The Casualties of “Truth”: Deconstructing John de Ruiter’s Sexual “Calling”

The aim of this piece is to continue the process I began in 2010 of “cracking the John-deRuiter-code.” Simply stated, I am going to look more closely at John’s own words to try and better determine the truth about his methods, motivations, and goals. This entails referring to his use of language and juxtaposing it with what is currently known about his behaviors, public and private, in the hope that his modus operandi can be seen for what it is. Language is a powerful tool for mystification, and my hope is that it will eventually be possible to crack the code of John-speak in such a way that the spell can be broken once and for all.

The evidence I will be referring to is from two meetings John gave at Oasis, Edmonton, on March 4th and 6th 2017. This is when John spoke publicly about having secret sexual meetings with some of the women in his group. It happened after a disclosure was made by one of the women he had propositioned (who turned him down), despite John’s instructions not to speak about it. The original disclosure, then, was not made by John, and John’s disclosure was more of an attempt to control the damage by appearing to be responding to it. In the process, he made the rather tenuous claim that his secrecy was all about “timing,” and that now it was finally time to speak out about it. The first occasion he did so was at the Oasis cafe, and though it was filmed it was apparently heavily edited and not made generally available. I have not seen a copy but from what I have heard, John was apparently so vague that people had to ask him what he was talking about and whether he was speaking about physical sex or not. This is especially relevant in light of Anina’s death in 2014, because her diary entries refer to some sort of sexual experience with John, which John insisted, then and now, was a dream or vision that did not take place physically. The general vagueness that surrounds all of John’s statements seems to be especially pointed (and deceptive) when it comes to accounts of his sexualization of his female followers. In retrospect, John’s sexualization of women, if I may use the term, begins at subtler levels, in group meetings and presumably private ones too, during which John appears to have been “grooming” some of his followers in preparation for a future, fully physical sexual encounter.

In the first official disclosure interview of March 4th (around the 51-minute mark), John admits: “I didn’t realize these purposes [of having sex with his female followers] at the time, that I do realize now.” He indicates later that he didn’t fully realize these purposes until that very day–i.e., once he had to come up with a convincing explanation for it. Yet John’s secret sexual seductions of his female followers (probably most of whom were married) date at least as far back as 1998, and probably further still. (In 1999, John told the group that he first had a “knowing” he would sleep with another woman besides his wife thirteen years earlier, in 1986.) So if we’re to believe John at all, he has been in the dark about his reasons for doing this for somewhere between twenty and thirty years. At the same time, his followers are assured it was only ever a movement of Truth, or, as he currently languifies it, of “the Calling.”


So if John didn’t realize the purposes of choosing to have sex with his followers, does this also imply that he had no clear idea of the consequences of doing so, for himself or the women (and for those followers who were allowed to know about it, and, for that matter, those who weren’t)? In 2017 he states: “It definitely did catalyze my movement into the deeper levels, my movement into the Calling, my movement into the bigger picture and the backdrop, my movement into greater reality, other dimensions and other realms, because that’s all I really had as a real resource to draw from, for me to move in this way. . . in a way that I would never otherwise move.” John claims that secretly having sex with women in his group was something he did without knowing the purpose of, but that it allowed him to move deeper into “greater reality,” where his purpose for “moving in this way” became clear to him, because it was greater reality telling him to do so! Like all of John’s explanations for his behaviors, this is both circular and subjective to the point of meaninglessness. There is no way whatsoever to verify the truth of it because John is speaking of realms beyond mental understanding. One can examine his statements for coherence and deeper meaning, however, and doing so doesn’t reveal much besides John’s usual argument: “I did it because I felt like it, and it felt good (right, true).”

In his explanation on March 4th (around 81 mins), John extends his twilight language into a literal claim of trans-physical expression: “To move sexually with another woman, for me,” he says, “is to move in the same way that we will all move after we have died, not being confined to our relationships, to our marriage. . . I am moving in that level of union that is of, if you could call it, the other side–here.” In his prodigious display of linguistic gymnastics back in 1999, John softly assured his followers that he had not lied to Joyce (his wife) or been adulterous when he slept with the von Sass sisters behind her back, because it was all unfolding at deeper levels of being. Now, in 2017, he gets to be a faithful husband on one level, while sleeping with anyone he can lure into his golden-hued basement room on another (though both levels are physical). He is: “Modeling union not based on marriage . . . while at the same time, I am married,” because these are two “different realities” that only look like one reality to those of us on the outside of John’s interdimensional reality-consciousness. Later on in his epic obfuscation, spiritualization, and mystification of misdemeanors, John makes the bold claim that for him, having sex with women “precludes male-female interactivity.”

When John is asked by the interviewer about all the secrecy involved in his “Calling,” he resorts to the same tactic. (Essentially, it is the only one he has besides simply denying everything, which doesn’t work when people are speaking out, as they were in 2014 and 1999, and as they are now.) First of all, he makes reference to “the personal, the private, and the sacred,” indicating that whether something is secrecy depends on the context it is occurring in. He states (at 96 mins) that “absolute transparency is not relevant” and “not a well-thought-out ideal.” There are “measures of transparency,” he says (followed by a stream of standard John-speak about “knowing,” “holding of meaning,” etc., etc), and “so many different levels.”

He then offers a more palatable term to secrecy, “containment,” which he describes as “awareness being one with what you know even when the self is not like that.” This “directly exposes the lack within the self” and, as one relaxes into the sheer discomfort of that, the heat increases and there is an “alchemy of change” that “makes manifest the entire self.” It is unclear how this sort of containment (which seems to amount to a willingness not to express unpleasant feelings while experiencing internal conflict) relates to concealing and lying about his sexual practices (if containment is the opposite of transparency, does that make it opacity?). John deftly turns the whole question of his accountability around when he speaks about “duplicity” and “the split between conscious and subconscious self.” He implies that suppressing the subconscious equals real duplicity, and that, since he expresses his subconscious desires through his sexual proclivities, he is not duplicitous, not divided. The reason he keeps all of this secret is apparently related to “containment,” i.e., it is the necessary containment of information and of what is seen by others. But necessary to whom, and why?

John argues that the real duplicity is to suppress or deny one’s subconscious desires, rather than to let them come up while keeping them “contained” (which in his case means merely hidden or secret). He is saying that, regardless of how honest our behaviors might be at a surface level, we are duplicitous whenever there is a split in us. Since by this definition everyone is duplicitous, he implies that no one can judge him for his actions (“who is without sin cast the first stone”). In contrast, while his actions might appear duplicitous they are not, in fact, because there is no split within him. Yet, if this is the case, why the containment? By his own definitions, the purpose of the containment is for his conscious self to be alchemically reconfigured by the pressure of personal discomfort that comes from going against his conditioning. Is John acknowledging that his conscious self is in need of reconfiguration and that he is still trapped inside a conditioned self? If so, why is he taking the moral high ground and claiming there is no duplicity or secrecy in him, no split between his conscious and subconscious, and that it is all the “Calling”?

John’s art is a persuasive art. It is highly dependent on obfuscation: the harder he is to understand, the more wiggle room he has to change tacks whenever he is in a danger of being caught in a lie. As I am able to understand it, however, John’s position on his own undeniable secrecy and duplicity (besides that it isn’t what it looks like) is that he is mirroring people’s own level of awareness, readiness, and integrity, and meeting them “where they are at.” If this were really true, he would at best be “parenting” his followers. But even if we allow for this possibility, parenting implies children who eventually grow up, who at a certain point need to be treated like adults. This entails giving them all the information they need to make their own decisions. If this doesn’t happen, parenting becomes overly protective and oppressive and the child will act out in anger and rebellion, as often as not via self-destructive behaviors. Biological parents generally don’t know how to shift gears gracefully when their children are coming of age or how to relate to them as equals. John appears to be no exception to this rule–and this is only if we give him a massive amount of doubt-benefits here.


When it comes to the effects of his sexual opportunism, this is where the rubber of Johnny’s cosmic rationalizing meets the road of human reality. John is somewhat clearer about this question, but also about the fact that he doesn’t actually, really care either way. He describes the overall result of having sex with the women in broad terms: “the entire self goes through a fundamental destabilization,” he says, without “any kind of held purpose.” In other words, the women will undergo a crisis that will be incomprehensible to them, and that is also (at the level of their own awareness) pointless. He hammers the point home later on (1 hour 19 min) by saying: “What that brings up in anyone that is unintegrated is really, sweetly, besides the point. . . . It will bring up everything,” he says (all the shadow material from the subconscious), but “how that manifests doesn’t actually, really matter.” Will he feel the same way when one of the cuckold husbands comes at him with a baseball bat, I wonder?

One reason it doesn’t matter to John is that all this destabilization comes with a purpose: his female “initiates” are on the “fast track of integration . . . very high pressure.” So then, does it matter even if it kills them, since in John’s world, it’s all one continuum anyway? The other reason it doesn’t matter is that John is following the Calling and has “no fear of making mistakes,” ever. When pressed, John admits he can make mistakes, but is quick to add that this is only at the level of self, mind, and “communication,” and so does not impede or impair the Calling. Since all his mistakes occur at a surface level, he is not concerned with the risk. I was surprised John admitted to being able to make even a trivial mistake, but then I realized that it would be foolish for him to claim he couldn’t make a mistake at any level, since this would be far too easy to disprove. (What happens the next time he drops a fork? Blame the Calling?) Once again, John has it both ways: he is denying any kind of equivalency or congruence between levels, while claiming to be one at all the levels and embodying the truth of what he knows at all times.

On the March 6th disclosure talk (around 25 mins), John admits that there are inevitable casualties of what he is doing. He then assures his followers that such casualties are “not the responsibility of how the Calling moves but the responsibility of you as a person, dropping down to an appropriate level of knowledge that you can deal with what it is that’s in question . . . so really it’s your responsibility to go into what you actually know.” John’s frame of reference for being true to “the Calling” is one hundred percent non-dependent on all external consequences of his actions. No matter the number or the severity of casualties that may result from what he does, that is entirely their responsibility and not his. This is the very opposite of a parental instinct, and if this is really how John feels, why is he “protecting” his followers by keeping his activities secret until they are “ready” to know the truth? This seems like a policy designed to cause the maximum amount of damage to others, while ensuring the minimum degree of accountability for him. Presumably it has something to do with John’s idea of “high pressure,” controlled destabilization, of “setting the nervous system afire” and the “alchemy of change.” Or is it that his scorched earth, take-no-prisoners policy is simply the best cover for a decades-long sexual rampage?

Whether a person becomes a casualty of John’s alchemy depends, as he sees it, on “a level of choice that isn’t easily discernible” but that is “like a light switch.” If his followers react badly to his influence, then they are, at a very subtle level, choosing to do so. They are choosing to align with their conditioned selves, with dishonesty, with the darkness of untruth, and thereby sullying his divine gift and turning it into something poisonous via the poisons of their own “insistence,” their resistance to John’s goodness. Almost unbelievably, he manages to turn himself into the exploited and innocent victim, the Lamb of God who gets to forgive those who know not what they do. But if John is able to discern this ultra-subtle light-switch in those he selects for his golden goosing, can’t he also discern which way they are likely to go? John claims his responsibility is “making it clear to the other what’s at stake,” and that he is “not needing a yes” and “not asking for something.” He is only “the person’s deeper-self-advocate.” His golden promise comes with a warning, etched in tiny print: “Anything that moves from the deep puts the accustomed self at risk.” For the starstruck and truth-hooked John-ite, it’s probably a small step from this to believing that anything that puts their accustomed selves at risk (as long as it is coming from John) must be coming also from “the deep.” It’s the college of disintegrating philosophy, complete with a placard over the door: “Whatever doesn’t kill you, makes John stronger.”


Questions for Oasians: why is John’s speech in the disclosure videos so halting and jerky? Why do the words stick in his throat so much? Why does he lack all spontaneity, to the point that he can’t even smile or clear his throat without it seeming carefully modulated? What is John holding inside? What is he afraid of letting others see?

Towards the end of the March 6th meeting, John claims he is “completely dependent on you relating to what you know” in order to be able to move in (or in on) his followers. “Yes, I have powers that you don’t have,” he says, but he can only use them with the person’s inner consent. He has “no power over you” but “a tiny little bit of power in you.”

It’s essential to keep in mind that “what you know” is really Oasis-speak for John’s goodness, because this latter is the only thing Oasians are one hundred percent sure about. When John says he needs his followers to relate to what they know for him to be able to “move in them,” what he’s actually saying (I think) is that he is completely dependent on their love for him in order to influence them. To have power over them, he is dependent on securing their consent, and he secures their consent by instilling them with blind, undying love, trust, and loyalty. To give a stark and slightly grisly example, in the first public disclosure meeting, the interviewer, Roger, makes a ridiculous analogy between John’s sexually propositioning his female followers and an invitation to go hiking in the hills. You don’t get mad if you don’t want to go, Roger says, you just say No thanks. John then makes a “joke” to Roger: “Are you wanting to go hiking with me, Roger?” he croons. Once the laughter has died down, Roger says yes he would!

When Roger asks John about dissent within the group and whether it can be valuable, John replies: “Is there room for dissent here? Yes.” But then he quickly adds, “It isn’t really going to go anywhere, inasmuch as it’s a posturing of the self.” It may give “an experience of power,” he says, but “it’s not real power.” If the dissent is “an embodiment of humanness and weakness” and there is “nothing adversarial in it,” that’s OK. But otherwise, it is only “importing the past to re-experience it” and there is “nothing real” there, only “a protracted experience of ourselves.” A few minutes before this, Roger makes a comment (not a question) about the niggling fear some people have expressed that Oasis is becoming a cult. His tone of voice implies that such fears are ungrounded and foolish, as does his following comment about the idea that John’s followers “sign off their critical faculties when they come into the room.” This is greeted by a burst of laughter from the group.

One (female) follower who testified to her profound learning curve under John in 2012 writes of meeting “the challenge of learning to communicate without emotion and to reach beyond myself contrary to all my feelings.” She winds up by affirming, “We are responsible for our own evolution.  Not a victim of circumstances but gatekeepers to the reality we choose to create. I am grateful to John for meeting me in my hunger to develop in Truth.  His teaching have [sic] and continue to satisfy me to the core.  It has tipped the balance.  All other wants and needs pale in comparison to fulfilling my purpose as a human on this earth” (emphasis added). John has met this woman at her hungry core; he has taught her to express no emotions and given her a purpose that makes her wants and needs go pale, then instilled in her a “calling” to help create reality and serve as a loyal gatekeeper to it. This be some scary stuff.

[4/25/207 Note: I originally linked to the source of the above quote, but have now removed the link because today I discovered that the linked page has been altered. It is now an entirely different text written by a man, with a title that does not match the url! Here is a cached version of the page.]

John’s empire is an empire of persuasion. Like all cults, it centers on the power of one man to cause people to fall in love with him. However he does it, John manipulates people–energetically, emotionally, neurolinguistically, or via unknown mesmeric powers–and reduces them to an infantile state of wonder. Once they are infantilized, he imprints them with blind love and trust for him, with the absolute belief (“knowing”) in his goodness. Because his most devoted followers (those who move to Edmonton to be near him) are imprinted at this infantile level, as he abuses their trust, their dependency does not diminish but increases. The more evidence they are faced with of John’s lack of integrity, honesty, goodness, or simple human decency, the further they have to go from what their own senses are telling them in order to continue to believe in his goodness. Their sense of John’s corruptness becomes further proof of their own “badness” (it is the same with a child who is abused), and so they become more and more dependent on him to lead them “out of themselves” and into his care (under his power). In this (admittedly stark) reading, John’s aim would be to create lifeless, empty shells which he can then fill up and animate with his own psychic poisons, forging an army of golems programmed to love and worship their “Precious,” and spread his glory far and wide.


What surfaces time and again in a close inspection of his use of language is that John shifts levels according to his requirements in any given moment. He applies certain truths in a way that is convenient to his own goals, but that is inappropriate at the level the targeted listener is at. If his levels of meaning are “the personal, the private, and the sacred,” it’s fair to ask when and why he chooses to refer to a given level over another. From what I’ve seen, John ignores the personal when it comes to how people feel about or react to his actions (that is sweetly beside the point). He cites the private when he wants to enforce his own secrecy (it is “indelicate” to talk about these things). And he evokes the sacred when he wants to shirk all responsibility at the levels of the personal or the private. John does not embody truth (just the reverse, his actions consistently run contrary to what he preaches), he wields truth as a cloak and a weapon. Part of his goal appears to be to neutralize his followers’ ability to trust their own “knowings” without referring to his own influence. He turns truth into lies by using truth as a means to conceal or disguise his own behavior (and when he can’t do either, to rationalize it), and he embeds words with his own special, hidden meanings. This allows him to communicate two different levels of meaning, one for his larger flock of followers, the other for the inside circle who know (more about) the truth of his behaviors, possibly including some members who are entirely complicit with the deception, either because they believe it is integral to the Calling, or because they are cynically pursuing their own gain and don’t give a damn.

In the process, in his plundering of the personal behind the screen of the private and under the auspices of his “Calling,” John has co-opted just about everything that’s sacred. This leaves his followers, should they choose to follow their gut-sense about him and abandon the Oasis nest, with next to nothing. Since John’s spirituality is a corruption of the highest spiritual values a person can conceive of, he leaves his followers–the ones able to wake up from the dream he has spun for them–with no spiritual value untarnished by his touch. To leave John then becomes more or less synonymous with abandoning spirituality altogether and turning one’s back on Truth. It becomes the ultimate test.

John leads (or leads on) the men and women (and children?) he targets for recruitment into his Truth army to believe they will have a special relationship with him if they “move towards him”–i.e., relocate to Edmonton or jump in the sack with him. Once they take the bait, he becomes unavailable to them and they realize they are just another brick in his Empire, as expendable as all the rest. By then, however, they have invested too much into his golden promise to turn back or admit defeat (it’s only their conditioned selves that are disappointed, and Truth requires the ultimate sacrifice). And so they remain, the intensity of their hope inflamed by every disappointment and betrayal, like hungry dogs waiting for stray crumbs at the court of the King. And of course, they can always tell themselves that their reward is not of this world anyway, that they are giving up everything in order to follow John’s Calling all the way back to Original Meaning, Ancient Knowing, or whatever the latest de-Ruiter brand for the Ineffable is. I wonder if they have considered the possibility that the exact same thing is going to play out on the inner realms, and that hundreds of hopeful John-ites, trusting to meet their guru of goodness on the other side with open arms when they “cross over,” will find themselves naked and alone, abandoned and betrayed, staring at a cold, flat, and empty wasteland, with no oasis in sight?

7 thoughts on “The Casualties of “Truth”: Deconstructing John de Ruiter’s Sexual “Calling”

  1. I was in a similar cult when I was 18, one that I probably told you about back in the sweda days. The problem with gurus is that there is a lot of truth in what they say, and this attracts idealistic people like myself. However, in nearly all instances they turn out to be hypocrites and do not live by the things they speak. It is a painful lesson that makes people become cynical and abandon their higher ideals, what their inner self knows to be true despite the appearances of the world.

    The same with “switching off” the emotions. I think this would be valuable as a temporary exercise, in order to see something new in ourselves, but to permanently switch off one’s emotions seems like a recipe for losing one’s mooring to their own ideals. It wouldn’t be surprising for that person to one day find themselves tied to someone else’s boat.

  2. Thank you Jasun for writing and publicizing this. The more that comes out the better. Not many are willing to take it on and if I can be of assistance in some way please feel free to contact me.

  3. John de Ruiter is one of the biggest vampires of modern times. He developed a technique to hypnotise and mesmerize people. More and more people should open their eyes.

  4. I originally linked to the source of the above quote abut communicating without emotion, but have now removed the link because today I discovered that the linked page had been altered. It is now an entirely different text written by a man, with a title that does not match the url! You can see via here that the Google cache record only goes back as far as April 11, the day after this blog post appeared. Fortunately I found it on Wayback Machine, here.

    Here is the full piece from the now altered page link:

    My Thirteen Year Journey

    At September 17, 2012
    By Jolaine
    In John de Ruiter

    By Sally Ransen

    My thirteen year journey attending John de Ruiter’s meetings has been one of profound transformation. The early years amounted to a magical unfolding of who I am as a heart, being and greater awareness, paralleled by a necessary dying of my accustomed self. Despite difficulty, I learned to love letting go of my personal wants and needs, letting truth lead instead of me.

    In my early years with John, I learned how to be whole in myself and let go of all neediness towards others, especially the need for a relationship. It was extremely painful, but honesty kept reminding me of the value of that.

    Putting Sexuality Aside

    Learning with John has been a time of profound challenge opening up into great benefit. For example, before my husband and I married we put our sexuality aside for four years while we built a relationship rooted in real meaningful togetherness. Instead of jumping in with all our wants and needs, we took time to build a foundation of delicate intimacy and moved forward only from our clarity. This gives us a grounded, sure-footed relationship with room for the expression of our beings.

    Then came the challenge of learning to communicate without emotion and to reach beyond myself contrary to all my feelings. So, sometimes I might hold anger towards my husband and yet know to reach out to him despite that. It might take all of me to hold his hand in the middle of the night even though most of me would like to roll over and give him my back. In this way I give form to the goodness between us.

    Harnessing My Anger

    Harnessing my anger, and being willing to feel discomfort, allowed me to stop throwing anger out towards my daughter or husband for feelings of temporary relief. To hold that anger in my body and mind is very uncomfortable. Learning to manage anger is a skill I am still developing, and it is my biggest challenge.

    Prior to meeting John I had several awakenings but no help in landing them in my life and integrating that into relationship, family and work. It took quite a long time, I would say about seven years, of being with John before I could simply be in my body and in my heart. I love the experience of being in that while speaking with someone. Reaching their open heartedness allows moments of oneness to appear in relationships.

    I’m Responsible, I’m Not a Victim

    When I first glimpsed my own trickiness, it was shocking. I saw inside a naughty monkey stealing from a cookie jar with a shameless smirk. This was me using my power to be something other than my authentic self. I knew I didn’t want to be real, because if I wanted to be I would be. With honesty I am able to believe and relate to the part of me that is real and pure. In so doing, the old begins to fade, and the real woman that I am gets to grow. It really is as simple as something John says, “Core splitting honesty takes you home.” We are responsible for our own evolution. Not a victim of circumstances but gatekeepers to the reality we choose to create.

    I am grateful to John for meeting me in my hunger to develop in Truth. His teaching have and continue to satisfy me to the core. It has tipped the balance. All other wants and needs pale in comparison to fulfilling my purpose as a human on this earth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s