RESIGNATION LETTER FROM FRENCH SPEAKING EUROPEAN LEADERSHIP
FROM "REEMERGENCE"
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 theory.
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 it.
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 to prove.
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 zones'.
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 all oppressions'.
(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 working class.)
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 occur..
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 rain..
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-evaluationCounseling doctrine.
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.
a) Elitism?
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 elitism!
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, etc.).
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?
2) PRACTICE
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 dramatization.
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 French-speaking Europe.
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 "Constitution".
The aspiring to a democratic approach is something that we really wanted to embed in the "Constitution. of our new movement in French speaking Europe.
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 dictatorial.
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 for this.
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 represent?
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.. "Essentially"?
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 sexual abuses.
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 the same.)
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, withdrawing.
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.
Translate this page automatically.
