Are RA perps 'Satanists', 'paedophiles' or something else?

by **veritas** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Road to Valhalla Lo (from the motion picture “13th Warrior”) Our Vinland I will Bleed for You Gone with the Breeze Aryan Man Awake The Snow Fell Victory Victory Day Weiss Weiss Weiss Sacrifice The Lamb near the Lane<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://prussianblue.net/lyrics.htm">prussianblue.net/lyrics.htm</a>

by **jenz** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:42 am

what the hell was that? and is there an emoticom for vomit btw?

by **israelirealities** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:54 am

SRA could also get you to become sexless, which I think is also in line with the population reduction. A lot of this Rescue animals movements are now engaged in mass neutering, disguised as caring for the overpopulation of pets. Some, make the easy extrapolation to humans. It is eugenics with euthanesia "logic" that is being espoused. Many of them indeed stop wanting to bring children, so as not to "overpopulate". Yikes. I have had some arguments here in SIael with animal rescue associations, when I adopted a dog, they actually force you in devious ways to neuter the dog. (the law cannot force it, here, cause weirdly enough it is against Halacha law - namely, the Jewish religious law. Maybe those ancients knew something...we dont'_) I read a new 'scientific' article the other day, suggesting that sexual procreation only serves a certain genetic function in evolution and can be "recreated" or bypassed by clever genetic engineering which will then make sex obsolete.( in their terms).

by **veritas** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:56 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Are RA perps 'Satanists', 'paedophiles' or something else?<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>A long-established network of organised crime had finally come to light, with its various connections to the world of politics. Michel Nihoul, a politician-cum-businessman and Dutroux’s accomplice, had opened a tiny window onto a secret world. This led the way to further revelations. You could say that, as Belgium’s very fabric seemed to disintegrate, a thread of white began to weave itself into the black thread of the past. The first thing you see when you go to Brussels is an ugly concrete gash with its central station to the north and its "Manhattan", a sea of tower blocks under construction for the past 30 years. What town planners have christened "Brusselisation". One man symbolises this planning nightmare: Paul Vanden Boeynants, otherwise known as VDB, former burgomaster of Brussels, defence minister and head of government, but also leader of Cepic (Centre politique des indépendants et cadres), a powerful right-wing faction in the Social-Christian Party (PSC). This is a hothouse for future executives, and its extreme right wing is carefully tended by VDB’s great friend, Baron Benoît de Bonvoisin (3). Cepic was rife with members of the fascist-leaning Youth Front (forerunner of the National Front), the clubs and publication of the highly racist Nouvelle Europe Magazine and the neo-Nazi Westland New Post.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://mondediplo.com/1997/10/belgium">mondediplo.com/1997/10/belgium</a>

by **veritas** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr># Said perps also are able to control what information goes out to the public by being "the" experts on mind-control, etc. They not only can make sure what is NOT said by all agreeing not to bring up those particular subjects, but they can also make the survivor community look psychotic, paranoid, etc. by pandering tainted information to militia/Patriot/anti-NWO/White Supremacist groups in books and personal appearances.By making us look looney or paranoid or conspiracy nuts since THOSE extremist groups believe us, no one else will take us seriously. It's perhaps the most effective tool to-date to keep us disbelieved. # A self-acknowledged perp once bragged to me that their disinformation is a deliberate combination of something like 95% truth, with 5% unrecognized lies slipped in. He said this is the most effective form of disinformation. This is why these experts appear to be very, very credible. They are, except for that 5% bullshit that most people won't realize they've swallowed. And how are we to know what is the truth and what is lies, since they are the experts and we don't know any better? This is why I refuse to read their materials anymore. It messes me up too much and discredits me when I then parrot what they've said and written. That is also part of the reason why they do this - to discredit anyone who quotes them. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.kathleen-sullivan.com/Perp%20Alert.htm">www.kathleen-sullivan.com...0Alert.htm</a>

by **Homeless Halo** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:21 pm

Biothanoi (sp?): what sort of sigils? Do you have pictures? Leaving sigils laying around is the primary mistake of low-level chaos magicians. A decent witch doctor could handle them, if you still have the sigil. only low level "chaos" type ceremonial magicians use sigils anyway. It gets more streamlined "across the abyss". Not to poke fingers into your wounds, but, do you have anything left from what they used to frighten you?

by **jenz** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:36 pm

I am still not sure what your selection of articles is intended to demonstrate. Could you comment please?

by **Homeless Halo** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:06 pm

Comments on comments. ------------ "To respond to HHs remarks on pornography, I just don't know if I agree that what people call harmless porn, (who decides?) should be more openly available and that that would stifle the truly nasty stuff. " ------------- Harmless porn is photographs of consensual sex between adults working on an agreed to contract. There is no slavery involved. Neither for the male, nor the female performers. ------------- it is a negation of the creating and nurturing facet of femininity, a reduction of these beings to the role of slave to the sensation seeking of others, usually adult men. isn't all pornography a bit like that? ------------- Isn't all sex a bit like that? Are you saying that women who choose to do porn aren't capable of making up their own minds as to what they'd like to do with their bodies? What about the men in porn? What about gay male porn made for women? I think you're laboring under a number of preconceptions about what pornography is. Slavery is forced. Pornography is negotiated contract. You don't HAVE to do anything, and you get paid for what you do choose to do. I think the notion of porn as being about male domination of women is ridiculous, unless that's the theme of the pornography in question. I've seen pornography that is quite the opposite. It depends on one's taste. Personally, my neural chemistry doesn't allow visual stimuli to activate my secondary responses, so I see it perhaps "differently" from many people, but I don't see it as inherently wrong or harmful. I blame the remnants of Puritan repressions for that. If anything, I think more ACTUAL sex would be good for society, "coupled" with less theoretical/imaginary sex as advertisement.

by **jenz** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:58 pm

don't know what to say in response to your comments because, I honestly, do not know if you are right or not. only that police who have arrested downloaders of sadistic paedophile porn report that these people frequently state that they started on the stuff no-one is too bothered about and then got drawn into looking for increasingly extreme images., and that a percentage of those who view the paedophile porn then pass to the acts. it could be argued that one cannot deduce from the behaviour of some people, how others will behave, they could be a subset of the human race, who behave differently. but this and other evidence or arguments about the effect of violent images cannot be simply ignored. in passing, I feel uncomfortable about arguments which are based on people choosing to do porn for a living , as I feel uncomfortable about arguments that people choose prostitution as a career. I focused on the situation of female victims, because sra is a very systematic negation of female existence. I did not mean to imply that male victims were of lesser account, or their trauma less. images of sexual acts are found in some human societies , at some periods in history, and greater repression or modesty in others. but our society has to decide what we want and why, not based on a knee-jerk reaction to 'Puritan repression". The media revolution makes a qualitative difference between what is possible now, and , to cite an example at random, Tantric sculpture.

by **veritas** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:04 pm

Victims and Bait. <img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/129/1310/320/DSCN0105.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **Homeless Halo** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:16 pm

I've been innundated in this sort of quagmire before, but I don't think the "slippery slope" argument against pornography has much merit, especially considering that the majority of pornography users (in this country a couple hundred million, alone) never engage in any illegal sexual activities. I think this sort of idea is the same sort of illogic that led us to believe that Marilyn Manson shot children in Colorado. As for male victims, outside of RA phenomena, the male victims of child abuse, are very prolific, especially in regards to the coverups perpetrated by holy mother church. In this context, it could easily be argued, and indeed has, that catholic puritanism and chastity are indirectly responsible for this abuse. I could argue that a lack of porn has led many priests to touch many little boys, a number, at present, much higher than that of RA victims. OF course, it is possible that these two intersect at various points. Knowing as I do, the attitudes of a variety of prostitutes on this subject, I'd be forced to categorically reject your assumption that they have no choice in the matter, and emphasize that the illegalization of prostitution has led them into far more dangerous places than they'd be if allowed to practice their trade openly. It is the fact that all of this happens underground at all that makes it difficult to distinguish the "good" users from the "bad" users. It has, and always will be America's favorite pasttime, whether or not we choose to admit as much will greatly determine the effect it has on our children. If you have studies to back up your claim, gladly show them. It will give me something to respond to, if you can back up your slippery slope argument. Otherwise your rhetoric will continue to remind me of Al Gore, and I will be forced to stop taking you as seriously as I have in the past. This is a threat. I think that the vast numbers of pornographers and patrons alone would tend to discredit such ideas. If anything, the lower of sexual mores in America is FAR LESS complete than in other civilized countries and the horny American is supposed to not think about sex, while being daily bombarded with soft core porn on television. In other words, I think it is exactly the continuation of Puritanism coupled with the "underground" nature of the industry that makes it so "secretive". If pornography and prostitution lead to a degredation of the "role of the feminine"(if such a thing exists), and to an increase in child abuse then: Why is it that "civilized" countries with a more open attitude to pornography and prostitution have lower per capita rates of child abuse? Why do they have lower divorce rates? Lower rates of spousal infidelity? Just a thought. I await your flaming response.

by **Project Willow** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:50 am

HH, If I can give one of the standard feminist arguments, given a more even playing field, many women would not make the "choice" of participation in the sex trade. I think it's partly economic, but it is mostly about self worth. Histories of sexual abuse among sex workers are extremely common, rates are higher than the average. This mitigates the choice issue certainly. I don't think we can even get close to a honest conception of real female sexuality in this patriarchal culture. I agree with your point about repression. More acceptance, less shame about human sexuality would go a long way towards sorting out these issues, as would a reduction of sexual abuse. There was a thread on another discussion board not long ago where it was supposed that those societies which exercise the most control over sexuality, exhibit the most shame response, probably have high levels of abuse going on behind closed doors. In other words, the cultural repession is a reflection of what goes on in private and supports it at the same time, in a circular fashion. It fits in with the view of perps as damaged people using control as an arbitor of social relations. In patriarchal culture, the male seeks to control female sexuality, because he feels powerless to negotiate his status both among male peers and potential mates without resorting to violence or other types of intimidation, including shame. Such has been the role of the church for thousands of years. Sometimes when I think about sexual abuse in our society, I wonder if it serves a similar purpose on a cultural level as does infibulation in others. On a personal note, I find the whole male/visual stimulous issue completely annoying, if not oppressive at times. Sometimes you guys are just a real pain!

by **Homeless Halo** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:31 am

I only intend to reply to this one point: "If I can give one of the standard feminist arguments, given a more even playing field, many women would not make the "choice" of participation in the sex trade." I think that, while this is possible, as an argument against pornography in general, its bullshit. Essentially you're saying that women because of their economic downtroddenness are unable to make such a decision freely. If this is true, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to make decisions if such a thing as "uneven playing fields" can so easily coerce them into doing something they would otherwise find repulsive. I've never seen this argument made about male participants, even those with a poor economic outlook. There are several good critiques of this argument, towards both pornography and prostitution. Allow me to elucidate these further. As was noted by one in particular: "Most people enter labor contracts--that is get a job--because they need money. But to radical feminists, this is economic coercion. If they reject porn contracts because the woman needs money and is influenced by culture, then they are logically constrained to reject many, if not most other labor contracts, as well." That is to say, they could have gotten a job at McDonald's like the other poor people in their neighborhood but CHOSE not to. I think the main idea here is that it should be acceptable for one to sell what one has the right to give to whom one chooses. Whether we're discussing pornography or prostitution. (porn is just prostitution with video cameras) I think the idea that "patriarchal society" can economically coerce women into prostitution is a fallacy that reinforces the controls that make life difficult for those who choose this lifestyle. I think "feminists" like yourself, are nothing of the sort, and if you look at what you're saying you'll realize that it is YOU who devalues the abilities of a female to make informed choices. And I think before you contine spouting such fallacies you should read some research from self-identifying pornographers/stars/prostitutes which seem to contradict your assumptions about, for example, their "self worth".

by **jenz** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:57 am

HH, you have got very irate. Some of my info comes direct, from people to whom I have spoken, some from things I have read. Before I dredge up references, which may take some time, (as I don't study this topic for a living, or entertainment, and so interiorise the substance of what I've read without reaching for the card files), I'd just like to aim a spanner at your statistics machine. A fairly cursory look at the ra problem would show you that no one can have any accurate idea how many victims there are. This is because non investigation or debunking of reported crimes is more or less standard. Even where there has been good evidence that ra has been reported and investigated, but perps taken to court on lesser charges which prosecutors find easier to make stick, those in official capacity have somehow managed to bury the information deep, and so lose its statistical significance. That happened in the La Fontaine study, which is still being dredged up to disprove the existence of the problem of ra. Also, ra is largely secret, hidden crime, silence enforced by horrendous punishment. Such a punishment has just been delivered to one whose case I have been slightly concerned with, despite our feeling reasonably sure we'd got her safe. Its a real issue, in the real world, which gets no statistical support. Similarly, trying to assess the prevalence of the largely hidden crime of child abuse (as distinct from ra - a somewhat artificial distinction I know) is fraught with problems. So when anyone makes sweeping statements about prevalence in different societies, in order to draw inferences of connections with the sexual mores of those societies, I first of all want to look where they are coming from. If you'd read my last post you would have seen that I acknowledge that those who have said they were drawn in via the 'slippery slope', may not be representative in their behaviour of all humans. But as we are talking about on the one hand the freedom of people to look at images, which they say have been produced without harming anyone, and on the other hand, a chasm of human suffering, I don't see why its out of bounds to consider that some of that looking might be helping to dig the chasm. I don't actually want repressive censorship, but I do want the right to think about all of the paraphernalia which may contribute actively or passively to the existence of ra. ps. threat?

by **Project Willow** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:26 pm

HH, Well, it appears this issue has touched a nerve. I have no desire to get into any kind of "flame" war, and will not let my speech devolve into such a state. I stand by my statements, we simply disagree. I will add that the left's analysis of the nature of our "all volunteer" military is analogous to the point I made about economics. The high wages one can acquire in the sex trade surely make it more appealing than would otherwise be the case, it isn't comparable to working at McDonalds. Just as young people in depressed neighborhoods can be tempted into the drug trade because in the short term they can make much more money than slaving away at a fast food restaurant. Is this denigrating these people's ability to make choices? No, it's simply acknowledging the pressures, and imbalance of power which influence choice making. My analysis is not intended to discount male victimization. One thing I have noted is that male victims of abuse have tremendous difficulty acknowledging that male privilage exists, as they find the power it promises illusive. That makes sense on an individual psychological level, but unfortunately it also feeds into the misogyny which is rampant in everyday exchanges. Although there's certainly been some progress, we haven't overcome misogyny in this society any more than we have overcome racism. I experience it all the time. I find it annoying and depressing at times, but I try to remain focused on the idea that men who feel the need to denigrate women are damaged and suffering themselves, and pay a greater price for their attitudes than I do.

Are RA perps 'Satanists', 'paedophiles' or something else?

songs

veritas

Re: got

question

...

sigils?

veritas

replies

harmless

Can't you see?

don't see it

The Choice Question

hmm

flaming homeless

Re: flaming homeless

Who is online