Salon Provides Platform for "Non-Practicing" Pedophile

[backtoiam]

I sort of stopped following this thread because I ran my course with it already. But I saw this one sentence, and based solely on what it is, I don't need the read the whole page. I can do this sentence by itself.

I used to believe in demons; you could even say I have had congress with them. But I'm now convinced that all the mysteries of perception are found in the human body & psyche itself.

Here in this, be a key point, when it comes to Demons and Angels. I wouldn't do this if it were not so critical at this stage of human evolution, which is changing rapidly, but I am going to throw this in the pile.

When the negative and positive poles of a human's body become united (alchemical marriage) it is game on. (Kundalini) A person's body becomes connected to the "magnetic rain", and thus the Ether, or Aether, which is also connected to the magnetic rain. A student of Max Heindel described this and and I promise you it is true. Make no mistake about it.

From this point, it could be Angels and Demons depending upon a person's fears or expectations.

Also, at least in my opinion, there is things in the atmosphere that you really don't want to associate with. Call them what you will, but you don't want none of it.

The magnetic rain looks like dry brown rice falling from the sky. The Ether is blue, sort of purple, I know.

They interact, and also with human beings. This is complicated.

Trauma can bring this on and cause a person's poles to meet. Then they get to see all this neat shit that they don't understand, but trust me it is there.

There are people sitting in corners, meditating, wishing they could trigger "their kundalini" like its some sort of pet poodle they can control. Read Gopi Krishnas book. Think about it.

This shit ain't simple.

[Iamwhomiam]

Actually I wrote that post, inc, the part about Christ, before I'd read your last; the point I was referring to is in previous posts at this thread.

I'm not offended, but your last post is all over the map. So many points rattling around like marbles in a shaman pouch.

I used to believe in demons; you could even say I have had congress with them. But I'm now convinced that all the mysteries of perception are found in the human body & psyche itself.

I don't understand your point about transference. I think a few others conflated pedophiles with sociopaths at this thread so I opted for the latter definition as a wider one. I doubt there is any such animal as one that feels no emotions, personally, but who knows. People say the same about autistics. The assumption is always that observing behavior is enough to determine interior states. It's not.

Composed in haste, so as not to hold up the thread, which is going lots of interesting directions all at once.

With all due respect, I really do not think my prior posting is "all over the map". I hope the following will clarify my point about transference.

Transference is a psychological term that better describes what you're wrongly attributing to sociopaths as a reason for their pedophiliac actions.

The projection of attitudes, wishes, desires, libidinous and aggressive thoughts to another party

Displacement of affect from one person or one idea to another.

4. psychoanalysis Generally applied to the projection of feelings, thoughts, and wishes onto the analyst, who has come to represent some person from the patient's past.

I listed the common meaning last, but you should understand my use as that given in the first two definitions.

I doubt there is any such animal as one that feels no emotions, personally, but who knows.

A very many are aware of such emotionless individuals, especially brain surgeons, as this conditions can result from a TBI or surgery. But there are others who have this same condition who have not suffered from a traumatic brain injury.

The assumption is always that observing behavior is enough to determine interior states. It's not.

Of course not. Although MRIs and CAT scans can observe brain activity or its absence. But if you want to bring quantum mechanics into the equation...

Now I'll wade through the entire thread to find what you could have easily linked to: "it’s the same point I made already: that the difference between me and a sociopathic child rapist/murder is... quantitive and not qualitative."

I also hope you will answer this question I asked you: "Are you in fact telling us you have a feeling of latent pedophilia? That perhaps, it's in your blood?"

[NeonLX]

Reincarnation accepts that some individuals who have lived atrocious, murderous lives do not learn from their past error and repeat such behaviors through many future reincarnations. Such individuals are born without any physical "abnormality" (damage to the in utero physical fetus during development) and always lack empathy. In fact, they are the living breathing essence of evil.

What gets me is that they are "allowed" to come back to repeat these behaviors in future reincarnations. So we (being generations of people), get subjected to them over and over again.

Of course, maybe I'm one of "them" and just don't realize it because of my arrogance.

[guruilla]

Brain surgeons!

We have very different, perhaps unbridgeable views on human consciousness and expressions. For me, the idea that the psyche can be understood by looking at brain scans is like trying to find the soul by disemboweling someone. It's medieval!

I'm having difficulty connecting to your other points too, so I am going to leave them for others to address, if that's OK, especially as I still haven't responded to Project Willow's last post.

Regarding this:

I also hope you will answer this question I asked you: "Are you in fact telling us you have a feeling of latent pedophilia? That perhaps, it's in your blood?"

No, that would be your spin of things. I'm telling you whatever is in my previous posts. If after reading them you still want clarification, try posing a question that isn't a kind of entrapment! You're more likely to get a response that way.

Peace.

[Iamwhomiam]

With all the words you've written in response I surprised by your attitude. I simple am trying to understand what you wrote in one comment. After reading through the thread in its entirety, I still cannot discern what you mean in writing, "it’s the same point I made already: that the difference between me and a sociopathic child rapist/murder is... quantitive and not qualitative."

So much easier to have simply clarified yourself, as my understanding of what your quoted words means is that you, like the fellow in the OP, have such pedophiliac feelings but do not act upon them. Quantitive, not qualitative.

I apologize for my poor writing, but I have not had the fine education you have. I'm just trying my best to understand what you wrote that's quoted above, I'm not trying to entrap you. It is my interpretation of your words.

And you have not countered any of the points I allege you are misusing. A sadistic pedophiliac, perhaps, but sociopaths are, as I've repeatedly said, incapable of exhibiting any emotion.

Your mocking me doesn't really help anyone. I would think that in a thread such as this, such mockery of one seeking a better understanding of a such a perverse behaviour should remain absent.

[guruilla]

There's no intention to mock on my part. If I was overly emphatic is was just for that reason, to emphasize the difference in our ways of seeing the material. Sorry if you got that impression, however. Possibly a language thing?

It's always difficult, if not impossible, for me to answer questions that presuppose meanings that I neither intended nor agree with. And even to correct such errors is difficult, and a bit of a trap in itself, since denying an idea only reinforces it. This is especially so with such a touchy subject, as I am sure you know this is.

Here's a quote I just read that may be helpful, from an interview done by our own Project Willow:

Michael Salter: In my experience, social movements of trauma survivors can find it difficult to tolerate ambiguity. What I mean by this is that there can be a predominance of black-and-white, us-vs-them thinking rather than an appreciation of the grey areas and a more constructive interest in opposing arguments. While black-and-white thinking helps people feel confident and validated in a group environment (which is of course very important for survivors) it can also push survivor groups into positions of false certainty in which a strong stance is taken on an issue where the evidence is weak or unclear. This position is of course vulnerable to being discredited or attacked by others.

http://bornepress.com/michael-salter-on ... e/#more-43

To give a wider clarification, I believe that we are all, each and everyone one of us, capable of absolutely anything and everything under the right (or wrong) circumstances, or at least would be if we had undergone drastically different circumstances in our formative years. I think it is only a question of how magnified any given urges become within us, and how much we are able to contain those impulses rather than be driven by them.

I definitely do not believe in emotionless sociopaths or empty vessels for demonic forces, at least not in any absolute sense, ie, if fully understood, such apparent phenomena would I think be seen as part of a psychic continuum in which we all participate, and therefore best kept within the realms of fiction. That's all. Getting more detailed would require an entire afternoon, so I hope this will provide at least some small satisfaction to your voracious curiosity!

[guruilla]

So much for taking time off the board!

I really don’t want to seem to be dominating this thread, but then I don’t want to ignore good points either. So I’ll just repond to PW’s last post and hope that does it for a while. I've used bold in a few places for those who want to skim it. (Notice how this thread seems to want to spiral off into so many different directions, including a lot of what I’d call “new agey” ones? There seems to be something especially “fertile” about the OP?)

I cannot extrapolate my personal experience to an entire population of people, and neither can you, as tempting as it may be, and it is indeed often tempting.

Not without risking a massive miss, agreed. But, nothing ventured, nothing gained. (It is especially risky because, when I get it wrong, I also expose my own neurotic projections in the process!) But statistics and collating data and everything else is equally limited in other ways, though it may be “safer.” Our own personal experience seems to be the thing we can be most sure of (though even then, we can’t be sure memories are real, so . . .) and so I do consider it my primary data source, even while knowing that how reliable it is depends on how successfully I am able to sort the seeds of my own perceptions, real from delusional. The best, maybe the only, way to reality-check that is by referring to outside one’s own experience.

I definitely have a tendency to oversimplify, if only to provide the relief of finding of some sort of “ground” (and keeping my extrapolations short-ish!). But I think over-complexification is just as much a risk and an obstacle.

This is especially the case when we're talking about different sexes, as each undergoes significantly different sex role enculturation, and may indeed be biologically predisposed to different strategies, (science is very unclear in this arena, and what is there is highly contended, especially by feminists).

Yeah, I could give a disclaimer before every contention: this may apply exclusively to the male perspective.

The range of experiences and responses is too large to make any generalizations.

Yet if we don’t make generalizations, how can we talk about anything besides our own experience? Doesn’t any sort of interpretation of data amount to a generalization?

I refer a lot to Kalsched’s psychology of trauma (The Inner World of Trauma); I think it’s a brilliant and even essential model for understanding abuse and trauma, the best I have found. But it wouldn’t be possible if he didn’t extrapolate from a limited amount of data—i.e. generalize.

In females, negative feelings are turned inward and directed against the self, so we see a lot of self harm symptoms, like cutting and eating disorders. In males negative feelings are turned outward, producing rationalization systems for projection, so we get a lot of anti-social behavior. This may be why we see higher rates of pedophilia among males than females.

That makes sense, though I often wonder if cases of females abusing children aren’t downplayed because as a culture we find them somehow unthinkable?

Until you and I agree on a common approach, it's difficult to have a discussion.

I am definitely interested in learning from your experience. Regarding surviving abuse and trauma, I feel like I am on the inside of the threshold to Chapel Perilous, having just crossed over from being a compelled and curious researcher to a confused but recovering experiencer.

I have to say straight out however, and I grieve to think of how you came to the conclusion, but no, I do not believe most humans have children in order to use them as vehicles for offloading psychological stress .

Not the whole reason but one of the primary reasons. I don’t mean they do this consciously—that would be too horrendous to imagine, though apparently it IS a conscious decision in extreme cases such as networks breeding children for abuse, sacrifice, sexual enslavement, etc.

The underlying observation I am trying to communicate (and simultaneously work out/make conscious) is this: conscious behavior which we abhor and consider psychopathic beyond the pale in others, may often, even always, be mirroring our own, much less, extreme, unconscious behaviors.

This is what I mean about parents having children as a means to offload poisons, which relates to Jung’s statement: “The greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of the parents.”

First of all, let’s start with Lloyd deMaus’s statistics, which some people may question (I find them hard to believe myself), stating that 50% of children (60% of female and 45% of male) are victims of abuse (I think his numbers apply to the US, but it may be further afield). The average couple has more than one child, so this doesn’t mean that 50% of parents are abusing their children; but still, it must be a shockingly high figure.

Beyond this, there’s the question of what motivates a couple to have children at an unconscious level. (I am not much interested in people’s conscious motivations because I honestly don’t think they amount to much, especially around such deep drives as procreation.) Here are some likely motives:

1) Procreative urges
2) Increased productivity in the family (i.e., workers)
3) Improved social status and/or acceptance in the community
4) Renewed purpose in life
5) Someone to love and be loved by (companionship)
6) Continuing the lineage/staving off a fear of mortality

I’m not really convinced that, besides 1 & 2, any of these motivations relate to instinct or are merely practical requirements, most especially in our current social set-up. To me, as a non-parent, they seem to overlap with neurotic drives.

The reason I think this (& I’m aware of simplifying a bit again, for the sake of brevity and clarity) is that most of these drives indicate a basic, profound lack within the individual, whether it’s lack of status, lack of love, lack of purpose, lack of meaning or security, or lack of death-acceptance.

This isn’t meant as a value judgment, just (again) to show that there may be a continuum between psychic poisons driving a person to commit horrendous crimes, and those that drive a person to have children, or shout at their spouses, or drink too much, or go bungee-jumping, or Tweet compulsively, or cheat at cards, or write excessively long and convoluted forum posts, and so on, and so forth, etc., etc.

Just to wind up with a half-formulated thought: maybe this relates to PW’s point about women being stripped of their capacity for mate selection? If the natural order of things is for females to select their mate rather than males doing the selection, maybe through trauma, psychic poisons, disconnection from the bodily instincts, etc., as the drive to procreate was uncoupled from simple biological urge, something else supplanted that primary drive? Not demons, but psychic fragments that could seem like demons to the superstitious mindset...?

[Iamwhomiam]

First, guruilla, thank you for your responses. I must have bypassed page 5 when first looking for your meaning of "...quantitive, not qualitative..." (Should be quantitative, btw)

Although I understand the definition of each word, I cannot grasp your meaning in using these terms in the context you have. But that's ok. I've drawn, I'm sure, your intent after reading your comment on P. 5, or at least I understand your inferences. I do apologize.

You have misinterpreted a few clinical definitions and drawn erroneous conclusions based upon your misunderstanding, but you seem unwilling to accept this fact. I have no idea why. (Sociopathy for sadism, for example. empathy for transference is another.)

Hell, you might as well blame the universe for pedophilia, but imo it will never be more widely accepted and become "normal."

I have no interest in debriding your wounds. You have your own demons scars to deal with. I wish you well.

Like Luther, I hadn't expected the fellow to mention that as a child he had been abused, but I really don't know if that's true. Perhaps it gives him some comfort, as this does happen to some pedophiliacs, and allow him to belong. I think his deformity created an anger, a rage within him to strike out and hurt those who ostracized him as a child, to make them feel his pain, and that may be his attraction to harm another, though he might want to call it loving.

However, I was oblivious to the the article's intent, if it is as some of you say; to push a pedophiliac agenda intent on jumping on the normal bandwagon.

Those were some very creepy comments he made, Mr. Wrex.

Someone should tell that guy he ain't right and it ain't his deformity that makes him abnormal.

[guruilla]

Of possible relevance:

“Research on organised abuse emphasises the diversity of organised abuse cases, and the ways in which serious forms of child maltreatment cluster in the lives of children subject to organised victimisation (eg Bibby 1996b, Itziti 1997, Kelly and Regan 2000). Most attempts to examine organised abuse have been undertaken by therapists and social workers who have focused primarily on the role of psychological processes in the organised victimisation of children and adults. Dissociation, amnesia and attachment, in particular, have been identified as important factors that compel victims to obey their abusers whilst inhibiting them from disclosing their abuse or seeking help (see Epstein et al. 2011, Sachs and Galton 2008). Therapists and social workers have surmised that these psychological effects are purposively induced by perpetrators of organised abuse through the use of sadistic and ritualistic abuse. In this literature, perpetrators are characterised either as dissociated automatons mindlessly perpetuating the abuse that they, too, were subjected to as children, or else as cruel and manipulative criminals with expert foreknowledge of the psychological consequences of their abuses. The therapist is positioned in this discourse at the very heart of the solution to organised abuse, wielding their expertise in a struggle against the coercive strategies of the perpetrators.

Whilst it cannot be denied that abusive groups undertake calculated strategies designed to terrorise children into silence and obedience, the emphasis of this literature on psychological factors in explaining organised abuse has overlooked the social contexts of such abuse and the significance of abuse and violence as social practices.”

....

“The data on organised abuse has been simplified or distorted in an attempt force it to conform to mechanical psychological models of dissociative obedience or else to the psychiatric framework of ‘paedophilia’. Psychopathology alone is an inadequate explanation for environments in which sexual abuse has a social and symbolic function for groups of adults. Abusive groups do not emerge in a vacuum but rather they are formed within pre-existing social arrangements such as families, churches and schools.”

Michael Salter, Organised Sexual Abuse

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2 ... xual-abuse

[backtoiam]

I ran across this. It happened a few years ago but simply just reading it and trying to keep my eyes from crossing from simply trying to grok it made me dizzy. What a twisted trail. With this type of organizational structure possible no wonder the signal can't be found through the noise.
https://sites.google.com/site/parentala ... hoisinonit


So then just for a sample of where just one of these references might go I read this:
https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/ ... interview/

That was just taking a curious look at 1 of these. Words fail...

[kool maudit]

The guy has returned, and it's an interesting spin:

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/im_a_pe ... e_machine/

"I’m a pedophile, you’re the monsters: My week inside the vile right-wing hate machine
My pedophilia essay outraged the right. My attempt to humanize a real problem brought out their nastiest rage"

How this will work is by arraying the Salon reader's constantly-agitated, present-in-every-political-conversation animus versus the right-wing against their hopefully more dormant, intermittent, perfunctory animus versus pedophiles (i am not implying that being a reader of this publication in any way prediposes one towards pedophila, but only that the collective noses of US-based, politically active, left-leaning readers are tweaked far more constantly by the headlines and tactics of the right-wing than by pedophiles, whose crimes only blow up into "national discussions" in the most egregious of cases).

If the right-wing or traditionalists or people who generally support the hierarchies present in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (because that's what they are) are in fact the deepest, most profound evil then all other evils could become less so after earning this group's enmity.

Salon is a real bellwether.

[coffin_dodger]

Crude, but probably effective.

Anti-pedophile = right wing, nazi. gas chambers. THE ULTIMATE BAD GUYS™

Mustn't be seen with the wrong crowd, eh?

[General Patton]

I sort of stopped following this thread because I ran my course with it already. But I saw this one sentence, and based solely on what it is, I don't need the read the whole page. I can do this sentence by itself.

I used to believe in demons; you could even say I have had congress with them. But I'm now convinced that all the mysteries of perception are found in the human body & psyche itself.

Here in this, be a key point, when it comes to Demons and Angels. I wouldn't do this if it were not so critical at this stage of human evolution, which is changing rapidly, but I am going to throw this in the pile.

When the negative and positive poles of a human's body become united (alchemical marriage) it is game on. (Kundalini) A person's body becomes connected to the "magnetic rain", and thus the Ether, or Aether, which is also connected to the magnetic rain. A student of Max Heindel described this and and I promise you it is true. Make no mistake about it.

From this point, it could be Angels and Demons depending upon a person's fears or expectations.

Also, at least in my opinion, there is things in the atmosphere that you really don't want to associate with. Call them what you will, but you don't want none of it.

The magnetic rain looks like dry brown rice falling from the sky. The Ether is blue, sort of purple, I know.

They interact, and also with human beings. This is complicated.

Trauma can bring this on and cause a person's poles to meet. Then they get to see all this neat shit that they don't understand, but trust me it is there.

There are people sitting in corners, meditating, wishing they could trigger "their kundalini" like its some sort of pet poodle they can control. Read Gopi Krishnas book. Think about it.

This shit ain't simple.

The hallmark of these entities is that they only have an abstract idea of what life is like on earth in the "3rd dimension". Angels have no digestion system, they understand hunger and fear abstractly. There is nothing ruling out (arch)angels from say, causing an earthquake that kills tens of thousands for the greater good. Most demonic forces are fairly mechanical, it's rather rare to find something that crystalized chaos. But it does exist.

[tapitsbo]

What's that quote about angels and demons being the same entities seen from converse perspectives?

[zangtang]

'“Angels and demons were identical--interchangeable archetypes--all a matter of polarity. The guardian angel who conquered your enemy in battle was perceived by your enemy as a demon destroyer.”
― Dan Brown, The Lost Symbol

dangerous to quote dan brown - people might think you read that shit!