described the security of the collateral in the video. She also testified that on another occasion India Oxenberg had her pick up a flash drive from Allison’s apartment that contained collateral. So, again the collateral was not secure.
I hope you change your tweet since it is irresponsible to accuse someone of hacking when there is no reason to do so. Also, I suggest you fact-check anything stated by the Dossier Project since many of the things they say are misleading at best.
According to her testimony, she took the collateral and gave it to her ex in order to guarantee that if something happened to her someone else had it. And she said that she took it to make sure that her collateral would not be released since she had others’ collateral. While this was a questionable decision, it was not on par with collecting the collateral in the first place and using its existence to pressure women into compliance through fear.
I do hope that the Dossier Project responds to your request to answer the questions about deception and consent but I highly doubt that they will. They tend to focus on the parts of the narrative that support their case and ignore all other aspects. Including the deception.
This is information I didn’t know.
Thanks.
“This is information I didn’t know.” Dear Alanzo, having read the entire trial transcript and having read the Dossier Project site and watched their videos, allow me to assure you this is the first of many of these statements from you.
You are welcome. I would suggest reading the trial transcripts, the civil lawsuit filing and the government’s response to Raniere’s appeal request involving Clyne and Hatchette. They paint a very different picture than what the Dossier Project is presenting. Then go back and watch the Dossier Project’s videos. You can see how they skip over or evade specific issues. One example is the sex cult video. In the government’s response to Raniere’s appeal they state that Michele Hatchette was given the seduction assignment. But while everyone else in the video discusses that they didn’t have sex with Raniere , she never comments. Of course she isn’t required to discuss this but it undermines her credibility and the credibility of anyone else on that video who knew she was concealing this. They want to have it both ways. They claim they are only describing their experiences as they saw them but then they leave out the parts that don’t work with the narrative they want to tell. That is why it is so important to fact check them.
“They tend to focus on the parts of the narrative that support their case and ignore all other aspects. Including the deception.”
Because they’re just deceptive, so it’s par for the course. Once you commit a lie, you have to perpetuate its “truth”, and so you will ignore everything that points out its actual falsehood. The scheme of DOS was rooted in deception, mixing some truth with falsehood, because that’s how manipulation works. It’s obvious to anyone who has a keen sense of observation and knows the history of Raniere’s sexual behavior. If someone blatantly lies, you’d never believe a word they said. You wouldn’t trust them and rightfully so. But someone who sounds good much of the time, and only occasionally lies “bigly”, can make you believe them and self-doubt what you thought was wrong. This is the trickery and the modus operandi of the Vanguard. Nicki and the rest of the DOS hangers-on have learned a few tricks from, or are simply messengers of, their master.
This kind of black and white view of each individual member of DOS is very off-putting. And, believe me, I know you don’t care.
But each of these people are individuals, and they’ve had their own individual experiences in DOS, and in NXIVM.
Even a retarded anticultist understands that 99.5% of the people involved in NXIVM were never in DOS. So for 99.5% of anyone ever involved in NXIVM – it was never a “brainwashing sex slave cult”.
Don’t you feel ashamed that innocent people have been slurred in this way?
As I understand it, even for the majority of those in DOS, sex was never part of the sorority. As I understand it, DOS was a sorority that was serious and dedicated to self-betterment.
I had a friend who was an Olympic athlete. I helped him to get to the 1988 Olympics. How invasive and controlling do you think the lives of Olympic athletes are with regard to self-betterment?
When you paint all members of DOS as tricksters in the modus operandi of Vanguard, you are generalizing & poisoning the well before any of these individuals have the chance to respond to your challenge. You are pre-running dehumanizing tribal stereotypes you want everyone to accept about your enemy..
People are tribal. They defend their tribes. You are defend your tribe. They defend theirs.
Just treat them like individual human beings who chose to belong to a different culture than you.
Except it has nothing to do with a “black and white” view of “all” members of DOS, only a minor subset of them and their grandmaster. All of the other DOS members left when they realized the reality behind the group. Alanzo loves to talk about the “tribal” nature of anti-cultists, but then grants excuses that show it for each individual member of this particular subset of the cult.
These particular DOS women constantly “slur” the experience of the others in the same way you claim your despised anti-cultists do. They imply that these others are liars or are playing the victim card, the media created a false narrative, and the prosecution and justice system are corrupt. If it was just a “she said, she said” scenario, then it would simply come down to who you find more credible to believe. But in the case of this cult, there was additional, objectively verifiable evidence, a trial where intent and motive was argued for, and the illegality of certain activities were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Your Olympic example is weak. It takes a superficial similarity and ignores significant differences — “collateral” (blackmail), the deception, and the possibility of an underhanded motive for DOS, all of which don’t apply to a strict, controlling regimen of an Olympic athlete the goal of which is alsonot open-ended and unconditional for life.
Alanzo “retarded”. Really?