For those who argue that members of Nxivm – except his inner circle – were never exposed to his perverted teachings, here is more evidence that the sickness of Keith Alan Raniere was known to all – and many accepted it – because he is the world’s smartest and most ethical man.

This time the teachings are not from a video of him speaking, but from the actual teaching manual of Nxivm.

The Topic Is: Abuse, Rights, and Injury

It comes from the Nxivm manual for head trainers and was taught to thousands of students – and is still being taught wherever Nxivm is operational in Mexico, Canada, France, Florida, and even Brooklyn. This is what Nxivm has to teach about sex with children.

The Human Experiment: Module 9

First, there are the questions head trainers are supposed to ask Nxivm students:

What is abuse?

What does it mean to abuse someone?

Are all abuses against right?

Why would someone want to abuse babies?

If someone comes from a country where adults orally stimulate children and they find out according to American culture they have been abused, have they?

Who did the abusing?

Who is the injured party?

Who injured them?

A person at age six had a sexual experience with three adults, two male and one female, one of which was a priest another was their parent, and the third was a neighbor…. The person is now 50 years old with no physical effects.

How were they injured?

Were they abused?

What if they enjoyed it, were they abused?

What if they later find out it was only a dream, were they still abused?

When does a hypothesis of past become abuse?

What present data, if any, is needed to support this?

If someone comes from a country where adults orally stimulate children and they find out according to American culture they have been abused, have they?

Answer, Yes.

But who did the abusing? The abuser is our culture, our society.

Who is the injured party? The person who suffered the abuse is the injured party.

Where is the injury if an adult parent has sex with a child and the child enjoys it?

The person who suffered the abuse is injured.

Parents are not supposed to have sex with children in our society. If a parent does have sex with a child, it undermines the societal definition of the parent. The child will go forth and either never disclose it or live with the fact that the parent is not a standard parent.

Is this a problem?

You have to think this through.

An adult and a child are having sex. What’s the difference between the child feeling good about being tickled and being stimulated?

One may say nothing, but there’s a possibility of disease transfer and pregnancy. This makes it a slightly different act. In the case of pregnancy, it is a profound act.

Still, is there anything wrong with feeling good through sex?

There is sex that involves disease transfer and no procreation. There is also sex that minimally involves no disease transfer and no procreation. For example, an adult manually stimulates the child. Should the child be allowed to masturbate the adult? Should the adult be allowed to masturbate the child?

Answer: These are things students have to think out for themselves. We are raising the issues on how to think about the issue and generate an opinion.

Be careful as head trainer not to give an opinion.

[End of module]

Now Let’s Dissect Some of These Questions and Theories

This sickness is from Keith Raniere, but his teachers – and coaches — people like Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman, Sara Bronfman-Igtet, Esther Chiappone Carlson, James Del Negro, Kristin Kreuk, Allison Mack, Clare Bronfman, Emiliano Salinas, Alex Betancourt, and many others – all learned and taught these theories.

Raniere uses a combination of outrageous questions and less outrageous questions to subtly indoctrinate in the minds of his students some of the behaviors he is seemingly asking neutral questions about.

He tells teachers to let the student form their own conclusion, but it is evident, by the nature of the questions, he is laying the groundwork for his students to accept child or rather teen sexual abuse – by, I submit, Raniere himself.

As ethicist for his community, he wants his insular Nxivm group to look at the world differently – his way.

Let’s examine some of the questions [in bold] with my comments following.

Why would someone want to abuse babies?

No one in class, of course, ever agrees that it is OK to abuse babies. He knows this and is introducing the topic of abusing babies as pure misdirection, a red herring to lead to the next question – his real point:

If someone comes from a country where adults orally stimulate children and they find out according to American culture they have been abused, have they? Who is the injured party? Who injured them?

He is plainly promoting sex with children [or rather teen girls] by suggesting there are countries where adults orally stimulate children. What country is he referring to? I know of no country where this is accepted. Do you?

I submit Raniere wants to do this with teen girls and is conditioning followers to consider it as normal in some societies, some countries.

[It has been suggested Raniere’s mother regularly did this with him.]

Raniere goes on:

A person at age six had a sexual experience with three adults…. The person is now 50 years old with no physical effects…. What if they enjoyed it, were they abused?

Here, in essence, is his secret teaching – if a child [read teen girl] enjoys sex with an adult, she is not abused. Period.

He obfuscates with the question – What if they later find out it was only a dream, were they still abused?

Well, of course not – not if it was a dream. He knows everyone will answer that question the same – if it was a dream, it is not abuse.

While some will answer that if the child enjoyed sex, it is still abuse, he knows everyone will answer that if the child dreamed it, it is not abuse. Then he goes back to hammering home his point using his adults having oral sex with children in mythical countries.

If someone comes from a country where adults orally stimulate children and they find out according to American culture they have been abused, have they?

This time he answers his own question:

Answer, Yes.

But he pulls the old switcheroo. He is not saying the adult who had sex with the child is the abuser. Again, he answers his own question:

Who did the abusing? The abuser is our culture, our society.

He, now answering his own questions, says that the adult who had sex with the child is not an abuser – as long as the child “enjoyed” sex – but rather society is the abuser because they condemn the adult and make the child feel guilty.

Where is the injury if an adult parent has sex with a child and the child enjoys it?

He is indoctrinating followers to ignore society’s customs if they do not conform with their [his] idea of morality. This is classic cult brainwashing. Now, he cleverly gives his definition of morality:

Parents are not supposed to have sex with children in our society. If a parent does have sex with a child, it undermines the societal definition of the parent. The child will go forth and either never disclose it or live with the fact that the parent is not a standard parent. Is this a problem? You have to think this through.

Sure think it through – society is to blame – because the child cannot disclose her parent abused her when she was a child. And she has to think that her parent who had sex with her was not a standard parent.

So, the problem he wants his students to think through is that – when adults have sex with their children [or someone else’s child or teen girl], is it inherently wrong and abusive?

He is looking for students to seem so intelligent when they discover the answer – “Eureka – no – nothing is good or bad except thinking makes it so. What the hell, if the child enjoys sex with her father [or Vanguard] perhaps it is not wrong.”

Raniere leads his followers -– by his questions – to consider that the problem is society which condemns the adult and, hence, makes the child a victim – of society. He is, by his questions, advocating statutory rape.

Now there are some who believe it is a problem for children to have sex with adults – because it is fundamentally wrong and harmful to the child – whether a child enjoys it or thinks she enjoys it – or whether the adult decides the child enjoys it.

A child may not know that this brutal, selfish, violative, invasive, childhood-stealing and brutally ugly act is always wrong. For the child has no frame of reference. The fact is there is no place anywhere, no country, no time, no world – where it can ever be right.

But Raniere is inculcating his mostly female followers, I submit, to gain access to a few of their daughters, that there is a whole new way of thinking about adult-child sex. He continues:

An adult and a child are having sex. What’s the difference between the child feeling good about being tickled and being stimulated?

He equates innocently ticking a child with having sex with them – since both are fun, he suggests.

Switching to the obvious and rational, he makes a serious and sober exception for pregnancy [It is wrong to get a child {read teen girl} pregnant.]

In the case of pregnancy, it is a profound act.

Otherwise, sex with a pubescent girl is not profound or immoral, according to Raniere. It can be fun [like tickling] and good for the girl – if society does not find out and condemn it – unless, of course, it is in one of Raniere’s made up countries where adults have sex with their children.

Still is there anything wrong with feeling good through sex?

Yeah, if it is with a child.

For example, an adult manually stimulates the child. Should the child be allowed to masturbate the adult? Should the adult be allowed to masturbate the child?

Answer: These are things students have to think out for themselves. We are raising the issues on how to think about the issue and generate an opinion. Be careful as head trainer not to give an opinion.

Well, of course, the head trainer has to be careful not to give an opinion. The questions themselves, in the order that they are posed, will help lead the right women to form the opinion Raniere desires.

Not everyone in the class will agree. Raniere knows this. That is why he tells his trainers not to give an opinion.

When Pam Cafrtiz was alive, she would be in touch with head trainers and cull answers of the Human Experiment Module 9 to find out which parents had teen daughters that might be suitable and where the parent might be amenable.

Her illness and incapacitation was a great blow to Raniere and one of the reasons for his downfall. [That does not mean he did not murder her – as I will explain in a later post.]

Stupid Allison Mack or clownish Nicki Clyne could not be expected to ferret out teen girls for him. And Camila Fernandez was a clod.

She wanted to find him virgins and expended a lot of energy to do so, but she largely failed.

Raniere is Wrong

I am sorry I cannot see it even a little Raniere’s way. There is something wrong with an adult having sex with a child and not just because it is against the law. It is wrong in any country and almost all parents understand it naturally because they are imbued with decency and a desire to protect their children.

It is wrong because the child is in no position to decide for herself about sex and because the adult wields too much power and control over the child to ever make it consensual. A child is dependent on adults – that dependency eliminates consent. And a child is simply incapable of making these decisions. A child is growing and developing and it is impossible that sex with a child could ever be good for a child.

Reasonable people might debate the age of consent – but Raniere is not talking about 17 or 18-year old girls. He is talking about 12-year-old girls and 13-14 –15-year-old girls – like the LeBaron girls who came from Chihuahua to be mentored by him under the auspices of Rosa Laura Junco.

Keith Raniere is an utterly amoral man without respect for anyone’s welfare – other than his own. In essence, he taught his female followers that adults [him] having sex with children [pubescent girls] is not a crime because the girls will enjoy it [with him].

Sure, it did not work with everyone. But he had Camilia searching for virgins for him and he persuaded the heiress Rosa Laura Junco to offer him her 15-year-old virgin daughter – to be his successor – for him to deflower.

There were many others whose stories have yet to be told.

Thank god the EDNY had the ability and courage to tackle this monster.

The NDNY let him run savage for years.

Why Is This Important?

Keith Alan Raniere is locked up and will remain so for years. It is important because Nxivm still exists under the auspices of the monstrous Clare Bronfman, her sister Sara Bronfman-Igtet, Esther Chiappone Carlson, SOP leader James Del Negro, Omar ‘Cuckie’ Boone and his wife Jimena Garza in Mexico, Edgar Boone and his wife Vanessa Sahagun, Camila Fernandez and Loreta Garza [head of Rainbow Cultural Garden – Raniere’s teachings for little children], Mariana Fernandez, Hector Fernandez, Nicki Clyne, head of DOS, Michele Hatchette, Samantha LeBaron, Justin, Mark and Brian Elliot – Nxivm Brooklyn – and the brutal branding doctor, Danielle Roberts D.O. and the former docto,r the human fright modern-day version of Josef Mengele – Brandon Porter and others.

Still teaching and still recruiting – and maybe trolling for children to have sex with.

It is also important to detect whenever this kind of teaching crops up anywhere, in any form; we have a frame of reference, thanks to Raniere.

It if looks cross-eyed like Raniere, or speaks word salad like Raniere, or oafishly walks like Raniere, or even smells like Raniere according to numerous Nxivm sources in Mexico it is likely a cult and the harm it will do to its followers is likely to be enormous.

It is time to expose the evil of Nxivm and its remaining followers and to warn others of like dangers.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

Email

Print

LinkedIn

More

Reddit



Like this: Like Loading...



