In point of fact: Roland joined in 1981, and Sue in 1985. Danny was born in 1994. That's a total of about seventy years' worth of service between them all. Look at it like that.

Dear Blackhat,

"Friendly" on the most superficial level only, I'd imagine.....David has already begun "slighting" Roland and Sue in the current newsletter

(as he needs to persuade those remaining that Roland and Sue having opted for a life of their own, is a "step down" not a "step up".....

.....as otherwise most of them would likely choose to "STEP OUT" )....


David's barely diguised acrimony is a crude display of him protecting his "turf" (the minds and lives of those under his control)....)

Behind their backs, David needs to engender rumours about Roland and Sue's "inadequacies"....the fallacy of them lacking "parenting skills" being a start....

....I note that the newsletter refers to them as the "Gianstefani's" (a term not used before, I think you'll find in the correspondence on the JC site) not "Roland" or "Sue"...

David is here trying to rob them of an "identity" in the JC universe.....by subtly branding them.....N0-ONE has a "surname" or unique identity as a "physical family" in the JC's!

(The "bad vibe" David hopes to impart here, being the thought that they valued their family, more than than they valued playing a part in the "Kingdom of God")


....and as Zuesor, points out, had Roland and Sue attempted to claim the financial proportion of the "spoils of war" that they through their unpaid labour, are entitled to

(and that David has stealithy accummulated for himself, under the auspices of his cult),

that would truly be the end of the ever so loving "friendship",

being acted out in sickening pretence. on the JC site...

Well it's nice to know here though that this is a "sensitive issue" for David where he feels particularly uncomfortable

(David kindly "tells" us as much,

in the rapidity and in the detail of his nasty and untruthful responses to the discussion on the jcs.xjcs board!)

[jcs.xjcs.org]


.....Roland and Sue obviously still feel it necessary to "perform" (tell David what he likes to hear)...

Judging by their postings, the Gianstefani's still haven't "emotionally" or "psychologically" left the JC's...

.....as they to date, believe that have to continue keeping David happy by saying the "right things"

and hence they are busy "rationalizing" their own departure away to themselves

(they haven't "really" left, they'll "continue the good fight", etc, etc)

as they don't quite have the courage to honestly admit even to themselves what they are doing....

(otherwise they'd then also have to address the issue of the lie that they have lived for decades and decades.....

"avoidance" is thus the only psychological recourse for them!)



It'll be a "hard landing"....David no longer trusts them, and the remaining members of the JC's will know full well to "keep their distance" while Roland and Sue, will believe (as McKay will continue to duplicitously assure them) the entire rest of the world to be their enemies (stealthily "sapping" away their faith in "God") hence they for all practical purposes don't have a friend in the world, to turn to, at the moment....

I do see Sue gives me a "guernsay" with the remark, that:

...Malcolm, wrote to the person who PUT Roland in jail on false charges, saying if there was anything he could do to help put Roland and me away for life, which in effect would have been our death sentence in a Kenyan jail, he would be willing to fly to Kenya to testify against us. Nice friends eh?

I presume that this is reference to the father of Betty(who subsequently left the JC Cult)......and, I of course would still be prepared to make such testimony in relation to charges I consider legally sound....hence Sue is right that I am NOT (and have NEVER pretended to be) her "friend", although I'd ask her to kindly direct her bile at ME and not transparently use my own behaviour as false justification refusing to communicate with others on the xjcs.jcs site who HAVE persistently spoken of her and Roland with a great deal of kindly tolerance...


Their recovery will be long term!

Roland (to judge from his postings) may be little more than an (increasingly embittered) "moron" for the rest of his life.....kidding himself that he's "remained true" to the dream, somehow! Sue will know better! I am unsure how she will reconcile herself to the life of hatred and division that she has actively promulgated....perhaps, like her worse half, being so stupidly and vainly self centered that she can't see how she has wasted her life, is the better option.

......they will though slowly begin to develop an "objective perspective" on McKay as time goes by...it won't be pleasant for them.


However, we can least celebrate, their son's Daniels escape from a hellish life of serfdom...

[www.youtube.com]

Some fantastic postings on the Chris Butler thread yet again.....powerfully insightful.....!

I recommend reading the entire page, but particularly Veracity's annotated "Stockholm Syndrome".....

[forum.culteducation.com]


Breaking out is not so easy. It doesn't take that long to get sucked in. All of the exers I know took a long time to leave. It didn't happen over night because there are so many conflicting feelings coupled with the group’s fears and admonitions stuck in your head. It gets hard to sort out what is reality after awhile. Of course when you are in the middle of it --- it doesn't seem that way. You think your thinking is all free and independent. You don't get that it hasn't been free in a long while until after you are away from the group for a long time.

...and it certainly won't happen "overnight" for Roland and Sue!

We have here another example of Dave using his "powers of discernment" to vilify a completely innocent bystander.

A while ago, I created a user SimonJM, with a view to challenging the Jesus Christians when the time arose. It arose with the use of whipping to create a non-media event for the Falun Gong cult.

I posted challenges to Dave about his use of whipping members as a form of protest.

Dave became obsessed with the idea that SimonJM must be Craig. He made several statements to that effect.

Dave owes Craig a BIG APOLOGY for what he said.

And his use of whipping followers for publicity is a sham and a disgrace.

His powers of discernment are not worth anything, and I would suggest that he is a false prophet, a fraud and a scam.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2010 09:20PM by Blackhat.

Dear Blackhat,

A very witty "put down" on your part which no doubt David is quietly, absolutely livid about.....

I note that when when "Alan" (in his article on the JC website) makes some observation about "how" we might relate to "truth"....

Who Wants The Truth?
New Articles
Written by Alan
17 January 2010
"Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?" (John 8:37- 38a)

How do we define the truth? and how can we relate to it when we do?

When Pilate asked that question all those years ago was he being honest with it and did he really want to hear the answer?

I think that is something that we all need to ask ourselves. It is easy to ask a profound question like this, but not so easy to accept the reply.

[www.jesuschristians.com]

"Truth" in the JC cult is whatever David declares it to be, at any given point in time......hence even if the entire membership of the JC's were aware that Simonjm was in fact yourself, and NOT Craig, they would conspire to placate David by "agreeing" with him (and silently rationalizing their dishonesty away to themselves, that David "could" be right...)

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is the psychological basis as I would see it of Davids' broader criminal insanity. His behaviour (and the reactions of the various JC members cowtowing to him) here, naturally enough, confirming that accusation.....particularly where David feels particularly obliged to pointedly and vehemently deny this....

And, of course, thrown in somewhere (as a result of the introductory course on law that Malcolm is presently taking) there will be some more claims that this is further proof that I am criminally insane, and that charges should be laid against me for everything from fraud to misappropriation of funds!

Trust me that some of Malcolm's most recent rants on his favorite hate site have been as silly as what I have written above.

[www.jesuschristians.com]

(Acutally, it would be far better NOT to trust David and to always verify that the "statements" and their context, of either my own or anyone elses' contributions are in fact as McKay portrays them)

I again note the recent departure of Roland, Sue and Daniel CONFIRMS my accusations that David defrauds those who commit to him. At the time of "Departure", Roland and Sue and Daniel, represented more than "10%" of the membership of the JC's. They (in the course of the partial dissolution of a "partnership") should be entitled to claim approximately a tenth of what the Jesus Christians currently possess financially.... Where then is the "cheque" for some tens of thousands of dollars, made out to their name?

(......why it's safely in the pocket of one criminally insane David McKay!)

Looking once again at Lifton;


Dr. Robert J. Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform [www.csj.org]

Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.


We can observe precisely this process in David's redefinition of the word "cult"! To a member of the JC's this term is a pejorative expression, with no real meaning other than that of venting the emotions of the underlying "hatred and fear" of those who employ it. (i.e. The critics of McKay). This is of course, McKay's express purpose....to prevent those in servitude to him, questioning the nature of the unequal relationship, that they have committed themselves to. Hence McKay attempts to "neuter" their thought.

In David's shallow writings, we can see how, transparently venal his intentions are: [www.jesuschristians.com]

David never once, writes of:

*Responsible and Representative leadership, (hierarchies of accountablity)

*The Separation of Powers or The rule of Law, (external, and INTERNAL, to any institution)

*Financial Transparency and Public Accountability (Public audits of income received and outgoings)

*Procedural Justice and Administrative Practises open to scrutiny

*Freedom of Thought, Information and Association

*The right to private communication or secret ballots

*Proprietary rights of ownership and legal protection of the same.

As David want to REDUCE the debate to his own (paucity of) thought,
that criticism of his empire is "unjustified", "illogical" and "emotional charged".

David suggests that the application of the term cults is unreasonably based on the subjective bias of whoever uses the term. (An utter furphy, as the same logic could then be reapplied to his use of the term.....David being no more "objective" himself than those he decries as "subjective")

David speciously discusses

"New, Little Groups", (an emotive term designed to elicit sympathy from a reader"...David's empire a splinter group from the Children of God)

"Targetting Communes", (JC Communes without any individual RIGHTS have been the consistent point of contention not communes per se)

"Hypnosis", (The Freedoms of Thought, Information and Association are seriously abridged in the JC's. Independant and private communication, external to the organization, is actively discouraged. Allegations of "Hypnosis" are irrelevant to the criticism of McKay...as they are techniques unneccesary, given his wider abuses of access to "perspectives" outside his empire.)

"The ends justifies the means", (McKays superficial comments deliberately skirt the issue! "Some ends are not worth the means necessary to achieve them."...."In each case, what needs to be studied are the value systems that influence people to think differently with regard to which means are justifiable and which are not. But it is not fair to condemn anyone just because they argue that certain ends justify certain means."
As Gandhi noted the ends IS the means......and where David purposely instructs his "disciples" to behave unethically or illegally (welfare fraud, misrepresentation for the purposes of gain, extorting his critics into silence through denial of access to their children) he has both worthless ends and despicable means.

"Loyalty" ("Loyalty" which is undeserved and where those who are loyal are utterly "used" for all that McKay can milk them for)

with some further passing, trite remarks on "Leadership" and "Teachings"

(David's)Conclusion

So, in short, if someone wants to call a group a cult, and they use the criteria that have been referred to above, it is virtually impossible for the target group to escape the tag. No wonder that so-called British cult expert, Graham Baldwin claims that there are more than 500 different cults operating in England alone. If the truth were known, that figure probably includes every denomination in the country!

What is a cult? A cult is any group you don't like, or that you disagree with. And if the group you belong to is not popular, then you can expect that it will be called a cult too.

(My)Conclusion

The author of such arrant nonsense, justifying himself with circular reasoning and pop. psychology references, that are intended to distract readers from consideration of any substantive issues.....

......has well and truly declared to us all that he is indeed, by any measure, a "cult leader".

Group dynamics are interesting. If you take a group away from their normal environment, you see some interesting things.

The Jesus Christians invited families to join them on a hedonistic cruise, where all the indulgences of a materialistic society were available to them.

After just one week, they made a decision which flies in the face of all they pronounce as their teachings.

There was a $100 drink rider still available to be used, and rather than use that to show generosity to those they had invited, they chose to drink it themselves in front of their invited guests.

They knew the situation was awkward, but couldn't come up with the idea of giving the last $100 of drinks to their invited guests, which would have been more in line with their supposed stance on such things.

This shows what we have been saying for years, that people in a group situation are pliable and liable to go with the social group think of where they find themselves.

Even an extreme religious cult can be swayed by the social dynamics of a hedonistic situation.

You DO have some inside contacts here Blackhat! Which families condescended to accompany the JC's (knowing that their very presence, would be the subject of countless future accounts, claiming to prove the "open handed, generosity" of McKay and minions).

No, I have no inside contacts. I am limited to reading the postings on the site of horrors! I endure this to enlighten those who cannot endure such iniquities...