[
www.guardian.co.uk]
Extract from guardian archives
Jon Ronson
Guardian
Saturday April 6, 2002
It is mid-February 2002. Dave tells me that he has invented a woman called Anita Foster and has created an email account for her. The fictitious Anita is writing to influential anti-cult groups in the UK, such as Reachout Trust and Catalyst. She says she's a concerned mother whose son has joined the Jesus Christians, and could they offer advice. Reachout Trust sends Anita their Jesus Christians fact-file. Dave sends it on to me. Under Obsession With Death, it quotes passages from Dave's pamphlets: "Fear of death is what gives the bosses their power! How long do you think you can survive without eating? Maybe a month or two! Okay. Would you rather have one month of freedom or a lifetime of slavery? Anything that isn't worth dying for isn't worth living for... If you'd like to be part of this army of martyrs, then please write to us today."
The emails between Anita and the anti-cult groups are getting chattier, Dave tells me. She's a likeable, concerned mother. He says that Anita will soon take on a pivotal role in this story - she will be the one to leak the kidney scandal to the anti-cult groups. This is Dave's plan: the fictitious Anita's fictitious son will donate a fictitious kidney; Anita will inform the anti-cult groups and imply that Dave is coercing his followers to sell their kidneys on the black market, and that the money will go to him. They will tell the tabloids, and the tabloids will go into a week-long frenzy about the self-mutilating kidney cult. Then - and here's my role in the grand scheme - I'll arrive on the scene with the true story of the Jesus Christians' remarkable philanthropy.
It seems a funny scheme, and one that has the capacity to backfire in myriad ways. What if the anti-cult groups don't believe "Anita"? What if the tabloids decide that mass kidney donating is a noble and heroic thing? What if I write unkindly about the group? Why does Dave want to make himself seem more sinister than he actually is?
"Your article will be like the resurrection," says Dave. "But the crucifixion is the key thing. If we have to get crucified for the message to get out, that's fine. And you'll be the resurrection."
Dave begins emailing me stern directives: "You DON'T HAVE TO BE THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE on this one. We can let the tabloids do that for us. We want them to have egg on their faces."
I email back. I tell Dave that I don't feel comfortable with his plan. I feel as if I'm being controlled.
Our relationship descends into an irascible silence. I'm sure there's something philanthropic about his intention to donate a kidney. I'm certain that Robin, Casey, Susan and the others have charitable motives. But when Dave emails me the details of his Machiavellian plot for media control - the Anita Foster leak, the ensuing tabloid frenzy, and then me cleaning it all up - I realise he's also seeking revenge for his treatment over the Bobby Kelly incident.
And, it occurs to me, Dave has scheduled the leak for mid-March, after Robin and Casey's operations, but before he, Susan and the other Jesus Christians will have time to give their kidneys. Will the tabloid frenzy - if it occurs - scupper these plans? "What if you become known as such a sinister cult that nobody wants your kidneys any more?" I ask him.
"Yeah, we've considered about that," he replies.
"I think the biggest concern, as Christians, is that we get the message out. Donating kidneys, for us,
is really a minor thing. If we can't do it, we can't."
"It's a big deal for the recipients," I snap.
There is a short silence. "Yeah," says Dave. "Um. I'm sure we could, uh, still find ways. We could go to another hospital. We could give false names ..."