- We
know that he doesn't like the NCCG (New Covenant Church of God) and in
particular its leader, Christopher C. Warren.
- We know that he has spent a year doing research
on this church at the time of this writing.
- We know that he has spent a significant amount of
time and energy to build a website opposing that church, but in particular
again, its leader.
- We know there is not even one good point
mentioned about that church, its practices, beliefs etc in the whole of
nccg_concern's website.
- We know that actual facts are nearly nowhere
mentioned in that website, unless they are mentioned extremely vaguely.
(particularly observable in fastfacts)
- We know that nccg_concern has purposefully hidden his identity from
the public and in particular from the people close to the church's
leadership (he says they are not welcome to e-mail him either, unless of
course he does so first). (see sources)
- We know that even though he has carefully concealed who he is for
fear of personal safety as he claims, he has twice revealed the identities
and whereabouts of two persons who directly oppose NCCG. (see letter from "Z" and gustavemail)
- We
know that nccg_concern volunteers to give advice to people who have
concerns about an NCCG-involved individual, when at the same time he has
shown indirectly elsewhere that he is NOT a professional in the area of
counselling, as he tends to understand things according to pre-conceived
ideas.
- We
know that the more NCCG defends its position, the more this
"investigator" becomes involved, even in areas that are outside
his self-appointed authority (like NCCG's dealings with a Swedish
newspaper or the local community). (see complaintissues)
- We
know that he becomes defensive and aggressive when his mistakes are
pointed out to him (see debunk2)
- We
know that he many times fills the "gaps" of information with
speculation of his own, which he usually titles as "highly
likely". In most cases, however, he turned out to be wrong. (see debunk2)
- We
know that he has obtained private information about many NCCG members, and
this information is used to produce conclusions according to
nccg_concern's judgement, which are thereafter posted publicly without the
members' permission or notification, but with a tag-line at the bottom
warning that the author cannot reveal his sources due to "privacy
concerns". I have interviewed members who had read such material and
immediately recognise the events and background of what is implied, and
these members have verified to me that the published conclusions and
warnings disagree with reality. (see overview
and the joke-analysis in false)
- We
know that he uses scientific-like language in some areas and what he calls
"emotionally engaging" language (i.e. ranting) in other areas.
(see debunk2)
- We know that he becomes
sarcastic and threatens (the main threat is to "expose" what he
calls "source material") in response to the NCCG leadership but
is much more controlled and "caring"
towards the NCCG members/investigators he has communicated with (in all
cases, he approached them on his own accord, without being asked or
invited – he treats them nicely in these cases). (see loveletters)
- We
know of a very interesting change in style and behaviour from what was the
original nccg_concern website to what it is now. The original website when
nccg_concern declared that his work is "essentially complete"
was much more "benign" compared to what it is today. (becomes
clear from updates)
- We
know that about 45% of the material he has written and have come to my
attention are inspired by or in any other way directed to an active young
male member of NCCG, who neither provoked this nor replied to any of it
except to rebut it for this website's benefit. In this communication he is
very controlled, meek and kind towards that member. (see prophecyindex, updates
and loveletters)
- We
know that he considers himself capable of theological analysis without
external help or counselling. To this effect, he has written an extensive
article where he categorises false prophecies, which proves eventually to
be faulty. (see prophecyindex)
- We
know that he has sent unsolicited e-mail to at least one NCCG member and
some investigators (see loveletters and unsolicitedemail)
- We
know that a part of the material nccg_concern has in his possession have
been obtained by illegal observation of communication between the NCCG
leadership and members/investigators. (see updates)
- I
speculate that an extensive analysis of C.C. Warren's life, including
financial details, past and present family details etc down to what type
of car he owns has been supplied from third parties to nccg_concern. One
such document was reported to have been sent via e-mail to a member of the
NCCG groups (though not a member of the church itself).
- Nccg_concern appears to lack any sort of moral code.
- Nccg_concern does not care much about other people's security
except his own
- Nccg_concern is not against NCCG itself but specifically against
its leader
- At the same time, this serves nccg_concern's ego and presents him
as a form of "benefactor" of the public and of people with loved
ones who are members/investigators of NCCG.
NCCG_Concern,
Rick Ross and the Deprogrammers:
Character Sketches
The purpose of this writing is to make an organised
presentation of the characteristics of a number of people who have shown
surprising resemblance in many aspects. What these people have in common is
that they are after "cults" claiming that this way they serve the
public. The people who have been the material for this analysis are mainly the
person who goes by the nickname "nccg_concern" (not otherwise
identified, and who is the main object of my study on this homepage) and Rick
Ross and those who agree with him, since "nccg_concern" is choosing
to use their standards for his own work and obviously looks up to them.
The questions asked and which this analysis is trying
to answer is "what is these people's agenda?" What's puzzling is why
someone needs to resort to slander, or kidnapping, or defamation to allegedly
serve the public. "Is this really service or is it something else?"
On Mr Ross's site one can find a list of what he
defines as warning signs, and "nccg-concern" is using these signs to
verify whether or not his objects of study are a cult or not. So we need to have
a look at them to see what kind of people they are "protecting"
society against.
What he uses as criteria look
sensible at first glance but what are they really saying? A report attached to
court documents relating to the incident of his grand theft show that Ross was
described as an individual who has sociopathic inclinations and cannot see that
what he does is socially unacceptable and dangerous. I think the readers will
find that is actually quite correct: (Observations added in parenthesis)
Ten warning signs of a potentially
unsafe group/leader. (Notice that this statement is based on Mr Ross personal
decisions about what he defines unsafe)
1. Absolute authoritarianism
without meaningful accountability.
(To whom then must the leader be
accountable? To God? To state? Or perhaps actually, to Rick Ross who will judge
him? Rick Ross will only be satisfied if the leader complies with his rules.
Therefore, the person the leader is accountable to is Ross himself who also
decides what 'meaningful accountability' implies)
2. No tolerance for questions or
critical inquiry.
(Who is meant to question or
critically inquire until satisfied that their questions are tolerated? This,
like the previous criterion, ensures Ross or the person using his standards to
promote an investigation the right to ask until they get the answers they want)
3. No meaningful financial
disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited
financial statement.
(To whom? reported where? Similar
as before, if you fail to disclose the total of your financial status, you
might be found to be a "cult" according to this criterion - and this
statement does nothing to exclude anyone like Mr. Ross himself - a convicted
thief - from having a look into the group's financial situation)
4. Unreasonable fear about the
outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and
persecutions.
(How does the critic know if the
fear is unreasonable or not? Is unreasonable based on the observer's personal
perception? If so we once again have judgement according to Ross.)
5. There is no legitimate reason to
leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
(Well how many people say you are
right about your change of opinion and still keep believing in what they now
believe is wrong? That way, if a former follower is negative, the group is a
cult. In other words... if one disagrees, all must change???? If you disagree with those who
disagree with you… you're cultic? In this way, if 2 or 3 former followers were
indeed wrong in leaving, the title "cult" remains quite handy. The
oxymoron is that if you are found to disagree with those who disagree with you,
you seem to break this commandment)
6. Former members often relate the
same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
(In this case, what does abuse
mean? This definitely must be clarified. How does one draw a line between
righteous grievances and the ones that are but a petty matter of taste or ego?
How is it possible for someone to apply this criterion when these two key words
have such a wide meaning which might include about every situation imaginable?)
7. There are records, books, news
articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
(This looks very scientific, but it
is not hard for a person to get media attention when accusing someone of being
cultic because the media will always be on the outlook for a juicy story that
sells, and not be too particular about how factual the claims are. Do the media
always report the truth? And books… well books will be found supporting
whatever faith anyone holds and any author of a book can decide to lie. To
categorically state that bad media attention makes a group suspect is not
reasonable)
8. Followers feel they can never be
"good enough".
(This is playing with words, trying
to make people feel they should always have a great time in their setting, but
if you look at it rationally what person does always feel they are good enough?
What person feels that they are quite up to scratch about what is expected of
them? And if a member of a group who tends to wish to be as good as possible
within a religious group, would you say the whole group is a cult? Or does in
fact a bunch of zealous members make a group a cult?)
9. The group/leader is always
right.
(This statement is kind of an
optical illusion, it makes the reader think: "Aha… dictatorship, this must
be avoided", because we have heard that can lead to catastrophe. But in
actual fact you will find that in any group that has followers the followers
come to the group because of what the group stands for and don't expect
the group to change into every aspect of their personal liking.. but rather to
benefit from the groups standards and intentions. This results in the group
being non-negotiable about it's agenda and members are free to stay and see it
the same way or disagree or if disagreeing even more decide to leave. Look at a
political party for instance and you will see how it goes)
10. The group/leader is the exclusive
means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of
discovery is really acceptable or credible.
(Sounds good… sounds like this way
we get rescued from self proclaimed rulers who decide that they know better
than others. Well yes it would take care of those, but then again it would also
target those who actually do know better than others: People who have
made discoveries and insist that they have found out something they wish others
to learn about. Without someone having more truth than others, there would be
no learning going on at all. If Ross were to follow this criterion he would not
have written anything or spoken at all - everyone who has a message believes
they have the right idea and that they have got to it the right way.)
Summary:
It's like if Ross expects the group
members to become cult-researchers but in truth, these signs are so
all-including, vague and unspecified that any group can be called a
cult. This way people will find the cultic tendencies no matter what group they
belong to if they look with this in mind.
When reading this it was striking
to see how bombastically these 'rules' are stated and it gives the feeling that
one has to obey in order to be a sensible person who is not naïve or
easily tricked. Let's have a look at the unwritten commandments that these
'signs' of 'sin'… er I mean 'cult' are based on, and recall that if you are
disobedient to those commandments you are most definitely mad, dangerous,
gullible and worthless according to nccg_concern, Rick Ross and others who make
use of the above definitions of a cult and condemns them as they do. These
commandments have been arrived at by simply reading the message behind the
'signs' above just compare sign one to the first commandment, sign two with the
second, and so on and you will see that it is their hidden message. Here they
are:
Once again, please compare this
with:
1. Absolute authoritarianism
without meaningful accountability.
2. No tolerance for questions or
critical inquiry.
3. No meaningful financial
disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited
financial statement.
4. Unreasonable fear about the
outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and
persecutions.
5. There is no legitimate reason
to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6. Former members often relate the
same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. There are records, books, news
articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
8. Followers feel they can never
be "good enough".
9. The group/leader is always
right.
10. The group/leader is the
exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other
process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
Seeing this makes one wonder. Why
would anyone want to promote such ridiculous and impossible rules? What are
these people after?
In observing Rick Ross and his
associates and nccg_concern, a common pattern becomes apparent, which is
two-fold. Firstly, they all seem to be quite passionate about what they do.
Rick Ross has even been dragged to court for his practices and has not given
up. His associates seem to be very devoted to the "cause". In stories
of deprogramming, some of them have been talking/yelling at the "cult
victims" for long periods of time, sometimes 10-12 hours according to
victims’ testimonies. One of them testified they can go on for even 2 or 3
days. Rick Ross also uses techniques such as sleep deprivation, physical
violence and restriction of the individual's freedom of choice to be subjected
to the programming or not. It is quite interesting to see that what nccg_concern
classifies as cultic behaviour complies perfectly with what Rick Ross does.
Nccg_concern has spent hours and hours to pick up every piece of dirt he can
find to throw at the group he has named himself after and seems to follow them
similarly to how stalkers behave towards their victims.
The second point is, the people
they are after, the alleged "cult victims" or "cult
members" are too quite passionate about their own belief system. Many of
them have been kidnapped, threatened, tortured, and they remained fixed to
their own "cause".
The question is why Rick Ross and
those associated with him are so passionately after these people? Why aren't
they, for instance, against racial discrimination, or environmental pollution,
things which are widely acknowledged as universal problems? Is it for the
common good? But then there are so many ways to be a benefit for the public. Is
it for the money? But there are many ways of making money. Why did Rick Ross
and his associates and nccg_concern choose THIS particular passion? Why did
they continue to choose this even after losses in lawsuits, going bankrupt,
being humiliated or discredited?
The answer is in their objective:
the passion of others. You see, in Ross's 10 anti-cult commandments, the thing
which is most of all condemned is the refusal to stay a part of the
"flock", and rather to remove oneself from the mass-mentality in any
way possible. People who are collectively "different" (i.e. what he
calls cults) do this by conviction. They choose to remove themselves by
devoting themselves to something, a God, a leader, maybe even a lover (which
they term as a one-person cult). What Ross and nccg_concern so strongly
advocate against and try to quench is the passion for something off the beaten
track. What agrees with the cult-watcher's eyes is common and therefore benign.
What does not, is a cult. The same pattern is seen in families. What agrees
with the parent's eyes is acceptable. What does not is dangerous and must be
stopped at all costs. However, it is one thing to condemn the practice and
another to forcibly try to reverse it.
So what is it that drives them to
take charge in people's lives who did not invite them and not welcome them?
Obviously they are in disagreement with something that is commonly respected by
people all over the world: An individual’s freedom of choice. Why would
someone treat this freedom as something so petty and insignificant, and even
declare it harmful, in the name of "freedom from cult oppression?"
The Stockholm Syndrome
The Stockholm syndrome is a
psychological response sometimes seen in a hostage, in which the hostage
exhibits seeming loyalty to the hostage-taker, in spite of the danger (or at
least risk) in which the hostage has been placed. Stockholm syndrome is also
sometimes discussed in reference to other situations with similar tensions,
such as battered person syndrome, child abuse cases, and bride kidnapping.
The syndrome is named after the
Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm, Sweden in
which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28,
1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their
victimizers, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their
six-day ordeal. Two of the women hostages eventually became engaged to the
captors.
The term was coined by the
criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the
robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.
As becomes obvious from the above,
the Stockholm Syndrome is bound to develop between a kidnapper and a victim, a
deprogrammer and a "cult-member". Rick Ross and his associates are
aware of this tendency because many of the deprogrammed people are now loyal
deprogrammers or if less active about it many at least feel a sense of
gratitude for having been "set free" and recommend that it be done to
others they feel are in the same position as they were. Even those who are
unsuccessfully "deprogrammed" and remain in their convictions will
wonder if there might be truth in something that was said, because of
the sheer force of the assault. This is why they have to dominate each situation.
Rick Ross and the
Non-professional Deprogrammers
"… acted recklessly in a way that is so
outrageous in character and so extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of
decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community." – From verdict issued by jury about Rick Ross
Here we have the profile of a man
who, for some reason that is hidden to a casual observer, recklessly hunts down
religious groups, exploits media defamation and vulnerable families in order to
DESTROY. This man has no intention of DOING but of UNDOING. He has no intention
of bringing things or people together but to do whatever he can to split them
apart. He makes no effort to correct, but if one window is faulty, the whole
house will be set on fire. This becomes obvious by his 10 "hints" as
to a dangerous cult. Rick Ross wrote these things, obviously out of sheer
inspiration. Each and every one of them implies that if you are found to think separately
from the popular opinion, you are a danger and you must be destroyed.
Rick Ross has been found by
psychologists to lack the ability to sympathise with people and bring himself
to understand their predicament. Therefore, it is not mercy or benevolence that
is the undercurrent of his motivation, but rather a self-appointed
authoritative position. If you look at the 10 "signs" again you will
see that all 10 deny from a person the right to be one’s own master or to bow
to someone else (be it a cult-leader or God himself).
What is interesting is that there
is no one who does not get influenced or adhere to the ideas of someone else.
Each and every one of us is persuaded daily by the TV, the magazines, the
media, our friends and our parents. This persuasion may vary from light
influence to downright manipulation and brainwashing. The catch is that if the
influence or brainwashing is done by a "benign" source, such as the
media, no one so much as winks at it. For instance, if a 16-year-old is
convinced that shaving his head and listening to metal music will give him
self-worth and identity, this is fully acceptable in the eyes of a secular
watcher because so many other 16-year-olds follow the same pattern. This
irrational course of thinking advocates that the tendency of the majority is
always right, even if it is harmful or even deadly for the individual.
What is never acceptable is the
influence from a person that does not have authority which has been
acknowledged by the majority (see the 1st "sign"). This is
frowned upon and considered suspicious, without evaluating the nature of the
influence itself. For example, if 2 men follow a 3rd man’s rules and
advice in a way that it defines them and alters their lives to a considerable
extent, this is considered dangerous. The way this man influences them will not
be examined thoroughly or objectively, but only under the biased spectre of the
"cult watcher".
So we come to what is a cult to
Rick Ross, nccg-concern and their kin in honesty, and now what Ross has written
down for the eyes of the world. A cult, according to Rick Ross, is ANY group of
people (or particular persons) who will choose to submit parts of their life
and a big proportion of their energy to someone who either isn’t popular enough
or teaches things that the majority would perhaps disagree with. To put it
simply, if you choose to change your worldview in a radical, or original way
which is little known to the public and you actually stick to it and call
others to it because you believe that is the best way to be, you are setting up
a cult.
Rick Ross seems to have dedicated
his life to this cause. What does it offer? It offers money, fame and
acknowledgement, but most importantly of all, it offers authority. What Rick
Ross is really after is this exactly. It is the taste of power that they get
when they watch themselves becoming a turning point to another person’s life.
If you compare him to his own profile of cult-leader, you will see it matches
perfectly.
It is a perverted instinct but it
makes perfect sense, if you consider the people he hates the most (people with
authority) and the practices he uses (imposed authority). The deprogramming has
this goal exactly, as is shown by the example of the Stockholm Syndrome. What
it wishes to accomplish is the shift of loyalty from the "cult" to
the deprogrammer. This is obvious as the only way a "cult member"
will let go of his (or her) own worldview and probably a cause that he has
sacrificed a lot to achieve, is to fully trust and bow – so to speak – to the
deprogrammer. Consider torture victims, victims of rape and abuse and kidnapped
people and the Stockholm Syndrome. What happens is that the victim gives in
unconditionally to exactly what their abuser imposes: full control.
As then a rapist imposes full
control over another’s body, and as a kidnapper imposes full control over one’s
freedom, similarly Rick Ross imposes full control over one’s beliefs. The
difference between a cult and Rick Ross is that the cult has earned the
authority over its members lives (as the cults Ross is after don’t pull in
people by their necks, but rather use persuasion, promises, hope, etc) whereas
Ross claims this authority 100% by force without any grounds whatsoever. When
looking at it through this scope, cults are less dangerous than Rick Ross and
he in his turn is as cruel as a rapist.
I mentioned before that the thrill
of this, the grand prize of the deprogrammer’s efforts is the taste of power.
Let us consider it again. Let us consider the moment a "cult member",
after probably being removed from his or her home (they are usually women),
taken to an unknown place and been yelled at and humiliated for 48 hours
finally decides to give up. She pulls down her defences and begins to
reconsider the deprogrammer’s words, despite the fact that this is the person
who is now denying her freedom. After all this argument and effort she says
"yes" to the deprogrammer. Can you picture the thrill this man or
woman feels right then to know that another person’s heart and mind are under
their full authority to do what they please with? It’s like owning the person,
it’s like being their god, their saviour, their mother and father, their best
friend.
This is exactly what Rick Ross has
devoted his life to accumulate. Sadly, these "highs" don’t last very
long. It’s similar to telling a good joke to your friends. You will feel very
good as long as everyone laughs, but after all, that wasn’t such a big deal.
Someone might say a better joke, you never know. If you take a look at Ross’s
website you will see that he has come against MANY people. You will also see
that he has gone to great lengths to dig out just about every cult he can find.
Is he trying to save the world?
Nccg_concern's abnormal
enthusiasm
"Hey NCCG Men: […] Successfully
impersonating a woman for the required period of time is a challenge, and you
would need to be able to emulate a woman going through various stages of
psychological influence and controllability. Men with no applied background in
the psychology associated with undue influence may not be able to act the part
well enough." (from current)
One might wonder, how can you analyse a
person you know virtually nothing about? Well, as it very often happens, a
person's disposition is shown, sometimes clearly, sometimes subtly through
one's work. Nccg_concern has quoted a very useful phrase from the Bible:
"By their fruits you will know them". Whether you are Christian or
not, I believe that a person's effects on their environment speaks volumes
about their intentions. People, as a rule, tend to get their heart's innermost
desire accomplished, whether they know what that desire is or not. So like
Jesus suggested, and like common knowledge also suggests, nccg_concern will be "known"
by his fruits.
One might also wonder, why go to such
lengths anyway? Because all the effort I have done to carry out this research
would be incomplete if the integrity of nccg_concern remained unexamined. For
one thing, I believe that if a person judges someone else, that person ought to
reveal their own identity and credentials. This becomes a typical issue in
court, for instance. A witness's testimony might be considered completely
useless and empty if the witness is not reliable. One of the strongest evidences
that indicates that a witness is unreliable is if this person had been guilty
for the same crime in the past. In other words, if a person's house is made of
glass, he is not to go and throw rocks at other people's houses.
What do we know then about nccg_concern
from the research conducted in this website? (and by "we" I mean the
readers and myself)
From
overall observation:
From specific articles:
From
other sources:
I do not know this man’s name (always
assuming he is a man), hobbies, interests, family status, etc. All I know about
him is all that I see on his website. In a recent update, he said that he is
not hiding his identity from anyone except C.C. Warren (his main enemy) who is
"purposefully kept in the dark". The whole website oozes this
feeling: purposeful words, purposeful concealment, and purposeful attacks,
purposeful everything. A year’s worth of research about a "little"
person like C.C. Warren for no apparent reason, with hidden identity, playing
in effect “cat and mouse” with a church group makes me see nccg_concern as a
boy playing with his toy. He has avoided every speck of responsibility like a
stain on one’s shirt, by hiding everything about him and as he is hiding behind
that cloak, shooting venom and watching the effects.
So in this article, I am not meaning so
much to discuss nccg_concern's methods in his "research" but rather
himself as a person.
Consider the quote that this section began
with. Nccg_concern suggests to other men (whom he addresses on his webpage as NCCG-men), more or less, to try to
impersonate a woman in order to find out how C.C. Warren treats women. Except
that the mere idea is somewhat perverted, isn't it odd that someone invites
people to lie so light-heartedly? Successfully impersonating a woman, apart
from being "challenging" also requires a LOT of lying, a lot of
pretence and a lot of determination to lie and pretend, but the way
nccg_concern just throws it in there, it seems like deception is perhaps a
natural concept to him. What he is saying is that the only problem with
deceiving as a means to an end is the fact that it's "challenging".
Apparently, according to nccg_concern, there is no morality to stop the NCCG
men from lying, no God, no ethical standards, but only the fact that it might
be particularly hard to resemble a woman for so long. In other words, people
can deceive as much as they want as long as it's do-able.
Moreover, is this man afraid of C.C.
Warren? On his site he declares that he does not wish to have his identity
known as it might jeopardise his personal safety since he has authored a
website against C.C. Warren. Simultaneously, however, he confidently shares the
personal data of Gustav Sjoeholm who works only a short distance away from C.C.
Warren's home. Which leaves one to conclude that either the only person
nccg-concern cares about is himself or his reason for keeping his own name
concealed is not what he claims it to be. If he genuinely thought that measures
of safety were needed in contact with C.C. Warren, he would not publish
personal correspondence from Chad Zimmerman and Gustav Sjoeholm, so one can
only conclude that nccg-concern never was objective in his 'research' but
enjoys his religious sniping at unarmed innocents.
Another interesting observation is what I
am going to call person-specific attacks. Nccg_concern seems to attack the
leader of NCCG exclusively, although it is common sense that a church or group
is constructed by a number of people most of whom tend to have the same belief
system as the leader, so to the "watcher's" eye, they should be just
as bad. For instance, if, hypothetically speaking, I were to come against the
Church of Scientology, I would not accuse only the founder of that church but
also the people who bring new individuals to the church, those who design its
websites, those who write its books, those who advocate for it etc. Now NCCG is
TINY compared to the Church of Scientology, but there are individuals such as
Derek Rumpler – who has contributed to this website – who does a LOT of the
work to keep NCCG going. If I hated NCCG, D. Rumpler and C.C. Warren would be
just as evil to my eyes. What is very interesting to observe is that
nccg_concern who clearly disapproves of ALL the practices of NCCG, while he presents
C.C. Warren as a dangerous and manipulative genius, he is being exceptionally
kind and "embracing" towards D. Rumpler. The latter has already
expressed his disapproval of nccg_concern publicly more than once. An
interesting incident is the one with the "mole" picture. Because
nccg_concern was nicknamed "the Mole" in the NCCG Cyber Community
board after an inspired comment by an investigator, D. Rumpler posted a picture
of a particularly ugly mole saying this is what nccg_concern must look like.
The funny thing is that nccg_concern has used this picture to decorate his profile in the Yahoo!
Member Directory, and did not express any offence as to that. Personally, I
don't take being called a "mole" as a compliment, and posting a
picture of one and saying that it should resemble me doesn't sound particularly
flattering. However, nccg_concern seems to have appreciated this as such. Then
came the letters. Nccg_concern seems to hold D.
Rumpler at particularly high appreciation, even though his beliefs are almost
identical with C.C. Warren's. This leads to the conclusion that what
nccg_concern detests so much are not the practices, nor the beliefs, nor the
supposed "manipulation" but C.C. Warren himself.
The question is, WHY? Sane men don't go
around hating people, as far as I know. Now considering that C.C. Warren has a
family and many people depend on him, it is to make one wonder how come
nccg_concern picked him as target. Maybe it's personal.
Therefore, according to the above:
To me it looks like nccg_concern's only
"concern" is how to make that person – Warren – look as horrible as
it can get, with little consideration of "fair play", morality etc.
What does that indicate? It indicates that to him there is no difference
between means and ends, and in his case, neither have moral basis.
Conclusion: nccg_concern hopes to be seen
as an angel by pointing his finger at someone else to ridicule and maltreat:
that behaviour is called bullying when done during school years.
Q's: Lawyer, A's: Rick Ross
Q. So, therefore, [Scott's treatment] was homosexual, sir, yes or no?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. Did you disclose to Mrs. Tonkin prior to deprogramming Scott that
you had a homosexual background?
A. Mr. Bowles, I think that at this point you really have to ask yourself what
the purpose is of this deposition, and for you to sit here and make nasty
remarks -
[…]
Q. Are you going to refuse to answer the question?
A. I refuse to answer the question.
This is from Rick Ross's deposition
in the Jason Scott trial from a website which provides a lot of evidence about
Rick Ross: http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/index.htm
and http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/homosexual.htm.
According to the evidence, he is in all probability homosexual. The website is
clearly anti-Rick Ross, but evidence is evidence. I think it's worth a read.
Another independent source, however,
verifies that sexual abuse has occurred during deprogramming sessions.
http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN.htm
You will be interested to find that
Mary Alice Crapo (a.k.a. Chrnalogar) has participated in such occasions by
mocking someone's sexuality:
During the five-day
abortive coercive deprogramming of Henry Kuegel, a member of the Church
Universal and Triumphant, deprogrammers Mary Alice Chrnalogar, Galen Kelly, and
Rory Ingalls (among others present) displayed the usual "commode
insensitivity" and mocked Kuegel’s sexuality
The person in question had adopted
the doctrine of the church he was a member of to be celibate until marriage and
this is what he was mocked about.
The author of the article mentioned
above is an independent source. He writes:
Sexual tactics refer to
two types: (1) forced sexual intercourse, or rape (of men and women); and (2)
sexual demeaning or intimidation of a person or refusal to permit reasonable
hygienic care. Since sometimes the drug use and sexual abuse occurred together,
we make no attempt to separate them out in the following illustrative
testimonies.
In this link below you can read many
cases of victims of "deprogramming" undergoing sexual assaults
varying from being watched while using the bathroom (by more than one persons
usually) and fondled under dresses to downright rape. Among others, the story
of a lesbian who was being raped for a week into "normality" as part
of her deprogramming. In all stories,
the deprogrammers involved were members of the former C.A.N. (Cult Awareness
Network).
http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN/appendix_A.htm
Sexual abuse, whether it is mild or
goes as far as forced intercourse, continues to be sexual abuse and indicates
mental instability to say the least. This matter is presented here as it links
to the "power surge" and the "highs" that deprogramming
gives. It does not surprise this author to read reports of such phenomena. Nor
does it surprise me to find that persons like Rick Ross are in all probability
confused about their sexuality.
Something which has been observable
about nccg_concern is the lengths he went to prove to a male member of NCCG
that NCCG's leader is a false prophet. Nccg_concern has in fact written what is
estimated to be about 45% of all his writings which have come to my attention
(see updates). At the same time, he claimed all this
work was "inspired" by that member, and sent him many e-mails
inviting him to read it (see loveletters). In
one of these letters, we find nccg_concern being extra gallant, apologising for
the size of the letter and reassuring its recipient that the purpose is not to
harass him.
Finally, in the statement I quoted
under the section about him, he characterises impersonating a woman as
"challenging". You are invited to draw your own conclusions.
Question: "What's with the [Wikipedia] bias against counter-cult organizations? Drumpler 02:19, 12 September 2007"
Anxswer: 1. They are not WP:V reliable sources. 2. They are openly POV biased against cults. 3. There's a long-standing LOGRTAC consensus against citing anti-cult exit counselor Rick Ross's personal essays (although his archive of mainstream news articles is extensively cited), so by extension of fairness that applies to other anti- and counter- organizations opposed to cults. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 04:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Source: Counter-cult Organizations
