Allison Mack/NXIVM/DOS

[The Folk Prophet]

Holy cow!

Spend some time watching/reading some stuff on this. It's amazing what this Keith Raniere was able to do (amazing in a sick, disturbing way). Taking good, solid, useful, meaningful ideas and principles and then slowly twisting them to evil ends.

The questions it brings up about the way the human mind works and how good and evil are chosen/embraced -- and what can be a very fine line between them even... kind of mind blowing.

I mean, what were the principles NXIVM taught?: Commitment, sacrifice, pushing through pain, obedience, humility, trust, fellowship...etc., etc.

But these ideas became manipulative tools for evil. And I think that is probably common to cults.

I've always thought people drawn to cults must be weak minded types who tend to conspiracy theories, etc.

But that's not the type who joined NXIVM.

Or maybe it was...but on a higher level. These were well put together, successful people. They had to be. Taking a course cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars.

And yet -- how many people in our day and age aren't so put together as they might seem? Keith Raniere through NXIVM preyed upon that so remarkably well -- not only recruiting women to be sex slaves, but making bank while doing so.

There's a bunch of stuff on youtube (google NXIVM or Allison Mack), but also if anyone has Amazon Prime there's a series called Cults and Extreme Belief where episode 1 is on NXIVM.

It's fascinating, horrific, and thought provoking.

[Midwest LDS]

I agree, although I think there are some additional causes to add to your list. These people paid, in some cases as you pointed out, tens of thousands of dollers and a huge amount of time only to end up as sex slaves. Many of them probably kept telling themselves that, with every humiliation they had to endure, that it must get better if I just stick it out a little longer. They were just like the gambler mortgaging his house because he just needs one more lucky roll of the dice to win back his losses.

Our struggle as humans to admit that we were tricked is something these con men and cultists play on as well. I was watching American Greed the other day, as an old woman described bankrupting herself by sending hundreds of thousands of dollars to Jamaican lottery scammers, long after anyone would know they are not getting anything back. Sometimes it's so humiliating to admit that we have been fooled, that we stay in a horrific situation holding onto false hope because it feels better than saying "I've been a fool". I bet some of these people fell into that category as well.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Midwest LDS

[Vort]

The process is:

• Gain trust
• Encourage sacrifice
• Fleece

Christ's kingdom does the first two, but never the third. But there are those who, wearing sheep's clothing, gladly proceed to Step 3. I do believe that at least some of them don't realize they're scamming their brothers and sisters, perhaps because they are truly, legitimately stupid, or more likely because they have deceived themselves so that they can deceive others without bothering their conscience.

As long as the wolves exist, which will be the case until the Lord comes again, how do we protect ourselves? The answer, in short, is: Don't be stupid. "Oh be wise: What can I say more?" If something sounds too good to be true, that's the promise of salvation and eternal life offered through Christ's atonement. If it's anything else, and especially if it's something having to do with money, then if it sounds too good to be true, it's evil and not true.

[Guest Mores]

10 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But these ideas became manipulative tools for evil. And I think that is probably common to cults.

I've always thought people drawn to cults must be weak minded types who tend to conspiracy theories, etc.

8 hours ago, Vort said:

• Gain trust
• Encourage sacrifice
• Fleece

Christ's kingdom does the first two, but never the third.

I was watching a youtube video where a new age spiritualist/atheist was debating with a practicing Jew.  The conversation eventually drifted into the difference between a cult and a religion.  The Jew asked the atheist what he thought the difference was.  The atheist replied:

Quote

A cult is where all the people look up to a charismatic leader that they believe are divine in some way shape or form.

In a religion, that dude is dead.

In other words, there is no difference in his mind other than timeframe/longevity.

While I disagree, we have to acknowledge how closely the two resemble each other.  For example, while evangelicals love to label the Church as a cult, I find it just as plausible to believe they are a cult.  They blindly believe a lot of what they are taught.  They get into emotional furies when confronted about their beliefs.  They are willing to kill and die for it.  They don't listen to reason when facts are pointing directly at them in the face.  They refuse to acknowledge weaknesses in their arguments.  Is this not everyone about any ideology?  It seems everyone is so easily raised to an emotional fervor that they think, say, & do irrational things.  Sounds like a cult to me.

So, what is a cult anyway? First of all, the dictionary does not help in this case.  Too many people simply use it as a pejorative and nothing more.  So, by semantic shift, the word has really become meaningless.  Is there some logical, reasonable, denotative difference that we can point to and say -- "That's it"?

People point to devotion and obedience, etc.  Not quite.  In true religion, that is what the Lord demands,"If ye love me, keep my commandments."  So, no.  That's not it.  If you don't take too much care in obeying the tenets of your faith, then it is not a faith.  It is a nice motivational cat poster.  Nothing more.  Joseph Smith taught that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things does not have the power to save.  We know of certain tests that Joseph gave to various individuals.  If they were real, then that would be exactly the type of thing we decry in so called cults.  What is the difference between "fleecing" and the law of consecration?  Characterization, purpose, motivation, etc. of the one asking.  But for the one giving, it is virtually identical.

The difference is whether it was setup by God or by man.  If you believe in a false religion (one that was not set up by God) then it is a cult. That's it. And I realize that by this definition that evangelicals should easily be able (from their point of view) to call us a cult.  And it may not be so easy for us to call them a cult.  I, for one, believe that most religions were all setup by God.  Each giving as much light and knowledge as those individuals are prepared to accept.  Any other religion is of man, not God.  And as such, they are cults.

That said, many modern religions certainly cross back and forth over the line because individual priest, pastors, ministers, etc. cross back and forth over the line of preaching the philosophies of men rather than the word of God.  That is dangerously flirtatious with becoming a cult.

10 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

I agree, although I think there are some additional causes to add to your list. These people paid, in some cases as you pointed out, tens of thousands of dollers and a huge amount of time only to end up as sex slaves.

Well, it's a good thing that we have certain rules about that, now isn't it?  Regardless, what things would you NOT give up to be obedient to God?

10 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

Many of them probably kept telling themselves that, with every humiliation they had to endure, that it must get better if I just stick it out a little longer. They were just like the gambler mortgaging his house because he just needs one more lucky roll of the dice to win back his losses.

Our struggle as humans to admit that we were tricked is something these con men and cultists play on as well. I was watching American Greed the other day, as an old woman described bankrupting herself by sending hundreds of thousands of dollars to Jamaican lottery scammers, long after anyone would know they are not getting anything back. Sometimes it's so humiliating to admit that we have been fooled, that we stay in a horrific situation holding onto false hope because it feels better than saying "I've been a fool". I bet some of these people fell into that category as well.

Yup.  But is that not so in any religion?

[Midwest LDS]

On 4/10/2019 at 9:33 AM, Mores said:

Yup.  But is that not so in any religion?

I suppose that is true and you make a good point. It's what makes missionary work so difficult, since we rely on subjective truths that only an individual can experience. While that's just the way it has to be, since God has set things up so we must live by faith, I'm not surprised Satan uses similiar (though false) methods to lead his followers astray.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Midwest LDS

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Mores said:

I, for one, believe that most religions were all setup by God.

I liked your post a lot, but I found this thought odd. Maybe it would be more correct to say that most religions are tangents/corruptions of one set up by God. ??

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

since we rely on subjective truths that only an individual can experience.

If your criteria for labeling truth subjective is that it's based on individual experience then all truth is subjective. I'll grant that from a certain perspective that holds water. But I don't buy into the idea that experiencing God is any more subjective than the view from the top of Everest. Just because it's uncommon to make the climb does not mean the experience is subjective.

[Midwest LDS]

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If your criteria for labeling truth subjective is that it's based on individual experience then all truth is subjective. I'll grant that from a certain perspective that holds water. But I don't buy into the idea that experiencing God is any more subjective than the view from the top of Everest. Just because it's uncommon to make the climb does not mean the experience is subjective.

Fair enough. I meant that it is an individual experience that comes through personal study and prayer rather than one that can simply be read about in a book or by watching a video (although it does partially come from reading a book I suppose☺).

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Fair enough. I meant that it is an individual experience that comes through personal study and prayer rather than one that can simply be read about in a book or by watching a video (although it does partially come from reading a book I suppose☺).

I would dare argue that this is no different with any knowledge.

Things we believe via book reading instead of direct experience are known by faith.

I have faith that China exists. It's based on enough evidence to make my confidence extremely high. But I have not personally seen China.

I don't see knowing God as any different. There is evidence. Then there is stronger evidence. Then stronger. Etc. and so forth. Ultimately there is literally seeing God. But I would argue that my evidence for God is as strong as my evidence for China. I accept both as true on faith.

[Midwest LDS]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I would dare argue that this is no different with any knowledge.

Things we believe via book reading instead of direct experience are known by faith.

I have faith that China exists. It's based on enough evidence to make my confidence extremely high. But I have not personally seen China.

I don't see knowing God as any different. There is evidence. Then there is stronger evidence. Then stronger. Etc. and so forth. Ultimately there is literally seeing God. But I would argue that my evidence for God is as strong as my evidence for China. I accept both as true on faith.

Interesting I had not thought of it that way before. I suppose the difference for me is that I can buy a ticket to China and see it whenever I want whereas short of dying I can't go physically see God. But I accept your argument that like any truth discovering God requires the same amount of faith.

[NeuroTypical]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

As long as the wolves exist, which will be the case until the Lord comes again, how do we protect ourselves? The answer, in short, is: Don't be stupid. "Oh be wise: What can I say more?" 

A little more to say on how to be wise:   "Therefore, be ye as wise as serpents and yet without sin;"     "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

You think this guy is gonna fall for your MLM cult?

 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

Interesting I had not thought of it that way before. I suppose the difference for me is that I can buy a ticket to China and see it whenever I want whereas short of dying I can't go physically see God. But I accept your argument that like any truth discovering God requires the same amount of faith.

Now try Abraham Lincoln.

[Guest Mores]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I liked your post a lot, but I found this thought odd. Maybe it would be more correct to say that most religions are tangents/corruptions of one set up by God. ??

I know where you're coming from.  That is the standard way of looking at it.  And it is not incorrect.  But I'm referring to an alternate perspective.

I recall Madsen saying that Joseph spent some time reading up on more ancient religious leaders like Buddha, Confucius, etc. saying,"I've prayed about these men.  And they were GOOD MEN, according to the light and knowledge they were given." Well, if a prophet of God pronounced them "good men", where do you think they got their light and knowledge from? Who among us reads C.S. Lewis and does not believe that he was in some way inspired by God?  Was not Martin Luther inspired by God to be the catalyst for the reformation?

We can look at other religions as "corruptions" (and it would not be incorrect to do so)

or

We can believe that some men were given (by God) the level of light and knowledge that they were ready to accept/handle/obey.  These men accepted what truth they were given.  Just because they were not ready to receive more, they had to make up "filler" doctrines, dogmas, and creeds to answer questions they still had, the answers to which they were not prepared to receive.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Mores

[anatess2]

14 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Holy cow!

NXIVM

Did the show mention Kirsten Gillibrand's father's involvement in the cult?

[Guest Mores]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Did the show mention Kirsten Gillibrand's father's involvement in the cult?

Wait. WHAT!?!?!

[Guest Mores]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

You think this guy is gonna fall for your MLM cult?

Interesting you mentioned that.  When I read about the tweets she posted about the cult, I was thinking,"Why does this sound exactly like the "teasers" we hear when being introduced to an MLM?"

EDIT: I guess I missed the detail that NXIVM was advertised as an MLM scheme to begin with.  Well,  yeah...

Edited April 10, 2019 by Mores

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

Interesting I had not thought of it that way before. I suppose the difference for me is that I can buy a ticket to China and see it whenever I want whereas short of dying I can't go physically see God. But I accept your argument that like any truth discovering God requires the same amount of faith.

It's true. Some evidence is easier to acquire.

But not everyone can buy a ticket to China whenever they want.

Essentially I view it like this:

The world lives in a dark cave. A few have found their way to the surface and have, objectively, witnessed the truth of sunlight. Those in the dark cave -- the majority -- then try to claim that sunlight is a subjective experience, being unwilling to make the journey to the surface and see for themselves. "Clearly light doesn't exist." They say. "It is a myth."

Those who have seen the light know better.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, Mores said:

Interesting you mentioned that.  When I read about the tweets she posted about the cult, I was thinking,"Why does this sound exactly like the "teasers" we hear when being introduced to an MLM?"

NXIVM was an MLM.

[Guest Mores]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

NXIVM was an MLM.

Notice my edit.

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Did the show mention Kirsten Gillibrand's father's involvement in the cult?

No. But I saw a youtube vid that was trying the cult to the Clintons.

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, Mores said:

I know where you're coming from.  That is the standard way of looking at it.  And it is not incorrect.  But I'm referring to an alternate perspective.

I recall Madsen saying that Joseph spent some time reading up on more ancient religious leaders like Buddha, Confucius, etc. saying,"I've prayed about these men.  And they were GOOD MEN, according to the light and knowledge they were given." Well, if a prophet of God pronounced them "good men", where do you think they got their light and knowledge from? Who among us reads C.S. Lewis and does not believe that he was in some way inspired by God?  Was not Martin Luther inspired by God to be the catalyst for the reformation?

We can look at other religions as "corruptions" (and it would not be incorrect to do so)

or

We can believe that some men were given (by God) the level of light and knowledge that they were ready to accept/handle/obey.  These men accepted what truth they were given.  Just because they were not ready to receive more, they had to make up "filler" doctrines, dogmas, and creeds to answer questions they still had, the answers to which they were not prepared to receive.

This is all fine. But I don't think it translates to all religions being "set up" by God -- which was the wording you used.

Thanks for the clarification.

[unixknight]

Smart, well put together people can be drawn into cults too.  It just takes different tactics.  An analysis of that reveals the difference between a cult and a religion.

1. Offer them something that seems beneficial on the surface that would appeal to their intellect.  Are you smart enough to take advantage of this self-help program?  Want to get an edge over your competitors?  Want to make the most of your personal resources and attain all of your life and career goals?  (It's a smokescreen, of course.  This is just the bait.)

2. Get someone with a lot of charisma and useful advice to run it.  Make him/her out to be someone who genuinely wants to see their members/students/customers/employees improve themselves.  Testimonials help a lot here too.  Even take an approach in which adherents note genuine improvements in their lives.  It can be anything from an increased sense of self-confidence, spirituality, whatever.  (This is the feeling that's meant to solidify the positive value of membership as well as embed a feeling of credibility into the organization.)

3. Start plugging into the membership and start to pump resources from them.  At first, make it seem like simple participation.  Call it dues/tithes/fees/donations/whatever.  A reasonable contribution of time/money/expertise/whatever as a way to be a part of making the movement grow, expand and reach more people who need it.  (The subject, feeling a sense of gratitude, will naturally want to do this.)  In return, make them feel important, valued.  Recognize them and make them feel like their efforts are meaningful and that those in charge see it.

4.  Now that the subject is invested, start asking more of them.  The organization has generated lots of credibility, the subjects are emotionally and financially invested, and now you can start really digging in.  They trust the organization and its leader, and that rust can go a really long way, especially if there are others in the organization who can be reassuring.  (Don't think of it as collateral, dear.  It's a symbol of the trust you're placing in the group.  It's a nude photo of you, which in this day and age isn't really a big deal, and they don't show it to anyone.  Your willingness to take that leap of faith proves you're ready for the next level!)

And a cunning leadership in such an organization knows exactly how to organize itself in such a way as to maximize what it can get out of members at all levels.

See the pattern?  It's all manipulation.  

So the difference between a cult and a religion?  Simple. 

• A cult exists to serve the benefit of itself and its leaders at the expense of its members, it may or may not have a spiritual component. 
• A religion seeks to serve the benefit of its members, and is spiritual in nature.

Edited April 10, 2019 by unixknight

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Mores said:

Wait. WHAT!?!?!

Here's the not too long, must read, on Doug Rutnik, Gillibrand's father (divorced from her mother).  Rutnik is a powerful political lobbyist in Albany and a well-accomplished lawyer.  Back in 2004, Raniere hired him as a consultant for NXIVM to get Raniere indictments against his ex-gf and her friend who have become NXIVM "de programmers".  Rutnik failed to secure the indictment so (per Rutnik claim) that's why the head Prefect of NXIVM filed a sexual harassment claim on Rutnik.  Rutnik left NXIVM having paid a no-admission-of-guilt settlement and a non-disclosure agreement, which, of course, leaked recently after the Raniere trial.

But... that's not all.  When Rutnik was consulting for Raniere, he introduced his cousin who is also an accomplished lawyer to NXIVM and she became a cult member.  After Rutnik got out, the cousin became the consultant for Raniere.  But, not only that, she became a high-ranking member of the cult.  Rutnik managed to "de program" his cousin which led to her leaving the cult and becoming Rutnik's 2nd wife, Gillibrand's stepmother.

But... that's not the issue on the political spectrum.  The problem is... when the NDA leaked and Gillibrand's father got exposed, an interviewer asked Gillibrand if she's ever heard of NXIVM.  Gillibrand - a resident of Albany where NXIVM graces the newspapers as a legit MLM educational enterprise, and the step-daughter of a de-programmed NXIVM member - claimed she's never heard of them and that the interview is the first time she's heard of the group.  People are calling it from improbable to Liar, liar, pants on fire... so it is causing a lot of ruckus on the interwebs with people speculating high and low why she feels the need to lie about it when, as the story goes, Rutnik comes out of the story as a NXIVM de programmer and her stepmother a victim who managed to get out...  So people are thinking... there's more to this story and Gillibrand is neck deep in it.

Anyway, it's good fodder for the Republican gunning for her senate seat (if she doesn't become President, which I don't think she has a hair and prayer of becoming.).

[Guest Mores]

7 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Smart, well put together people can be drawn into cults too.  It just takes different tactics.  An analysis of that reveals the difference between a cult and a religion.

1. Offer them something that seems beneficial on the surface

2. Get someone with a lot of charisma and useful advice to run it.  

3. Start plugging into the membership and start to pump resources from them.  

4.  Now that the subject is invested, start asking more of them.  T

See the pattern?  It's all manipulation.  

So the difference between a cult and a religion?  Simple. 

• A cult exists to serve the benefit of itself and its leaders at the expense of its members, it may or may not have a spiritual component. 
• A religion seeks to serve the benefit of its members, and is spiritual in nature.

You're describing Hollywood to a T.

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Smart, well put together people can be drawn into cults too.  It just takes different tactics.  An analysis of that reveals the difference between a cult and a religion.

1. Offer them something that seems beneficial on the surface that would appeal to their intellect.  Are you smart enough to take advantage of this self-help program?  Want to get an edge over your competitors?  Want to make the most of your personal resources and attain all of your life and career goals?  (It's a smokescreen, of course.  This is just the bait.)

2. Get someone with a lot of charisma and useful advice to run it.  Make him/her out to be someone who genuinely wants to see their members/students/customers/employees improve themselves.  Testimonials help a lot here too.  Even take an approach in which adherents note genuine improvements in their lives.  It can be anything from an increased sense of self-confidence, spirituality, whatever.  (This is the feeling that's meant to solidify the positive value of membership as well as embed a feeling of credibility into the organization.)

3. Start plugging into the membership and start to pump resources from them.  At first, make it seem like simple participation.  Call it dues/tithes/fees/donations/whatever.  A reasonable contribution of time/money/expertise/whatever as a way to be a part of making the movement grow, expand and reach more people who need it.  (The subject, feeling a sense of gratitude, will naturally want to do this.)  In return, make them feel important, valued.  Recognize them and make them feel like their efforts are meaningful and that those in charge see it.

4.  Now that the subject is invested, start asking more of them.  The organization has generated lots of credibility, the subjects are emotionally and financially invested, and now you can start really digging in.  They trust the organization and its leader, and that rust can go a really long way, especially if there are others in the organization who can be reassuring.  (Don't think of it as collateral, dear.  It's a symbol of the trust you're placing in the group.  It's a nude photo of you, which in this day and age isn't really a big deal, and they don't show it to anyone.  Your willingness to take that leap of faith proves you're ready for the next level!)

And a cunning leadership in such an organization knows exactly how to organize itself in such a way as to maximize what it can get out of members at all levels.

See the pattern?  It's all manipulation.  

So the difference between a cult and a religion?  Simple. 

• A cult exists to serve the benefit of itself and its leaders at the expense of its members, it may or may not have a spiritual component. 
• A religion seeks to serve the benefit of its members, and is spiritual in nature.

Alex Jones talked about this "programming effect" on conspiracy theorists on his latest interview with Joe Rogan.