WordWolf

George and I have got to be able to figure this one out.

Who is my neighbor? Jesus explained that one with a parable about a Jew who needed help, and, of all people, one of those stinking, lousy, no-good, low-down SAMARITANS was the person who helped him. Jesus made it clear that SAMARITAN was the one who "was neighbor" to the Jew who needed help. It was such a noxious concept that the Jew who asked him couldn't bring him to say "the SAMARITAN who helped him", but said "the one who showed mercy on him." Jesus, having told the parable of the Good Samaritan, said to do like that guy. "Go and do thou likewise" is how the KJV renders it. So, who's your neighbor? According to Jesus, you can't exclude that Muslim, that Jew, that Black guy, that Asian guy, that Pakistani, that African dude, that redneck, that smug anti-Christian, that Pastafarian, etc. Jesus set the standard very high, and said to do that.

In short, if you love God with everything you've got, and love your neighbor like you love yourself, nobody has to tell you not to steal, not to kill, etc,- BECAUSE YOU'LL AVOID DOING THEM WITHOUT SPECIFIC RULES. vpw's own rule was different: "If you love God, and you love your neighbor, you can do as you fool well please." He started with loving God and neighbor, but changed that you would follow the rules automatically (which is interesting because he mentioned that quickly in passing.) Why the difference? vpw went in small steps from what the verses said, to what he WANTED the verses to say. He went from "If you love God and love your neighbor, you'll follow the whole law automatically" to "so long as you love God and love your neighbor, you can do as you fool well please" to "anything done with the love of God is pure" "to the pure, all things are pure" etc. In small steps, he went from "obey the law out of love" to "you can do whatever you want and it's fine". Why did he want that? He wanted to justify doing whatever he wanted and wanted to pretend God Almighty was fine with that. It's no different than when he told Jim D00p that God Almighty was fine with ORGIES and tried to use a verse to justify it. For those who wonder where you've seen the small steps before, it's a very old technique. Someone went from "Has God said 'you shall not eat of every tree in the garden?" step by step to go from "you shall surely die" to "you shall not surely die". Whose techniques did vpw copy? BTW, did vpw do that knowing enough about the Bible to know whose work he was copying (knowing he was copying the devil's playbook to rationalize the sin he himself wanted to do) or was vpw that deficient in the meaning of Scripture that he ripped off the devil's own techniques, techniques mentioned right in pfal, out of ignorance? It was either one or the other. (Usually, when there's a conundrum like this, where all possible answers are bad, someone makes a personal attack on me, so it's probably time for that very thing now, for those arriving late.)

T-Bone: "Jesus summarized the entire Jewish law with love - love for God and love for others . He did NOT simplify the law. There is a difference! Jesus spoke of the first and great commandment and the second is like unto it - to love God and to love neighbor - He said the entire law and the prophets hang on that. That is a summary- He indicated all prohibitions to sin - i.e., to NOT commit adultery, to NOT lie, to NOT steal, etc., He recapitulated all the main points of the law showing how they all relate to loving God and neighbor. In PFAL wierwille taught it WRONG! He simplified it - he said Jesus reduced all the law down to just 2 commandments. To reduce or simplify is to eliminate or lessen components. Knowing about wierwille’s moral depravity, it makes perfect sense he would like to blur boundaries and obfuscate what is right and wrong. There’s no specifics…it’s left up to the individual to determine what is right and wrong….That’s how he could commit unconscionable acts and rationalize sin out of it by saying “anything done in the love of God is okay” Jesus didn’t teach THAT! He summarized! It’s like He drew a big umbrella over all the specific prohibitions and said the love for God and others are the prime directives - that love covers every scenario! If you love God and others you should not commit adultery, you should not lie, steal, etc. Love was the basis for the law! The summary does not eliminate any components - it merely gives the big picture of how we conduct our lives should always reflect loving God and others."

As for vpw's explanation of "love God, love your neighbor, then you can do as you fool well please" was both UNINFORMATIVE and INCORRECT. The entire purpose of that was to INSERT vpw's "private interpretation" (as he would call it) into a verse that did not contain "do as you fool well please." The goal was to get people used to the idea that God Almighty was fine with them "doing as they fool well pleased". However, that contradicted the actual verses. It's so obvious. IF you actually A) love God Almighty with everything you've got and B) love your neighbor like you love yourself, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to "do as you fool well please." Your actions will reflect pleasing God and being a good neighbor and making God and neighbor happy. And before anyone claims that just applied to someone living next door, Jesus himself clarified "who is my neighbor" with the parable of The Good Samaritan. THAT was the example Jesus gave. Luke 10: 29-37 KJV 29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. Which was the example Jesus gave? He found the stranger, and had him healed and taken care of at his own expense. "Go and do thou likewise." As for the priest and the Levite, who SUPPOSEDLY served God and avoided the stranger who needed help? They did as they fool well pleased. According to vpw, that was FINE- becuase he was setting the stage for himself to have free reign to do whatever he wanted to, and encourage likewise. vpw had FAR more in common with the religious hypocrites of Jesus' day than with the disciples he CLAIMED to resemble (and insinuate he outperformed.)

T-Bone: " i think we ought to call it variations on a theme; vp had numerous ways of asserting this same malleable code of ethics: love God & neighbor and do as you fool well please what i may allow in my life you may not allow in yours and visa versa [used often in many of his live teachings] ~~ and several i remember from the pajama party mentioned in my post # 460 - after showing us the bestiality video he addressed the possibility that some of us may have been kinda weirded out by it - saying such things as unto the pure all things are pure when you become spiritually mature you can handle anything i've so renewed my mind that things like this don't bother me he said he showed us the video out of his concern for us as potential leaders who can't afford to be shocked by anything if we want to help people - he tied that into anything done in the love of God is okay - like him preparing us for extremely unusual counseling situations - it takes the love of God to do that ~~ folks here can probably mention more variations on a theme.....but it was the same old theme wasn't it - i can do as i fool well please !

[I noticed some time back that vpw's summary led to "DO AS YOU FOOL WELL PLEASE." That was vpw's standard. That was vpw's goal. That was what vpw said in conclusion, too. He claimed that the LAW had been boiled down to two rules, then discarded both. He said it was all subsumed in "Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself." He then said that "if you love God, and love your neighbor as yourself, then you can do as you fool well please." He never spent any time on what either would entail, however- probably because his goal was not "love God and love your neighbor as yourself", (for his actions showed neither), but his coda of "do as you fool well please." I mean, think about it. "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself" IS THE OPPOSITE OF vpw's "do as you fool well please." The one who cares about God will seek to do the things that please God- and will seek to bless others because God likes that. The one who only cares about himself will "do as he fool well pleases." In hindsight, vpw's rule is less kind than Christians in general, in all the churches, and is less kind than the rule the wiccans/pagans follow. Their rule is "IF IT HURTS NO ONE, do what you will." If vpw had even the morals of the pagans and wiccans, he would not have drugged, molested, nor raped others. Other Christians just find this level of morals horrifying. Look- we love Daddy and want to make Him happy because He's so nice. So, He tells us what actions make him happy, and we do them. We don't need Him to threaten to punish us for not doing them. We love Him and want to make Him proud. How can anyone possibly have trouble understanding this?]

"If you love God, and love your neighbor as yourself, you can do as you fool well please." ============================= Ok. Take a minister who leaves his denomination with stories of "inappropriate behavior with his secretary". Then send him to where there are Christians and some people pushing "free love" and orgies. Why is he there? http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=160989 Jim D explained it. " As we relaxed and had a second drink, he asked Judy and me to describe what is was like to attend an orgy. We were taken back by the question and embarrassed by it, because even though it was part of our testimony in our deliverance from sin to God's righteousness, no one had ever asked us to describe what it was like to go to an orgy. We found his curiosity shocking. But we gave him a brief description which is really all we could give him since our encounter with an orgy had been so brief. We had attended one orgy sponsored by the San Francisco Sexual Freedom League, but we were so overwhelmed by the spectacle that we had left after twenty minutes. "You know that's all available," V.P. said. "God put it in I Corinthians 7:1 which He said 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.' If it wasn't available to have sex outside the marriage God would have said 'best' instead of 'good.'" I could not believe what I was hearing. I responded with, "I just thank God that He pulled our soul out of that pit of debauchery." When Judy and I went to bed, I said to her, "I don't believe what he said tonight, and I'm going to forget it. I must have misunderstood him." vpw told Jim God said orgies were "available." ============== ""Weirwille sought things to validate his position. He did NOT research the word and change his opinion to IT. I becamed pretty good friends with Jim D*0p. He told me that he, Jim, had a ministry where they were sexually loose and an anything goes kinda group out in California. Weirwille flew out there, telling folks it was to talk with Jim about the Bible and witness or something to him. Jim told me Weirwille flew out there to LEARN from Jimmy about the free sex thinking. Weirwille said he always believed sex should be free and allowed with as many as you feel you want to be with -- but could NEVER prove it from the Bible. He was there to see if Jimmy could prove it was okay via scripture. D0*p never really could and was more of a hippie minister than a sexual pervert looking for Biblical validation. Weirwille had these concepts, notions, urges, illnesses and tried to find a way to SELL them to us. He was not about to CHANGE his thinking according to scripture. He was not a researcher. He was similar to a lot of cult leaders. He had an idea and looked for people who would buy into it. Like Charlie Manson." ================= ""He also told a small group at Emporia one night to teach their children about their bodies, "you can brush their nipple with your hand and show them how it hardens. You can show them not to be ashamed of their body reactions" Then he shared about the African Tribe where the Father broke the hymen of the daughters to get them experienced in sex to prepare them for marriage -- he thought it to be beautiful. VPW had already let me see his dark side. Sitting there I thought OH MY GOD, this is subtle but he is teaching this group that it is beautiful to teach your daughters how to have sex, it is just not accepted in our culture! He was standing behind his sex problems and setting us up to have sex with our godly "family" as well as the earthly one."

I'd like to take this opportunity to address an error concerning our liberty in Christ, and how badly-mangled the Bible's teaching on this was when we were learning. vpw said-right in pfal- that if you love God and you love your neighbor, "YOU CAN DO AS YOU FOOL WELL PLEASE." I submit that the point of this was to de-emphasize loving God and loving your neighbor, since that's the only way you can do what vpw REALLY wanted to teach, "YOU CAN DO AS YOU FOOL WELL PLEASE." Let's see what Jesus said on the subject, shall we? KJV. Luke 10:25-27. "25And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." Here we see the first part of what we said-"love God, and love your neighbor as yourself." Now let's see the SECOND part-when Jesus gives an example of what that means. Luke 10:28-37. "28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise." Jesus gave an example of loving your neighbor-funny how he specified it was about NEIGHBOR, and not LOVE. The priest and the Levite in Jesus' example, I suspect, offered a prayer for the man who was beaten and robbed. They offered the standard twi level of compassion. "Give them The Word, pray for them, but if they have a physical need, tell them to suck it up and make sure they attend pfal on time." Then the priest and Levite proceeded to "do as they full well pleased." The Samaritan-a fellow of questionable religious knowledge (unlike the priest and Levite)- was the example Jesus used- a man who didn't consider the personal cost to himself (although he obviously could afford what he did without impoverishing himself) but instead took compassionate ACTION to him. He spent his own TIME and his own MONEY, and had no expectation of receiving any favours in return. Jesus at no point advocated "doing as you fool well please", unlike vpw. ======= Ok, let's suppose we can blow off Jesus' words, like we learned in twi, and only focus on the Epistles. "They're addressed to us! We can follow THEM and blow off the 'previous administration'!" In Romans 14, we see specifics "that have your name on them", as vpw said. Romans 14:13-21. "13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." We have liberty in Christ, but if we think "do as you fool well please" is what it means, we don't UNDERSTAND the liberty we have in Christ. If our freedom allows us to put a stumblingblock in front of a brother in Christ, we are not to use that freedom. A free Christian is FREER TO DO GOOD, but NOT FREER TO DO EVIL, or to do that which God says not to do. A Christian CAN do these things, but a Christian IS NOT to do these things. Out of love, he voluntarily limits his freedom. Is this bondage? Is this legalism? Is this being "a wimpy Christian who lives by the law?" NO. This is doing what God said to do. Even our liberty to eat foods offered to idols has limitations. I Corinthians 8:1-13. 1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." So, out of love for God and brethren, we are to use our freedom to FREELY CHOOSE to limit our actions, to help our brethren. So, can we at least make fun of "wimpy Christians", and turn aside? If we have to limit ourselves, can we just leave them alone after that? After all, someone once claimed "Weakness always brings down strength." Sadly for the "macho" Christian, NO. Romans 15:1-3. "1We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. 3For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me." One may contrast that with the explanation of what to do when our brethren are offended back in pfal. vpw himself spoke to the effect of DISREGARDING those offended. After all, he said, if one person didn't like my tie, another might not like my vest, and at that rate, "pretty soon we'd get down to bare facts." It sounds soooo CLEVER, but if I had to choose between SOUNDING CLEVER and SPEAKING GOD'S WORD, I shall continue to be clumsy and awkward, and speak the words of God.

For those who want more on rfr, here's the previous link, and another with connecting links... https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/1852-what-do-we-know-about-the-fox/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/6604-who-is-rosalie-fox-rivenbark/

https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/6604-who-is-rosalie-fox-rivenbark/

https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/6531-rosalie-rivenbark-the-pimp/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/14334-depositions-of-rosalie-rivenbark/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/14848-harry-potter-and-rosalie-rivenbark/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/20924-ten-years-of-rivenbark/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24475-17-years-ago-john-r-wrote-to-rivenbark/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24580-rivenbarks-cult-tactics-20/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/1852-what-do-we-know-about-the-fox/

"We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling Gotta make you understand." "We've known each other for so long. Your heart's been aching, but You're too shy to say it. Inside, we both know what's been going on. We know the game and we're gonna play it. And if you ask me how I'm feeling Don't tell me you're too blind to see." IMHO, the best moment for this song occurred during a live performance of it during the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade..... where it was not particularly EXPECTED, but performed by the original artist nonetheless.

vpw taught incorrectly, and somewhat briefly, on the subject. lcm later stretched that to 20 minutes of error, then stretched it to 2 hours of error. But, yes, vpw started that rolling, with little idea it would balloon out of proportion.

"We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy." "We've known each other for so long. Your heart's been aching, but You're too shy to say it. Inside, we both know what's been going on. We know the game and we're gonna play it."

If there was no early form of the paper, then there's some discontinuities in the accounts. If there WAS an early form, then it all fits together. RD and VF approach JS because he'd already DONE work on the subject, and he was in the research department. The previous research came up, even if in passing, and was soundly crushed (the same as anything that contradicted what vpw taught.) So, knowing vpw wouldn't want the paper but that it was needed, RD and VF approach JS and get him started on it, fibbing that vpw asked for it. The later paper is bigger than the first, and thus is a lot more controversial. Since JS was perfectly happy to continue working with JAL- who said, DECADES after vpw's death, that he thought vpw would be proud of him (Why seek vpw's approval long after we all knew about vpw? Because JAL did not, and there's none so blind as those who refuse to see)- it would not surprise me to find out JS' accounts treated vpw somewhat kinder than facts warranted.

"In 1982 or 1983 Rev. Ralph Dubofsky and Rev. Vince Finegan came to me. Dr. Wierwille had asked them to do some work on the subject of adultery. Ralph and Vince wanted to know what I knew and if it would help them." OK, what I'm thinking is as follows.... A) vpw set the stage for adultery, in great detail and many varieties B) It was against vpw's interests to expose adultery in twi or end it. He set it up to use it. C) It's remotely possible that a sick vpw might have wanted a petty revenge on those whom he claimed ignored him- and one such way was to paint them as "adulterers" and leave out how vpw himself had been an adulterer and taught others to fornicate. D) It is more likely that RD and VF did tell J S they needed some work on the subject of adultery. It is NOT likely that vpw told RD and VF this. E) It is much more likely that RD and VF had 'stretched the truth" concerning this. They saw something was wrong, and sent JS, a researcher, to do the research. They sincerely and honestly thought it was needed, and that, if they said vpw wanted it, it would be given a priority and be done fast and well. So, I'm leaning in that direction. We know that vpw, in the whole,

vpw picked up "athletes of the spirit" somewhere and went off on it in front of lcm. lcm, being a jock through and through, heard that and insisted on making a production about it, something 20 minutes or thereabouts, in 1980, IIRC. Once lcm was completely in charge, he began to work on the 2-hour dance number. All it took was him watching "Staying Alive", and adding that to what he'd said before. Then he really went on the warpath about AOS, no matter how he had to rewrite everything. It was something he could lay claim to as uniquely his, and is still connected with him to this day. vpw was at least overtly approving of the 20 minute production. When lcm saw that and extended it to 2 hours, vpw may have realized he'd set the stage for a much bigger problem than he'd imagined. Furthermore, this would be a production that would put all the attention on lcm and not on vpw. Naturally, that was going to ruffle vpw's feathers. So, now that it was too late to do anything about it, vpw may have FINALLY seen at least SOME of the problems he'd encouraged to grow there.

It's Wordpup that plays the piano. I can barely get sound from a tuba. But I forgot it was my turn. Oh, but I can use a song Wordpup would want me to use.... "You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy."

I don't believe every single poster we've ever had, or even every one we have now, has answered all the hard questions, but I think most of the GSC survivors have made it through. Did most of us get some kind of benefit while in twi? Most of us got SOMETHING, otherwise we would have left (everyone except the kids who were stuck in because their families were in.) Once again, I'm glad i got IN, and I'm glad I got OUT. Most of us understand now that twi was neither a safe nor healthy place or experience. We were hurt by people- not the least of it by being taught how to hurt other people (inside or outside twi) and being told that's what God wanted. So, whether we meant well or not, people got hurt, not the least of which were ourselves. Most of us will never have a chance to apologize to every single person we hurt, accidentally or otherwise. We will need to deal with the inconvenient truth that we did so regardless, and that they deserve an apology. It's healthy to reach a moment, IMHO, where one wants to apologize to God for one's failings in that regard. We meant to do well, and we hurt people and disobeyed anyway. One way or another, we all need to accept that's part of our past, especially if we want to stop hurting people in the present. (After all, one common response to having been hurt in the past is to lash out in the present and try to hurt others.) I don't think authors who write about the dangers of twi mean to suggest those who were in twi, including ourselves, weren't responsible at SOME level when we were in. The FIRST questions and topics are how twi was/is dangerous. Later topics include what we did as part of twi. One can't address that at all if one's still skipping around, saying that twi started out as a wonderful place that lcm came along and ruined. (Or worse, saying it's always been ok and is still ok.)

I attempted to watch episode 1. I was unsuccessful. I consider myself a good barometer as to whether something is really funny, mildly amusing, etc., as I will smirk, chuckle, and so on. I didn't react at all. That's usually the sign that something is painfully unfunny. The only thing of note for me was that we were promised that Part II would include "Hitler on Ice" and, apparently, we got it in episode 1. It wasn't funny, but we got it.

This was on MTV? "IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS." The Moody Blues' biggest commercial hit was in the 80s, "Sur La Mer." This was one of the 2 hit singles off of it. (The other was "I Know You're Out There Somewhere.")

It would, but the artists sound nothing alike, musically.

Nathan Fillon Suicide Squad (2021) Margot Robbie

If you asked Alice, she might tell you the correct name of the song was "WHITE RABBIT." But you knew the song, so we'll proceed with your clue.