When Zen Gardner came out that he belonged to a Christian cult that included members that abused children for over 20 years I was surprised but also very much aware that he writes sincerely and without agenda. There's no channelling nonsense, no abuse and largely positive output considering it's addressing a negative agenda.
It's logical to me that if he admitted membership of this cult, there must be some context that correlates with his consistent output as spiritually awake writer. I did not seek that context actively, but I noticed a lot of online keyboard warriors who have never said anything about known, powerful child-rapists like Lord Greville Janner, Lord Leon Brittan and Sir Clement Freud (or Jeffrey Epstein and Jerry Sandusky if you're stateside) suddenly had a lot to say.
I also had a handful of suspicious direct messages from people who don't have the courage to comment in public trying to criticize me for not tackling Zen while laying a digital nut [head butt] on con artist Ken O'Keefe (the COINTEL crowd are trying to connect alternative everyone and alternative everything right now - keep an eye out for those who don't have a good word for anyone).
Anyway I felt obliged to listen to Zen and I think his explanation in this interview is more than satisfactory. The moment for me when he passed with flying colours is when the obsequious interviewer Mel Ve tries to frame him in that moment as innocent because "there are no victims" which is possibly the most vile and contemptuous interviewer "question" I've ever heard.
"There are victims" I thought to myself.
"You better say there are victims Zen" I said to myself.
"There were victims" answered Zen to Mel, and at that point I knew the interviewer was a sycophant exposed in the moment, and Zen was a man who said the hard answers when a moment of silence or a tacticial hmmm would have passed as "no victims' for many listeners.
