My decision to go about this activity non-anonymously has nothing to so with a hankering after publicity on my part, so I take exception to that comment above.

"Why don't we all publicly say who we are? Because unlike him, we do not crave publicity. "

That's not fair and is a little offensive to me. I quite deliberately chose to go about this activity, giving full and total disclosure about my identity and contact info, every step of the way. I chose to do so because I wanted to try and assuage David's paranoia a little, so as not to let him criticize me for hiding behind a pseudonym, and also because I am not scared of DM or what he might do to me one bit. I did not disclose my ID to gain glory for Brian. I have often thought to myself, "What would DM do if all of the ex-members stood up (so to speak) and roundly discredited him, with one unified voice? What's he gonna do, sue EVERYBODY?" But that is your decision, ex-JCs (not speaking up more aggressively, that is) and I respect that. You probably don't want to even THINK about McKay, and I do not blame you. So it's is left up to people like myself to actively work online to foil the McKays' activity. It has nothing to do with publicity for me. I was invited to go on a TV show to talk about the JCs, and I agreed to go. It's not like I am here at home making press kits and calling press conferences.

With a character like McKay, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. He'll act out if you ignore him, and act out even worse if you give him the attention he desires. So I say lay it on. McKay has not seen bad press yet. He does not even know what bad press is. If I am the one person that goes about this business under my own real name, then so be it. Somebody has to do it.

My decision to go about my activity non-anonymously has nothing to do with attention for Brian, it has to do with the fact that I am not scared of DM or what might happen to me over this. I am not intimidated , and will not stop until DM is stopped (legally of course, gotta be careful to say that).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2007 02:34AM by zeuszor.

FYI David: Annette is now happily married; married daughters don't usually live with their mothers. You made such a big deal out of the fact that Annette doesn't live with Leisel on the show, and I thought that you might like to know about the reason. She's married now, that's why. Surprise!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2007 09:07AM by zeuszor.

Well, I've thought it over a little, and it's like this: on the one hand, I do respect and understand most ex-JCs reluctance to come out publicly to testify of their experience with David and The McKay Family Business/Jesus Christians cult. It'd be analogous to a rape victim refusing to appear in court to face and accuse her attacker; it'd be a difficult experience (to say the very least) to try and relive and give an account of, traumatic all over again. So I respect and support that unwillingness, on the one hand.

On the other hand, however...well, I'll explain this way: there was a man named Charles Garry, a prominent civil-rights attorney, who was in the seventies one of the two lawyers for Jim Jones' People's Temple, the other being a man named Lane. All indications point to the FACT that Garry knew of Jim Jones' homicidal plans and in fact had to talk him out of holding a mass murder/suicide under different circumstances about a year before Senator Ryan's visit to Jonestown. He knew that Jim was holding them hostage. Charles Garry could have blown the whistle, so to speak, and stopped Jim Jones from instigating his own final solution. Marceline Jones too, for that matter, she knew full well that her husband was nuts, dangerous, and she could have acted to somehow to stop her husband from ordering what was to come. There's a lot of blood on Garry's hands. Marceline (like Cherry) I am not sure about, victim or participant? Garry was culpable to it and a participant in it, even while out the other side of his mouth he was telling the world that Jonestown was paradise, the SOB. In fact, he also was one of Jonestown's few survivors because he lied to some guards and got out of there. Why didn't Garry and Mrs. Jones do something to stop Jim? Why did so many men and women allow Jim Jones to have sex with them publicly, spank them publicly, torture children publicly? Why would they all allow those horrors to happen? Why would Garry and Mrs. Jones not say something to the authorities in order to prevent 914 people from dying? The answer is, basically, that they all had an interest in believing in Jim Jones. Forsaking the Temple would have meant sacrificing a lot of things, not the least of which was their respective livelihoods. See? They had too much to lose at that point, later on in Jonestown.

What I am saying is, if you know of some homicidal or suicidal ideations on David McKay's part, know of some hint of violence, coercion to the end of some physical suffering or extreme sacrifice ("laying down your life for your friends," etc.) know of DM ever alluding to or speaking of suicide, murder, violence, abuse, exploitation, whatever like that: for God's sake, other people's lives are at stake here, and if something really bad happens with or to the JCs....I'll put it like this: if you knew of a man who was going around the country infecting unsuspecting partners with HIV, and in fact you yourself had been infected by this individual, and you knew where he was, who he had been with etc., and you didn't speak out, then all of the subsequent infect-ees whose HIV-positive status you could have prevented by speaking out about the creep in the first place, well, I say that you have been irresponsible and their blood is partially on your hands. In other words, you'd have a moral imperative to speak up for the good of society.

Has McKay ever mentioned the possibility of killing or being killed/martyred in his writings and among his victims/members? Of course; his stuff is replete with allusions to death and violence.

You ex-JCs could have information or could be able to recount experiences that could save DM's future potential victims a lot of time and trouble, and possibly save lives in the long run. You have a moral imperative to do something if you can, otherwise the blood is on your hands too. You are a participant in DM's abuse whether you actually condone it or not.

Sorry if this post is a little rambling, it's only that I want to put a fine point on what I am trying to express, you see.

Everyone connected to this is a participant whether they realize it or not. Silence equals death. This is my opinion, frankly and with deepest respect.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2007 12:01PM by zeuszor.

Zeuszor, I did not mean to insult you or to imply that you are just out for publicity. I deeply respect and appreciate you and others for being up front. It's a great thing you do. In other circumstances, (i.e., being single) I would do the same.

However, I have sacrificed enough and paid enough of a price to put a very high premium on the protection of my family from whatever Dave might want to do in revenge. I am glad to participate on these forums and do everything I can to show the evil in Dave's cult, with the proviso that my anonymity is sacred. I feel I have contributed to the best of my ability, but i'm sorry, my family is not for sacrifice.

I was comparing myself and others with Dave, not comparing you with Dave. I'm sorry I did not consider how you would read the post.

I must say that, while Dave sucks in youngsters, I do not feel he is anywhere near the same level of threat as Jim Jones. I will write more later.

Certainly, friend. It's not worth involving your family, for sure. Thanks for your kindness.

To me, it's not really a matter of whether DM is "as bad as" Jim Jones, the question is: how far would his people be willing to go for him? It's a question of control, you see.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2007 01:03PM by zeuszor.

Haivng not been a JC, I can't talk about the experiences of that group, so wanted to talk about my own experience,leaving my childhood group, and hope it might be relevant.

Those people who finally helped me see reality were kind and gentle.They let me talk about the good stuff in the group,and acknowledged that some stuff was good, and then helped me to look at everything else, at power, and at control. At who sacrificed, and who did not. At what the official rules were, and what the "real" rules were. At what we were allowed to disagree with , and what we weren't.

Some people may be in a position ( and have the courage) to be named. But other people may help in different ways. That's the great thing about not being in a group.There is no one right way, and there is room for lots of different people to help in whatever way is right for them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2007 02:53PM by yasmin.

Zeuszor said

[[u]quote=Zeuszor]You ex-JCs could have information or could be able to recount experiences that could save DM's future potential victims a lot of time and trouble, and possibly save lives in the long run. You have a moral imperative to do something if you can, otherwise the blood is on your hands too. You are a participant in DM's abuse whether you actually condone it or not.[/u]


Matilda here. Ex members have spoken out here on this forum and have been speaking out on a number of other forums on the internet over the years. Cult awareness groups around the globe hold information about DM's group and they know their sources. It is all out there and did not come from thin air. The important thing is that anyone who is considering an involvement with this group now has access to all of that information. The 'moral imperative' has been fulfilled Brian.

The issue of disclosure or anonymity is a red herring, thrown out by Dave, in order to discredit the information that is publicly available about him. It is his main defense and a very shallow one. We are playing straight into his hands if we fall for pressure tactics ( eg comparisons with Garry/ Jim Jones ) and inflammatory language ('blood is on your hands too') that Dave himself uses. Brian, you may not be aware that Dave used that line (blood on your hands) on Jon Ronson when he was trying to manipulate the outcome.

Brian, you yourself were able to locate information here and elsewhere about Dave.There is no need for pressure tactics.



[www.caic.org.au]


[www.cultinformation.org.uk]


[factnet.org]


[www.ccgm.org.au]


[www.culteducation.com]

Brian, you yourself were able to locate information here and elsewhere about Dave.There is no need for pressure tactics.


Yes ma'am. You are right. My only intent was to get others to speak out if they already hadn't. It'd be irresponsible not to. That's all I'm saying.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2007 09:49PM by zeuszor.

Dear Zeusor,

I'd personally prefer to see a "board" that permitted people to contribute in whatever fashion in which they felt most comfortable....I (and I assume Jack Oscar Larm) are "thumbing our noses" at David's by being prepared to identify ourselves.....that said, I live in Korea and for me, David MacKay is just some distant nightmare on the internet that I can "turn off" whenever I tire of confronting the work of Satan in the world today....

Others are not in the position that I am....

I think it's better to have a large number of "anonymous" contributors, on the forum if for no other reason than the "torment" that David then undergoes trying to (often wrongly!) identify the source of any postings in order that he may then engage in the appropriate character assassination that he requires in order to quash debate of the actual issues....(e.g. some of the infringements of "rights" that were nominated in Yasmins' postings are plainly completely pertinent to MacKay INC.....)


...the patent idiocy of his self-absorbed "trauma" is manifestly apparent at those times....



(......and despite his apoplectic rant, he still hasn't been clever enough to be able to uncover any of my other identities, I might add!!...)

My contribution to this discussion is that I believe the counter cult organisations virtually no nothing about Dave McKay and the Jesus Christians other then what they have read in the newspapers, on forums or perhaps discussions they may have had with concerned parents. Don't take my word for it. Ask them to provide you with some material and see what you get.

Brian has obtained a lot of information that was not previously in the public domain to a great extent and the only reason people have been able to view it, is that he has made it available on this forum. There is a wealth of other information that has been uncovered, that is not icurrently in the public domain, but which has been uncovered by traditional investigative techniques and resources, not via counter cult groups, the media or
ex members.

Dave's bibliography is basically what he provides to the media. The old line that he is a native of Rochester, New York is trotted out in each article. His involvement with the Children of God is listed as him spending three months, but which three months? He rarely gives accurate dates or information pertaining to his background or omits information. He relies on the pasage of time and the laziness of journalists, needing to meet deadlines not to do their homework.

I personally do believe people should remain anonymous if they choose to protect themselves and their loved ones. I don't believe people should be pressured, embarrasssed or made to feel guilty about giving information. However, I do believe we need to encourage ex members and others to contribute more if and when they feel able. They need not do this publicly, there are a whole variety of ways that the information can be passed on.

Ex members are the equivalent of the bug or undercover cop in the investigation of the Jesus Christians. They have had access to inside information that cannot be obtained through normal channels. They should be encouraged to provide it, but being mindful of and sympathetic to their unique circumstances.