the RC bulletin for French speaking Europe. Special American Issue.
SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
RC was introduced into French-speaking Europe by an Englishman, John Heron, in
1972. Quite a few people became credentialled teachers very soon. Philippe Grauer was
designated ARP for Paris (France) and Daniel Le Bon for Brussels (Belgium) in 1973.
Since October 1977 Daniel Le Bon has published the journal of
French-speaking RC REEMERGENCE. He has translated into French "The Human Side",
the "Manual" "The Upward Trend" and a lot of articles written by
Harvey Jackins and others leaders of USA RC.
In August 1978 he was designated Regional Reference Person for the
French-speaking countries of Europe. Then for many years he was on the International
Reference Committee. Outside his region Daniel Le Bon led the first introductory workshops
in Germany, Quebec, India and Bangladesh.
For several years he has been introducing "present-mindedness
exercises" into the French-speaking region of Europe with the aim of reinforcing the
counselors' skill in counseling sessions. All the theory on this subject has been
published in our journal "REEMERGENCE"., and the English (both British and
American) versions of these text have been sent regularly to Harvey Jackins. Daniel has
sometimes also had the chance to talk briefly with Jackins about it
On October 13, 1988 Harvey Jackins called a halt to
present-mindedness exercises until he was able to check on their compatibility with RC
On January 7, 1989 at 8 a.m. - on the occasion of the
"West-Eurasian" Regional Reference Persons' meeting in London Daniel Le Bon
handed in his personal resignation to Harvey Jackins. At Jackins' request, Daniel stayed
for the meeting that day, but only in order to explain his resignation. As soon as he had
the chance to speak (at about 9.15 a.m.), he indicated to all the participants that he had
handed in his resignation. This resignation was not especially linked to the - as yet
uncertain rejection of present-mindedness exercises by Harvey Jackins.
In the two months that followed, all the RC teachers in the
French-speaking region of Europe spontaneously sent in their resignation to Jackins. In an
attempt to prove that this was an organized campaign, Jackins claims-that somebody had
already sent in their resignation before the meeting in London. But that is not correct.
More recently complete groups as well as individual members in
other European countries (Germany, Austria, The Netherlands, Flanders, England) have also
decided to leave RC as led by Jackins and set up independent groups. We have heard (Nov.
and dec. 89) that even in the USA, groups have decided that they will no longer respect
the authority of Jackins.
Since Daniel's resignation, and particularly in a letter dated
July 25, Jackins has repeatedly put out a number of inaccurate and malicious statements
about Daniel. He has furthermore published - without Daniel's agreement - extracts from
the personal letter which Daniel sent to him in which he gives in detail the reasons for
his resignation. But the extracts Harvey Jackins publishes are "selected" and
the translation of them which he provides is so wrong and even biased that we consider it
an obligation to make the actual content known.
It therefore seems important to us - for Daniel, certainly - but
also for the people who are currently in the RC led by Jackins, that certain facts be
brought out in the open.
We will start by giving the theoretical, practical, financial and
above all moral reasons for Daniel's resignation, reasons which have brought about the
resignation of ALL THE MEMBERS of the French-speaking region and of several very large
groups in other countries.
Secondly, we shall reply to the "theory" on attacks
developed and spread by Harvey Jackins and his son to stop RCers from listening to what we
have to say.
Lastly, we shall respond to the arguments which Harvey Jackins and
his son put forward to explain our resignation, or to try to lessen the consequences of
REASONS FOR OUR RESIGNATION
1) There are THEORETICAL REASONS for our resignation (and the
separation of the French-speaking region of Europe).
These reasons are so important that the RC taught and practiced by
H. Jackins and the counseling that we teach and practice are no longer compatible. For our
part we shall continue to practice and teach a form of "reciprocal counseling"
(under a different name) along the lines we have found to be more effective.
Re-evaluation Counseling, as Harvey Jackins started it with Mary
McCabe, has no scientific basis. In scientific circles RC is either considered to be a
sect led by a sort of big international guru or - more often - it is simply not known.
The "Human Side" - the "scientific". basic
book of RC - is crawling with mistakes. The definition of intelligence formulated by
Jackins confuses intelligence with adaptability, which does not therefore allow him to
distinguish the nature of a human being from that of an animal as he believes he is able
First, there is no scientific evidence or empirical basis for
stating that ninety percent of the brain is prevented from functioning by undischarged
distress. In reality all the brain is active, even what are sometimes called 'silent
Jackins knows that people do not recover their occluded
intelligence by discharging. He told Daniel this some years ago, admitting he was
disappointed to note that people who had been practicing co-counseling for ten years or
sometimes even longer had not recovered their intelligence. But the fact remains: it does
not work. So, rather like Freud, who began by believing in discharge (Freud called it
'abreaction'), Harvey Jackins was disappointed and placed the emphasis on something else.
For Freud, it was psychoanalysis; for Harvey Jackins it became 'general liberation from
(And if, indeed, we are all in agreement nowadays in attaching
enormous importance to the struggle against oppression, we can nevertheless remember how
reticent and even opposed to it Jackins was when some people, especially women, wanted to
introduce the idea of liberation. into RC. The same thing is probably happening now with
the idea of present-mindedness.)
(When we say that Jackins has been placing the emphasis on
liberation from different oppressions for several years, we are not in any way
acknowledging that he has achieved any convincing results, especially in relation to the
The example of counseling put forward by Jackins on 'racism' (see
Present Time N° 72, p. 38) has been considered by leaders in several countries to be a
caricature of bad work. That is how NOT to work! But the poor quality of this counseling
does not surprise us: how could a counselor really help someone's liberation when he leads
all the counseling, leaving the client really very little chance to take charge themselves
of what they are doing?
Secondly, in a more general way we have lost our faith in the
correctness of Jackins' thinking. He has pronounced rules or formulas which are without
validity because he has them follow from specious yet 'irrefutable' reasoning. A recent
example: the general 3-point formula: First, spot the client's distress, then offer ALL
POSSIBLE .contradictions, and finally keep on long ENOUGH. Discharge will invariably
This type of formula can obviously be applied to anything at all,
it is "irrefutable.. To try to make the inanity of this way of reasoning apparently
is enough to change the terms of it and APPLY THE SAME WAY OF REASONING to another
situation. Let us suppose, for example, that there is a drought somewhere and we want it
to rain, the formula is simple: First, spot the place where you want rain, then shout (or
whatever) in ALL POSSIBLE WAYS, and finally keep on long ENOUGH. And it will invariably
As it will rain one day the formula can seem effective; in the
cases where this does not happen it is either because you haven't shouted in ALL POSSIBLE
WAYS or else because you didn't keep on long ENOUGH. This does not seem to us to be A
scientifically-based way to work.
Jackins has fallen into the habit of making fun of research
workers (except perhaps physicists). He has ridiculed philosophers, theologians,
psychologists, psychiatrists, etc., suggesting that he alone is in possession of the Truth
and there was nothing that was any good before him!
Thirdly, when Jackins writes that it was after "the question
was investigated and discussed thoroughly. that he condemned present-mindedness in London,
he reveals what he understands by "investigated and discussed thoroughly.. In London
January '89) there was no discussion (nobody even got to speak twice) and certainly no
thorough investigation (or else these words no longer mean anything).
As most of his observations, "research" and examinations
are not more serious that that, it is not surprising that the whole is not very coherent.
This is why, among many other examples, there are famous Turning
points" in the theory, for instance the redefinition of restimulation. After 33 years
of practice and observation during which Jackins dogmatically maintained that
restimulation was automatic, he had to recognize that restimulation is NOT automatic! (The
same went for control patterns, frozen needs, etc.)
Let us see what Jackins means by "investigated and discussed thoroughly.. The
evening of January 6, he acknowledged that he had not understood anything about
present-mindedness. Daniel gave a theoretical talk the next morning followed by positive
and enthusiastic statements by seven Regional Reference Persons who had been practicing
present-mindedness for one or two years. Then, without any discussion taking place
(contrary to what Jackins later claimed), he announced his decision that
present-mindedness is not consistent with official Re-evaluation
This reminded us of the time Jackins claimed that gays and
lesbians should not be allowed to take any responsibility in Re-evaluation Counseling.)
Later he tried in his letter of July 25 to make people believe
that there was "a very large majority of the Regional Reference Persons there"
for rejecting present-mindedness, when 11 out of 18 were and still are in favor of it.
We have not seen clear reasons for his condemnation. He has only
referred to elitism, guru-ism and the other tactic used to enlist people in
present-mindedness exercises.. These are interpretations, not reasons: none of them has to
do with the root of the matter and the third is especially vague.
For lack of a more precise definition, we presume that Jackins
means intellectual elitism. Yet present-mindedness is something that cannot be understood
"intellectually" by listening to an explanation or doing some reading: it needs
to be practiced humbly for a certain length of time before its benefits can be experienced
and its substance understood. And IF NOBODY CAN GAIN ACCESS TO IT BY THEORY ALONE,
EVERYBODY CAN GAIN ACCESS TO IT BY PRACTICE. This is quite the opposite of intellectual
There is perhaps another point about the idea of intellectual
elitism. Yes, Daniel Le Bon is an academic and he can get along in several languages. Yet
does that give Jackins the right to call Daniel a pseudo-intellectual. or - an old
Stalinist insult - to talk of his "middle-class" mind"? In any case he well
knows - since they have talked about it together - that Daniel was a factory-worker from
the age of 14 (mainly in metalwork) and was one for several years. And when he became a
teacher he was very soon elected as a trade union representative; he even edited a trade
union journal for years. Today, he is still a delegate for the socialistic union.
On the same subject: some time ago now Aida Sellami sent a letter to Jackins, in
which she explained that she is an Algerian Muslim, which classes her in an oppressed
minority in France. She wrote to Jackins that she is far from being an intellectual, and
that not only does she appreciate present-mindedness but that she was also one of the
first people to be authorized to teach it. (And her case is not exceptional.) By the way,
we never hesitated to name her Area reference Person for the large Lyons Area.
Another teacher, an American who has lived in France for many
years, has observed that the people from an intellectually disadvantaged environment often
understood present-mindedness more quickly than so-called intellectuals.
So, really, what is Jackins' accusation of elitism based on?
b) Guru-ism ?
This is really the parable of the mote and the beam (Mt 7, 3):
Jackins sees a mote in Daniel's eye and he is unaware of the enormous beam in his own. If
there is anyone in RC who plays at gurus, it is Harvey Jackins. In his world travels, he
frequently boasts of himself as the best counselor in the world"; he works out
"commitments" for everyone or gives "directions" out with authority,
even to people who do not ask for them; he pontificates in every area (philosophy,
psychology, psychiatry, politics, economics, medicine, aesthetics, physics, biology,
And Daniel is supposed to be the one acting like a guru? Jackins may not be aware
that the critical French mind is particularly sensitive to any attempts at
"guru-ism" and would certainly not accept Daniel if he was acting like a guru.
So on what facts does Jackins' accusation rest?
And is that how H. Jackins "investigated and discussed
thoroughly" present-mindedness? As we recalled before, he holds scientific honesty
and rigor cheap, and he has acquired the habit of declaring, without batting an eyelid,
that "all observations" (by whom and reported where?) support his claims. He
makes fun of research done by psychologists, but what, when put next to the even relative
rigor of their methods, are Jackins' dogmatic assertions worth and his formulas carry?
You will have noticed that at no time does Jackins criticize the
actual notion of present-mindedness or the PM-exercises. He attacks Daniel Le Bon as a
person (elitism, middle-class mind, guru, ambition, double-dealing, etc.), but he has
nothing precise to say about the content.
On what, ultimately, do these accusations and his rejection of
present-mindedness rest if it is not distress on his part?
There are also reasons for the separation of the French-speaking
European region which have to do with the practice of co-counseling according to Harvey
Jackins. Daniel has been trying for some years to suggest Jackins that what he gets people
to do is more often dramatization than discharge. For years now Daniel has been drawing
Jackins' attention to the small amount of space he leaves for the client to take charge of
her or himself, but Jackins prefers to play at being a kind of magician. "When the
best counselor in the world gives you a direction, you are request to obey", he says
more and more often. He seems to feel this allows him to impose on people (especially on
pretty women) attitudes that satisfy his own needs rather than those of his clients. For
example: "I am very close to you, Harvey", "I have nothing to hide from
you, Harvey", "Harvey, I love you", etc.
Sometimes he asks people to solemnly promise never to abandon him.
One leader hesitated about leaving RC recently, so he and his son
called her almost every day so that she would end up feeling guilty.
Several people have also written to us to complain that instead of
respecting them when he was "counseling. them in front of the group he tried to be
funny at their expense.
The few times when he has got Daniel to "work" in front of a group, it was
a flop. And yet, Daniel discharges very easily. When Jackins came to French-speaking
Europe the last time, almost seven years ago, his demonstrations. all failed (no one
discharged) and he pretended not to realize this. Or perhaps he really did not notice?
Since then, the leaders of this Region have not invited Jackins
back, despite his insistent requests. We did not trust him any more.
For years now, to the great annoyance of Jackins, Daniel has-
refused to accept him again as his counselor. Jackins has probably helped some people in
the course of his life, but he is certainly not aware of the large number of people to
whom, by his way of counseling them or his behavior, he has done wrong or whom he has
sometimes really demolished. (Mary McCabe often had to follow on behind him to try to pick
up the pieces; Daniel and other leaders have also had to do this.)
We remember- a woman (KM), RRP in the USA with other important
functions in RC. She lost patience with the tricks and wiles used by Jackins to manipulate
a meeting. She went out slamming the door saying: "I've enough of this circus!"
And we never saw her again.
To sum it up, we don't want to stay any longer in an institution
which has in its practice become more than anything else the . . . organization of
3) We also have FINANCIAL reasons for separating from Jackins. On
whose authority should we go on paying him money? We do not get any benefit in return.
As to the use he makes of all the money collected in the various
Communities, we do not agree that this should be used for trips for the sake of prestige
and self-gratification. He comes back from a distant continent dropping names. And quoting
the names of the towns he went to, and "such and such a Community is doing very well,
it's doing well in both its knowledge of the theory and its practice, excellent leaders
are in view, etc." but he forgets to say that in this brilliant Community there are
four members altogether and that they have been the same four for six years.
(Present Time gave the names of four "teachers" in the
People's Republic in China some time ago, but someone who went there looked up one of them
and learned that no one was leading a group, nor was anyone counseling. This in no way
adds to the credibility of Jackins' information.)
In addition to his trips for prestige and self gratification he spends the money paid to
him by the Communities on exorbitant telephone expenses all around the world, supposedly
to help the "top leaders". But if his system was as efficient as he claims,
should he himself be counselor for all these "top RC leaders"?
As to the serious side of the accounting, of which Jackins gives
us a report. immediately before the session when we are to approve it, what is it worth?
We remember some years ago he had read out the accounts to us to the last cent, it looked
serious. Then an ARP stood up and asked where the money she had given to him personally
had gone. And Jackins talked nonsense, talked about forgetting. How many other things like
this that he has forgotten about have been passed over in silence?
Recently the American IRS judged the collecting of gifts. which
Jackins has been organizing for so many years illegal. And the IRS is still a long way
from knowing everything about the handling of the money in question, especially when it
comes from abroad . . .
4) Lastly, there are MORAL reasons for the separation of
First of all there is Jackins' dogmatic authoritarianism (which
has already caused so many people to leave, viz. - three quarters of the professional
counselors at Personal Counselors), and a kind of personality cult. that he promotes
wherever he goes: everything centers on him in workshops, all the decision are taken by
him alone. For a long time Daniel was on the International Reference Committee which
Jackins was supposed to consult. But that never happened. Jackins has little by little
reduced the number of members of this Committee, which today has almost disappeared.)
Daniel remembers only one meeting, just before the World
Conference some years ago. Rumors were circulating about Jackins' sexual behavior and
about a fresh accusation in a court of law for rape. Jackins ordered all of the members of
the International Reference Committee to refuse to listen to the requests for information
that would be put to them by the participants (all leaders) in the course of the
Conference and to reply indignantly:
"Nonsense" He required each of the Committee to get up
and repeat his reply in the indignant tone of voice he wanted. Daniel was the only one to
refuse to go along with this comedy. But after the meeting, several people came up to
congratulate him OR his courage!
There is also Jackins' deep mistrust, especially towards men. Jackins lives
surrounded by women, the majority of whom try in vain to become less psychologically
dependent upon him. We think with some emotion of certain ones who had succeeded in
distancing themselves from him and whom he has managed to get back into his clutches.
As for the men close to him, these are almost only his two sons.
And his designated successor, as in the most classical dictatorships, is his son, the only
person he trusts.
There is also Jackins' megalomania, his "savior of the world" attitude.
Recently he said again to two people that in two centuries Christianity, Buddhism, etc.
will all be swept aside and "all that will remain will be Re-evaluation Counseling
founded by Harvey Jackins towards the middle of the twentieth century.
Isn't it time for Harvey Jackins (and his followers) to stop
confusing enthusiasm with megalomania, and the desire to help people with the feeling of
being the "savior of the world"? At the meeting in London we heard him say no
less than that several governments in the world were "influenced by RC" ...
He writes that he will rebuild Francophone Reevaluation counseling
on a sounder basis.. But his mistrust, his megalomania, his authoritarianism, his
"international cosmopolitanism" (to use the Stalinist language with which he is
familiar), his guru-ism, his role of sect leader that he has been playing for several
years - are not exactly the characteristics of good mental health.
The first time that we saw Jackins lead a workshop in August 1973,
we found him a first rate manipulator of groups and we were on our guard, but other things
brought us together and some of us felt some fellow feelings for him. When we saw how he
behaved subsequently with John Heron and with so many leaders (Margaret Vasington, for
example, Maury Stein or Mary McCabe, Nancy Kline, Mac Parker, Joke Hermsen, etc.), we were
frightened: the "top leaders" are afraid of Jackins. And when Margaret Vasington
dared to say it to his face, he swiftly expelled her from RC. And how many
"purges" of this kind have there been?
In fact, we entertained no further doubts about his mental
balance, but we attached only relative importance to it. What mattered for us was the
possible correctness of his ideas and the claimed efficiency of the practice. And Jackins
was offering something extraordinary: Come and discharge and you will regain all your
occluded intelligence, your power, your zest.. Who would Dot have been tempted?
Another question about Jackins' intellectual honesty.
Looking a little more closely at the bases of his theory and
putting aside what he has borrowed without acknowledging it - from (see last page!) Ron
Hubbard's DIANETICS (or SCIENTOLOGY) (19501!) - almost word for word on restimulation,
discharge, dramatization, recovery of intelligence, etc. - what is left that is original?
Perhaps the claim that he is building a lay and democratic approach? And not even that is
certain! Hubbard, his model and another great international manipulator, also has the
people he has trained working in pairs.
As for the supposed spirit of democracy in RC, Jackins' arbitrary
despotism made us lose any illusions we might have had on that score long ago.
For us, this question of a democratic organization is essential.
And it may be interesting to compare the RC-Guidelines with our own
The aspiring to a democratic approach is something that we
really wanted to embed in the "Constitution. of our new movement in French speaking
Daniel suggested the following proposals and they were unanimously
adopted in July '89.
a) In our movement it is the teachers together who decide what is
or is Dot our theory. This is probably a longer process than contenting ourselves with the
opinion of the "supreme guide", but it is so much more enriching and above all
so much more respectful of the thinking of each person
b) In our "Constitution" there is express
provision for the regional leader having to choose a counselor whose special
responsibility is to check if the leader's attitudes and decisions are democratic. (The
International Reference Person could really do with such an "anti-guru"
counselor or a whole team of them.)
c) In our "Constitution". for the French-speaking region
of Europe there is a person designated specially for dismissing people from official
responsibilities. We have tried to separate the "powers". We don't want a
dictator who gives and takes credentials at will ...
A recent example of this. In Hungary, during the West Eurasian
Conference, Jackins was arguing with the RRP of a European country as to whether or not
there was any "discussion" about present-mindedness in London January '89).
Jackins was claiming there was, whilst "Sophie" was maintaining there was
not."Since you didn't respect the limits of your role, I no longer trust you, and you
are no longer RRP, Jackins said to her."Sophie" stuck up for herself. She was
profoundly shocked by Jackins' decision, finds his decision unjust)fied and inhuman, since
in her own mind she had behaved clearly and honestly. Finally, Jackins reassured her:
"OK, you are RRP again".
We did not realize all at once that the organization of RC was
In London, in January, Jackins reminded us again that Regional
Reference Persons have neither to think nor to take initiatives, they are only his
"right or left arm" and have only to do what he tells them. Behind the scenes
more than one person expressed disagreement. This was done discreetly, because the fear of
being thrown out is very much there from his "right and left arms".Jackins holds
the ultimate power in his hands. Each time anyone has dared to oppose him, he has thrown
them out of RC. The list of them is long and impressive. Women, but especially men, and
amongst the most important leaders of the movement. As for Daniel Le Bon, he did not give
Jackins the time. When Jackins realized that Daniel would not go back on his resignation,
in spite of insisting three times, just as they were saying goodbye, he told Daniel in a
crude tone of voice to "get the hell out".
Here we would recall the last words of Mary McCabe, who did
actually found RC with Jackins, who was his Alternate International Reference Person. for
25 years, but with whom (what a model) he had not exchanged a single word for years. She
said to him in the presence of Daniel and other leaders: "Harvey, you a are a liar, a
liar, a liar".
Let us come to his behavior with women in RC.
Hundreds of women have been taken to bed by him, with different
degrees of consent on their part. We know 20 of them who have spoken to us about it. But
he did not hesitate to expel from RC the dozens of people who were mistaken enough to
admit that they had "socialized", even if it was only once.
Daniel, like a few others, tried, some years ago,, to talk to
Jackins about his sexual behavior (his private secretary was present). Jackins immediately
lost his temper. Daniel had "not understood anything., he shouted. It was for their
own good; if not, these poor women would stay frigid all their lives. He knew, he said,
that he was taking big risks, but it was heroism on his part.
He has boasted to several women, they have reported, that he was
capable of having sexual relations with them or of making them come out without any
patterns of distress on his part playing a role in the affair!
He also claimed to be able to convert lesbians into heterosexuals.
And yet, how many complaints have been made against him, even
legal complaints, and on how many continents! Daniel remembers Jackins' relief when he was
the one who had the privilege of telling Jackins that such and such a complaint had
finally been dropped. The pressures put on the young woman had led her to ask her lawyer
to stop the proceedings.
The local television campaign against Jackins in Seattle was not
without foundation, he knows this better than anyone else. It was at this time that Daniel
and a few other leaders told him clearly that if he did not stop this compulsive sexual
behavior, they would leave RC. He ignored this.
Jackins' closest collaborators said of his scandalous and violent
behavior by way of excusing him, that it was one of his distress patterns.. And we will
admit that we, too, like the dozen or so people who knew about it, hid from the members of
the RC communities what patterns he suffered from. We believed that it was for the good of
the institution, which a scandal would assuredly have sunk.
Some people had a strange way of protecting the institution. One
Regional Reference Person told Daniel that when Jackins came to lead a workshop in her
Region, she provided him at the outset with a list of the women he could seduce without
there being any danger of their lodging a complaint against him.
Some years ago a group of twelve women had established a rotation
to decide which of them would sleep with Jackins each night and this system lasted for
several years, until two of them gave up.
Perhaps you now understand why for several years we, leaders of
the French-speaking Region of Europe, refused to let Jackins get into our region again.We
believe that "those in the know" wanted to protect Jackins and the institution,
but today we think that we made a big mistake. And we sincerely apologize to all the women
he has abused since then.We should have taken the risk and denounced his errors, his
abuses; but by way of precaution, we would have had to do it together. There have been
some attempts at this, but they were badly organized. (We remember a comic strip that went
the rounds at an international workshop some years ago. In it we saw Jackins offering his
"assistance" to a young woman candidate for teaching credentials whom he founded
not mature enough. She finally accepted. Then came two big black squares ... Then he gave
her RC teaching credentials.)
Another time, during another international workshop, about
twenty-five of us leaders met in secrecy in the basement at night. We wanted to put our
heads together to see how to help Jackins change this renowned sexual behavior. We
promised not to do anything individually, but the next morning one of us could not wait.
She was swiftly expelled by Jackins, and our not very courageous plan collapsed.
Today, the situation is not very different. Several women leaders
have reached judgment on Jackins, but they, too, probably unaware of their collusion, have
so far hidden from the RC members in their regions what Jackins is. In French-speaking
Region he has precipitated matters by opposing present-mindedness. We are grateful to him
Sometime we have wondered if Jackins was not, to a certain degree,
acting in good faith in this area. This might seem to be stretching the point, but his
therapeutic obsession blinds him and leads him to see everything from the point of view of
his power as a "therapist" (without professional training).
Several women have told us that in their sexual relations with
Jackins there was no place for any loving feelings. It was either a matter of performance
on his part or else a "therapeutic " purpose. This is perhaps the spirit in
which he has undertaken to "convert" several lesbians.
When a person goes so far as to deceive themselves up to this point, pathology and
medical intervention are indicated. But when one has the responsibility which Jackins
claims, legal intervention is just)fied in addition.
To summarize, we are not short of reasons for leaving the RC
Communities led by Jackins.
Why wasn't this denounced earlier?
1. Daring to denounce anything at all would have led to immediate
purging and would have served no purpose. Several people have done this and it has no had
an effect on the communities.
2. We have all been manipulated by the great guru and the fine and
noble ideas which he held out to us. In trying to oppose him we have sometimes had the
feeling (only the feeling) that we were opposing fine ideas.
3. We had already succeeded in discreetly keeping Jackins out of
our region since 1983.
4. We have been both patient ... and lacking in courage.
5. We had hope that Jackins would leave, that he would understand
that it was time for him to resign if he did not want his movement to go down with him.
Jackins goes around the world celebrating the brilliant successes
of RC, he counts an impressive number of members. Reality is less rosy. He claims (with
much exaggeration), that a million people have been introduced to RC. If this was true, it
would mean that ninety-nine percent of the members have left, since there are only about
10,000 now. At the meeting of RRP's and Liberation reference People (1988), Jackins' son,
who is in charge of sending out Present Tune, confirmed with Daniel the figure of 4,500
copies of each edition printed, or perhaps about 4,000 copies dispatched, and Daniel
repeated this figure in front of Harvey Jackins at the discreet meeting of editors. He did
not react. If about 4,000 Present Tune's are dispatched, how many members does that
Other leaders all over mistrust him and his bad functioning. They
hesitate, not realizing that their inaction, their silence constitute a complicity. And we
do not understand how Diane Balser, who is actually responsible for women's liberation
work, can say that what Harvey does with women is "essentially" good..
Another leader wrote to us recently to say that it had become a
moral duty for him to destabilize Jackins' International Re-evaluation Counseling.
Personally, we do not find it too difficult to distinguish
Jackins' person from his distress and the after-effects of his bad health. Daniel and
others have often tried to help him, to give him sessions, etc. but he has refused.
And eventually it is fairly easy to understand why this man is so
opposed to present-mindedness.
Apart from some noble. distress such as: "I cannot believe that anyone loves
me", Jackins presents himself as without distress, perfectly intelligent, balanced,
etc. It is time for him to know that this does not correspond with the reality that a lot
of people see. One can deceive one person throughout their life, one can deceive some
people for a very long time, one cannot deceive everybody all the time. (But wouldn't it
be himself he has been deceiving for so many years?)
H. Jackins and his son would like to stop the members of the
International RC Communities from listening to us, and they have sent threatening letters
to this effect.
ABOUT THE ATTACKS MADE ON HARVEY JACKINS
For a long time members of the RC Communities have been
formulating criticisms of Jackins' behavior. These criticisms have immediately been called
"attacks" by Jackins, and generally refer to the following points: the lack of
seriousness in his theoretical assertions, his lack of respect for clients during sessions
or demonstrations, the irregularity of his accounting, his singular wielding of power, his
We remember that the first times we came across these criticisms,
we read them with interest then threw them away. And we can well imagine that a certain
number of RCers will do the same with this document. Nevertheless we consider it our duty
to try to draw the attention of all the leaders to the real mental, financial and moral
fraud, that is being perpetrated upon them.
The letter which Daniel sent to Jackins last June seemed to
frighten him. In this letter Daniel said to him as clearly as he could why he has left
Jackins' RC and why all the French-speaking Region has followed his example. (Since then a
great number of English, Dutch, Flemish, Swiss, Austrian and German counselors have done
So Jackins has not missed a chance to attack Daniel as a person
and, on the other hand, protect himself.
His son, and designated successor as head of the movement, Tim
Jackins, and Diane Balser, International Liberation Reference Person for Women, have the
responsibility of spreading his ideas and organizing his protection
The arguments used are not very solid. Tim Jackins and Diane
Balser (under remote control from Harvey Jackins) begin by distinguishing between
criticisms and "attacks", whilst acknowledging that the two can become
entangled. Then they define attacks as referring essentially to the person, for instance
in the case of insults. Then, they accept criticism, you may even say you "do not
agree", but they condemn attacks.
We do indeed recognize that we insult a person in vain, but quite
apart from criticisms and personal attacks must there not be some place for measures taken
to prevent someone from going on acting in an irrational and harmful way? Human beings
must nevertheless retain the freedom to attack a behavior, which is more than simply
expressing their disagreement.
Our sole aim is to enlighten the thousands of people deceived and
abused by Jackins. We have absolutely no wish to attack the man. And it is too easy to
reduce the steps we are taking to a "conflict of leaders". We will remind that
our whole region and hundreds RCers from other regions have handed in their resignation
and have become independent.
1. When someone knowingly deceives us, lies to us, takes our money
without giving anything good in return, when he abuses women under his authority, and whom
he is committed to helping, when he tries diminish the critical sense of people he is
supposed to help, and we attempt to put a stop to these goings on, we are not attacking
Harvey Jackins as a person. WE ARE DEFENDING OURSELVES AGAINST HIS
PATTERNS OF ABUSE and we are trying to warn other people.
As Tim Jackins very well says: "The response to an attack is
not an attack".
2. Jackins claims that all leaders get criticized and attacked..
This is skillful. It tends to trivialize the criticisms and attacks and pushes people not
to listen to them.
In reality, all leaders do not get criticized and attacked, and
certainly not with the same regularity nor on the basis of such serious accusations as
these aimed at Jackins.
3. Jackins suggests several ways of reacting when faced with
criticisms and attacks. It boils down essentially to considering that the attacker must be
full of distress and is acting only on this basis. So, you must get them to discharge,
tell them to stop, tell them that what they are doing is not allowed, etc.
He only forgets one way of reacting to criticisms and attacks:
recognizing where we are wrong and changing our behavior or, if we cannot do this,
4. For Jackins, if a group organizes some criticisms or some
attacks, this has to be the effect of the contagion of some distress on the part of the
person organizing the criticisms or the attacks.
Again, could we not perhaps also envisage a case where the group is right?
5. Jackins maintains that "a lot of people find it difficult
to believe that when he is being attacked the problem has nothing to do with him. But he
seems to have quite some difficulty himself in admitting that, when he is attacked, the
problem might just also have something to do with him.
6. An attack on the leader is an attack on the whole group.,
claims Jackins. That is not always true. But it would be very convenient for him the
members of RC believed it.
Tim declares that if someone were to attack his father, he would hesitate to kill
not to maim (declaration made at the meeting in Hungary)!
So if in a little time you see Daniel or some other RC-leader with
a broken arm or blinded, think of Tim Jackins, Alternate International Reference Person of
the International RC Communities. Jackins preaches solidarity. We agree with him, but
would it not be better to show it with the people who have been deceived rather than with
the person who is deceiving them?
7. Diane Balser, who knows very well the sexual abuses committed
by Jackins and who is, on principle, responsible for women's liberation, considers that
Jackins' behavior is "essentially" good. Thus she lends her good name to cover
the innumerable examples of abuse and violence committed by Jackins against women in RC.
Tim Jackins does recognize that there have been many mistakes but
asks that we allow the leader the right to make mistakes. We agree, but we expected
leaders to admit to their mistakes and to correct them.
8. "If they attack me so much in Europe it is because I'm
American".It is too easy to appeal to American "patriotism". But it is also
to forget that we have trusted Jackins for many years; and also several other American
leaders of whom the majority kept our trust: Mary McCabe, Julian Weissglass, Diane Balser,
Tim Jackins, Margaret Vasington, Kathy Miller, Betsy Putnam, Marge Larrabee, Charles
Kreiner, Pam Roby, Cherie Brown, Jeanne d'Arc, Ellen Deacon and many others. If Jackins
has lost our trust it is only because we have gradually realized that he did not deserve
it.And, as Tim puts it so well, "Sentimentality about the past is no help."
Jessica Colman, Helene Bregani, Aida Sellami, Huguette Latreille, Janine Pavillon,
Mariedaniele Koechlin, Jean-Marc Fert, RoseMarie Bourreau, Noelle Sulmoni, Daniel le Bon
and many other ax-Reference Persons.