Quote
zeuszor
Hi Mal:

What David is doing is a technique called "gaslighting".

[en.wikipedia.org]

The JCs (and especially David in particular, he's a damn gaslighting mad genius) will attempt to constantly mentally "gaslight" whoever they are dialoging with, and now they are starting to trade identities in order to sort of throw off their critics. This newer thing of DM posting as this person or that person (Cherry, Casey, Joe, whoever) is an example of him gaslighting their forum. Roland posts as Sue, and vice-versa, and so on, and you never know whose words you are really reading over there.

They will in conversation constantly tell you what you are thinking and feeling, and try and undermine your own sense of your identity try and get you to not trust in your own perceptions and judgment. They'll tell you what is in your heart, they'll rewrite history and project their behavior onto you whether what they say has any real validity at all, and it has a sickening cumulative effect of severely unbalancing and destabilizing the mind of the person being subjected to the McKay "gaslighting" techniques for any period of time.

The main thing that I have learned is to avoid direct conversational exchange with them, any of them, and to anybody else I would really strongly recommend against trying to have a discussion of any kind with anybody in that group. It's pointless, IMO, and will only make you crazy (so to speak). They will totally gaslight your mind if you're nor wise to what's going on.

Best IMO to stay on this side of the tracks, so to speak, and not go into their neighborhood anymore.

Quote
zeuszor
This is what David had to say when I was asking him questions under the name Andy ; at that point he thought I was a potential recruit. This was in response to Andy's question to him about why he thought it was OK for his people to deal with kids, minors:

Quote

Dave

PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:04 pm

I thought it was great what Andy was saying. It's good that he has had a look at what the opposition is saying, and it seems like he can see through it pretty well.

He says that he can see how Joe's parents would be upset. So can I. Of course, the article doesn't say that Joe left a note, and that he talked with his parents (by phone and email both, I think) while he was away for that week. He knew them well enough to not just front up and say, Hey, I'm going to head out to New Mexico for a week, okay?

As for us communicating with a sixteen year old, Andy, I think you need to ask yourself if anyone else is forbidden to communicate with sixteen year olds, via the internet, via the media, via literature, or just when they bump into them on the streets. If not, then why should we be condemned for communicating with Joe when he was sixteen. Virtually every sixteen year old in America has access to information that their parents would rather they NOT have access to. But parents learn to live with it and work around it. The law may say that they can force him to stay under their roof until he is eighteen (although a lot of police will not bother bringing runaways home after they turn sixteen, because they realise that between sixteen and eighteen the child is starting to make some more independent choices and force can no longer be your primary means of control.) but it does not say that you can force a sixteen year old to stop thinking about anything the parents don't want them to think about.

Joe's contact with us between sixteen and eighteen weas primarily through visiting our website, btw. I think there were only a handful of times when he arranged to meet up with people at fast-food restaurants. He would not even tell us his real name (No joking , he called himself Joe King ) possibly for fear that WE would notify his parents. So he was very much in control of his own thoughts.

Just thought I would clear up those points a bit, because the media always seems to get a few things wrong.

What he says, in other words, is “Well, it’s not my fault if they aren’t paying attention what their kids are up to.” Always somebody else’s fault, always somebody else’s problem with this guy.

Also keep in mind his previous quotes on the subject of pedophilia:

Quote

[welikejesus.com]
Quote:
But a better example is paedophilia. Kids are not FORCED to have sex, and yet society says it is wrong. I know, I know, they are not adults. But you see, we each have our restrictions that we think makes it wrong or doesn't make it wrong. And so what we decided to experiment with is just trying to follow the rules as we honestly and humbly think God wrote them.

Here McKay (leader of the Jesus Christians) is saying that pedophilia does not involve force, and is trying to use this principle as an example of why it's OK for members of his cult to attempt to recruit minors. This guy is getting more and more and more demented.

Dave is a spiritual pedophile, a spiritual pervert. The above quotes provide a window into his demented mind. Maybe it's because young kids' minds are more impressionable and pliable, and therefore they're easier to manipulate. Maybe it's because having destroyed his relationship with his own kids, and now he feels compelled to damage other people's relationships with their kids. I don't know, probably a combination of things.

I hope some kid out there, and/or his or her parents, is reading this, and can make a more informed judgment about what you might be thinking about involving yourself in.

Quote

In a sense its a shame that Davejc has not followed through on his legal threats. It would have shone a powerful light into his murky world in the discovery/disclosure phase, if nothing else---but then that is a chance he will never dare to take.

Quote

www.ipce.info/host/howitt/5_2.htm

Araji and Finkelhor, 1985, 1986, categorised factors that characterise offenders, to confirm possible explanations of paedophilia. Their model encouraged clinicians to explore widely for the isiosyncratic determining factors with each offender.

I am listing below only the factors which they believed were reasonably well supported by research:

1. Emotional congruence
(1) Paedophiles have been sexually abused in childhood and cope with the experience by the repetition of the offence or by identification with the aggressor*

2. Sexual arousal
(1) Laboratory tests show that at least some paedophiles get erections to deviant images of children*;
(2) Sexual abuse in childhood conditions sexual arousal to children*;
(3) The experience of abusers in childhood provides a model for deviant sexual behaviour patterns*.

Quote

In Defence of Paedophiles
Written by Cherry
Tuesday, 23 September 2008 00:00


There have been a number of attempts to incite anger against ourselves by implying that we support paedophilia. Because the issue of paedophilia is such a volatile one these days, it is one of the easiest words to use when someone is trying to incite a lynch mob. The media, both sides of the political spectrum, virtually all churches, and virtually all members of the general public range between those who want to kill paedophiles in the most painful way possible (on the right) to those who publicly and strongly denounce the practice (on the left).

To speak up in defence of the paedophiles themselves as human beings is on a par with speaking up in defence of the 9/11 perpetrators. So, with an introduction like that, we can expect that this article is going to add more fuel to the torches being carried by the lynch mobs who seek to have us destroyed.

We will say, for the record (once again) that we think paedophilia is a despicable practice and that stringent measures are urgently needed to curb the spread of this terrible curse on our society.

But, having said that, we would start by reminding people that one of the most insidious fruits of paedophilia is simply that it eventually creates paedophiles from its own victims. One can rob people without making those victims into robbers themselves. Rape victims are never going to become rapists. And only rarely will a murder victim take the life of their killer as they die; even then, there is some justice in that the crime rebounds back on the perpetrator, rather than on some other innocent person, as happens with paedophilia.

Victims of paedophilia frequently grow up to become predators themselves, preying on other innocent children. One would think that this pattern in itself would cause at least a few of the hate-mongers to question who they hope to help when they set out to vent their anger on someone who very likely was, a few years earlier, an innocent victim of child sex abuse themselves.

There is a further dilemma which seems to be unique to paedophiles. They appear to be beyond feeling guilt for their behaviour, or at least beyond self-induced rehabilitation. Despite all of the condemnation that they receive from angry mobs and vitriolic media reps (as well as a lot of other therapies), they don't seem to be capable of changing. The rehabilitation rate is virtually zero.

We could say that this makes them even more depraved and even more worthy of execution, but it makes more sense to say that something happened when they were being abused as children which is not going to change through emotional appeals or vengeful threats now.

I'm not saying that we should pat them on the head and say, "There, there! Don't be discouraged. God will forgive you for what you have done and for what you are almost certainly going to continue doing." Many churches tried that approach in the past and they are paying dearly for it today. But I am saying that we need to look more deeply than just threats of punishment.

What I would gladly campaign for is a sympathetic form of exile. We can afford to build incredibly expensive cages for criminals, so why not a community (the bigger the better) where they can move about as they please (with other paedophiles), but from which they will never be allowed contact with children? It need not be any more inhumane than the best TB sanitorium in the world. Treat paedophilia as an infectious disease, and isolate it.

And, for Christ's sake, stop hating them.

Note: If exile seems too extreme, then we challenge critics to suggest a softer, more loving approach that is going to effectively protect children.