Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Jules Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 14:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Enough is enough. This thread is closed. We are all very aware of your opinions of each other. You have both been given ample and perhaps much too much space to voice your views on this matter. If there is any other reference to each other or this issue at all, you will be blocked from the web site. Please refer to the terms of use of this web site. You are currently in violation of the following: Section C: 4. Feuds and Objectionable Content ...If there is a personal matter or disagreement that occurs on the site or otherwise, and is not related to being born and/or raised in The Family, please do not use this web site as a forum for feuding. ... 6. SPAM and other unacceptable use Users may, if they so choose, post comments anonymously, to not associate their comments with their web site nick name. However, anonymously posting comments in support of one's own argument or comments is deemed to be an abuse of anonymous posting. ... http://www.movingon.org/terms.asp Just for the record I did not post the email below that was obviously addressed to me and did not appreciate it being posted and used to make a point by the person who posted it.

from Don_I Monday, January 28, 2008 - 09:25 (Agree/Disagree?) NOTE: I’ve communicated with Moving On Admin prior to posting this, I haven’t heard back. If this positing is a violation of Terms of Use please remove, Admins. Thanks. I’ve been out since August of last year. I’m not proud of my actions. I’ve made many mistakes and dis-honored myself and my family. I’ve let myself down and done harm to myself, through my own weaknesses. I would like to thank those who stood by me during this time, all those who wrote, visited, tried to help etc. … To those, while not supporting my actions etc., found it within them to defend me in this and other forums, thank you. It is my hope that your faith will not be mis-placed. I would also like to thank all those who have supported and communicated with me since August of last year. I have learnt a great deal about myself and others through this process. To those who have lain various accusations etc., below, I respect your right to communicate and vent anger etc. … even if I am the object of said venting etc. … I’ve been harsh and have many flaws, but one thing I am not and that is a dishonest man. This may be a mistake, but I’d like to respond to a few things said about me below. Firstly, I’d like to say that I support individuals bringing one another to justice, or even being combative with one another in the legal arena. If I anyone has committed any of the wrongs listed below, I would encourage alleged victims to seek legal redress. That is your right and I support you in exercising it. Unlike the situation with the cult, had I done wrong to any survivor, other than calling them to task for what I perceived to be their own wrongs or criminal actions against, me, my property, or my family, I believe that the jurisdictional hurdles and statutes of limitations would be in the favor of any alleged victim. I encourage you to seek justice for yourself. Never once have I threatened anyone, much less a minor, with violence of any sort. Never once have I committed an act of violence. Never once have I blackmailed, extorted, etc. … anyone, as alleged below. If standing up for my rights and refusing to be victimized and stolen from, etc. … constitutes some sort of a wrongdoing, there’s not much I can do about that. Never once have I cooperated with, conspired with the cult to do anything to anyone. I think my last communication with them had to do with getting a minor on a plane back to the States to be with their relatives. I strongly support all forms of legal action against the cult. I strongly support all legal actions aimed at protecting minors in the cult from harm, even if that means removing them from the custody of a parent within the cult, provided and an appropriate and stable structure and guardianship/guardian exists for them outside the cult. An individual on this site solicited me as a client of their services as an attorney to represent me in a civil legal action against the cult in 2006, I believe it was. This same person solicited a few other survivors as well, and planned/intended to author a book etc, etc… At a fundamental level I distrust and disrespect said individual and was unable to, in good conscience, go along with this individuals plan, especially after I had see the manner in which personal information about this individual’s clients, (plaintiffs) was mis-used, in what I viewed to be a fundamentally self-serving process. I followed another male in bowing out of the process. It was necessary for me to seek a restraining order against someone who had stolen monies a portion of which was contributed by myself and my mother and other friends, and collected by myself, and forwarded to an attorney, for disbursement. These monies were to be used for legal services in a custody case, but as mentioned were essentially stolen and used for I’m not sure what. This same individual repeatedly harassed my mother, the only 1st generation member, willing to stand up with/for her children when we were seeking help with a documentary. All others declined to help because of not wanting to be associated with the group’s history etc. … In any case, I suppose that could also be my mistake for trusting the wrong people at the wrong time. After threatening to serve this individual with said restraining order, this individual has discontinued harassing my family and hasn’t shown themselves, which I’m very happy about. I battle many demons from my past. I suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. I’ve also battled addiction to marijuana since 2004. I’ve always been honest about my addiction(s) and issues. It is my hope that I will find healing and peace. I’m a hot-head, and it’s unlikely that will change in the future. My shortcomings aside, I know myself to be a beautiful and honest human being. I will forever remain committed to seeking justice for myself, my siblings, and those against whom crimes have been committed. Regards, Don Irwin

From Atticus Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 15:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Your statements posted above are disappointing, to say the least, given all you have been through since your arrest and subsequent incarceration. These remarks seem to mark a change in your many postings since your release. Your previous statements and comments were made in a much more conciliatory tone and seemed to demonstrate a legitimate desire to rectify the harm caused to your peers and friends by your actions in the months leading up to your arrest. In fact, you apparently even made contact with some individuals affected by your actions and offered apologies. What is the reason for this change? Haven’t the individual with whom you have vendettas left you alone? Who has contact you? I would venture no one. Those individuals gave you the respect you denied them and did not make comments on this website about you since your arrest. They did not contact the media with stories of your demise. They did not lend assistance in the prosecution of your case. They did not pursue civil remedies or additional criminal charges against you. They did not engage in campaigns of harassment against you, emailing your family, friends and professional associates, despite the fact that they endured such treatment prior to your arrest. So why then throw away the hard experiences of the last year and begin to what appears to be an attempt to jump head first into prior aggressive behavior aimed at your peers and friends? It seems to render meaningless all you have been through. Where does your animosity come from? It is certainly not in response to anything done to you, as all the individuals you targeted have avoided you since your arrest. No one used the opportunity to trade in on your demise, although several people had every right to vindicate themselves. After your arrest, everyone simply went back to their private lives from which they were drug by the scandalous accusations lodged against them on this website and in other media. One would assume that you would desire to reinvent yourself and not recreate traumatic events, unless you enjoyed the controversy created on some level. But, in the spirit of resolution and closure, the benefit of the doubt should be given. So, I’ll assume that your above comments were simply you experiencing a bad day in your recovery and not the beginning of a return of prior behavior. Please reread your remarks in light of this statement “While all opinions are welcome, please refrain from making statements that contain false or misleading indications of origin, or untrue statements of fact, about other people. Opinion, second and third hand accounts and hearsay should be clearly identified as such. Please do not post in any submission, material that you know or reasonably should know to be false or materially misleading, or that is libelous or defamatory. While we do not arbitrate disputes between participants, we do not wish to see harm come to anyone through defamation and we take complaints of this sort seriously.” I think you will agree that at least two of your statements violate this term of use and constitute civil defamation. This first of those is as you are well aware that you were never a client of either of the two second generation survivors who are practicing attorneys. Neither of these attorneys ever entered into any contractual relationship with you to represent you in any matter. Rather, as you will recall, you were specifically excluded from the pool of possible plaintiffs in the civil suit which was contemplated against the Family International in 2006 due to your actions prior to your arrest. As such, you inclusion in all communication regarding the preliminary organization of pre-litigation activities was terminated by the second generation survivor who was among the attorneys contemplating this civil action. Therefore, your statements above are not only knowingly false, they are per se defamatory because you attempt to imput attorney misconduct in the form of an alleged breach of a non-existent attorney client relationship and “mis-use (sic)” of client information. What motivation do you have of revealing even the contemplation of a civil action against the Family International? Posting such information in this forum only serves to undermine any such future attempts and assist the Family International in anticipating a defense. Certainly, you do not wish to malign the second generation survivor who has had enough gumption to even attempt such an enormous feat against the Family International in an effort to bring resolution to other survivors and possibly therapy for those who need it. Certainly, your motivation is not to harm or subtract from the professional career of the second generation survivor who was able to make it through four years of college and law school at great personal cost despite the disadvantages of a childhood in the Family International. Certainly, you don’t aim to add to the trauma which this survivor battles due to years of physical, emotional and sexual abuse to which they were subjected as a child. Possibly prior to your incarceration, you may have entertained these sentiments, but I hope to believe that everything that has occurred did not happen in vain and you are not attempting to open old wounds and recreate traumatic situations for fellow survivors. Given that you state that you suffer from PTSD, it would seem you would not intentionally attempt to retraumatize others or use your knowledge of their abuse as a weapon or violate their trust and good will in having invited you into their home and lives prior to your decline last year. Surely, you would not knowingly take any action which harms your prior friends who are single parents and on whom their children solely depend for their livelihood. Your own statements claim you would never take such a position to intentionally harm other survivors, much less the children of other survivors. Yet, I ask you to ponder the possible effects that your statements may have on those whom you are accusing of crimes and misconduct. I think you will realize that the effect of your statements on these individuals is negative. If you have a vendetta, why not contact them directly? If your intention was closure and resolution, and not harm, then why not use their names? It is obvious of whom you are speaking. Secondly, I draw your attention to your paragraph regarding the alleged theft of money to retain an attorney for a second generation survivor’s child custody case against the individual’s spouse who is still in the Family International and attempting to take sole custody of the survivor’s children. The attorney retainer was given by [an SGA - identifiable information removed by admin], not you or your mother, as everyone involved is well aware. The money was forwarded to a second generation survivor who practices law to hold in trust once a child custody attorney was located. The money for the child custody attorney was never paid. Therefore, there was no theft. The second generation survivor obtained their own attorney to fight for custody of their children without the need for this money given by [an SGA - identifiable information removed by admin], as you well know. Again, what is your motivation is attacking this second generation survivor parent? Why make such scandalous accusations against a parent in the midst of their child custody fight against the Family International? Anyone can see that such statements and false allegations only serve to harm this survivor and negatively impact their child custody case. Given, you do not have children, so you may not have thought through the effect of your scurrilous accusation. But, I’m sure that now that it has been pointed out to you, you will retract it or in the very least clarify your statements so as not to intentionally harm another survivor who has left you alone and only wishes to be given the same respect. I understand that you are currently on summary probation with certain conditions including specifically “not to threaten anyone” in any manor, not limited to threats of violence. This is public record, not privy information. Given your choice of screen name of late, it doesn’t appear you wish to obscure the fact of your incarceration or ongoing sentence. Although I am not a criminal law expert, I understand that summary probation involves a counseling agency and periodic progress reports. For all intents and purposes, it appears that you have to date met or surpassed the requirements of your sentence and appear to have made significant progress, even become a different person. I sincerely applaud you, as such personal progress is hard earned and only to be respected. Given this apparent change from last year and your stated intent to find healing and peace, I ask you to reconsider your remarks above. In your quest for “healing and peace,” I ask you to consider others desire for peace. I ask you to consider the effect of your actions, especially if you did not intend the negative effect thereof. I ask you to give those with whom you harbor animosity the same respect that you have been given since your arrest. There have been no statements made about you since your arrest by the individuals you accuse above. Why open that old wound? If you seek healing and peace, then don’t go maligning and accusing others. If you want peace, then don’t start a war. Leaves others in peace, as you wish to be left in peace.

From read 1st Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 22:50 (Agree/Disagree?) "It is certainly not in response to anything done to you, as all the individuals you targeted have avoided you since your arrest. No one used the opportunity to trade in on your demise. ..." "There have been no statements made about you since your arrest by the individuals you accuse above. ..." To your credit you "clarified" below. ...

From Don_I Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 16:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm not going to get into this with you. I was/am merely trying to address the "scurrilous accusation" below. You seem extremely angry, I suppose you have a right to anger. If you need to use me as the object of your anger, there's nothing I can do about that. I'll chalk up your comments to "a bad day." I will say, though, that for someone who claims to value the privacy of others, you certainly don't practice what you preach. Unbelievable, all kinds of actions and statement(s) are attributed to me, naming people which I haven't named, actions etc. ... It's incredible that someone that I have no contact with, which I'm sure I don't, seems to know so much and is willing to divulge so much of my private life etc., to me, this feels very much as if I'm being cyber-stalked and I will send a note to the admins to that effect. Admins, if I've violated "Terms of Use," please delete my comment, and dole out the appropriate punishment. If the poster above has violated terms of use, please delete said comment.

From cheeks Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 20:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I dislike this bad day comment. It's like saying I'll let it go seeing as you are on the rag.

From cheeks Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 20:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I dislike this bad day comment. It's like saying I'll let it go seeing as you are on the rag.

From You are so full of shit! Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 16:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Do you get cramps?

From Atticus Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 18:44 (Agree/Disagree?) First of all, the above comment is not mine. I don't think it's necessary to degenerate to that level of communication. Second, to Don_I. Please read my comment carefully. I have not attacked you. Please don't feel attacked. Rather, I only responded to subjects you brought up. As I pointed out, the comments in the threads below were written last year before your arrest. After your arrest, the individuals you targeted did not take advantage of your being in custody. The matter died when you were removed from the situation. So, given those facts, why stir up all that, again? Why if you want peace and healing, open those wounds? Leave those people that you feel anomosity towards alone, as they have you all this time. Give them the respect they've shown you throughout your legal troubles. It would have been easy to villify you after your arrest. Those particular individuals you targeted did not do that. They went back to their private lives. Please allow them to continue to live those private lives. If you don't want to "get into it," then don't bring it up now nearly a year later in your comments here on a public forum, as you can only expect that those individuals you attacked above to respond. That is only fair. So, why not walk away? Let it lie. Show you are the bigger man. In fact, it is my position that the entire article and all the comments should be removed. It's in the past. Let's keep it there. If you continue to accuse individuals, your own peers and prior friends, of criminal acts and misconduct, now nearly a year later, when they have not taken advantage of your incarceration and have made no public comments since your arrest, then how will the matter ever be resolved or how will you ever find the "peace" and "healing" you want? The easy response to your remarks above and the allegations you make is "who just got out of jail?" So, who here is the "criminal?" But, that is not what I said or even implied. It's not the tone of my comment at all. Instead, I made clarifications regarding your remarks and asked you to consider the effect thereof and your motivation in making such remarks. I fundamentally asked you to back off without attacking you, and I'm asking you that, again. No good will come of rehashing the same disputes again. Let it go. No one is attacking you. No one has attacked you here. In fact, it appears that everyone has welcomed you back with open arms. So, give others the same respect. You cannot expect to start down that road again and no one to respond to your allegations against them. But, no one really wants to respond. They just want to be left alone by you. Don't try to push people around again because no one will be intimidated, but at the same time no one wants to start a dispute with you, either, not because they have anything to hide, but just because it's destructive and a total waste of time. I'm sure that your energies are much better invested in so many other endevours that will produce great results in your life, as they have in the past before the events of last year. I wish you all the best and I ask that you agree to disagree on year old disputes with certain individuals. They wish you no ill. They just want to live their lives and forget about the drama of last year that ended in your arrest. I would think you'd want the same.

From Don_I Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 19:20 (Agree/Disagree?) What's interesting to me about your post, it seems that you speak, not for yourself, but rather for "They", "They wish you no harm.". ... 'They wish you no illl." "They this, they that. ..." "Give others credit" "They didn't post this." "They didn't say that." -- How does one respond to such vaugue generalities. ... Please correct me if, according to you, who seem to speak for "Them", I have some issue with literacy, or am unable to read dates correctly etc. ... But, it seems to me that the posts below where I'm accused of threatening, stalking, violence, terrorist threats, colluding with the cult, scutting noble anti-cult efforts etc. ... Were written during my incarcertation. I'm not attempting to open new wounds, I am / was responding, note responding, (not attacking) to what I view as libelous, slanderous untrue statements about me and my actions. Which if I read correctly were posted during my ordeal by these respectful people, but I suppose these people are not the "Them" which you speak for. The "They," you speak for, because you're obviously not speaking for yourself, may not approve of my comments, but I don't live to please "Them," or "They". If I'm not permitted that by your standards, I'm sorry, there's not much I can do about that. As you mentioned, the obvious rethort, is "who now has a misdemeanor on their record, etc. ..." that track is certainly open to you. If you need to take it. If attempting to address some of what "They" wrote, is so hurtful to "Them," or viewed by you as attempting to intimdate or push people around, there's not much I can do about that. My comments do not constitute an attack, much less "Them" or "They," as much as trying in a few short sentences to address the tomes of slander spewed by the respectful individuals you seem to be acting as a spokesperson for. In any case, say what you will, but as a courtesy, speak for yourself as opposed to setting yourself up as a spokesperson for "They," or "Them". I don't live my life to please the "others," "them" or "they" that you speak on behalf of. I really shouldn't be engaging you in this forum. My lay and unlicensed opinion is that you're very angry, and need to vent and I'm as a good a target as any for said venting. That's the only thing I can assume since as you wrote you have a great deal of respect for whatever it is you do in my actions or words, I forget. If you're just speaking up for "Them," let "Them" do that. I wish you peace.

From Atticus Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 19:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I was echoing the sentiments of several people you targeted in your above remarks. I spoke with "them" after I was contact by visitors of this website alerting me to your post of last night. "Their" sentiments were what I stated. Therefore, I used the term "they" appropriately. Your opinion about my "anger" is wrong. My goal is to avoid further issues concerning you by addressing them here and now before they go further. I am not angry. I'm more tired and kind of sick of the whole thing. I loath this dialogue with you. I'd rather be waterboarded. So, I will take your good wishes of peace and return them to you as well.

From Atticus Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 20:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I actually went down and read some of the prior comments made in this thread last year, and I see that you are right. It appears that they continued into May and then ended. I don't remember exactly, but I believe you were arrested in April. So, my apologies. The timing of some of those comments weren't as above the belt as I thought. I can see how you would want to respond to some of those comments now, and I certainly don't speak for everyone who commented or even know who they all are. My response was only in regards to the two individuals you allude to above. You should be aware that one of those individuals never made any comments below and never participated in this thread at all, so it's hardly fair to that individual to bring this all up again. That's why I would ask that the entire article be removed. I think it's only fair to you and everyone else. I read some comments below made by someone or a few someones I don't even know and they are pretty over the top. Without a log of who wrote what, I would say the whole thing is just a quagmire and should be done away with. One thing, in particular, is that I have no knowledge of any threats you have ever to a child. I don't know the context or matter to what one commentator writes. It plainly not right for certain comments to remain because they're defamatory, and who is going to know how to sort through them. So, please, can't it all just be removed. If I were you, Don_I, I would demand it. Maybe you don't care, but how else is the matter ever going to have any closure. I don't know. Anyway, I'm done with the whole subject. I just wanted to make that clarification because you were right about the dates. Alas, if we all were just a little bit better people, myself included. The pain and distress and all the emotions of what we went through as children always lies just below the surface and proves to continue to screw up our relationships and lives well into adulthood.

From Don_I Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 20:55 (Agree/Disagree?) To be honest with you, I don't have a problem with the statements below. If anything, they attest to the character, and willingness to behave dishonestly, of those making them. I'd have a problem if not allowed to respond in some manner. I've never threatened anyone, period, with anything other than legal action for harrassing my family. Which you may not believe I have the right to do. So be it. I do think it shows some integrity that you actually read and posted about the dates. Much of your original post is more or less attempting to call into question the truthfulness of my statements, which I deeply resent and am very troubled by. As for the individual you're alluding to, the person may not have participated, but that doesn't mean that their untruths weren't echoed by others, that being the case I believe I have the right to respond. I don't seek to be insulated from the effects of my actions. I take responsibility, I don't see why others need insulation from the effects of their actions and statements.

From neez Monday, January 28, 2008, 21:32 (Agree/Disagree?) I must say the sentence you received for sticking a couple signs on that guys door was beyond ridiculous. If you don't mind me asking, how did you manage to get out so quickly? I hope it didn't involve the 'stang, a large katana, and that hot chick with the m16. Welcome back dude.

From Don_I Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 11:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Damn site. The whole thing was for show and political. The councilman was pissed, but two days after the incident became only the 2nd councilman in LA history to be recalled the recall petition reads that one of the reasons was/is "A profound distain for the people you are meant to represent." As soon as they had their show sentencing they cut me loose. The DA wouldn't even give them an arraignment on the chargest, but the dude was buddy buddy with the city attourney who tries misdemeanors. It's an interesting story, but in no way as entertaining as the howlings below. Hee hee

From Atticus Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 15:30 (Agree/Disagree?) I actually agree with one statement made by others that have chosen to defend your actions. That is that at heart I do not believe you are an anti-Semite. I think your actions for which you were incarcerated were ill conceived and reckless, not inherently racist. However, hate crimes were not instituted with the subjective intent of the perpetrator in mind. They were instituted because of the destructive effect they have on the victim. That is what I would ask you to consider in dismissing your sentence as political. Have you taken a moment during your arrest to consider the impact on Jewish individuals with whom your signs were directed? Your intent may have very well have been to persuade Councilman Weiss into taking action on your part, but the effect was intimidation. I don’t think any one of us can properly gage the impact of posing swastikas on the home of office of a Jewish individual. It’s not like toilet-papering someone’s home. The effect is emotional and psychological. Having been a victim of emotional and psychological coercion, I’m sure you can appreciate how appalling such actions are from the perspective of the target or victim. The reaction to what you did may have very well been political, but that political resolve or response demonstrates our societies zero tolerance for stepping down the slippery slope of everything inhuman that the swastika embodies. I would ask you to think about that or put yourself in the position of a holocaust survivor who might have happened across your signs, or the child of a holocaust survivor or even a holocaust survivor who might have read about your signs or seen them on television. I can empathize with these survivors because I know what it does to me psychologically every time I even have to read about the exploitation and cover-up of some Family International “press release” or “statement.” I am thrust right back into the trauma, my heart races, my stomach churns, I can barely breath, the fear and emotions come flooding in. It is these effects on survivors and victims that such laws seek to prevent.

From Atticus Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 15:30 (Agree/Disagree?) I actually agree with one statement made by others that have chosen to defend your actions. That is that at heart I do not believe you are an anti-Semite. I think your actions for which you were incarcerated were ill conceived and reckless, not inherently racist. However, hate crimes were not instituted with the subjective intent of the perpetrator in mind. They were instituted because of the destructive effect they have on the victim. That is what I would ask you to consider in dismissing your sentence as political. Have you taken a moment during your arrest to consider the impact on Jewish individuals with whom your signs were directed? Your intent may have very well have been to persuade Councilman Weiss into taking action on your part, but the effect was intimidation. I don’t think any one of us can properly gage the impact of posing swastikas on the home of office of a Jewish individual. It’s not like toilet-papering someone’s home. The effect is emotional and psychological. Having been a victim of emotional and psychological coercion, I’m sure you can appreciate how appalling such actions are from the perspective of the target or victim. The reaction to what you did may have very well been political, but that political resolve or response demonstrates our societies zero tolerance for stepping down the slippery slope of everything inhuman that the swastika embodies. I would ask you to think about that or put yourself in the position of a holocaust survivor who might have happened across your signs, or the child of a holocaust survivor or even a holocaust survivor who might have read about your signs or seen them on television. I can empathize with these survivors because I know what it does to me psychologically every time I even have to read about the exploitation and cover-up of some Family International “press release” or “statement.” I am thrust right back into the trauma, my heart races, my stomach churns, I can barely breath, the fear and emotions come flooding in. It is these effects on survivors and victims that such laws seek to prevent.

From Don_I Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 16:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Whomever you are. I wrote above that I'm not proud of my actions and that I've reflected discredit on myself. ... etc. What more do you want from me? Would committing ritual suicide, or something make you happy? If part of your psychology relishes stomping on people while they're down or have met with misfortunte, making "scurrilous accusation(s)" as you put it above and leveling the type of nonsense put below about threats of physical harm against minors and all that other rubbish. I won't try to defend myself. Have fun. I didn't even know the council-clown was Jewish, he and his staff certainly weren't acting like one would expect people who have been through suffering to act. I thought they were behaving as a pack of Natzi's and acted out to that effect. Had I known I would have been more sensitive. Motive, or lack thereof aside, it was an ill-advised and executed act on my part for which I take responsibility. I know your type and nothing I say will do anything other than draw more rage, personal attack, I was wrong to respond to your comment. I hope you find peace.

From Atticus Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 18:15 (Agree/Disagree?) No, to the contrary, I don't want you to harm yourself or anyone else. You assume wrong when you state that you know my "type." I want nothing from you except for you to consider the effects of your actions on Holocaust survivors and Jewish people in general. It isn't much of a stretch given the childhood we all had. We, of all people, should understand trauma and the triggers of it. But, it appears that you have done that. I commend you. That's not an easy thing to do, to analyze your own actions and figure what could have been done better. In fact, I think your above comment shows that you are more of "a man" that all your previous remarks. You admit that you did things you aren't proud of and you consider the effect it might have had on others. That is a quality only a very progressed person demonstrates. I respect you for that and I mean that in all sincerity. You have obviously changed and are a better person for your experiences.

From shikaka Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 18:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Atticus, you come off as a self-righteous git. Perhaps what you are saying is true, but the pompous, condescending manner in which you are saying it is intolerable. If I were Martin O, I would give you 25 smacks with the Romans 8:28 paddle for self-righteousness. Good on you, Don, for keeping your cool.

From cheeks Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 20:24 (Agree/Disagree?) This is my issue. I don't have anything personal against Don having never met him and only know him through the chatroom. I also happened to be in the chatroom with Don and the SGA that was still in the Family and I know the things that she said and the things she implied and they were not good. Having said that, unless you personally know someone I don't think it is safe to take sides on a matter as serious as this. We can sit at our computer and read dialog all day but when it comes from real life I think we need to listen to the people who actually lived through this. The bottom line is we don't really know who the other person is on the other side of this computer. You don't know me. For all you know I could be a guy with a serious gender disorder. I could be a stalker or serial killer in real life. The Family messed some of us up real well so lets just be a little careful people.

From steam Wednesday, January 30, 2008, 12:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Cheeks, I always thought you were a guy with a serious gender disorder. Maybe even part time stalker/serial killer.

From Don_I Wednesday, January 30, 2008, 12:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Cheeks can't be the part time stalker / serial killer, when I am. Well, it's a growth industry, I suppose I can split the market, I guess have to solicit new clients. NOTE: The above comment is for entertainment purposes only and is not intended to constitute a threat to any person or group of person(s). If you find yourself experiencing panic attacks, shortness of breath, stomach cramps, or any other general lack of relaxtion, please step away from the computer and contact your physician immediately. If it's an emergency and you live in the United states dial 911.

From shikaka Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 20:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Who says I dont know one of the affected parties? Ah, assumption.

From cheeks Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 20:23 (Agree/Disagree?) This is my issue. I don't have anything personal against Don having never met him and only know him through the chatroom. I also happened to be in the chatroom with Don and the SGA that was still in the Family and I know the things that she said and the things she implied and they were not good. Having said that, unless you personally know someone I don't think it is safe to take sides on a matter as serious as this. We can sit at our computer and read dialog all day but when it comes from real life I think we need to listen to the people who actually lived through this. The bottom line is we don't really know who the other person is on the other side of this computer. You don't know me. For all you know I could be a guy with a serious gender disorder. I could be a stalker or serial killer in real life. The Family messed some of us up real well so lets just be a little careful people.

From neez Wednesday, January 30, 2008, 02:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Why do you equate stalkers, and serial killers with male gender disorders? Just finish watching Silence of the Lambs? Yes I am trying to change the subject.

From neez Thursday, January 31, 2008, 01:22 (Agree/Disagree?) You realise you're essentially saying: Be afraid, be very afraid. You never know, the person you are chatting to could turn out to be...a drag queen! *pause for effect* I'd say that's probably a bit more offensive then using the term "bad day".

From Don_I Thursday, January 31, 2008, 13:28 (Agree/Disagree?) The term "bad day" started with Atticus' tome defending chalking up my comments to a "bad day in reovery" which I though was pretty insulting, cheeks, I tried to respond instance of the same stentence. I didn't call the poster and idiot, illiterate, etc., which may have applied for not even reading what he or she was posting about. To be honest, more than the the anger as a reusult of being called a liar etc, I just felt sorry that the person was either so angry, or so blind that they were just posting whatever someone rang them on the phone about the night before. It's kind of the way of these people, to get others to do their ditry work and end up looking like the clowns in the end. I suppose that's what they've internalized as kids as that was pretty much the way of the cult leadership. At the end they I think showed some integrity by the equivallent of, "Oh yeah, I see you're being called a terrorist below, and maybe you have the right to respond. BUUUUT. ... yadda yadda." But the tone was so incredibly pompus etc., "well I heard that you never. ...X" therefore it must be that I never . ... X or "I know that so and so. ... X" thereofore it must be that. X. ... My experience with the two individuals alluded to above, is that they lie with impunity to get what they need or want. Pathological liars, with no integrity whatsoever. At the end of the day, I felt badly for atticus having to be the foot-soldier for such people. That why I wish he or she peace.

From Atticus Thursday, January 31, 2008, 13:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Don you are the one who has a problem with truth. Period. You have lied over and over and over. You take some misinformation and twist it to your means. Maybe it's all the drugs you've taken. Maybe you honestly don't remember, but others do. I do. I know personally of your years of lies. So, knock it off before you violate your parole. The people you are accusing of lying are Amy and Nancy. Neither of them has a history of drugs, arrests, lying or harassing others. Rather, it was they who were the targets of such misconduct. You really need to knock it off before you violate one of the conditions of your parole. I tried to play nice with you. You tried to twist my words and accuse me of being this or that when you don't even know who I am. Well, it seems the nice approach doesn't work. Now, please knock off your campaign of defamation of Amy and Nancy. It's nothing but harassment. Read the ilk, threats and malicious muck you wrote about them both here and in dozens and dozens of emails that you sent to every one of their friends and family they had trusted to have introduced you to. You wreaked havic in their lives. They haven't bothered you. So, leave them alone. Go back to your life and stop propagading malicious lies. Amy has never posted here. She doesn't deserve your harassment now nearly a year after your first campaign against her. No one deserves the hell you heaped upon them last year and are trying to start again.

From Don_I Thursday, January 31, 2008, 14:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Atticus, please, stop trying to threaten and harass me into silence or having an opinion that's the same as yours. It's probabtion, by the way, not parole. I'm not intimidated by your cheap threats to be quiet or else. When I'm accused of all kinds of stuff below, I have the right to call a lie a lie and a liar one. I fail to see where I've accused you of anything, if I have please let me know how/where and I will apologize. I haven't twisted any of your words, just established that you don't speak for yourself, which you've confirmed above. I wasn't attacking just responding to, what was said below, which you've also confirmed that I may have a right to do. There's a great deal more I could and probably should say in defense of myself. I try to play nice. I fail to see how you've done the same. I haven't called you a liar, you've called me a liar. I'm speaking for myself, you're speaking for others. I read the post before I posted, you posted then read the post, and to your credit you clarified. I haven't played the victim and accused others of a "campaing of misinformation, terror, etc," when that's exactly what is done below by others. Playing nice doesn't mean that I need to conform to your opinion, of events or others. Which is just that, an opinion, not fact, Atticus. Your opinion, at least in one case, was revised as the result of reading what was written, which I commend you for having the integrity to do, many people would not have done so. But that doesn't change the fact that you wrote this long post saying how no one had traded on my demise, no one had done this, no one had done that, just to confirm that these people had done exactly that. I've said above, that if I've violated anyone's rights I stand ready to face the music in the court of law or legal arena. Unlike all this other howling etc., I took action when my mother was and my family was being harassed, and the harassment ended. I took action when my property rights were violated and my property was returned. It's sad that it had to come to that, but in my life I've learnt some very hard lessons, not least of which is that sociopaths cannot be reasoned with, trusted or negotiated with, the only thing they understand is raw consequence. I wish you no ill at all, but please, do not expect me not to respond to your writings and then threaten me when I do. Like you I loathe this dialogue and would rather be waterboarded. I sincerely wish you peace.

From cheeks Thursday, January 31, 2008, 12:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually I was trying to say I could have been a pregnant male seeing I came here for nine and a half months bitching about my state of being. But seeing as I had no way to really put that into words without a lengthy explanation, I left it at that. So please don't go and put words in my mouth. For all I know you could be a drag queen!*pause for effect*

From Atticus Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 20:45 (Agree/Disagree?) But I do know you, and you're far from a guy with a gender disorder! ;) In a way, the cult made us all pitbulls for dog fights. They beat us and didn't feed us to make us mean. They sharpened our teeth and then let us loose on the world. So, now we're all dangerous, like Jason Bourne. If we go off a little, we're like assassins without a memory. It all goes back to childhood. Everything can be traced back to the cult. What is the saddest is when we turn on each other. We all know how to trigger the other because we have the same triggers. We have the capacity to destroy ourselves and others along with us. So, I sincerely echo Don_I sentiments when he says "I wish you peace." Peace and calm without controversy and turmoil is priceless for us, many of whom have lived our whole lives like a maniac in a knife fight with his back against the wall. A nun at my child's told me, "It's safe here. Relax. What are you afraid of? You're always on edge like something terrible is about to happen." I never thought I'd say this about a nun, but she was dead on. What am I afraid of? The worst case scenario because that was always what turned out to be the case for me growing up. Well, the endtime called and it wants its horseman back. It's taken years to even recognize the far reaching effects of how we were conditioned. Sometimes I wonder if it might take several generations for the effects of our childhood to be completely washed away.

From Atticus Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 19:01 (Agree/Disagree?) If the way I write seems condescending, I apologize. That isn't my intent. To the contrary, I was being sincere and tried very hard to choose my words carefully. Many of the remarks in Don_I comment were highly offensive and made against friends of mine and individuals many of us know and love. I was trying to hard to completely remove any emotional or personal response from my comment. That obviously came off as "self-righteous" to you. It is a delicate situation and I'm not the best writer in the world. It seems like there isn't much room for error here, as Don_I accuses me of being angry and you of being self-righteous. I wonder how exactly one is allowed to respond to personal attacks lodged against them in a public forum, especially without being ridiculed. Perhaps I deserve to be fingered in the bedroom by a creepy "uncle" for acting hauty. That's a little less offensive than your suggestion of a beating like the cult used to employ. Thanks for that reminder of childhood.

From shikaka Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 19:05 (Agree/Disagree?) You dont deserve anything of the sort. I am personally familiar with said Romans 8:28 paddle, but I knock back a few shots of Jack and I get on with my life. Dont take it too hard, just my personal opinions which dont mean shit. Welcome to the real world.

From Samuel Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 14:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I am glad to see you out, Don, and hope you have recieved/are getting the help you need. I see up front that you admit your faults which is a good sign because, of course, admitting your problems is the first step to recovery. As always, I wish you good luck and godspeed on your journey.

From Don_I Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 14:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I've certainly made mistakes, no question about that. I've always been honest about my faults. There are some things I've done that I regret, other things I've done and said which I stand behind 100%, not least of which was/is my assesment of the character of certain individuals, which I'm proud to stand behind. Life is a learning process and I choose to live my life unafraid, which has some consequences. As an adult you man up, take responsibility for your actions and the ensuing consequences violent or disruptive as they may be. To me, the biggest danger in life is that one does / says nothing. As children we were always sanctioned for the expression of our anger or opinions. In adulthood I find myself experimenting with anger, speech, actions, people's reactions etc. ... Some adults sanction a child when they break a box, but in actuality what the child is doing is learning about the properties of that box even though the learning process is somewhat destructive.

From Atticus Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 15:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Have you considered that your "assesments" as a lay person with no medical or psychological license may be inaccurate? Have you considered, as well, that they may be unwanted and unnecessary? Have you considered that as you feel misunderstood, you may also misunderstand others? In your admiration of your personal ability to be "honest" and outspoken, have you considered other individuals desire, even right in certain contexts, to be free of your "assesments" and "honest" opinions? In your earnest pursuit of living unafraid to speak your mind and have your opinion known regarding other individuals and situations, have you left any room for the possibility that you may be mistaken at times? Is this an outcome you've weighed with the acknowledgment that the effects of your actions may be "somewhat destructive"? You fight to essentially "live free or die" given the childhood we all experienced is understandable, even admirable. But, have you ever considered that what you are fighting against, the oppression and silencing of your childhood voice, the way the views of the cult were thrust upon you, and your personal choice and freedom disregarded may at times become what you do to others?

From Don_I Monday, January 28, 2008, 09:35 (Agree/Disagree?) To Admins. Sorry for the double post. Please remove 2nd post. Don

from Tuneman groupie Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 11:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Anyone know what happened on his June 1 hearing? I noticed bail is now at 150K--50K for each of the 3 charges (which he has not posted), and his next court date isn't until July 3. That means 2 months in the slammer minimum b4 trial--how long of a stay violates his "right to a speedy trial?" Just b/c we're talking about prisons & rights...California just began allowing gay couples conjugal visits...

from Phoenixkidd Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 10:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for sharing this EyesWideShut, didn't he have a profile on this site? What was his screen name? I remember like you said, him having tons of pics of wielding samurai swords and it seemed as if he thought of himself as some kind of Japanese warrior. It's funny how these white guys can get so into their background, genetics, history and then take up something completely out of their cultural gandra, like japanese martial arts, swordsmanship and then try to make it their own. It's just irony--The fact they can be so damned racist yet try to take on the attributes of another. As far as all that heritage, and genetic code that gets passed on to explain away one's strengths, innate nature etc...Is just a bunch of crap. I do however believe in bi-polar disorder, schyzophrenia that is inherited but even that is doubtful. Maybe this guy inherited something....Well I hope he has time to cool off and get the medical help he needs.

From Rocket Scientist Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 13:45 (Agree/Disagree?) There's a boatload of research that shows how schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in occurs in families over several generations is far beyond what might be expected by chance. Current research provides evidence of a genetic pre-disposition to these diseases that an individual inherits. Environmental impacts influence the subsequent development of these diseases in susceptible individuals. These statements aren't a matter of belief or doubt. They're the conclusions of research on brain science conducted in the last 15 years.

From Samuel Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 11:38 (Agree/Disagree?) His main screenname was Tuneman7. He may have had some other screennames as well, though.

from obvious Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 09:01 (Agree/Disagree?) ...alone in seeing the obvious similarity between Don and Prince? The main difference being Don once contributed.

From prince c Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 22:01 (Agree/Disagree?) i contribute all kinds of shit.....shut up.....great minds.....greatest minds......in that lies the similarity.......stop repeating yourself on different articles....stop it

From Yeah? Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 23:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Violent and psychotic would be a better description.

from Moonsetter Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 08:26 (Agree/Disagree?) ---- Maybe some of you out there will find the following article interesting (and to you bleeding heart Liberals, don't judge the article by its title, because it might not agree with your skewered world-views) ---- (I did not write this article) The Danger of Racism and Anti-Semitism - by S.R. Prozak "Writer" is about the lowliest position on the planet. Even if you clean toilets, you have more integrity than a writer, because what a writer normally does is manipulate people through their emotions, long distance. It's like a phone sex line for the higher functions of the brain: you promise something, make the audience visualize themselves having that, encourage an association with a product or action, and then sign off with some poignant, witty or tear-jerking conclusion. Your job is to manipulate others into thinking the conclusion of your thought, without having gone the intermediate distance, and then to act as you suggest they do. It's all in the "suggest" and "visualize," if you do it right, with very little in the easily-recognized and legally dubious explicit call to action. There are some exceptions. While most writers are the modern equivalent of carnival hucksters, as are most philosophers and journalists, the highest among them are those who write to explain a phenomenon and to encourage not a static, fixed, obvious action, but an understanding of its mechanism, an insight into its design. The best literature and philosophy is this way, and the worst of those genres is a parody of the best, where complexity is replaced by binary statements and rigid herdlike thinking. It has always seemed sensible to divided these different beasts into two categories, the first being "art" and the second being "propaganda." In the current time, however, it's very difficult to locate art. Almost all of what comes out of Hollywood very slickly manipulates, even when the topic at hand has nothing to do with what the manipulation encourages. In the 1980s, it became popular to quietly insert negative associations with drug use into movies. In the 1990s, racists and racism were portrayed as dumb and mean. In the 00s, what's being preached against is extremism and collective action in any form. A conspiracy? More likely those who control protecting their interests through the long arms of money, by hiring only those who think like they do and telling them that it's "good" and "moral" to manipulate minds through movies. Even if you don't watch movies, your friends and coworkers do, and thus your thinking is manipulated by them, as was the thinking of your grandparents and parents. It's a media age. The unfortunate consequence of this media age is that people think in terms of the psychological suggestions offered by movies. There is no study of complexity, of design or structure, but a binary judgment: approved or disapproved. Nobody asks by whom is this approval granted or denied; it is assumed that the attitudes in movies reflect the common values of the sane people in society, although looking at the question scientifically, we find that movies reflect the attitudes of a small percentage of the population who work in media - people who, like academics or those who work for the government, are often completely out of touch with the reality of life for most people. After all, when you glide between cocaine parties in limousines and attend token groundbreak ceremonies for the tearjerk philanthropic foundations of your choice, you don't have time to glimpse reality as it actually is - you're too busy creating it as you wish others to perceive it. Bizarrely, and humorously, some of the fallout of this media mindset afflicts those of us who, via our own thought and reading the mostly-older books of our culture, have realized we're in the middle of a great race swindle called multiculturalism. To summarize: culture doesn't equate to greater market share; in fact, it resists it, because people who have traditional ways aren't neurotic enough to buy tons of products they don't need. Insanity is profitable in that people who are mildly insane can still hold down jobs, make money and spend it on things to fufill their empty lives, thus passing on profits to others. Sane people don't do this and thus, on a balance sheet at least, are a loss for the power elites who - because media, votes and public opinion are up for sale in a society where everything has a dollar value - greatly influence the direction of our civilization. Because insanity is profitable, and culture reduces insanity, our traditional cultures are being replaced with a monoculture. The most effective method of doing this is to mix all the races together, and to take the people who result and raise them on a culture of television and products, making perfect consumers who have no genetic or personal memory of culture. The balance sheet literally glows in anticipation. I doubt it has ever been spoken in such explicit terms by those in control. They don't think structurally. They think in terms of immediate power, and don't look far into the future, as to wield such power is to be in denial of its fragility, as otherwise the mind would boggle with paralytic fear. Don't look down - keep moving ahead - keep gaining wealth and power, and hope it will all work out. Thus those who are in control import people for cheap labor and, finding them useful consumers, market to them and, finding their offspring without culture, swamp them in marketing and intensify every stage of the process. It's not a plan, it's a cancer. It's not a conspiracy, but a void of power being replaced by the lowest common denominator action of humanity, which is selfishness and a denial of long-term visions: because long-term visions include among other things a realization of our own deaths, most people avoid them. They aren't manipulating us from a grand vision, but from a lack of vision, and such behavior always - not sometimes - brings about disaster in the long term. Until then, of course, they'll chortle along making money and then dodge the blame when someday on a blackened planet we wonder where we went wrong. Multiculturalism is one aspect of this grand lack of vision, and to counter it, people have started fighting it in a well-intentioned but flawed methodology that includes "Racism" and "Anti-Semitism." Both of these terms are so politicized as to have lost meaning, of course; in theory, "Racism" means that you prefer one race above all others, but it's without context, so it is assumed by all to mean wanting to replace every race on earth with one favored race. There is no category for those who simply want to keep their own heritage and culture intact, except in National Geographic, and that only applies to tiny exotic tribes on faraway islands. Again, it's not a conspiracy; pity sells, where forthright values are harder to foist off onto masses of voters who are mostly distracted by television, drugs/alcohol, sports and new products. "Anti-Semitism" originally meant opposition to the Semitic systems of belief, both Islam and Judaism, as well as the racial groups to which they are linked. These days, it means any criticism of Jews, Judaism or Israel, and in a society where you cannot turn around without finding mention of the Holocaust, it's an easy product - again, pity sells, but complex solutions do not. While adopting the beliefs of "Racism" and "Anti-Semitism" is honorable in that it's an honest, aggressive and straightforward response, there is a dual pitfall to both of these beliefs. First, these beliefs tend to degenerate rapidly into the same moronic yes/no thinking of our movies and the current time, as mentioned above. They are, like all other political elements of our society including multiculturalism, a kneejerk conditioned binary response. Where mainstream society says "multiculturalism=good, racism=bad," those who oppose it tend to think "racism=good, multiculturalism=bad," and from there their thought quickly degenerates into "other races=bad, our race=good." Once again, good intentions - terrible result. Bigotry gets nowhere with most of us, as we see it as an emotional reaction and not a logical solution. Further, by limiting one's approval to the category of race and going no further, one tacitly approves of many of the failures and degenerates in one's own race, thus contributing to dysgenics of that race which will eventually lead it to fall under the sway of broken ideas like multiculturalism. This yes/no thinking process is always a dead end, and while the impulse toward combatting racism and multiculturalism is good, the method leads back to the same cause it deplores. This is circular thinking, and leads to failure. Second, and more dangerous, is the tendency to conclude that if multiculturalism and pro-Semitic beliefs are bad, simply removing these elements from our society will fix all of our problems. Nothing in life is ever so simple, unless one is dealing with the absolutely basic cases such as lice infestation, but human societies are more complex than this. The reason our society has problems like multiculturalism is that it degenerated; it degenerated because those of lower ability took their revenge on those of higher ability by using the greater numbers of those of lower ability to seize power, and thus, while showboating around "freedom" and "democracy" and "liberty," quietly destroyed our ability to distinguish better ideas from more mundane and mediocre ideas. This revolution of the masses crushed those who would lead society in a healthier direction, in part by throwing them into the same reactionary position espoused by racists and anti-Semites, and thus caused them to fail from within at the same time they were under assault from without. Christianity was one aspect of this revolution, but another one is economic competition: when money determines all value, there is no longer any importance to a leader who can avoid long-term problems, as long-term problems does not create more wealth right now, here on the balance sheet. The reason we have multiculturalism and Semitism (Judaism/fundamentalist Christianity) is that this mass revolution took place. Linked to this mass revolution are many other problems, including our wanton consumption of our environment through overpopulation, the wastefulness produced by the faceless masses buying products that they feel will make them live the same privileged lives as those of greater ability, the slavery of all thinking people to jobs and money because those "treat us all equally according to ability," or the ability to want to earn money and do nothing else with one's life, at least. These diseases, together with multiculturalism, constitute the ideology of a modern time; as mentioned above, this ideology is an anti-ideology, like that of cancer or any other parasite: it has no plan but selfishness, and is blind to long-term consequences such as ecocide or destruction of our traditional societies. Multiculturalism is not the cause, nor is Judaism; they are the symptoms, and without the cause, they would never have taken foothold, much as a well-tended garden has few weeds as there's someone who can tell the difference between weed and crop who yanks out the weeds as soon as they grow. Opposing multiculturalism and Semitism is perfectly honest, but only if understood in this context. Looking through history, we see no successful multicultural societies; all of them die out or collapse into third-world status within a few generations. Looking through history again, we see no society that has successfully hosted a politically-active Jewish population without collapsing or, because one cannot in civility remove a parasite, resorting to increasingly violent pogroms, of which the Holocaust is only the most recent and most publicized. Judaism is parasitic, there's no doubt about that. It makes a clear distinction between "the chosen people" and those goyim who are provided by the Jewish god to be a means of sustenance for the Jewish tribe. Admirably, Judaism is also racist, limiting itself for the most part to those of the Jewish ethnicity and excluding outsiders from its learning. It has a scholarly tradition that, were it compatible with their values, would be the envy of the scribes of Europea and Asia. However, it is incompatible with European beliefs: where Europeans tend toward idealism, including the concept of self-sacrifice for a higher good, Judaism sees only the individual and individual comfort, and doesn't concern itself with long-term consequences. It is the religion of traders and money-changers, thus this is natural, but it's equally natural for Europeans to recognize Jewish values and thus Jewish people as incompatible with their own. Thus there is no solution to the Jewish question except to resolve that they and their partial descendants be ejected from European lands, as they are incompatible. Interestingly, this can be done without bigotry, because we don't need to shoot them or hate them or gas them, only to recognize that according to our values system, their beliefs are degenerate and parasitic. To them, it may not be so, but that's not our job to decide. Our job is to decide whether or not Jews fit in our society, and the answer is a resounding NO. A similar analysis can be taken toward multiculturalism, which would more properly be known as "mixed-race monoculturalism," since its result is the gradual mixing of races until a generic tribe is produced consisting of varied elements of all three (Euripid, Mongoloid, Negroid) races. Black values, Asian values, and Middle Eastern values are not compatible with Europeans, nor are the genetics from those countries, for the simple reason that if we breed with other tribes, we become something other than what we have been for centuries. This traditional heritage of our population is something that our ancestors achieved by making different decisions than those of Africa and Asia, both of whom appear to be populated by hybrids of homo sapiens with previous species of humanids. Our goal isn't to pass judgment over these people, nor to lapse into bigotry, but simply to conclude that their values and genetics are incompatible with our own, unless we seek to destroy ourselves (this is popular with many people because, again, pity is an easier sell, especially to the underconfident and directionless, than sense). We can see the results of this incompatibility in the experience of African-Americans. There have always been more impoverished whites than blacks, but never have whites equalled the destructive record of violent crime, venereal disease and social decay which blacks have achieved. Before anyone goes off sputtering irrelevant distinctions like "superior" and "inferior," simply consider that in a European-style society, anyone but Europeans is going to be out of place and facing adaptation to something against their nature, and thus will produce a fairly sizable rift! When we get out of the context of thinking for a world order, and start thinking for our own homelands alone, words like "Racism" and "Anti-Semitism" have no meaning. In Europe, there should be no one but those who are culturally and ethnically European; thus Europe should be both "Racist" and "Anti-Semitic." European-descended countries, such as the United States, should follow suit, as their population is 60% European and their entire infrastructure, legal system and social system have been designed for Europeans. Jews and other races are not compatible with this, so we have a choice: either we dumb down the entire system so we can fit anyone into it, and in the process, make government and business opposed to all of our cultures, or we separate those cultures by heritage and allow government to support its own people. It is that clear. Currently, government acts as an agent of implementing multiculture, but given a little pressure from the white majority, it will respond by fragmenting and allowing those of European descent to have their own populations separate from the others. Naturally, most are trained by industry, media and government to fear this outcome, so they must be convinced. They will not be convinced by bigotry, which blames the problems of the European-descended countris on other groups; they will be convinced by arguments for ethnic/cultural isolation for European-descended peoples, if made in the context of a general reform. Our future is bright, as European-descended peoples are awakening. Over the course of a few generations, new populations were invited into their lands, and it's now clear that the fusion isn't working. A silent majority in America is held hostage by the views expressed by non-European ethnic groups (predominantly Jews) in Hollywood, and by the populist sentiments of politicians and businesspeople who welcome all ethnic groups equally as a chance to make some income. During the time this has been going on, crime rates have skyrocketed upward, literacy has decreased, and the general method in which we must live has become more bureaucratic, more designed for a dumbed-down average, and more opposed to our traditional culture. This has in turn replaced our values with a commercially-viable "whatever feels good, buy it" mentality that has resulted in lower breeding rates, breeding for money, sexual promiscuity, rampant drug use, violence and frustration. Our society as it stands now is a dead-end path, including but not limited to multiculturalism and Semitism, and our people are slowly realizing it. You can help them along - encourage them to stand up for themselves first, and not to be lured into bigotry, as the people who propose bigotry are like most writers: they want you to reach their conclusions and act like automatons to implement them, so that they can take home the glory and the profit. Yet that's the same error that got us into this mess. Bigotry is the old error. Self-assertion is the new future.

From , Wednesday, May 23, 2007, 11:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Lord Bertrand Russell, one of the honorary chairman of the Sexual Congress for Cultural Fascism, spilled the beans on the network's efforts in mass social engineering in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society. But this mind-control dictatorship was not a passing thought; Russell had been working on the idea for decades. Russell describes the program in a 1931 book, The Scientific Outlook —a totalitarian manual: “In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.... All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called 'co-operative,' i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.” “Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world State and to their own order,” Russell explained, “members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative....” Russell issued a strong warning: “On those rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it.” The American Family Foundation (AFF), the secretive organization founded in 1979, and advised by the veterans of the CIA's and Army Intelligence's mind-control programs: MK-Ultra, BLUEBIRD, MKSEARCH, etc., are the “thought police” for Russell's dictatorship. Since its founding, the AFF has functioned as a lead agency in the black propaganda campaigns directed by the Anglo-American elite against Lyndon LaRouche. The central lie employed in this campaign is that LaRouche is the authoritarian leader of a political cult with anti-Semitic views. There is no basis for the allegation; it is merely the attaching of the label of the Frankfurt School's “Authoritarian Personality” onto LaRouche in order to intimidate his supporters, and contain his influence. It is the AFF's assigned role. The AFF, which purports to be an “educational” and “theoretical” organization in a self-declared war against coercive “cults,” is actually a clearinghouse for the “Reesian psychiatric shock troops” (after Dr. John Rawlings Rees of the British Tavistock Institute) who practice coercive techniques. In tandem with criminalized elements of law enforcement, and Anglo-American intelligence agencies, the AFF's associates, known as “deprogrammers,” ran one of largest kidnapping-for-hire operations in American history. Providing the “theoretical” basis were the veterans of the CIA's MK-Ultra projects in the AFF's stable of experts. The combination of the CCF-MK-Ultra's cultural warfare created the “new religions” cults in the first place; and some of AFF's “anti-cult” experts were directly involed. Wall Street's 'Fondi' The AFF is financed by the Anglo-American financial elite—Wall Street speculators such as the House of Morgan, the Watson family of IBM founder Thomas “Pop” Watson, an overt collaborator of Hitler and Mussolini's, and the ultra-rightwing Scaife Foundation of Richard Mellon Scaife, which funds the network of foundations and think tanks that controls Dick Cheney's war party. AFF also received initial grants from the Pew Foundation; like Watson, members of the Philadelphia-based Pew family were Hitler sympathizers, and were secret funders of pro-Hitler organizations in the U.S. during the 1930s. The single largest financial promoters of the AFF for the past decade have been the Bodman and Achelis Foundations, providing more than half a million dollars. These two separate foundations have overlapping trustees and officers and are both housed in the New York City law offices of Morris and McVeigh. The key operative for the foundations is John Irwin III, the chairman and treasurer. Irwin III, a Wall Street speculator who also owns large tracts of land in Arizona and California, specializes in managing the charitable foundations of America's patrician “families,” including the fortune of his grandfather, “Pop” Watson, the super-spook and collaborator with Hitler who headed IBM from the 1930s onward. His father, John Irwin II, was international legal counsel for the Morgan interests, and was Henry Kissinger's chief deputy as Secretary of State. While Irwin III's primary businesses have been two venture capital firms—Hillside Capital and Brookside—he is better known for managing private foundations. In fact, each of AFF's sponsoring foundations has a long history in dirty Anglo-American intelligence operations. Bodman, for example, funded the infamous New Age project, the “Temple of Understanding” at the United Nations, run by the Lucifer-worshipping Lucis Trust. On the “right,” it funded the International Rescue Committee of neoconservative icon Leo Cherne, and the late CIA director Bill Casey; the Manhattan Institute; Claremont College; and other neoconservative Straussian nests. Bodman's executive director, Joseph Dolan, is also executive director of the Philanthropy Roundtable, set up by the Bradley Foundation to coordinate grants from all “conservative foundations” in the U.S. in order to win ideological hegemony on the nation's campuses and in its political institutions. Another of John Irwin III's foundations publicly campaigned, post-9/11, for the Samuel Huntington's “clash of civilizations” justification for war against Islam. AFF's official history claims it was founded in 1979 by a concerned parent, Kay Barney, the retired Raytheon International Affairs Director, and Dr. John Clark of Harvard Medical School, in response to the threat posed by violent and coercive cults, particularly in the aftermath of the purported mass suicides of the members of the People's Temple Church of the Rev. Jim Jones, in Guyana in 1978. In contemporary language, this version of AFF's founding is an “urban legend.” In reality, the AFF's business is mind-control. Three of its “experts,” Robert J. Lifton, Louis Jolyon “Jolly” West, and Margaret Singer, did not merely study mind-control—they practiced coercive conditioning in the Nazi-doctor-style horrific secret experiments funded by the CIA's and Army intelligence's MK-Ultra. A fourth MK-Ultra veteran with AFF, Rabbi Maurice Davis, actually financed the psychotic Rev. Jim Jones of the People's Temple suicide church, in Jones's early years in Indianapolis. However, in 1977, when a series of Congressional hearings in the Senate and House of Representatives forced the CIA et al. to close down the covert mind-control programs, Lifton, Singer, West, and others who had worked for years on the covert CIA payroll, were cut loose. They found a new home in the AFF. To build up AFF, an extensive funding apparatus came into being after many children of the elite crossed class lines and succumbed to the counterculture, joining the Moonies, the Krishnas, the Scientologists, or similar entities that came into being in the counterculture explosion of the 1970s. For every new experiment in irrationality produced by the “Age of Aquarius,” there was to be an equally irrational inquisitor refining and playing with the new belief structures. AFF's role in furthering the MK-Ultra tradition of mind-control isn't surprising. A faction of the financier establishment has always preferred intelligence operations to be under corporate, not government, control. In fact, after World War II, John Irwin III's grandfather, “Pop” Watson of IBM, planned exactly such a private intelligence empire. A “deputy director of the Office of Strategic Services” approached Watson “with a business proposition,” writes R. Harris Smith in his book, OSS. “Why not form a private intelligence organization and offer its services on contract to the government? The two men raised the initial capital for the venture....” However, the project was sidelined because Federal legislation, the National Security Act of 1947, was already being prepared to create the CIA. As the Iran/Contra affair showed in the 1980s, the financier establishment never abandoned its commitment to private intelligence operations. The AFF is just such a private operation, which functions, in fact, as the controller of live psychiatric experiments conducted by a network of kidnappers for hire, con men, and body snatchers of limited intellectual means and criminal records who claim to be able to “deprogram” members of cults by application of aversive psychological conditioning techniques—while enjoying protection from prosecution for their activities. These deprogrammers operate in tandem with a number of known criminal and mercenary-for-hire agencies, which at one time constituted perhaps the largest professional kidnapping ring in modern American history. Often, the kidnapping operations intersected the activities of criminalized segments of the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence community, and this complication allowed some members of the criminal enterprise to escape prosecution. Members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), an organization whose Israeli affiliates are on the U.S. State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, constitute one hard-core terrorist capability employed by AFF-related “deprogrammers.” The Lubavitcher sect, the Hells Angels motorcycle club, and former U.S. Special Forces and British Special Air Services (SAS) commandos have also been employed in kidnapping operations. For example, Galen Kelly, dean of the deprogramming fraternity, who had no professional psychological or other training, utilized JDL terrorists in his kidnappings, and, until the 1990s, was so revered by his sponsors that he was given a seat on the Board of Advisors of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Another JINSA Board member was Vice President Dick Cheney. AFF, its close associate, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), and its cohort agency in attacks on LaRouche, the Anti-Defamation League, ran into turbulent times in the 1990s. CAN and its deprogrammer Rick Ross were convicted by a Federal jury of conspiracy and civil rights violations in their abusive kidnapping and deprogramming of Jason Scott, throwing CAN into bankruptcy. Galen Kelly was investigated and prosecuted federally for what Federal prosecutors called a garden-variety industry of kidnappings for hire. The ADL was revealed to be running a massive private political spying operation, collecting dossiers on thousands of Americans and groups whom the ADL viewed as subversive, or a potential threat to the policies of the insane Likud Party in Israel. Frederich Haack, the primary exponent and collaborator of the AFF in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, in November 1980, as international education director for the AFF, imported into Germany the Dennis King and ADL slanders against LaRouche in a collaborative effort with Kurt Hirsch, the editor of PDI (Democratic Press Initiative). Kurt Hirsch, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, was exposed as an operative of the hated and feared East Germany intelligence agency the Stasi, specifically, Stasi Division X. As a result of these scandals, in which Federal prosecutors characterized CAN as little more than a band of extortionists and con men preying on the emotions of frantic parents, and with the deaths of Margaret Singer, former AFF president Herbert Rosedale, and others, the AFF and the CAN network have been reorganized. Deprogrammers now characterize themselves as “exit counsellors” and “interventionists” and foreswear the techniques of the past. The name “Cult Awareness Network” was purchased by the Scientologists in CAN's bankruptcy proceedings, and the organization's former luminaries now operate under several different identities and websites. But AFF has recruited new officers and an international advisory board which extends into Mexico, Spain, Britain, and Europe, and is in a new aggressive mode. A brief background sketch of the “professionals” who advise the AFF and CAN further demonstrates the project's nature. Rabbi Maurice Davis: Advisor to AFF and CAN, participant in the CIA's MK-Ultra mind control program in Lexington, Ky., and sponsor of the development of the Jim Jones cult in Indianapolis prior to Jones's move to Guyana and the ensuing mass suicide; Louis Jolyon “Jolly” West: Advisor to AFF, psychiatrist participating in the CIA's MK-Ultra LSD experiments and mind-control program in Oklahoma. West wrote that the government should supply drugs to control populations. “This method, foreseen by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, has the governing element employing drugs selectively to manipulate the governed in various ways.” West directly collaborated with Huxley in drug experiments throughout the 1950s and early '60s. In 1961, in a speech at the California Medical School in San Francisco, Huxley elaborated his vision. “There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it,” lulled by “brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods.” After the 1960s race riots in the U.S., West promoted implanting electrodes in people's brains and chemical castration to control violence and political activity. Dr. Margaret Singer: Advisor to AFF and CAN. Singer got her start as an Army psychiatrist studying Chinese society, Korean War veterans, and prisoners of war in association with A.H. Schein and Robert J. Lifton in the 1950s. The impetus for these studies came from “journalist” Edward Hunter's sensationalist account of “Brainwashing in Red China, the Calculated Destruction of Men's Minds,” and subsequent accounts of Korean “brainwashing” methods. Hunter worked for Frank Wisner's Office of Policy Coordination in the CIA, and his propaganda campaign was used to justify the entire MK-Ultra mind-control program. Otherwise, Singer's writings were cited by the Society for the Study of Human Ecology, Inc., a CIA front operating at the same time as the CCF. Singer and Jolly West often collaborated, including on profiling the Haight Ashbury hippie drug “culture,” interviewing drug-crazed hippies about their LSD-induced religious experiences. The LSD initially came from CIA and related intelligence projects. Eugene Methvin: An early board member of AFF and editor of the Reader's Digest. Methvin was a key promoter throughout the 1950s and '60s of utilizing private organizations to do the government's dirty work against “subversive threats.” Methvin believed that the methods of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, in using “guilt by association” and “calumny” to induce the desired popular opinion about targetted groups and individuals, were the appropriate “attack” prototypes. The AFF's Totalitarians While foundation money and media attention flowed to AFF for its activities, the theories of psychological coercion and cult activities advanced by Singer et al. on behalf of AFF were persistently rejected as being without scientific basis, in particular by the American Psychological Association (APA). The AFF's definition of cults is drawn directly from Robert J. Lifton and his descriptions of “totalistic” environments and charismatic leaders—descriptions which themselves were developed in the CIA MK-Ultra context cited above and which also derive directly from Hannah Arendt, Theodor Adorno, and the Frankfurt School. Lifton states that the assumption governing all “totalistic” cults is “not so much that man can be God, but rather that man's ideas can be God; that an absolute science of ideas (and implicitly an absolute science of man) exists.” Lifton credits the Frankfurt School's Hannah Arendt as his mentor on this subject. Lifton, a dedicated existentialist, otherwise characterizes his work as the study of evil, and shared with Margaret Singer a fascination with the creation of schizophrenia. As described earlier, the Frankfurt School saw as its historical task the destruction of Western civilization itself, first by undermining the Judeo-Christian legacy through an “abolition of culture,” and at the same time bringing into being new or counter cultures designed to increase the alienation of the population, creating “a new barbarism.” In the “authoritarian personality project,” funded by the American Jewish Committee ostensibly to explore the potential for anti-Semitism in the U.S., they attacked the “authoritarian character” of the American nuclear family, the “problem” of the American people's belief in a transcendent monotheistic God, the underlying “fascist” character of all forms of American patriotism, and American culture's excessive reliance on science, reason, and “abstract ideas.” To transform the rational and productive society which was the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, they proposed “techniques for overcoming resistance developed mainly in the field of individual psychotherapy,” and proposed that Eros be the major emotional source of “democracy.” To hold the “fascist impulse in check,” people must be able to “see themselves” and “be themselves.” Thus was born the erotic, perverse matrix of drug abuse, sexual perversion, and the glorification of violence which permeates our culture today. In one of the first newspaper slanders of Lyndon LaRouche in the Washington Post, a February 1974 article, reporter Paul Valentine opined that LaRouche must be authoritarian because he rejects “the free-wheeling self-indulgence of ... the radical counterculture.” It is no wonder, then, that in 1987, the American Psychological Association categorically rejected the theories of Singer and her AFF friends. Singer, Jolly West, and Dr. Michael Langone, an executive with AFF and editor of the AFF's Cultic Studies Journal, had managed to sit on an APA task force to study Singer's theory of “Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control” (DIMPAC). But when the DIMPAC task force issued its report, on May 11, 1987, the APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility (BSER) issued an official memo, saying it was “unable to accept the report of the [DIMPAC] Task Force....” It lacked “the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for the APA imprimatur.” The decision stands to this day. The methods of the MK-Ultra Nazi doctors come directly from the Frankfurt School, the CCF, and a project known as “the Cybernetics group,” which was the umbrella under which the CIA and British intelligence conducted their mass experimentation with psychedelics, including LSD-25, which eventually spilled out onto the streets of America's cities, and every American college campus, giving us the counterculture paradigm shift of 1966-72. On the government side, MK-Ultra was created by the same people who created the CCF: CIA Director Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner of the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). MK-Ultra was one of a dozen psy-ops programs with similar names using LSD-25, other hallucinogens, electroshock, planting of electrodes in the brains of subjects, sensory deprivation, and a host of other techniques in mind-control. The human guinea pigs were often unwitting. Dozens of deaths resulted, but the real number will never be known because then-CIA Director Richard Helms, who had worked with Dulles and Wisner, destroyed the files in 1977, when the U.S. Congress began an investigation. But “the Cybernetics group,” which was intertwined with the Authoritarian Personality project of the Frankfurt School crowd, was much higher-level—and private. Two of the Authoritarian Personality project's directors, Max Horkheimer and R. Nevitt Stanford, who headed up Stanford University Institute for the Study of Human Problems, were directly involved in the LSD-25 mind-manipulation scheme. Horkheimer was not only central to the CCF, he was also a leading participant in “the Cybernetics group,” which began its work on mind-control, financed by the Josiah Macy Foundation, in 1942. The Cybernetics group was also known as the “man-machine project” because of its study of Artificial Intelligence based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The leading participants in the Cybernetics group were Warren McCulloch, from the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT; Gregory Bateson, the anthropologist who became the director of research at the Veterans' Hospital in Palo Alto, Calif., where he ran secret MK-Ultra experiments; Bateson's wife, Margaret Mead, the anthropology “earth goddess” who became renowned as a proponent of negative population growth and primitive cultures. Several other leaders of the Cybernetics group were deeply involved in the CCF: John Von Neumann, Norbert Wiener, and Paul Lazarsfeld. The MK-Ultra quacks also developed the arguments used today by George Soros's massive drug-legalization apparatus. CIA mind-manipulator R. Nevitt Stanford, who was part of the MK-Ultra programs, makes the argument in his forward to the book Utopiates: The Use and Users of LSD-25, published by the Tavistock Institute in 1965. “Only an uneasy Puritan” could support treating drug addicts “as a police problem instead of a medical one, while suppressing harmless drugs such as marijuana and peyote along with the dangerous ones.” The 'Get LaRouche' Operation In fact, the two primary operatives employed by the AFF and the ADL in operations against LaRouche since 1978—Chip Berlet and Dennis King—are both lower-level operatives of the MK-Ultra-created drug legalization lobby. King was a featured “expert” speaker at AFF's October 2003 meeting. “Chip” Berlet's real name is John Foster Berlet, so named by his father because of the latter's admiration for John Foster Dulles. Early in his career, Chip was exposed as working for the CIA at the National Student Association and WIN magazine—both productions of the CCF's Tom Braden and Cord Meyer. King, a former Maoist, was directly sponsored in his early defamatory activities against LaRouche by Roy M. Cohn, the notorious counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy. In 1983 and 1984, when the Anglo-American Synarchists needed to contain LaRouche, who had influenced then-President Ronald Reagan to adopt a policy of strategic defense and cooperation with the Soviet Union, they turned to Manhattan investment advisor John Train, a trusted CCF hand and former OSS operative. Train, who had been prominent in the CCF's Paris Review and worked with the likes of Stephen Spender, convened a salon of journalists, private foundations, and U.S. government national security officials in New York City for the purpose of creating and executing a sustained and massive media assault on LaRouche. The declared aims of the Train meetings were to destroy LaRouche's political policy influence, disrupt his political organization, and set the stage for state and Federal prosecutions. A massive black propaganda barrage ensued from these meetings. At the Train meetings were representatives of the New Republic, the Wall Street Journal, NBC television, Reader's Digest, the ADL, Freedom House (a direct offshoot of the CCF run by Leo Cherne and operative Melvin Lasky in his later years), and Richard Mellon Scaife. Roy Godson, then employed by the National Security Council and heavily enmeshed in the Iran/Contra operation, was a leading participant. Godson, the son of CFF's Joe Godson and inheritor of networks controlled by the CIA's agents in the trade unions, Jay Lovestone and Irving Brown, had played a major role in operations against LaRouche dating back to 1975. Biographies of CIA counterintelligence head James Jesus Angleton say that he was engaged in a “vendetta” against LaRouche at this time; and Angleton was a source in some of the stories which flowed from the Train meetings. Chip Berlet and Dennis King's attendance at the Train meetings was financed by British spook John Rees, a notorious rightwing police and FBI spy, who moved to the United States. And financing of King's book-length diatribe against LaRouche by the powerful neoconservative Smith-Richardson Foundation was arranged at the Train meetings.

from prince c Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 02:39 (Agree/Disagree?) ive only talked with tuneman twice, and he is not for the stunna.....but i worship the mind that i spoke with....... my father and he, have been the only lions in my room..... a great mind will fall into "insanity", if not excruciatingly kept in check........it fucking cuts my soul to not embrace my "insanity" when thats all il ever want...... to more than most it is insane. in truth, "insanity" is a higher evolution.......it is sickeningly associated with "evil" and as something to be feared.....fuck that...thats just another "nonsheep" label.......do you know how going against evolution feels?!!! its fucking self-rape...... but yea, i can fake it......il regulate me with humor... "get well" Don Irwin

From Enough is enough!! Sunday, May 20, 2007, 02:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, prince, let your soul be at rest, because it is all too clear that you, too, have embraced your insanity.

From prince c Sunday, May 20, 2007, 12:16 (Agree/Disagree?) hmmmmm.....grrrrrr...... anti-jew= trouble....trouble= reason for it= reason for it= TF..........as history has shown us all, what is anti jew, goes the fuck down..... and it is nothing short of genius to put the jews up against the evil leaders of TF.......

From Yeah right..... Sunday, May 20, 2007, 12:30 (Agree/Disagree?) I wouldn't give Donny that much credit. More like, tried to pit Jewish dude against someone. Jewish dude didn't listen. Pasted swastika on Jewish dude's door. Jewish dude got angry at Donny. Donny went the fuck down.

From prince c Sunday, May 20, 2007, 13:30 (Agree/Disagree?) u are much too arrogant...

From Say what?! Sunday, May 20, 2007, 14:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black.

From prince c Sunday, May 20, 2007, 15:33 (Agree/Disagree?) my arrogance is backed......theirs is not

From EyesWideShut Sunday, May 20, 2007, 08:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Hahaha! I couldn't have said it better myself.

from Samuel Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 05:03 (Agree/Disagree?) I think Don is going through enough right now. I agree with "Enough is Enough". I know Don has said mean things to some people on this site, and I of all people know it's difficult sometimes to just let things go and not take everything so personally, but I think if we look inside ourselves we can find the patience, compassion, and maturity to move on. If you are so upset by something Don said about you or did to you, I suggest that you go back and reread Don's most recent articles and comments. I have faith that you will be able to determine that Don was not in his right mind when he said those things, and probably was not in his right mind when he said or did whatever you are holding against him. I completely agree that when Don gets out of therapy he's going to come back on this site and probably feel like an idiot when he reads all the ridiculous comments he made. As for EyesWideShut, I question their motives in posting this article, and have decided to take the unusual step of nominating it for the Trailer Park.

From Oddman Saturday, May 19, 2007, 08:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Mr. S. M., If there's anything I've had enough of, it's your vote TP campaigns. Should we make T-shirts, Napoleon? And if you're going to plagiarise and regurgitate, please innovate. Don't waste my time with your xeroxed opinion. I have to agree with NeO, EWS' opinion or relationship to Don isn't relevant to judging the appropriateness of this article. The article in itself is purely informational. Don being a ex-2nd gen, it's entirely relevant to the nature of this site.

From Samuel Sunday, May 20, 2007, 12:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Admin, may I ask that my last name please be removed from this comment? Thank you.

From WTF? Sunday, May 20, 2007, 12:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Mr S.M., haven't you yourself posted your full name many, many times on this site? Why stop now?

From Oddman Sunday, May 20, 2007, 12:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Does it matter when you've signed so many of your comments with your full name, Sam? If you prefer, I'll not do that in the future, although I think your full name is public knowledge by your own doing.

From Samuel Sunday, May 20, 2007, 13:30 (Agree/Disagree?) I know it is. But just because I was careless before doesn't mean I am doomed to continue being careless.

From prince c Wednesday, May 23, 2007, 00:20 (Agree/Disagree?) hell ya samuel.....

From Ne Oublie Saturday, May 19, 2007, 06:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Whatever EWS' motives were in posting this, I think that it is entirely appropriate to post such articles on this forum. I knew Don back in the day, and so consider him a friend - or at least an aquaintance - who has unfortunately taken a bad turn in his life. I am therefore interested to hear how this sad scenario is progressing. As I've said before, this could turn out to be a good thing for him, as in all fairness this was a minor offence, especially compared to what could have happened in his state of mind. If this will then cause him to receive the help he needs - whether voluntarily or not - then I think this will have been a beneficial episode of his life, and will have prevented him from doing something potentially far worse. Despite the comments he has made on here, I don't think Don is particularly racist - but perhaps that has more to do with my own definition of what that means. I think Oddie was right to say that he is a proud man, I would venture that it is that pride which has driven him to many of the irrational actions he has taken of late, which struck me as being comparable to those of a cornered animal. He has convinced himself - rightly, or wrongly - that the situation he found himself in was such that his only remaining option was to lash out in this way. That does not justify what he's said or done, which should be judged on its own merits - although I do think the penalties being discussed are extreme for posting a couple posters and using a bit of silly language.

From Oddman Saturday, May 19, 2007, 08:39 (Agree/Disagree?) I think Don has felt he does not fit in with society, and had struggled with his identity to a certain extent. I've seen some exers who just have to be extremely different. They like to belong to some minor subculture, and often go to extremes to be different. The underlying motive may well be, to make the real differences they feel between themselves and society appear less important or prominent. In searching his identity, I think he chose to cling to some nationalism. In the past he has attributed his superiority to his perceived identity, Male, Heterosexual, American nationality, Irish blood, Irwin legacy, Cult enemy, Chivalrous (Chauvinist?) Knight/Samurai, Fighter, Toughguy, Leader. In doing so, he's come across as racist sometimes. I don't think that makes Don any more racist than your average joe. Everybody has a bit of pack mentality. Everybody thinks his/her tribe or herd is superior to the other. Whether that makes one racist or not depends on your definition of racism. Although I agree that the penalties discussed are harsh, I think at this point it would be better for Don. Remove access to the things that are haunting him. Remove access to his guns. If there is one thing truly dangerous in this world, it is a crazy man/woman. I would fight a man in his sound mind if he were a foot taller. I wouldn't fight a crazy man, if he were two feet shorter. You never know what you're up against, so caution is your only defense.

from Oddman Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 02:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Don Irwin, Don Irwin, Don Irwin. That wind he passed is still going round and around and round and around and round and around and around. What a bloody nuisance. To the anonymous people posting alleged statements of fact. If there are circumstances that prevent you from disclosing the routes said information was obtained from, and what the context was, everything you say or claim Don said or did, is nothing more than hearsay. I have little objection to anonymously posting an opinion or question. I am however, very much inclined to question the integrity of one who anonymously posts unverifiable statements of fact about another person. What benefit is there to you and this community, in showing that Don is in need of professional attention? I believe Don himself already drove that point home, loud and clear. Please quit scaling the glass wall. To the idiots that actually think any of this "Don said such-and-such to somebody. In't that howwible?" is credible, or somehow worth discussing. Guess what, Scott Tenorman will sell you pubes. Yay, you can finally grow up. To the Don Irwin Sympathizers, anonymous and named... I stood on the receiving end of Don's recent spate of psychopathetic verbal vomit on movingon. Needless to say, I don't feel positively about the guy that thinks being an Irish American man somehow makes him superior to a Japanese man. Needless to say, I don't like the guy that started unprovoked personal attacks on me. I didn't appreciate his quick allusion to physical violence. In my mind, however my following views are on a different matter altogether. I don't believe I've allowed my personal impression of Adonis Irwin as an individual to dictate or taint my opinion much. I'd appreciate it if we can be mature enough to see the distinct difference in discussing Don, and discussing the Don situation. For the sake of putting this into context, I'd also like to point out that I haven't made any of the anonymous comments in this thread. As someone has mentioned, yes, there is a time for forgiveness and compassion. Fortunately for society, the courts are not the place. I dislike the concept of the insanity defense, and feel it is entirely abused in our modern society. Everyone is insane on some level. If I spent enough time with any person, I can peg them with a disorder or two. As has been mentioned, yes, I understand the mental, emotional, and psychological effects of spending ones youth in TF. I allow for the fact that Don probably had it much worse than your average 2nd gen exer. (By this I make no attempt to discount or belittle the suffering of any other survivor. To a survivor, it matters little if someone else has suffered "more" if suffering can even be quantified.) However, I cannot be certain that his self proclaimed "champion of the suffering 2nd gen" in itself was not the product of his disorders, not the cause of them. I don't get the impression at all that his actions indicate a "misguided activist". I rather get the impression that Don needs help. Don is a very proud man, like most survivors are. Don wants to be tough, like most survivors do. I put myself first in a competitive professional environment. I put myself then in a physically demanding situation. I subconsciously crave having some problem to deal with from time to time, to reassure myself that I can deal with problems. Don never wants to be in a position where he could be violated. So he needs to be tough, staunch. I can relate to that. But because he's so strong, tough and proud, he's gone beyond the point where he can ask for help. His paranoia also prevents him from finding someone he can trust. His quest for strength has alienated those who do understand him (or so he feels) and he feels professionals don't understand him enough to help. So he takes steps toward trouble, possibly hoping that someone will notice. Hoping that someone will listen to what he won't say. Hoping that someone will be his own personal Jesus. But back to suffering. Yes, Poor Don, Merry, anyone who suffered at the hands of Berg and Zerby. Yes, I feel bad for him. But look. We cannot blame TF for our actions. At least I don't feel I can. I'm 24 now, going 25. I'm not a child anymore. I can bitch and moan about it. I can vent about it. But I can't blame them for where I am now. Because they may be responsible for the first 15 years of my life. (That 15 years will affect the rest of my life till the day I die.) But I am responsible for the 9 years since. I'm responsible for the fact that I'm where I am today. That I've grown up doesn't release TF from their responsibilities, liabilities, or culpability, in EXACTLY the same way that the fact that I've grown up IN TF, doesn't release me from my responsibilities. Yes, Don had a bad start in life. One from which -at this point- he has not recovered. Yes, Don has suffered. Yes, fuck TF. Yes, they should fucking pay for it. Hell, TF should be paying for all the therapy and education costs to any 2nd gen exer. But yes too, Don fucked up. No more no less. Don fucked up. Perhaps in a state of psychotic rage, but yes he fucked up. Whether he should be jailed or committed, at this point, he is a threat to society. And this is possibly the best thing that could happen to him. Forcibly take his mind off TF. So for a while at least, his demons could haunt him less.

from been there Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 00:04 (Agree/Disagree?) All of this is so sad and unfortunate about Don. For those who have frequented movingon and known him and have seen his posts throughout the years, it seemed evident that he was maybe going over the deep end in the last couple of months. What a life. Poor Don. Poor Merry. Poor anyone who suffered at the hands of Berg and Zerby. I feel so bad for him, and because I still believe in prayer, I'm gonna pray for him. I knew him in Thailand. And he seems to be a very tormented soul after having fought for years for justice for his sister and for other abused members and has yet to see anyone pay for what they did. I just think he deserves our prayers (for those of us who still pray), and our positive thoughts. Poor guy.

from Phoenixkidd Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 12:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Eyeswideshut, who is Don?? I must be pretty ignorant but what releveance does this have to former or ex-cult members?

From EyesWideShut Thursday, May 17, 2007, 17:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey, Phoenix, Don grew up with my husband in Thailand, etc. They used to be best friends, like brothers. As the note below says, he was quite active in the media after Ricky's passing and he is the half brother of Merry Berg (Mene).

From gragon Thursday, May 17, 2007, 17:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Merry Berg's brother...he spoke at Ricky's funeral...ring a bell?

from GetReal Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 23:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Those letters obviously have nothing to do with Don , Don is not one bit anti Semitic and neither was the note he left on the councilman's door .Can you please explain how your post is an update on his unfortunate situation.

From Some of Don Irwin's statements on race Thursday, May 17, 2007, 18:43 (Agree/Disagree?) "I'm an American, I'm not a strange man, I'm not Japanese, I am not a Canadian, and I'm not an Englishman. In my society when somebody violates your rights you fight back, you don't let them continue to do it. If somebody threatens my person I fight back with physical force." "I intend to fight viciously defend myself in this particular instance because this individual is a social predator and I intend to shut her down before she hurts others. That is what American men do we are fighters, we are not women, we are not wimps, and when cornered, we fight, I fight to win." "Now, are what I'm writing in transmitting is going through an attorney first, understand that, because I'm a smart American man who likes my possessions and doesn't like cats displacement (sic) especially because of whoring lying bitches that he couldn't even Fox (sic)." "This is not about money, this is not about sex, is not about spite, this about doing the right thing and being a red-blooded American. A red-blooded American man I should add. Not flying (sic) whoring bitch, wants to take on an honest red-blooded American man, I'm game." "I believe that the truth speaks volumes and that the public has no sympathy for Longhorn (sic) bitches who victimize red-blooded American man who stand up to abusers."

From GetReal Thursday, May 17, 2007, 20:15 (Agree/Disagree?) OK please state whether or not you are trying to say Don is a racist so I know when to laugh at you.

From More Gem's From Don Irwin Thursday, May 17, 2007, 20:29 (Agree/Disagree?) “As an American man, I have the right to defend my rights.” “To me the perfect application of truth would be the perfect application of the law.” “Truth gives one the right to dissent, then counter dissent, then go to jail when guilty . -- Due process. It's there for a reason, I like the reasons. Stay relaxed, and out of jail .” “Now, Japanese boy, I am emotional, no question, anger is an honest emotion, which I have no problem directing at you.” “Stay in Japan little man, and don't tangle with other men until you're ready to play like one.” “I've said it before, Only God Can Judge Me” Well, God and an LA county jury!

From GetReal Thursday, May 17, 2007, 20:43 (Agree/Disagree?) thank you . I've already read that . I know you have absolutely no obligation but will you please answer my question instead of quoting a man in a state of depression out of context . I really want my laugh for the night . thank you kindly

From No laughing matter Thursday, May 17, 2007, 21:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Don Irwin's "state of depression" correspondence: "Since I have no address for you, no replies for my email, you've decided to act like a little mini-Zerby, so I'll treat you the same way I treat her. Not because I want to, but because you give me no choice. Don't complain about me not being reasonable when your definition of being reasonable is simply agreeing with your pernicious interference with the execution of other's concience. Now, I've called, I asked, I've done this that, like Zerby, no answer from you. You want to play that way. Fine. I can beat you at this game. You don't believe me. ... Watch and take notes. I've asked to be re-instated on MovingOn.org, where none of my original articles attacked anyone, but then I get shitted on by your dumb borderline ass because I fight against nameless attackers who spill the beans on me first and then you get upset because I respond in kind after I've turned the other cheek? What type of a dumb ass, controlling bitch are you woman?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You've made the mistake of thinking that I value acceptance over doing what I believe is right. Your mistake. Now you pay the price. I intend to take our quarrel to the next level within the next 24 hours unless you communicate with me and explain how you intend to display whatever leadership you may or may not be capable of so that this can be resolved with no further "collateral damage". The ball is in your court. If you act like Zerby's org does, I'll treat you like I do them. I will nuke your ass in the media, on the internet and in ways that are legal but extremely timeconsuming, bothersome and potentially emotionally, physically, pschologically and financially exhausting to you, while at the same time keeping myself out of criminal and civil liability. I don't want to go this route. Whether I do or not depends on your ability to communicate with me in a way that demonstrates something other than an attempt to control my words, opinions and thoughts. Respect would be nice, but borderline control freaks aren't good at extending that to others. It's in your power to change my opinion of you. I suggest you do it by some method besides trying to control my intelligent ass with your borderline ass-crap. I tried being humble. Humble seems to get no respect with Zerby and people who want to behave like her. Now, I've given you your options. I wish you hadn't forced my hand, but your have. What we do now is your call. You have 24 hours. So far I haven't involved the media and I haven't gone after you the way I've gone after Nancy and others, that changes in 24 hours. You want to get yourself in the cross-hairs, be my guest. But for God's sake don't be so delusional as to think your logical, just or helping in doing so." (Last time I looked, intimidation, blackmail and threats weren't criteria for a depression diagnosis.)

From Sharon Friday, May 18, 2007, 08:06 (Agree/Disagree?) From the movie Apolocolypse Now: Kurtz : Did they say why, Willard, why they want to terminate my command? Willard : I was sent on a classified mission, sir. Kurtz : It's no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you? Willard : They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound. Kurtz : Are my methods unsound? Willard : I don't see any method at all, sir.

From holy fucking shit Thursday, May 17, 2007, 21:58 (Agree/Disagree?) May i ask who it was that he addressed that to, just out of curiosity .I think my opinion of Mr. Irwin is about to change.

From NoShit Sherlock Friday, May 18, 2007, 05:58 (Agree/Disagree?) "I've asked to be re-instated on MovingOn.org, where none of my original articles attacked anyone, but then I get shitted on by your dumb borderline ass because I fight against nameless attackers who spill the beans on me first and then you get upset because I respond in kind after I've turned the other cheek?" A) This is someone who has the power to determine whether Don is able to post at Movingon. What type of a dumb ass, controlling bitch are you woman?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! B) This is a woman. "I intend to take our quarrel to the next level within the next 24 hours unless you communicate with me and explain how you intend to display whatever leadership you may or may not be capable of so that this can be resolved with no further "collateral damage"." C) This is someone who has shown leadership. A+B+C = That annoying "Terms of Use" agreement I endorsed so that I could comment on this website about Don Irwin's email rants. Depression works as a diagnosis for me if you're willing to add, "with psychotic features and histrionic character traits."

From GetReal Friday, May 18, 2007, 08:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow PTL, I knew that annoying terms of use had some thing to do with Mr. Irwin.At this moment I'm kinda at a loss for words ,I had no idea he did that .I guess I understand where y'all are coming from now .Hey but the happy ending to this story is Mr. Irwin will probably be getting some help . I hope he gets better soon.

From EyesWideShut Friday, May 18, 2007, 07:06 (Agree/Disagree?) I really hope that this awful letter from Don was posted by the person it was written to. That is the only person who would have the right to post something that so obviously describes it's victim. It is true that Don copied a number of people when he sent it, because I heard about it from someone other than the person it was directed to. To that person who had to take this abuse, be well. You always have my vote ;) Your "ass crap" trumps his "intelligence" on any day of the week.

From Captain America Friday, May 18, 2007, 08:04 (Agree/Disagree?) I must respectfully disagree with you. If Mr. Irwin copied this letter to others, then it's content was made public by him, not the person who has chosen to share what was shared with him. It has no more confidentiality than if he were to have screamed it at her in a bar or some other public place. I do so where you're coming from, if he *had* sent it to her and only her, then privacy would be implied, and only the recipient could choose whether or not to share what she had received. Also, Mr. Irwin has shown utter disregard for any kind of social or etiquette or netiquette, he has made all of his delusions completely public, and does not seem to be the least bit ashamed at the fact that he is barking mad. The letter itself is an attempt to be allowed back into this public forum, so that he can continue to demonstrate how thoughtless he is. No doubt if he could still post here, he would have made this an open letter.

From Enough is enough!! Saturday, May 19, 2007, 01:11 (Agree/Disagree?) I must respectfully disagree with you and all of you who seem to be enjoying watching the sad demise of Don far too much. I am almost positive that the person that email was addressed to did not post it. She has far too much sense and class to publicly display such delicate issues and I wish that some of you would learn from her example. I can’t help but get the feeling that I am watching little children fight in a playground because someone was mean to them. We are adults now and I would think we could be mature enough to let things pass and learn when enough is simply enough! He is in enough trouble as it is with out us talking shit about him. He doesn’t have anyone and although that is his fault, in a sad way, it isn’t his fault, because he has lost his mind. This is where compassion comes in. I think we all have been in a place where we could use a little forgiveness and compassion; don’t you? Yes, Don said some ridiculous hurtful things and he did take it to a personal level with some of you, but he is so obviously out of his mind that it should be easy for you to chalk it up to “crazy talk” and therefore let it go and move on with your damn lives. Sometimes it is far too easy to fixate on everyone else’s problems so that you may avoid your own. Does it make you feel better about yourself to kick someone when they are down? I bet you are feeling pretty high and mighty about right now. I however am quickly losing respect for you and I hope you will come to your senses and simply let it go. I don’t care what Don said or did, what he has done in the past has earned him some respect and compassion and although we all love to make fun, including myself, I think that most of us simply wish him peace and health. When and if he comes back to his senses, I am sure he will feel like a complete idiot. Do you really need to feel like an idiot right along with him or are you trying to prove that you are just as crazy as he is?

From Yes, enough enabling already Saturday, May 19, 2007, 08:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Compassion is something Don never showed his victims. Don's actions from the past have been erased by his criminal behavior much of which has never been posted here. No one loves to make fun of him. People want to see him secured so he can no longer harm others or their children. And Don's actions went far past words when he began taking actions with government authorities to harm individuals and their families. When he decided to try and help the Family take someone's children away because he was raging, he lost my support. This isn't a poor Don situation anymore. This is a tragic situation for those he aimed to hurt. Thank goodness he's finally in jail where his victims are temporarily protected from him as long as he can't get his sympathizers to do his bidding from jail.

From Enough is enough!! Saturday, May 19, 2007, 13:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, that is a relief that you have had the decency to not post the entirety of Don’s dirty laundry for all to read. How very good of you. May I ask you why you feel the need to bring out any of these topics? Personal issues taken to a place where so many who are not involved and know nothing about the situation with Don will read it? Your motive seems a little too obvious. What good are YOU bringing about by doing so? I am glad that EWS posted this article, because I do wish to keep informed on how he is doing and what actions are being taken with him; however, I hardly wish to hear you keep harping on all the misery he has created. I doubt he is a serious threat to you now, so again, what is the point? I would also have to disagree with you on how his recent mistakes have erased his positive efforts in the past. You can’t erase good deeds done, by making mistakes. They were still made and cannot be changed or erased no matter how upset you are at him. I am not defending him or his actions as he went after me on this site as well, I am just saying get the hell over it and move the fuck on.

From Yes, enough complicity already Saturday, May 19, 2007, 23:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, what’s been posted here is a minute fraction of Don Irwin's threats, intimidation, sexist and anti-Semitic rhetoric, coercion and blackmail that he's sent to dozens of people who had no interest or desire to communicate with him. His only motivation in disseminating his propaganda was to intimidate individuals for whom he was trying to harass and manipulate. Don brought his issues into the public forum in his various forms of harassment, not the other way around. Merely making people aware of his many threats, many for of which he published on his own, is hardly questionable. In fact, it is necessary because his campaign of destruction is by far over. The question that should be asked of you is what good have you accomplished in protecting and enabling such a dangerous individual who has on more than one occasion threatened to assassinate certain individuals? People need to be warned. People need to know that he has a propensity for violence. People need to know that he's been in collusion with the Family to help testify against an ex-SGA to help the cult remove her children from her because of his personal vendetta against the ex-SGA who would not be intimidated by him. People need to know that he's sexually exploited female abuse survivors of the cult. People need to know he's threatened not just one single parent's children, but several. Your argument reeks of the cult's excuse that they purportedly have done so much good in the world that they should not be held accountable for the harm they've caused. As for your sage advice to "get the hell over it and move the fuck on," I'd say you sound a whole lot like the cult, again, just a little less refined. You might as well be preaching forgiveness and beauty for ashes. Well, there is a line between empathy and just plain stupidity in placing oneself in harms way with a perpetrator who is unreformed and remorseless. The only thing preventing his ongoing campaign of terror is the arm of the law. Thank goodness for it!

From EyesWideShut Sunday, May 20, 2007, 08:34 (Agree/Disagree?) So well said. Thank you.

From Enough is enough!! Sunday, May 20, 2007, 00:51 (Agree/Disagree?) OMG! I am a woman too; does that mean I am in danger? Is he watching me through my computer screen, ready to pounce on me? Thank you for warning me of my impending doom. I will guard myself against future possible attacks from a man that has no information on me whatsoever, has absolutely no idea who I am, where I live, and is in no way, shape or form, involved in my life. I guess you feel the need to warn the world against the terror awaiting them, which is Don. Your time and your life, but it leaves me asking who the crazy one is.

From Erin Sunday, May 20, 2007, 01:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Sarcasm does wonders to promote your argument. No, not the world, just the handfull of those he's targeted. You're lucky enough to probably not have been a blimp on his radar. Some were not so lucky. You know what makes me sick is that it seems that one can commit crimes, harass, intimidate, defame, lie, coerce, attempt to blackmail, invade one's privacy and even commit murder and there are loads of people willing to lay the blame for those actions committed by ADULTS at the feet of the Family? While I have appeared on national television more than once, even with Don Irwin, and told my personal experiences with horrific sexual abuse and physical abuse, medical neglect, educational neglect and mental and emotional torture at personal expense to myself to no personal gain, I refuse to blame the Family for my mistakes as an adult. I have trauma, yes. That was not not my fault, no, and I experienced far worse than Don, who was never sexually or physically abused. I have seven younger siblings that suffered similiarly and continue to suffer, as three are still in. But, those who are adults now, must take responsibility for their own actions. I consider myself a rabid opponent of the cult. I was fighting the cult when Don was still sitting in WS editting cult publications. I was talking to FBI agents when no one even knew who Don was. I have suffered immensely. My family has suffered. I have a brother who has nearly died, twice. But, I still cannot lay the blame of the actions of an adult at the feet of a cult. If I kill someone, if I attack someone, if I engage in a campaign of harassment which surpasses even that of Jim La Mattery, then no one is held responsible, except me. Because if you carry that, "it's not his fault" excuse to its conclusion, then you might as well let nearly every rapist and murderer out of jail because a majority of them have suffered far worse abuse. You know what, this is a line in the sand. Don is not Rick. Rick, although I disagree with his method, targeted his abusers, cult members. Don, on the other hand, has targeted his fellow abuse survivors. Out of respect for his victims, I will not name them, but the list is distinguished, nearly all who have suffered and who have spoken out at great expense to themselves. I have always been a strong supporter of victims. I have debated the evil of the cult on this website for five years until I was blue in the face. I have put my name and reputation on the line. I have exhausted every legal means available to me for those five years in order to bring this cult to justice. I donated $500 of my own money to assist others speaking to the media when Rick died. I spend hundreds more traveling and coordinating media appearances. I spent hundreds of hours on legal research and investigation. I did this at a time that I made about half as much as my peers involved in the same efforts and while I had a child at home to feed all on my own. I have no love for this cult. But, I do respect the rule of law. And it has been crossed. When my son was threatened, I drew a line. If someone comes into my life and tries to destroy everything I've worked so hard to make out of nothing and threatens my family, I don't care if they're Mother Theresa, they've crossed the line. In my book, Don has done more harm than the cult ever has since I left because he was taken into a place of trust and included in efforts of a sensitive nature and he used that trust to try and destroy what was being built and those who had been hard at work to build it for years before he even appeared on the scene. No, the goal is not to continue to enable this man. The goal is to try and salvage the hard work he destroyed. Because of him, the civil suit which was a last ditch effort and which took years in the making was destroyed. Am I still an advocate for the victims of the cult? Hell, yes! But, in my book, Don isn't one of them, not when he targeted those who trusted him and who were working as hard and harder than he ever was and put much more on the line to do it. "If you act like Zerby's org does, I'll treat you like I do them. I will nuke your ass in the media, on the internet and in ways that are legal but extremely timeconsuming, bothersome and potentially emotionally, physically, pschologically and financially exhausting to you, while at the same time keeping myself out of criminal and civil liability...So far I haven't involved the media and I haven't gone after you the way I've gone after Nancy and others, that changes in 24 hours." That's me Don is talking about. And it began with a vengence when my little boy was in the hospital earlier this year. I received a call at the hospital from one of Don's patsy's demanding that I do so and so or Don would do X to me. This came out of the blue. I'd had no contact with him for months. When I ignored him, he began his email campaign of intimidation and lies. He said viled things about me personally and about my relationship with my child. Then, he took it online when even that did not get a response out of me. I, finally, wrote a long, thoughtful response, which was very emotionally restrained in response to all his baseless accusations, and the administrators removed it, all the while leaving up his ilk. Now, I just wonder if I ever go off the deep end and commit some henious act and hurt those who have testified against the Family and spoken out in the media at great personal expense, if the same people are going to come running to my aid and forget about the collateral damage caused just because I was abused as a child. Because if I were any other person who did not detest violence and hurting the underdog, after all this nonsense and all the excuses for it, I'd be obliged to lose it, too. And, my excuse, because that's all it is, would be a hell of a lot better than the cult abused my sister.

From Enough is enough!! Sunday, May 20, 2007, 02:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, well, you are correct, I am being a little sarcastic, but I just don’t see the need for you to post everything you are posting. You may think my “get over it” is reminiscent of TF, but I find your going on and on reminiscent of Don, while he was on here. I understand he misused you and betrayed your trust. I also understand your frustration you feel towards him. You are very entitled to your feelings and I am not saying that what you feel is wrong or unjust. My only question is what is the point of posting it on here? Just because he posted things about you, does it mean you must do the very same thing? I mean, we all knew he was crazy and no one believed him, so you don’t need to worry about your reputation, if that is your concern and I am sure the ones that are in danger from Don could receive this information in a nice private email, so that so many are not dragged into all the mud unnecessarily. It is obvious who you are and I know that you are very upset right now and your emotions are all over the place. You are probably shaking while you write these long comments and it can’t be good for you to be getting so upset. I know you have been through a lot, so take a break, breathe and feel at peace. You are safe and no one is out to get you. You deserve much happiness and the best of everything, but you do have to let things go in order to grab hold of new things. You are respected and you have done so much for all of us at your own expense and no one will ever forget that. I know I won’t and let me tell you right now, that if you ever lost your mind, I would defend you. You have had it rough and although this isn’t a contest between you and Don, because what some can handle make others crack, I do understand what it means to hurt and feel mistreated and I know you feel that way. After the life you lived in TF, I know that this doesn’t seem fair and you wonder why life seems to beat you up time after time. We don’t always get what we deserve, but life goes on and we take the good along with the bad and we keep on doing what we do best, surviving. You are a survivor and I am sure one day you will catch a break. I sure hope you do. Maybe it is your time to retire from your life of pursuing TF and bringing them to justice. You have done more than your share, so maybe it is time to live your life and let someone else take it from here. Not that you efforts have not been appreciated, because they have, but do you really want to let TF be a part of your life forever? The way I see it is if you are in TF for a third of your life and then you fight it for the rest, you have simply given them your entire life. Don’t you think some of that life could be better spent with out them in the background?

From JohnnieWalker Sunday, May 20, 2007, 00:11 (Agree/Disagree?) So now that we are all aware of what Don has done is there really a need to keep repeating it? Telling us of all his evil deeds over and over really isn't going to help Don get better. And that is the ultimate goal here, isn't it? Let's not forget that. This is not about protecting people from Don. The LA authorities are doing a good enough job of that at the moment. This is about helping Don get better so that no one will need to be protected from him. You already made it clear to Don that you will not allow him into any part of your life. Why then do you continually bring him back into it yourself by harping on his actions? I think in this case, "move on" may be good advice.

From Erin Sunday, May 20, 2007, 00:59 (Agree/Disagree?) I disagree that helping Don is the goal. I think protecting his victims is the goal. He's crossed the line from alleged victim to victimizer.

From JohnnieWalker Sunday, May 20, 2007, 01:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Protecting his victims from what? What could he possibly do to victimize people while he is in custody? Don is not a threat to anyone at this point. I'd say that during his "time out" (however long it lasts) our efforts are better spent getting him help than discussing his actions. Protecting the victims is only ever going to serve as a temporary measure because if he wants a victim, he will find one. Getting him professional help has a better chance of being a permanent or long-term solution.

From Erin Sunday, May 20, 2007, 01:45 (Agree/Disagree?) "While he is in custody" at the very best may be a year. Then, he has nothing to lose.

From Sunny (Eyes Wide Shut) Sunday, May 20, 2007, 09:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, I too was the object of his abhorrence. My husband and I have actually considered moving because we felt so endangered by him, so I completely agree. I am concerned for the worst case scenario; what happens after the justice system is done with him? With Don, I have always been concerned with the worst case scenario. Anyone who has not learned from Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc, isn't listening or has never been personally threatened. Once he is out of custody, whether or not he has done time, he will be even more of a man on a mission. Somebody will pay. In my opinion, the fact that his insanity had not escalated to physical violence against those he was fixated on can be attributed, among other things, to his short attention span, and not to any intention or control on his part. He jumped from foe to foe with no apparent pattern, as is evidenced by his rather sudden attempt to get Councilman Weiss' attention through what appeared to be anti-semetic means. In truth, he probably woke up one day, heard Weiss’ name on the radio, thought to himself that Weiss could be useful, and when Weiss’ office did not immediately reply to his demands, Weiss became the new A_______, S____, N____, A___, S____, or J____, etc, etc. Frankly, I’m surprised he chose a male this time. How off is game he must have been. Somewhere in there he changed personalities from a sword wielding samurai/budo-whatever, to an Irish knight errant whose crest looks something like a pineapple and whose armor is so heavy that he is “not easily shaken by any wind”, to a “giant in the industry” programmer, to a gun toting gangsta pimp, to Bob Marley’s reincarnation, to a “Jewish American Child” come Johannes Gutenberg/Martin Luther (both German) wannabe. I’m sure I’ve missed a few, but after a while I just couldn’t keep up. This line up alone illustrates the ease with which he could jump in and out of any personality that suited him. Crazy or not, an adult is responsible for his own actions and the repercussions. There was a time when I was willing to sit back and do nothing but hope for the best, for my husband’s sake, that Don would eventually come back to the land of reason. But that line was crossed, in fact there’s only one line that’s been more crossed, and it’s the Rio Grande. Our only hope is that somebody in that system will recognize the threat and treat him with appropriate medication and therapy. I want him to be well for the sake of all of our safety and the reputation of ex cult children everywhere, not so that he and I can be friends again. If you are not keenly interested to stay abreast of this case, you obviously don’t care if and when he gets out and is free to begin exacting revenge on those he deems responsible for this insult to his genius. Those of you who were never personally threatened by Adonis Irwin have no right to try and temper the reaction of those who have with your mediocre sentiments in support of such an obviously delusional and dangerous man. If you defend and enable him, you will be partially responsible for murders he may one day commit.

From Benz Monday, May 21, 2007, 06:23 (Agree/Disagree?) EWS, No one here is defending Don. However it is obvious you are fixated on blowing everything Don has ever done well out of proportion. Yes, Don is hot tempered, has not made sense for a while etc, ha has behaved irrationaly and has obviously scared the pants of your husband - no one is disputing that. BUT - he needs professional help, and will likely get better and have remorse. Certainly if your husband really is scared of Don, tell the police and/or get a restraining order or take civil action, whatever you must do (maybe buy an extra pair of diapers for you husband) In the meantime, please stop crapping on and comparing Don with the worst mass murderer in American history, ok? - you just sound stupid!

From Nancy Monday, May 21, 2007, 11:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Allow me to rephrase Benz's argument as it sounds like something from Claire Borowik: "Certainly if [any of our former members] really are scared of [The Family], tell the police and/or get a restraining order or take civil action, whatever [they] must do (maybe buy an extra pair of diapers for [themselves]). In the meantime, please stop crapping on and comparing [The Family] with the worst mass murdered in American history, ok? - you just sound stupid!" Yes, Sunny, please put up or shut up because the burden to prove that Don Irwin or the Family did anything to you or your Depends wearing husband is on YOU, the victim! It's certainly not true and you have no right to bother Benz with it, until you have proven in a court of law that Don and/or The Family ever did anything to you! And for fuck's sake, stop implying you're a victim! Just because Don's in jail, only proves that the liberal media had it out for him, just as the Jewish controlled government has it out for The Family. My God, woman, what the hell is wrong with you thinking you have any right to defend yourself, respond or even speak out in this forum? Don't you know who Don Irwin is? He did some TV appearances, a couple dozen less than say Daniel Roselle, but he did some. He also helped Sarafina organize Rick's memorial, although Sarafina did the lion's share of the work, and lots of people contributed. Where do you get off? Did you have a half-sister that was abused by the cult? It doesn't count if you were abused because that just makes you a "sociopath" and "borderline" "lying whoring bitch." Know your place! Got it, Sunny? Now, shut up and go post Don's half million dollar bail, buy your husband some daipers and go set the record straight in the media and criminal justice system who are unfairly targeting Don, the real victim here. He's got to get into court anyway in order to testify against another abuse victim so he can try and have her children taken away by the cult. He's got a schedule to keep and we should all be rallying around him because he's criminally insane.

From Benz Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 04:59 (Agree/Disagree?) You're a bit of a one trick pony, aren't you Nancy, whenever someone disagrees with you, you run to your favorite little name calling technique "oh, look at him, he's like Claire Borowik", "he loves Zerby and Charles Manson",.... - Ahh, no Nancy, the fact that someone does not see eye to eye with you does not mean they are the clone of your arch-nemesis, Claire Borowik or any other of your favorite serial/mass killer varieties. For the record, comparing Don with a mass murderer/ serial killer is dumb, lame and just plain silly. As for putting words in my mouth, saying I am defending "the Family", that just shows how delusional and hysterical you are, and how pathetic your argument is. - What next, are you going to quote "me" utilising your own rephrased version of my actual comments? I'm starting to think you really are borderline schitzo/ paranoid...you can't even argue with my actual comments, you have to paraphrase them in such a way so that they are completely misrepresented in order to fuel your sensationalist nonsense responses. I'm over this whole thing, if anyone has a case against Don, let them take it to the police or the courts, but what can anyone on this site do when you just sit here trying to demonize an obviously troubled man. If Don has stalked you (as you claim) you should report this to the police (you remember them right, Nancy), get a court order - just do it, and quit repeating all your accusations here where no one can help your situation. But you wont will you? - because the bottom line is, you don't want justice, you just want to destroy the guy.

From EyesWideShut Monday, May 21, 2007, 14:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Lol!

From Madonna Monday, May 21, 2007, 13:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Borderline, feels like I'm gonna loose my mind You keep splitting your thoughts just like a borderline.

From Nancy Sunday, May 20, 2007, 10:29 (Agree/Disagree?) These are my sentiments, exactly, with the one exception that I am moving far away and not telling anyone where, so when Don gets out, hopefully, my son won't be left an orphan.

From JohnnieWalker Sunday, May 20, 2007, 01:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Good. So then we've got a year to get him professional help. Do you want to help Don, or do you just want keep hating on him and thinking of him as the enemy?

From afflick Sunday, May 20, 2007, 11:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Johnnie, I respect you immensely and appreciate the level of thoughtfulness you have always displayed in your posts over the years. However, I think the tone of your posts on this topic suggest an unwavering loyalty to Don that may be disrespectful to his targets. Why shouldn't a women who has been physically threatened by him "think" of him as an "enemy"? As a man with young daughters, I know you would expect more of those that interact with or will interact with your children. Can't you allow the same for these women? This particular situation with Don has mirrored our quest for justice with TF in so many ways for me. It is interesting to see that those close to Don defend him regardless, asking for information and opinions to be bottled for his sake, much the same as Family supporters have asked of those on this site. It is not hard to see that loyalty and personal connections may trump justice for some who consider Don a friend. I have only meet Don once, years ago, but I admired his willingness to speak out for his sister and for all of us who are unwilling to do so. I admired his speech at Ricky's memorial. But when he goes batsh*t on fellow survivors, I cannot allow that admiration of him to cloud my judgment of his actions. Can you?

From Samuel Sunday, May 20, 2007, 11:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Absolutely right, afflick. I guess I was judging the situation before I completely understood everything. I still think Don is a good guy, and I definitely wish him mental health and hope he gets all the treatment he needs while in prison. But when I posted my earlier comment, I was not aware that he had a pattern of physically threatening and using people, particularly female cult victims. I still admire Don and respect him for the way he spoke to the media, and I truly believe that his heart is in the right place, but that doesn't mean I approve of what he's done to other people who gave of themselves to him. Nancy, I hope I didn't offend you with anything I said. All I can say is I didn't know the extent of what he was doing. I still have a lot of respect for you after seeing how you handled the situation. I don't think I could have done the same.

From shikaka Monday, May 21, 2007, 19:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Have you ever been in prison, Samuel? Prison is not where people recieve hental health care. Prison is where you are surrounded by the violent, caged dregs of society, and where you try your best to look at the walls and avoid eye contact. Prison is the last place don should be right now. Talk about fuelling his rage.

From . Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 14:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Your observation is generally correct, but there's a huge difference between prisons and jails. Don is in a jail and will likely serve time in a jail if he's convicted of a misdemeanor. In California, the jails function as the front end of the mental health system. California follows an unstated public policy called "criminalization of the mentally ill." Authorities can't lock people up in state hospitals simply for being scarey and irrational individuals who might be dangerous, but they can lock them up in jail for trespassing, stalking, domestic violence, menacing, destruction of property, and other forms of public disturbance, such as hate speech, which are typical crimes of paranoid individuals with psychotic disorders. Whether or not the individual is diverted from local corrections (jail) to the community mental health system depends on many things, including how cooperative the person is with a psychiatric evaluation and whether his case gets referred to a mental health docket.

From ? Monday, May 21, 2007, 19:52 (Agree/Disagree?) What is "hental" health care?

From shikaka Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 13:23 (Agree/Disagree?) "hental health care" is a revolutionary new treatment offered through monty python's flying circus, funded in part by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Llamas.

From JohnnieWalker Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 13:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, too bad. I thought that last letter was a capital 'I'. "Hentai" health care sounds like it would be fun :)

From shikaka Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 13:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Well put, and I would certainly enroll in Hentai Health Care. No, the term "Hental" is derived from the old german dialect, and of course is defined as "a whale's vagina".

From JohnnieWalker Sunday, May 20, 2007, 11:52 (Agree/Disagree?) afflick, I can see how my comments would come across that way. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify. I have never met Don and do not consider him a friend. I have only corresponded with him briefly on this site on a few occasions and those discussions were heated. I, like you, abhor the way he has treated other participants on this site. I, like you, would hate to see another person victimized by his hate. But it is my nature to give people another chance and allow them to prove themselves capable of change. I truly believe Don is capable of that, and am willing to lay aside my disgust for his actions in order to get him the help he needs. I am not loyal to Don. I barely know the guy. But I am loyal to helping those who need help regardless of if I once considered them an enemy or not. I apologize to those affected, that what I said has made them feel disrespected.

From Nancy Sunday, May 20, 2007, 02:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm a little busy cleaning up the damage he caused. Further, he doesn't want help. I think the last time I offered, which was about the second dozen time I asked what he wanted and needed in order to stop, he said something to the effect of, "Fuck off you lying whoring bitch. I'm going to destroy you, thief." Yeah, sign me up. It's not like I have any self-respect left. If you've known exploitation before, why not continue to subject yourself to it? Would you like that I send you the money for my son's medical bills since he just got released from the hospital, again, after another four day, $1,000 a day, stay. Or would you prefer I just donate the time I was going to spend trying to earn the money to pay the mounting medical bills, not to mention my own bills for the PTSD it has triggered to be stalked and extorted and pretty much painted the selfish bitch for not hopping on the "let's save Don" bandwagon. You know, this site and a lot of the post on it are completely toxic. I thought once we escaped the cult, we might actually try and have a law abiding society in which the victims aren't blamed for not continuing to allow themselves to be victimized. What's next Johnnie? Am I going to get the "you're bitter" and "need to forgive" speech? I could just cut and paste it for you from a GN somewhere.

From JohnnieWalker Sunday, May 20, 2007, 12:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, you have every right to feel hate towards Don. The way he treated you is abhorrent. I'm am not saying you need to put time and effort into helping Don get psychiatric help. What I am saying is that your continued harping on his behavior toward you and others only further cements in people's minds that Don is evil and must be shunned. I'm saying, let's stop for a moment and take a look at the bigger picture. I'm saying that our energies, our time and our resources are so limited, let's figure out where we can best put them to use to attain the objective of preventing Don from victimizing more people. I'm saying let's try to get Don some help because he is a sick man who has the potential to do a lot more damage. A prison sentence for him would only compound his hate and fuel his current mindset. Psychiatric help may be able to reverse it. I'm not saying you cannot express your anger towards Don, but I am saying that, in my opinion and from my perspective, it isn't helping anyone at this point--including yourself.

From Nancy Sunday, May 20, 2007, 17:14 (Agree/Disagree?) "It is very tempting to take the side of the perpetrator. All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement and remembering... In order to escape accountability for his crimes, the perpetrator does everything in his power to promote forgetting. Secrecy and silence are the perpetrator's first line of defense. If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of his victim. If he cannot silence her absolutely, he tries to make sure that NO ONE LISTENS. To this end, he marshals an impressive array of arguments, from the most blatant denial to the most sophisticated and elegant rationalization. After every atrocity one can expect to hear the same predictable apologies: it never happened; the victim lies, the victim exaggerates; the victim brought it upon herself; and in any case IT IS TIME TO FORGET AND MOVE ON. The more powerful the perpetrator, the greater is his prerogative to name and define reality, and the more completely his arguments prevail. The perpetrator's arguments prove irresistible when the bystander faces them in isolation. Without a supportive social environment, the bystander usually succumbs to the temptation to look the other way. This is true even when the victim is an idealized and valued member of society." -Trauma and Recovery, Judith Herman, M.D. (It is heartbreaking that these passages exactly describe what has ocurred on this website with regard to Don Irwin. I have had the "time to forget and move on" line thrown at me by even the most high-functioning posters. I never thought I would see the day that the victimization we experienced as children would be perpetuated amongst us.)

From JohnnieWalker Sunday, May 20, 2007, 18:58 (Agree/Disagree?) What is heartbreaking, Nancy, is to see how you are attempting to polarize this issue. For you it has become all about Don vs. you and the rest of his victims. It seems that for you, it is no longer about helping people to heal but rather it is about helping only those people whom you favor. It is understandable that you find it difficult to show any sentiments of compassion to a man who has tormented your life and the lives of your friends for the past years. But must you now turn on your friends who are trying to help him and lump them into the same category that you do the cult? Yes, Don has made some very bad choices. Yes, he has treated people with utmost disdain. Yes, he needs to be held accountable for his actions. But the facts remain that he needs psychiatric help and that there is a hope (however small) for a change. Wouldn't you rather see this man heal, than see his anger against you be fueled to no end?

From Nancy Monday, May 21, 2007, 10:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Johnnie, with all due respect, you could not be more wrong. There is not one single point in your post which is accurate in your assestment of me and my position. Before making your judgments, try experiencing what is described above and also try listening to what I am saying without framing it by your subjective opinion. Law is a black and white issue. My opinions, however, are much more complex and seem to be completely lost on you despite your relative knowledge of me personally.

From JohnnieWalker Monday, May 21, 2007, 11:12 (Agree/Disagree?) If that truly is the case that my above assumptions are wrong, then what is it we disagree on? If you do agree that Don needs help then there is no need for discussion. I have formed no opinions of you. I have not judged you. I have not attacked you. I resent that you would conclude that I have and that I am making this issue to be about you. I believe you know my position better than that. You have made your opinions perfectly clear, Nancy. There is nothing to misunderstand. We both agree that you are a victim here and that you have the right to see Don be held accountable for what he did to you. But from my perspective, I cannot help but point out the flaws in your suggested application of the law and the serious repercussions it will ultimately have on you and your friends. Perhaps you don't understand my perspective, Nancy. For me, this is not about you and this is not about Don. It is about helping people to heal. You have been hurt and tormented by Don. You need to heal. Continually hating on Don and getting people to take your side is not going to help you heal. Don is in a mentally unstable state. He needs to heal. A prison sentence is not going to help him heal. You may not want to hear this, but from my perspective, unless you give Don a chance to heal, you will never completely heal either.

From Nancy Monday, May 21, 2007, 11:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Your question: “What is it we disagree about?” My answer: Your statements: “You are attempting to polarize this issue.” – No, I am not. You are projecting your opinion onto me. What I have stated is much more complex. I have not split, as in psychological term where one sees an issue only in black and white, in this case. But, the law is black and white. My position is more complex, although, I do not disagree with the law. “For you it has become all about Don vs. you and the rest of his victims.” - No, it is not. Again, this is you subjectively putting words in my mouth. Have you ever once spoken with me on the issue? Then, how do you presume to know what I am thinking. Further, you are trying to simplify something which in my perspective and from what I have repeatedly explained is much more complex. “It seems that for you, it is no longer about helping people to heal but rather it is about helping only those people whom you favor.” – What in the world are you talking about? Is that something you’re recycling from a conversation with someone else because it certainly didn’t come from me. I was involved for months and months trying to help this ill man heal. When he began harming others and outright rejected any help, then I had no choice but to distance myself and warn those he was also targeting, who I may say he eventually did to them what I predicted. If you’re so versed on my opinion, I would hope you would base your assumptions on at least one conversation with me. God knows, I’ve called I don’t know how many times. “It is understandable that you find it difficult to show any sentiments of compassion to a man who has tormented your life and the lives of your friends for the past years.” – No, I don’t. That’s just nonsense. I would not have put up with half of what he did had I not had empathy for him. But, there is a line between empathy and enabling. You sound like a therapist telling me “it’s difficult to show any sentiments of compassion.” I don’t mean to be rude, Johnnie, because I immensely respect you, but that’s just bullshit. Talk to your wife about what I do and do not feel compassion for. “But must you now turn on your friends who are trying to help him and lump them into the same category that you do the cult?” – Again, this is nonsense, no offense intended. I’ve turned on no friends. In fact, I put my neck out for a couple people who weren’t even that close to me. Now, however, there is a line, though when it involves the law. I cannot support someone in the misprigen of a felony. I cannot and will not support violence, and if someone I know has knowledge of it and does nothing, I can’t support that either. I took an oath to uphold the law. I will not break it, but, even beyond that, I won’t cross that line morally, either. “Do you want to help Don, or do you just want keep hating on him and thinking of him as the enemy?” – What?! This is a perfect example of splitting. I have no obligation to “help” Don. I gave him two years of my life and peace of mind. He’s in the hands of the criminal justice system. This isn’t an either or situation. And stop telling me what I think. He’s not an “enemy.” He’s a sick man who needs to be removed from society for the safety of those around him. I can tell where this is coming from, and all I’ve got to say to you is, consider your source, and give me the respect enough to speak to me before you parrot this nonsense. I’m not trying to be mean. I adore your wife and I think you are a wonderful man, but you’re just plain misinformed on this issue. It actually offends me that this is now the second time you’ve taken this individual’s word before asking me. I think I deserve to be consulted, as I did the last time you skipped that step. I would have done the same for you. “I'm not saying you cannot express your anger towards Don, but I am saying that, in my opinion and from my perspective, it isn't helping anyone at this point--including yourself.” – Again, I would have appreciated the courtesy of you actually consulting me before you make assumptions on my mindset and accuse me of “anger” and “hatred” and all the rest. Furthermore, there are a lot of behaviors here that are actually much more detrimental to a lot of people. It’s my prediction that they’re going to blow up in people’s faces. Mark my word. I’ve been right about this before, and the “saddest” thing is that I am most likely right, again. But good luck navigating the legal system, and by all means please ignore the advice of one most knowledgeable of it in this situation. When the answer isn’t what some people want to hear, it is like clockwork how the wheels begin to kill the messenger. Yeah, I’m totally the problem here, and I can’t for the life of me understand what’s the matter with me and why I haven’t gotten with the year old program here to rehabilitate this man seeing as I’m a psychologically trained law enforcement officer.

From JohnnieWalker Monday, May 21, 2007, 12:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I feel it would be unfair of me to continue this discussion with you in your current state of mind. You're jumping to unfair conclusions and basing your arguments on them. When you sarcastically said, "Yeah, I’m totally the problem here", you made it evident that you have either not been reading my posts in their entirety or have chosen to hear only what you want to hear. All of what I have said, I have based solely on the emails from you that have landed in my inbox. I resent the tone you are taking towards me when you know full well that I share my wife's opinion of you and concern for you. From everything I have seen you do and say, and from all I have experienced here, I feel I can safely conclude that I have seen this pattern before, and I am concerned that this will not end well for you. I think I've said enough.

From Nancy Monday, May 21, 2007, 12:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Ugh, again, with the quasi-therapist judgmental tone. There is no "state of mind" here, except maybe yours. In fact, I think where you're going with your line of thinking is actually dangerous because he's proven he will turn on anyone. No one is excepted. No one is special. And, no, I don't know that you agree with your wife on any of these issues. Her sage advice to me has had the opposite tone of yours. Enough from me, as well. I've said my peace. Actually, I think I'm going to try and get back on the non-movingon wagon cause this site between Irwin and La Mattery has become a toxic waste land and does nothing but bring negativity into my life. It used to be that some posters here had much to offer regarding their experiences and accomplishments. Alas, most have since moved on.

From NoShit Sherlock Monday, May 21, 2007, 07:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Some people prefer to juice on the cultural power and moral superiority of victimhood rather than examine their dependency issues.

From Abraxas Sunday, May 20, 2007, 18:09 (Agree/Disagree?) + The victim stance is a powerful one: The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy. + Exploring the psychology of victims has become synonymous with blaming the victim. + Victims' healing lies not only in empathy and support but also, when appropriate, in helping them assume appropriate and realistic responsibility for what has happened to them. + Victimization...happens within a context of relationship and a certain environment or culture. Hence, each participant's behavior must be understood within the context of the relationship and its legal, economic, political and social context. + Participants in the victims-victimizers-bystanders dynamic assume, mainly unconsciously, mutually dependent and complementary roles. + Cultures can promote victim-victimizer, violent or blame systems, or they can promote respectful relationships among its members who, in turn, make a sound commitment to resolve conflicts non-violently. Psychology of Victimhood: Reflections on a Culture of Victims & How Psychotherapy Fuels the Victim Industry, Ofer Zur, Ph.D To put it more simply: "We have met the enemy, and he is us." --Pogo Possum

From EyesWideShut Sunday, May 20, 2007, 09:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Love it!

From EyesWideShut Friday, May 18, 2007, 08:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah, well in that case. I see your point and agree.

From Benz Friday, May 18, 2007, 20:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Such humanity EWS, brings tears to the driest eyes. I think anyone with an ounce of perspective would question your motives for posting an "update" on Don Irwin given you have made it clear you dislike the guy. If he has insulted you directly (I take it from your remarks he has done) then it may seem natural you wish to gloat in his misfortune. For the record, I do think Irwin behaved irrationally, and needs professional guidance. On the other hand many of us understand how mentally, psychologically and emotionally debilitating dealing with "Family" issues usually is. Given Don's proximity to many severely affected persons in the Family, is it not understandable that he may be suffering even more than others? He has not yet saved himself but seemed to carry the burden of a saviour mentality for others. His actions and words, though distasteful and questionable of late still seem to indicate that he is more of a misguided activist than a belligerent hate-filled danger to society. Just having my say, Ben

From Danger to society is an understatement Friday, May 18, 2007, 21:56 (Agree/Disagree?) As someone completely out of the loop who knows little or nothing of the terror Irwin's put innocent people through, I'd say your "say" is completely off base. Lately, he's taken to threatening people's children, little children. Try being a little more informed before you go off assuming to lecture people on issues for which you only read distorted portions of online.

From Benz Saturday, May 19, 2007, 18:07 (Agree/Disagree?) You may need to clarify the "loop" to which you refer. It appears to relate to some "secret" society of busy bodies, involving among others, yourself and EWS. I don't really care to tell you the truth, to find out any more details about what you and your little fraternity allege Don has done. For the most part it reeks of hypocrisy and severe exaggeration to the point of misrepresentation. FYI, I have been included in a number of emails, including details not posted on this site, so perhaps it is you who should be a "little more informed" when assuming what I do or do not know about this situation. I don't claim to know everything about what Don's been up to, but then again neither do I want to, and neither do I want to become involved with your whispering circle of gossipers. The point I was making remains however, that both you and EWS hold prejudice towards Don (the fact that you are probably entitled to do so is not the point), and therefore anything you say on the subject of Don is unlikely to be an innocent, non-partial "update", and everyone should understand that. For the record again, I am not and have not backed Don in his actions or words which may have hurt people. What I am saying is that he is unwell and needs help, not more indignant criticism and slander directed at him particularly when he has neither the physical and/or possibly the mental ability to defend himself. You cannot use the purported excuse that "Don showed no sympathy so neither will we", unless you accept that you are as ill as Don.

From For the actual record Saturday, May 19, 2007, 23:34 (Agree/Disagree?) No, the difference between the random readers of this forum who know little or nothing more than the tip of the iceberg posted here and those who have been closely involved with Don Irwin, those he's threatened, extorted, attempted to blackmail, invaded their privacy, threatened their children, lodged false allegations against, been in cooperation with the Family to threaten the custody of their children, made frivolous complaints to government agencies in order to threaten custody of their children, defamed, physically threatened and on and on. This is by far a school yard dispute. This is a grave situation in which a seriously ill man has targeted a number of people who were once his closest friends, but after several years could no longer allow his behavior to threaten the safety and wellbeing of their families. Many rapists, murderers, stalkers and other violent criminals were once physically abused, which Don Irwin was not. They were also sexually abused which Don Irwin was not. But, even if Don had been, it no more gives him license to victimize others than it does those who are in prison for their crimes. The truth is that many, actually all, with the exception of Councilman Jack Weiss, of those Don's attacked and targeted are actual survivors of severe sexual and physical abuse. Now, tell me again please how we must excuse his ongoing victimization of those who have already suffered so much? Don doesn't target men generally. He targets women, those he perceives as vulnerable, those who are single parents and he victimizes them in such a way that even the cult has not done since they left.

From Benz Sunday, May 20, 2007, 00:28 (Agree/Disagree?) You are confusing matters of fact. The fact is that Don is not in jail for anything done to you or your friends is he? He is not facing charges of extortion, blackmail, threats, privacy invasion, lodging false accusations, making frivolous complaints etc, against your friends, whomever they may be. Again, since it seems you missed it in my previous remarks, I am not excusing Don or backing him for any of his actions, which from most accounts seem to breach the line of sane conduct. You however are attempting to mislead the good readers on this site by insinuating that Don was arrested for something he did to you or your friends, and you have just now accused him of the list of offenses including extortion, blackmail, threats, privacy invasion, lodging false accusations, making frivolous complaints etc, against your friends which HE HAS NOT EVEN BEEN ARRESTED OR CHARGED FOR. Don was arrested and charged on account of his pasting swastikas and a note on Weiss' office doors. Stop connecting your various accusations against Don with the fact that he was arrested, its misleading and deceptive. I will also add to this, as I am not in a position to say whether your various accusations are/are not true I will not accuse you of slander, however as slanderous comments are forbidden under the terms of use on this site I would question whether such blatant accusations of Don are in breach already.

From Benz, esquire Sunday, May 20, 2007, 00:57 (Agree/Disagree?) I spoke with the detectives investigating Don. He's being charged with only a few crimes which will stick. More would be forthcoming if he'd not hidden evidence. There is material evidence to back up all these statements. That by definition is not slander. It is stating fact. No one is attempting to mislead, only inform, something you would do well to engage in.

From Fictional writers needed Saturday, January 05, 2008, 23:52 (Agree/Disagree?) U should apply.

From Benz Sunday, May 20, 2007, 03:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you seriously telling me that you are involving yourself in the prosecution of Don? The fact that you are speaking with detectives investigating Don and seem disappointed that more charges will not stick I find rather distasteful to say the least. If there is ample material evidence to back up your claims of extortion, blackmail, threats, privacy invasion, lodging false accusations, making frivolous complaints then why oh why have these charges not been brought against Don? On one hand you say the charges won't stick, on the other you say you have material evidence. Well what material evidence? - is it enough to prove your case? My guess would be no.

From Civil v. Criminal Sunday, May 20, 2007, 10:51 (Agree/Disagree?) The difference, Benz, is the charges the police brought against Don because they will stick, partly because they have video tape Don made of himself gearing up for the act against Councilman Weiss. I am not referring to the civil claims others may possess against him. I personally am not bringing any further civil claims against him because as I've said directly to Don, he's not worth my time. He's stolen enough of my peace of mind. Further, the criminal justice system has it's hand on him now and they are better prepared to deal with him than any private citizen. Now, if he gets out and begins targeting me or my family, again, by all means, I will prosecute him civilly if necessary.

From Benz Monday, May 21, 2007, 06:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok, please do us all a favor and either put up or shut up about this issue. If you believe that Don's actions towards you or your friends has been criminal, by all means please press charges and get this whole sorry saga done with! - Otherwise please don't keep harping on with the endless use of accusations. I would respect you if you really were trying to get justice in respect of crimes committed against you (as in YOU, and not Mr Weiss), instead you seem to be tearing down the LA police doors offering to do some pro-bono work for the state. For the record, if all the state have on Don is his posting up several notes and swastikas I think its a pretty fat joke to call that vandalism. That kind of thing wouldn't even have passed as activism back in the 60's. What a joke that Mr Weiss is! And please, Nancy, stop playing the victim, we all know that there is more to this little story than you're saying, its obvious there is history of a personal nature between you and Don. If Don is and/or was stalking or harrassing you please just take the appropriate action to protect yourself (ie. tell the police, get a restraining order), just please stop repeating it all here! My sympathies with you for this whole sorry situation, I hope both you and Don can eventually move on from here without any more escalation to this.

From Nancy Monday, May 21, 2007, 10:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, this is actually the first time in this whole situation that I have been angry. Benz, you're judgmental, ill informed opinions are based on nothing but hearsay. You know nothing but the smut peddled on this website. For God's sake, get it right, there is not a soul on this website or planet that would agree with you that there are a damn thing between Don Irwin and I. Period. I have made that very clear for a very long time. I wrote long, emotionally restrained posts about it months ago when he began to attack me and my child. Jules told me not to respond because my claims for cyber stalking would be stronger. I have had no relationship of any nature with the repugnant man. He went barking mad beginning two years ago and I began to distance myself from him. Only he, in his deranged state has tried to paint some defamatory picture that he and I were involved on any level. I saw him twice in two years. My law partner, my legal colleagues, my ex-fiance, my brother, my friends and family all agreed more than a year ago that he was a fanatic to be avoided. He thought he was in love with me, something he never shared with me. He stalked me. I never communicated with him or even was close friends with him. Then, he went off the deep end. I do take offense to your baseless statements purporting to somehow have inside knowledge of a situation for which you are completely ignorant. I tried to help that man dozens of times. I was the one who warned his closest friends months and months ago. It wasn't until he threatened the safety of my family that I had to withdraw. Furthermore, get off your high horse, Benz, telling me that I'm playing the victim. Fuck you, you ignorant little prick. I've fought this cult longer than you've been out. I've put my name, money, reputation and safety on the line. I've sacrificied time and time, again. The difference is that, unlike Don, I don't publish it and do it for attention. I've put myself into the line of fire against this cult and those who have left it repeatedly. I fought battles at my personal expense that I could have easily just said, "It's not my problem." So, where the fuck do you get off telling me anything? You know something, Benz, I predicted Don's demise. I have nearly hundreds of emails to prove it. I tried to help him over and over and over. When he turned on me like a rabid dog, even when I was trying to help him, then I stopped allowing him to victimize me. And guess what, I can talk about it all I like. I have "put up" as you say. I was one of the first, if not the first to approach the FBI. I've donated hundreds of legal hours to this cause. But, there is a line and when even one of our own starts to become what we have been fighting, then something needs to be done. Honey, I was out and in law school and pursuing this cult when I graduated when Don was still in WS getting laid and producing publications. You might as well be Claire Borowik if you think it's in my nature to roll over and "shut up" as you demanded when I see individuals being victimized and what they've endured downplayed and history attempted to be rewritten. It doesn't matter a wit to me that he was born into the cult. He stayed there for years and he's demonstrated the same capacity to manipulate, lie and harm that the cult has. Yes, there was a time I gave the man leeway. It was from Oct. 24, 2005, until February 16, 2007. Anyone else would not have gotten two years of my time as they repeatedly spit in my face. I was even on the phone trying to intervene with him and get him some help at the behest of his closest friend even after he began his email campaign. Oh, and by the way, I am angry now, but so the fuck what?! I think I have every right. You're ignorant post and presumming to pass judgment on me for things you have no earthly clue on is just a little too much to ignore. How about you "stop repeating" what you know nothing of? SInce you're so hell bent on defending someone who's lost it with no evidence of what you are speaking, then how about this, I've lost it. I've lost patience with this. If I were the kind of person like Don who goes around bragging about all the good I've done and how much I purportedly care in order to excuse whatever abusive act, then my list would be a lot longer. But, I don't even have any crimes or harmful acts for which to attempt to excuse. So, if we're using your distorted standard, then I've got a lot more room to bitch and moan. In fact, I should be able to post whole articles here inventing so called wrongs and posting pictures of me in court posing with court documents and legal complaints and restraining orders, etc. The difference is that I don't live in a fantasy world where I think I'm some sort of modern day Atticus Finch.

From WOW Saturday, January 05, 2008, 23:44 (Agree/Disagree?) "Fuck you, you ignorant little prick. I've fought this cult longer than you've been out. I've put my name, money, reputation and safety on the line. I've sacrificied time and time, again. The difference is that, unlike Don, I don't publish it and do it for attention. I've put myself into the line of fire against this cult and those who have left it repeatedly. I fought battles at my personal expense that I could have easily just said, "It's not my problem." So, where the fuck do you get off telling me anything?" "You know something, Benz, I predicted Don's demise. I have nearly hundreds of emails to prove it. I tried to help him over and over and over. When he turned on me like a rabid dog, even when I was trying to help him, then I stopped allowing him to victimize me." -- Amazing.

From Benz Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 04:31 (Agree/Disagree?) For the umpteenth time, Nancy, I AM NOT DEFENDING DON FOR HIS ACTIONS. Admittedly, his behavior has been deplorable! What I AM saying is that his actions are those of a person who needs psychological assistance and guidance. However, both you and EWS seem hell bent on both demonizing and destroying Don. Has he committed a crime worthy of spending years in prison, deprived of freedom and proper care? You seem to have all ready, tried, convicted and prepared the noose. When I say "put up or shut up" about this issue, I mean about THIS issue (I'm not talking about your other work with the FBI), as in go press charges against Don, or get a restraining order against him if you really are that scared of him, just stop railing on about all Don's dirty deeds now that he's safely behind bars. As far as what kind of personal relationship you and Don had, who cares, I never said it was an intimate relationship, just that it was on a personal level (ie. friends/acquaintances). - So do you really have to air all your personal laundry for us all to read? Strangely, reading through the various raging emails which I've been cc'd and bcc'd in on from Don over the past months (most of which I didn’t actually read at the time), it's hilarious how many of the same lines you and the Don-meister use, its like your both singing from the same hymn book. How about this little snippet from Don: "Let me give you context. Zerby was a survivor of abuse, Berg was a survivor of abuse, Bundy was a survivor of abuse. All the people I've mentioned above have one thing in common, they should've all been put behind bars before they could victimize others. It makes no difference that they were survivors of abuse, if I excused criminal behavior simply because hey, it is exhibited by an individual who was a survivor, abuse, I would have to not stand up to Zerby, Berg, or say that Bundy's actions were wrong." - That has to be the kind of tripe I have seen you post a thousand times Nancy, up on your high horse comparing anyone who disagrees with you with some notorious serial killer, mass murderer or cult spokesperson. You have an exceptionally overbearing and obnoxious manner, in case you haven’t already been told, you need to take some time out and clear your head.

From Oddman Monday, May 21, 2007, 12:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I have zero inside information on what transpired between Nancy, EWS, Don, his homoerotic target of affection, any other "victims" or "sidekicks". Don was a victim. And we know that victims can easily turn predator. What is sad to me is that those who consider themselves Don's victims, are increasingly acting similar to Don. I say this with regret and I certainly mean no offense. If there's one thing that has hampered my progress in life, it's my inability to keep my mouth shut. It's a need to be brutally blunt and honest when I reach a point where I can take no more. Of course, since I was fortunate enough to not personally experience a life that involved Don Irwin, I am speaking merely of conduct on this website. Some noticeable traits in Don's comments here.... + Ignoring spelling and grammatical errors, one could observe great thought had been placed in verbiage. However, thought and logic was limited to the confines of initial personal opinion, and the writer has never ventured beyond the one point where he started. All thought and deliberation was based on the premise that the held opinion is correct or even infallible, therefore all thought and argument is based on "how can I justify my position, and convince others they are wrong". + Increased run along sentences and emotional responses. + Increased use of swear words. + Increased mention of past good deeds. Almost as if to say, "Look I'm a good person that has done these many good things. So I can't be the bad guy here." + Increased mention of past bad deeds of another person. + Increased self-justification. + Prone to polarizing comments from other participants as either supportive, or opposing. Paranoia. + Prone to confuse personal opinion and statement of fact. + Stubbornness, or inflexibility. Often times, the writer has not understood at all, what a certain comment is intended to convey. A few trigger words categorize a comment as for or against, and is responded by a vitriolic rant. + Increased hostility. In short really, there seems to be some kind of delusion or paranoia that everybody is siding with someone else or standing against you. And you start acting like a cornered dog. New comments are immediately categorized has hostile or friendly, and you bite at whatever you deem hostile. Although your spelling and grammar is markedly superior to Don's, there are striking parallels in the thought pattern behind your comments. And that's sad. It reminds me of the film, Last King of Scotland. There are fewer enemies than you'd think, but by categorizing any opinions that are not a carbon copy of your own, you feel surrounded by enemies. You act like a cornered dog, gradually boring and frusterating those around you. And that conduct actually does drive people away. Not against you, but away from you. I'm not attacking you. I'm sharing my observation, which could be bullseye, bullshit, but more likely, somewhere inbetween. Yes, that inbetween does still exist. I hope that you'll give it some thought, before categorizing it as pro-Don, or anti-you. Remember I did not get along with Don, at all. I have no love for him personally, and have no reason to defend him. You have an opinion of Don, just like Don has an opinion of you. You could be right, just as much as he could be right. It's he-said she-said, and no, I don't want to see "proof" that you are right. In Don's mind, he is absolutely right. In your mind, you are absolutely right. Difference being, Don is already being held for actions he's taken. Don is obviously troubled. He obviously needs help. His wounds are in his mind. And as JW has said, he needs to heal. I differ with JW in that I feel it is not as important to protect a criminal as it is to protect society from said criminal. I feel even if the best thing for a criminal is to keep him out of jail and order treatment, if that poses a risk to anybody else, that criminal should be locked up. Personally, I think the authorities handling the case are in a better position to decide how much of a threat he poses, so I'll leave it at that. I won't say Don should be locked up or not. I can certainly understand if they decide he should. If I assume that your allegations are fact, then I can certainly understand why you'd feel the way you do. I'm certainly not asking any of you to forgive Don. I'm not asking any of you to ignore what he's allegedly done to you. I'm certainly not saying you should give it to god or turn the other cheek. On the contrary, if there is any threat, I would agree with you taking civil action against him. But I am asking you, please don't make enemies out of anybody else in the process. Everybody stands in their own place. Everybody sees only what their two eyes can see. There are no two opinions that are precisely the same. And there are people who love Don too. Is there benefit to you protecting yourself from Don? I would say yes. Is there benefit to you attempting to make others hate Don? I would say no. A differing opinion is not always an opposing one. And an opposing internet opinion is just that. Just think about it. Don't let Don turn you into another Don. Another bitter, angry, paranoid, hostile, annoying, solitary lost cause.

From JohnnieWalker Monday, May 21, 2007, 13:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Just to clarify, had Don actually committed an act of violence, my position would be very different. At the moment, all we are dealing with is the man's potential for violence. Don has not yet been judged as a criminal. According to the law (which, I've been informed is black and white) Don is innocent until proven guilty. I am in favor of mandatory psychiatric treatment for Don over a temporary prison sentence. As much as I would like to see him removed from society, I feel that this is ultimately the best form of protecting people from him. I have no strong objections to protecting potential victims by other means, but feel they are temporary and inadequate.

From Oddman Monday, May 21, 2007, 16:23 (Agree/Disagree?) For the record, I don't entirely disagree with you, Johnnie. There are certainly dangers to dismissing Don's psychiatric condition, and processing him as just another petty criminal. To do so would only open the door to an early release on account of good behaviour. Clearly the crimes Don has committed will not keep him incarcerated indefinitely, even if he is convicted. As it is an nonnegotiable given that Don Irwin will be released in a relatively short period of time, it is imperative that he is given treatment that would reduce his threat to society on his return. I certainly don't disagree that mandatory psychiatric treatment is neccessary, and is both his best interests, as well as the best interests of society. However, I feel that mandatory psychiatric treatment without enforcement, as seen in the case of gunman Cho, is about as useful as a stop sign on a intersection in the desert. If one does not feel the need to stop, they'll likely not. Premature release without adequate treatment is likely to release a man on a mission, more frusterated and angered than ever.

From Absolutely Sunday, May 20, 2007, 10:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, I've cooperated with the police, unlike some who are refusing to provide information to the police, which they've been asked to provide. I will proudly say that I will not be a defense witness. I will not go down in history as one who help put him back on the streets. I won't be complicit in what he's already done and may do when he gets out.

From Enough is enough!! Sunday, May 20, 2007, 00:02 (Agree/Disagree?) First of all, settle down and keep your shirt on. I can almost see you there, red as a beet, pissed off to the point that you can’t see straight. It is okay, not everyone has to agree with you. Plus, if things are as severe as you say they are, don’t you have better things to be doing than to be spending your time on the internet? Shouldn’t you be signing up for some witness protection program and checking the doors and windows to makes sure you are safe? Maybe you should dye your hair and change your name too. Seriously, if it is as bad as you say it is, you have better things to do than be on here.

From EyesWideShut Saturday, May 19, 2007, 10:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you.

From Post Script Thursday, May 17, 2007, 21:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Forgot to add that this was authored and sent by Don to several dozen people, including media. He put it in the public domain by publishing it.

From Don_I Wednesday, January 30, 2008, 03:09 (Agree/Disagree?) The email was sent to 2 people, if they've received posts in the media since, it's news to me.

From Peter Wednesday, January 30, 2008, 10:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Don, That email was sent to more than 2 people. You either don't remember what you did or you are prevaricating. I was one of the people to whom you sent it (by "it" I am referring to your message dated Wed, 02 May 2007 19:33:30 +0000 with a message-id of BAY102-F33E558A5ACB65CD61C9BEB90420@phx.gbl) and since it was sent bcc I canot determine the exact number of recipients but I know for a fact that it was more than two.

From Don_I Wednesday, January 30, 2008, 11:34 (Agree/Disagree?) You're seldom wrong, and always honest, in my experience. I'll check the smtp logs. .... I don't have a record of (BAY102-F33E558A5ACB65CD61C9BEB90420@phx.gbl), I have one dated 05/02/2007 1:03 AM. which has three recipients, admin@movingon.org, and jules' email addresses, I believe you were BCC'd on that one. ... I purged my log box not long ago, it was just too painful and shameful to read my own writings. I know you to be an honest individual and will take your word for it. I'll take your word for it that there were more than 2. I stand corrected. Thank you, my apologies. I'm fairly certain I didn't send this to the media as alledged. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I believe you. I was consuming an intollerable amount of controlled substances. Not that that's an excuse for poor judgement or misdeeds. Take care, and thanks.

From EyesWideShut Thursday, May 17, 2007, 06:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I would be happy to explain. The bottom section of the article is an update about Don. The top section is only posted because it was part of the same article. Posting an update doesn't mean I have any less sympathy for Don than the next guy. I think we all know that Don isn't anti semetic. Back when he was sane he wasn't anti anything. I actually thought it was a positive turn of events that the judge ordered a psychological evaluation. Maybe they'll find out just how disturbed he is and he will get out of jail time and the huge fine and just get the help he so desperately needs. Does my motive for posting make any more sense to you now, GetReal?

From GetReal Thursday, May 17, 2007, 08:46 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm very glad you wish Don well despite the unkind words y'all exchanged during his "insane" stage , but considering that the last article you posted was definitely hostile to him I was right to suspect your motives in posting the article .That said I was wrong in my interpretation ,what you posted was an update .

From EyesWideShut Saturday, May 19, 2007, 08:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Did I say I wish him well? Did I say that I do not wish him well? The question is: did I say anything at all? No. I didn't. I originally posted a news article, and from it all this arose. Say what you will about Don or me until you're blue in the face. The fact remains: I posted a news article. Think what you will of my motives. I don't know you so I don't care what you think, but if it keeps you busy, be my guest. Ta ta.

From Actual Reality Thursday, May 17, 2007, 18:55 (Agree/Disagree?) What does it matter if it's an update or not? Is that a requirement of the terms of use? What does it matter if someone who Don tried to intimidate and harass responds with words you consider "unkind"? "Hostile" is an understatement when describing DON'S behavior. After a campaign of terror, is whether he's a racist in your opinion really the issue? When is the cycle of ENABLING which we saw women in the Family do for the male victimizers in the Family going to end? There's a line between sympathy and enabling, especially when you are facilitating, cooperating with or excusing criminal behavior.

From GetReal Thursday, May 17, 2007, 20:11 (Agree/Disagree?) holy shit you are so over reacting . For the record I don't approve of Dons' "criminal behavior". like I said I was wrong in my interpretation of her article ,I assumed she was trying to make it seem as if he would wright hate mail to some Jewish community and I thought I would point out that he would never do some thing like that. FYI I did read a lot of what don wrote and it seems like ever so small of an exaggeration to say he was waging a campaign of terror , but can see that he made quite a few enemy's by being an ass and a loser. ooh and by the way please actually read my comments before making utterly laughable accusations. Thank you GBY

From EyesWideShut Thursday, May 17, 2007, 19:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Here here!

From EyesWideShut Thursday, May 17, 2007, 09:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I may not like him, and have very good reason for disliking him now that you know nothing about, but that doesn't mean that I hope he goes to jail for this. A person can dislike someone while taking pitty on them at the same time. If nothing else, I don't want him living in jail off of my tax dollars.

From EyesWideShut Thursday, May 17, 2007, 09:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Interesting.

From Noticias Thursday, May 17, 2007, 05:46 (Agree/Disagree?) While the posted news report doesn't contain any new information about Adonis Irwin and the criminal charges against him, it is an update in the sense that it is the first news report in about a week to mention his name. If you are looking for more of an update - here is what I know - apparently there was another hearing on May 15th at which his bail was raised from $175000 to $500000. I don't know why but if anyone has more info, feel free to post it here. The next hearing is on June 1 at 8:30AM. I found this information using the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Inmate Information Center at http://app4.lasd.org/iic/ajis_search.cfm

From public defender Thursday, May 17, 2007, 09:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Its also interesting to note that his charges have been dropped to a misdemeanor. Why would someone charged with a non-violent misdemeanor have bail raised to 500K?

From Nefarious Nosferatu and the Mystic Mefist Thursday, May 17, 2007, 10:10 (Agree/Disagree?)

From Nefarious Nosferatu and the Mystic Mefist Thursday, May 17, 2007, 10:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Where did my comment go? Well, I was noting that it takes one psychotic American one day to equal 1% of the Iraq war toll. I'm not surprised that some are a little more careful about bailing nutcases after the V-tech massacre. "You didn't listen" so "Now I have no option" so "You'll hear me now". Same stupid logic manifested in different actions, but considering the man has a reputation for sauntering the beaches with a full length sword, and takes photos of himself playing with firearms, I can see why a judge would feel the need to err on the side of caution.

From Grounded Theory Thursday, May 17, 2007, 05:43 (Agree/Disagree?) This recent incident of anti-Semitic letters in the LA Jewish community speaks to the political environment in which Don is being charged with a hate crime. Don absolutely picked the wrong person in the wrong town to confront with swazticas and a charge of being Nazi-like. Jack Weiss is a very serious supporter of Israel and a leader in the local Anti-Defamation League. The LA Jewish community is a very powerful, well-organized constituency. Meaning: They won't tolerate insensitive crap from anyone, least of all the actions of an unemployed and mentally unhinged survivor of a cult widely known for its anti-semitism. Don's actions were kind of like showing up at Rev. Al Sharpton's office wearing white robes to paste photos of burning crosses on the door while shouting the N-word. Such behavior is not due to Don being a racist--no--but because Don is very confused and ignorant about how to communicate his anger and frustration over the injustice he has experienced. The most important thing this article tells me is that Don is getting a psychiatric evaluation. Yay! Good news for a change.