The Vow

[MicheleinPhilly]

Clare Bronfman got sentenced to almost 7 years. 😮

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/nyregion/clare-bronfman-nxivm-keith-raniere-sentence.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

Edited September 30, 2020 by MicheleinPhilly
Maths is hard.

[humbleopinion]

Clare's lawyers were asking for 3 years probation...a mere slap on the wrist so 7 years is a good sign the others will not get off lightly.

Guess she will be spending time getting Prisoner Health Care once she is processed as an inmate and she can't spend her millions on private doctors for her recently diagnosed liver ailment...

The idiot dancers outside  the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn have less than a month of shaking their tail feathers before it goes down for KR.

[mamadrama]

Ivy Nevare's victim statement at Clare's sentencing goes into a lot of detail.

https://frankreport.com/2020/09/30/ivy-nevares-complete-statement-at-clare-bronfmans-sentencing-hearing/

 

[Cheezwiz]

30 minutes ago, mamadrama said:

Ivy Nevare's victim statement at Clare's sentencing goes into a lot of detail.

https://frankreport.com/2020/09/30/ivy-nevares-complete-statement-at-clare-bronfmans-sentencing-hearing/

 

Wow. Powerful Statement. And she was just one of God knows how many. 

[mamadrama]

2 hours ago, Cheezwiz said:

Wow. Powerful Statement. And she was just one of God knows how many. 

In another statement she said

Spoiler

Pam Fritz was one of the worst people in the organization. She was basically Keith's pimp and her job was to secure young girls for him.

 

[DanaK]

I wonder if Bronfman Senior can cut his daughters from their money now that they are legally proven to be part of a criminal enterprise?

Man, what cult doesn’t ultimately have criminal activity and a sexually inappropriate guru going on underneath? Of course, abuse can happen anywhere, from teachers and coaches to religious institutions, to insides families. I guess the commonality is the grooming of vulnerable people

Edited October 1, 2020 by DanaK

[humbleopinion]

46 minutes ago, DanaK said:

I wonder if Bronfman Senior can cut his daughters from their money now that they are legally proven to be part of a criminal 

Edgar, their father died in 2013. Clare and Sara are spending their inheritance.
Their grandfather, Samuel made the Seagram fortune.

[luckyroll3]

38 minutes ago, DanaK said:

I wonder if Bronfman Senior can cut his daughters from their money now that they are legally proven to be part of a criminal enterprise?

I'm pretty sure he's dead.  The mom might still be alive though.

Did anyone else read the article about why Clare finally decided to plead guilty? The judge was like, are these guys yours lawyers? Cause they dirty as fuck! And she fainted cause she knew she was fucked.  Lol!

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, luckyroll3 said:

The judge was like, are these guys yours lawyers? Cause they dirty as fuck! And she fainted cause she knew she was fucked

I'm getting the feeling that Clare isn't the best judge of character.

[Jextella]

Seems Clare is still deluded and Barbara Buchey will be on a legal journey for years to come unless the courts find a way to stop Clare:

https://frankreport.com/2020/09/29/bouchey-asks-judge-for-extra-time-to-address-court-at-bronfman-sentencing-to-help-clare-understand/

Whistleblowers like Mark, Bonnie, and Sarah might be fearful of engaging with Barbara for legal reasons. They don't want to be taken down with her.

Also, earlier in the thread people were talking about the one-sided nature of this show. I guess it's referred to as a "docu-series" rather than a documentary.  That would explain it, I think.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Jextella

[Twopper]

21 hours ago, MicheleinPhilly said:

Clare Bronfman got sentenced to almost 7 years. 😮

thanks for the link.  I saw last night on the crawl on some news show as I was getting ready for bed a headline that read "heiress sentenced in sex-trafficking" so I knew it meant her, but whoever wrote the crawl didn't say what the sentencing was.   Really surprised she got this much time.

[pigs-in-space]

1 hour ago, Twopper said:

thanks for the link.  I saw last night on the crawl on some news show as I was getting ready for bed a headline that read "heiress sentenced in sex-trafficking" so I knew it meant her, but whoever wrote the crawl didn't say what the sentencing was.   Really surprised she got this much time.

She seems to have shown zero remorse, so I think that must have something to do with it. And as some people pointed out, her money really enabled a lot of the abuses the cult and especially Keith dealt out.

[DearEvette]

16 hours ago, mamadrama said:

Ivy Nevare's victim statement at Clare's sentencing goes into a lot of detail.

https://frankreport.com/2020/09/30/ivy-nevares-complete-statement-at-clare-bronfmans-sentencing-hearing/

 

I know that the big hook for this is the whole 'sex cult' thing and finances might be considered boring.   But I am fascinated by how the money works in NVIXM.  How these people got sucked into this, the way their pay (or lack of) and advancement works.  Ivy Navare's statement talks about that in a little more detail than the show has.  But I wish they'd go into a little bit more how these people get paid.  The eps talk about the color stoles and how they represent advancement, but like everything associated with Keith, it feels like an okey-doke. 

[mamadrama]

15 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

I know that the big hook for this is the whole 'sex cult' thing and finances might be considered boring.   But I am fascinated by how the money works in NVIXM.  How these people got sucked into this, the way their pay (or lack of) and advancement works.  Ivy Navare's statement talks about that in a little more detail than the show has.  But I wish they'd go into a little bit more how these people get paid.  The eps talk about the color stoles and how they represent advancement, but like everything associated with Keith, it feels like an okey-doke. 

I agree. "Sex cult" sounds more exciting, but Sarah was right in this past episode that there are nuances to all of this.

I can't get over how much these people pat themselves on their backs and congratulate each other for being such huge ethical humanitarians... without doing a damn thing. The "important work" they were doing all existed within the NXIVM vacuum. It's fascinating.

At least when Jim Jones first started out he was actually trying to improve race relations and saying things that were well ahead of their time. These people say nothing. They do nothing. You could argue that none of their actions benefitted or connected to the outside world, but yet they're all carrying on about the important work they were doing. Fascinating.

[Cheezwiz]

18 minutes ago, mamadrama said:

These people say nothing. They do nothing. You could argue that none of their actions benefitted or connected to the outside world, but yet they're all carrying on about the important work they were doing. Fascinating.

Yeah, I sort of wonder about the cognitive dissonance around that - all they ever did was:

1. sit in training sessions or troll for new recruits
2. play late-night volleyball
3. go on walks alongside creepy Keith

And all of the little benign spin-off groups like SOP & Jness (seriously what was Keith's obsession with stupid naming conventions?), what did they actually DO in those groups? Did they just sit around and yak?

At some point, wouldn't even the most myopic person start to wonder where the world-changing stuff was actually happening? Even knowing the manipulation & brainwashing techniques that were employed, It's just so nutty to me!

 

[sistermagpie]

25 minutes ago, Cheezwiz said:

At some point, wouldn't even the most myopic person start to wonder where the world-changing stuff was actually happening? Even knowing the manipulation & brainwashing techniques that were employed, It's just so nutty to me!

 

Yeah, I've been watching the Leah Remini show and it really helps to hear that they would see these big presentations about all this amazing stuff that Scientology was allegedly doing. It was all lies, but they seemed to believe it and assume that it was even in the real news etc. With these people it seems like they just sat around acting as if they were doing stuff just be talking about how great they were.

[Door County Cherry]

On 9/30/2020 at 12:11 PM, Armchair Critic said:

Quoting myself here to say that I just found out that this wasn’t Mark’s first time at the rodeo. He was involved in another cult before this, the Ramtha School of Enlightenment

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/what-is-cult-hopping-nxivm-dos-838750/

No surprise.  No surprise at all. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to discover he ends up starting one.

There is something I've noticed that is so common in most of the interviews they've done and even with the victim statements.  No one is questioning the mission of the cult.  No one is questioning the beliefs of the cult.  

Instead, they feel Keith (and his inner circle by extension) betrayed them.  He betrayed the mission.  It all has the sense of "what could have been."  The victim statement above even wonders out loud what good they could have done with Clare's money if she had used it for something other than litigation.  Barbara had all the confusion of a jilted lover whose ex took a lot of her money. 

None of them realize that they bought into empty, meaningless bullshit.  That it's not some brilliant enlightenment.  All the "enlightenment" was meant to do was take people's money, agency and body. 

The beliefs found in NXVIM aren't unique. Many self-help organizations have similar mumbo jumbo language.  Most are innocuous but others are cults. And if someone has been susceptible to it in the past, they're going to be vulnerable to it in the future if they don't wise up to that fact that there's a difference between inspiration and a dedicated belief. 

I don't really think like these people do.  Watch them create a NXVIM recovery group cult. 

On 9/30/2020 at 1:18 PM, Maysie said:

For example, I think "I'll Be Gone in the Dark" did an excellent job of taking pieces of information from different times, people, agencies, geographies, crimes, etc. and then tying it all together. I understand it was based on the book, but the premise is the same - disparate stories and people coming together into a cohesive narrative.

I do agree that a narrator might help.  Or to have an outside cult expert break things down. I hope they do start getting into what they finally got the cult on.  

But I don't agree that I'll Be Gone in the Dark did an excellent job of merging its two sides--the serial killing and the life of the author who investigated those killings.  I don't know if it was the way it was put together or if it was always going to be a difficult task but I found IBGitD to have two sides that were too different to flow together nicely.

Even without a narrator, I prefer this one because it has a point of view.  It has a story it wants to tell and it largely has stuck to it.  Maybe there will be gaps left at the end but there are still four episodes left to answer some of the questions we have. 

6 hours ago, Jextella said:

Also, earlier in the thread people were talking about the one-sided nature of this show. I guess it's referred to as a "docu-series" rather than a documentary.  That would explain it, I think.

A docuseries is just a documentary with multiple episodes.  Documentaries also have a point of view.  Take Fyre and Fyre Fraud.  They were competing documentaries about the Fyre Festival that were released about the same time.  Fyre came out on Netflix and Fyre Fraud came out on Hulu.  They're about the same event but with different points of view.  Fyre was more of an insiders take on the failed festival as well as a character portrait of Billy MacFarland--the (con)man behind the festival.  Fyre Fraud took a more contextual view of what it was about society (and social media) that would lead someone to want to put on and want to attend a festival that seemed like a cluster from the start. 

Both came at it from different angles.  You could argue that both left something out.  

Ken Burns is usually held up as a gold standard documentarian but even his documentaries leave out important things and namely perspectives.  

[Jextella]

On 9/30/2020 at 12:11 PM, Armchair Critic said:

Quoting myself here to say that I just found out that this wasn’t Mark’s first time at the rodeo. He was involved in another cult before this, the Ramtha School of Enlightenment

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/what-is-cult-hopping-nxivm-dos-838750/

Thanks for sharing this. It's interesting. I'd really like to learn more about how a normal person makes the leap from the here and now to "mysticism" and/or the likes of Keith Raniere.

What I surmise is that a combination of factors come into play - primarily the desire to be part of a community and to improve the human condition (for not only oneself but for others as well).  I also feel that people want to feel that they "matter".  Recruiting, converting, and teaching might help people feel as if they have value in the world. There also seems to be a need to find meaning in something that can’t be experienced by the physical senses.  Mark and mysticism is a good example. Bonnie is a Tarot card reader which is in a similar sphere (https://www.instagram.com/bonniempiesse/?hl=e)

I dunno.  That's all I can come up with. 

The whistleblowers in the documentary seem like genuinely good and well-intentioned people who just fell in with a guy who wasn't so good.  What I find odd about them, though, is that I sense that they'd all still be there if it weren't for the branding and slave stuff and maybe some of the business dealings that came to light later on.

After seeing the show and reading the article above, it doesn't surprise me that some might be cult hoppers.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Jextella

[mamadrama]

15 hours ago, Cheezwiz said:

Yeah, I sort of wonder about the cognitive dissonance around that - all they ever did was:

1. sit in training sessions or troll for new recruits
2. play late-night volleyball
3. go on walks alongside creepy Keith

And all of the little benign spin-off groups like SOP & Jness (seriously what was Keith's obsession with stupid naming conventions?), what did they actually DO in those groups? Did they just sit around and yak?

At some point, wouldn't even the most myopic person start to wonder where the world-changing stuff was actually happening? Even knowing the manipulation & brainwashing techniques that were employed, It's just so nutty to me!

 

They do the same in a lot of pyramid schemes-sit around and talk about how they're making the world healthier or giving women the chance to be their own bosses or whatever, but all they're really doing are recruiting new members. 

[mamadrama]

12 hours ago, Jextella said:

Thanks for sharing this. It's interesting. I'd really like to learn more about how a normal person makes the leap from the here and now to "mysticism" and/or the likes of Keith Raniere.

What I surmise is that a combination of factors come into play - primarily the desire to be part of a community and to improve the human condition (for not only oneself but for others as well).  I also feel that people want to feel that they "matter".  Recruiting, converting, and teaching might help people feel as if they have value in the world. There also seems to be a need to find meaning in something that can’t be experienced by the physical senses.  Mark and mysticism is a good example. Bonnie is a Tarot card reader which is in a similar sphere (https://www.instagram.com/bonniempiesse/?hl=e)

I dunno.  That's all I can come up with. 

The whistleblowers in the documentary seem like genuinely good and well-intentioned people who just fell in with a guy who wasn't so good.  What I find odd about them, though, is that I sense that they'd all still be there if it weren't for the branding and slave stuff and maybe some of the business dealings that came to light later on.

After seeing the show and reading the article above, it doesn't surprise me that some might be cult hoppers.

I think the desire to belong to a community that's "making the world a better place" and explains their place in the universe plays a big part. I believe in mysticism and I have a lot of the same interests (tarot, paranormal, psychics, etc) but the majority of my similar -minded friends and I are loners. As a whole we're not really joiners...

[Jextella]

23 minutes ago, mamadrama said:

I think the desire to belong to a community that's "making the world a better place" and explains their place in the universe plays a big part. I believe in mysticism and I have a lot of the same interests (tarot, paranormal, psychics, etc) but the majority of my similar -minded friends and I are loners. As a whole we're not really joiners...

Maybe it's as simple as finding one's "tribe".  People with similar mind sets, i.e. interests, values, and beliefs, gather together where a leader organizes the group into a cohesive whole. I imagine this process of being assembled into a group would be validating and comforting and it would make life's journey (i.e. purpose) more simple and clear.

[Armchair Critic]

9 hours ago, mamadrama said:

As a whole we're not really joiners...

That's why I am safe from a cult, plus my cynical sense of humor would have gotten me kicked out pretty quickly.

I went to a strict christian school K-12 (I live in Betsy DeVos' hometown if you catch my drift). In high school we were supposed to have somebody from Planned Parenthood talk to our class and the parents put a nix on that so it was canceled and instead they brought in somebody who talked to us about abstinence. Our school was definitely not progressive.

But when I look back I give my school credit for this....in 8th grade they brought in two speakers about cults. One person had a family member die in the 'Guyana Tragedy' that was a member of Jim Jones' cult and we were shown a film about it. The other speaker went to our christian school and then the christian college that was affiliated with it and was an ex cult member and we saw a film about Charles Manson (a G rated version anyway) and other cults.

Those films scared us and it was very smart because the way we were raised was to accept our religion and the teachings of our parents, teachers, pastor, etc. without question so we were prime pickings to become members of a cult.

 

[mamadrama]

3 minutes ago, Armchair Critic said:

That's why I am safe from a cult, plus my cynical sense of humor would have gotten me kicked out pretty quickly.

I went to a strict christian school K-12 (I live in Betsy DeVos' hometown if you catch my drift). In high school we were supposed to have somebody from Planned Parenthood talk to our class and the parents put a nix on that so it was canceled and instead they brought in somebody who talked to us about abstinence. Our school was definitely not progressive.

But when I look back I give my school credit for this....in 8th grade they brought in two speakers about cults. One person had a family member die in the 'Guyana Tragedy' that was a member of Jim Jones' cult and we were shown a film about it. The other speaker went to our christian school and then the christian college that was affiliated with it and was an ex cult member and we saw a film about Charles Manson (a G rated version anyway) and other cults.

Those films scared us and it was very smart because the way we were raised was to accept our religion and the teachings of our parents, teachers, pastor, etc. without question so we were prime pickings to become members of a cult.

 

I feel pretty confident that I won't get sucked into one* because A) I'm from a holler in Appalachia and we're inherently leery and suspicious of new people and outsiders and B) I have no desire or motivation to engage in any self-improvement at this stage of my life. 

 

* A cult DID try to suck me in once. They were recruiting on my college campus in Nashville and I got totally love bombed. They were friendly as hell, but they lost me when they started talking about "church." I've since read a ton about them. I dodged a bullet.

[rubyred]

Guys I need your guidance. I’m an unexceptional heiress with $150M to burn, but I want to change the world. Should I:

1) get my MSW

2) support women’s shelters

3) lobby for universal healthcare

4) fund a cult

[Twopper]

On 10/1/2020 at 10:10 PM, Jextella said:

Thanks for sharing this. It's interesting. I'd really like to learn more about how a normal person makes the leap from the here and now to "mysticism" and/or the likes of Keith Raniere.

Well, I think it takes a "normal " person who is convinced something is missing in his life but that when that magic missing link is found, he will be made whole or a "normal" who has a saviour complex that the world will be improved or healed because of what he says and/or does.

India and Sarah seem to ooze "noblesse oblige" that they are so special because of who they are (India-peripheral connections to royalty) and Sarah (wannabe A list celeb) and therefore they should share their enlightenment on the un-evolved masses. 

I think no one leaves because of a combination of things that interact together especially group think and the resultant peer pressure to see the Emperor  Raniere as being clothed in esoteric wisdom instead of a conman who babbles in word salads and changes words of normal meaning. It really messes with their minds in an amazingly short time, it seems.

 

[mamadrama]

On 10/1/2020 at 11:10 PM, Jextella said:

Thanks for sharing this. It's interesting. I'd really like to learn more about how a normal person makes the leap from the here and now to "mysticism" and/or the likes of Keith Raniere.

 

I think these are generally two different things, but also complementary in this case.

I believe in a lot of mysticism and I consider myself a (fairly) "normal" person and I do still exist in the here and now. It's not any stranger to believe in some of this stuff than it is to believe in a lot of the stories and teachings of Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism...

Not every person who believes in mysticism isolates themselves from family/friends and spends a shit ton of money to join a cult. 

As for joining Keith, and others like him, I believe @Twopper hit the nail on the head. Most cults target people who are "missing" something and the teachings, rituals, & cameraderie do a good job of filling that void.

Where it becomes interesting is that NXIVM, unlike other groups (like the People's Temple), wasn't looking for broken people who were marginalized and living on the fringe of society-they specifically went after intelligent, successful people with lots of spending money. Like Scientology, a level of narcissism and self-importance was needed and almost as important as the potential members' "void." Rather than wooing members by convincing them that a community of people who loved and accepted them was waiting, they played into their ego. And I think that's why they didn't put a lot of effort into seeking A-list people. They wanted folks who were successful, but not at the top (like Allison Mack) so that their spiel of "You're soooo smart and talented and successful but with US you could reach the top" would actually work. They didn't want Paris Hilton or Ivanka Trump-they were too high profile and had stuff (even if just superficial) going for them. They wanted the Bronfman ladies-rich heiresses who seemed to be floundering in their wealth, didnt have a lot of close friends or run with the beautiful people, and had no real direction. (Clare was excited about getting her sash because she said it was one of the first things she'd ever "earned.") They were literally playing to their egos by convincing people that they'd be even MORE successful than they already were AND that they (because of their success, brains, and "ethics") were going to band together to literally save the world. For people who already had a strong opinion of themselves, that must've rocked their world.

As Mark said, nobody joins a cult; they join something because they think it's good. Keith & Co were just really good at slowly roping these people in by offering short-term measurable benefits (feeling good after the 5 or 16 day workshops) and then slowly chipping away at their ego and emotions and turning up the heat until they suddenly realized that they were chickens being boiled alive and it was, by then, too late to jump out of the pot.

[rubyred]

8 hours ago, mamadrama said:

They didn't want Paris Hilton or Ivanka Trump-they were too high profile and had stuff (even if just superficial) going for them. They wanted the Bronfman ladies-rich heiresses who seemed to be floundering in their wealth, didnt have a lot of close friends or run with the beautiful people, and had no real direction. (Clare was excited about getting her sash because she said it was one of the first things she'd ever "earned.") They were literally playing to their egos by convincing people that they'd be even MORE successful than they already were AND that they (because of their success, brains, and "ethics") were going to band together to literally save the world. For people who already had a strong opinion of themselves, that must've rocked their world.

Yes, that struck me as well, mamadrama. They deliberately chose people whose innate characteristics (self-congratulatory delusional narcissism, I said what I said) totally clouded any ability to think critically. 

Of course it's easy to sit on my sofa and watch Keith ooze around dropping pearls of wisdom and recognize them as:

• word salad
• negging
• gaslighting
• but enough about me, what about YOU

but in the context of seeing his initial meeting with Allison Mack (cringe), you can see she was lapping it up, even as it made absolutely no sense. All he does is mirror back to these people what they want to hear about themselves and their role in the world.

And not for nothing, what good exactly did NXVIUM (sp, sorry) DO? Even Barbara Bouchey, who I liked, claimed that they had, but they never show any of that. What WAS all this ass-kicking world-changing stuff? I want the receipts.

These are the kind of people who consider themselves "allies", but prefer to do their world-changing from boardrooms and private compounds, and don't actually have any experience with the world they're trying to save everyone from. Noblesse oblige, indeed.

 

 

[DearEvette]

On 10/2/2020 at 9:18 PM, Armchair Critic said:

That's why I am safe from a cult, plus my cynical sense of humor would have gotten me kicked out pretty quickly.

This reminds me of the time when my husband and I realized that a church we were invited to attend was basically a cult.

At the time my husband and I were young marrieds.  We had just had our first kid who was still under one.  We'd go to the park and do all sorts of stuff to try to make sure the kid was outside, playing, enjoying dirt, etc. etc.  In one of our favorite park areas we'd often run across this group of young-ish people about our age who always seemed to be picnicking. 

One day one of the group came over and introduced herself, saying she noticed we were often there at the same time.  It was all very friendly and light and nice.  Over the next few weeks we'd cordially speak and had gotten a bit more friendly.  They invited us to hang with them which we would do and the group, which skewed young (our age) and young-professionals, was nicely multicultural. 

The person who initially approached us in the park was a young biracial woman (b/w) who was married to a white guy.  My husband and I are in an interracial marriage. It wasn't until after the fact that we marvelled about how calculated everything was in their approach to us.  Anyway, her husband was getting his M.Ed degree and my husband was writing his dissertation for his PhD at time.  They bonded over their work.  The other couple, very attractive and smart, started inviting us over for dinners.  She confided they were trying to start a family and just loved how we interacted with our kid. 

After a couple of time hanging out as just couple friends, the other couple included a third couple in one of the dinner parties.  He was Mexican and she was white.  Another interracial couple.  They were also very charming and it was fun night because the male member of the couple wowed us with making authentic Mexican dishes.  I will admit, he single-handedly made me love guacamole.  Until this I had thought it was a tasteless mess.  But he made it right there with all the correct stuff (cilantro, tomatoes, jalapenos, lime juice) and it was best tasting guac I'd ever had. 

Mind you this had been going on for several weeks and not once did they ever mention, in all that time, a church.  It was just a group of young marrieds hanging out.

Finally, the invite to come to church with them came.  It was super caszh.  No biggee.  But hey we'd been going to dinners and hanging out in the park why not just join them as guests at their church on Sunday?  They also mentioned that it was some special Sunday where they would have a potluck after the services so it was always a good time to invite guests.

We shrugged as said, why not?  We went. The entire congregation skewed very young all in their early to late-twenties, like us. Again, very multi-cutlural.  I remember the pastor was a very good looking guy, also young,  very blonde and with perfect teeth. His wife was Barbie to his Ken.  We went, we ate, we go introduced around.  Everyone was super friendly and super welcoming.  We noticed that not just the two couples we'd hung around with were there but all the people who tended to be at the park.  So they were all part of this church.

From our perspective this was one and done.  I grew up in the Black Church.  For me, going to church has very specific feel.  This service was nice, but after being hard-wired by what a  church service is like in a black church, this was like the difference between going to a James Brown concert and going to a Pat Boone concert.  Just not the same.  My husband is indifferent to religion.  So we we never in any jeopardy of joining, they just didn't know that yet.

After that we started "bumping into" various members of the church in places.  At the grocery store, around campus  etc.  They all remembered us, all invited us back.  The two couples we had gotten very friendly with began the hard sell.  The park group began to make plans about the next time we came.  That is when it began to smell to us.  One of the women of our couples friend said something like the "feeling of satisfaction of contributing spiritually and financially" to which I barked a laugh and said "fuck, no!"  I think I offended at that point (oh well).

We started easing away and becoming increasingly unavailable.  The bumping into's become much more noticeable.  Our couple "friends" started calling much, much more.  Finally I think my husband tried to tactfully say he didn't have time to hang out as much because of his research he needed to do.  The other guy said really authoritatively "You always have time for The Lord!"  My husband does not take well to authoritarianism and he has a huge an anit-herd mentality that kicks in when he thinks he is being led.  He shut that shit down real quick.  Told them to lose our number, leave us alone stop calling, stop bumping.  If they didn't we'd report them and their church for harassment.  They left us alone. 

Several months later there was a story in our local paper about cults and although the church was not specifically named in the paper, we recognized the description of them and their tactics.  Since we never got past one visit, we weren't aware but according the article, the congregants of the church "tithe" a fuck ton of money into the church.  Now, this isn't really cult-specific behavior.  Church members often give a lot of money to their churches otherwise pastors at super churches would never be able to afford diamond pinky rings and big tacky homes.

But it was the entire recruiting process and the targets (young couples, mid twenties, professionals or students)  that made this tip on the cult scale.  Looking back my husband and I can see each step they all took so carefully and calculatedly to try to rope us in.  They had scoped us and figured out how best to approach us and who best to approach us and tried to groom us.  If we had been hungry for community or connection or hadn't had a deeply ingrained sense of skepticism or weren't the type to reason shit to death, then we could have easily been co-opted.  As it was we simply weren't the personality types to be susceptible to this brand of manipulation. 

[Armchair Critic]

How convenient to be able to call “Chaaaarles” for help. 

[Proclone]

Ok, I am currently about fifteen minutes into the newest episode and I feel like I've cut this series a lot of slack because programs about cults generally interest me.  I was okay with the first couple episodes focusing on Mark and Sarah and by extension Bonnie, because I do think seeing ESP through their eyes is illuminating about how people get involved in things like this.  But I have now watched a women drive in a car (and name drop her royal family members for good measure), and then make juice and then listened to another woman gush about Catherine Oxenburg for several minutes, without one substantive thing being discussed...and I'm so glad we cleared up which guy was Brad🙄 This is after the countless Facebook updates last episodes...Either the producers did not remotely have enough material for nine episodes and are padding this thing to the nth degree or they are seriously inept and think this is what we want to see rather than discussing the real issues surrounding ESP.

[DanaK]

You know, there is too much padding, and when they focus on Sarah and company, it’s not as interesting. But when they focus on other members like Toni and the other lady tonight, I’m riveted

[Armchair Critic]

Susan Dones wasn’t Keith’s type so that worked against her. She seems like a smart person though. The ex girlfriend... ugh 30 years of Raniere is a nightmare.

I wouldn’t be as forgiving of Mark.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Armchair Critic

[Proclone]

20 minutes ago, DanaK said:

You know, there is too much padding, and when they focus on Sarah and company, it’s not as interesting. But when they focus on other members like Toni and the other lady tonight, I’m riveted

I agree completely, and that's why I find the padding so galling.  They have a fascinating story here, I found the stuff with Toni this week and Barbara last week captivating.  But they keep cutting away from these very interesting stories to show Catherine talking on the phone and Sarah and Mark vowing for the umpteenth time that they're going to get people out (which is laudable but it doesn't need to be reiterated every episode).  Obviously the filmmakers didn't know the outcome of the legal side of things while they were filming.  So to them it was a mystery, will Keith go to jail, will Catherine get India out...But we do know now (and I would imagine they did while editing) so watching Catherine strategize about it is far less interesting, because we know that Keith does go to jail and India does indeed get out.  It isn't a mystery to us what happens, and they had to be aware that no matter what happened it was going to be public knowledge by the time this came out, so I'm not sure why they chose to focus on it.  I don't need arty shots of Frank's ear while he's driving, I would like to hear more from Toni and Barbara who had relationships with a psychopath.  I would like to hear more about their relationship with Nancy and Nancy's relationship to and with Keith.  I mean they have to have some insight into that.  Hell, I would love to watch a nine part series about Susan and how she stuck it to Keith.  There is so much interesting stuff here to cover, but they continue to focus on the weirdest least interesting stuff.

[Armchair Critic]

2 minutes ago, Proclone said:

 I would like to hear more from Toni and Barbara who had relationships with a psychopath.  I would like to hear more about their relationship with Nancy and Nancy's relationship to and with Keith.  I mean they have to have some insight into that.  Hell, I would love to watch a nine part series about Susan and how she stuck it to Keith.  There is so much interesting stuff here to cover, but they continue to focus on the weirdest least interesting stuff.

Nancy is getting off too lightly. I also would like to hear more about Pam as she seemed to help Keith reel in women while she was in love with him. 

[DearEvette]

35 minutes ago, Proclone said:

But I have now watched a women drive in a car (and name drop her royal family members for good measure), and then make juice and then listened to another woman gush about Catherine Oxenburg for several minutes, without one substantive thing being discussed

My husband went to The University of Buffalo for his undergrad and his knows the city very well.  According to him, her route to Frank Parlato's place was seemed super circuitous.  If she flew into Cheektowaga (which is in East Buffalo) then to get to Parlato's place (which looked to be somewhere in the Delaware Ave area) it would have been a straight shot driving west using the in-city expressway known as the Scajaquada.  But we saw scenes of her in driving in North Tonawanada/Grand island area way the fuck up North.  And she was on the phone while she was driving!!

At least this one starts to move into the criminality stuff.  I vaguely remember Consumer's Buyline.  At least the name sounds familiar. 

[Proclone]

3 minutes ago, Armchair Critic said:

Nancy is getting off too lightly. I also would like to hear more about Pam as she seemed to help Keith reel in women while she was in love with him. 

I find it really strange that there seems to be so little information about Nancy out there and just what she did or didn't know about DOS.  Granted they were long out of ESP but both Toni and Barbara were her friends/patients, you would think they would have some insight at least into her relationship with Keith.  Is she a true believer, or did she just see it as money making scheme?  Also you would think some women that got out would have something to say about here and her involvement.  Honestly I think Nancy may just be the mastermind of this whole thing in many ways.  She didn't get off scot free, but she's in a far better position than Keith at the moment.  I think she just may have the higher IQ out of the two of them.

Pam seems like she truly drank the Kool-Aid.  I would really love to know what Keith does to these women to make them so devoted to him.  Two of Pam's top ten life experiences were meeting Keith and having sex with him (EW!). She supposed lured other women (and possibly girls) in for him.  Barbara also seems still hung up on him.  It seems so strange that all these otherwise intelligent women got suckered into this level of devotion to a short, hairy, conman.  I mean I get the whole cult of personality thing...but Keith also doesn't have the greatest personality.  Maybe that's it, his lack of personality allows them to project on him whatever they need/want and then he uses it to manipulate them.  Maybe that's how he manipulates everyone.  You meet this average seeming guy, but everyone tells you he's brilliant and you begin to believe that his total averageness must just be a humble unassuming quality hiding his genus...when it's really hiding a raging narcissist and sexual predator.

[ninjago]

24 minutes ago, Armchair Critic said:

Nancy is getting off too lightly. I also would like to hear more about Pam as she seemed to help Keith reel in women while she was in love with him. 

What a psycho Nancy is.  She was hypnotizing people for this POS?  What kind of evil person would do that.

And that creepy Pam.  Her name was on the Consumer Buyline lawsuit, too.  Sex with Keith was listed on her top 10 life experiences! She enabled Keith's raping of her 12 year old dog walker.  I don't care how anorexic she was, they should have gone way harder at her. She got a soft feature about what a wonderful woman she was earlier in the series.  She was a total monster.

Also, part of her Claire Bronfman's punishment should be financial settlements with these women like Susan and Toni, whose lives she ruined.

Edited October 5, 2020 by ninjago

[Door County Cherry]

1 hour ago, DanaK said:

You know, there is too much padding, and when they focus on Sarah and company, it’s not as interesting. But when they focus on other members like Toni and the other lady tonight, I’m riveted

There is padding and I haven't really minded it until tonight.  

The stuff with Ton i was fascinating.  We were getting a glimpse of how it all started and some of the more nefarious things Keith did.  I understand that starting at the end or towards the end is a storytelling trick that's commonly employed but sometimes it's employed too often and they hold out too long before they move to the beginning.  

This Toni information should have happened much earlier and introducing the financial aspect earlier.  

But overall, I really enjoyed this episode because most of it was substantive. 

39 minutes ago, Proclone said:

I would really love to know what Keith does to these women to make them so devoted to him.  Two of Pam's top ten life experiences were meeting Keith and having sex with him (EW!). She supposed lured other women (and possibly girls) in for him.  Barbara also seems still hung up on him.  It seems so strange that all these otherwise intelligent women got suckered into this level of devotion to a short, hairy, conman.  I mean I get the whole cult of personality thing...but Keith also doesn't have the greatest personality.  

Toni mentioned that she went into his office and he asked her if she wanted to stop smoking.  Then he'd touch acupressure points on her.  When she left, she was surprised she had been in his office for over two hours as opposed to fifteen minutes.  It makes me wonder what exactly he did to her in there.  Did he hypnotize her?    Maybe that's how he gets women.

As for Nancy, I do think they sort of skipped a step of how Nancy and Keith actually met.  We know she was Toni's therapist.  Did Toni introduce her to Keith?  

I do think Nancy was a trueish believer.  I don't think Keith or Nancy think anything they did was wrong.  They believe their own BS. 

[Cheezwiz]

Oh man, this was sooooo tedious. I almost turned it off but then they started featuring Toni's story, and Keiths shady MLM beginnings which was very interesting. Those cheesy early 90's commercials featuring dweeby Keith with Buddy Ebsen were a hoot! 

This show is incredibly frustrating - there is so much potentially interesting material to cover, and yet week after week we are subjected to endless footage of people yakking on phones and driving. I want to hear more about Barbara, Toni & Susan's experiences, less about Mark, Sarah et. all doing soul-searching. Also want more insight on Salzman as well.

I was surprised that Frank Parlato had such a nice house in a nice neighbourhood (if it is indeed his). I pictured him living in a dark basement suite somewhere.

Must be nice to casually ring up Mummy and ask to relay messages to Prince Charles and the Dalai Lama (eyeroll).

[mamadrama]

I think this is a good supplement in the NXIVM cannon, but on its own it's just not that interesting. It feels like they're going out of their way to ignore or gloss over the best parts. If someone were to ask me if this was worth it I'd recommend that they also watch the 20/20 episodes, listen to the podcast...hell, maybe even watch the Lifetime movie where Catherine is a superhero. I would've advise this on its own, though.

I'd rather hear more about the poor Mexican girl who was shut away and basically kept hostage in a room in Lauren's house for 18 months-punishment for asking permission to date a guy. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

At least we finally got to hear Catherine admitting that she was the one who introduced India to ESP/NXIVM. It seems kind of ridiculous that it didn't happen until the eighth episode though.

I get that Mark and whoever else was filming had lots of access to Sarah and Catherine and hence plenty of footage of them, but hearing from Susan, Toni, and Barbara was so much more interesting. The show has so much material but the way the series has been laid out seems way too bloated. I really wish they had a better editor. Did I really need to see Mark and Sarah making lists at the beach and then burning them?

Ha, loved the super cheesy commercial from the 90s. I'm glad the show finally got around to mentioning Keith's earlier pyramid scheme but I hate that the show revealed it in such an ass backwards way. It's the eighth episode. Why didn't they go into this earlier?

Edited October 5, 2020 by ElectricBoogaloo
typo

[Sessa]

Well I guess I’m in the minority, because I like Sarah and Mark. I get how he could come across as kind of douchey, but I think they both truly believed they were in an organization doing good and that they were genuinely helping people. I think it’s very easy for those of us sitting at home on the couch to say “Oh I would never” “ How could they fall for this” etc. Obviously if they took me into a room on day 5 and said we’re going to brand you I’d be like “I’ma Head Out....” but after years of being in an organization that you truly believed in, with your closest friends, the people you truly loved and trusted, I can’t imagine the confusion and multitude of thoughts bombarding your brain at that moment. As an avowed atheist, I would never fall prey to any religious leaning organization, but I find NXIVM fascinating because of how it’s all sold as self help and bettering yourself and others. As someone with an abusive childhood and a history of clinical depression, I can see how I could’ve been vulnerable to this organization at different points in my life. I think many of us could have fallen prey given the right circumstances and I think it’s naïve and a bit arrogant to think otherwise. Like many of you, my laziness and poverty would probably keep me from being all in, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think I could have potentially been vulnerable to it. Particularly if introduced to it by people I trusted. I have empathy for Sarah. I think she is truly and genuinely pained by the number of people she brought into the organization. I also have no problem whatsoever with her writing a book and I’m baffled why anyone would have an issue with it. I would imagine writing it would be quite cathartic for her. I’m guessing she also thought that by sharing her experiences it would serve as a warning to others to watch out for these things. And yes, if sales from that book actually help support her and her family? I don’t begrudge her and her husband for that in any way. 

[Jextella]

3 hours ago, Sessa said:

Well I guess I’m in the minority, because I like Sarah and Mark. I get how he could come across as kind of douchey, but I think they both truly believed they were in an organization doing good and that they were genuinely helping people. I think it’s very easy for those of us sitting at home on the couch to say “Oh I would never” “ How could they fall for this” etc. Obviously if they took me into a room on day 5 and said we’re going to brand you I’d be like “I’ma Head Out....” but after years of being in an organization that you truly believed in, with your closest friends, the people you truly loved and trusted, I can’t imagine the confusion and multitude of thoughts bombarding your brain at that moment. As an avowed atheist, I would never fall prey to any religious leaning organization, but I find NXIVM fascinating because of how it’s all sold as self help and bettering yourself and others. As someone with an abusive childhood and a history of clinical depression, I can see how I could’ve been vulnerable to this organization at different points in my life. I think many of us could have fallen prey given the right circumstances and I think it’s naïve and a bit arrogant to think otherwise. Like many of you, my laziness and poverty would probably keep me from being all in, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think I could have potentially been vulnerable to it. Particularly if introduced to it by people I trusted. I have empathy for Sarah. I think she is truly and genuinely pained by the number of people she brought into the organization. I also have no problem whatsoever with her writing a book and I’m baffled why anyone would have an issue with it. I would imagine writing it would be quite cathartic for her. I’m guessing she also thought that by sharing her experiences it would serve as a warning to others to watch out for these things. And yes, if sales from that book actually help support her and her family? I don’t begrudge her and her husband for that in any way. 

I like Sarah and Mark too and agree with everything here. 

I feel this story was told and released to coincide with the trial.  I feel it was a way for Sarah, Mark, Nippy, Catherine, and the others to a) impact the outcome of the trials while minimizing legal risk to themselves and b) atone a bit for their own roles.

There might be desire by some of them to get some PR out of the deal, but I can't blame them for a few reasons, and I don't think it was any sort of driving force in making the docu-series.

[Pop Tart]

I've felt for a while now that the show has been tip-toeing around what the Bronfman's were actually doing in the organization and it's only through Toni (and a bit from Barbara and Susan last week) that we're starting to get into their particular contribution to the badness of it all. But still it's only the tip of the iceberg and mostly has to do with their funding the lawsuits. In that impact statement that a victim read at Clare's sentencing it's clear that she at least was intimately involved in the inner workings of it all, and yet we get little of that here. 

I had a thought after tonight's episode that perhaps the reason the producers of this haven't done a deeper dive into the Bronfman sisters and have only touched on their behavior is that perhaps they didn't want to get sucked into the maw of the endless lawsuits the Bronfmans would fund to go after them. When you hear Toni, Barbara and Susan talk about the years and years of fight they've had to endure and are still enduring? Makes me think the doc producers may have been wary maybe.

[Proclone]

3 hours ago, Sessa said:

Well I guess I’m in the minority, because I like Sarah and Mark. I get how he could come across as kind of douchey, but I think they both truly believed they were in an organization doing good and that they were genuinely helping people. I think it’s very easy for those of us sitting at home on the couch to say “Oh I would never” “ How could they fall for this” etc. Obviously if they took me into a room on day 5 and said we’re going to brand you I’d be like “I’ma Head Out....” but after years of being in an organization that you truly believed in, with your closest friends, the people you truly loved and trusted, I can’t imagine the confusion and multitude of thoughts bombarding your brain at that moment. As an avowed atheist, I would never fall prey to any religious leaning organization, but I find NXIVM fascinating because of how it’s all sold as self help and bettering yourself and others. As someone with an abusive childhood and a history of clinical depression, I can see how I could’ve been vulnerable to this organization at different points in my life. I think many of us could have fallen prey given the right circumstances and I think it’s naïve and a bit arrogant to think otherwise. Like many of you, my laziness and poverty would probably keep me from being all in, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think I could have potentially been vulnerable to it. Particularly if introduced to it by people I trusted. I have empathy for Sarah. I think she is truly and genuinely pained by the number of people she brought into the organization. I also have no problem whatsoever with her writing a book and I’m baffled why anyone would have an issue with it. I would imagine writing it would be quite cathartic for her. I’m guessing she also thought that by sharing her experiences it would serve as a warning to others to watch out for these things. And yes, if sales from that book actually help support her and her family? I don’t begrudge her and her husband for that in any way. 

I actually don't dislike either Mark or Sarah.  I don't think either one of them are doing themselves any favors in how they are coming across in this documentary, but I don't blame either one of them for getting mixed up in ESP. Mark strikes me as a fairly gullible (the fact he was involved in another cult prior reinforces that) guys who's looking for something meaningful, but probably isn't a bad person.  Sarah is definitely someone who's type A, and seems wound tighter than a drum.  I've seen things outside of the documentary that paint her in not a great light (about how she treated people at the Vancouver center), but as far as this documentary nothing makes me thinks she's some horrible person either.

I also have no issues with Sarah writing a book.  Plenty of people share their traumatic experiences.  I think that the way she comes off in the documentary makes it seem like her entire life still revolves around what happen to her, and that I don't think is super healthy for her or her family.  But it also may just be how this doc is presenting things and not the reality of the situation.  Either way I don't blame her or Mark for the content of the doc.

My issues with the documentary are with the actual filmmakers.  My impression was that this was going to be a fairly in-depth look into ESP, and Keith and what exactly went down.  If it was billed as simply being the personal experiences of Sarah and Mark, I would be fine with that.  As I said I didn't mind the focus on Mark and Sarah at the beginning because it does work to show how pretty average people get sucked into something like ESP.  But it's not the most interesting part of the story, mostly because despite Sarah being branded, they didn't experience the worst of Keith (and it's saying something when branding isn't the worst of it).  They keep giving us hints of more interesting parts of the story and then cutting away.  I don't get it.  Honestly in some ways I think they forgot they were producing a documentary and started to see it as a legal thriller.  Will these people who escaped a cult be able to bring it down?  Which would be a fascinating movie, but we already know the answer.

Also they seem to be missing opportunities to dig deeper into the topic.  I will say again, why is no one really talking about Nancy?  Why did they bother to show Catherine going to Frank's house if they weren't going to talk to him extensively.  They haven't made it 100% clear what Frank's relationship with Keith was. He makes it clear he wasn't a member of ESP, but what did he do for Keith? Did I miss something, because honestly I did fast forward a couple times while Catherine was at his house because I was bored and wanted to get back to the stuff with Toni. My guess is Frank doesn't come across great in interviews and a lot of stuff with him was cut (he seems like a super weird guy).  But I really want to know what the impetus was behind him making taking down Keith seemingly his life's mission.

I actually did like the stuff with Catherine reflecting on how she was the one who got India involved with ESP.  And also her being aware that she was legally implicating India as well and her being okay with sending her own daughter to jail if it meant getting her away from Keith.  That's compelling stuff.  Watching her use Frank's juicer, not so much.  Watching Sarah check her Facebook, also not compelling.  Watching Mark make the 90th phone call to someone to try to either get evidence or talk them into leaving, not super compelling either.

It wasn't really until last week that I felt like the padding aspect was getting annoying and I think this week was just the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Actually at first I found the fact that they had all this inside footage courtesy of Mark, really interesting.  You don't often get to see inside an organization like ESP like that.  But it no longer feels like we're getting an inside perspective, it just seems like we're seeing the same clips now and retreading the same things.  As I said in another post, I watched a one hour program on ESP and Keith and I don't see this going any farther in depth despite being nine times as long.

[DanaK]

21 minutes ago, Proclone said:

They haven't made it 100% clear what Frank's relationship with Keith was. He makes it clear he wasn't a member of ESP, but what did he do for Keith? Did I miss something, because honestly I did fast forward a couple times while Catherine was at his house because I was bored and wanted to get back to the stuff with Toni.

Frank said he was Keith's publicist and was never a member

[Cheezwiz]

15 minutes ago, DanaK said:

Frank said he was Keith's publicist and was never a member

Yes, it sounded like he originally did marketing/publicity for NXIVM, but was not a member. Not sure what let to his falling out with Keith, and why he became a crusader against the organization. I would have liked to have learned more about that. Frank is a mysterious figure, and is often painted as slightly shady himself, so I would have liked more background on him.

[Proclone]

15 minutes ago, DanaK said:

Frank said he was Keith's publicist and was never a member

Fair enough.  I'm not sure it completely explains his crusade against Keith.  What did he see or experience that made him want to expose a former client?

[mamadrama]

9 hours ago, Sessa said:

Well I guess I’m in the minority, because I like Sarah and Mark. I get how he could come across as kind of douchey, but I think they both truly believed they were in an organization doing good and that they were genuinely helping people. I think it’s very easy for those of us sitting at home on the couch to say “Oh I would never” “ How could they fall for this” etc. Obviously if they took me into a room on day 5 and said we’re going to brand you I’d be like “I’ma Head Out....” but after years of being in an organization that you truly believed in, with your closest friends, the people you truly loved and trusted, I can’t imagine the confusion and multitude of thoughts bombarding your brain at that moment. As an avowed atheist, I would never fall prey to any religious leaning organization, but I find NXIVM fascinating because of how it’s all sold as self help and bettering yourself and others. As someone with an abusive childhood and a history of clinical depression, I can see how I could’ve been vulnerable to this organization at different points in my life. I think many of us could have fallen prey given the right circumstances and I think it’s naïve and a bit arrogant to think otherwise. Like many of you, my laziness and poverty would probably keep me from being all in, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think I could have potentially been vulnerable to it. Particularly if introduced to it by people I trusted. I have empathy for Sarah. I think she is truly and genuinely pained by the number of people she brought into the organization. I also have no problem whatsoever with her writing a book and I’m baffled why anyone would have an issue with it. I would imagine writing it would be quite cathartic for her. I’m guessing she also thought that by sharing her experiences it would serve as a warning to others to watch out for these things. And yes, if sales from that book actually help support her and her family? I don’t begrudge her and her husband for that in any way. 

I have no problem with Sarah or Mark. My problem is specifically with the editing and material in the series. 

[BucFan]

Of course we couldn’t get through this episode without see a picture of Sarah’s brand.