- Dr. Michael D. Yudkin, Senior Tutor in Biochemistry (University College, Oxford University)
- Dr. C.J. Lamb, Department of Biochemistry (Queens College, Oxford University)
- Professor Michael Danvers-Walker, History & Drama Department (University of Utah, USA)
- Dr. Gregory C.D. Young, Department of
Experimental Psychology
(University of Oxford)
- Headmisstress Margaret G. Stark, MBE, MA - #1 (Oslo International School, Norway)
- Headmisstress Margaret G. Stark, MBE, MA - #2 (Oslo International School,
Norway)
Character assassination of Gustav
Sjöholm
[There has been an official response to G. Sjoeholm
that pretty much explains everything. It is to be found in a new section of the
NCCG website in this URL: www.nccg.org/nwt. Anyhow, because I found a couple
of particularly big blunders in this "character assassination"
article on nccg_concern's side, I thought it interesting to point them out.
First of all, I don't understand
why nccg_concern jumps to defend G. Sjoeholm. The fact that the latter used his
website as source definitely does not build a personal relationship between
them that would require nccg_concern to jump to defend his "friend".
However, that can be explained much more easily if we consider that it IS
personal between nccg_concern and C.C. Warren. Well… if I were to write a
BALANCED article, I wouldn't ask a person's enemy – common sense.
Throughout this document, the same argument is thrown
on the table over and over: that C.C. Warren had an "opportunity" to
be interviewed by G. Sjoeholm but he "threw it away". C.C. Warren
simply refused to be interviewed. According to nccg_concern, this is pretty
horrible and absolutely condemnable. Actually, according to nccg_concern, if a
newspaper sends questions to an individual and this person refuses to answer
some of them and then the newspaper publishes an article against a person and
that's unfair/unbalanced/etc then it's that person's own fault because they
refused to be interviewed. Well, this might be news to nccg_concern, but if a
newspaper wants to publish something about a person, that person have the right
to refuse to be interviewed. It's not personal and not offensive to the
newspaper. There might be thousands of different reasons why they refused, but
the bottomline is that they won't be interviewed. What options does the
newspaper have? Well, if a lot of essential information is missing, they can
just leave the article aside altogether. The other option is to try to make up for
that lack from other sources, but then, if one wants to be fair, they should be
balanced. At any rate, the person who refuses to answer all the questions is
NOT to blame for anything. No one owes answers to the journalists' every inquiry.
Now I am not going to accuse G. Sjoeholm for being
unfair or prejudiced, but as far as I know, if the goal is objectivity on a
controversial issue, it's better to have balanced sources and a balanced mind.
If the goal is to make it all spicy and look pretty bad, then you more or less
write urban legends, and they are all spicy and that's common sense. I doubt G.
Sjoeholm had an agenda other than to write something "catchy". That's
bad journalism in my opinion, but I haven't seen signs of good journalism in
national newspapers in decades, so that is not a heavy accusation. He's just
doing his job.]
Background:
Gustav Sjöholm is the newspaper reporter who researched NCCG for
the Nya Wermlands-Tidningen newspaper based out of Karlstad, Sweden, and wrote a front-page article based
upon what he had learned.
Hints of Christopher Warren's impending character assassination of
Gustav were noticeable before the newspaper article was even published.
Gustav was doing his own research for his article (as opposed with just
jumping on my web site and using it as source material as Chris Warren accused
him of doing before the article was even published). In his research, Gustav
was even able to turn up some things that I would not have been able to get. [He might have been doing his own research but he
almost certainly DID use the material from this website as source material.]
Gustav first did his independent research, and this research happened to
turn up a lot of negative information about the cult. [These are the people he interviewed: He was in contact with parents of
people who were involved with the group and asked a non-professional exit
counsellor who was in league with Rick Ross to give him her opinion. He might
have read some of the Scandinavian versions of the original www.nccg.org
website, but that is not for sure. What is for sure is that he did not
interview a member of the group, or any member of its leadership. Actually he
did not interview people who know him in person either. What also speaks
volumes is that all the people he contacted were already negatively prejudiced
against NCCG and its leader, C.C. Warren. The parents of the people who were
involved and opposed NCCG would definitely give a negative opinion. The
"deprogrammer" M.A. Crapo was at the time being paid by one of these
families to "deprogram" their son, so a negative opinion was
guaranteed there also. Also, a local pastor was interviewed and a person who
works in the Immigration Office. Not one of these people had ever met C.C.
Warren, never spoken to him in person, or on the phone, or through e-mail or in
a chat room. None of them has studied/investigated into NCCG either, or ever
been a member.] He then asked Christopher Warren if
he could visit the NCCG compound and interview him. This request was turned
down. A phone interview was then agreed upon, but at the last minute, with
Gustav on the phone at the agreed-upon time, Chris would not be interviewed and
would not even accept the phone call himself. These refusals occurred in the
context of the other people Gustav had contacted being willing to follow
through interviews, some of them even braving risks related to themselves or
their involved NCCG family members. [Braving risks?
What kind of risks? Would C.C. Warren send a squad to kidnap and
"reprogram" them? I guess not. As far as I know, C.C. Warren is not
and has not been in contact with any of the interviewed people before or after
the interviews.]
It was ultimately agreed in that phone call that Gustav would send
questions in writing, through the mail (not email), to which Chris would
respond in writing. Gustav mailed the questions immediately, and they arrived
at NCCG's compound on Monday, June 5. The questions were generally
short, very directed, and to the point, and asked Chris to address the
specific, negative things Gustav had learned about NCCG during his research.
The questions covered a number of tough issues, such as the March, 2006
"Satanist attacks" which Chris had written about extensively on one
of NCCG's message boards. [The questions
are available to be read online in www.nccg.org/nwt. A critique of the questions is to be found here.]
Gustav was endeavouring to give Christopher Warren the opportunity to
explain, or deny, or otherwise provide meaningful feedback about the serious
implications of the results of his research. Gustav's research had indicated
that NCCG was a destructive, isolated cult (albeit a small one), and it was
critical to get feedback from NCCG itself. After all, if all of the negative
information and feedback Gustav had received had been a fabrication, the most
likely person to be able to set the story straight would have been Chris. [Like I said to start with, if feedback is critical
but is not given, then you simply don't publish anything. Otherwise, no matter
how bad things look when you publish them, your sources are faulty, so you end
up away from the truth.]
It was not to be, however. The reply Christopher Warren sent back to
Gustav did not actually address the tough questions that Gustav had asked. [Which part was tough? Explaining why some parents got
scared? How can this be answered without pure speculation?] Instead, the reply contained personal attacks and defensive, overbearing
language directed at Gustav himself [So he got his
feelings hurt or something? Overbearing language? Is the language nccg_concern
uses in some places anything short of overbearing?],
short character assassinations of me (nccg_concern) and Rick Ross (a cult
expert), a few disparaging comments about Mary Alice Crapo (a cult expert) [look at exit to get an idea
of what kind of "experts" R. Ross and M.A. Crapo are], a very long discussion of religious doctrine and general religious
beliefs and practices, and oddly enough, a few lies that were immediately
recognizable due to Gustav already having completed much of his research.
Gustav then proceeded to write the article with the information he had.
The information in the resulting article made NCCG look like a destructive,
isolated cult (predictably). [And
irresponsibly. Imagine this scenario: A journalist asks individuals who don't
know you but don't like you anyway if there is a chance you're beating your
wife. Some of them say yes. Then he comes to you and asks you: "Have you
stopped beating your wife yet?". You refuse to answer, so the journalist
publishes an article where he says that you are beating your wife, because he
was told that you are. This sounds like a trap, but this is EXACTLY the power
of the press. The problem is that they can publish anything, and there will
always be some source to back it up, most probably "protected for privacy
concerns".]
Gustav was then almost immediately character-assassinated by Christopher
Warren in his complaint to a press authority known as the "Press
Ombudsman" (this complaint was rejected). The complaint was also published
in the nccgcybercommunity message board for fringe NCCG members to read. [Character
assassinated? The letter was sent to G. Sjoeholm himself first. It seems
like to nccg_concern, letters that don't answer all the questions and express
complaint count as character assassinations. This is the nth time
that the term is used wrongly.]
Character Assassination(s):
This is an excerpt from Christopher Warren's initial reply to Gustav's
written questions.
3. I am assuming, with some justification, I believe, from the way your
questions were formulated and the material you chose to discuss, that your
primary source of 'information' was a newly created anti-NCCG website called
'NCCG_concern'. Since this is the sole website of its kind that we are aware
of, I assume this is where you get your perspective of us (as you did say on
the telephone to me that if I did not respond you would be writing an article
based on "other sources"). I should inform you that the author of
this site not only has never met with us or spoken with us, but refuses to be
identified and make himself accountable, refuses to name the names of alleged
complianants or supply substantiatable information, because he knows I will sue
and expose him if he does. As a researcher myself, trained as a scientist at
Oxford University, both in the biochemical and historical fields, I am more
than aware of what constitutes bona fide research and what does not.
4. I do not know how old you are, what your political or religious views
are, whether you promote certain values, whether you are a typical journalist
from your newspaper, or whether you are a 'neutral' journalist. I do not know
what your experience with people is, whether you care about people and society,
or whether you are one of those unscrupulous journalists who just takes
pleasure in muck-raking and 'exposing' for its own sake without regard for
anyone's true welfare. Certainly you wrote to me in such a manner as to suggest
that you had some kind of 'right' to be as rude and unprofessional as you
wanted to whilst having little or no idea who we really are and, judging by the
nature of the questions, having very literal interest in truth. Certainly you
uncritically used terminology and asked loaded questions from a source which is
unapologetically hostile, inaccurate and unaccountable, even going so far to
call my home a 'compound' and implying that we practice 'slavery' with all the
associations such words have with genuine cults such as the Branch Davidians
and others. Since we find all forms of slavery repugnant and have no 'compound'
but just a house and a garden like anyone else's in Värmland, as all who
come in and out of here on a daily basis from the local community know, I shall
set aside such questions until you have done some proper research and must
seriously question your intentions. I cannot believe that you are a regular
reporter from a reputable newspaper like Nya Wermlands Tidningen so I am
assuming you are freelance. At any rate I shall be talking to the
editors/owners of the newspaper to see if you are indeed one of their own.
5. However, because I am a professional man myself, both as an educator
of over 20 years' experience, and a writer and minister for an equal length of
time, I will give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being, even though
I have considerable misgivings and, I think, with just cause. I shall assume
you are ignorant of the facts and have been misled by a slander website, and
answer all the questions I can reasonably be expected to in a fair and
forthright manner. I have given you a whole day of my time in a full and
lengthy statement, time which I could have better used otherwise in what is a
very busy time of the year for me, so I trust you will use it in a truthful and
responsible way and not quote out of context. I shall expect you to send me a
copy of your newspaper, if you do decide to publish, as is commonly done. I
shall in any case be publishing this myself as well, along with your list of
questions and your name and employer, and be advising my lawyers in case you do
not follow accepted standards of behaviour. I am in any case now in touch with
the Swedish Newspaper Publisher's Association, the Swedish Union of Journalists
and the National Press Club, and and making enquires with the Press Ombudsman
(PO) to ensure proper journalistic practice as my legal advisors inform me that
I have sufficient grounds to be concerned with your approach and ethos. I am
also in contact with parallel EU institutions.
[It's interesting that nccg_concern publishes ONLY
this part of the article. The answers to many of G. Sjoeholms questions are
right after this small quoted part. But then nccg_concern wouldn't probably
read the whole thing for fear of becoming hypnotised.]
These are exerpts from the post "NCCG Critics
: NCCG Response to a Swedish Newspaper" in the
groups.msn.com/nccgcybercommunity message board. They are from the complaint
that was sent to the "Press Ombudsman".
A4. I am happy to openly discuss my views with journalists who do not
have a dishonest agenda (or with anyone for that matter of the same
disposition) and I have entertained such in my home over the years, as I have
already done so here in Sweden. We had one such reporter from Värmlands
Folkblad here who was given the freedom of my home and who behaved decently
and reported fairly and neutrally. However, I have every right to refuse those
whose intent I discern to be dishonest and malicious. And there are plenty of
good journalists here in Sweden. But if there is one thing I cannot abide, it
is a liar and a defamer of character. I have no objections to reporters in
general, but yours, whom I presume is freelance, is clearly a young opportunist
willing to go at any lengths at the expense of truth and people's feelings in
order to get a 'scoop'. His methods are dishonest, he reports inaccurately,
sets up straw men, twists the meaning of words to make them mean something
entirely different to their original intent, does sloppy research work, takes
material out of context, unashamedly publishes lies, creates propagandistic
photographs deliberately calculated to promote the mood and tenor of his biases
and malicious intent, all of which can easily be proved it in a court of law.
Instead of sneaking around at night like a prowler, your newspaperman could
have sent an honest reporter like the man from VF. In fact I couldn't believe
that an old and respected newspaper like WNT could publish such trash. However,
this is more than trash - it is defammatory and libelous.
B2. Refused Telephone Interview
I did indeed change my mind about a telephone interview and a
photographic session, and rightly so, when I received a list of questions from
him (which I will be publishing soon) and I could see what his intent was. I
have met this kind of man before and I had every right to refuse such a
disreputable rogue into my home. And I would unapologetically do the same
again.
(Interjection from NCCG_Concern: be aware
that Chris did not receive the questions until after he had refused both
interviews. Chris appears to have lied in the above passage). [Actually he says the same thing. Read carefully. He
says that he changed his mind and understood he rightly did so when the
questions were brought to his attention. Nccg_concern appears to have been
hypnotised while reading the above passage.]
B4.1. I was appalled at the way your journalist manipulated the local Lutheran
minister to give the impression that we are entirely cut off from our local
community. He failed to note (because he wasn't bothered to find out as it
would have gone against his agenda) that the minister and one of our
cooperative members used have had close contacts swimming together with their
children, met once at the circus, going to each other's birthday parties (we
have the photographs to prove it), and attending kindergarten (Förskolan)
together. Furthermore, we attend the local Luthern Church from time to time
with visitors, attend summer musical concerts there when we are able to, and
used to know, and were on friendly terms with, the former pastor's wife before
her husband retired because of illness and they moved to Arvika. Obviously the
different adult members of the cooperative pursue different interests like
attending local plays and the like and are not, as Sjöholm alleges, forced
to give outside interests up.
B4.6. Your journalist has simply decided to dishonestly define us the
way he wants to, taken the word of a so-called 'cult deprogrammer' who has
never met us, knows nothing about us, and spoken to one young man who was a
guest here for a week in 2005, a man she tried to brainwash into accepting her
own religion (denials to the contrary) by subjecting him to hours and hours of
contionuous video tapes, got our theology completely wrong, and terrorised the
man's mother into believing all kinds of false scare stories about us. We never
telephoned the mother's son at 4 a.m. in his home country warning him of some
'attack' - this is a complete fabrication. And whilst Crapo may very well have
exposed some genuine cults and helped their victims, yet she remains in
association with a criminal charged and found guilty of embezzlement and kidnapping
whose records can be examined in the US courts. We are in contact with the
people who took him to court and won. So with all due respect, she knows
nothing about our lifestyle or social contacts, and has her own biases and
religious agenda. Ironcally, we agree with most of what Crapo believes about
cults and had she actually been here would have seen that we are not the way
the slander website has portrayed us from which she has doubtless obtained most
of her information. Your prejudiced journalist simply gave her carte blanche
in the same way she very unwisely gave carte blanche to the slander
website run by a man who remains anonymous and unaccountable. When the young
man returned briefly here this summer, before returning home to see the World
Cup, he discovered for himself that everything this woman had told her we were
was not true, which is hardly surprising.
B4.7. Given this information, it should be obvious to anyone with any
sort of intelligence that we are neither trying to be inconspicuous nor trying
to isolate ourselves. Obviously, we involve ourselves in those activities which
interest us and don't attend those which don't, like ordinary human beings do.
B4.8. Therefore the headline and material claiming that we are isolated
is a malicious lie, deliberately inserted to promote the crafted image of a
cult based on misinformation, bad research and dishonest intent.
B5. Your Article, Page 1
Almost every single paragraph in Sjöholm's article contains a lie
or a distortion in which words are carefully manipulated.
B5.1.2. Since your journalist
nowhere attempts to define a 'sect' but is clearly using it in the negative
context of a 'cult' without actually saying so, the motive is clearly
defammatory. A neutral word would have been 'group' or something like it.
B5.1.3. Since your newspaper is sectarian
and not religious I am not going to bother to discuss theology. I am assuming
that Sjöholm is using the word 'sect' in a purely negative sense since he
nowhere defines it. He is obviously not a religious man, and disrespectfully
refers to god with a small 'g' (I doubt he would describe islam with a small
'i' or mohammed with a small 'm' so as not to be accused of religious
disrespect or 'hate crimes') which I doubt the millions of Lutherans in this country
would be too pleased to see.
B5.2. Use of the word 'Destructive'
B5.2.1. To date, the newspaper has
named no names except one deprogrammer and someone from the Immigration Board,
and failed to identity the primary source of its information. He speaks much of
Crapo who as it happens, according to the generally accepted definition of the
term, belongs to a 'sect' of Roman Catholicism. (I would not myself refer to
her denomination as a 'sect', since all Protestant churches are by that
definition a 'sect' but it very clearly is. It is ironic that Crapo in one of
her books refers to Roman Catholicism as a 'cult' or having cult-like
tendencies, though I doubt your newspaper would dare use such a term in public
because of the political power of that organisation). And if we are going to
apply the same linguistic rules as Sjöholm and be pedantic, we could
describe Swedish culture as a 'cult' as well as a 'sect' because it is sectarian.
I can prove that the use of such words is subjective and that your reporter has
deliberately employed these terms in a dishonest, defammatory and maliciously
intentional way which amount to little more than an an expression of hatred of
religious minorities.
B5.2.2. As for being 'destructive',
it is a simple matter to show that your newspaper, in publishing such trash, is
in fact the one brainwashing the public and filling your readers with
antisocial, hate-filled and hostile attitudes to an innocent community of
people. If we were so 'destructive' as Sjöholm claims, is it not a little
odd that in 20 years not one person has made a public complaint against us?
When Sjöfelt first telephoned me he 'could not understand' why he had not
come across our ministry before. The truth is, someone with malicious intent
contacted him with a view to slandering and discrediting us.
B5.3.1. In Paragraph 4 Sjöholm
claims that he has been in contact with parents who describe that their
children have been 'brainwashed' but nowhere, and no doubt purposefully,
defines the word. According to my dictionary, brainwashing is "to effect a
radical change in the ideas and beliefs of a person, especially by methods
based on conditioning" (Ibid., p.130). And if we are following
Crapo's implicit use of the word 'conditioning' in using the word
'brainwashing', as one must assume that Sjöholm is, then I assume it is
the psychological aspect he is trying to point out, namely, "to alter the
response of a person or animal to a particular stimulus or situation.". If
that is his intended meaning, then one arrives at the ludicrous situation
whereby one can accuse everyone of 'brainwashing', including the state
itself in its 'conditioning' of pupils at public schools to think and react in
certain ways. If he means that someone 'brainwashes' in a more extreme way, by
the use of coercision, e.g. hypnosis, torture, emotional manipulation, etc.,
then he must prove that such has happened, otherwise he becomes guilty of
defamation. Since we utterly detest such behaviour, counsel our investigators
to study matters out privately, take their time, and come and go as they
please, as numerous people will testify, Sjöholm finds himself in the
position of being a defamer and the burden of proof rests on him.
B5.3.2. Moreover, not only does he
report inaccurately such that his reporting of the words, as I have already
proven, is unreliable, but we have no proof that the words he reports allegedly
said by those criticising us are true. We only have his word. As I have written
elsewhere in my letter to him, he is unobjective and seems to accept carte
blance, without the critical enquiry of a supposed 'professional' (I allege
that he is totally unprofessional), whatever one or two (he doesn't
state how many) critcis say about us, whose credibility has not been
established. I can prove for a fact that two of the persons he has
interviewed are bigoted racists and guilty of gross psychological abuse of
their children, have hired criminals who have performed criminal acts on their
behalf, which matter would be clearly established in a court of law should it
come to that. This is not reported, obviously, because to examine the
background of one of the complainants I know of would totally undermine
Sjöholm's claims.
B6. Your article, pages 4-5
B6.1. Throughout this lengthy article, Sjöholm sets out to create
an image - a false one created in his own fantasy - of a dangerous Jim
Jones-type cult who at any moment might compell its members to do something
drastic drink poison and commit suicide. It is pretty obvious that that is his
intention from the way he writes. He tries to create a picture of a dangerous
cult steered from a sinister looking building in the middle of the Swedish
wilderness luring people to its headquarters to get slave labour and doubtless
to steal their money too. The fact of the matter is that in 9 years of being in
Sweden we have lived a frugal lifestyle, with a tiny income, with 6 permanent
adult members, half of whom were old age pensioners (until one died and the
other was transferred to a home- both retired pastors) to whom we devoted our
time and efforts to take care of (as ther local people all know). They were/are
all quite ill, we work together voluntarily to make their life as pleasant as
possible. The others serve here without coercision, to serve our ministry
abroad.
B6.2. We are little more than an office that answers enquiries,
distributes literature, raises money for our orphanages, and invites pastors to
come for training, as stated in a letter to Sjöholm. We have actually met
far less than 1% of our members. Our congregations govern their own affairs and
do nothing more than send an annual report of activities. They pay us no tithes
or offerings because they are too poor and we do not expect it of them anway,
as is clearly documented on our website They elect their own officers,
evangelise in the normal way (outdoor preaching mostly), and actually have very
little access to internet. People come and go all the time, they know exactly
what we believe from our detailed website, and I have never met anyone who was
'surprised' to find we believed different things to what we have published, or
have 'secret rules', because they weren't surprised and there are no secret
rules. Discipling and residency is by consent, not compulsion. Sjöholm,
however, has bought into the misinformation Crapo (herself seemingly influenced
by the unaccountable and libelous slander site on the internet), and simply
chosen to believe what he wants to.
(Interjection from NCCG_Concern: Chris'
description of NCCG's compound as "little more than an office..." is
indicated by my source material to be absolutely wrong. Chris appears to have
lied in the above passage). [Absolutely
wrong? Maybe nccg_concern is the one who stands corrected here. What he calls
"compound" consists of 3 homes, none of which are registered churches
in Sweden. Only one office room in these 3 houses is dedicated to all the work
which is seen online. That means that a person cannot just walk in and out of
these 3 houses as they could, for instance, in a Lutheran Church down the street.
So it IS just about an office. If nccg_concern still has objections, he should
reveal what his all-powerful "source material" indicates so we can
have an adult argument.]
B6.2. If our little office were to fold up, I doubt most would even
notice. They would probably miss our weekly sermons but that is about all.
Members and friends would fellowship online as they do in this Group. We are
not some centrifugal hub on which all our members are totally dependent with
which can 'manipulate' or 'control'. Indeed, our policy is the very opposite of
what Sjöholm would like people to believe: we encourage all our groups to
be self-sufficient and independent.
B7. "Views as destructive and dangerous"
B7.1. In view of what I have written on brainwashing and conditioning
above, a heading in bold face such as this is downright conditioning. There is
no balance in the article anywhere. There are no interviews with any of our
thousands of ordinary members or pastors. Nowwhere.
(Interjection from NCCG_Concern: Chris'
makes the complaint " There are no interviews with any of
our thousands of ordinary members or pastors. Nowwhere". Chris had the opportunity to be interviewed and threw it away, plus,
he had the opportunity to put Gustav in contact with any one of these
"thousands of ordinary members" for an interview. Chris had
demonstrated principally uncooperative behavior throughout Gustav's contact
with him, and is blaming Gustav for his own missed opportunities and lack of
initiative). [Another instance when
nccg_concern rushes to G. Sjoeholm's defence. The latter, I presume, also had
the opportunity to interview members of the group but he also "threw it
away". Or didn't even occur to him. And then I wonder under what pretext
would C.C. Warren "put Gustav in contact" with a member. He himself
found the questions unacceptable and he would RECOMMEND the journalist? And
then, are the members under some sort of custody by C.C. Warren that he would
have to put them though? If he wished to interview members, he could have easily
e-mailed someone from the NCCG boards. Let's not fool ourselves here, if a
person wants to do serious research into NCCG, or any other church, there are
more ways to do that than a set of questions sent to the leader.]
Instead, the only people who are interviewed are one or two untested and
uninvestigated critics, an anonymously produced and unaccountable website, some
local people who have nothing bad to say of us (because we have good relations
with our community) except a Lutheran Pastor who, according to Sjöholm's
(clearly demonstrated inaccurate) reporting implies she has no contact with us,
when in fact she knows one of our cooperative members very well and has visited
us, and we her.
B7.2. We can present testimonies from dozens of members and
non-members alike who actually know us and have stayed with us and can
say just what we are like. And I myself have numerous character witnesses from
professional people, who have known me intimately over many years, who have no
connection with my religious beliefs and who in many cases have no religious
beliefs at all, who will vouch for my own character. They are all published
on-line and Sjöholm was directed to them, but clearly ignored them.
(Interjection from NCCG_Concern: The URL
Chris provided, http://www.nccg.org/homeschooling/cert.html , contains 6
references. 4
of them are from the year 1979 (27 years old!). This
was long before he started the cult and are in any case way too old to be
usable as a present-day reference by anyone. The remaining two are professional
recommendations from 1995 and 1996 (10 and 11 years old) indicating that he was
an effective grade-school teacher. Those two looked like strictly employment
references to me, not character references. [Sure… how about NO CERTIFICATES AT ALL? Rick Ross only has his
high-school diploma to recommend him. M.A. Crapo lacks credentials. I don't
know about nccg_concern but then I don't even know if he's a man or a woman,
nor does the "public". Now when he calls R. Ross and
"expert" and evidently looks up to him, maybe, just maybe, he should
consider he has only finished high-school. Clearly, he's not one to criticise
credentials. (By the way, if nccg_concern replies to this with "I have
credentials but I will not publish them for security reasons", he still
remains unqualified to the onlooker.)]
27 years old:
10 - 11 years old:
Links to the certificates are:
http://www.nccg.org/homeschooling/cert/cert13.gif
http://www.nccg.org/homeschooling/cert/cert14.gif
http://www.nccg.org/homeschooling/cert/cert15.gif
http://www.nccg.org/homeschooling/cert/cert16.gif
http://www.nccg.org/homeschooling/cert/cert12.gif
http://www.nccg.org/homeschooling/cert/cert19.gif
B7.3. Using Crapo as an authority, someone who does not know us, who has
got our theology completely wrong (no doubt because of the 'research' done for
her on an anonymous slander site, which we have extensively critiqued), has not
made a cross-sectional study of our people (her reasons are another matter and
the subject of another investigation) Sjöholm makes many ad hominem
accusations through suggestion (read 'conditioning'). If either he or Crapo had
wanted to test their theories, they could have joined our online discussion
groups openly (and not dishonestly, either they or their 'informants' lying in
order to gain admission, as we know they did), and openly asked questions of
anyone on the groups. There they would have discovered (and know it, actually,
Sjöholm never reported it) that people are free to expore any way they
want and to criticise me. There are numerous posts criticising my beliefs by
non-members and members alike.
B8.1. "Change of Personality"
So-called 'cult deprogrammers', who make a great deal of money out of
their profession in some cases, as I have unapologetically alleged, themselves display
cult-like tendencies, brainwashing and conditioning. In fact, it has been
conclusively proved in courts of law in the USA and various watchbodies are
strongly advising that 'cult deprogrammers' be closely monitored alongside the
cults they seek to expose. I supplied this information to Sjöholm who was
clearly not interested in the truth and only made passing reference to 'my'
allegations, ignoring the public watchdogs themselves. Indeed, he nowhere
recognised or so much as hinted that the public was very concerned about the
'deprogrammers' and simply reported that I had stated my disbelief in their
impartiality.
B8.2. Sjöholm cites only two cases in his entire article and then,
using his biased criteria, conditions Migrationsverket to think along his
lines as well. He fails to note - because he is not interested - that Migrationsverket
has already accepted the basis on which we recruit assistants from
abroad as a result of negotiations with them in the past. All of this is
documented. He also failed to note that we insist that visitors to our
co-operative can finance a return air ticket and maintain savings to that they
can resume their career or education in their home country should they wish to
return. Indeed, as he would testify, a recent convert, who is not an official
member, whom Sjöholm reports anonymously in his article, was told by us
that he should leave all his savings back home in case he wanted to travel back
and forth or permanently return home. This he can verify. But Sjöholm is
not interested in anything that would make his "destructive, dangerous and
isolated" cult theory look absurd, as indeed it is. And if he had done his
research properly on our website, he would have read that anyone wanting to
settle at the cooperative (remember, no new people have settled in the whole of
our 9 years in Sweden) are given a considerable numbers of rights, including
the right, should they leave, to take the equivalent of all they brought with
them materially and financially.
B8.3. As for a "change of personality", as I have stated
elsewhere, people change all the time. The vast majority of people report huge
positive changes in their lives who come here. A handfull of others, who have
personality problems associated with drug abuse, alcoholism, and psychological
problems stemming from abusive and unhappy homes, come and go. One of our
ministers works exclusively on the streets of Oslo helping drug addicts, works
closely with the local municipality ot kommun and rehabilitation
organisations, and occasionally brings clients here for weekends to get out of
the city atmosphere with all its drug temptations. Of course, Sjöholm is
not interested in this. If there are psychiatric visitors, we involve the
parents if they are alive and interested (we've had three in total), who are
usually not members, as much as we can. Last year we had a woman from the
Balkans visit us for 2-3 months with psychiatric problems with whom we worked
with the full cooperation of her parents, the father a renowned poet in his
home country - neither parent belong to our church. B8.4. When it was clear
that she would be best served by professional counsellors, we sent her back to
her parents, who have written positive and affirmative testimonies of us. But
of course such material would have spoiled Sjöholm's imaginary world of a
"dangerous, destructive sect". In this particular case, there was no
personality change at all.
B9. "Undermining Freewill"
B9.1. In another example of Sjöholm brainwashing and conditioning,
he cites Crapo again, arguing from his bogus 'isolationist' theory, who says:
"Many groups exist without being noticed. What people do not know is that
they undermine people's free will". I am sure many do just that. But as
Sjöholm very well knows - or would have known if he bothered to do an
honest day's work and do his resaerch work properly - is that people know who
we are, visit us, and have received literature from us telling them of our
beliefs.. Until she moved to Arvika, a Pentcostal lady (who never joined us)
from the nearby village, used to meet with us.
B9.2. I am not sure what Sjöholm is trying to accuse us of here,
but if it is that we deny people free will, this is a total lie and
fabrication. We are the total opposite. He has not one iota of proof that
anyone is ever denied free will. If, on the other hand, he means that people
coming to the cooperative cannot drink alcohol or play violent computer games
are somehow denied their 'free will', then it should be pointed out that
visitors know the rules before they come. People are free to say 'no' if
they don't like the rules and don't want to come or want to leave. That is
free-will.
B9.3. So once again, Sjöholm is trying to condition the readers'
minds with devious techniques by making indirect implications. Clearly he knows
something about human psychology and how to manipulate an audience. At any
rate, it is dishonest and bad journalism.
B10. Slavery
B10.1. Sjöholm knows very well that we do not believe in slavery
though he is determined to flog a dead horse for all its worth without
bothering to find out what we mean by such terms. He likes to spice up his
fatastic pot of alleged cultic ingredients with anything 'spicy' that he can
find. He seems to have no idea that 'slavery' in New Testament culture refers to
indentured service, and probably doesn't even know what that expression
means. Indentureship is a mutually agreed contract sealed by two or more
parties. When you hire someone to do a job, that is 'indentured service', or
'slavery' as some Bibles translate it. That is what we believe in. The Gospel
we teach is one of voluntary service by mutual arrangement. In fact, we are a
lot more generous than your average contractor. If someone wants to break their
contract and leave our fellowship, we let them go and send them with our
blessings. There are no penalties.
B10.2. Slavery and a few other topics are just Sjöholms straw men.
He is very subtle and devious in the way he attempts to character-assassinate.
He has broken the law in his article and knows it.
B11. The Beliefs of Other Minorities
B.11.1. People believe in different things for different reasons.
Sjöholm is quick to point out our beliefs about the occult, tarot cards,
violent TV games, Hinduism, Islam and the sexual practices of people we don't
agree with. What he doesn't tell you - because it would destroy his carefully
crafted false image of us - is that we believe that people should be free to
practice their own religions and sexual lifestyles any way they want to so long
as they do not try to coerce me into them. What Sjöholm doesn't tell you
is that I have friends who are Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, occultists, new
agers, homosexuals, bisexuals, lesbians, and many, many others. They all know
what I believe in, I know what they believe in, we disagree with each other,
and interact in those spheres of life that interest us both, respecting one
another, agreeing to disagree. We do not hate or persecute each other even
though there are for sure persons with similar beliefs who are abusive
and hate-filled. I am sure, however, that Sjöholm would like his readers
to believe that we totally shun these people or would wish to harm them. And I
am quite sure that he would not like his readers to know that one of our
leaders was a celibate gay. The fact is, we embrace nearly all people, meet
them where they are, share our beliefs, and let them decide what they want to
believe and go where they want to.
B12. Not Interested
B12.1. At the conclusion of his article, Sjöholm reports that I
told him that the leading deprogramming group, with which Crapo is affiliated,
"has been judged for insurance fraud, kidnapping and breach of human
rights". He carefully omits "by the US courts" to give the false
impression that this is just my own personal allegation. This man is a very
dishonest reporter indeed. I gave him extensive references to all the facts
(and they are facts, and not mere allegations - many of these people are
genuinely dangerous criminals known to have imprisoned and raped the 'cult
victims' they were 'deprogramming') about the 'deprogrammers'. However, for
obvious reasons, he did not want his readers to make their own investigations,
let alone summarise the truth about the deprogrammers. He has a single agenda -
to make us look like a "destructive, dangerous, and isolated" cult.
B12.2. No, indeed, I am not interested in criminals who are guilty of
hate-crimes, abuse and kidnapping. I have all the information. It's all on the
net and in court records of the USA. I am in contact with lawyers who have defended
religious minorities who have successfully prosecuted the 'deprogrammers'. The
facts are available for everyone who is honest enough to get the whole story
and expose the lies. You would be shocked at the personality profiles of some
of them.
C. Summary
C1. Sweden is a pluralistic society. It tolerates diverse lifestyles,
freedom of thought, and its laws protect minorities. We respect that and honour
it. We believe in sharing our opinions and criticising those we don't accept,
which is the basis of true democracy. When people refuse to allow criticism,
you have the basis of a dictatorship. However, criticism must be moderated by
certain standards of behaviour. And the conduct of Sjöholm is outrageous
and scandalous. His reporting belongs to the type of gutter press that
civilised countries refuse to have anything to do with.
C2. And whilst we do indeed believe in a world to come that is very
different from the world we live in, we happily accommodate ourselves to this
one, making sure we do not go out of our way to disturb people who do not want
to be disturbed, and interacting with all those who want to friendship us. One
of the reasons we evangelise in the West using the internet is because it
allows people to come and go as they please - they find us, rather than the
other way round. And whilst Sjöholm likes to find some sinister
implication with this (along with everything else we do in order to make his
'story' as spicey and alarmist as possible), the facts remain. In fact, we warm
people who might find their life style or beliefs criticised not to read any
further and require them to take personal responsibility for their choices. We
believe in 'live and let live', and whilst we certainly believe God (with a
capital 'G') will create the world in the way He wants it in the future, it
certainly should not be a problem for those who do not believe in Him to simply
let peacefully-minded minorities live the way they all want to. They can call
it religious fiction if they want to, it really doesn't matter. At least it is
honest, unlike Sjöholm's reporting.
C3. I demand redress and satisfaction before I take this further. I wish
to state for the record that I will not tolerate this kind of harrassment and
as a free citizen I mean to defend my rights along with those who share my
views against the likes of Sjöholm and the current NWT editorial staff. I
am hoping that this was a careless and thoughtless error on the part of NWT
which it will correct and save its reputation.
