By John Cavil
As I see it, there are three groups of victims in the NXIVM lawsuit.
In order of least affected:
1. People formerly in NXIVM who got ripped off.
2. People directly recruited into DOS who suffered various degrees of psychological, physical, and emotional abuse while there, particularly towards the end, but mercifully escaped after the scandal broke – we should also remember we have Sarah Edmondson to thank mainly for that. This group also includes Sarah; luckily for them, they never completely bought into its philosophy, if you can call it that.
Sarah Edmondson warned many whom she recruited to escape from NXIVM3. The converts, who bought into it, and whose lives, to varying degrees, have been seriously affected.
Principal amongst this cohort is Allison Mack and Nicki Clyne, two aspiring and talented young actors whose careers were cut short by a monster who was able to prey upon their deepest vulnerabilities to satiate his demonic lust.
Nicki Clyne and Allison Mack bought into NXIVM that they married each other, though both were committed to Keith Raniere. They poured their money, lives, and souls into a dream, or rather nightmare, a Potemkin life coach program that systematically defrauded its clients through deliberate and duplicitous indoctrination techniques, rendering them initially acquiescent and by degrees increasingly complicit in its machinations, a self-perpetuating evil.
What did they get out of it? Bankruptcy, public condemnation, hatred, sniping and ridicule from the media, criminal investigation (of course, in Allison’s case, a criminal conviction); they lost friends, the opportunity to work, and even their ability to rationalize the maelstrom of everything that had happened to them.
What is fascinating is when you watch some of the recent “Dossier Project” (the remnants, rump of DOS) broadcasts on YouTube.
Headed by Nicki, they are 6-8 women who are unapologetic apologists for their NXIVM perspective on the world, covering topics such as ‘the Narrative of Victimhood”.
Quickly you detect the influences of second-hand Rand (Ayn Rand, the right-wing of the ’40s to the 60s). First, they talk about the experience being purely subjective and therefore not always reliable (Rand’s notion of objectivism) in an attempt perhaps to preemptively undermine the recollection of those many women DOS plaintiffs in there and testimonies in Raniere’s criminal trial.
For a group of women claiming to be seeking female empowerment, their notions of the underlying nature of women are surprisingly negative.
Women’s nature is described as entitled, lacking accountability and discipline, spoilt, selfish, grasping, and weak, partly perhaps due to their liberal middle-class indulgent upbringing, no doubt reflecting the “mainstream fake news media values.”
Boys are not mentioned.
Such blanket scorn for their sex is a constant theme emerging from all of them and likely stems from the teachings they endured during relentless intensives and EM (exploration of meaning) sessions covering the wisdom of Aristotle.
I’m not sure Rand would have been a big fan of DOS either.
Rand argued:
“The initiation of physical force against the will of another is immoral, as are indirect initiations of force through threats, fraud, or breach of contract. The use of defensive or retaliatory force, on the other hand, is appropriate.”
So much for readiness drills, coercive dieting, and penances.
So, who is Nicki Clyne?
Is she the evil, malevolent, manipulative, dishonest person portrayed in some sections of the media, the kind of person you wouldn’t feel safe leaving alone with your children?
The truth, I believe, is the exact opposite.
From what I have read and seen (including the entire Frank Report), I see her as scrupulous, sweet-natured, honest (I’ll come to that), moral, hard-working, loyal, courageous, and protective of others.
In their dying days, she took time to look after her father and her friend, the actor Richard Hatch; she was one of the few approachable people in NXIVM (see Sylvie’s testimony).
I believe she looked after and tried to protect her “slaves” in DOS, sometimes even taking punishments for them.
Though misplaced, loyalty is usually considered a virtue, and we need to respect that whatever we might personally think, Nicki believes in many of the teachings she experienced.
Finally, I believe there’s a possibility (and I might be wrong) that in the end, Nicki reappraised her view of Raniere, and some part of her began to suspect he was not quite the person she had always believed him to be.
Let’s turn now to the issue of honesty.
In a recent discussion with Keri Smith and Brian Edwards on YouTube, Keri quizzes Nicki on her approach to acting. I believe the interest here may have stemmed from Nicki’s various online denials and understatements of what went on in DOS, which the dogs in the street knew to be at best misleading.
Keri asks Nicki about the techniques she uses when acting to make for a convincing performance.
Nicki talks about the techniques of method acting where you become the character in a psychologically real sense. She then talks about her style of just remembering similar real-life situations and applying those memories to the relevant scene.
Keri then outlines a psycho-social experiment:
A volunteer is told that a die will be rolled, and whatever number comes up, they will receive the monetary equivalent – if it’s a 6, they get $6; if a one, then only $1.
A polygraph is attached to the volunteer to determine their honesty; they are told this is only to measure their excitement level.
After the dice is rolled and lands on a 1 facing up and a 6 facing down, the controller apologizes that they did not specify which side the number should be facing and asks the volunteer what their understanding was.
Many volunteers said they understood it was ‘down’ and claimed the six bucks in the example.
Not surprisingly, if the 1 was facing down, they all naturally said ‘up.’
The polygraph was easily able to determine those many volunteers in the first instance were lying.
However, and here’s the interesting part: when the volunteers were told that the money was for charity, i.e., a ‘good cause,’ the polygraph
could not determine any difference between those who were lying and those who were telling the truth.
As Nicki says, “oh so if they have a good justification, and it’s not self-serving….oh wow.”
Her facial expression reveals her amazement at this and perhaps a dawning realization of her own power – the reason she’s able to lie so convincingly because she still believes what she represents is a good cause.
So, to answer the question, should Nicki be held liable to compensate the plaintiffs?
I think the answer is a resounding no and would urge the plaintiffs to remove her from the list.
The poor girl has suffered enough, and what does this say about our humanity by continuing to hound her? It drives her further into the defensive position of maintaining the company of those friends who share convergent world views, making it more difficult to meet other people and get on with the rest of their lives.
One day, there’ll come a moment when Nicki will realize that things she experienced may not have been as she has so long believed them to be.
I only hope that when that happens, she’s with someone who loves her for who she is, underneath all the bluff and bluster, the nightmare that was NXIVM and DOS.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Why doesn’t Keith tilt his face to the side when he kisses people on the lips? Smushing noses makes him look like a creepy little kid. So annoying.
John Cavil, is he the guy from that band called “a flock of seagulls” ?
Not sure if he ran both night and day and couldn’t get away
I ran so far away.
— the reason she’s able to lie so convincingly is because she still believes what she represents is a good cause.
But this no excuse — the propensity for self-delusion. This presupposes that we don’t have the capability to objectively discriminate using the discoverable laws of logic, which we do (if healthy and don’t suffer from some physiological or biological ailment).
If we didn’t, if we weren’t able to tell the truth from falsehood or error, then anything could be denied on such a rationalization, i.e., believing it “too much”.
This is just an example of confirmation bias, which actually obscures disinterested thinking. Also, if Nicki, et al, believe that experience is “purely subjective and not always reliable”, then that is a self-defeating world view that is antithetical to the latter, and can be just as much applied to themselves as others. For it is only in the idea of objectivity, where there is a presupposition of the existence of truth, that there can be the existence of error. This is why Relativism defeats itself. It incoherently and implicitly special pleads for itself.
The professed goal of the NXIVM/DOS project was never really about critical thinking or ethics.
It was just about maintaining the subjective values of its participants as long as they didn’t contradict that project and kept them in it. And even more devious was its underhanded one, that which was (badly) intended by Raniere, i.e., to get others that he was interested in either sexually, financially, etc., to conform their values to his. He was to use others for himself without making them feel like victims, because according to a foundational principle taught in NXIVM, there is no such thing as an ultimate victim. This implies that even if you were to be deceived via an unscrupulous hidden intent towards a particular action, you would always be responsible in being “at cause” for it.
Things are either true or false in the sense that they either conform or don’t conform with reality, respectively. This is true of narratives. This is true of whether we intended good or bad and something good or bad happened, respectively, or the inversion of the latter to the former did. This is true in rating whether something is better or worse for things according to a standard.
There is a hierarchy to all being, and whether we epistemologically know it with certainty or not won’t deny this fact.
This was well written!
I think that a good way to provide evidence for this point is to release the technology on EM procedure. I’ve spoken to at least 5 past and present members about being able to get any course materials or instructions on EMs, all of whom either evade the question or say they don’t exist, just a couple pages of notes, etc.
No internet searches bring up anything but a trademark application.
Why are there NO NXIVM lectures or course materials on the Internet?
Alanzo
Because of NDAs.
Please expound.
Who are the parties to these NDAs? Why don’t any of the 17,000 students of ESP/NXIVM simply publish their course packs, or even notes, online?
This has always been Step 1 (Ex-Scientologists would say Step Zero) of exposing any cult since the Birth of the Internet.
Yet this fundamental step has not even been attempted by anyone involved in NXIVM that I have been able to find.
Anonymous Commenter: What NDAs, exactly?
Alanzo
Well said, Sultan. You’re still a good writer.
Nicki’s brand is going to be worth a lot of money someday… no doubt she’s keeping it in excellent condition like the rest of her body, and she has the video of the flesh-burning experience which many would love to see.
But I don’t think Nicki would have needed anyone holding her down or even holding her hand as she modeled the joy of devotion for her slaves.
We need Nicki. She’s eye candy. Clare isn’t worth a glance.
Honesty???? She helped plan and LIE to the women about what the branding mark was and who was behind it. Branding folks. Sweet.
How do you know Nicki knew it was initials KR? Has that been confirmed by Nicki herself? She’s pretty honest about the collateral requests and the purpose. Has she said she knew it was his initials?
It’s on tape. Nicki knew. She’s in the brand design planning session. Naked at the feet of master Raniere with Keith’s other slaves.
Yes. She was at the meeting when the initials were designed. It’s on tape
Doe-eyed Nicki Clyne is sweet. Give her a break. She was a victim of Raniere too, even if she doesn’t know it. She was an innocent young woman looking for love from whatever sex approached her… Alison Mack… Keith… she’d marry anyone to help support her community. Leave Nicki alone.
I heard she’s living happily with Suneel now. Now, there’s a sweet couple 🙂
Wow, the drama oozes from this post!
I particularly liked this bit:
Let’s break this down in an effort to get the objective reality behind this florid nightmare hallucination of an obvious anticultist.
…They poured their money, lives and souls into a dream, or rather nightmare….
Both women had multiyear gigs as actresses on TV, so what percentage of their income went into NXIVM? That would be a real world objective fact that would back up your rhetoric here. Do you have any clue?
It’s repeated on the Frank Report often that Nicki Clyne quit BattleStar Galactica to do NXIVM full time. But this isn’t true. The writers killed off her character and she was not aware of it until a few weeks before filming the episode. So how, exactly, did Nicki “pour her life” into NXIVM?
Just need some real world objective reality here, not hysterical symbolic lingo.
“…a Potemkin life coach program that systematically defrauded its clients through deliberate and duplicitous indoctrination techniques
Please list these ‘indoctrination techniques’, specifically.
And what is an ‘indoctrination technique’, exactly?
….”rendering them initially acquiescent and by degrees increasingly complicit in its machinations, a self-perpetuating evil.”
Wow! That’s dramatic! And truly magical!
In real world terms, not through symbolic or metaphoric language, how did these “indoctrination techniques” make them initially acquiescent?
Then, how did these ‘indoctrination techniques’ make them increasingly complicit?
This is critical thinking on Cults and AntiCults – something we need much more of around here.
Don’t be snowed by this kind of assumption-laden anticultist rhetoric. Keep asking questions like these.
Eventually, you’ll find there’s nothing there.
Alanzo
To Everyone,
Raniere’s Lost V-week Speech:
Frank never shared Keith Raniere’s twisted speech on V-week in 2002. Here is a portion of that speech’s transcript:
“There are many forbidden practices and taboos in the world.
I think there was a study done, which showed pets do not have their first orgasms until they’ve been raped by their owners — and it isn’t just mammal pets, but goldfish and parrots too.
Now Imagine you’re a parrot, one day your owner plucks you, out of the cage, and rapes you, and you climax.
At first you’ll be upset, you’ll definitely have a few feathers rustled, but I think, generally speaking, overall, you’ll come to be happy with the experience and view it as a shared, spiritual bonding. On top of that, you’ll realize you’re something more than just a pet, you are, your owner’s fuck toy.”
***
It’s APPALLING, Kieth would speak in such a disturbing and crass manner.
Re V-Week 2002 Post:
The fictitious Kieth Raniere, V-Week, speech is meant to highlight the absurdity and vulgarity of Keith Raniere’s teachings.
This lampooning is almost exactly what Kieth said except instead of parrots Keith was speaking about young girls.
\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Instead of parrots Keith was speaking about young girls.
Let that sink in!!!!!
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
RE 2nd Proof Alanzo Secretly Hates Cults:
More old musings from Alonzo proving he is a cult hater:
“Cults’ are primarily a social phenomenon, and not a psychological one.”
(Alonzo, circa 2002)
There that ugly word “cult” again, being used by our, illustrious, friend Alanzo.
***
The best is yet to come!
Dear Anonymous Alanzo Scholar:
Scholars shouldn’t lie about the subject of their scholarship, such as changing dates, and hiding links to the source reference. And they should be able to spell the name of their subject correctly.
Having said that, again, this quote is entirely consistent with my present views on “cults”.
“Cults” are minority religions and sub-cultures within a mainstream society. For example, Christians in present day Egypt are considered a ‘cult’ by modern mainstream Egyptian Muslim society, even while Christians are the mainstream in North America.
So Alanzo Scholar, just think “Mainstream = Majority, Cult = Minority”.
History, comparative religion and social science are much better tools to use to understand “cults” than is psychology.
If you just use psychology, you can’t possibly understand “cults”.
By all means, Alanzo Scholar, keep up your Alanzo Scholarship. Just don’t change dates, or omit links to your source references. And learn to spell my name correctly.
I can’t wait until you find an actual quote of mine from my past that contradicts what I believe today. It’ll provide a great opportunity for me to expound upon what I learned and experienced since then which prompted me to change my views.
Well done on finding this quote, tho.
Grade: C
Alanzo
Alanzo says:
Let’s break this down in an effort to get the objective reality…
I say to Alanzo:
Your version of, objective reality, is whatever YOU say it is, you, lunatic. What exactly is “objective” about that?
“I see her as scrupulous, sweet-natured, honest (I’ll come to that), moral, hard-working, loyal, courageous, and protective of others”
You’re certainly welcome to your opinion. But, seriously?
I understand Clyne played a nice, cute character on Battlestar Galactica. I can’t say myself, because while I’ve watched plenty of stupid TV shows in my day, I never sank that low.
Stupid TV shows like Smallville. (That word almost autocorrected to Smallpox! Ha!). I did watch that turgid mess. Where now-convicted-felon Mack played sweet, earnest, likable, kinda lovable girl next door Chloe. Who everyone felt sorry for because she had a hopeless schoolgirl crush on young Clark Kent (underwear model Tom Welling), but was irreparably friend zoned, and was never able to compete with leggy, tall, big-boobed Lois Lane (who appeared in a wet bikini in the opening credits every week, just to rub it in).
Actors play roles. As Leonard Nimoy succinctly put it, “I am not Spock”.
Mack has revealed herself as a nasty, vindictive, cruel manipulator. Dumb as a fence post but an adept liar.
Clyne is still defending the guy who literally had women slaves, blackmailed and branded with his initials. The guy who had his branded harem all kneel naked before him. The guy who raped a 15 year old girl. Yeah, she’s loyal. To him.
— Clyne is still defending the guy who literally had women slaves, blackmailed and branded with his initials. The guy who had his branded harem all kneel naked before him. The guy who raped a 15 year old girl. Yeah, she’s loyal. To him.
Not to mention she repeatedly attacks the FBI, prosecution, judges, and other US legal institutions in general (just look at her Twitter feed), while ignoring the fact that she unethically bypassed the immigration laws to stay in the country she implicitly attacks through them. The law is not ethics and ethics is not law when it merely suits her purpose. Of course, you won’t see her defending John Tighe for child porn as an FBI plant because she doesn’t give a FF about him, and even more so, because he’s her boyfriend’s enemy. It’s the epitome of irony — and due to cold hard “Karma” — that the situation is now reversed.
But she’s too blind to see it. Because she’s an exemplification of confirmation bias. Her boyfriend was convicted of child porn (and more), so she’ll hitch her wagon to whatever movement and will sully any perceived enemy in order to get him off. That’s ALL SHE REALLY CARES ABOUT.
She’s either an epitome of insincerity/hypocrisy or self-delusion and dead-ender denial.
She may possess attributes that are generally perceived as virtuous, e.g., loyalty, resilience, persistence, etc., but there is no virtue in pursuing an ill-gotten end. That’s what is meant by the phrase “the end does/does not justify the means”, because the “end” is ALWAYS presupposed to be good, while it is the means that can be either good or bad. If the end is bad, that phrase doesn’t even apply because it doesn’t matter whether the means are good.
A Van Halen reference yet again. This time Sammy Hagar. I’m a fan. I still have my 1984 tape.
Alonzo wears his dad‘s toe ring with pride.
cautionary tale concerning toe rings
Clyne…leave nxivm behind…. move on already. Go to college and get a real degree in something and get a real job. You’re a self-absorbed, pathetic loser baby that complains. You had a real career and gave it up for an egotistical self-absorbed maniac. Move on already…. reacclimate into the real world now. Time to grow up and mature. Keith and Nancy’s Pinocchio pleasure island is over….
Because college is the answer– there’s a novel idea. You tell her to go to college, get a real degree, and a real job, but then you admit she had a real career– acting. So why can’t she pursue acting? Or maybe she is doing just that 🙂 Now be a good audience member and keep watching the show, she’s loving the ratings.
Have you noticed how there’s no such thing as
“🙂 Now be a good audience member and keep watching the show, she’s loving the ratings.”
anymore. Celebrity is mock worthy as never before — no longer a protected species.
Animus Liber
Re: “…, should Nicki be held liable to compensate the plaintiffs?”
The clear and unequivocal answer is yes.
Because otherwise, Nicki can believe that she has done nothing wrong and is innocent and continue to be behind the criminal ideas and acts of Keith Raniere and his accomplices. She has not been criminally charged so far, which was already a win for her, another triumph should not be given to Nicki Clyne to drop the civil case against her.
If she is convicted, she will have a harder time communicating her false narrative to her followers on Twitter and social media. And that would clearly be a positive. People who agree with her on her false narrative about Raniere, NXIVM, and DOS, etc., are preventing her from recognizing the truth involved and moving on from it, emotionally as well as on an epistemological level.
I love that Vicente and Edmonson are victims of Nicki. This is a shitshow.
I love Nicki without bangs…She’s the shit!
Nicki’s definetly full of shit.
I don’t understand why people can’t see Nicki as happy with her life and her choices. She’s clearly not scarred. She’s a strong advocate for her beliefs and experiences; an adult who has taken accountability for her decisions.
She’ll tell you how collateral was discussed. While it seems incomprehensible to most, there are people who bought into it, and were happy in their nxivm lifestyle. Maybe some were idiots to begin with. How is that the fault of NXIVM?
Clyne…move on to the next cult already. Your masters are in jail…. time to be dependent on someone else now. Or are You a child forever who can’t be dependent on yourself? You need licensed psychological help…not scams called coaching.
Just a heads up…coaching isn’t real help…it’s unlicensed manipulation of people with depression, low self-esteem, or psychological issues who are too insecure or intelligent enough to go to a real medical psychological professional and instead goes to a coaching witch doctor.
I think she is definitely scarred, in so far as you can consider having a self- destructive psychopathic streak scarring. She is definitely not any sort of an advocate, certainly not a strong one. She is weak minded to carry so much spite and vengeful feeling toward those who left the cult for which she is lead groupie. She should stop trying to justify such a whack position and do some soul-searching. Again — a tall order for psychopaths.
Anonymous 8:10
One word collateral(blackmail).
That’s your answer.
Why did Glazer agree to include Vicente and Edmondson in this lawsuit? They are going to destroy chances of a “win” for the few true victims in this case – and if Glazer should prevail these two profiteers will steal whatever financial compensation should go to the true victims.
Vicente and Edmondson will testify against the defendants. They know how Nxivm worked and can lay it all out to the jury, exposing it as the fraudulent criminal enterprise that it was.
They are strategically important to Glazer’s case.
I suspect Clyne is involved in the lawsuit because of her continued defense of DOS. The material she has produced in that “defense” is actually just very useful evidence of NXIVM guilt for the wrongs everyone is suing for. She and the others spent the last few years essentially admitting guilt over and over. Including her is simply a means of including that material to help against the Bronfmans. Clyne chose to put herself in the middle of it all and this is the fallout of those decisions.
I do agree I don’t think she is evil. I suspect if miracles occurred and met in person I would find her perfectly lovely, sweet and agree on far more things than either would suspect (and I likely walk away with a crush).
She does come across as desperate to belong to something big, a movement, really anything. That need led her to NXIVM and now it’s leading her to far-right conspiracy land fueled by her hatred of the justice system for jailing her man. She is a perfect example of that human need to be “important” where important is defined as something worth noting in the history books rather than finding happiness in being important to friends and loved ones. That desire to be “important” leads to so much stupid.
Regardless of how she is or isn’t as a person, she made herself the spokesperson of DOS. As such she made herself useful to the plaintiffs’ case and they are taking advantage of that. Really that simple.
Re “I do agree I don’t think she is evil. I suspect if miracles occurred and met in person I would find her perfectly lovely, sweet and agree on far more things than either would suspect (and I likely walk away with a crush).”
Sounds like dating American women. True liberation is when you realize your hard earned assets (commodities) are worth 100x any self-entitled wet box out there. Boring, unaccomplished and age like milk. US, like it’s women is the proverbial ’GoldDigger’ and overrated.
— Boring, unaccomplished and aged like milk
As if wrinkling, losing testosterone and musclemen age any better.
Erasend wrote:
Unless I’m missing something, and I’m sure you’ll let me know if I am, a continued defense of DOS does not violate any criminal statute, nor is it a civil tort.
To the degree that Glazer makes his lawsuit into a loyalty oath for mainstream society, is the degree to which this civil suit – like the criminal trial – will rely heavily on witch trial tactics.
Neal’s gamble is, has anticultism jumped the shark? Are juries still fooled enough to throw out all rights of free association and due process to “get the cult members”?
Podcasts from the plaintiffs such as “A Little Bit Culty” work hard to keep that rights-denying ideology propped up for their own self-interests.
But can people wake up out of the moral panic they’re trying to keep alive?
Alanzo
There is data which shows Nicki is ensnared in a duplicitous civil court system. In reviewing the data, I found several instances of perjury. The data illuminates the truth. You cannot conceal data. I plan on providing the data to the Frank Report. Once the data is published, the truth will be known.
“Without data, you’re just another person with an opinion.”
Edwards Deming, Statistician
Neal’s gamble is, has anticultism jumped the shark?
It’s not a gamble. Clare Bronfman has plenty of money.
If it goes to trial Neil will win. Everyone hates an ugly rich girl, especially one who empowered a pedophile rapist.
Unfortunately, Claviger isn’t around to explain the law to you, dumbass.