"Satanic Ritual Abuse" as FMSF meme

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

"Satanic Ritual Abuse" as FMSF meme

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:54 pm

Over in the Book Forum, I've got a thread going of excerpts from Michael Salter's remarkable and important book, Organized Sexual Abuse, which deftly navigates some very murky waters.

I wanted to share one particular slice, however, that belong in this subforum.

pg 13 - "The presumption evident amongst some authors writing on ritual abuse that a professed spiritual motivation for abusing children necessarily reflects the offenders actual motivation seems naïve at best, and at worst it risks colluding with the ways in which abusive groups obfuscate responsibility for their actions."

WR: I think that gets to the heart of why "Satanic" "Ritual" Abuse is dead language. (Well, that and 20+ years of FMSF fuckery.)

pg 64 - "The rhetorical importance of ‘satanic ritual abuse’ for the ‘false memory’ movement is illustrated by the fact that, of the 144 newsletters released by the FMSF between 1992 and 2011, 140 of them used the term. Scott (2001) argues that the deployment of the term ‘satanic ritual abuse’ was a deliberate strategy undertaken by ‘false memory’ activists and journalists sympathetic to the ‘false memory’ movement in an attempt to portray cases of ritualistic abuse in a salacious light. In doing so, they were able to shift the debate about sexual abuse allegations from the terrain of child welfare, reframing the issue in terms of the susceptibility of women and children to coercive influence.

The emphasis on satanic ritual abuse was a particularly important part of this strategy, characterising child protection workers and therapists as ‘antisatanists’ on a ‘witch hunt’. This was a rhetorical strategy that substantively broadened the field of people evincing scepticism over women and children’s testimony of organised abuse from the core of the ‘false memory’ movement to include a range of progressive and relatively liberal commentators."

pg 72 - "This chapter has argued that factor of enjoyment is crucial in explaining the success of the FMSF in advancing their agenda, and the degree of contempt that continues to characterise references to cases of organised abuse. In online as well as ‘old’ media, ‘satanic ritual abuse’ is invoked whenever a journalist or commentator seeks to rationalise their derision for the testimony of sexually victimised women and children or those professionals and agencies who would accept their testimony as true. Behind these assertions is a view that masculine sexuality is essentially harmless whilst it is claimed that the minds of women, children, feminists and ‘Others’ harbour socially destructive forces that can easily turn against men. It is by disbelieving the testimony of women and children that such forces are kept at bay and men are protected. The construct of ‘satanic ritual abuse’ is now an endlessly elastic one that can rationalise virtually any claim of male victimisation by ‘false allegations’ of sexual abuse. When Jerry Sandusky, former Pennsylvania State University assistant coach, was charged with 40 counts of child sexual abuse against eight complainants, his lawyer compared the allegations against him to the ‘moral panic’ over ‘satanic ritual abuse’ ( Sax 2011 )."


I have a parallel research thread going where I'm trying to build a timeline of press coverage on this issue. I have to admit I was surprised to find out FMSF was a 90's vintage creation, I had assumed it predated McMartin. Like so many of my assumptions, wrong.

I am wary of anything to do with "Satanic Ritual Abuse" for the reasons specified above, as well as for the fact a basic Lexis search indicates most of the conversation around that name originates from evangelical Christians with, shall we say, poor research habits. The rest is smug mockery from the commentating caste.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10313
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" as FMSF meme

Postby semper occultus » Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:11 pm

.....well I always thought Michelle Remembers" ( 1980 ) was the SRA ur-document & what's really pissing me off is that not that long ago I read something directly about that book citing some earlier uncredited "inspiration" or source publication for that book & I can't in any way remember what the book was or the site...the only possible candidate I can find is The Satan Seller ( 1973 ) by Michael Warnke although that isn't ringing any particular ( hells ) bells

also - at the risk of taking copy-pasta to extreme levels the following discussion is quite structured on this issue & also noteworthy as one of the contributors is an ex-RI poster baiothanatoi ( which has to be one of the most irritating handles of any poster ) althouhg they seemed to evidence considerable ( non-sceptical ) interest & involvement in this issue )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse/Archive_5

Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/Archive 5From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Satanic ritual abuse
Jump to: navigation, search This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →


Contents [hide]
1 Summing up SRA
2 Criminal Conviction
3 Compromise sought on SRA cases section
4 archiving?
5 History
6 Deleting "split"
7 Three recent edits
8 duplicate sentence deleted and suggested word change
9 Cultural commentators on SRAM
10 moving hatnote, recent edit in first line
11 Possible sources for Satanic ritual abuse#Support
12 restoring parts of article as of 24 hours ago, that were changed w/o discussion
13 old tags
14 format tag on Lanning EL
15 Undue weight and de Young
16 orphan reference
17 Emma Eckstein
18 possible multiple account use
19 Victor
20 misquoting of Noblitt
21 edits for undue weight and article style
22 Evidence section
23 Other quotes from Victor, circa 1991
24 Pubmed
25 Don't do it again, please
26 recent biased and POV edits
27 From a review of Victor's book in the Sociology of Religion
28 Kent - request quote
29 Hammond et al.
30 more biased and POV edits and misrepresentation of sources
31 Expand to include other types of ritual abuse?
32 Exaggeration and this article
33 Hard numbers
34 Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements
35 DID section replaced
36 Holding spot
37 Looking at edits
38 archive page?
39 duplicated content

Summing up SRAI want to sum this up. Satanic Ritual Abuse is a controversial topic because the testimonies of its victims are hard to believe. However, the sceptics here deny all cases of SRA, which to me is much more based on a belief than those who do acknowledge its existence. No one of the latter group says that all cases of SRA are true, but each case should be investigated without any set precedent.

When I read the definition of SRA, I also have to think of Christian Ritual Abuse or Islamic Ritual Abuse, something that cannot be denied and still goes on. So why should it suddenly be so farfetched when Christianity or the Islam is being replaced by Satanism? The following testimony to the FBI shows one case of SRA: http://www.hammondstar.com/articles/200 ... s/9453.txt

Another issue that keeps coming up is the ad hominem argument when statements of pedophiles or their supporters are used as sources in the denial of SRA. This is not a good argument because criminals do have an agenda to defend and punishment to avoid. If the statements of these groups are ignored, 99% of the sources against SRA here fall out.

The bogus freelance journalist John Earl has been presented by the sceptics as a strong card but the only work he ever published is in the pro-pedophile IPT Journal and his cooperation with the Eberles (known as the child pornographers).

About the Lanning Report, investigator Alex Constantine wrote:

Another "expert," a universally quoted debunker of ritual abuse, hails from the FBI. Agent Ken Lanning of Quantico has provided RA debunkers, namely pedophiles, propagandists and mind control operatives in academia and the press, with an illusory pillar of debate. Fatal flaws in Lanning's "research report," a denial that the cult abuse of children exists, were exposed as a hoax by a law enforcement insider: I have spoken to Ken Lanning, I know others who have spoken to him and we all take issue with Ken's *opinion* and how this report is being used. It should also be stated that I work within the System in some capacity and have some experience in investigations. I've also been involved on the metaphysical path for a long time. I'm not too excited about "witch hunts" because I'd be the first one put on the stake by a "hysterical," know nothing public. But neither am I too pleased by what I have been learning about the atrocities that are occurring, the reasons for it, and the artful skewing of perceptions.... Ken Lanning is an armchair analyst and he has *not* personally investigated many cases of RA. Law enforcement and others sometimes *consult* with him about cases and how to proceed. He is not aware of all RA cases. The FBI, Childrens Services, and law enforcement do not keep statistics on ritual crime. No one is keeping track, therefore no one can say with authority how prevalent RA is. The DAs are not bringing evidence of RA into cases unless they really have to because of Freedom of Religion issues and reports like Lanning's. He has a confusing, difficult time defining RA. He has told others that he prefers to categorize RA under Sex Rings or Gang Violence. Someone like him cannot deal with or understand metaphysical intent. Few people can. Nor can he officially acknowledge RA because of various Governmental entities which have been implicated. The FBI and has been implicated in at least *botching* some RA case investigations and in some instances *covering up* the evidence. The CIA has been implicated in far worse fashion.... There are many cases of ritual murder and brainwashing. Lanning professes not to know of any. There is more to this issue than is apparent on the surface. I have understood some of what is going on due to my personal contact with victims, my personal experience with how cover ups occur, and the sheer time I have put in investigating this phenomenon. There are mechanisms being put in place to make the RA claims "incredible." Of course, not everything anyone says is true, but there are too many people around the world who are victims of this horror and if there are any responsible people here, it would behoove you to pay attention. Immortale (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You've not said anything here to detract from Lanning's reliability as a source. You haven't even said who Constantine is or where this quote came from. In this article we have to stick to high quality mainly academic sources. If there are any sources used here that you do not think are reliable, please say so and why. thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Alex Constantine is the esteemed author of Virtual Government: CIA Mind Control Operations in America, Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A., and The Covert War Against Rock : What You Don't Know About the Deaths of Jim Morrison, Tupac Shakur, Michael Hutchence, Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Phil Ochs, Bob Marley, Peter Tosh, John Lennon, and The Notorious B.I.G. His blog makes for hours of entertainment: you can learn about "THE WARREN BUFFETT 9/11 CONNECTIONS" and "the CIA-Mafia-Internet-Omaha-MB Nexus." <eleland/talkedits> 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeap! Alex Constantine seems to be a conspiracy buff. In Google book search I found this abstract of Virtual Government: CIA Mind Control Operations in America: "a compelling book for readers interested in conspiracy theory", and the book has a chapter: "How the ClA uses cults to lay the groundwork for trauma-based programming, such as in the shocking McMartin preschool case".[1] Also, in book The Covert War Against Rock Constantine covers the cases of the above mentioned rock stars. "This long-overdue report offers disturbing evidence that there may be more behind these deaths than accident, psychosis, and indulgence."[2]
Not exactly a RS... :) Cesar Tort 07:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Itsmejudith wrote: In this article we have to stick to high quality mainly academic sources. That's your own private spin to it. Wikipedia wants a Neutral Point of View, which means that the article needs to be balanced. Having only academic sources would be just one side of the coin.
I've had my share with skeptics on various topics and one thing seem constant in their belief: they always claim that the majority of the scientists/ experts is right, even when strong opposing evidence is presented by an 'outsider'. Glad to see that you guys weren't around during Galileo Galilei's time.
If anyone would read more than random abstracts, you'll see that Alex Constantine is an excellent researcher and doesn't call himself a 'conspiracy theorist'. His books have received very positive reviews on amazon.com and the facts he lays out can be verified by independent sources. One review is by skeptic Jonathan Schaper on Constantine's book Psychic Dictatorship in the USA, who gave it 5 stars out of five and was agreed with by 65 people out of 70, and I'm quoting his comments here:
I do not agree with everything is this book. For example, while I do agree that False Memory Syndrome has been abused in order to cover up real crimes, false memories have also been used to convict innocent people. I have a degree in psychology and the main reason I decided not to go into the profession is because of my disgust with much of it, including its many manufactured "diseases". However, there is still much that is valid with the profession and I have witnessed people being given indisputably false memories under experimental conditions. But this, of course, does not mean every memory is false (in fact, this supports his overall thesis). One has to be careful in criticizing anything with too broad a brush stroke.
That being said, this is a very thoroughly researched book on the history of mind control experiments, especially in the U.S., with references to, e.g., articles written by Nobel Prize recipients. This book blows the lid off of violations of human rights committed by the U.S. government and others, adding to the damage done by the CIA's already damning public admissions about their MK-Ultra program (and only about 5% of the MK-Ultra files avoided destruction in an attempted coverup before it was discovered by the public!). Even if you reject half of the data and conclusions in this book, what is left is not only extremely informative but terrifying.
It is clear from Alex Constantine's writing that he is not a sensationalist, but is genuinely outraged at the injustices committed by the government and wishes to expose them. While this quest may, in my opinion, at times blind him when he is assessing his data, much of it is indisputable and I consider him to be a courageous advocate for the freedom and dignity of human beings and not a charlatan or a phony like many other authors.
Alex Constantine has indeed managed to change the opinion of hardcore skeptics in SRA. Point out false facts in his work, instead of using the ad hominem argument. And here's an article to start with: http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.c ... t-one.html
Immortale (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Immortale, you seem to have a mistaken idea about how Wikipedia works. We go by reliable sources, not our own original research. And Constantine's books are not reliable sources because they are published by a fringe press devoted to conspiracy theories (Feral House). Our policy on verifiability specifically says that "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Fringe publishers are considered questionable sources: "publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." Self-published sources, like the blog post linked to above, are also deprecated except in a few very narrow areas. The use of Wikipedia for the purpose of pushing fringe theories is strongly discouraged. Furthermore, arguing your opinion about the merits of Constantine's ideas is beside the point completely; if they haven't been accepted in the mainstream, then they will not be the basis of this article. Period. *** Crotalus *** 09:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's reliable sources is a guideline, not a policy. That people who represent one side of the article (the skeptical ones) are pushing their own view as a policy for the WHOLE article is against Wikipedia's rules. A neutral article is one with all important sides present. But reading the verifiability where it says: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, is quite a statement. This means that it's okay to publish lies, as long as it is mentioned in the 'mainstream papers' and 'respected publishing houses'. If Wikipedia sticks to this, then it will bury itself eventually.
And with 'respected publishing houses', I assume you mean 'wealthy publishing houses' because Feral Press is respected, and is not entirely devoted to conspiracy theories as you misleadingly mentioned. (from their Wikipedia page: 'Subjects of Feral House books cover a wide area').
If reliable sources would be such a strict requirement in this article, then it needs a good re-write. Anything that is tied to the FMS is pseudoscience. One article in a peer-reviewed journal that levels the research done by Loftus can be found here:
http://users.owt.com/crook/memory/
One problem with finding satanic ritual abuse is the fact that lawyers prefer keeping Satan out of the crime (Satan doesn't exist after all) and stick to the details of these horrific crimes. No lawyer wants to bring up the jinxed label of SRA because it would instantly make him or her unreliable. When crimes of ritualistic abuse are examined for satanic elements, much evidence surfaces. Two impressive lists can be found here (there’s much more to be found there):
http://members.aol.com/SMARTNEWS/Sample-Issue-43.htm
http://members.aol.com/smartnews/Sample-Issue-50.htm
And a recent article of the Notorious Beast of Jersey, the predatory pedophile Edward Paisnel, who assaulted children at Jersey during the 1960s and 1970s, did use satanic methods. There even was forensic evidence. And it will be interesting what the current findings at the Jersey children's home will reveal. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/ ... on.ukcrime
There are victims of these horrific crimes who have to read at Wikipedia that a bunch of academics have decided it's all based on fantasy. And when people like Alex Constantine put a tremendous effort in researching these atrocities, exposing this grave injustice, some people still look the other way. Colin Ross regards himself a conspiracy theorist but is not being judged as such here. Alex Constantine never calls himself a conspiracy theorist.
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/centra ... mindr.html
Regarding the global satanic conspiracy (which I don’t believe), why assuming there’s a global conspiracy of therapists, clinicians and social workers, that implant false memories in patients?
Cesar Tort claims that there are no criminologists supporting the SRA claim. But there are, for example at http://critcrim.org (The American Society of Criminology (ASC) Division on Critical Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) Section on Critical Criminology)
I am skeptical of all crime counting, but it makes theoretical sense to me (in that power corrupts) that persons of wealth and high power or socio-political standing--including those wearing robes and badges--are as likely to rape and at extremes serially murder their children as are poor folks in our hills and hollers and ghettoes. I believe adults rape, murder and otherwise violate children more than children violate anyone. But "empirical evidence" is what counts in my social science and legal communities, and you cannot experience what you will not hear. We are limited by the written data sets and analyses we apply. Jeanette and other survivors are more likely to be hospitalized, re-shocked, medicated and terrified into silence than listened to. Certainly we will read more about them than we learn from them in their own terms and words. I recently had a respected and rather radical colleague tell me that she guessed that we just disagreed on whether this satanic ritual stuff happens any more than among social outcasts on extreme occasion. She has met someone who reports having been falsely accused, but has not, I do not think, listened to a self-proclaimed victim's own testimony. She has on the other hand spent ample time listening to prisoners, and would readily accept that prisoners are more violated than violent. Validating testimony from children and of critical memories of childhood is the ultimate challenge to our democratic values, to our empathy for others' grievances. (From: A CRIMINOLOGIST'S QUEST FOR PEACE by Hal Pepinsky, Chapter 5 TRANSCENDING LITERATYRANNY http://critcrim.org/critpapers/pepinsky-book5.htm )
Immortale (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You could just as easily have stopped after the first paragraph. Based on that statement, you fundamentally disagree with our policy on verifiability. You can try to have that policy changed if you wish, but it is one of our oldest and most important policies and your chances of modifying it are not good. The bottom line is that your goal here (to prove a specific set of beliefs about SRA and to promote Alex Constantine) is at cross-purposes with the goal of Wikipedia, which is to write a high-quality, free-content, neutral encyclopedia. You can adapt yourself to Wikipedia's goals, or you can contribute your content to another project where it is more appropriate. *** Crotalus *** 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I merely observe that Wikipedia's own policy states that it's allowed to publish lies as long as they are published in the mainstream press. If I agree with that or not, isn't the issue here as I'm mentioning in the rest of my post, sources of peer-reviewed, academic and respected journals, just like the skeptics want it, but apparently that isn't good enough because now - ad hominem - something is wrong with me. I don't promote Alex Constantine, but defend his work as being high quality research. If you catch a lie in his work, I'll be happy to hear it. Immortale (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, I looked through the subset of your references that are actually reliable by our standards. The "Lost in the Mall" paper critical of Loftus is certainly reliable, and interesting, but it does not prove anything. It shows that two researchers disagree with one of the most widely cited findings relating to false memories. So? The "memory wars" of the nineties were fierce, and these kinds of accusations went back and forth a lot. If this paper had really, in the view of most scientists, "levelled" Loftus's research, and showed it to be "pseudoscience" and "a breach of professional ethics," she would not have continued to be a widely respected academic, and her research would not have continued to be widely cited and influential. She would not have been elected to the NAS, showered with honorary doctorates, etc etc etc. Again, it's not our role to pore over a scientific controversy and decide, as amateur Wikipedians, where the truth lies. We only report what the scientists eventually decided.
The next article is about a lone, insane, vicious paedophile rapist, who happened to incorporate "satanic" and BDSM elements into his crimes. Again - so what? As has been repeatedly stated on this talk page, nobody doubts that occasional lone nuts, or even small groups of nuts, have abused children in "Satanic" fashion. The point is that they're not part of a conspiracy. They're not the tip of the iceberg, they're the larger part of it.
And the Pepinsky article is full of statements of personal conviction - but also full of self-conscious admissions that no evidence exists. He remarks repeatedly about how skeptical his colleagues are. Again - so what? So one criminologist personally believes that an unspecified number of people have been Satanically abused, and that "it makes theoretical sense," to him, that persons in wealth and power are just as likely to rape as other people, but he doesn't have any evidence, he acknowledges this, and none of his colleagues seem to agree with him. Worth mentioning, maybe, but It's not very weighty, and doesn't really effect how we should summarize the evidence overall. <eleland/talkedits> 16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You talk about 'most scientists' as if it's one controlled organization in the world. There's no scientific consensus on False Memories. And then we have to give both sides equal space in the article. According my research, most scientists related to the field and psychologists, clinicians and therapists reject the False Memory Syndrome. Not that they reject false memories, but they reject the scientific basis on which false memories are presented in abused children. Loftus never severely traumatized children and then examined them years later. Thank god for that. FMSF denies the existence of repressed memory. The popularity in the mass media of FMS was at its height during the 1990s, but many turned away after its exposure of the fraud and propaganda methods of the FMSF. Jennifer Freyd, daughter of FMFS founder Pamela Freyd, has made public allegations of their true agenda. She also leveled Loftus research on False Memories, is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon, and received just about as many awards and honors as Loftus. Lots of scientific, peer-reviewed, academic research debunking FMS has appeared over the last years. For example Jim Hopper, Ph.D. has published articles that exposed research faults by Loftus.
Again, there's no world-wide conspiracy of therapists, clinicians and psychologists implanting false memories in patients. Actually, most of the clients had already disturbing memories of abuse prior to the visit of these people. See this academic, peer-reviewed research: Doubts about False Memory SyndromeImmortale (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
For the love of God people, stop pissing around the pot. If you have a source that points to FMS being implicated in SRA, put it in. If you have a source that disputes FMS causing SRA allegations, put it in. If your sources on FMS never mention SRA, don't put it in as that's original research. And please shorten your posts. The talk page will never prove the existence of SRA so stop dumping thousands of words onto the page. We've talked in circles enough. WLU (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That's quite an 'argument' you found here. If all critique is being talked away like this, we soon can call Skepticism a pseudoscience. While I posted about 2300 words on this page, WLU managed to top that with approximately 3850 words (and I'm not counting the archived pages).Immortale (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
<undent>The page is based on reliable sources, not arguments. The page attracts a large number of posters with no familiarity with wikipedia or its policies, and they try to pov-push with large volumes of pointless rhetoric, which we all have to read and waste our time on. Hence, if you don't have a source to discuss, don't post. If you have a source, add it to the page, and don't post. If it is contested, then discuss. But don't waste time with lengthy arguments and pointless, repetitious discussion. The page is past the point where basic issues need to be addressed, we all know the sources need to be reviewed, clarified, expanded, removed, added or otherwise worked with. I've been editing this page for about six monhts now, and wikipedia in general for nearly a year and a half. I base my discussions and contributions on policies and guidelines. Yet another user with minimal experience informing us of the truth leads me to remain unconvinced. And don't bother commenting on me, the talk page is for discussing improvements to Satanic ritual abuse, not criticizing other editors. If your comments are unrelated to Satanic ritual abuse, please do not post them. I'm sick of fruitless discussion.

For the record, that's not an argument, that's a prompt to do what we're supposed to do. Build an encyclopedia. wikipedia is not a forum for discussion, so just expand the page if you've got a relevant source. WLU (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Criminal ConvictionI thought case info was supposed be in the "list of cases" not on this main summary page- which is why I still feel zero need to source the accurate text I have added. I have read all those case pages a million times and I know that, for better or worse, some of those ended in state action. Yet this main summary page, where many users will get their only info on the subject. HAS NOTHING on the true fact (as everyone admits) that some of these cases ended with conviction et al (again no matter how relatively "satanic" each case was or was not). In fact the page uses language which, though technically correct and a reasonably good summary of the facts, attempts to connect the small sample of debunked "moral hysteria" cases with the larger groups of all satanically-connected child-abuse case, SOME OF WHICH ENDED IN CRIMINAL CONVICTION OR LOSS OF PARENTAL RIGHTS. Again look at my tiny edits- I am actually trying to make things more clear and making a necessary change for the continued legitimacy of the page. If you continue to allow it to become a POV haven I don't think anyone will take it seriously. Just one little phrase is all I ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It would help your point if you try to write in a more coherent way. English is not my native language but I can easily discern between a post making a clear point and a more nebulous one. And please sign your posts. —Cesar Tort 08:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)



well from reading the below posts I guess understanding things isn't your strong suit. good thing for you the ro-bot signs my posts lol. also I don't believe my paragraph was nebulous and incomprehensible. I think your overarching concern to check and make sure is someone else blocked from posting on talk pages and that you were dead wrong on the issue, shows your true motivations on this page. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Compromise sought on SRA cases sectionMy apologies in advance for the length of this post. I have made it as short as possible while attempting to cover all of the salient points. I will attempt to delineate both sides of the argument of the debate and then suggest a possible compromise based on the all of the positions.

The argument to entirely eliminate the section was based on the concept of undue weight. When the definition of SRA is seen as a global conspiracy theory, then the cases section was seen as synthesizing the definition of SRA as original research. Other problems with the cases section included the fact that not all of the cases had convictions and that some of the cases only mentioned SRA and did not try people for this. Keeping the section was seen as going against the concept of NPOV and promoting a fringe theory (the global conspiracy theory). Another reason to split off the section could be due to page length.

The argument to keep the section was based on the definition of SRA as individual cases of ritual abuse in Satanic settings. Another argument could be given that since there is no one definition of SRA in the literature all RS examples of SRA should be contained on the page, according to their weight. Splitting off the page would be seen as a POV fork. The objection to not including some of the cases due to a lack of a conviction or only a mention of SRA in the case could be seen as the editor using their own bias to decide what data to include and not to include on the page.

Several compromises had been suggested. One was to restore one or two paragraphs to the page. Another was to restore a summarized version of the page. The one currently on the page includes one line with an embedded link.

It appears that the fairest compromise to all of these would be one in the middle. This one would acknowledge all of the above policy points of the different sides of the debate.

As the page stood a day ago, the section was :

SRA in the courts

Satanic ritual abuse has featured with greater and lesser prominence in some allegations of child abuse. Some of the trials attracted significant media attention, and they were often characterised by acquittals, hung juries, and successful appeals.

My suggested edit would be :

Satanic ritual abuse has featured with greater and lesser prominence in some ritual abuse allegations of child abuse.

Adding: Certain countries have had isolated events in which abuse or murder took place with satanic ritual elements, including the United States. "First charged in devil worshiping rituals convicted". The Associated Press. 2007-12-4. Retrieved 5 December 2007. Check date values in: |date= (help) and Brazil. Todd Lewan, Satanic Cult Killings Spread Fear in Southern Brazil, The Associated Press, 26 October 1992 Gamini, Gabriella, "Seer for trial in voodoo murders", The Times, 9 September 2003 Other cases and allegations have been found in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Some of the trials attracted significant media attention, and they were often characterised by acquittals, hung juries, and successful appeals.

This edit would clarify the embedded link more clearly. It would also acknowledge the existence of the page in only three sentences. The edit does include a couple of references for the reader to look at a couple of the cases and points the reader to further cases. I believe it puts appropriate weight on the cases pages from all of the above wikipolicy viewpoints.

(BTW, the newer edit of “Elements of Satanist ritual have featured in some allegations of child abuse” is interesting and may eliminate the problem of the different definitions of SRA.)

Suggestions are more than welcome. There are a variety of viewpoints on this issue, and I hope that by looking at all of them, consensus as to the best edit can be gained. abuse t (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Weren't you supposed to be on WP:RESTRICT regarding these articles? —Cesar Tort 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Not the talk pages, the decision was "For the first 2 weeks, you would be banned from editing any articles in this area of interest, but not banned from the talk pages of those articles." This was later changed to ten days. abuse t (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
ok, but I don't understand why we cannot see your name in the list of cases of restricted users in WP:RESTRICT. —Cesar Tort 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this either. Since I agreed to having my "name and restrictions listed in a visible way." I will try to write the admin who mediated this restriction when he returns from vacation. abuse t (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You can ask it also to another admin. —Cesar Tort 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Cesar, it'll be fine, please reduce the heat. User Abuse t acknowledges the restrictions, and we all know about them. The public posting isn't a big deal, that's just for a situation where someone might need to refer to the deal in case of trouble. If that happens you can always point to the agreement on his/her talk page. S/he's not going to try and get away with something and get blocked again, so let's all relax about it and try to collaborate positively, OK? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
archiving?The page is already 142 kilobytes long and I agree with User:WLU that we have been discussing in circles. If from now on editors (including me) refrain from posting long or irrelevant posts to the improvement of the page, wouldn't it be tempting to archive the whole thing? —Cesar Tort 23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If other editors agree, this is fine with me also. I do request that the section above stay in the page for now. abuse t (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I did keep the above section as requested. From now on please try to write shorter posts like some posters in this talk page do. —Cesar Tort 01:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Cesar, thanks for keeping the section. I will try harder to do this. abuse t (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
HistoryMade some small changes to the history section - basically shifting it around so that it reads more chronologically.

I've also reduced the number of references regarding Michelle Remembers. We don't really need five, and four of them were dubious e.g. a random website, an "Officer of Avalon", a "paranormal" magazine and Michael Aquino, who was formally titled under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in relation to case of ritual child sexual abuse at the Presidio day-care centre (see United States District Court For the Eastern District of Virginia - Alexandria division – Michael A. Aquino – plaintiff, civil action v. no 90-1547-a the honorable Michael P. W. Stone – Secretary of the Army, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., defendant).

I don't think that the reference to Michelle Remembers adds anything to the article. I presume it is there to infer that every allegation of SRA that came after 1980 is directly attributable to a single book - the standard False Memory Syndrome position on ritual abuse. I've left it in because I can't be bothered dealing with the inevitable onslaught of accusations of NPOV that would come if I deleted it. If other editors could review the reference and consider whether it adds anything to the article, that would be great.

--Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Both David Frankfurter and Brant Wenegrat have discussed Michelle Remembers as a catalyst for SRA accusations. This was in peer-reviewed articles and books published by university presses. I've added one such reference to the article. *** Crotalus *** 05:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, Aquino's argument that Michelle Remembers "caused" all allegations of SRA predates those of Frankfurter and Wenegrat.
I'm aware that a number of people since Aquino have argued that, because Michelle Remembers was published prior to the first criminal prosecutions involving ritual allegations, therefore Michelle Remembers is the cause of those criminal prosecutions. It's a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Obviously, it's an extraordinary claim - a single book "causes" children to disclose ritual abuse, adults to disclose ritual abuse, multiple criminal prosecutions in countries in which Michelle Remembers was not published - and it is a claim that is disputed by a number of sources.
But don't worry, Crot. I'm familiar with the old SRA pissing contest. I'll dig up some sources, so that you can invent reasons to contest them. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Your statements are irrelevant. It's not our job to accuse Frankfurter and Wenegrat of logical fallacies, or to speculate where they might have gotten their ideas from. That is a classic example of original research. It is not our job to sit as a "court of appeals," second-guessing academic peer-review boards based on our own subjective criteria. If you can provide evidence that Frankfurter and Wenegrat, or their writings referenced here, have specifically been discredited within the academic community, or if you can provide some reason to believe that the journal or publisher in question is not generally considered reliable, then the material can be removed. If another reliable source has specifically said that Michelle Remembers is not responsible for SRA accusations, then you can insert that citation as a counterpoint. But I'm not aware of any such sources that say this. *** Crotalus *** 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be "original research" if I made those statements in the article. As it stands, they were on the talk page. Chill out.
I've inserted a counter-point. I think the inclusion of Michelle Remembers here is not useful, since it's now reduced to the claim/counter-claim (soon to be followed, presumably, by a counter-counter-claim) structure that has paralysed this article in the past. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
IMO, it is good to see reliable sources added to the section. I question the accuracy of this article :
Denna Allen and Janet Midwinter. "Michelle Remembers: The Debunking of a Myth", The Mail on Sunday, September 30 1990.
http://www.xeper.org/pub/lib/xp_lib_wh_ ... fAMyth.htm
© 2002 Temple of Set, Inc.
It is on a Temple of Set page. Is there any way the original article could be found? abuse t (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not required that articles be available online at all. Here, the actual source is The Mail on Sunday, and the link to the Temple of Set website is simply for convenience. Obviously, if there was an official website with archives, then it would be preferred to link to that instead, but this is better than nothing. But we aren't citing the Temple of Set as a source. There is no reason, as far as I know, to believe that the article was not published in the source attributed, or that the text linked does not accurately reflect the content. *** Crotalus *** 05:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Crotalus, you have consistently challenged the veracity of any source that is not published by the highest tier of the university presses. Now you feel that it is RS to link to the website of a cult established by a man who was processed out of the army after CID substantiated his involvement in sexual offences against children?
This is a clear double standard on your behalf. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
See below. The credibility of Michael Aquino and the Temple of Set is irrelevant, as we're not citing them. We are citing the Mail on Sunday. Please see the numerous Scientology pages for precedent; we routinely cite articles that were originally published in mainstream media, but are only available online on "cult-buster"-type websites. In these cases, the links are merely for convenience, and play no part in determining the reliability of the source. Only the original publisher matters for that. *** Crotalus *** 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
For David Frankfurter, the SRA panic repeated many of the ancient features of conspiracy theory panics.[16]
And now Cesar chimes in to include the counter-counter-claim that I predicted above, written in a typically POV way. Cesar, Frankfurter is already referenced twice in this article, including a lengthy quote (one of the only quotes in this article). Your change adds no new information to this article, and it is clearly POV in referring to an "SRA panic". I've undone it. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the copy of the Daily Mail article on the Temple of Set page, wp:rs states:
"When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious." and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed....Reliable sources - Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations." The Temple of Set has not been shown to be a reliable source and since the material is obviously contentious, at least an inline citation should be used stating that it is from the Daily Mail on a Temple of Set page.
Let me repeat it in case you didn't hear me the first time: we are not citing the Temple of Set. We are citing the Mail on Sunday. If you want to remove the Temple of Set link entirely, go ahead. It's just for convenience. Do you have any reason — any at all — to believe that the material does not accurately reflect what the Mail on Sunday published? It should be easy to check if you have access to an article database.
If you want to remove all non-peer-reviewed sources, and thus remove the Mail on Sunday as well, that's fine too. All it means is that we'll have different sources saying the same thing that everyone knows is true (Michelle Remembers is discredited crap), but if it makes you feel better, fine. *** Crotalus *** 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The term "SRA panic" is obviously POV and contains bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Npov
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources....One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." The term "panic" IMO should be replaced by a more neutral term. abuse t (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"The term "SRA panic" is obviously POV and contains bias."
In fact, it's almost a quote. Rubin rightly restored it. Remember keeping short and tight posts. All of us have read those policies, AT :) —Cesar Tort 04:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The para in question refers specifically to Michelle Remembers. Your addition of a third reference to Frankfurter in the article does not relate to Michelle Remembers - it's an attempt to "trounce" the implications of the previous quote with your own POV, and it is phrased as such.
I'd really like to see the development of a more cooperative and AGF editing style here on this page. Change undone. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The preceding reference, Kent, doesn't refer to Michelle Remembers. Change restored. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be better if there was more cooperation and talk before edits and counter edits were made. I haven't seen any reliable sources show that MR is "discredited crap." I've only seen opinion pieces like the Mail and wiccan and satanist sources discuss it. If all agree, I will follow Crotalus' suggestion when I am able to and remove the convenience link to the Temple of Set url. I agree with AR on the edit history page. He states "Restored missing references from previous version. (I think they had been removed for being unreliable, though.)" In the section below he also discusses this. This is in reference to this quote "and its existence is challenged in some quarters." These two references are skepdic.com and Fortean Times. There have been serious criticisms of skepdic.com on wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... dictionary
"It's a self-published website of one person's opinions, that he calls common sense in his "about" page." And Fortean Times is a magazine about paranormal phenomena in Britain. Neither are RS. abuse t (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that Michelle Remembers has not been demonstrated to be "complete crap". It is in breach of Wiki guidelines on undue weight to characterise a single critique from a tabloid newspaper as a "general consensus", meanwhile, neither the Fortean Times nor the Skeptics Dictionary is RS.
My impression is that editors here are mixing up Smith and Pazder with Lauren Stratford.--Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There really are no WP:RS that Michelle Remembers is not "complete crap". I suppose we really shouldn't say it's "complete crap", but we also shouldn't say there are any reports of accuracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
ISTR we had a source saying it was best regarded as fiction? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The term Satanic Panic is obviously a specific point of view, although it is hardly an isolated one. I would refer people to a considerable number of back issues of Private Eye which have dealt with what the Eye refers to as the Satanic Panic. Of course any statement on this topic has to take a certain point of view, but the using the term SRA as a panic is not an isolated incident. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The problems of the use of the word "panic" are numerous. "Panic is a sudden fear which dominates or replaces thinking and often affects groups of people or animals." (wikidef) I have not seen it proven that any of the proponents of the theory that SRA exists (including victims) have been directly shown to be panicking or influenced by any past events or allegations.

The "Private Eye" is not a RS. wikidef: Private Eye is a British satirical magazine-newspaper, edited by Ian Hislop and published every two weeks....though it also receives much criticism and ire, both for its style and for its willingness to print defamatory and controversial stories. This is reflected in its large volume of libel lawsuits, for which it has also become famous." It has been criticized on this topic for its factual errors by serious researchers like Valerie Sinason. The Private Eye even criticizes the theory of dissociation, which would make it a promoter of extreme minorities views. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a debate about SRA I'm not going to comment on dissociation, other than to say that most of Private Eye's comments on such issues are with regard to court cases, usually with regards to evidence, reliable or otherwise. Of course Private Eye is often satirical in tone. However, what is now the "In the Back" section can be best described as an investigative journalism. However, my main point was to show that refering to a "panic" is not an isolated reference. I wouldn't have thought that an "extreme minority" view would be a magazine with a circulation of 700,000 people every fortnight. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say that Private Eye is RS as it undergoes fact checking but may be biased and can therefore be used to illustrate one side in the dispute, so long as it is balanced. If there is doubt about this we could take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.Itsmejudith (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
At their site, I was unable to find any evidence of fact checking or comments on this issue being backed by court cases. I also find it problematic that it could be considered a RS, while a paper by Noblitt would not. IMO, it is not a high quality news source and its scholarship on this issue is in doubt. Also, the question of its "large volume of libel lawsuits" would make me question the veracity of some of its information. Maybe it would be best to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard to see what the wiki-community knows about this source, good and bad. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That would probably be the best idea. One final suggestion before that though: Looking through previous disagreements regarding whether Private Eye is RS, most of the solutions have been not to use Private Eye as RS with regards to biographical articles, but to use it as RS for the less personal issues, particually with regards the investigative sections, such as In the Back. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleting "split"I'm taking the "split" tag off the front page. We discussed it at length. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with your edits, as AT pointed out in your talk page. I don't know how to fix these broken links in footnotes #21 and 22:
Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named skepdic
Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FT
—Cesar Tort 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Found, although the links (and the statement they support) should probably be removed for being unreliable.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Three recent editsI have made three edits discussed on this talk page. 1) Cases - this was a compromise as discussed above and basically closed. It was introduced 8 days ago. I added a new phrase to the beginning of the edit added by itsmejudith. 2) A deletion suggested by AR and agreed to by me to remove a short phrase and a non RS ref. 3) Deleting a courtesy link from the Daily Mail ref, suggested by Crot and agreed to by me. ResearchEditor (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC) (formerly AT)

duplicate sentence deleted and suggested word changeI have deleted a duplicate sentence in the article.

I propose a one word change in the page lead. It presently reads: "Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) refers to the purported sexual abuse or physical abuse of children or non-consenting adults in the context of alleged "Satanic rituals." Allegations of SRA remain controversial and have featured prominently in disputes over child abuse, memory and the law in the United States in recent decades."

I propose changing "purported" to "reported."

definitions from answers.com

purported - commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds

reported - Made known or told about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Let_t ... themselves "We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately" In other words, "purported" suggests to the reader that all cases are "on inconclusive grounds." IMO, it is preferable to let the facts speak for themselves in the article and use the more neutral term "reported." ResearchEditor (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made the above change as per the discussion above. ResearchEditor (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Cultural commentators on SRAMWhy has there been no acknowledgement of input from the UK's Subcultural Alternatives Freedom Foundation (SAFF), based in Leeds - in its critique of the phenomena of the Satanic Ritual Abuse Myth? Can someone correct this?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.7.213 (talk • contribs)

It's critique is no different to those presented here from other sources. Meanwhile, the general tone and format of the SAFF website is that of an attack site, and we are trying to keep sources here as credible as


ok bollocks I can't paste it all anyway...contd at site ...
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" as FMSF meme

Postby Project Willow » Wed Apr 02, 2014 3:03 am

Ross Cheit is publishing a new book on the infamous day care cases...

http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20140323-in-new-book-brown-university-professor-aims-to-discredit-witch-hunt-narrative-of-child-sexual-abuse-cases.ece?fb_action_ids=641665285902632&fb_action_types=og.comments

In new book, Brown University professor aims to discredit ‘witch-hunt narrative’ of child sexual-abuse cases
March 23, 2014 01:00 AM

BY KATE BRAMSON
Journal Staff Writer
kbramson@providencejournal.com
PROVIDENCE — For decades, a view has persisted that a series of child sexual-abuse cases connected with child-care centers during the 1980s were witch hunts, fueled by social hysteria, that ended in wrongful convictions of many innocent people.
A new book by Brown University professor Ross E. Cheit, “The Witch-Hunt Narrative: Politics, Psychology, and the Sexual Abuse of Children,” explores the cases at the heart of that belief.
After 15 years of research into the history of child sexual-abuse cases, the political science and public policy professor seeks to discredit the “witch-hunt narrative.”
In an interview with The Providence Journal, Cheit said that those who believe this theory ignore even credible charges of child abuse and dismiss medical evidence that children were abused.
“I want to provoke discussion,” he said.
Much of the reason the witch-hunt narrative has prevailed, according to Cheit, is that it’s easier for people to believe that child sexual abuse doesn’t happen because the topic itself is taboo. Cheit cites the work of Dr. Suzanne M. Sgroi, who wrote in 1978 that “the sexual abuse of children is a crime that our society abhors in the abstract but tolerates in reality.”
Communities have been known to rally around people convicted of this crime, Cheit writes.
“We often minimize and deny so as to allow us to avoid seeing things we would rather not see. Turning a blind eye to the sexual abuse of children has a long history in this country.”
According to Cheit, the witch-hunt narrative often includes a “hero,” a journalist perhaps, who helps an innocent person escape a false conviction.
“We love this story,” he said. “My concern is we love it so much even when it isn’t true.”

Cheit began his research inclined to doubt the witch-hunt narrative in part because he was abused as a child by an administrator of the San Francisco Boys Chorus’ summer camp.
Repressed memories of that abuse, which took place when Cheit was 13, surfaced in 1992, after he had become a professor at Brown. He shared that experience in a Providence Journal series written by former reporter Mike Stanton in 1995.
Cheit eventually won a civil judgment in California against the man who abused him and reached a civil settlement against the San Francisco Boys Chorus, which agreed to promote awareness of sexual abuse.
“My own experience with an institution that displayed for me the depths of denial in the face of very strong evidence makes me naturally skeptical of an argument that says we’ve overreacted to child abuse, because that’s not what I saw,” Cheit said.

In his research, Cheit adhered to a practice of Charles Darwin: posting notes for himself with evidence contrary to his own theories or expectations, forcing himself to examine the cases and arguments used to build the witch-hunt narrative.
“I’m saying, ‘I’m going to force myself to look at the cases that you say prove the witch hunt was true,’” Cheit said. “I’m looking at the cases where it absolutely ought to be crystal clear that this was a false conviction because that’s what other people said.”
Labeling these cases witch hunts ignores credible evidence that children were abused, Cheit argues.
Take the famous 1983 McMartin Preschool case in Manhattan Beach, Calif., in which seven of the school’s staff members were charged with child sexual abuse. Cheit reviewed 32 boxes of court documents including transcripts of hearings and two criminal trials, 17 boxes of documents and reports before charges were filed, medical records of children and copies of videotaped interviews with 15 children.
Cheit writes that five or six of the defendants were charged with “heinous crimes they did not commit,” but the witch-hunt narrative ignores the smaller story, the one that includes “evidence of abuse and the travails of the children.” No one was ever convicted in the case.
“It was tragic for the defendants who should not have been charged, and it was tragic for the children who were mistreated and those who were never appropriately vindicated,” Cheit writes. “But only one of those tragedies has been remembered over time.”


Over the years, 81 Brown University undergraduates have assisted Cheit in conducting what he calls the “extreme research” that helped him analyze dozens of decades-old cases including the McMartin Preschool case.
“This book is based on the first systematic examination of court records in these cases,” Cheit writes. “The book argues that even though many cases have been held up as classic examples of modern American ‘witch hunts,’ none of them truly fits that description … In short, there was not, by any reasonable measure, an epidemic of ‘witch hunts’ in the 1980s.”
Cheit is not alone with this belief.
Joan Tabachnick, who has worked for the past 20 years in the field of sexual-abuse prevention, avoids the witch-hunt term, she told The Providence Journal. Her work focuses on preventing child sexual abuse.
“I learned from very early on not to call it the witch-hunt narrative, only because the witches [in America’s Puritan past] were innocent, and I would say that in many cases, there is that same sort of feeding-frenzy fury, but it doesn’t mean the sex offender is innocent, the person accused is innocent,” said Tabachnick, of Holyoke, Mass., who is co-chair of the prevention committee for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

For the past 16 years, Cheit has taught an ethics class at the state prison to those convicted of sexual assault and child molestation crimes.
After The Journal series on Cheit’s childhood abuse ran in 1995, the director of the sex offender treatment program at the Adult Correctional Institutions, Peter Loss, invited Cheit to visit offenders in the program.
Years later, Cheit still meets weekly with those offenders, mostly men. Sometimes the class focuses on a different virtue and dilemma each week, such as the meaning of courage and how donations raised for victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks should be allocated.
“I call it the gray class because sex offenders are such black-and-white thinkers,” Loss told The Journal.
The offenders, Loss explains, have trouble seeing the complications inherent in relationships or the fact that an opposing side may present merits, something that complicates one’s thinking.
The witch-hunt narrative, says Loss, who has read several drafts of Cheit’s book, is also black and white.
But “in the end, this whole debate really isn’t about witch hunts and cases … ,” Loss said. “It’s about children. And I think [what’s] been lost in this whole witch-hunt mentality is that children are involved.”
Cheit expects to discuss his findings with a panel of professors at Brown on April 1, with a reception and book signing to follow. His book will be released this month by Oxford University Press and is expected in stores by April.


Hopefully a soft version will be published this year.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Witch-Hunt-Narrative-Politics-Psychology/dp/0199931224/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396421242&sr=8-1&keywords=witch-hunt+narrative
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4769
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" as FMSF meme

Postby Luther Blissett » Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:59 pm

Look at the people having fun:
http://www.cvltnation.com/is-the-satani ... naissance/

I guess this makes sense coming from a metal site, but this article got traction.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4937
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to SRA and Occult Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests