Talking to Nicki Clyne about her experience with NXIVM and the trial of Keith Ranieri

All right. I'm here with my special guest, Nikki Klein. You probably know her from at least one place, maybe two. You may have seen her on Battlestar Galactica where she played the role of Callie. Is that correct? Callie?

That's correct. Yep.

One of my favorite shows of all times. But if you've also watched on hbo, there's a series called the Vow, which tells the story of an organization called Nexium headed by Keith Rainier. Do I pronounce that right?

It's actually Ranieri, like Canary.

Renari, like Canary. All right, I'll probably get that wrong a few more times. But in. In. The Vow tells the story of an organization called nexivm, which is spelled nxivm.

Yes.

So it's not really spelled the way it's pronounced, which the press would call a cult. But you would call what, an organization?

Yeah, a personal development organization. Well, actually, that's a rabbit hole on its own merit because NXIVM was an umbrella company for a number of other companies and initiatives, and the media really kind of took that label and ran with it. And obviously now when you. When you literally Google the word sex cult, you get Nexium and vice versa. So we can get into that later. But.

So we'll talk about whether it fits the.

It was a community, you know, it was a community of people that evolved from these different companies.

All right. And the timing of this conversation is important and relevant because there's a court case in which Keith Renieri, like Canary, has been actually already convicted, but not sentenced. And he's been convicted of allegedly. Well, not allegedly. He has been convicted of sex trafficking, forced labor conspiracy, human trafficking, and multiple counts of racketeering. Racketeering, including sexual exploitation of a child. And interestingly, he did not present a defense. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And this fascinates me because the very reputation of Keith Ranieri is that he's persuasive. And it's just mind boggling that he would not take the stand. But I'm sure his lawyer had a reason. Now, we talked a little bit before this, and there is something about the trial that's a little bit, maybe not quite kosher. Maybe a little something that raises an eyebrow, maybe a little something that would make you ask a little more questions. A little something that in our world of fake news, and nothing is quite the way it seems. The simple act of a trial, which evidence was presented, a verdict was reached, may not be exactly what you think it was. And I'd like you to tell us about that. I will ask you some more questions about Nexium, but I want to jump right into. There's a piece of evidence that was very important that may be a little bit sketchy. Tell us about that.

Yes, thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about this. I think it's, it's one of the most important things. We live in the United States, we have a constitution, and due process is an integral part of that. And there are a number of things, starting from the beginning of the investigation to the way Keith was essentially kidnapped from Mexico and brought to the United States to be handed over to government custody and, you know, handling of so called evidence and how things were presented at trial that were unkosher, I think is an understatement. I think a more accurate word may be criminal. A more commonly accepted word is, you know, improper on the part of the prosecution.

Let me add this little bit of context if I have this right, please. There were a bunch of charges that if you were an outsider looking on and I watched the entire episodes of the Vow and I got all the way to the end and I didn't see a crime. I didn't even see an alleged crime. And that was supposed to tell the whole story of the NXIVM thing. And I thought to myself, well, what am I missing? Where's the crime part? Everybody was doing what they wanted to do with full information according to the vow. And then I started, you know, looking into it a little bit. And there are a number of things about people being forced to do things that really fall into this gray area about free will. Like are you really being forced or did you know what you were getting into? We'll talk about that. But yeah, here's my point for context among all of that gray area that maybe a jury could have said, I don't know, maybe that was just their choice. There was one hard piece of evidence that probably prejudiced the jury so that all that other gray stuff turned black. And that's that one piece of evidence. Tell us how credible that is.

Absolutely. So the piece of evidence that you're referring to, and thank you, that was exactly on point. It was for the, under the racketeering charge, the possession of child pornography, and it was from a hard drive that has, it has been newly discovered, was tampered with. And I'll explain what that means, basically. First of all, the FBI agent who was questioned on the stand for this piece of evidence admitted during the trial that the drive was accessed by some unknown person and it was Altered. The files on the hard drive were altered while it was in FBI custody. They don't know who did it and they don't know what they did, allegedly. So that is in the trial transcript and can be found now. Based on that, we inquired more deeply and we asked experts in the field. These are people who have patents and written books on the type of file FAT system that this hard drive used and are experts in this type of metadata and what would constitute tampering. So what they found is that basically in their words, there was heavy tampering on the device and the specific metadata that was changed. And why it's relevant is that the FBI or the prosecution used the dates on these photos to allege that the woman in the photos was underage. And that was the only piece of evidence that, that they presented to, to really provide a, you know, in their mind, this like slam dunk, basically, to, to prove the charge.

But was the photo of an underage girl, was she engaged in something on the, you know, was it a photo in the photo?

Yeah, it was a nude photo.

Nude photo. Okay, so that's bad enough. And what was the alleged age of the person?

15.

And is that somebody you know?

Yes.

And to the best of your knowledge, was that a real picture that Keith really had on his laptop?

It's hard for me to comment. I mean, I'm. No. I mean, first of all, this was a hard drive that was found in an attic somewhere, hadn't been accessed in years and years. I don't even know that anyone could have accessed it without some other type of forensic technology. Exactly. But besides that, what the experts were able to expose. First of all, the defense was not given a forensic mirror, which is, as you can imagine, a mirror of the hard drive. They were just given a PDF of what it allegedly contained. Now, I don't know the laws well enough in terms of Brady material and needing to give the defense everything that the prosecution has access to, that is obviously a huge red flag.

Yeah, that's kind of basic. Kind of basic.

Thank you.

But it sounds like no defense was offered. Did that include. The defense didn't bring any forensics experts either. They just didn't do any defense.

They didn't. They cross examined the FBI agent and that's where it was exposed that the chain of custody was broken. But beyond that, I don't. The thing is, the defense attorney did not have access to the rigorous investigation that we've now done, you know, because they're, they, I guess they just trusted it or they didn't think to get an expert to investigate further, but I just want to quickly share. What was also found is that the metadata with the dates was altered and it was shown that there was Photoshop, that a file was created in Photoshop and then saved and then the metadata was altered to make it look like it wasn't. And so what that shows is not only was it tampered with, but the tampering was covered up or tried to. But whoever tried to cover it up didn't do such an exquisite job at doing that. And when they tried to adjust the daylight savings, like, account for daylight savings, they actually did it incorrectly. And that's what exposed. Exposed it in the first place.

So this is stuff that the, the jury never heard.

The jury never heard any of this.

So the most.

And it was thrown in, in a mountain of prejudice and people, you know, sharing their, this emotional kind of hurt that they felt. So it was very hard to, to present a scientific, objective view.

Did Keith have a relationship with this, the person who was in the, in the alleged photo at any time? Did he have any kind of relationship with her?

Yes, for many years. For many years.

And did it include when she was under 18?

That I don't know.

But that was not presented as evidence of the trial. Rather, the photo itself was stood alone as the evidence. Was there additional evidence besides the photo for that one specific count?

Not to my knowledge, no.

No witnesses or anything?

I believe her sister made my. I, I didn't read her whole testimony, but I believe her sister made some allegations which I, as we know, first of all, testimony is, has its limitations, but I have many reasons to question whether her testimony is truthful in that regard and others.

But what about the person who was the child at the time, who is now, what, in her 30s?

The person late 20s at this point? Yeah.

Was she a witness?

She wasn't a witness, no.

What's wrong with that? Aren't you supposed to talk to the person who was the most central person in the entire episode? Did she just not want to talk, you would think?

No, I believe she didn't want to talk. I mean, this whole situation, as you can imagine, was extremely difficult for her. She became central to this, to the trial, to this scandal. And I don't believe, at least at the time, that she, she supported the claims and that she wanted any part of it. And she like, like any woman, either women who were in DAs or had relationships with Keith were in this very difficult position because of how, how it was framed. And there was essentially this FUD campaign to destroy the reputations and credibility of anyone who came out in support. It was a very scary place.

Now, are you. Are you alleging that there was some person or persons who may have set Keith up or at least tampered with the evidence and that it was part of a larger goal to destroy the organization? Is that the allegation?

Well, evidence supports that the hard drive was tampered with. That specific chart. Another relevant fact is that that hard drive was not introduced until early 2019. And this was after Keith and the other co defense co defendants were arrested. It was, you know, as everyone was preparing for trial. It was before the co defendants, his co defendants pled. And I believe that that was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back for them because before that everyone was like, this is crazy. And I was part of this because I was, I guess what they call an unindicted co conspirator. Very strange. But, you know, we'd have meetings together and talk about the case and we were ready to fight because it was so wrongful. DAS was so misunderstood. Everything was being talked about in this way without any context, and we were ready to set the record straight. But I think that that piece of alleged evidence really, really hurt Keith. It hurt other people because they thought it was undeniable. What we're seeing now is that it was completely fabricated.

So in a way, that piece of evidence removed the ability for. To defend him, wouldn't you say? Because nobody wants to defend the guy who has that photo.

No. And of course, like, I would never support someone who I believed committed an act such as this. And I don't support, you know, on the record, I do not support any type of abuse of women, of coercion, of not just women, of any person. It goes against everything that I believe and I stand for. But I do think that people were just put in this terrible position because of the nature of the charge and what they thought was evidence of it.

Now, neither of us are lawyers, so we probably can't answer this question, but does this evidence give any opportunity for a new trial or.

Thank you for asking. So we. We as citizens, as people who care not only about Keith and what happens to all the people we care about in this situation, but as people who care about justice feel that this needs to be addressed. This cannot just get washed up in the mountain of hate and prejudice that is against Keith and anyone who supports him. Because what we have is undeniable evidence that due process was corrupted. It was violated. And if he gets convicted. And it's very likely based on what the prosecution has recommended and the way the judge has so far handled the case, he will get life in prison. If he is, if sentencing happens on Tuesday, he will get sentenced to life in prison and it will be on complete prejudice because.

Is the trial, is it upstate New York? What location?

No, it's actually Eastern District, which includes Brooklyn. Okay.

So I was wondering about the nature of the jury and whether they were conservative by nature or. Or not. Do you know anything about that? I mean, if it's New York, they're probably left leaning by nature, I would think.

You would think so. I believe there are a number of very conservative people and I know they had to, had to adjourn for a Muslim holiday because I think there were at least a few people who are Muslim. And the other thing that people brought, the prosecution brought into the case, they brought in things like women who had abortions or, you know, the fact, even just the fact that Keith had more than one partner for some people is too much to stomach. And then so that was a huge part of it as well.

So let's dig into some of this because the context matters. You know, if it turns, if this is, you know, if there's one charge that maybe wasn't quite kosher but the others were true enough, then people aren't going to worry about the one that doesn't look perfect.

But if the one, if you don't mind me just addressing that point very quickly because I think it's a problem and this isn't exactly what you're saying, but it's just an opportunity to address that. We can think someone is a horrible person and maybe they've done something bad over here, but if we overstep the law and break violate due process to convict them just because we think they're bad, we corrupt the whole justice system and we deny everyone of their, of their rights. So I agree with you from a, from a human standpoint that like people's view are going to be like, well, okay, there's this piece of evidence, but he did XYZ and he's a bad man and I don't even care what happens to him. But I would hope to inspire people to reevaluate that position because it's a slippery slope.

Yeah. You know, my audience tends to skew conservative and they're big on the rule of law and the Constitution and I'm pretty sure I could speak for all of them that if somebody hasn't actually broken a law, you don't want them in jail, even if they've done other things you don't like. I think everybody agrees with that. And I want to clarify. I'm not. I'm not defending anybody. So if it sounds like it, what I'm trying to do is just show a complete picture.

If that sounds absolutely.

If that sounds like a defense to anybody listening, that's on you. I mean, you, the listener, not you. So let's continue. I've got some specific questions to drill down. Number one, the definition of a cult would be that you can't leave. Did you feel you could leave and did other people leave?

I absolutely felt I could leave at any time. And many people left and came back or didn't. You know, over 17,000 people took executive success programs, which was the. You know, and some people loved it and so. And moved to upstate New York because they found it so valuable and meaningful.

Well, I moved out of upstate New York because I found it not meaningful and not useful. So maybe I would have stayed if.

Yeah, exactly.

All right, next question. We're drilling down to find out if it meets the definition of a cult. So far, Christianity would fit that definition. Right, because you could be a Christian, but you could leave. So that's same situation. How about. Were you cut off from contact or information from the outside world?

Never. In fact, my relationships with my family, I was able to have a relationship with my father and specifically help him through his addiction and help him be healthy before he passed away because of all the work that I did in ESP and exploring my part in it and forgiving him and things like that. So it's quite the opposite. I think there may be people, once they start examining their beliefs, where it affects relationships. I'm sure you understand this where, you know, we do a dance with people we're close to especially. And sometimes when you start seeing other ways of being, that can create a dissonance. So that I think maybe happened for some people. For me personally, I. My relationships only got better. And I have friends all over the world who have nothing to do with espn. I've never taken it, but did Keith.

Ever say to anybody or did anybody senior in the organization say, don't talk to those outside people. You know, don't talk. What about the Catherine Oxenberger? Oxenberg.

Oxenberg, yeah.

And her daughter India. Was that her name? Yes, because in the. In Daval, the series about it, it showed the mother trying unsuccessfully to contact her daughter. But it also looked like it was just a mother daughter situation, you know, There wasn't any.

That's interesting. And there's another side to that because I was with India during that time and she tried so many times to invite her mother to come visit her, to see her life, to say, look, it's not what you think, please come. And her mom never came.

Now that wasn't, that was not in the vow, was it?

There are many things that were not in the vow. I could spend hours and I promise you it's way more interesting. So maybe, maybe I was joking about doing breaking the vow.

Alright, so we don't have, so you do have access to other people. You're not discouraged from talking to other people. You could leave anytime you want. So in terms of it being a culture, it's not, it doesn't meet the most basic requirements. Right. How about undying allegiance to the leader? I guess that would be the third big requirement. To what extent was Keith sort of like the only rule? And what was the treatment of people who might have not agreed with what he wanted?

A lot of people didn't agree with what he wanted. And Keith would be the first person to say, he accepts and welcomes all criticism and all feedback. And he never asked anyone to call him Vanguard. Like that was a title that was determined within the context of a specific program. Like any, you know, you could say company or school, there are titles, but he was Keith and he was a very approachable human person.

Is given, given that he was, it was executive self improvement kind of a program. It would be weird if the head of it did not practice, you know, listening to people and you know, incorporating feedback.

Yeah.

Now the other thing that you don't see so much of in the vow, they allude to it, but they don't focus on it is how useful the program was to the people who took it. In other words, did the people who took it give feedback later and say yes, this really helped me or did they say, ah, it's a big old, big old rip off. What did people say when they took the courses?

So I don't have the exact statistics, but there was an anonymous surveys given at the end of every training and people's satisfaction. I believe there was a question on it that said this is more valuable than anything I've ever done. Or, or it's, it's worth whatever I could pay for it. Maybe the second tier was like it was worth what I did pay for it. And then it was, wasn't worth anything. You know, there are all the options and they were anonymous. So there was nothing to compel anyone to give one answer the other. And the people, the satisfaction of people in the least, I believe that it was worth what they paid was in the 90 plus percentages. And I don't think people would come from all over the world and these are educated, successful people to something that.

17,000 people went through the program at one point.

Yes.

That's a lot of repeat customers. I mean, I would assume that a lot of that were repeats.

Yeah.

So where did Keith learn his skills? I didn't see. What is his background? Is it psychology? Did he ever study hypnosis? Do you have. Give me a sense where he learned the special stuff, you know, the thing that made him be able to influence all these people in this way?

Well, it's interesting to phrase the question that gave him this ability to influence people in all this way, because that wasn't my experience of him. My experience was he created a set of tools that empowered people to think more critically, to overcome limiting beliefs, to really understand their values and how they can conduct themselves in a way that's congruent with those values. So if people wanted that, he created a structure and a tool set that allowed people to do that. If they didn't want that, then, you know.

But what specific training, what. What was his, let's say, college degree? Was there anything relevant?

His college degree, I believe, and this is something that's become like scrutinized to. People accuse him of, like, not being truthful, which I don't know why he would lie. I think he studied math and math and philosophy in school. He graduated early, like finished his university degree early. I don't know that his. The skills and the type of thinking that he used to create this structure was necessarily learned from a textbook. I think that he had certain awarenesses early on in life and is a very outside the box thinker and.

But he never studied hypnosis in particular.

That, you know, not that I know of. No. He did partner with Nancy Salzman to create executive success programs, and her background was in hypnosis and nlp.

Oh, okay.

So she, you know, found it.

Yeah, I knew it was there. I just didn't know where it was. I knew if I did, if I dug enough, I would find it.

All right, totally. So that. So her background is in that. And I think he thought that because she was this committed student of this, of like personal growth ideas, that he could work with her and help her create this new model. So. Yeah, and I don't, I don't know anything about hypnosis. So you can probably educate me.

Yeah. So I'm a trained hypnotist. So when I saw Keith talking, I thought, there's some influence or course he's taken, because his. His approach, it just had a fingerprint on it of. Of somebody who had looked into this area more than a casual observer, and probably it was his partner, as you said.

Well, and he might. I also don't know, Like, I don't know where he got all of his influences to, you know, to have the mind and the, you know, his. The way he does things.

So, no, I should say, for the benefit of the viewers who are trying to now connect dots, because they're like, oh, he got people to do things that seem unusual to you. Maybe he was sort of a hypnotist or had one working with him. So therefore he was forcing people to do things they didn't want. But I'm here to tell you, you can't make people do things they don't want to do. Hypnosis doesn't work that way. And, you know, every hypnotist would be a billionaire if that were true.

Well, that's the joke of this whole thing. Like, even the term brainwashing, you know, if Keith brainwashed people or if he knew how to do that, this wouldn't have happened. Like, clearly he can't, because look what everyone went and did, you know this. Everyone left and they destroyed it.

Well, he certainly didn't fight back against the legal system. Weirdly so. His lack of a defense is this gigantic mystery that there may be some reason for it that I don't understand. Maybe a bad lawyer. I don't know.

Well, I think if anyone took the time to actually read the trial transcripts and was able to understand the elements of the charges he was. That were made, they would see that there's no evidence of those charges.

That's. I'm feeling that because every. When I would read, I tried to do some research and read up, and what is it exactly he did that turned into, let's say, forced labor conspiracy. And none of the press connects the dots because I want to say, okay, he forced this person to do this, and that is a crime on this book. And it's called forced labor conspiracy, which I've literally never heard of. And there's something really missing in this story.

It's really missing, first of all, because sex trafficking and forced labor are serious, terrible crimes that should not happen and we should care about as a society. The woman who was the witness for forced labor, she did Four to five hours transcribing a video.

Oh, my God.

And, and she didn't have to do it.

All right, so let's get into free will. I will start this by saying part of what makes me semi famous is that I don't believe in free will. Now the trouble is you can't run a society if you base it on that because then somebody would do a crime. And you say, well, they didn't have any free will.

They had to.

We can't punish somebody for doing something they had to do. But you couldn't organize a society around that. So we, we keep with us this illusion that people have full control over their actions. But part of that is that we have to build our society around that belief or it just doesn't work. But let's dig into this a little bit now for background. You had a ten year relationship with Keith. That's correct.

Over ten years, but yes.

And during that time he had other partners.

Yes.

And he asked you, or you decided to. I don't know what the sequence was. But you ended up and are still married to Alison Mack. Is that true?

Oh, yeah. He, he did not ask me to do that. That was now completely of our own volition and idea. Yeah.

And you had a relationship separately with Alison that suggested let's get married. And that, that wasn't Keith saying you should get married.

No, no, no. We, we told him that's what we were going to do.

All right. And you got branded.

You know, I'm, I'm happy to talk about it. I also want to talk about kind of the, the assumption and the question and how it's become such a hot topic. Even saying you got branded as opposed to did you get a brand has a certain connotation. Right. You know, and I think, I believe that if, if it were a group of a fraternity of men, which often it is, and there are fraternities where men choose to get brands, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm glad we're having this conversation because I'm, I'm happy to talk to you about it. And I think it, it exposes a certain interesting misogyny that is ironic.

I like where you're going because let me see if I could restate that. If men have decided to brand, to allow themselves to be branded, so it's.

Their decision to brand themselves. Yeah.

And it was just, let's say it was the, you know, any, any male organization, would we even have this conversation? And the answer is, not a fucking chance. We would not be having this conversation.

And if a man came out. If a man came out and said, I got a brand and I'm so ashamed, and what would we do? You would say, would we give them a book deal? Would we give them a book deal, a cover on the New York Times and a documentary series on hbo?

No, we'd say, well, that was your decision. Let's talk about something else. That'd be it.

Who cares? Interesting.

So, but there's a part missing for the. For the audience. So there were sub. There were sub organizations within the larger nxivm. One of them was called dos.

DOS was actually completely separate from nxivm.

Okay. But it was people involved with nxivm.

There was. In the Venn diagram, there was a crossover of people, definitely.

Okay. And the nature of this was some kind of dominance and submission voluntary organization where there was a hierarchy of who was in charge. Keith was at the top. And were you, like, number two or three in this hierarchy?

So it's not exactly that Keith was in charge. He was more like the architect. You know, he. In collaboration with a number of other adult women because he saw certain, you know, blind spots, if you will, that. That we had. And of course, you know, these are. These are women that either know him for 15 years or more or. And some were in romantic relationships with him, but who really wanted to level up, who really wanted help to get to the next level in terms of, you know, self reliance, self esteem building, character and honor, which is something, in my opinion, our culture doesn't support for women. And so he. Yeah, yeah.

So describe what DAS was. Give us the broad strokes of what it was.

I think the. Maybe the simplest way to describe it is that it was an extreme coaching relationship for women and an organization to build a network of women who were trustworthy, who were honorable, and who sought to bring more of, you know, what women can bring to the world in a meaningful way.

But, I mean, that sounds good on a philosophical level, sure. But on the describing it level, what was the nature of your arrangements?

So the basis of the arrangement is making this extreme commitment to yourself, basically, but in the form of having a master. And the terminology is obviously very controversial. We use the terms master and slave. They were not set in stone. They were provocative on purpose, but they were completely voluntary.

And were they. Were they sexual necessarily, or were they sexual sometimes.

I'm sorry to disappoint. They were not sexual.

Not ever?

Not in my experience.

So there was nothing about it that would say that somebody at a higher level in DAs could force somebody at a lower level to do their sexual bidding. That never happened.

Correct. No.

Boy, that is so mischaracterized, because as soon as they go into this dominant submission thing, that's where your brain goes, and it just stays there.

Totally.

And apparently that was complete fake news.

Fake news.

All right.

And that's, you know, and it's. It's not to say that if people wanted to do that or explore that within that dynamic, that that would be bad, because I think there's a lot to be explored, and there's a lot that we have repressed within our sexuality that by doing things, can be liberating. But that's. That wasn't what we were doing.

So in the trial, was it presented that the DOS organization was part of the sex trafficking? Is that what they called the sex trafficking?

Correct.

But you're saying there was no sex necessarily involved with being in dots.

Correct. It's very confusing because it doesn't make sense and it's not true.

But there must have been somebody who was presented as a victim.

Yes.

So who said they were a victim? They got people to say I was a victim.

Yes. The same woman who transcribed the five hours of video and claimed to be a victim of forced labor said that a sexual interaction that she had with Keith and another woman, she claimed after the fact, that it was coercive in nature and that it was because she was part of DOS that that's why she said yes to it. Now. Now, I find that questionable.

But. But there's another missing part here that was in the vow. There was something called collateral, which the press calls blackmail material. And so people who are in DOS were encouraged to give private, you know, what would be embarrassing information if somebody else knew about it to the people that they considered their masters within the organization. And tell us why that's not blackmail. What. How did you. How did you see it? That was not coercive.

Okay, so first I'll describe the stages. If someone thought that. I believe this was somewhat referenced in the vow of, like, how someone got a woman who was anonymous and the vow was invited in. Right. And basically, if you want to learn more about the organization, because it was meant to be a secret organization, you give a small amount of collateral as a commitment to keep it a secret. That's it. So there's nothing. You know, the commitment is only, I will give. You know, maybe it's a naked photo. For some people, that's nothing. For some people, that's a big deal. So it really it was the person's choice what was meaningful to them and expressed to the person who is then going to share the secret information with them that they were going to stand by their word. And I am nothing against women in any way, but they're not known for keeping things a secret. And so this in itself was an act of trust. And so, so there. So then if, if a woman decided, then she, she's like, oh, I want to know more, or like, that sounds sketchy as fuck. No, thanks. She'd be like, bye. That's it, end of conversation.

Nobody was ever forced to give their collateral any information.

No. And they chose what it was that they gave. So then if the woman, you know, said, oh, this is really interesting, I trust you, like, yeah, tell me more. Here's my collateral, then she would hear about the organization and she would hear everything she needed to know, including that there was a brand that, you know, that it was a master slave relationship. And she would have the opportunity to ask all the questions in the world to make a decision.

So she wouldn't learn about the brand until after she'd given some compromising information.

To learn about it. But before she said yes to joining.

Before she, okay, so do you think that members felt that that collateral was really a blackmail, even though it wasn't presented that way? Do you think in their own mind, they said, better do what I'm told?

I don't think they did until it started to become a very specific narrative in the news and they felt that their reputation and their lives would be compromised if they were associated with it. No one ever, like, here, and let me just give you some facts. Women, even women who gave collateral did leave, even before it got the news, they left no collateral to this day, to my knowledge, has been released, period. Except for what the government has shared.

Of course, there's nothing the government can't make worse. Was somebody forced to diet? That was one of the claims. Forced to survive on 500 calories a day. To which I say to myself, how do you force somebody to diet? I mean, what do you sow their own.

There's so many problems. First of all, yeah, how do you force someone to diet? Unless you're just lock them in a cage or whatever. Second of all, I think again, there are misconceptions, misogynistic undertones to this, because you look at, you know, the CEO of Twitter is, you know, promoting fasting, intermittent fasting, going on low calorie diets, and we're like, oh, let's give them a TED talk. Let's. They're heroes. But when it's young, some not so young women, wanting to build discipline and overcome, you know, indulge in eating habits or just feel better in their bodies because, you know, they feel in control of their, what they eat, then, then they must be victims or someone's telling them what to do or they're being abused. So all of that is to say, yeah, some people counted calories as part of their program because they stated that they wanted to build. That was something that they wanted. Like, what woman doesn't want that? In a way.

But it also, but there was an external, say a peer influence, shall we say so here.

Yeah, which, which, yeah, to backtrack a little bit. The collateral. If a woman chose to join dos, it was because she recognized that the way that she's doing her life at the moment, she isn't getting what she wants. She wants to get here and for whatever reason feels stuck. And I, you know, I think for most of us, most of us is because we're so comfortable, we don't have the adversity that forces us to really like push in the ways we need to survive. We can all get by. Life is easy and we want to achieve better things. But it's hard sometimes to motivate when you don't have a fire under your ass. So it was, you know, a woman who joined DOS did so because she's like, I need help, I need support, I need a fire under my ass and I want it. I want to someone to be there for me to achieve my goals. I say, I want this thing, I keep tripping over myself. I want someone to be like, hey, remember what you said?

So is that, was that the functional purpose of the hierarchy with the masters and the slaves, so that the people who are the so called slaves would have sort of a higher authority to help them get what they wanted. Is that what you're saying?

It was always. Yeah, that. Well, first of all, the higher the hierarchy, yes, it existed, but within each, it was a system of relationships. So a master would have a slave and that slave would also be a master to someone else. Like because it was a holographic experience. And the slave, you know, the enslavement that even it speaks to is a metaphor for like, okay, do you want to be enslaved to your fears and your attachments or do you want to be a master of your experience and your life? And so it was a construct to inspire that. And the collateral was a commitment to that long term goal. It was Never, ever used to say, oh, if you don't do this, this is gonna happen ever.

But people would be afraid of that.

I mean, that's what they claim. But there are many women, understand, like, There were over 100 women who are in DAS, and there are a few who are coming out with these claims. And I think there's also some. An influence of the narrative on people where after the fact that they're like. Right. I was scared, but, like. Scared of what? Scared because you were facing your fears and pushing for things that you'd never done before or because someone was threatening you? No one was threatened.

Was anybody held down during the branding process in a way that they could not get away? Or did every person who received the brand, were they absolutely voluntary?

Absolutely voluntary. There. There's a practical purpose of having people, like, hold your hand and hold. You know, because if you squirm or whatever, and, you know. But it was not. It was not how it's been described at all.

So. So here's. Here's the big question in. In the vow. And of course, I know this is made by a filmmaker. So in my mind, I'm saying, okay, look for the narrative, because he's, you know, he's got to make.

Yeah, and then there's the music and the.

He's got to turn it into a story, even if it's not a story. But part of his narrative was that people, after getting the brand, only after would find out that it was Keith Renari's initials and that therefore. Oh, no, I've been branded with his initials. Did you know it was his initials when you received the brand?

So the brand is a symbol, and I'm not here to say it was right or wrong. It doesn't. To me, it doesn't mean what everyone says it means, which I think in the vow, or at least I've heard Sarah say, like, it meant she was property or whatever. You know, there were a lot of practices in DAs that were inspired by concepts and practices that Keith had created.

Whose idea was the brand?

Well, I don't. Well, that's good. That is good that you're asking this question, because I don't want to forget to say that coming out very soon, eight women who were part of das, and more, most likely in the near future, but eight women who are willing to speak publicly now and make statements and have a conversation about what it really was are about to release a project where we have recorded zoom conversations, and we go into the nitty gritty of all the details of what actually happened. And we're doing it very DIY because, as you can see, the narrative has been constructed by many people other than us. So I don't want to answer, like, every question about, you won't tell me whose idea was.

You won't tell me whose idea the brand was. You don't have to.

I don't know. I'm honest. Honest to God. I'm trying to remember. Like, there are so many things that were just. We were coming up with ideas. We were trying new things. We were experimenting. It was new.

But when it was not sinister or.

It'S like, well, let me.

Let me. Let me rule out one thing. One thing it was not, from what you're saying is Keith had an idea of branding everybody, and then everybody said, okay, let's go do that. Well, it wasn't like that.

No, no. We talked about all kinds of different symbols and what it could look like. And we, I guess, were not smart enough to see that it would be easily seen. But it was never meant to be like that. Oh, it was his initials.

Okay. And the specific location on your body because it was a little close to your lady business. Was that just to hide it, or was that telling you there was a sexual element to it or not?

No. Yeah. There was no sexual element. It was just a place where you wouldn't. Like, you wouldn't be able to see it if you were wearing a bikini and wasn't on your butt.

I feel like. I feel like viewers are, like, clicking off, like. Are you telling me there was no.

It's so boring. I know. Sorry.

It was, like, a bad tattoo. That's all it was. It's all it was.

And they didn't look like the one that has been shown around. The other ones I've seen.

Okay. Those were the main questions I wanted to ask. So summarizing the people who were involved, would you say 98% had a good experience if you had to put a.

Percentage on it in DOS or esp or both.

Let's say both. Or break it down. Either one.

Sure. So I think DOS is tricky because it depends when you ask the narrative. I think really did a number of. On people and their perception of things. And there were a lot of things in the narrative that are. That just were false. So. But they didn't question. And here's the really interesting thing. Like, there was a woman that I had invited into dos, and we had the best relationship. I was, like, helping her. You know, she quit this job that she hated and was starting her own business. And she was doing great in her. In her marriage and with her family. And suddenly this whole thing started with Sarah and Mark where they decided that this awful thing was happening. And they started this campaign where they got people to sign NDAs and then told them this horror story about what happened. So this woman calls me and is all. Is so upset and she can't tell me what she thinks is happening that's scary or bad. She can't tell me who told her. And there. So there was no way for me to debunk any of her concerns or give her more information. All I could say is, like, you know, I'm here. Whatever you need. I'll tell you anything. What. What do you think is going on? But it was so. She was just so emotional and scared. And now understanding, seeing the vow and the narrative, like, I understand why she was scared, but no one was able to just ask questions like you are. They weren't. They. They were told. So basically we were painted as these like, horrible monsters. And I. People, I think don't. Didn't really know what to make of me because I'm a very pretty. I like to think I'm a pretty likable person, you know, like, I don't think they can make me into a monster. So then I must be a victim. But I'm not saying I'm a victim. So it's very confusing. But there was no room for discourse.

Yeah, this is one of the most fascinating studies of free will. And, you know, when are people making their own decisions and when you threw in the filter, the misogyny filter about, you know, would you think the same thing if there were the men involved here? That's mind blowing because as soon as you say that, I go, oh, you mean if you just change the genders, the whole thing would go away?

Well, change the genders on any of this. If a man said, oh, I had this sexual experience that, you know, I was blindfolded and, you know, someone performed oral sex on me, and now I need to be protected. I need to not give my last name to even talk about it. I want the person to go to prison.

I don't know how you made that sound boring, but.

All right, I promise my life is interesting. It's just not in the ways people think.

So here's my takeaway. I'm going to sort of summarize it here and then see if you would add to this. You had a situation that would be very confusing for outsiders. The whole nexiv thing. People were clearly Getting a benefit from it. But there was a participation element to it that looked to outsiders like it was being forced. And I'll give you an analogy to that with stage hypnosis. One of the reasons that stage hypnosis is a good show is that the people in the audience are thinking, I would never do that. I would never go up on that stage and do those crazy things. It'd be too embarrassing. So therefore, the power that the hypnotist has over those people, and thank goodness it isn't me, but he has this great, like, brainwashing power over them. And that's the shell. It turns out nothing like that is actually happening. If you have 100 people in a room, you can guarantee that five of them don't care about anything. They'll go up, they'll take off their clothes, they'll. They'll dance like chickens. And when it's over, they won't even be a little bit embarrassed, because guess what? They're not like you. People are different. And since we always have this blind spot that everybody must be some version of me. When you see somebody acting in a way that you can only explain why they must been brainwashed, you can really easily get that in your head instead of, oh, people have different preferences. And that's the whole story. It's the whole.

And God forbid women have different preferences that go against the social norms.

Now, not to, you know, forget the most important charge here, but there is an underage child element to it. You would not be mad at me for saying that. If any of that's true, justice must be served. But as you noted, there's a deep irregularity with that evidence that cannot be ignored, Especially when you see how prejudicial all of the other stuff would make the jury. So I gotta say, you've raised some real questions with me. You know, from the outside, we don't know what's real, right? We live in a world of fake news. We don't believe anything and we don't believe our systems anymore. We don't believe that the government is not organizing a coup against the other side. We don't believe anything anymore. So when you tell a story that maybe there was a criminal trial, that there were irregularities probably 10 years ago, I would have said, no, they're not. That's what people say. Everybody who's guilty says they're innocent. But in the last, Even the last 12 months, the things you've seen about our systems that we used to trust are so disorienting that I hear Your story. And my reaction is, yeah, that could totally be true. Now, I'm not saying I know what is true. There's no way I can know that. I certainly don't dismiss it. You've got a hell of a story. I hope I helped you tell your story, because as you said, and I hope everybody watching this agrees that whether or not there's something in your life that you did wrong that must be punished, it doesn't mean everything else you did is wrong, and you don't want to bring all that in. So people either did something wrong and you can prove it or they didn't. But let's not bring in the rest of life to prejudice the jury. All right. Is there anything you would like to add?

I think just on that note, in addition to people from the outside seeing things that they don't understand because they do their lives differently, I think what we really were trying to promote and stood for was personal responsibility and accountability and critical thinking, not just accepting what we're taught to believe in social norms and the conditioning that we have when we're younger. And I think that this sort of, like, victimhood, whether, you know, woman or man or whatever, or this reactivity we have in our world that's so pervasive, when you overlay that onto the situation, that's a big part of what has created the misunderstanding. And so I really want to thank you for the opportunity to have this conversation with you, because you clearly. Well, even just acknowledging whether we have free will or not, we think we do. Does it matter? I don't know. But being able to have this conversation with someone, and hopefully to an audience who also believes that they are either an agent in their life or. Or they think they are, and that's enough. And to continue questioning, to really not just take things at face value and to challenge that feeling deep down. Because even though we know intellectually we shouldn't believe the media, we shouldn't believe the government.

We do.

We do. And until it happens to you, like, I thought that I knew the media was trash and they lied, but until I saw an article that just flat out lied about me, I didn't get it.

So there's a name for that. It's called the Gel Man Amnesia. There was a physicist named Gel Man. That was his last name. And he noted that when he read a story in the media about physics, because he was an expert in it, he'd say, well, this is all wrong. I can tell this is all wrong. But. But he would say he would have amnesia because the very next story he'd read, which was not his, you say, well, that's probably right.

Totally.

But only the things he knows about are wrong every time. But everything else is right.

Exactly.

Once you live it as you have and I have, of course, it becomes real. All right, thank you so much. I'm going to wind it down now. This was even more interesting than I thought it would be. And I thought it would be interesting, so thanks so much.

And it was even boring, too.

It was interesting even in that way. So thank you so much, and take care.

Thank you.